Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose we have a commutative ring $R$ with unit. I'm curious about what condition(s) on $R$ would be sufficient (without Axiom of Choice) to give a converse to the following familiar result:

(#) If $I,J$ are comaximal ideals of $R$ (i.e.: $I+J=R$), then $IJ=I\cap J$.

I discovered that the converse of (#) holds if $R$ is a PID, so that's sufficient, but I was wondering if that can be weakened at all, perhaps to Dedekind domain, UFD, or even integral domain. I suspect it doesn't hold in general.

In particular, if the converse of (#) holds when $R$ is a Dedekind domain (every non-unit ideal of $R$ can be uniquely factored as a product of prime ideals), can anyone give me a (sketch of a) proof?

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
You want to add "nonzero" to discuss the converse; otherwise, a trivial example has $I=(0)=J$. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 30 '12 at 3:16
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

(I'm assuming $I$ and $J$ nonzero; otherwise, $I=J=(0)$ is a counterexample, with $IJ=(0)=I\cap J$, but $I+J\neq R$ in any ring.)

Yes, the result holds for Dedekind domains because $I\supset J = I\text{ divides }J$.

Thus, $I\cap J$ is the largest ideal that is a multiple of both $I$ and $J$, which is the lcm of $I$ and $J$. And $I+J$ is the smallest ideal that divides both $I$ and $J$, that is, their gcd.

So for Dedekind domains, the biconditional statement is equivalent to "$\gcd(I,J)=1$ if and only if $\mathrm{lcm}(I,J)=IJ$", which is true. Thus, both implications hold in Dedekind domains.

It does not hold for arbitrary UFDs; take $R=\mathbb{R}[x,y]$, $I=(x)$, $J=(y)$. Then $IJ=(xy)$. Let $p(x,y)\in I\cap J$. Then we can write $p(x,y) = x(q_0(x) + q_1(x)y + \cdots + q_m(x)y^m)$ for some polynomials $q_i$; since it is also a multiple of $y$, $y$ must divides $q_0(x)$, hence $q_0(x) = 0$. Thus, $xy$ divides $p(x,y)$, so $p(x,y)\in (xy)$. That is, $IJ=I\cap J$. However, $I+J = (x,y)\neq R$.

(Or $I=(2)$, $J=(x)$ in $R=\mathbb{Z}[x]$; more generally, for any UFD $D$ that is not a field, let $p$ be a prime of $D$ and take $I=(p)$, $J=(x)$ in $D[x]$; then $I+J=(p,x)\neq D$, but $IJ=(px) = I\cap J$).

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks so much, Arturo! Now I know I'm not just wasting my time. –  Cameron Buie Apr 12 '12 at 3:22
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.