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

If $A$ is a Dedekind domain and $a,b$ are ideals, then why does $aA_p⊂bA_p$ for every prime ideal $p$ imply that $a\subset b$?

I read it in Milne's notes but it alludes to DVR's and I'm not familiar with that concept.

share|cite|improve this question

Let $x$ lie in the first ideal. Consider the set $I$ of elements $a$ of $A$ such that $ax$ is in the second ideal. Check that $I$ is an ideal and that the hypothesis implies that $I$ is not contained in any nonzero prime ideal of $A$. Hence $I=A$, and so $1$ is in $I$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Factor $a$ and $b$ into its finite product of prime ideals. If say $$b=(p_1) \cdots (p_n),$$ $b_{p_i} = (p_i)_p$, so you have that $a$ also have $$(p_1) \cdots (p_n)$$ in its factorization. Thus, it must be contained in $b$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.