5
$\begingroup$

I'd like to show the following claim:

The radical of a primary ideal $\mathfrak q$, $r(\mathfrak q)$, is the smallest prime ideal containing $\mathfrak q$.

Can you tell me if my proof is correct:

I'll use the following two facts:

(i) There is a bijection between ideals $J$ of $R$ containing $I$ and ideals $\overline{J}$ of $R/I$.

(ii) The radical of an ideal $r(I)$ equals the nilradical $n(R/I)$. (To see this, let $x \in r(I)$. Then $x^n \in I$ and hence $\overline{x}^n = 0$ in $R/I$. On the other hand, let $\overline{x}^n = 0$ then $x^n \in I$ and hence $x \in r(I)$.)

Now for the claim: By (ii), we have $r(\mathfrak q) = n(R/\mathfrak q)$. We know that $n(R/\mathfrak q) = \bigcap_{I \in R/\mathfrak q; I \text{ prime}} I$. Going back to $R$ and using (i) we hence see that $r(\mathfrak q) = \bigcap_{I \subset R; \mathfrak q \subset I } I$. At first I thought that I could write "$\mathfrak q \subset I; I \text{ prime}$" here but I think that might be wrong. (Do you know an example where that's wrong?)

Now we have established that $r(\mathfrak q)$ is the smallest ideal containing $\mathfrak q$ so to finish the proof we want to show that $r(\mathfrak q)$ is prime:

Let $xy \in r(\mathfrak q)$. Then $x^n y^n \in \mathfrak q$ for some $n$. Since $\mathfrak q$ is primary we hence know that for some $m$ we have $x^m$ or $y^m$ in $ \mathfrak q$. Hence $x \in r(\mathfrak q)$ or $y \in r(\mathfrak q)$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ $r(\mathfrak q)$ is not "the smallest ideal containing $\mathfrak q$", but it is the smallest semiprime ideal containing $\mathfrak q$. $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jun 16 '12 at 20:41
3
$\begingroup$

The last paragraph is great: you've shown that $r(\mathfrak q)$ is a prime ideal. The other part is actually easier, for if $\mathfrak p$ is a prime ideal then one shows by induction that if $a \in A$ and $n \geq 1$ are such that $a^n \in \mathfrak p$ then $a \in \mathfrak p$. Hence if $\mathfrak q \subset \mathfrak p$ then $r(\mathfrak q) \subset \mathfrak p$.

Regarding the earlier stuff: it might be safer to write something like $r(I)/I = n(R/I)$. The correspondence between ideals containing $I$ and ideals of $R/I$ preserves the property of being prime, and taking pre-images commutes with intersections, so you should indeed write $r(\mathfrak q) = \bigcap_{I \text{ prime }\supset\ \mathfrak q} I$; but I suspect you already knew this identity. Note that intersecting over all ideals containing $\mathfrak q$ would just give you $\mathfrak q$!

$\endgroup$

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.