In the chapter on Artinian rings in "Introduction to Commutative Algebra" by Atiyah and MacDonald, we have:

Proposition 8.6. Let $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ be a local Noetherian ring. Then exactly one of the following holds:

  1. $\frak{m}^n\neq\frak{m}^{n+1}$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$;

  2. $\frak{m}$ is a nilpotent ideal, in which case, $A$ is Artinian.

Proposition 8.8. Let $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ be a local Artinian ring. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. $A$ is a principal ideal ring;

  2. $\frak{m}$ is principal;

  3. $\dim_K(\frak{m}/\frak{m}^2)\leq 1$ (where $K=A/\frak{m}$ is the residue field).

In the proof of 8.8, A&M quickly boil down to the case:

$$\dim_K(\mathfrak{m}/\mathfrak{m}^2)= 1 \Rightarrow A \text{ is a principal ideal ring.}$$

A&M begin by explaining that $\mathfrak{m}$ is nilpotent, which is because $\mathfrak{m}$ equals the Jacobson radical of $A$ (as $A$ is a local ring) and the Jacobson radical of an Artinian ring is nilpotent (as A&M prove earlier).

However, doesn't this also follow from 8.6 as Artinian rings are Noetherian (which A&M prove in Proposition 8.5)?


1 Answer 1


It follows as long as you know that an Artinian ring is Noetherian; I assume they're trying to avoid that fact here.

  • $\begingroup$ I suppose so, although, they proved this as proposition 8.5. Thank you for your response! :) $\endgroup$ Nov 25, 2014 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ I have now improved the question $\endgroup$ Nov 25, 2014 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I think I already answered this: yes, it does follow, as soon as you point out that of course case 1 of proposition 8.6 doesn't hold for $A$ artinian. $\endgroup$ Nov 25, 2014 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ I know, I was just embedding your answer in the question for anyone else who might read it :) $\endgroup$ Nov 25, 2014 at 19:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.