5
$\begingroup$

In commutative rings text books it is usually asked to prove that as long as

$(R,m)$ is a Noetherian local ring, the following are equivalent:
(i) $m^n=m^{n+1}$ for some integer $n$;
(ii) $m^n=0$ for some $n$;
(iii) the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$.

By Nakayama lemma I found that (i) yields (ii), the reverse direction being evident. But, their relevance to (iii) is unclear to me. By the way, is the Noetherianness a necessary condition? Thanks for any help.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Patrick's answer shows that Noetherianness is sufficient, and I hope to show it's necessary by providing some counterexamples.

Clearly (ii) always implies (i) and (iii) even without the Noetherian condition.

Example 1: Local, Krull dimension $0$, but $m^k\neq \{0\}$ for all $k$.

Take a field $F$ and the polynomial ring $F[x_2,x_3,x_4\ldots]$ in countably many variables, and take the quotient by the ideal $(x_2^2,x_3^3,x_4^4,\ldots)$. As you can see $m=(x_2,x_3,x_4,\ldots)$ is not finitely generated and nil, and it contains elements of arbitrarily high nilpotency index, so it is not nilpotent.

Example 2: Local and $\{0\}\neq m=m^2$ .

In the same picture as above, throw in more generators to the ideal you are quotienting by to include things of the form $x_i -x_{i+1}x_{i+2}$. When this is done, $m=\{x_2,x_3,x_4,\ldots\}$ is now idempotent in addition to being the unique maximal ideal.


(Yeah, I see that example two actually does both things, but the thing is that I came up with the first one and then tinkered a long time before settling on the second one :) )

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ An alternative example 2: take $k[x, x^{1/2}, x^{1/4}, \ldots]/(x) \cong k[x_1, x_2, \ldots]/(x_1, x_{i+1}^2 - x_i \mid i \ge 1)$ $\endgroup$ – zcn May 26 '14 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ @zcn thank you: that's a good one too! $\endgroup$ – rschwieb May 26 '14 at 21:35
  • $\begingroup$ @zcn that's a considerable simplification of both examples actually. Good example to have in ones pocket. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb May 26 '14 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ I agree - I've used it at least once before on this site. I'd link to it, if I could but search better... $\endgroup$ – zcn May 26 '14 at 21:51
2
$\begingroup$

(ii) $\Rightarrow$ (iii)

Suppose $\mathfrak p \subsetneq \mathfrak m$. Then $\mathfrak p^n \subsetneq \mathfrak m^n$, for if we had equality, $\mathfrak m^n \subseteq \mathfrak p$, and since $\mathfrak p$ is prime, we would have $\mathfrak m \subseteq \mathfrak p \subseteq \mathfrak m$. But by (ii) $\mathfrak m^n = 0$, so $R$ must have Krull dimension $0$.

(iii) $\Rightarrow$ (i)

Since $A$ is Noetherian (this is where we use it) and every prime ideal is maximal, $A$ is Artinian. This means the descending chain $$ \mathfrak m \supseteq \mathfrak m^2 \supseteq \cdots \supseteq \mathfrak m^n \supseteq \cdots $$ must be stationary.

(If you need more details as to why $A$ is Artinian, I can send you my commutative algebra notes which contains all the details in a very concise manner.)

Hope that helps,

$\endgroup$

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.