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.

Here is the question:

Let $A$ be a commutative ring with unit, $X=\mathrm{Spec}A$, $U_i$s be quasi-compact open sets of $X$ such that $\emptyset=\cap_{i\in I}U_i$, then there is a finite subset $I_0$ of $I$ such that $\emptyset=\cap_{i\in I_0}U_i$.

I just did a more simpler case, that is when all $U_i$s are distinguished open set $D(f_i)$. Following is a proof: Let $S$ be the multicative set of finite product of $f_i$s, then $A_S=0$. Thus we have a finite product $f_1f_2\cdots f_n=0$ (here we allow $f_i=f_j$), $\cap_{i=1}^nD(f_i)=\emptyset$.

I do not know how to do the previous case. Could anyone give some advices?

Thanks.


Edit: Dear Pierre-Yves Gaillard, here is the story I found the problem:)

A topological space is said spectral space if it is homeomorphic to the spectrum of a commutative ring. And proposition 8 in this paper(M. Hochster (1969). "Prime ideal structure in commutative rings." Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 142 43—60) implies this statement is true.

I copy the content of proposition 8 as follow:

Proposition 8. Let $X$ be spectral. Retopologize $X$ by taking as a basis for the closed sets the quasi-compact open sets of X. Then $X$ with this new topology is spectral, and the new order induced on $X$ by this topology is precisely the reverse of the original order.

I found this problem from a talk with my friend, and I wonder if there is a simple proof about this special case(i.e. I just assume all $U_i$s are q.c. not the general closed sets of the inverse topology) before I read the paper. When I try to prove it, I found it is not easy for me, and I just solve the case of distinguished opens.

(aside:I know there must be many wrong about the syntax/grammar, I will appreciate that if you improve this post.)


Update: Using Alexander subbase theorem, we can check the quasi-compactness at the level of a subbase! So in fact, we are done! Today I know this powerful theorem.

share|improve this question
    
Should the hypothesis be $\cap_{i\in I}U_i=\{(0)\}$? Any non-empty open set must contain (0). –  Colin McQuillan Sep 20 '11 at 21:43
2  
@ColinMcQuillan Are you assuming that $A$ is a domain? –  Dylan Moreland Sep 21 '11 at 4:02
    
I was, my mistake. –  Colin McQuillan Sep 21 '11 at 10:03
1  
Dear wxu: Just by mere curiosity: how did you find this problem? –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Sep 21 '11 at 13:42
    
Thanks! ${}{}{}$ –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Sep 21 '11 at 16:07
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I haven't solved it; this is just a suggestion. I'm not strong on algebra, so I'd first try to translate back into ideals:

"Let $(I_i)_{i\in S}$ be a collection of finitely generated ideals. If every prime ideal contains $I_i$ for some $i$ then there exists a finite subset $S_0\subset S$ such that every prime ideal contains $I_i$ for some $i\in S_0$."

(Though you might need a stronger consequence of quasi-compactness.)

Now we can try to generalize the case you've done already. If some product $I_{i_1} \cdots I_{i_k}$ is nilpotent we're done: every prime ideal contains every nilpotent ideal, and hence contains some $I_{i_j}$. Pick a maximal ideal not containing any ideal of the form $\prod_i I_i^{t_i}$ where $t_i$ are non-negative integers with finitely many non-zero terms. We would like to show that this is prime, for example by showing that the set of ideals containing some $\prod_i I_i^{t_i}$ is an Oka family (see this answer or ch 4 section 1.3 of the CRing textbook).

share|improve this answer
    
Zorn's lemma can apply, it has maximal elements. It remains to show that maximal elements are prime. –  wxu Sep 21 '11 at 15:31
    
How about this? Suppose $M$ contains $AB$ and there exist $a\in A\setminus M$ and $b\in B\setminus M$. Then $(M,a)$ contains some $\prod I_i^{A_i}$ and $(M,b)$ contains some $\prod I_i^{B_i}$. But $M$ contains $(M,a)(M,b)$, which contains $\prod I_i{A_i+B_i}$. So maybe quasicompactness isn't needed? –  Colin McQuillan Sep 21 '11 at 16:57
    
Right! Quasicompactness uses to show there exists maximal elements. –  wxu Sep 22 '11 at 0:39
    
That $I_i$ is finitely generated is equivalent to $U_i$ is quasicompact, and we use the finiteness of $\prod I_i$ to show there exists maximal elements. Finally, to show $M$ is prime as you said, if $x,y\notin M$, but $xy\in M$, then $M\supset (M,x)(M,y)\supset \prod I_i$, contradiction. Thus $M$ is a prime ideal. +1. –  wxu Sep 22 '11 at 0:58
add comment

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.