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.

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 $A$ be a commutative ring. Suppose $A$ has a composition series as an $A$-module. EDIT Since $A$ has a composition series, $A$ has a maximal ideal.

Let $J$ be the intersection of all the maximal ideals of $A$. Can we prove that $J$ is nilpotent without Axiom of Choice?

EDIT[July 14, 2012] In the following argument, am I using any form of Axiom of Choice?

Let $\Lambda$ be nonempty set of ideals of $A$. Choose $I_0 \in \Lambda$. Let $leng_A A/I_0 = r$. Since $A$ has a composition series, $r$ is finite. If $I_0$ is not maximal in $\Lambda$, we can choose $I_1 \in \Lambda$ such that $I_0 \neq I_1$ and $I_0 \subset I_1$. Repeat this. This procedures must terminate with no more than $r$ times trials. Hence there exists a maximal element in $\Lambda$.

EDIT May I ask the reason for the downvotes?

EDIT What's wrong with trying to prove it without using AC? When you are looking for a computer algorithm for solving a mathematical problem, such a proof may provide a hint. At least, you can be sure that there is a constructive proof.

EDIT Why worry about the axiom of choice?

share|cite|improve this question

Definition 1 Let $A$ be a (not necessarily commutative) ring. Let $M$ be a left $A$-module. Suppose $M \neq 0$ and $M$ has no proper $A$-submodule other than $0$. Then we say $M$ is simple.

Definition 2 Let $A$ be a (not necessarily commutative) ring. Let $M$ be a left $A$-module. Let $M = M_0 \supset M_1 \supset ... \supset M_n = 0$ be a finite descending sequence of $A$-submodules. If each $M_i/M_{i+1}, i = 0, 1, ..., n - 1$, is simple, this sequence is called a composition series of $M$. The $n$ is called the length of the composition series. We define the length of the $0$-module as $0$.

Definition 3 Let $A$ be a (not necessarily commutative) ring. Let $M$ be a left $A$-module. Suppose $M$ has a composition series, the lengths of each series are the same by Jordan-Holder theorem. We denote it by $leng_A M$ or $leng$ $M$. If $M$ does not have a composition series, we define $leng_A M = \infty$.

Lemma 1 Let $A$ be a ring. Let $M$ be a left $A$-module. Let $M_1 \supset M_2$ be $A$-submodules of $M$. Suppose $M_1/M_2$ is simple. Let $N$ be an $A$-submodule of M. Then $(M_1 + N)/(M_2 + N)$ is simple or $0$.

Proof: Let $f:M_1 \rightarrow (M_1 + N)/(M_2 + N)$ be the restriction of the canonical morphism $M_1 + N \rightarrow (M_1 + N)/(M_2 + N)$. Since $f(M_2) = 0$, $f$ induces a morphism $g:M_1/M_2 \rightarrow (M_1 + N)/(M_2 + N)$. Since $f$ is surjective, $g$ is also surjective. Since $M_1/M_2$ is simple, the assertion follows. QED

Lemma 2 Let $A$ be a ring. Let $M$ be a left $A$-module. Suppose $n = leng$ $M$ is finite. Let $N$ be an $A$-submodule of $M$. Then $leng$ $M/N \leq n$.

Proof: This follows immediately from Lemma 1.

Lemma 3 Let $A$ be a ring. Let $M$ be a left $A$-module. Suppose $n = leng$ $M$ is finite. Let $N$ be a proper $A$-sumodule of $M$. Then $leng$ $N \leq n - 1$.

