1
$\begingroup$

By definition we have

A primary decomposition of an ideal $\mathfrak{a}$ is a decomposition $\mathfrak{p}=\cap_{i=1}^r\mathfrak{q}_i$ into primary ideal $\mathfrak{q}_i$. The decomposition is called minimal if the corresponding prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}_i=rad(\mathfrak{q}_i)$ are pairwise different and $\cap_{i\neq j}\mathfrak{q}_i\not\subset \mathfrak{q}_j$ for alle $j=1,...,r$.

I'm having trouble understanding why the following lemma implies that any primary decomposition of ideal can be reduced to a minimal one?

Let $\mathfrak{q}_1,...,\mathfrak{q}_r$ be $\mathfrak{p}$-primary ideals for some prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$. Then the intersection $\mathfrak{q}=\cap_{i=1}^r\mathfrak{q}_i$ is $\mathfrak{p}$-primary.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Because it allows you to replace the family of $q_i$'s having a common radical $p$ with the intersection of the family. This guarantees the primes are pairwise different.

The other part of minimality is just common sense: if $\cap_{i\neq j}q_i\subset q_j$, then you can just omit $q_j$ from the factorization altogether. You don't need the lemma above to do this portion.

$\endgroup$

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.