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.

In the midst of attempting to prove that for a commutative ring $A$ with identity, and an ideal $I$ of $A$, $I = rad(I)$, where $rad(I) = \{x: x^m \epsilon I, m >0\}$, implies that $I$ is an intersection of prime ideals, I've run into a little bit of confusion.

An answer to another question on this site, this one to be exact, indicates a strategy that I am attempting to use. I know that if x is an element of $A$ \ $I$, then so too is $x^m$ for any positive integer $m$. I use this fact to consider a subset $X = {x^m : m > 0}$, which is closed under multiplication, and use Zorn's lemma to find an ideal of $A$ containing $I$ maximal with respect to the constraint that said ideal, $J$, is disjoint from X.

I want to prove $J$ is prime by contradiction. I suppose that $J$ were not prime; this also means that $J$ is not maximal in $A$. Then there would exist two elements, $f$ and $g$, of $A$ so that $fg$ is in $J$, but neither $f$ nor $g$ is in $J$. Following the prompting of the aforementioned answer, I know that $J + $<$a$> and $J + $<$b$> would be ideals strictly containing $J$, and since J is the maximal ideal disjoint from $X$, both $J + $<$a$> and $J + $<$b$> contain at least some elements of $X$ (I am tempted to say all of them, but I'm not entirely sure that's true, in case for example <$a$> started containing powers of $x$ at $x^2$, in which case it isn't necessarily true that <$a$> contains x itself), and so both <$a$> and <$b$> must themselves contain elements of $X$.

And this is where I am stuck. I feel like there is something I should know about multiplicative subsets of rings that would help me arrive at the desired contradiction, but I can't remember what it might be.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

This is a standard (and important) result, that also has a standard (and important) proof. The point is that for any $a, b \in A$, if $ab \in J$, then $(J + (a))(J + (b)) = J^2 + J(a) + J(b) + (ab) \subseteq J$. Since $J$ was maximal with respect to being disjoint from $X$, both $J + (a)$, $J + (b)$ contain elements of $X$, and $X$ is multiplicative, which gives a contradiction.

By the way, your observation that $J + (a)$ need not contain all of $X$ is correct, for precisely the reason you stated.

share|improve this answer

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.