Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $R$ be a commutative noetherian ring with no nonzero nilpotents. Let $p$ be a minimal prime of $R$. Could you help me to prove that $R_p$ is a field?

share|cite|improve this question
Try proving the contrapositive. (If $R_p$ is not a field, it contains an element which is not invertible, so...?) – Qiaochu Yuan May 28 '12 at 20:03
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Hint: A ring is a field if and only if its only prime ideal is $(0)$. The prime ideals of $R_p$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the prime ideals of $R$ which are disjoint from $R\setminus p$, that is the primes contained in $p$. What can you conclude?

share|cite|improve this answer
If $qR_p$ is a prime ideal of $R_p$ then $q\subset p$ and so $p=q$, so the only prime ideal of $R_p$ is $pR_p$, am I right? How can I go on? I think I have to use the fact that the nilradical is the intersection of all the minimal primes and that there are only finitely many minimal primes because $R$ is noetherian, but I don't know how to put all this together, any other hints? – Alex M May 28 '12 at 20:23
@AlexM The nilradical of $R_p$ is the intersection of all minimal primes of $R_p$. But the only minimal prime of $R_p$ is $pR_p$, therefore $pR_p$ is the nilradical. But what is the nilradical of $R_p$? – Alex Becker May 28 '12 at 20:30
got it thank you, $\mathrm{nilrad}\;R_p=(\mathrm{nilrad}\;R)_p=0R_p$ and so $pR_p=0R_p$ – Alex M May 28 '12 at 20:38
It seems to me that the only thing that requires $R$ notherian is that the set on minimal primes is finite, but we didn't use it. The correspondence between prime ideals of $R_p$ and prime ideals of $R$ contained in $p$, the fact that the nilradical is the intersaction of the minimal primes and the fact that $\mathrm{nilrad}\;R_p=(\mathrm{nilrad}\;R)_p$ don't seem to require $R$ noetherian, what am I missing? – Alex M May 28 '12 at 20:48
A reduced local ring of dimension zero is a field. That the local ring is a localization is a red herring.As both Alexes and @QiL already said, noetherianness is irrelevant too. (+1 for the answer). – Georges Elencwajg May 28 '12 at 21:05

Here is a proof that uses nowhere the results of Noetherian rings. All the results I used below are from chapters 2 - 3 of Atiyah - Macdonald where Noetherian-ness has not come in yet! To prove your problem we use the following result from Atiyah - Macdonald:

A local ring that is absolutely flat is a field.

We already know that given any prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ that $R_\mathfrak{p}$ is a local ring and hence it suffices to prove that $R_\mathfrak{p}$ for a minimal prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ is absolutely flat. You have already observed above that $\textrm{nilrad} R_\mathfrak{p} = 0$, so if you can prove that every prime ideal in $R_\mathfrak{p}$ is maximal then this would imply (see at the bottom for a proof) that $$R_p/\textrm{nilrad}R_\mathfrak{p} \cong R_\mathfrak{p}$$ is absolutely flat, finishing the problem. Take a prime ideal $S^{-1}\mathfrak{q}$ of $R_\mathfrak{p}$. Then you have already observed that $\mathfrak{q}$ is a prime ideal of $R$ that must be disjoint from $R - \mathfrak{p}$, viz. it is completely contained in $\mathfrak{p}$. By minimality of $\mathfrak{p}$ we are forced to conclude that $\mathfrak{p} = \mathfrak{q}$ and hence $S^{-1}\mathfrak{q} = S^{-1}\mathfrak{p}$ is a maximal ideal. This concludes the proof.

$\hspace{6in} \square$

We prove this exercise first, and then use it to prove the main result I claimed above.

Exercise 3.10(ii) Atiyah - Macdonald: $A_\mathfrak{m}$ being a field for each maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m} \implies $ $A$ is absolutely flat.

Proof: Suppose you given an $A$ - module $M$. Then I claim given any maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ one has that $M_\mathfrak{m}$ is a flat $A_\mathfrak{m}$ - module. Indeed this is clear because $M_\mathfrak{m}$ is just a vector space over $A_\mathfrak{m}$ and hence is isomorphic to $A_\mathfrak{m}^n$ for some $n$. Since $A_\frak{m}$ being a field is absolutely flat, in particular $A_\frak{m}$ as a module over itself is flat. Therefore by exercise 2.4 of Atiyah Macdonald

$$\bigoplus_{i=1}^n (A_\mathfrak{m})_i = A_\mathfrak{m}^n \cong M_\mathfrak{m}$$

is flat as an $A_\mathfrak{m}$ - module for any maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$. By proposition 3.10 of Atiyah - Macdonald we conclude that $M$ is flat as an $A$ - module and since $M$ was arbitrary this proves that $A$ is absolutely flat.

$\hspace{6in} \square$

Exercise 3.11 Atiyah - Macdonald: If every prime ideal of a ring $A$ is maximal then $A/\textrm{nilrad} (A)$ is absolutely flat.

By exercise 3.10(ii) Atiyah - Macdonald it suffices to prove that given any maximal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $A/\textrm{nilrad} A$ that $(A/\textrm{nilrad} A)_\mathfrak{m}$ is a field. Now a basic isomorphism in localisation tells us that

$$(A/\textrm{nilrad} A)_\mathfrak{m} \cong A_\mathfrak{m}/ \big(\textrm{nilrad}(A)\big)_\mathfrak{m}$$

so it suffices to prove that $\textrm{nilrad}(A)_\mathfrak{m}$ is a maximal ideal of $A_\mathfrak{m}$. Given what you have done above you should be able to complete this by the following steps:

  1. $\big(\textrm{nilrad}(A)\big)_\mathfrak{m} = \textrm{nilrad}({A_\mathfrak{m}})$
  2. There is a unique maximal ideal $Q$ of $A_\mathfrak{m}$ that contains $\textrm{nilrad}(A_\mathfrak{m})$.
  3. Recall the ideal correspondence between prime ideals of $A_\mathfrak{m}$ and prime ideals of $A$ that don't meet $A - \mathfrak{m}$.
  4. Use the fact that every prime ideal of $A$ is maximal and $A_\mathfrak{m}$ is a local ring to conclude your problem.
share|cite|improve this answer
@navigetor23 Hahahaha perhaps I used a nuclear weapon instead of a flyswatter......that's the way I thought about the problem though :D – user38268 Jun 3 '12 at 22:14
Why did you assume that $M_\mathfrak{m}$ was finite dimensional over $A_\mathfrak{m}$? – Eric Auld Feb 1 at 6:19

Maybe a little bit more clear than the first answer:

$R_p$ itself is reduced and local. Moreover $\dim R_p=0$, so we can ask the following: is it true that a local reduced ring with dimension 0 is a field? Answer: yes! Reduced means that the nilradical of $R$ is $(0)$, but in this case the nilradical is the only prime ideal of $R$, so the only prime ideal of $R$ is (0) which means that $R$ is a field.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.