1
$\begingroup$

All rings considered are unital and commutative.

Intro Direct products of domains are reduced rings. The opposite is not true but I must admit I have troubles finding counter-examples. It holds that reduced rings are subdirect products of domains. But this is not that useful as many interesting ring-theoretic properties are not closed under subalgebras (e.g. being Artinian).

Question What are some general, ring-theoretic properties that characterize when a reduced ring is a finite direct product of domains? Are there at least some special cases (rings of small dimension, with zero socle, zero radical...) for which this has some nice characterization?

I do not need this for a specific purpose, and I am not sure whether this has some good, clear answer. It is just a question that is intrinsically interesting to me.

I am not sure how to start. An obvious necessary condition is that socle of the ring is zero (because domains that are not fields have zero socle). But I can't prove that this is sufficient, neither can I find a counterexample.

EDIT: Thanks Eric for pointing out that direct sum of fields is counterexample. As a field is (the only) example of domain that has non-zero socle.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's not necessary for the socle to be $0$; consider a product of fields. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Feb 28 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I forget about this when typing the question. However, this is kind of pathological counterexample. As field is the only case when domain has non-zero socle. $\endgroup$ – dmk Feb 28 at 22:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's also not sufficient for the socle to be $0$; for instance consider $k[x,y]/(xy)$. Really, I think the sort of conditions you're thinking about (which seem to come from a noncommutative algebra perspective) are not relevant here; this is something you want to think about from the perspective of algebraic geometry (as in my answer). $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Feb 28 at 22:48
3
$\begingroup$

A ring $R$ is a finite product of domains iff $R$ has finitely many minimal primes and for each maximal ideal $m\subset R$, the localization $R_m$ is a domain. It is easy to see these properties are necessary (if $R\cong\prod R_i$ where each $R_i$ is a domain, the minimal primes are the kernels of the projections and every localization at a maximal ideal coincides with a localization of some $R_i$).

Conversely, suppose $R$ has finitely many minimal primes and its localization at each maximal ideal is a domain. Suppose $p,q\subset R$ are two distinct minimal primes and suppose $p+q$ is a proper ideal. Then we can extend $p+q$ to a maximal ideal $m$. Since $p$ and $q$ are both contained in $m$, they give two distinct minimal prime ideals in the localization $R_m$. But this is a contradiction, since $R_m$ is a domain.

Thus the minimal primes of $R$ are pairwise comaximal. By the Chinese remainder theorem, this gives an isomorphism $R/\sqrt{0}\to \prod R/p_i$ where $p_i$ ranges over the minimal primes of $R$. But the nilradical $\sqrt{0}$ is trivial, since $R$ is locally a domain and thus reduced.

(This is a basic and well-known result in scheme theory, though it is typically stated with "Noetherian" as a hypothesis rather than "finitely many minimal primes". In geometric terms, if $\operatorname{Spec} R$ has finitely many irreducible components, then as long as those irreducible components are disjoint, $\operatorname{Spec} R$ will be the coproduct of the irreducible components, and so this gives a finite direct product decomposition of $R$. But if two irreducible components intersect, then $R$ will not be locally integral at any point in the intersection.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Why the downvote? Did I say something wrong? $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Feb 28 at 22:56

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.