3
$\begingroup$

I am trying to prove that the product of $n$ pairwise coprime ideals is their intersection. I can easily do the proof for $n=2$, and I see how to generalize the argument but there are details I don't know how to handle. Here's my attempt:

Let $R$ be a commutative ring, $I_1,\dots,I_n$ be a collection of ideals such that $I_i+I_j=R$ for all $i\neq j$. Then $\cap_i I_i\subseteq\prod_i I_i$.

For all $i\neq j$ I can find elements $a_{ij}\in I_i$, $a_{ji}\in I_j$ such that $a_{ij}+a_{ji}=1$. Thus if $x\in \cap_i I_i$, it can be written as \begin{equation} x=\prod_{i\neq j} (a_{ij}+a_{ji}) x. \end{equation} My problem is: how to write the above product as a sum of products of elements of each ideal. I can see it works, but the product gets super-messy already with $n=3$, so I don't see how to write it in close form.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

We have $x = x \prod_{i \neq j} (a_{ij} + a_{ji})$. The product has a bunch of terms, namely $2^{\binom{n}{2}}$ terms, which are products of $a$'s. It's a little hard for me to imagine any reasonable way to write all of those terms in a closed form. No doubt someone else will have an idea. For each $i \neq j$ you have to decide whether to multiply by $a_{ij}$ or $a_{ji}$... hmm.

This is a little different from your question of how to write them in closed form, but I think it's pretty easy to see that each of those $2^{\binom{n}{2}}$ terms does lie in the product of the ideals. If this is obvious to you, never mind, but in case it is helpful for you or someone else, here is a sketch.

We consider one of the terms arising on the right hand side. It is a product of $x$ times either $a_{ij}$ or $a_{ji}$ for each $i \neq j$. Write this as $xA$ where $A$ is the product of the $a$'s. For each $i \neq j$, $A$ has a factor in $I_i$ or $I_j$ (or both). So the factors of $A$ are in all but at most one of the ideals; and if there is an ideal missing, the factor of $x$ lies in that ideal.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Try induction. Suppose that $\mathfrak{b}=\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}I_i=\cap_{i=1}^{n-1}I_i$.

Then, since $I_i+I_n=(1)$ for all $i \leq n-1$ by assumption, we have that$x_i+y_i=1$ for some $x_i,y_i$ in $I_i$ and $I_n$ respectively.

But then $\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i=\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(1-y_i) \equiv 1 (\mod I_n)$

But then $I_n+\mathfrak{b}=(1)$, from which you can apply the same argument for the $n=2$ case, since $I_n$ is coprime to the whole product.


Sorry I couldn't help with the closed form. As an aside, this argument is from Proposition 1.10 in Atiyah-Macdonald, which I just went back and found.

$\endgroup$

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.