1
$\begingroup$

Show if $\mathfrak p$ is a minimal prime ideal of $R$ then $\mathfrak pR_\mathfrak p$ is the only prime ideal of $R_\mathfrak p$.

Here are what I know and don't need to prove: I know $\mathfrak pR_\mathfrak p$ is the maximal ideal of $R_\mathfrak p$. I know $R_\mathfrak p$ is a local ring and so $R_\mathfrak p$ is the unique maximal ideal. And I know the set of maximal ideals is the set of non-units. Also, I know for $\mathfrak p$ is a prime ideal of $R$, $\mathfrak pR_\mathfrak p$ also is a prime ideal of $R_\mathfrak p$. How can I connect these ideas? Thank you.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You can read about primes in rings after localisation in any textbook about commutative algebra. The assertion is tautological with that basic knowledge. $\endgroup$ – MooS Feb 16 '15 at 8:59
4
$\begingroup$

The prime ideals in a ring of fractions $S^{-1}R$ correspond bijectively to the prime ideals $\mathfrak q$ of $R$ such that $\mathfrak q\cap S=\varnothing$. In the present case, this means $\mathfrak q \subset \mathfrak p$. By the minimality of $\mathfrak p$, this implies $\mathfrak q=\mathfrak p$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ thank you for answering, but isn't $q$ is a sub-ring of $R$, how come $q∩R=∅$? $\endgroup$ – user138017 Feb 16 '15 at 9:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, a proper ideal isn't a subring: a subring (in commutative algebra) must contain $1$. $\endgroup$ – Bernard Feb 16 '15 at 9:45
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for the late comment, but the OP is right to question $\mathfrak{q} \cap R = \varnothing$ (which is nonsensical since $\mathfrak{q} \subseteq R$): it should be $\mathfrak{q} \cap S = \varnothing$. $\endgroup$ – Viktor Vaughn Dec 29 '16 at 5:10

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.