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.

One definition of a Noetherian ring is that every ideal is finitely generated. If $R$ is a Noetherian ring and $I$ and idempotent ideal, that is, $I^2=I$, would it be too far-fetched to guess that $I$ is generated by an idempotent element?

share|improve this question
1  
I am pretty sure this question has been asked here at least a couple of times before... –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Oct 22 '11 at 20:36
    
Yes, Mariano, as Google just told me, you answered it yourself ! math.stackexchange.com/questions/29454/… [I selfishly wish you had written this comment before I wrote my answer :)] –  Georges Elencwajg Oct 22 '11 at 21:09
1  
See also this answer. –  Bill Dubuque Oct 22 '11 at 22:25
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

It is true, and a consequence of Nakayama's lemma: since $I$ is a finitely generated $R$-module such that $I\cdot I = I$, there is an $x \in I$ such that for all $y \in I$, $(1-x)y=0$, that is $y=xy$. Hence, $x$ is the required idempotent.

share|improve this answer
    
What if $R$ is not commutative? –  Arturo Magidin Oct 22 '11 at 20:29
    
I added a "Hence" in the final sentence. It almost looked like you had the equation "$y = xy.x$ instead of a sentence that ended in $y=xy$, and then one that began with $x$. (Note: In general, one should avoid starting sentences with mathematical symbols) –  Arturo Magidin Oct 22 '11 at 20:32
    
Thanks for this. –  Nicole Oct 22 '11 at 21:00
add comment

Yes, if an ideal $I\subset R$ satisfies $I=I^2$ and if $I$ is finitely generated, then there is an idempotent $i\in I$ which generates $I$ ( i.e. $I=iR$).

Proof
Recall Nakayama's lemma: if a finitely generated $R$-module $M$ satisfies $M=IM$ for some ideal $I\subset R$ (not assumed finitely generated!), then there is an $i\in I$ such that for all $m\in M$ we have $m=im$.
In your situation take $M=I$ and conclude first that $i=i^2$ and second that for all for all $m\in I$ you have $m=im\in I$, so that $I\subset iR$. If you remember that $i\in I$ you see that conversely $ iR\subset I$, so that finally $I=iR$ for an idempotent $i\in I$, as requested.

Remarks
1) The ring $R$ doesn't have to be noetherian, i.e. you needn't assume that ideals of $R$ different from $I$ are finitely generated.
2) In the ring $R=\mathbb F_2^{\mathbb N}$ of sequences from the field with two elements, the ideal $I=\mathbb F_2^{(\mathbb N)}$ of sequences ultimately zero satisfies $I=I^2$ (since we even have $i=i^2$ for every $i\in R$ !) but is not finitely generated.
The reason is that $I$ contains sequences with arbitrary many non-zero entries, whereas finitely many sequences $s_1,s_2,...,s_r\in I$ can only generate an ideal all of whose elements $(a_0,a_1,\ldots, a_n, \ldots)$ satisfy $a_n=0$ for $n\geq$ some fixed $N\in \mathbb N$

A geometric interpretation
The condition $I=I^2$ may look artificial. Let me show that it comes up in real life, that is in scheme theory.
Suppose $Y\hookrightarrow X$ is a closed immersion of schemes; is it flat?
The problem is local, so assume $X=Spec(R), Y=Spec (R/I)$. The question reduces to: Is $R/I$ an $R$-flat module?
Consider the exact sequence $0\to I\to R $. If $R/I$ is flat, the tensored sequence $0\to I\otimes _R R/I \to R \otimes _R R/I$ must remain exact . But it is, up to canonical isomorphisms,
$0\to I/I^2 \stackrel {f}{\to} R/I$ where $f(\bar x)=\tilde x=0$ for $x\in I$. The only way for $f$ to be both zero and injective is to have $I=I^2$!
Conversely, if $I$ is finitely generated and $I=I^2$, we have seen that $I=(i)$ for some idempotent $i$.
Then $Spec (R/I)\to Spec(R)$ is flat because it is an open immersion since $Spec (R/I)=V(I)=V(i)=Spec(R)\setminus V(1-i)=$ open subset of $Spec(R)$ .
So in particular for a noetherian ring $R$, the closed immersion $Spec(R/I) \hookrightarrow Spec(R)$ is flat iff $I=(i)$ for some idempotent $i\in R$. In other words closed immersions of schemes are essentially never flat!

share|improve this answer
    
This makes sense. Thanks. –  Nicole Oct 22 '11 at 20:59
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.