Proof: We use induction on $n$. If $n = 0$, the assertion is trivial. Hence we assume $n \geq 1$. Let $M = M_0 \supset M_1 \supset ... \supset M_n = 0$ be a composition series. Since $leng$ $M_1 = n - 1$, if $N \subset M_1$, $leng$ $N \leq leng$ $M_1$ by the induction assumption. Hence we can assume that $M_1 \neq N + M_1$. Since $M_1 \subset N + M_1 \subset M$, $M = N + M_1$. Since $N/(N \cap M_1)$ is isomorphic to $M/M_1$, it is simple. Hence it suffices to prove that $leng$ $N \cap M_1 \leq n - 2$. Suppose $N \cap M_1 = M_1$. Then $N = M_1$ or $N = M$. Since $N$ is a proper submodule, $N = M_1$. But this contradicts our assumption. Hence $N \cap M_1 \neq M_1$. By the induction assumption, $leng$ $N \cap M_1 \leq n - 2$. QED

Lemma 4 Let $A$ be a ring. Let $M$ be a left $A$-module. Suppose $leng$ $M$ is finite. Let $N_1 \subset N_2$ be $A$-submodules of $M$. Suppose $leng$ $N_1 = leng$ $N_2$. Then $N_1 = N_2$.

Proof: $leng$ $N_2 = leng$ $N_1 + leng$ $N_2/N_1$. Hence $leng$ $N_2/N_1 = 0$. Hence $N_1 = N_2$. QED

Lemma 5 Let $A$ be a commutative ring. Suppose $leng$ $A$ is finite. Let $\Lambda$ be nonempty set of ideals of $A$. Then there exists a maximal element in $\Lambda$.

Proof: Let $r = sup$ {$leng$ $I$; $I \in \Lambda$}. Since $r$ is finite, there exists $I \in \Lambda$ such that $r = leng$ $I$. By Lemma 4, $I$ is a maximal element of $\Lambda$. QED

Lemma 6 Let $A$ be a commutative ring. Suppose $leng$ $A$ is finite. Let $\Lambda$ be nonempty set of ideals of $A$. Then there exist a minimal element in $\Lambda$.

Proof: Let $r = inf$ {$leng$ $I$; $I \in \Lambda$}. Since $r$ is finite, there exists $I \in \Lambda$ such that $r = leng$ $I$. By Lemma 4, $I$ is a minimal element of $\Lambda$. QED

Lemma 7 Let $A$ be a commutative ring. Suppose $leng$ $A$ is finite. Then every ideal of $A$ is finitely generated.

Proof: Let $I$ be an ideal of $A$. Let $\Lambda$ be the set of finitely generated ideals contained $I$. Since $0 \in \Lambda$, $\Lambda$ is not empty. By Lemma 5, there exitst a maximal element $I_0$ in $\Lambda$. Suppose $I \neq I_0$. There exists $x \in I - I_0$. Let $I_1$ be the ideal generated by $I_0 \cup$ {$x$}. Since $I_1 \in \Lambda$ and $I_1 \neq I_0$, this is a contradiction. Hence $I = I_0$. QED

Lemma 8 Let $A$ be a commutative ring. Suppose $leng$ $A$ is finite. Let $J$ be the intersection of all the maximal ideals of $A$. Then there exists an integer $k \geq 1$ such that $J^k = J^{2k}$.

Proof: Let $\Lambda$ = {$J^k; k = 1, 2, ...$}. By Lemma 6, there exists a minimal $J^k$ in $\Lambda$. Since $J^k = J^{k+1} = ...$, $J^k = J^{2k}$. QED

Proposition Let $A$ be a commutative ring. Suppose $leng$ $A$ is finite. Let $J$ be the intersection of all the maximal ideals of $A$. Then $J$ is nilpotent.

Proof: By Lemma 8, there exists an integer $k \geq 1$ such that $J^k = J^{2k}$. Let $I = J^k$. Then $I = I^2$. By Lemma 7, I is finitely generated. By Nakayama's lemma, there exists $r \in A$, such that $r \equiv 1$ (mod $I$) and $rI = 0$. We claim that r is invertible. If otherwise, $rA$ is a proper ideal. By Lemma 5, there exists a maximal ideal $P$ such that $rA \subset P$. Since $I \subset P$, $0 \equiv 1$ (mod $P$). This is a contradiction. Hence $r$ is invertible. Since $rI = 0$, $I = 0$ as desired. QED

share|cite|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.