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 it from Atiyah-Macdonald's Introduction to Commutative Algebra, exercise 1.22.
Apparently this should be very easy, my apologies for asking.
I have been stuck for almost 1 day and I cannot figure out what is wrong with my arguments.

Let $A=\prod_{i=1}^n A_i$ be the direct product of rings $A_i$. Show that Spec$(A)$ is the disjoint union of open (and closed) subspaces $X_i$, where $X_i$ is canonically homeomorphic with Spec$(A_i)$.

What I tried so far:
I know that $A=\prod_{i=1}^nA_i$, so I tried to find all the prime ideals in the product.
One of the lemma I showed was that for each prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}\subseteq\prod_{i=1}^nA_i$, it must be of the form:
$A_1\times\dotsb\times\mathfrak{p}_i\times\dotsb\times A_n$,
where $\mathfrak{p}_i$ is a prime ideal in $A_i$.
Hence I concluded that Spec$(A)=\coprod_{i=1}^nX_i$, where $X_i=A_1\times\dotsb\times$ Spec$(A_i)\times\dotsb\times A_n$.

If my lemma is right this should cover all cases of prime ideals in $\prod_{i=1}^nA_i$,
but I have trouble when I am checking its properties.

Namely: $X_i\cap X_j$ should be $\emptyset$ for $i\neq j$, since I am looking for disjoint union.
But looking at $X_1\cap X_2$ there seems to be a non-empty intersection at
$($Spec$(A_1),\dots)\cap (A_1,\dots)=($ Spec$(A_1),\dots)$.
(Or should Spec$(A_1)\cap A_1=\emptyset$?)

Intuitively it seems like I may be able to define the following:
Spec$(A)\cong$ Spec$(A_1)\times\dotsb\times$ Spec$(A_n)$
Then letting $X_i=(0,\dots,$Spec$(A_i),\dots,0)$ seems to resolve the disjoint union problem.
Also, clearly each $X_i$ is a collection of prime ideals.
However, this looks like I will be missing cases like $A_1\times\dotsb\times$ Spec$(A_i)\times\dotsb\times A_n$.

Where did I go wrong?
Or am I misinterpreted anything wrongly?
Thanks for reading!

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 1 down vote accepted

$\DeclareMathOperator{\Spec}{Spec}$I think you're confusing yourself by writing $A_1\times\cdots\times\Spec(A_i)\times\cdots\times A_n$; you should immediately identify this with $\Spec(A_i)$ by the canonical homeomorphism $\mathfrak{p}\mapsto A_1\times\cdots\times\mathfrak{p}\times\cdots\times A_n$.

This should also encourage you not to talk about $A_1\cap\Spec(A_1)$; this intersection is empty simply because the two spaces contain entirely different objects, but this isn't the point. You shouldn't try to intersect $X_i$ and $X_j$ by intersecting each factor in the product seperately, but by thinking about what kind of object must lie in both - from your definition, such an object would have a prime ideal as only the $i$-th factor, and only the $j$-th factor, giving a contradiction unless $i=j$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer! You pinpointed the confusion I had. –  Yong Hao Ng Feb 12 '13 at 18:34

I think you essentially captured the idea of the proof; but the notation is misleading. Indeed, your $X_i$ should be defined as follows: $$ X_i:=\{A_1\times\dots\times\mathfrak p\times\dots\times A_n\,|\,\mathfrak p\in\textrm{Spec }A_i \}\subset\textrm{Spec }A. $$ Then of course $X_i\cong \textrm{Spec }A_i$ and $\textrm{Spec }A\cong\coprod X_i$.

share|improve this answer
    
All answers were helpful but I could only choose 1... Picking Matt's answer as he pinpointed the confusion I had. I gave you an upvote. =D Thanks for your time! –  Yong Hao Ng Feb 12 '13 at 18:27
    
@Yong Hao Ng: My pleasure :) –  Brenin Feb 12 '13 at 18:30

Be careful, $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathrm A)$ is a set while $\mathrm A$ is a ring. What you have written at first is correct : the primes of the product have the form $$ \mathfrak{P} = \mathrm A_1 \times ... \times \,\mathfrak{p}_i \times ... \times \mathrm A_n$$

And we have $\mathrm X_i \simeq \mathrm{Spec}(\mathrm A_i)$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for the answer! All answers were helpful but I could only choose 1... Picking Matt's answer as he pinpointed the confusion I had. I gave you an upvote. =D P.S. May I ask what does the symbol $\simeq$ means? I have not used it before. –  Yong Hao Ng Feb 12 '13 at 18:27
    
It means "is isomorphic to". –  Damien L Feb 12 '13 at 18:28
    
So may I assume that it has the same meaning as $\cong$? –  Yong Hao Ng Feb 12 '13 at 18:35
    
Yep, it is just a little shorter. –  Damien L Feb 12 '13 at 18:37
    
Got it, thanks for the info. –  Yong Hao Ng Feb 12 '13 at 18:41

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.