1
$\begingroup$

I have edited my question according to your suggestions and comments.

Suppose now that we have a ring $R$ and a subring $S$ of $R,$ so we can define the Jacobson radicals, for example as the ideal consisting of those elements in $R$ (of $S$) that annihilate all simple right $R$-modules ($S$-modules). this radicals can be characterized in terms of maximal ideals in case that $R$ or $S$ are unital rings, and in this case $J(S)\subseteq S$.

So suppose that $R$ has unity and $S=I$ is an ideal. Then $J(I)$ Jacobson radical of $S$ is the intersection of all maximal ideals of $R$ containing $I.$ So $J(S)\supseteq S.$

This is what make me confused because with one definition $J(S)\subseteq S$ and with the other definition $J(S)\supseteq S.$ Recall also that the Jacobson radical is hereditary, that is, for any ideal $I$ of $R,$ one has that $J(I)=J(R)\cap I,$ so $J(I)\subseteq I.$

I will mantain the previous question:

Let $R$ be a ring and $I$ an ideal of $R.$ I have found that the $J(I)$ Jacobson radical of $I$ is the intersection of all maximal ideals of $R$ containing $I.$ In this case do we have $J(0)=J(R)$

This definition makes me confuse, why $J(I)$ is not the intersection of all maximal ideals of $I$ ?

Any reference will help.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For $I$ is in general a non-unitary ring and possibly has no maximal ideals? $\endgroup$ – user26857 Oct 23 '15 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean "maximal ideals of $I$?" Definitions are for usefulness, and it is not clear what you alternative would be useful or why you find the current definition not useful. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Oct 23 '15 at 15:03
2
$\begingroup$

I think you're blurring two notions of "radical": the radical of an ideal and the radical of a ring.

  1. A radical of an ideal $I$ is often defined by taking the intersection of special ideals containing $I$.

  2. The radical of a ring is often defined from a radical of an ideal by saying "The radical of $R$ is defined to be the radical of the zero ideal in $R$."

So: in your first paragraph you are looking at a radical of an ideal, and in your second statement, you are thinking of a radical of a $I$ considered as a ring.

Another illustration for commutative rings is $\sqrt{I}:=\cap\{P\mid P\text{ prime and } I\subseteq P\}$. This is called the radical of $I$, and the radical of the ring $R$ is $\sqrt{0}$, the radical (nilradical, more commonly) of the ring.

You can do something analogous with modules and submodules.

Generally speaking, though, the notation $J(-)$ is not standardly employed for radicals of ideals, but it is usually used radicals of rings/modules. If you use $J(-)$ to denote a radical of an ideal with the definition you used, then $J(R)=R$ in every case, because the set of maximal ideals containing $R$ is empty, and the empty intersection of ideals is usually interpreted as the whole ring. More standardly, $J(R)$ denotes the intersection of maximal ideals containing $\{0\}$, and this can be equal to all of $R$ in rings without identity. It's not $R$ if $R$ has identity, though.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

To expand on the comments so far, your definition does not guarantee the existence of $J(I)$. For example, take $R=k[x_1,x_2,\ldots]$ to be a polynomial ring in infinitely many variables. Then, $I=(x_1,x_2,\ldots)$ has no maximal ideals.

The reason $J(I)$ is defined the way that it is is because it is the preimage of $J(R/I)$ under the correspondence theorem, making it very natural.

$\endgroup$

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.