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.

Assume $S$ to be all continuous functions from $[0,1]$ to $\mathbb R$. How to prove that all maximal ideals of $S$ have the form $M_{x_0}=\{f\in S \mid f(x_0)=0\}$?

Thanks in advance.

share|improve this question
3  
I have serious doubts that this works without the continuity assumption on those functions. –  user26857 Apr 28 '13 at 18:17
4  
@YACP: You are right. For example, let $I:=\{f\in S: f$ vanishes on $[0,1]$ except for finitely many points $\}$. Then $I$ is an ideal of $S$, but it is not contained in any $M_{x_0}$. –  23rd Apr 28 '13 at 18:25
1  
I guess that you mean continuous functions. –  sos440 May 3 '13 at 11:24
1  
@YACP:S be all continuous functions. my teacher give us this question with out continuity assumption but after 3 days i ask him he said S is all continuous functions –  Maisam Hedyelloo May 3 '13 at 14:31
1  
See a similar question posted here. –  Martin Sleziak May 3 '13 at 14:48

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

New Answer.

Let $I$ be a proper ideal of the ring $C([0,1])$ of continuous functions on $[0, 1]$. We prove that there exists $x \in [0, 1]$ such that $f(x) = 0$ for all $f \in I$.

Assume that for each point of $x \in [0, 1]$ there exists a function $f \in I$ such that $f(x) \neq 0$. Then there exists a neighborhood $N_{x}$ of $x$ in $[0, 1]$ such that $f \neq 0$ on $N_{x}$. Since $[0, 1]$ is compact and $\{ N_x \}$ is an open cover, there exists a finite cover. That is, there are functions $f_1, \cdots, f_n \in I$ such that for each $x \in [0, 1]$, we have $f_i(x) \neq 0$ for some $i$ (depending on $x$). Then the function $f = f_{1}^2 + \cdots + f_{n}^2$ is also a member of $I$ such that $f > 0$ on $I$. Therefore $1 = f/f \in I$ and $I = C([0, 1])$, a contradiction.

Thus if $M$ is maximal, then the set $Z = \{ z \in [0, 1] : f(z) = 0 \text{ for all } f \in M \}$ is non-empty. But for each $z \in Z$, we have $M \subset M_{z}$. Thus by maximality, $Z$ cannot have two distinct element and we must have $M = M_{z}$ for some $z$.

Old Answer.

Let $X$ be a set and for each subset $Y \subset X$, define

$$S(Y) = \{ f : X \to \Bbb{R} : f|_{Y} \equiv 0 \}$$

and $S = S(\varnothing)$. In OP's case, we have $X = [0, 1]$. Also, for each $f \in S$ we define

$$Z_{f} = \{ x \in X : f(x) = 0 \}. $$

Then for each ideal $I$ of $S$ and $f \in I$, it is easy to observe that $S(Z_{f}) \leq I$. Indeed, for each $g \in S(Z_{f})$, define $\tilde{g} \in S(Z_{f})$ by

$$ \tilde{g}(x) = \begin{cases} g(x) / f(x) & x \notin Z_{f} \\ 0 & x \in Z_{f} \end{cases}. $$

Then $g = \tilde{g}f \in I$ and the claim follows. Now for each proper ideal $I$ of $S$, we associate a family

$$ \mathcal{F}(I) = \{ Z(f) : f \in I \}. $$

Then it is clear that

  1. $\varnothing \notin \mathcal{F}(I)$, since $I$ is proper.
  2. If $A \in \mathcal{F}(I)$ and $A \subset B \subset X$, then $B \in \mathcal{F}(I)$.
  3. If $A, B \in \mathcal{F}(I)$, then $A \cap B \in \mathcal{F}(I)$.

That is, $\mathcal{F}(I)$ is a filter on $X$. Conversely, for each filter $\mathcal{F}$ on $X$ we can retrieve a proper ideal $I$ of $S$ that yields $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F}(I)$. Thus the family of proper ideals of $S$ corresponds to the family of filters on $X$.

It is clear that $I \leq I'$ if and only if $\mathcal{F}(I) \leq \mathcal{F}(I')$. Thus $I$ is a maximal ideal if and only if $\mathcal{F}(I)$ is an ultrafilter. Then OP's claim that every maximal ideal of $S$ is of the form $M_{x_0}$ corresponds to the claim that every ultrafilter on $X$ is principal, which is refuted by the existence of a non-principal ultrafilter on $X$ (if $X$ is infinite).

share|improve this answer

Without considering only continuous functions, you're out of luck.

Pick a non-principal ultrafilter $\mathcal{F}$ on $[0,1]$, and put $I = \{f: [0, 1] \to \mathbb{R}: f^{-1}(0) \in \mathcal{F}$}. I say that $I$ is maximal.

Indeed, if $g \not \in I$, then $g^{-1}(0) \not \in \mathcal{F}$. Since $\mathcal{F}$ is an ultrafilter, $\mathcal{F} \ni [0, 1] - g^{-1}(0) = g^{-1}(\mathbb{R}-\{0\})$. Thus, if we consider a function $h: [0, 1] \to \mathbb{R}$, $h(x) = 0$ if $x \in g^{-1}(\mathbb{R} - \{0\})$ and $h(x) = 1$ otherwise, the function $g+h$ is nowhere zero, and thus invertible, but $h \in I$, and thus $I + (g)$ is not a proper ideal.

share|improve this answer
    
There's another answer by sos440 that shows that it is essentially equivalent to asking whether there exists a non-principal ultrafilter on $[0,1]$ –  xyzzyz Apr 28 '13 at 19:01
    
True. But doesn't Lanscape's example above show, via Krull, that there exists a maximal ideal which is not of the form $M_{x_0}$?. There is no direct reference to any ultrafilter here. Just Zorn. I know that's close, but maybe some people feel more comfortable invoking Zorn rather than manipulating ultrafilters. –  1015 Apr 28 '13 at 19:16

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.