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.

The following is a statement about extended and contracted ideals under localisation from Atiyah, McDonald

They use that for any ideal I considering the homomorphism $f: A \rightarrow S^{-1}A$ defined by $f(x)= \frac{x}{1}$ we have that $I^e=\Phi (I) S^{-1}R = S^{-1} \Phi (I) = S^{-1} I $. And that $x\in I^{ec}=(S^{-1}I)^c $ iff $\frac{x}{1} = \frac{a}{s}$ for some $s\in S$ and some $a\in I$. That is, there exist $t\in S$ such that $t(sx-a)=0$. Since $0\in I$ and $at\in I$ by construction, this is equivalent to that $tsx\in I$. Hence we have the following equality: $$I^{ec}=\bigcup_{s\in S}(I:s)$$

Now, this is what confuses me, (proposition 4.8. ii)) let $S$ be a multiplicative closed subset of $R$, and let $Q$ be a $P$-primary ideal of $R$. If $S\bigcap P =\emptyset $ then the contraction of $S^{-1}Q= Q$

In the proof they state that since $s\notin P$ and $as \in Q$ this imply that $a\in Q$. For me this doesn't make sence shouldn't it be $s\notin P$ and $as \in Q$ imply $a\in P$? But then the earlier discussion shows that $$(S^{-1}Q)^c=Q^{ec}=\bigcup_{s\in S}(Q:s)=P$$ Contradicting the whole proposition...

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

The real statement, is that if $s \notin P$ and $as \in Q$ would imply $a \in Q$.

share|improve this answer
But, if $s\notin P$ and $as \in Q$ then this would only imply $a^n\in Q$ since $Q$ is not prime, only primary. This is what I don't understand. Could you explain? –  harajm Nov 5 '12 at 19:15
No. If $a$ is not in $Q$, then $s^n \in Q$ for some $n$ which means that $s \in P$. –  user27126 Nov 5 '12 at 19:16

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.