Clarification on Notes about Minimal Prime Ideals over an Ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$












0












$begingroup$


Recently in my Algebra course, we defined the minimal prime ideals over an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$, and then proved a result about them saying that $sqrt{I}$ is the intersection of minimal primes over $I$. However, this is strange given the way he defines the minimal prime ideals over $I$. Below is the section of the notes, hopefully illustrating why it is confusing for me:




Now suppose $I$ is any ideal of a Noetherian ring R. By (2.13), $sqrt{I} = P_1 cap dotscap P_m$ for some primes $P_i$ such that $P_j notsubset P_i ; forall i neq j$.



Note that if $P$ is prime containing $I$, then:



$prod_{i}P_i leq P_1 cap dots cap P_m = sqrt{I} leq P$, and so: $P_i leq P$



Definition (2.14): The minimal primes over an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$ are these primes.



Lemma (2.15): Let $I$ be an ideal of a Noetherian ring $R$. Then $sqrt{I}$ is the intersection of the minimal primers over $I$, and $I$ contains a finite product of them, possibly with repetitions.




This is what I have in my notes. The use of "these primes" in his definition made me think that he was defining the minimal primes to be the $P_1, dots, P_m$ he mentioned earlier when talking about $sqrt{I}$. However, the lemma then seems almost entirely redundant if this is how we define the minimal prime ideals.



Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?



I'm just really confused about what this part of my notes means and what the point of this lemma is.



In case it's important, (2.13) says that for a Noetherian ring $R$, a radical ideal is the intersection of finitely many prime ideals.



Also, $sqrt{I} = {{r in R mid r^n in I text{ for some } n}}$ is referred to as a radical ideal. We also defined the Nilradical and Jacobson Radical, but I don't know if these are included when we use the word "radical" here.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, (2.14) should have defined minimal primes over $I$ as these primes $P$ containing $I$ that is minimal with respect to inclusion.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Oct 22 '18 at 15:17
















0












$begingroup$


Recently in my Algebra course, we defined the minimal prime ideals over an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$, and then proved a result about them saying that $sqrt{I}$ is the intersection of minimal primes over $I$. However, this is strange given the way he defines the minimal prime ideals over $I$. Below is the section of the notes, hopefully illustrating why it is confusing for me:




Now suppose $I$ is any ideal of a Noetherian ring R. By (2.13), $sqrt{I} = P_1 cap dotscap P_m$ for some primes $P_i$ such that $P_j notsubset P_i ; forall i neq j$.



Note that if $P$ is prime containing $I$, then:



$prod_{i}P_i leq P_1 cap dots cap P_m = sqrt{I} leq P$, and so: $P_i leq P$



Definition (2.14): The minimal primes over an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$ are these primes.



Lemma (2.15): Let $I$ be an ideal of a Noetherian ring $R$. Then $sqrt{I}$ is the intersection of the minimal primers over $I$, and $I$ contains a finite product of them, possibly with repetitions.




This is what I have in my notes. The use of "these primes" in his definition made me think that he was defining the minimal primes to be the $P_1, dots, P_m$ he mentioned earlier when talking about $sqrt{I}$. However, the lemma then seems almost entirely redundant if this is how we define the minimal prime ideals.



Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?



I'm just really confused about what this part of my notes means and what the point of this lemma is.



In case it's important, (2.13) says that for a Noetherian ring $R$, a radical ideal is the intersection of finitely many prime ideals.



Also, $sqrt{I} = {{r in R mid r^n in I text{ for some } n}}$ is referred to as a radical ideal. We also defined the Nilradical and Jacobson Radical, but I don't know if these are included when we use the word "radical" here.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, (2.14) should have defined minimal primes over $I$ as these primes $P$ containing $I$ that is minimal with respect to inclusion.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Oct 22 '18 at 15:17














0












0








0





$begingroup$


Recently in my Algebra course, we defined the minimal prime ideals over an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$, and then proved a result about them saying that $sqrt{I}$ is the intersection of minimal primes over $I$. However, this is strange given the way he defines the minimal prime ideals over $I$. Below is the section of the notes, hopefully illustrating why it is confusing for me:




Now suppose $I$ is any ideal of a Noetherian ring R. By (2.13), $sqrt{I} = P_1 cap dotscap P_m$ for some primes $P_i$ such that $P_j notsubset P_i ; forall i neq j$.



Note that if $P$ is prime containing $I$, then:



$prod_{i}P_i leq P_1 cap dots cap P_m = sqrt{I} leq P$, and so: $P_i leq P$



Definition (2.14): The minimal primes over an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$ are these primes.



Lemma (2.15): Let $I$ be an ideal of a Noetherian ring $R$. Then $sqrt{I}$ is the intersection of the minimal primers over $I$, and $I$ contains a finite product of them, possibly with repetitions.




This is what I have in my notes. The use of "these primes" in his definition made me think that he was defining the minimal primes to be the $P_1, dots, P_m$ he mentioned earlier when talking about $sqrt{I}$. However, the lemma then seems almost entirely redundant if this is how we define the minimal prime ideals.



Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?



I'm just really confused about what this part of my notes means and what the point of this lemma is.



In case it's important, (2.13) says that for a Noetherian ring $R$, a radical ideal is the intersection of finitely many prime ideals.



Also, $sqrt{I} = {{r in R mid r^n in I text{ for some } n}}$ is referred to as a radical ideal. We also defined the Nilradical and Jacobson Radical, but I don't know if these are included when we use the word "radical" here.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Recently in my Algebra course, we defined the minimal prime ideals over an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$, and then proved a result about them saying that $sqrt{I}$ is the intersection of minimal primes over $I$. However, this is strange given the way he defines the minimal prime ideals over $I$. Below is the section of the notes, hopefully illustrating why it is confusing for me:




Now suppose $I$ is any ideal of a Noetherian ring R. By (2.13), $sqrt{I} = P_1 cap dotscap P_m$ for some primes $P_i$ such that $P_j notsubset P_i ; forall i neq j$.



