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.

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

I am currently engaged in independent study of algebraic geometry, using Dan Bump's book. One of the exercises in it outlines a proof of the Krull Intersection Theorem, which [here] is the following:

Let $A$ be a Noetherian local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$, and let $M$ be the intersection of all of the $\mathfrak{m}^n$. Then $M = 0$.

The hints direct me to use the Artin-Rees lemma to show that $\mathfrak{m} M = M$, then use Nakayama's lemma to show that $M = 0$ (this second step is easy). I showed this to a professor and he accused the book of using big machinery for no reason, arguing that

$$\mathfrak{m} M = \mathfrak{m} \bigcap_{n \ge 0} \mathfrak{m}^n = \bigcap_{n \ge 1} \mathfrak{m}^n = M.$$

Does this argument work? Does Bump apply Artin-Rees because that argument works in some broader context where the above argument fails?

share|cite|improve this question
Don't believe everything that professors tell you. How did he show that $m\bigcap m^n=\bigcap m^{n+1}$? – Robin Chapman Nov 4 '10 at 18:57
@Qiaochu: thanks – user3120 Nov 4 '10 at 19:11
@user3120: no problem. It's clear that m times the intersection of the m^n is contained in the intersection of the m^{n+1}, but there is no reason to expect the reverse inclusion in general. I don't know a counterexample off the top of my head, though. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 4 '10 at 19:18
Incidenally, the Artin--Rees Lemma is not particlarly heavy machinery: it is a direct application of the Hilbert Basis Theorem (although not always explained this way), which makes it a pretty basic and fundamental fact about Noetherian rings. – Matt E Nov 5 '10 at 4:03
$(x^2) \cap (x) = (x^2) \neq (x^3)$ which is the product of the ideals inside $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ – Sean Tilson Dec 5 '10 at 5:01

There is a proof due to Herstein that is "elementary" in the sense of avoiding the Artin-Rees lemma. Below is Kaplansky's presentation of this proof, from his "Commutative Rings". A proof using primary decomposition (as in Krull's original proof) can be found in Zariski and Samuel. alt text alt text

share|cite|improve this answer

See Theorem 3.6 in Chapter 6 of the CRing project for another elementary argument due to Perdry (American Math. Monthly, 2004) using only the Hilbert basis theorem. In fact, it shows more: if $R$ is a noetherian domain, $I \subset R$ a proper ideal, then the intersection of the powers of $I$ is trivial.

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear Akhil, Nice. Of course, my fondness for Artin--Rees forces me to point out that this is very close to just a reproof of that lemma in this particular case. Best wishes, – Matt E Jan 30 '11 at 11:59
@Matt: Dear Matt, I agree, given that -- as you observe -- the Artin-Rees lemma is essentially a statement about the noetherianness of a polynomial ring. – Akhil Mathew Jan 30 '11 at 14:10
Perdry's proof is also given in my commutative algebra notes: This is one of the most remarkable instances of a quick, easy proof of a nontrivial theorem that I know. – Pete L. Clark Jan 30 '11 at 20:12
@Akhil: the end of your proof of Artin-Rees is rather unorthodox: "This is easy to check, but we're out of time. We'll talk about this more next week." – Pete L. Clark Jan 30 '11 at 20:20
By the way, I encountered this CRing project about a week ago while googling for other online notes in commutative algebra to post to the webpage for my commutative algebra course. It's quite impressive. I certainly take it as serious competition to my notes. It might be worth chatting at some point to carve out complementary paths... – Pete L. Clark Jan 30 '11 at 20:21

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.