In ZFC, it is known that the ring of continuous functions $C([0,1], \mathbb{R})$ have prime ideals which is not maximal. But all proofs of this which I saw uses the axiom of choice.

Then, in ZF, does the same statement hold?

If ZF cannot prove this, how strong is $\mathrm{ZF}+(\text{$C([0,1], \mathbb{R})$ has prime ideals which is not maximal})$ as an intermediate between ZF and ZFC?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Can you give an example of a prime ideal which is not maximal in $C([0,1], \mathbb R)$ just for the sake of completeness? :) $\endgroup$ Jan 2, 2021 at 0:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Patrick Da Silva Let $S$ be the set of all non-zero polynomials on $[0,1]$. It is multiplicatively closed. Using Zorn's lemma we can show there is an ideal $P$ which doesn't intersect $S$ and is maximal with that property. Such an ideal $P$ must be prime, this is a very standard argument in commutative algebra. (we use the fact that $S$ is multiplicative). However, it can't be maximal. It is well known that all maximal ideals in that ring have the form $N_{x_0}=\{f: f(x_0)=0\}$ for some $x_0\in [0,1]$. However, $P$ can't have that form, since then it would contain the polynomial $x-x_0\in S$. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Jan 2, 2021 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark : Very clear, thanks! $\endgroup$ Jan 2, 2021 at 1:41

2 Answers 2


No, the existence of such a nonmaximal prime ideal cannot be proved in ZF. In fact, the existence of such a nonmaximal prime ideal is equivalent to the existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$.

First, suppose $F$ is a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$. Let $I$ be the set of continuous $f:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$ such that $\{n\in\mathbb{N}:f(1/n)=0\}\in F$. It is then easy to see that $I$ is an ideal in $C([0,1],\mathbb{R})$, and it is prime since $F$ is an ultrafilter. However, it is not maximal since it is strictly contained in the ideal of functions that vanish at $0$.

Conversely, suppose no nonprincipal ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$ exists and $I\subset C([0,1],\mathbb{R})$ is a prime ideal; we will prove $I$ is maximal. For each $a\in[0,1]$ and each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $f_{n,a}:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$ be the function that is $0$ on $[a-1/n,a+1/n]$, $1$ off of $[a-2/n,a+2/n]$, and interpolates linearly in between. I claim that there exists some $a\in[0,1]$ such that $f_{n,a}\in I$ for all $n$. To prove this, suppose no such $a$ exists; for each $a$, let $n_a$ be minimal such that $f_{n_a,a}\not\in I$. By compactness, finitely many of the intervals $(a-1/n_a,a+1/n_a)$ cover $I$. But then the product of the corresponding $f_{n_a,a}$s is $0$, contradicting primeness of $I$ since each $f_{n_a,a}$ is not in $I$.

So, we have a point $a\in[0,1]$ such that $f_{n,a}\in I$ for all $n$. It follows that every function that vanishes in a neighborhood of $a$ is in $I$, since every such function is divisible by some $f_{n,a}$. I now claim that in fact $I$ contains every function that vanishes at $a$, and thus is maximal. To prove this, suppose that $f\in C([0,1],\mathbb{R})$ is a function which vanishes at $a$. To show that $f\in I$, it suffices to show that $f^2\in I$ since $I$ is prime. Replacing $f$ by $f^2$, we may assume $f\geq 0$ and we wish to show $f\in I$.

Fix an increasing sequence $(a_n)$ converging to $a$ with $a_0=0$. Let $F$ be the set of all $A\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ such that there exists $g\in I$ such that $g\geq 0$ everywhere and $g\geq f$ on $[a_{2n},a_{2n+1}]$ for all $n\not\in A$. It is easy to see that $F$ is a filter on $\mathbb{N}$, and it contains all cofinite sets since $I$ contains all functions that vanish in a neighborhood of $a$. Note also that if $A\subseteq\mathbb{N}$, then we can construct a function $g$ which is $f$ on $[a_{2n},a_{2n+1}]$ for all $n\not\in A$ and $0$ outside of small neighborhoods of these intervals, and similarly we can construct a function $h$ with the same property with respect to $\mathbb{N}\setminus A$. Then $gh=0$ so either $g\in I$ or $h\in I$, so either $A\in F$ or $\mathbb{N}\setminus A\in F$.

Since by hypothesis, $F$ cannot be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$, the only remaining possibility is that $F$ is the improper filter, i.e. $\emptyset\in F$. So there is a nonnegative function $g_1\in I$ such that $g_1\geq f$ on $[a_{2n},a_{2n+1}]$ for all $n$. Similarly, there is a nonnegative function $g_2\in I$ such that $g_2\geq f$ on $[a_{2n-1},a_{2n}]$ for each $n$. Adding up $g_1$ and $g_2$, we get a nonnegative element of $I$ which is bounded below by $f$ on all of $[0,a]$. We can similarly get a nonnegative element of $I$ that is bounded below by $f$ on all of $[a,1]$. Adding these functions together, we get a function $g\in I$ such that $g\geq f$ on all of $[0,1]$. Now note that $f^2/g$ extends continuously to all the points where $g$ vanishes, since $f$ also vanishes at those points and $f^2/g$ is bounded above by $f$ outside them. Thus $f^2$ is a multiple of $g$ and hence is in $I$. Since $I$ is prime, this means $f\in I$, as desired.

  • $\begingroup$ At the first time in the part "Then $gh=0$", I could not understand $\{x : f(x) = 0\}$ and $\{x : g(x) = 0\}$ cover entire $[0, 1]$. But I drawed a picture and I understood it. Thank you. $\endgroup$ Jan 2, 2021 at 11:49
  • $\begingroup$ And I could not understand that $f^2/g$ extends continuously, but after a time I noticed that one can just put $h(x) = f^2(x)/g(x)$ if $g(x) \ne 0$, otherwise $h(x) = 0$. $\endgroup$ Jan 2, 2021 at 11:56

I haven't found a construction in ZF, but I found this paper which explores the spectrum of $C(X, \mathbb R)$ for $X$ an arbitrary topological space. It gets a bit heavy when the interaction with the Stone-Cech compactification shows up and partially ordered groups/rings appear, and I couldn't find a constructive approach to finding a prime ideal in $C(X,\mathbb R)$ either. But the relationship between $$ \mathfrak m_x = \{ f \in C(X,\mathbb R) \, | \, f(x) = 0 \} $$ and $$ \mathfrak n_x = \{ f \in C(X,\mathbb R) \, | \, \exists V \text{ neighborhood of } x \, \mathrm{s.t.} f|_V = 0 \} $$ seems to be extensively studied.

I'm curious to see if one could simplify the paper for the case of $C([0,1],\mathbb R)$ (so that the need for the Stone-Cech compactification goes away, simplifying many results) and shed some light on this question that has been triggering me (and probably a lot of other people) for many years. Let me know if you bump into anything interesting.

Hope that helps,


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .