Intersection over all maximal ideals of localizations












1












$begingroup$


Let $A$ be an integral domain. Show that $$bigcap limits_{mathfrak{m}}A_{mathfrak{m}}=A,$$ where the intersection is taken over all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ in $A$.



P.S. This is quite well-known problem in commutative algebra and I have found many topics in MSE which contains its solution. So please do not duplicate my question by the the following reason:



But my question is not about the solution of this problem. How these object could be equal if the LHS and RHS have elements of different structure. More prcisely, the elements of $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are equivalence classes denoted by $dfrac{a}{s}$, where $ain A$ and $snotin mathfrak{m}$.



Can anyone explain it in a rigorous way, please?






abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Each $A_mathfrak{m}$ has an embedding in $K$, the field of fractions of $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 16 '18 at 18:48
















1












$begingroup$


Let $A$ be an integral domain. Show that $$bigcap limits_{mathfrak{m}}A_{mathfrak{m}}=A,$$ where the intersection is taken over all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ in $A$.



P.S. This is quite well-known problem in commutative algebra and I have found many topics in MSE which contains its solution. So please do not duplicate my question by the the following reason:



But my question is not about the solution of this problem. How these object could be equal if the LHS and RHS have elements of different structure. More prcisely, the elements of $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are equivalence classes denoted by $dfrac{a}{s}$, where $ain A$ and $snotin mathfrak{m}$.



Can anyone explain it in a rigorous way, please?






abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Each $A_mathfrak{m}$ has an embedding in $K$, the field of fractions of $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 16 '18 at 18:48














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Let $A$ be an integral domain. Show that $$bigcap limits_{mathfrak{m}}A_{mathfrak{m}}=A,$$ where the intersection is taken over all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ in $A$.



P.S. This is quite well-known problem in commutative algebra and I have found many topics in MSE which contains its solution. So please do not duplicate my question by the the following reason:



But my question is not about the solution of this problem. How these object could be equal if the LHS and RHS have elements of different structure. More prcisely, the elements of $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are equivalence classes denoted by $dfrac{a}{s}$, where $ain A$ and $snotin mathfrak{m}$.



Can anyone explain it in a rigorous way, please?






abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let $A$ be an integral domain. Show that $$bigcap limits_{mathfrak{m}}A_{mathfrak{m}}=A,$$ where the intersection is taken over all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ in $A$.



P.S. This is quite well-known problem in commutative algebra and I have found many topics in MSE which contains its solution. So please do not duplicate my question by the the following reason:



But my question is not about the solution of this problem. How these object could be equal if the LHS and RHS have elements of different structure. More prcisely, the elements of $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are equivalence classes denoted by $dfrac{a}{s}$, where $ain A$ and $snotin mathfrak{m}$.



Can anyone explain it in a rigorous way, please?






abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra




abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 16 '18 at 18:47









ZFRZFR

5,26831440




5,26831440








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Each $A_mathfrak{m}$ has an embedding in $K$, the field of fractions of $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 16 '18 at 18:48














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Each $A_mathfrak{m}$ has an embedding in $K$, the field of fractions of $A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 16 '18 at 18:48








4




4




$begingroup$
Each $A_mathfrak{m}$ has an embedding in $K$, the field of fractions of $A$.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 16 '18 at 18:48




$begingroup$
Each $A_mathfrak{m}$ has an embedding in $K$, the field of fractions of $A$.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 16 '18 at 18:48










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

To elaborate on Lord Shark's comment: if $A$ is an integral domain, then $A$ embeds into any localization $Ato S^{-1}A,$ provided the multiplicative set $S$ does not contain $0.$ Moreover, if $Ssubseteq Tsubseteq A$ are both multiplicative subsets of $A,$ then we have natural maps
$$
Ato S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A,
$$
and the composition $Ato T^{-1}A$ is simply the localization map (the map $S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A$ may either be thought of as a localization of $S^{-1}A$ or as the map induced by the universal property of localization).



