In Dummit & Foote, the definition of primary ideal says:

A proper ideal of a commutative ring is called primary if whenever $ab \in Q$ and $a \notin Q$, then $b \in {\rm rad}(Q)$.

Suppose $I$ is an ideal such that ${\rm rad}(I)$ is prime.

Suppose $ab \in I$. Then $ab \in {\rm rad}(I)$, hence $a \in {\rm rad}(I)$ or $b \in {\rm rad}(I)$.

Case 1: $a \notin I$, $a \notin {\rm rad}(I)$. Then $b \in {\rm rad}(I)$. So, $I$ is primary by definition.

Case 2: $a \notin I$, but $a, b \in {\rm rad}(I)$. Then $I$ is primary by definition.

Case 3: $a \notin I$, $b \notin {\rm rad}(I)$. Then, $a \in {\rm rad}(I)$. In this case, since $b \notin {\rm rad}(I)$, then $b \notin I$. Then we have $b \notin I$ but $a \in {\rm rad}(I)$. So, $I$ is primary.

What is wrong with this argument?

  • $\begingroup$ In case 1, you say "$I$ is primary by definition". You can't conclude that until you have considered all cases. $\endgroup$ – Angina Seng Jun 16 '20 at 1:28
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see any contradiction in "case 3". $\endgroup$ – Angina Seng Jun 16 '20 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ Note: you should clean up this proof by assuming at the beginning that $ab \in I$ and $a \notin I$. Then you don't have to repeat this assumption in each case. $\endgroup$ – diracdeltafunk Jun 16 '20 at 1:34
  • $\begingroup$ @AnginaSeng is right that you shouldn't say "$I$ is primary" before you've proved this, but the fix is easy! Just say "we have the desired conclusion" (or something like that) instead. $\endgroup$ – diracdeltafunk Jun 16 '20 at 1:35
  • $\begingroup$ Related. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jun 16 '20 at 2:06

Indeed Case 3 is incorrect. The issue is that you ended up with the wrong conclusion! You showed $b \notin I$ and $a \in \text{rad}(I)$, but you needed to conclude that $a \notin I $ and $b \in \text{rad}(I)$! In other words, in total you proved the following:

If $ab \in I$ and $a \notin I$, then either $b \in \text{rad}(I)$ or ($b \notin I$ and $a \in \text{rad}(I)$)

But this is not the definition of a primary ideal!

  • $\begingroup$ Ah yes, I thought they were enumerating cases by possibilities for $a$, but they were enumerating cases by possibilities by $b$. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jun 16 '20 at 2:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The problem is, as it always seems to be, rooted in this misconception about primary ideals. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jun 16 '20 at 2:03
  • $\begingroup$ @diracdeltafunk But to show primary, don't we have to show that whenever $ab \in I$, and one of $a$ or $b$ is not in $I$, then the element not in $I$ is in ${\rm rad}(I)$? $\endgroup$ – user46372819 Jun 16 '20 at 15:11
  • $\begingroup$ Well, yes, but that is not what you proved. Do you agree that you proved the statement I wrote in my answer? That statement is not equivalent to the one you wanted to show. To clarify: once you assume $a \notin I$, you must prove $b \in \text{rad}(I)$. It not enough to assume $a \notin I$ and deduce $a \in \text{rad}(I)$, even if you also deduced $b \notin I$ at the same time. $\endgroup$ – diracdeltafunk Jun 16 '20 at 20:36

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.