# $(x)$ is prime but not maximal in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$

How prove that the ideal $(x)=x\mathbb{Z}[x]$ in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ is prime but not maximal?

-
Low accept rate discourage some from answering your posts. When a question has been answered to your satisfaction, it's considered good form to click the check mark below the voting arrows for that answer. The person whose answer you accept (you can only accept one) gets a small reputation boost, and you send a signal to others that you're no longer in need of an answer. BTW, it's not too late to go back to your old posts and accept your favorite answers. –  draks ... Jul 2 '12 at 8:06

$p(x).q(x)\in (x)\Rightarrow p(0).q(0)=0\Rightarrow p(0)=0\mbox{ or }q(0)=0\Rightarrow x|p(x)\mbox{ or }x|q(x)$ hence prime ideal

As $(x)\subset(x)+(2)\subset\mathbb{Z}[x]$ hence not maximal

-

Show that $\mathbb{Z}[x]/(x)$ is an integral domain but not a field.

-

Zooming out for a moment: the following general facts should help. Let $A, B$ be commutative rings.

1. An ideal $\mathfrak a$ of $A$ is prime (resp. maximal) if and only if $A/\mathfrak a$ is an integral domain (resp. a field).
2. There is a canonical isomorphism from $B[x]/(x)$ to another ring. You probably have a guess for what the ring and the map are and it's likely correct; to prove it, try to define an inverse.

Related, but possibly overwhelming at this point: Mumford's treasure map.

-
Structurally: use $\rm\:P\:$ is prime $\rm\iff R/P\:$ is a domain; $\rm\:P\:$ is maximal $\rm\iff R/P\:$ is a field.
Elementwise: $\rm\ \ f,g\not\in (x)\iff f(0),g(0)\neq 0\iff f(0)g(0)\neq 0 \iff fg\not\in (x)$
$\rm (x)$ max $\rm\iff [f\not\in(x)\, \Rightarrow\, (f,x)=1]\iff [f(0)\ne 0\:\Rightarrow (f(0)) = 1]\,$ by evaluation at $\rm\,x=0.$