# The ideal $I= \langle x,y \rangle\subset k[x,y]$ is not principal [closed]

The ideal $I= \langle x,y \rangle\subset k[x,y]$ is not a principal ideal.

I don't know how to consider it. Any suggestions?

-

## closed as off-topic by user26857, Servaes, Michael Albanese, graydad, Zachary SelkDec 6 '15 at 1:53

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user26857, Servaes, Michael Albanese, graydad, Zachary Selk
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Suppose it's generated by $P_0$. Then $x=PP_0$ and $y=QP_0$ for some $P,Q\in k[x,y]$. For each $y$, $P(x,y)P_0(x,y)$ is a polynomial of degree $1$ with respect to $x$ so the maximal degree with respect to $x$ of $P_0(x,y)$ is at most $1$. Do the same for $y$ and get a contradiction. – Davide Giraudo Feb 18 '12 at 21:11
@DavideGiraudo That looks like an answer to me. I'd say you should post it as one so it can be accepted. – Alex Becker Feb 18 '12 at 21:17
Sledgehammer proof: the height of $I$ is at least 2, but the height of any principal ideal in any noetherian ring is at most 1 by Krull's Hauptidealsatz. – Zhen Lin Feb 18 '12 at 21:17

## 6 Answers

A generator $g$ of $\langle x,y \rangle$ would divide $x$ and $y$, which are irreducible and non-associated. Thus $g$ would be a unit, and $\langle x,y \rangle$ would be the unit ideal, contradiction.

-

$k[x,y]$ modulo a proper principal ideal is infinite dimensional, yet your ideal is of codimension $1$.

-

Suppose it's generated by $P_0$. Then $x=PP_0$ and $y=QP_0$ for some $P,Q\in k[x,y]$. For each $y$, $P(x,y)P_0(x,y)$ is a polynomial of degree $1$ with respect to $x$ so the maximal degree with respect to $x$ of $P_0(x,y)$ is at most $1$, so $P_0(x,y)=a_0(y)+a_1(y)x$ where $a_0,a_1\in k[y]$.

Doing the same for $y$ we get that the maximal degree with respect to $y$ of $P_0(x,y)$ is at most $1$ for each $x$ so the maximal degree of $a_0$ and $a_1$ is $1$. We have $P_0(x,y)=a_{0,0}+a_{0,1}y+a_{1,0}x+a_{1,1}xy$ where $a_{0,0},a_{1,0}, a_{0,1},a_{1,1}\in k$. Identifying the term of highest degree in the equality $x=P(x,y)(a_{0,0}+a_{0,1}y+a_{1,0}x+a_{1,1}xy)$ we get that $a_{1,1}=0$ and since $a_{0,1}y+a_{1,0}x\in\langle x,y\rangle$, $a_{0,0}=0$. We finally get that $a_{1,0}=a_{0,1}=0$, which is a contradiction.

-

Suppose it would be principal. Then there would exist $p(x,y)$ such that for all polynomials $g(x,y)$ and $h(x,y)$ in $k[x,y]$, we would have some $i(x,y)$ such that $$xg + yh = ip.$$ In particular, $x = i_1 p$ and $y = i_2 p$, so that the degree of $p$ is at most $1$. It can't be zero, because that would mean p is a unit or zero and we would lose the fact that $\langle p \rangle = \langle x,y \rangle$. So $\deg p = 1$, hence $p=ax+by+c$ for $a,b,c \in k$. But then $x = i_1(ax+by+c)$ means $b= 0$ and $y =i_2 (ax+c)$ means $a=0$, hence $p$ has not degree $1$, contradiction.

Hope that helps,

-
I see all the comments now and I think im a little too late, but this is the first time I post an answer from my cellphone. >.> – Patrick Da Silva Feb 18 '12 at 21:25
I was wondering why "the degree of $p$ is at most 1". – John Conn Feb 18 '12 at 21:47
Thats because deg p + deg i = dex (x) = 1. – Patrick Da Silva Feb 18 '12 at 22:02

HINT $\$ Among principal ideals: contains $\equiv$ divides; thus having no proper containing ideal (maximal) is equivalent to having no proper divisor (irreducible). Thus the only principal ideal containing $(x)$ is $(1)$. But $(x,y)\ne (1)$ by evaluating at $x=0=y.\:$ QED. Below is more detail

Observe the ideals $\: (x) \subsetneq (x,y) \subsetneq (1)\:$ are distinct $\:$ primes $\rm\: [\:or\ (1)\:]\:$ since
their residue rings $\ k[y]\ \supsetneq\ k\:\ \supsetneq\:\ (0)\:$ are distinct domains $\rm[\:or\ (0)\:].$

So $(x,y)$ isn't principal since principal primes $\ne (0)$ are maximal among principal ideals.

This maximality is familiar from PIDs, e.g. in $\mathbb Z$ or $k[x]$.
It simply says that $\:\gcd(x,p) = p\ \ {\rm or}\:\ 1\:$ if $\:p\:$ is prime,
or, in ideal language, $(x,p) = (p)\ {\rm or}\ (1)\:$ so $(p)$ is maximal.

More generally, in any domain where ideals satisfy contains $\equiv$ divides (e.g. Dedekind domains), prime ideals $\ne 0$ are maximal. This characterizes PIDs, i.e. PIDs are precisely those UFDs where every prime ideal $\ne 0$ is maximal (i.e. Krull dimension $\le 1$). For a handful of other useful characterizations of when a UFD is a PID see this post.

-

Here's a complete simple proof. Put $\:\rm c = y,\ D = k[y]\:$ below, using $\rm\: y\:g(y) \ne 1\:$ by eval at $\rm\: y=0$.

THEOREM $\$ Let $\rm\: 0\ne c\in D\:\!$ a domain. In $\rm\: E = D[x]:\ (c,x) = (f)\ \Rightarrow\ c\ |\ 1\:$ in $\rm D.\ \$ Proof:

$\rm f\in (c,x)\: \Rightarrow\: f = cg + xh,\:$ some $\rm g,h\in E$. Eval at $\rm\: x=0\: \Rightarrow\: f(0) = cg(0) = cd$, some $\rm d\in D$.

$\rm c\in (f)\ \Rightarrow\ c = fg,\:$ some $\rm g\in E,\:$ so $\rm\:0\ne c\in D\:\!$ a domain $\rm\: \Rightarrow\ deg\ f = 0\ \Rightarrow\ f = f(0) = cd$.

$\rm x\in (f)\: \Rightarrow\: x = fh = cdh,$ some $\rm h\in E.\:$ Eval at $\rm\: x=1\: \Rightarrow\: 1 = cdh(1)\:\Rightarrow\:c\ |\ 1\:$ in $\rm D.\ \$ QED

-
If you are going to write complete proofs you could also write complete words! – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 19 '12 at 1:23