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

I'm trying to track down an example of a ring in which there exists an infinite chain of ideals under inclusion. (i.e. $I_1 \subsetneq I_2 \subsetneq I_3 \subsetneq...$)

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off-topic by quid, Najib Idrissi, Silvia Ghinassi, heropup, wythagoras Feb 29 at 18:39

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – quid, Najib Idrissi, Silvia Ghinassi, heropup, wythagoras
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I've removed very many comments from this question, as they were deviating increasingly away from math. For meta discussion, I encourage using Meta, or when appropriate, Chat. – mixedmath Feb 29 at 1:38
This question was recently merged with another question, although the two had significant differences. In particular, the answers below do not answer the merged question. – RghtHndSd Mar 2 at 16:30
@RghtHndSd Discussed here:… – user26857 Mar 6 at 20:24
up vote 10 down vote accepted

By definition, such a ring is non-Noetherian. A good example of a non-Noetherian ring is $F[X_1, X_2, X_3,...]$, the ring of polynomials over a field F in countably infinite indeterminates. In this ring, we have the infinite chain of generated ideals $(X_1) \subsetneq (X_1, X_2) \subsetneq (X_1, X_2, X_3) \subsetneq...$.

Claim: $X_{n+1} \notin (X_1, ..., X_n)$

Proof: Suppose for contradiction that $X_{n+1} \in (X_1, ..., X_n)$. Then, we would be able to write $X_{n+1} = a_1 \cdot X_1 \,+ ... + \,a_n \cdot X_n$ for some $a_1, ..., a_n \in F[X_1, X_2, X_3,...]$. If we take all the indeterminate arguments of each $a_i$ to be $0$ (there are finitely many arguments for each), it follows that $X_{n+1} = a_k \cdot X_k\, + ... + \,a_l\cdot X_l$, where $a_k,...,a_l$ are the constant functions among these $a_1, ..., a_n$. This is a contradiction because $X_{n+1}$ can now be written as a linear combination of certain other indeterminates, when its choice should be unconstrained.

To see this last step more clearly, it can help to actually consider $f(X_{n+1}) = X_{n+1}$ and $g(X_k,...,X_l) = a_k \cdot X_k\, + ... + \,a_l\cdot X_l$. Note that both of these polynomials reside in $F[X_1, X_2, X_3,...]$. Moreover, by the results above, $f(X_{n+1}) \equiv g(X_k,...,X_l)$. Now take $X_{n+1} = 1$ and $X_k= ...=X_l=0$. Then, it follows that

\begin{equation} 1 = f(1) = g(0,...,0) = a_k \cdot 0\, + ... + \,a_l\cdot 0 = 0 \end{equation} Hence, $1=0$, which is a contradiction because F is a field and taken to have nontrivial multiplication. The claim follows.

For more info on Noetherian rings, check out the wikipedia page.

share|cite|improve this answer
For the same example and a correct proof of $X_{n+1}\notin(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ the reader is referred to this answer. – user26857 Feb 29 at 12:02
My proof is indeed correct. Appreciate the link though. The more cross references the better. – Will Byrne Feb 29 at 12:31
No, it's not correct: you are confusing $X_{n+1}$ by $X_n$ repeatedly. – user26857 Feb 29 at 12:33
As I said yesterday, it was pretty late when I wrote this up initially. Fixed. – Will Byrne Feb 29 at 12:51

The classical example is the ring of polynomials in a countable number of indeterminates: $k[x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n,\dotsc]$ and the chain is $$ 0\subsetneq (x_1)\subsetneq(x_1,x_2)\subsetneq\dotsb $$

Note that $x_{n+1}\notin(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ by a standard argument: suppose $$ x_{n+1}=f_1 x_1 + f_2x_2 + \dots + f_nx_n $$ where $f_i\in k[x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n,\dotsc]$ (for $i=1,2,\dots,n$). Substitute $x_i=0$ for $i=1,2,\dots,n$; this gives $x_{n+1}=0$, a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
For a similar answer the reader is referred to – user26857 Feb 29 at 12:39
@user26857 Yes, it's somewhat folklore. I added the proof because the one in the accepted answer is not well worded, in my opinion. – egreg Feb 29 at 12:42

Edit: By "ring" I mean commutative ring with identity.

Every ring is a quotient of an infinite polynomial ring. Let $R$ be any ring, and let $\{r_i\}_{i \in I}$ be a set of generators (under the ring operations). For example, we could simply take every single element of the ring $R$. Then define a ring homomorphism $\varphi : \mathbb{Z}[x_i : i \in I] \rightarrow R$ by sending $x_i \rightarrow r_i$. This is a surjective homomorphism, and thus $$R \cong \mathbb{Z}[x_i : i \in I]/\ker \varphi.$$

In particular, any non-Notherian integral domain is a quotient of an infinite polynomial ring. So in some sense, your example is a fundamental one.

share|cite|improve this answer

For a bi-infinite chain of ideals (and bounded transcendence degree), start from $k[X]$ and adjoin $2^n$-th roots of $X$ for all $n$.

The inclusion ordering of the principal ideals $(X^{2^i})$ for $i \in \mathbb{Z}$ is equivalent to the reversed ordering of integers, via the correspondence $2^i \leftrightarrow i$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Consider the ring $R = C([0,1], \mathbf{R})$ of continuous functions $f \colon [0,1] \to \mathbf{R}$.

For $0 \lt t \lt 1$, let $I_t = \{ f \in R \mid f(x) = 0 \text{ for all } 0 \leq x \leq t \}$ be the ideal of functions vanishing on all of $[0,t]$. Then $I_s \supsetneq I_t$ whenever $s \lt t$.

share|cite|improve this answer