Let $A$ be a commutative ring, and $A[x]$ be the ring of polynomials in an indeterminate x, with coefficients in A.
I found several proofs online that in this case the Jacobson radical equals to the nilradical, and to prove the non-trivial direction (Jacobson radical included in the nilradical), they all used the fact that if $f=a_0+a_1x+...+a_nx^n$ is an element of the Jacobson radical, then $1+fx$ is a unit, but I couldn't see why.
Can anyone please clarify that for me?

I'm not looking for a proof, I'm just looking for an explanation about why $1+fx$ is a unit.

  • $\begingroup$ Commutative ring? $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jul 9, 2014 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ Agh, stupid superpower. Wanted to mark it as "possible duplicate" and let the votes decide. so.very.tired: if the dupe really isn't a dupe, just ping me and I'll do my best to reverse the closure. In the commutative case (the only one I know it works for sure) this is called Snapper's Theorem. $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jul 9, 2014 at 12:59

2 Answers 2


The key idea is an ideal-theoretic generalization of $\rm\color{#c00}{Euclid's}$ key idea in his proof that there are infinitely many primes $\rm p.\,$ Namely, if $\,f\,$ is divisible by every prime $\,p\,$ then $\,1+ nf\,$ has no prime divisors so is a unit. In a similar way, replacing "divides" by "contains", and $\,n\,$ by $\rm\,x\,$ we obtain

Hint $\rm\ f\in J(R[x])\Rightarrow\: f\:$ in all max $\rm P\:\color{#c00}\Rightarrow\:1\! +\! x\,f\:$ in no max $\rm P\:\Rightarrow\:1\!+\!x\,f\:$ unit $\ \ $ QED

The proof uses the well-known fact that every nonunit $\,r\,$ has a prime "divisor" (i.e. container), since $\,(r)\ne 1\,\Rightarrow\, (r)\,$ is contained in some maximal (so prime) ideal $\rm\,P.\ $ Hence, $ $ contrapositively, $ $ if $\,r\,$ is not contained in any max ideal, then $\,r\,$ is a unit.

Remark $\ $ Below is a generalization of the key idea, from my post giving a constructive generalization of Euclid's proof (for any ring with fewer units than elements).

Theorem $\ $ TFAE in ring $\rm\:R\:$ with units $\rm\:U,\:$ ideal $\rm\:J,\:$ and Jacobson radical $\rm\:Jac(R)\:.$

$\rm(1)\quad J \subseteq Jac(R),\quad $ i.e. $\rm\:J\:$ lies in every max ideal $\rm\:M\:$ of $\rm\:R\:.$

$\rm(2)\quad 1+J \subseteq U,\quad\ \ $ i.e. $\rm\: 1 + j\:$ is a unit for every $\rm\: j \in J\:.$

$\rm(3)\quad I\neq 1\ \Rightarrow\ I+J \neq 1,\qquad\ $ i.e. proper ideals survive in $\rm\:R/J\:.$

$\rm(4)\quad M\:$ max $\rm\:\Rightarrow M+J \ne 1,\quad $ i.e. max ideals survive in $\rm\:R/J\:.$

Proof $\: $ (sketch) $\ $ With $\rm\:i \in I,\ j \in J,\:$ and max ideal $\rm\:M,$

$\rm(1\Rightarrow 2)\quad j \in all\ M\ \Rightarrow\ 1+j \in no\ M\ \Rightarrow\ 1+j\:$ unit.

$\rm(2\Rightarrow 3)\quad i+j = 1\ \Rightarrow\ 1-j = i\:$ unit $\rm\:\Rightarrow I = 1\:.$

$\rm(3\Rightarrow 4)\ \:$ Let $\rm\:I = M\:$ max.

$\rm(4\Rightarrow 1)\quad M+J \ne 1 \Rightarrow\ J \subseteq M\:$ by $\rm\:M\:$ max.


In general, if $f$ is any element of a ring contained in the jacobson radical, then for every other element $r$ we have that $1+fr$ is a unit. Otherwise it would be contained in a maximal ideal, but $fr$ too, so that $1$ would be contained, a contradiction.


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.