An integral domain has a maximal multiplicative subset not containing $0$: namely, $Asetminus{0}.$ The localization of $A$ by this multiplicative subset is the field of fractions $K$ of $A.$ So, if $mathfrak{m}$ is a maximal ideal of $A,$ we have natural embeddings
$$
Ato A_mathfrak{m}to K.
$$
Inside of $K,$ we may take the intersection of [the images of] all the $A_mathfrak{m}$ and compare that with [the image of] $A,$ and one way to make the theorem precise is that these two subsets of $K$ are equal. Since $Ato K$ is an isomorphism of $A$ onto its image (and the same is true of each $A_mathfrak{m}to K$), it is reasonable to say that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} = A$ (or at least that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} cong A$).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    That's what I want to read! Thanks a lot for that! To be precise, the element of $A$ and $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are different, right? But we can identify $ain A$ with $frac{a}{1}$ in $A_{mathfrak{m}}$. This is my understanding.
    $endgroup$
    – ZFR
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:40










  • $begingroup$
    @ZFR Right; technically, $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ share no elements (as $A_mathfrak{m}$ is typically defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs $(a,s)in Atimes(Asetminusmathfrak{m})$), but as there are natural inclusions $Ato A_mathfrak{m}$ and $A_mathfrak{m}to K,$ we often identify both $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ with their isomorphic images in $K$ to ease notation. (It would be somewhat obnoxious to always be spelling out that we really want to look at $iota_K(A)$ and $iota_K(A_mathfrak{m})$, especially since it really doesn't add much content.)
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:45










  • $begingroup$
    And as you say, one can (and often does) also identify $A$ with its image in $A_mathfrak{m}$ under the natural map $amapsto frac{a}{1} := [(a,1)]$.
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:46












  • $begingroup$
    The most natural thing here is to identify $A$ with ${1}^{-1} A$, which is $A$ localized at the minimal multiplicative subset.
    $endgroup$
    – Slade
    Dec 16 '18 at 21:30











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%2f3042994%2fintersection-over-all-maximal-ideals-of-localizations%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









2












$begingroup$

To elaborate on Lord Shark's comment: if $A$ is an integral domain, then $A$ embeds into any localization $Ato S^{-1}A,$ provided the multiplicative set $S$ does not contain $0.$ Moreover, if $Ssubseteq Tsubseteq A$ are both multiplicative subsets of $A,$ then we have natural maps
$$
Ato S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A,
$$
and the composition $Ato T^{-1}A$ is simply the localization map (the map $S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A$ may either be thought of as a localization of $S^{-1}A$ or as the map induced by the universal property of localization).



An integral domain has a maximal multiplicative subset not containing $0$: namely, $Asetminus{0}.$ The localization of $A$ by this multiplicative subset is the field of fractions $K$ of $A.$ So, if $mathfrak{m}$ is a maximal ideal of $A,$ we have natural embeddings
$$
Ato A_mathfrak{m}to K.
$$
Inside of $K,$ we may take the intersection of [the images of] all the $A_mathfrak{m}$ and compare that with [the image of] $A,$ and one way to make the theorem precise is that these two subsets of $K$ are equal. Since $Ato K$ is an isomorphism of $A$ onto its image (and the same is true of each $A_mathfrak{m}to K$), it is reasonable to say that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} = A$ (or at least that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} cong A$).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    That's what I want to read! Thanks a lot for that! To be precise, the element of $A$ and $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are different, right? But we can identify $ain A$ with $frac{a}{1}$ in $A_{mathfrak{m}}$. This is my understanding.
    $endgroup$
    – ZFR
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:40










  • $begingroup$
    @ZFR Right; technically, $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ share no elements (as $A_mathfrak{m}$ is typically defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs $(a,s)in Atimes(Asetminusmathfrak{m})$), but as there are natural inclusions $Ato A_mathfrak{m}$ and $A_mathfrak{m}to K,$ we often identify both $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ with their isomorphic images in $K$ to ease notation. (It would be somewhat obnoxious to always be spelling out that we really want to look at $iota_K(A)$ and $iota_K(A_mathfrak{m})$, especially since it really doesn't add much content.)
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:45










  • $begingroup$
    And as you say, one can (and often does) also identify $A$ with its image in $A_mathfrak{m}$ under the natural map $amapsto frac{a}{1} := [(a,1)]$.
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:46












  • $begingroup$
    The most natural thing here is to identify $A$ with ${1}^{-1} A$, which is $A$ localized at the minimal multiplicative subset.
    $endgroup$
    – Slade
    Dec 16 '18 at 21:30
















2












$begingroup$

To elaborate on Lord Shark's comment: if $A$ is an integral domain, then $A$ embeds into any localization $Ato S^{-1}A,$ provided the multiplicative set $S$ does not contain $0.$ Moreover, if $Ssubseteq Tsubseteq A$ are both multiplicative subsets of $A,$ then we have natural maps
$$
Ato S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A,
$$
and the composition $Ato T^{-1}A$ is simply the localization map (the map $S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A$ may either be thought of as a localization of $S^{-1}A$ or as the map induced by the universal property of localization).



