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

I am trying to study the proof of the Chinese remainder theorem from the book Dummit and Foote (Section 7.6, page 266, third edition). The theorem itself is to show that $R/(A_1A_2\ldots A_k) \cong R/A_1 \times \ldots \times R/A_k) $ if the ideals $A_1, \ldots,A_k$ are comaximal, i.e $A_i +A_j=R$ if $i \neq j$. The proof is by induction and I understand the case $k=2$. Now they are trying to show that $A_1$ and $(A_2 A_3 \ldots A_k)$ are comaximal and I don't fully understand this argument. It is claimed that for $i \in \{ 2,3,\ldots,k\}$ there are $x_i \in A_1$ and $y_i \in A_i$ such that $x_i + y_i =1$ (I guess this follows from the hypothesis that the ideals are comaximal, and that $x_i +y_i \equiv y_i (\mbox{mod} A_1)$ (which is because $x_i + y_i + A_1 = y_i + A_1$ since $x_i \in A_1$ ). Now they say $1= (x_2+y_2) \ldots (x_k+y_k)$ is an element in $A_1 + (A_2 \ldots A_k)$.

I would be grateful if somebody can kindly elaborate on this last statement. I also don't see where they use the fact that $x_i +y_i \equiv y_i (\mbox{mod} A_1)$

Thank you.

share|cite|improve this question
I really like Jiangwei's hint. You can also think about the terms you get when you expand that product: every term besides $y_2 \cdots y_k$ is contained in $A_1$. – Dylan Moreland Jul 15 '11 at 15:01
That seems a bit easier. But in that case do we actually need $x_i + y_i \cong y_i (mod A_i)$. – Shibi Vasudevan Jul 15 '11 at 15:27
No, but there are often many ways to prove these simple lemmas. I think Bill's answer will clarify the book's intent. – Dylan Moreland Jul 15 '11 at 17:22
Thanks for your answer. – Shibi Vasudevan Jul 15 '11 at 19:56
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Say $I$ and $J$ are two ideals in a ring $R$, and $a \equiv b \mod I$, where $b\in J$, then does it follow that $a\in I+J$?

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the answer. $a \cong b \mbox{mod} I$ means that $a-b \in I$ this means that $a=a-b + b \in I + J$. But now, how do I use this? Do I put $ a= x_i + y_i $ and $b= y_i$ I get that $x_i \in A_1 + A_i$. How does the statement then follow? – Shibi Vasudevan Jul 15 '11 at 14:49
@ Jiangwei: Could you please elaborate the hint a little bit more. I don't fully understand it. Thanks. – Shibi Vasudevan Jul 15 '11 at 15:28
@Chandru: Why? That's Shibi's call and Shibi's alone. There are good reasons to wait a bit longer than only an hour. Also, Shibi didn't get it yet, so why on earth accept? – t.b. Jul 15 '11 at 16:36
@Theo: Oh, I just read the first sentence of his comment:"Thanks for the answer." and wrote up this comment, which now I delete because, it was my mistake of not reading the whole comment. – user9413 Jul 15 '11 at 16:57

HINT $\rm\ \ mod\ A_1:\ \ x_i\equiv 0 \ \Rightarrow\ (x_2+y_2)\:\cdots\:(x_k+y_k)\ \equiv\ y_2\:\cdots\:y_k \in A_2\:\cdots\:A_k$

Alternatively use $\rm\ (A + B)\ (A + C)\ \subseteq\ A + B\ C\ $ and induction.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks a lot for the hint – Shibi Vasudevan Jul 15 '11 at 19:57

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.