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.

On page 52 they write "...By (4.3) we can achieve (i)..."

where (4.3) is the lemma on the previous page that states that if $q_i$ are all $p$-primary then $\bigcap_i q_i$ is $p$-primary and (i) is the property of a minimal primary decomposition that $r(q_i)$ are pairwise distinct.

I'm confused about how $r(q_i)=p$ for all $i$ helps us to get $r(q_i) \neq r(q_j)$ for all $i \neq j$. If $r(q_i)=p$ for all $i$ then the primary decomposition would only consist of one ideal because we'd have to throw all the others away to get (i). Or not?

share|improve this question
2  
I think the point is that if, say, $\mathfrak q_1, \ldots, \mathfrak q_s$ are $\mathfrak p$-primary then you just replace them by the single ideal $\bigcap_{i = 1}^s \mathfrak q_i$, and what you get is still a primary decomposition. –  Dylan Moreland Jun 29 '12 at 21:34

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Let $I = q_1 \cap q_2 \cap q_3 \cap q_4 \cap q_5$. Suppose $q_1, q_2$ are $p_1$-primary and $q_3, q_4, q_5$ are $p_2$-primary, where $p_1 \neq p_2$. Let $q_1' = q_1 \cap q_2$, $q_3' = q_3 \cap q_4 \cap q_5$. Then $q_1'$ is $p_1$-primary and $q_3'$ is $p_2$-primary. And $ I = q_1 \cap q_2 \cap q_3 \cap q_4 \cap q_5 = q_1' \cap q_3'$.

share|improve this answer

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.