Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

In Atiyah-Macdonald, in the proof of Theorem 10.17 (Krull's intersection theorem), the authors go through a 4-line chain of arguments to show that that the kernel $E=\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathfrak a^nM$ of $M\to\hat M$ satisfies $\mathfrak aE=E$. When checking some other sources (for example Prof. May's notes), I see that the approach is similar: use some form of Artin-Rees lemma to conclude $\mathfrak aE=E$.

Question: Doesn't it follow trivially from the equality $E=\bigcap_{n\ge1}\mathfrak a^nM$ that $\mathfrak aE=\mathfrak a\left(\bigcap_{n\ge1}\mathfrak a^nM\right)=\bigcap_{n\ge2}\mathfrak a^nM=E$? (basically the first term $\mathfrak aM$ of the intersection can be ignored, as it contains every $\mathfrak a^nM$ anyway). Am I missing something trivial here?

share|cite|improve this question
yes. you are right. but how do you get the second equality without artin ress lemma? – user119882 Apr 20 '14 at 2:35
thanks @user119882. You are absolutely right. It doesn't follow directly. – aytio Apr 20 '14 at 3:02
up vote 6 down vote accepted

The equality $\mathfrak a\left(\bigcap_{n\ge1}\mathfrak a^nM\right)=\bigcap_{n\ge2}\mathfrak a^nM$ assumes that multiplication by ideals and intersection of submodules commute. This is unfortunately not the case.

In general we only have $\mathfrak{a} \left(\bigcap_{n\ge1} M_n\right) \subset \left(\bigcap_{n\ge1}\mathfrak{a} M_n\right)$, but not equality.

The Artin-Rees lemma tells you that you have equality in the special case where $M_n = \mathfrak a^nM$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, you are very right. In fact, when I read the proof of Artin-Rees lemma from the book, I wondered why the statement $\mathfrak a(M'\cap M_n)\subseteq \mathfrak aM'\cap\mathfrak aM_n$ is not an equality and I even came up with a counterexample then, but by the time I got to the proof of Krull's Intersection Theorem, it completely slipped my mind until I saw user119882's comment and your answer. :) – aytio Apr 20 '14 at 3:00

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.