1
$\begingroup$

Theorem 1. If ring $B$ is an integral extension of ring $A$ and $P$ is prime ideal of $B$, then $P$ is maximal ideal of $B$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $A \cap P$ is maximal ideal of $A$.

Theorem 2. If an integral domain $B$ is integral extension of ring $A$, then for every prime ideal $p$ of $A$ there exists prime ideal $P$ of $B$, such that $p = A\cap P$.

These theorems I know to be correct. But I don't see how they implicate, that every prime ideal of $\mathcal {O_K}$ is maximal. I know that in $\mathbb Z$ every prime ideal is maximal. $\mathcal {O_K}$ is integral extension of $\mathbb Z$. So for every prime (maximal) ideal $p$ in $\mathbb Z$ there exists prime ideal $P$ of $\mathcal {O_K}$, such that $p$ = $\mathbb Z \cap P$. Now prime ideal $P$ is maximal when $\mathbb Z \cap P$ is maximal (prime) in $\mathbb Z$. As I understand that means that for every prime ideal $P$ of $\mathcal {O_K}$, $\mathbb Z \cap P$ is prime in $\mathbb Z$. Is my logic correct? And if, why last claim holds?

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

If $P$ is a non-zero prime ideal of $\mathcal O_K$, then $P\cap\mathbb Z$ is a non-zero prime ideal of $\mathbb Z$ (why?). Then $P\cap\mathbb Z=p\mathbb Z$ for some prime $p\in\mathbb Z$. But $p\mathbb Z$ is maximal in $\mathbb Z$, so the conclusion.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $P$ is non-zero prime ideal of $\mathcal {O_K}$ which means that if we multiply any element of this ideal by any element from $\mathcal {O_K}$ we will still have an element from $P$. $\mathbb Z \cap P$ is a subset of $P$ which contains only these elements of $P$, which are from $\mathbb Z$. If we multiply any element of this set by any integer then we will in result get an integer from $P$, so it will be in $\mathbb Z \cap P$. So $\mathbb Z \cap P$ is a non-zero prime ideal of $\mathbb Z$. $\endgroup$ – Jakub Majewski Dec 9 '15 at 21:10
  • $\begingroup$ @JakubMajewski I don't think your observations are enough for a proof of "$P\cap\mathbb Z$ is a non-zero prime ideal of $\mathbb Z$" provided $P\ne0$. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Dec 9 '15 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ So we know that $\mathbb Z \cap P$ is a non-zero ideal of $\,\mathbb Z$. To be prime it should satisfy: $(\mathbb Z \cap P) \neq \mathbb Z$ and $a,b\notin (\mathbb Z\cap P) \Rightarrow ab \notin (\mathbb Z\cap P)$, for $a,b \in \mathbb Z$. As $P \neq \mathcal O_K$, $P$ does not contain $1$, so $(\mathbb Z \cap P) \neq \mathbb Z$. $P$ is a non-zero prime ideal of $\mathcal O_K$, so $a,b\notin P \Rightarrow ab \notin P$, especially for $a,b \in \mathbb Z$, so the same is for $\mathbb Z\cap P$. $\endgroup$ – Jakub Majewski Dec 9 '15 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ @JakubMajewski The main point here is to show that $P\cap\mathbb Z$ is non-zero. The rest is more or less obvious. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Dec 9 '15 at 23:02
  • $\begingroup$ Because $P$ is non-zero prime ideal of $\mathcal O_K$, which is integral extension of $\mathbb Z$, there is an element $0\neq b\in P$, for which there exists minimal polynomial $f\in \mathbb Z[x]$, such that $f(b)=0$. So $f(b)=b^n+a_{1}b^{n-1}+\ldots +a_{n}=0$. Now by noticing that $a_{n}\neq 0$ (otherwise we could divide this polynomial by $0\neq b$ and we would have satysfing polynomial of lower degree than minimal, which is contradiction) we can subtract $b^n+\ldots +a_{n-1}b$ from both sides, and it becomes clear, that $a_{n}$ belongs also to $P$, so $\,0\neq a_{n}\in \mathbb Z\cap P$. $\endgroup$ – Jakub Majewski Dec 9 '15 at 23:53

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.