Note that if $P$ is prime containing $I$, then:



$prod_{i}P_i leq P_1 cap dots cap P_m = sqrt{I} leq P$, and so: $P_i leq P$



Definition (2.14): The minimal primes over an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian ring $R$ are these primes.



Lemma (2.15): Let $I$ be an ideal of a Noetherian ring $R$. Then $sqrt{I}$ is the intersection of the minimal primers over $I$, and $I$ contains a finite product of them, possibly with repetitions.




This is what I have in my notes. The use of "these primes" in his definition made me think that he was defining the minimal primes to be the $P_1, dots, P_m$ he mentioned earlier when talking about $sqrt{I}$. However, the lemma then seems almost entirely redundant if this is how we define the minimal prime ideals.



Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?



I'm just really confused about what this part of my notes means and what the point of this lemma is.



In case it's important, (2.13) says that for a Noetherian ring $R$, a radical ideal is the intersection of finitely many prime ideals.



Also, $sqrt{I} = {{r in R mid r^n in I text{ for some } n}}$ is referred to as a radical ideal. We also defined the Nilradical and Jacobson Radical, but I don't know if these are included when we use the word "radical" here.







abstract-algebra definition






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Oct 22 '18 at 14:52









user366818user366818

1,000410




1,000410








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, (2.14) should have defined minimal primes over $I$ as these primes $P$ containing $I$ that is minimal with respect to inclusion.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Oct 22 '18 at 15:17














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, (2.14) should have defined minimal primes over $I$ as these primes $P$ containing $I$ that is minimal with respect to inclusion.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Oct 22 '18 at 15:17








1




1




$begingroup$
Yes, (2.14) should have defined minimal primes over $I$ as these primes $P$ containing $I$ that is minimal with respect to inclusion.
$endgroup$
– user10354138
Oct 22 '18 at 15:17




$begingroup$
Yes, (2.14) should have defined minimal primes over $I$ as these primes $P$ containing $I$ that is minimal with respect to inclusion.
$endgroup$
– user10354138
Oct 22 '18 at 15:17










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

To your question:




Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?




Yes. I think the point of 2.15 is that we know the radical is the intersection of all prime ideals over $I$, but in fact taking the minimal ones are enough. This follows trivially from your previous discussion.



In fact, you should think of the expression of $sqrt{I}=P_1capcdotscap P_n$ as a special case of primary decomposition, where for radicals, it is actually prime decompositions. Then (treating it as primary decomposition) each $P_i$ is trivially $P_i$-primary, and we assumed that those $P_i$ are distinct. Therefore everyone is minimal, and there are no embedded primes.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2966130%2fclarification-on-notes-about-minimal-prime-ideals-over-an-ideal-i-of-a-noether%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    To your question:




    Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?




    Yes. I think the point of 2.15 is that we know the radical is the intersection of all prime ideals over $I$, but in fact taking the minimal ones are enough. This follows trivially from your previous discussion.



    In fact, you should think of the expression of $sqrt{I}=P_1capcdotscap P_n$ as a special case of primary decomposition, where for radicals, it is actually prime decompositions. Then (treating it as primary decomposition) each $P_i$ is trivially $P_i$-primary, and we assumed that those $P_i$ are distinct. Therefore everyone is minimal, and there are no embedded primes.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      To your question:




      Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?




      Yes. I think the point of 2.15 is that we know the radical is the intersection of all prime ideals over $I$, but in fact taking the minimal ones are enough. This follows trivially from your previous discussion.



      In fact, you should think of the expression of $sqrt{I}=P_1capcdotscap P_n$ as a special case of primary decomposition, where for radicals, it is actually prime decompositions. Then (treating it as primary decomposition) each $P_i$ is trivially $P_i$-primary, and we assumed that those $P_i$ are distinct. Therefore everyone is minimal, and there are no embedded primes.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        To your question:




        Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?




        Yes. I think the point of 2.15 is that we know the radical is the intersection of all prime ideals over $I$, but in fact taking the minimal ones are enough. This follows trivially from your previous discussion.



        In fact, you should think of the expression of $sqrt{I}=P_1capcdotscap P_n$ as a special case of primary decomposition, where for radicals, it is actually prime decompositions. Then (treating it as primary decomposition) each $P_i$ is trivially $P_i$-primary, and we assumed that those $P_i$ are distinct. Therefore everyone is minimal, and there are no embedded primes.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        To your question:




        Am I supposed to think that minimal primes over $I$ are just prime ideals of $R$ containing $I$ that are minimal with respect to inclusion, AND it can be shown that they have this special property relating to $sqrt{I}$?




        Yes. I think the point of 2.15 is that we know the radical is the intersection of all prime ideals over $I$, but in fact taking the minimal ones are enough. This follows trivially from your previous discussion.



        In fact, you should think of the expression of $sqrt{I}=P_1capcdotscap P_n$ as a special case of primary decomposition, where for radicals, it is actually prime decompositions. Then (treating it as primary decomposition) each $P_i$ is trivially $P_i$-primary, and we assumed that those $P_i$ are distinct. Therefore everyone is minimal, and there are no embedded primes.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 14 '18 at 9:25









        Matt KellerMatt Keller

        213




        213






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2966130%2fclarification-on-notes-about-minimal-prime-ideals-over-an-ideal-i-of-a-noether%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

            How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...