2
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unity different from $0$, and $I$ be a decomposable ideal of $R$, i.e. $$I=\mathfrak{q}_1\cap \mathfrak{q}_2 \cap \cdots \cap \mathfrak{q}_r $$ where (1) $\mathfrak{q}_i$ are primary ideals; (2) $rad(\mathfrak{q}_i)$ are all distinct; (3) No $\mathfrak{q}_i$ contains intersection of other $\mathfrak{q}_j$'s.

In this situation, it is well-known that

(1) $\mathfrak{p}_i$ are uniquely determined (independent of whether $R$ is noetherian or not).

(2) $\mathfrak{p}_i$ are precisely the prime ideals appearing in the set $\{ rad(I:x) \,\, | \,\, x\in R\}$.

If $R$ is noetherian, we can say more (see Prop.2.10(iii), page 21 for proof):

(2') $\mathfrak{p}_i$ are precisely the prime ideals appearing in the set $\{ (I:x) \,\, | \,\, x\in R\}$.

Q. Can't we conclude (2') if $R$ is not Noetherian?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I wonder about the example of a polynomial ring in countably many variables $x_i$ over a field $k$ and the ideal $(x_1, x_2^2,x_3^3,...)$. Certainly its radical is $(x_1, x_2, ...)$ but I don't think that ideal will appear as any colon ideal. $\endgroup$ – John Brevik Mar 18 '18 at 13:30
2
$\begingroup$

Nice question!

I'm following the suggestion made by John Brevik in a comment.

The answer is No.

Here is a ring $R$ which does not satisfy (2'):

Let $K$ be a field, let $X_1,X_2,\dots$ be indeterminates, and set $$ R:=K[X_1,X_2,X_3,\dots]/(X_1,X_2^2,X_3^3,\dots). $$
Let $x_i$ be the image of $X_i$ in $R$. Clearly $\mathfrak m:=(x_1,x_2,\dots)$ is a maximal ideal of $R$, and is its nilradical. In particular the zero ideal of $R$ is $\mathfrak m$-primary, and it suffices to show that $\mathfrak m$ is not the annihilator of $r$ for any $r$ in $R$.

Let $B$ be the set of those monomials in $x_1,x_2,\dots$ which are of degree less than $i$ in $x_i$ for all $i$. I leave it to the reader to check that $B$ is a $K$-basis of $R$.

Let $r$ be a nonzero element of $R$. It suffices to show that we have $rx_i\ne0$ for some $i$.

If $i\ge2$ is such that $x_i$ does not occur in $r$ when $r$ is written as a $K$-linear combination of elements of $B$, then we have $rx_i\ne0$ as desired.

$\endgroup$

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.