2
$\begingroup$

I want to prove the following:

Let $(A, \mathfrak{m})$ be an Artinian local ring. Prove that the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ is nilpotent.

I think I managed to prove it in the following way:

Consider the descending chain of ideals $$\mathfrak{m} \supset \mathfrak{m}^2 \supset \dots \supset \mathfrak{m^n} \supset \dots$$ Since $(A, \mathfrak{m})$ is Artinian, the descending chain stabilizes, so $\mathfrak{m}^k = \mathfrak{m}^{k+1} = \dots$ for som $k$. Now I want to show that $\mathfrak{m}^k = 0$ for which I use Nakayama's Lemma. Since $\mathfrak{m}^k = \mathfrak{m}^{k+1} = \mathfrak{m}\mathfrak{m}^{k}$, it follows that $\mathfrak{m}^k = 0$.

If this is fine, I'm not completely satisfied with this proof, since I think I implicitly used the fact that an Artinian ring is Noetherian in order to use Nakayama's Lemma (I need my $A$-module to be finitely generated, don't I?). So I thought I'd use the hint provided by Reid (Exercise 3.9). It says that I should suppose that $\mathfrak{m}^k \neq 0$ and consider the ideal $I$ where $I$ is the minimal ideal such that $I\mathfrak{m}^k \neq 0$. Then, show that $I = (x)$ is principal and apply Nakayama's Lemma to it.

I haven't showed yet that $I$ is principal, but I can't see why this gets us in the finitely generated $A$-module hypothesis to apply Nakayama's Lemma, so I'd like some help about that, because it seems I'm missing something but I don't know what. Thank you in advance for your help!

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

You are right. One cannot use Nakayama's lemma until you know that $A$ is Noetherian, since otherwise you don't know that $\mathfrak m^k$ is finitely generated. Of course this result is a step in the proof that Artinian rings are Noetherian.

The usual dodge is to consider a minimal ideal with $I\mathfrak m^k\ne0$. Obviously then there is some $x\in I$ with $x\mathfrak m^k\ne0$. So $(x)$ is an ideal and $(x)\mathfrak m^k\ne0$ and $(x)\subseteq I$. Therefore, by minimality $I=(x)$. Now also $(x)\mathfrak m^k$ is an ideal, $((x)\mathfrak m^k)\mathfrak m^k= (x)\mathfrak m^{2k}=(x)\mathfrak m^k\ne0$. Again by minimality $I=(x)\mathfrak m^k$. Now $(x)=(x)\mathfrak m^k$. Therefore $(x)=(x)\mathfrak m$ and we can apply Nakayama, as $(x)$ is finitely generated, so see that $(x)$ is killed by an element outside $\mathfrak m$ and so a unit.

$\endgroup$

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.