Let $A$ be a ring, $x$ a nonzero element of $A$ and consider the annihilator of $x$, i.e $Ann(x)$.

Now let $S$ denote the collection of all prime ideals of $A$ containing $Ann(x)$. It can be shown using Zorn's lemma that $S$ contains minimal elements (with respect the inclusion $\subseteq$).

My question is about the following argument:

Let $P$ be a minimal prime ideal in the set of all prime ideals that contain $Ann(x)$ and suppose $z \in P$. My question is: why does it follows that $z \in \sqrt{Ann(x)}$ ?

We know that $\sqrt{Ann(x)}$ consists of all prime ideals of $A$ that contain $Ann(x)$.

So let $P$ be a minimal prime ideal in the set of all prime ideals that contain $Ann(x)$ and assume $z \in P$.

Now let $J$ be any prime ideal of $A$ that contains $Ann(x)$. We need to show that $z \in J$.

Since $P$ is minimal with respect the inclusion we can't have that $J$ is properly contained in $P$. Why does it follows then that $P$ must contain $J$ ?

Can you please explain?


Unless I'm doing something silly, I think the claim is incorrect.

Let $A=\mathbb{Z}/36\mathbb{Z}$, and let $x=6+36\mathbb{Z}$.

The annihilator of $x$ consists of all $m+36\mathbb{Z}$ such that $6m$ is divisible by $36$, equivalently, such that $m$ is divisible by $6$; that is, $\mathrm{Ann}(6+36\mathbb{Z}) = (x)$.

The prime ideals of $A$ are the images of the prime ideals of $\mathbb{Z}$ that contain $36$, namely $(2+36\mathbb{Z})$ and $(3+36\mathbb{Z})$; they are both minimal elements of the set of all prime ideals that contain $(x)$. Now take $z=2+36\mathbb{Z}$. Then $z$ is not in the radical of the annihilator: if $2^n+36\mathbb{Z} \in 6+36\mathbb{Z}$, then $9|2^n-6$ and $4|2^n-6$. The latter requires $n=1$, in which case the former cannot hold.

  • $\begingroup$ @Arturo Magidin: thank you, let me refer you to dangtuanhiep.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/… , page 31, 4.9. I don't understand that part of the solution. $\endgroup$ – user6495 May 26 '11 at 21:08
  • $\begingroup$ @user6495: As far as I can tell, the proposed solution is incorrect, confusing "minimal" with "minimum." $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin May 26 '11 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user6495: The moral is: don't trust Atiyah--MacDonald solution sets that you find on the web! This is not the only one out there with mistakes. (In fact, I don't know of one without at least some mistakes.) Regards, $\endgroup$ – Matt E May 27 '11 at 9:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Matt E In fact, I would say that there is a bigger moral: one should not even see Atiyah and Macdonald solution sets let alone trust them! However, this is just my opinion ... $\endgroup$ – Amitesh Datta Jun 1 '11 at 11:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Amitesh: Dear Amitesh, I agree, this is probably the best moral to draw! Regards, $\endgroup$ – Matt E Jun 1 '11 at 13:16

It doesn't follow and, in fact, your statement is not true. Consider the ring $R=\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$, which has minimal prime ideals $P=(2)$ and $Q=(3)$. Then $P,Q$ are both minimal primes containing ${\rm Ann}(1)=\{0\}$. However, none of $2,4\in P$ or $3\in Q$ are in $\sqrt{{\rm Ann}(1)}=\{0\}$.

  • $\begingroup$ I see that Arturo got there a couple of minutes before me with a similar (but slightly different) example. $\endgroup$ – George Lowther May 26 '11 at 21:08

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.