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

Let say you have a ring $R={\left(\begin{array}{cccc} \mathbb{C}[x,y] & y^2\mathbb{C}[x,y]\\ xy\mathbb{C}[x,y] & \mathbb{C}[x,y] \end{array} \right)}$

It it enough to prove that it's a subring of $M_2(\mathbb{C}[x,y])$ as then from that being a finitely generated $\mathbb{C}$-algebra I.e. it's generated by 8 elements(Is it generated by 8 elements?). Isn't it automatic that the subring is noetherian because all finitely generated rings are Noetherian.

Also, it is true that a subring is finitely generated if the ring is finitely generated?

I fear it isn't enough. However, in my notes he makes weird arguments like this. In proof that

$R={\left(\begin{array}{cccc} \mathbb{Z} & 3\mathbb{Z}\\ \mathbb{Z} & \mathbb{Z} \end{array} \right)}$ is Noetherian.

He says that it contains the ring of scalars which is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$ over which is 4 generated. From this he concludes it is Noetherian.

share|cite|improve this question
He who? ${}{}$ – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Nov 17 '11 at 2:12
@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez My lectures notes. If the reasoning is unclear I could write the whole paragraph of him proving the bottom ring is Noetherian. – simplicity Nov 17 '11 at 3:00
up vote 2 down vote accepted
  • It is not true that a subring of a finitely generated ring is finitely generated, as you ask in your 3rd paragraph. Consider (in the similar context of $\mathbb C$-algebras...), for example, the subring generated by $\{xy^i:i\geq0\}$ in $\mathbb C[x, y]$.

  • It is not true that all finitely generated rings are Noetherian, as you say at the end of your 2nd paragraph. The free algebra $k\langle x,y\rangle$ on two generators $x$ and $y$ is not left noetherian.

  • Let $R={\left(\begin{array}{cccc} \mathbb{Z} & 3\mathbb{Z}\\ \mathbb{Z} & \mathbb{Z} \end{array} \right)}$. As a $\mathbb Z$-module, this is Noetherian, because it is in fact free and finitely-generated. An increasing sequence of ideals of $R$ is in particular an increasing sequence of sub-$\mathbb Z$-modules, so it stabilizes after a finite number of steps. Therefore $R$ is Noetherian as a ring. You should try to come up with a general statement from this argument, and then try to use it to deal with your initial example.

share|cite|improve this answer
I can't see the last point I.e. that the increasing sequence of ideals of R is an increasing sequence of sub-$\mathbb{Z}$-modules. – simplicity Nov 17 '11 at 2:55
An ideal of $R$ is in particular an abelian subgroup, that is, a sub-$\mathbb Z$-module. – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Nov 17 '11 at 2:57
I understand the module bit. However, I can't see how you can conclude it is stationary i.e. stabilizes after a finite number of steps argument. – simplicity Nov 17 '11 at 3:02
Do you understand why $R$ is a noetherian $\mathbb Z$-module and, in particular, what this means? – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Nov 17 '11 at 3:20

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.