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.

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with identity such that $R$ has exactly one prime ideal $P$.

Prove: all elements in $P$ are nilpotent.

While doing this problem, I used the fact that "the nilradical of $R$ is equal to the intersection of all prime ideals of $R$" (in this case, the intersection of all prime ideals $=P$), then I can solve this problem.

However, it seems to me that this fact overkills this problem because we have a strong condition that there is only one prime ideal.

I am here to ask if there is a much more simple and direct approach (which I have overlooked) to solving this problem.


Let me put it in another way: is there any proof without using Zorn's lemma?

share|improve this question
3  
So you don't want to use the fact that any proper ideal is contained in a maximal ideal? –  Arturo Magidin Jun 18 '12 at 16:44
    
Doesn't seem to help much, but clearly you may assume that the ring is reduced. –  Arturo Magidin Jun 18 '12 at 18:54
    
There won't be any proof in ZF, only in ZF + Ultrafilter Principle. –  Martin Brandenburg Jun 18 '12 at 18:57
    
Some intuition: There are models of ZF with some commutative non-trivial ring $R$, which has no prime ideal at all. So if we have some $R$ which has exactly one prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$, this could just be since the existence of other prime ideals would need AC. I expect that some logician will show you how to produce a counterexample along these lines. –  Martin Brandenburg Jun 18 '12 at 19:10

3 Answers 3

with this assumption one can show more: all element of $R$ is invertible or nilpotent .

share|improve this answer
    
maybe I misspoke but I have edited –  Mohamed Jun 18 '12 at 16:39
    
Thanks, I think this phrasing is better. I've removed my comment. –  Zev Chonoles Jun 18 '12 at 16:40
2  
How would you show an element not in the prime is invertible without using the fact that every proper ideal is contained in a prime ideal, whose proof (at least the one I have seen) uses Zorn's lemma? –  Rankeya Jun 18 '12 at 18:36

When reading this post I began to wonder if $Nil(R)=\bigcap\{ P\mid P\text{ prime}\}$ was equivalent to choice, but that led me to this interesting post.

If I read it correctly, the nilradical equation is not equivalent to AC!

Hope this helps!

share|improve this answer
    
Yes; it is equivalent to the Ultrafilter Principle, which is (strictly) weaker than AC. –  Martin Brandenburg Jun 18 '12 at 18:58
    
@MartinBrandenburg Then, following that post, BenLi should have a proof without choice, yes? –  rschwieb Jun 18 '12 at 19:12
    
@Benli See above comment! (I think we should be able to @ two people in each comment....) –  rschwieb Jun 18 '12 at 19:12
    
At the beginning, I thought I overlooked a really direct and simple proof without using that characterization of nilradical but now I would say that characterization of nilradical seems to be the most direct approach.Anyway, the link in your post really give me a proof without Zorn lemma so you have answered my question :) –  Ben Jun 19 '12 at 1:30

I would try something like the following. Let $a$ be in $P$ and suppose that $a$ is not nilpotent. Let $S$ be the multiplicative set of powers of $a$. Then $S$ does not contain $0$. By Zorn (I don't know if this is an acceptable strategy for you), there is a prime ideal $Q$, maximal with respect to not intersecting $S$. But then $Q$ cannot equal $P$, contradicting the fact that $P$ is the unique prime of $R$. Thus, $a$ is nilpotent.

This argument is basically a specialization of the result you quoted (see, e.g., p. 148 of Lang, Algebra, 1971 edition). Mohamed's result that if $a$ is not nilpotent then it must be a unit is pretty straightforward. Incidently, Theorem 1 of Kaplansky's "Commutative Rings" is the statement that an ideal $I$ that is maximal with respect to the property that it is disjoint from a multiiplicatively closed set $S$ is prime. Of course, one needs a way to get such a maximal element, e.g., Zorn. I don't know if Zorn can be avoided completely in this situation.

share|improve this answer
1  
But this is precisely a well-known proof of the (nontrivial direction of the) nilradical characterization, which the OP knows and is trying to avoid. –  Bill Dubuque Jun 18 '12 at 18:31
    
@BillDubuque - Exactly. My main point is that I don't know if Zorn can be avoided. I would thoroughly enjoy seeing a proof that doesn't use Zorn. As with a lot of things, a Zorn-free proof might be insightful, but I always worry that such a proof might be somewhat messy. I don't see how to do it "from scratch," but I'm a bit preoccupied to try it right now. –  Chris Leary Jun 18 '12 at 19:55
    
Sure, but not being an answer, this should probably have been a comment. Currently we have two comments masquerading as answers, when there really should be no answers (which helps to attract folks to the question). –  Bill Dubuque Jun 18 '12 at 19:58

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.