An integral domain has a maximal multiplicative subset not containing $0$: namely, $Asetminus{0}.$ The localization of $A$ by this multiplicative subset is the field of fractions $K$ of $A.$ So, if $mathfrak{m}$ is a maximal ideal of $A,$ we have natural embeddings
$$
Ato A_mathfrak{m}to K.
$$
Inside of $K,$ we may take the intersection of [the images of] all the $A_mathfrak{m}$ and compare that with [the image of] $A,$ and one way to make the theorem precise is that these two subsets of $K$ are equal. Since $Ato K$ is an isomorphism of $A$ onto its image (and the same is true of each $A_mathfrak{m}to K$), it is reasonable to say that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} = A$ (or at least that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} cong A$).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    That's what I want to read! Thanks a lot for that! To be precise, the element of $A$ and $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are different, right? But we can identify $ain A$ with $frac{a}{1}$ in $A_{mathfrak{m}}$. This is my understanding.
    $endgroup$
    – ZFR
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:40










  • $begingroup$
    @ZFR Right; technically, $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ share no elements (as $A_mathfrak{m}$ is typically defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs $(a,s)in Atimes(Asetminusmathfrak{m})$), but as there are natural inclusions $Ato A_mathfrak{m}$ and $A_mathfrak{m}to K,$ we often identify both $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ with their isomorphic images in $K$ to ease notation. (It would be somewhat obnoxious to always be spelling out that we really want to look at $iota_K(A)$ and $iota_K(A_mathfrak{m})$, especially since it really doesn't add much content.)
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:45










  • $begingroup$
    And as you say, one can (and often does) also identify $A$ with its image in $A_mathfrak{m}$ under the natural map $amapsto frac{a}{1} := [(a,1)]$.
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:46












  • $begingroup$
    The most natural thing here is to identify $A$ with ${1}^{-1} A$, which is $A$ localized at the minimal multiplicative subset.
    $endgroup$
    – Slade
    Dec 16 '18 at 21:30














2












2








2





$begingroup$

To elaborate on Lord Shark's comment: if $A$ is an integral domain, then $A$ embeds into any localization $Ato S^{-1}A,$ provided the multiplicative set $S$ does not contain $0.$ Moreover, if $Ssubseteq Tsubseteq A$ are both multiplicative subsets of $A,$ then we have natural maps
$$
Ato S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A,
$$
and the composition $Ato T^{-1}A$ is simply the localization map (the map $S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A$ may either be thought of as a localization of $S^{-1}A$ or as the map induced by the universal property of localization).



An integral domain has a maximal multiplicative subset not containing $0$: namely, $Asetminus{0}.$ The localization of $A$ by this multiplicative subset is the field of fractions $K$ of $A.$ So, if $mathfrak{m}$ is a maximal ideal of $A,$ we have natural embeddings
$$
Ato A_mathfrak{m}to K.
$$
Inside of $K,$ we may take the intersection of [the images of] all the $A_mathfrak{m}$ and compare that with [the image of] $A,$ and one way to make the theorem precise is that these two subsets of $K$ are equal. Since $Ato K$ is an isomorphism of $A$ onto its image (and the same is true of each $A_mathfrak{m}to K$), it is reasonable to say that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} = A$ (or at least that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} cong A$).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



To elaborate on Lord Shark's comment: if $A$ is an integral domain, then $A$ embeds into any localization $Ato S^{-1}A,$ provided the multiplicative set $S$ does not contain $0.$ Moreover, if $Ssubseteq Tsubseteq A$ are both multiplicative subsets of $A,$ then we have natural maps
$$
Ato S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A,
$$
and the composition $Ato T^{-1}A$ is simply the localization map (the map $S^{-1}Ato T^{-1}A$ may either be thought of as a localization of $S^{-1}A$ or as the map induced by the universal property of localization).



