Let $R$ be a commutative local Noetherian ring and $\mathfrak{m}$ its maximal ideal.

Prove that, if $\mathfrak{m}$ is principal, then $\mathrm{dim}(R)\leq 1$ (the Krull dimension of the ring).

Thank you.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hint: Can you list all the ideals? Once you do that can you identify which ones are prime? $\endgroup$ – Matt Jun 3 '12 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ No, I'm sorry, but commutative algebra has always been my Achiles' heel. Could you be so kind and detail a bit more? Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Adrian Manea Jun 3 '12 at 17:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a prime ideal. Then it is contained in $\mathfrak{m}$. But $\mathfrak{m}$ is principal, so ... etc. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jun 3 '12 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ It follows that the generator of $\mathfrak{m}$ divides all of the generators of $\mathfrak{p}$ and then it follows that $\mathfrak{p}$ is either 0, or $\mathfrak{m}$, right? (We used that $R$ is Noetherian for $\mathfrak{p}$ to be f.g., I suppose, and local, for the uniqueness of $\mathfrak{m}$) $\endgroup$ – Adrian Manea Jun 3 '12 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ Try writing up your answer in the answer below, and we can comment to help improve it. You'll have more room! $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jun 3 '12 at 18:57

First, let me explicitly assume $R$ is a noetherian local domain with a principal maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$.

Proposition. The Krull dimension of $R$ is at most $1$.

Proof. Let $\mathfrak{m} = (t)$, and let $\mathfrak{p}$ be prime. We know $\mathfrak{p} \subseteq \mathfrak{m}$, so it is enough to show that either $\mathfrak{p} = \mathfrak{m}$ or $\mathfrak{p} = (0)$. Suppose $\mathfrak{p} \ne \mathfrak{m}$: then $t \notin \mathfrak{p}$. Let $a_0 \in \mathfrak{p}$. For each $a_n$, because $\mathfrak{p}$ is prime, there exists $a_{n+1}$ in $\mathfrak{p}$ such that $a_n = a_{n+1} t$. By the axiom of dependent choice, this yields an infinite ascending sequence of principal ideals: $$(a_0) \subseteq (a_1) \subseteq (a_2) \subseteq \cdots$$ Since $R$ is noetherian, for $n \gg 0$, we must have $(a_n) = (a_{n+1}) = (a_{n+2}) = \cdots$. Suppose, for a contradiction, that $a_0 \ne 0$. Then, $a_n \ne 0$ and $a_{n+1} \ne 0$, and there is $u \ne 0$ such that $a_{n+1} = a_n u$. But then $a_n = a_{n+1} t = a_n u t$, so cancelling $a_n$ (which we can do because $R$ is an integral domain), we get $1 = u t$, i.e. $t$ is a unit. But then $\mathfrak{m} = R$ – a contradiction. So $a_n = 0$. $\qquad \blacksquare$

Here's an elementary proof which shows why we can reduce to the case where $R$ is an integral domain.

Proposition. Any non-trivial ring $A$ has a minimal prime.

Proof. By Krull's theorem, $A$ has a maximal ideal, which is prime. Let $\Sigma$ be the set of all prime ideals of $A$, partially ordered by inclusion. The intersection of a decereasing chain of prime ideals is a prime ideal, so by Zorn's lemma, $\Sigma$ has a minimal element. $\qquad \blacksquare$

Thus, we can always assume that a maximal chain of prime ideals starts at a minimal prime and ends at a maximal ideal. But if $R$ is a noetherian local ring with principal maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ and $\mathfrak{p}$ is a minimal prime of $R$, then $R / \mathfrak{p}$ is a noetherian local domain with a principal maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$, and $\dim R = \sup_\mathfrak{p} \dim R / \mathfrak{p}$, as $\mathfrak{p}$ varies over the minimal primes.

Update. Georges Elencwajg pointed out in a comment that the first proof actually works without the assumption that $R$ is a domain, because $(1 - u t)$ is always invertible.


So, following Zhen Lin:

Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a prime ideal of $R$. Then it is contained in $\mathfrak{m}$, the maximal ideal.

But $\mathfrak{m}$ is principal, say $\mathfrak{m}=(m)$ and $\mathfrak{p}$ must be f.g., since $R$ is Noetherian, say $\mathfrak{p}=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$.

Now $\mathfrak{p} \subseteq \mathfrak{m}$ implies $m \mid p_i, \ \forall i=1,\dots,n$, so $\mathfrak{p}$ is either zero or $(m)=\mathfrak{m}$.

So the chain that gives the Krull dimension contains either nothing (if $\mathfrak{m}=0$) or $\mathfrak{m}$ only.

Hope I got it right...

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The idea is essentially correct, but you should expand the part where you deduce $\mathfrak{p} = (0)$ or $\mathfrak{p} = \mathfrak{m}$. For instance, suppose $p_1 = a_1 m$ and $m \notin \mathfrak{p}$. Then we must have $a_1 \in \mathfrak{p}$. But then $a_1 = a_2 m$, and so on. How do we conclude that $a_1 = a_2 = \cdots = 0$? $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jun 3 '12 at 19:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well... yes, it's part of the argument. But it's more subtle than that. You have containment, but you don't know that it's strict. So you only know that $(a_n) = (a_{n+1}) = (a_{n+2}) = \cdots$ for $n \gg 0$. Now suppose $a_n \ne 0$, $a_{n+1} \ne 0$. Why do we have a contradiction? $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jun 3 '12 at 19:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No, not quite. First, $(a_n) = (a_{n+1})$ implies there is a non-zero $u$ such that $u a_n = a_{n+1}$. But $a_n = a_{n+1} m$, so $a_n = a_n u m$. Now, since $(0)$ is prime, $R$ is an integral domain, so we can cancel $a_n$ to get $1 = u m$. But then $m$ is a unit – contradiction. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jun 3 '12 at 19:51
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Dear @Zhen, no, don't worry! We don't need that $R$ is a domain: we have $a_n=a_{n+1}m$ and $a_{n+1}=ua_{n}$ so that $a_n(1-um)=0$. But $(1-um)$ is invertible because $\mathfrak m=Rad(R)$ , the Jacobson radical of $R$. So $a_n=0$ and then $a_{n-1}=...=a_1=0$. From which $\mathfrak p=0$ follows, just as you said. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jun 3 '12 at 20:28
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Dear Adrian: sweet dreams! And let me tell you , in order to completely reassure you, that we still have the nuclear option: since $\mathfrak m$ is minimal over $m$, Krull's principal ideal theorem tells you that $height (\mathfrak m)=dim(R)\leq 1$ $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jun 3 '12 at 20:52

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.