An integral domain has a maximal multiplicative subset not containing $0$: namely, $Asetminus{0}.$ The localization of $A$ by this multiplicative subset is the field of fractions $K$ of $A.$ So, if $mathfrak{m}$ is a maximal ideal of $A,$ we have natural embeddings
$$
Ato A_mathfrak{m}to K.
$$
Inside of $K,$ we may take the intersection of [the images of] all the $A_mathfrak{m}$ and compare that with [the image of] $A,$ and one way to make the theorem precise is that these two subsets of $K$ are equal. Since $Ato K$ is an isomorphism of $A$ onto its image (and the same is true of each $A_mathfrak{m}to K$), it is reasonable to say that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} = A$ (or at least that $bigcap_mathfrak{m} A_mathfrak{m} cong A$).







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 16 '18 at 20:35









StahlStahl

16.7k43455




16.7k43455












  • $begingroup$
    That's what I want to read! Thanks a lot for that! To be precise, the element of $A$ and $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are different, right? But we can identify $ain A$ with $frac{a}{1}$ in $A_{mathfrak{m}}$. This is my understanding.
    $endgroup$
    – ZFR
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:40










  • $begingroup$
    @ZFR Right; technically, $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ share no elements (as $A_mathfrak{m}$ is typically defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs $(a,s)in Atimes(Asetminusmathfrak{m})$), but as there are natural inclusions $Ato A_mathfrak{m}$ and $A_mathfrak{m}to K,$ we often identify both $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ with their isomorphic images in $K$ to ease notation. (It would be somewhat obnoxious to always be spelling out that we really want to look at $iota_K(A)$ and $iota_K(A_mathfrak{m})$, especially since it really doesn't add much content.)
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:45










  • $begingroup$
    And as you say, one can (and often does) also identify $A$ with its image in $A_mathfrak{m}$ under the natural map $amapsto frac{a}{1} := [(a,1)]$.
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:46












  • $begingroup$
    The most natural thing here is to identify $A$ with ${1}^{-1} A$, which is $A$ localized at the minimal multiplicative subset.
    $endgroup$
    – Slade
    Dec 16 '18 at 21:30


















  • $begingroup$
    That's what I want to read! Thanks a lot for that! To be precise, the element of $A$ and $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are different, right? But we can identify $ain A$ with $frac{a}{1}$ in $A_{mathfrak{m}}$. This is my understanding.
    $endgroup$
    – ZFR
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:40










  • $begingroup$
    @ZFR Right; technically, $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ share no elements (as $A_mathfrak{m}$ is typically defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs $(a,s)in Atimes(Asetminusmathfrak{m})$), but as there are natural inclusions $Ato A_mathfrak{m}$ and $A_mathfrak{m}to K,$ we often identify both $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ with their isomorphic images in $K$ to ease notation. (It would be somewhat obnoxious to always be spelling out that we really want to look at $iota_K(A)$ and $iota_K(A_mathfrak{m})$, especially since it really doesn't add much content.)
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:45










  • $begingroup$
    And as you say, one can (and often does) also identify $A$ with its image in $A_mathfrak{m}$ under the natural map $amapsto frac{a}{1} := [(a,1)]$.
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:46












  • $begingroup$
    The most natural thing here is to identify $A$ with ${1}^{-1} A$, which is $A$ localized at the minimal multiplicative subset.
    $endgroup$
    – Slade
    Dec 16 '18 at 21:30
















$begingroup$
That's what I want to read! Thanks a lot for that! To be precise, the element of $A$ and $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are different, right? But we can identify $ain A$ with $frac{a}{1}$ in $A_{mathfrak{m}}$. This is my understanding.
$endgroup$
– ZFR
Dec 16 '18 at 20:40




$begingroup$
That's what I want to read! Thanks a lot for that! To be precise, the element of $A$ and $A_{mathfrak{m}}$ are different, right? But we can identify $ain A$ with $frac{a}{1}$ in $A_{mathfrak{m}}$. This is my understanding.
$endgroup$
– ZFR
Dec 16 '18 at 20:40












$begingroup$
@ZFR Right; technically, $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ share no elements (as $A_mathfrak{m}$ is typically defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs $(a,s)in Atimes(Asetminusmathfrak{m})$), but as there are natural inclusions $Ato A_mathfrak{m}$ and $A_mathfrak{m}to K,$ we often identify both $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ with their isomorphic images in $K$ to ease notation. (It would be somewhat obnoxious to always be spelling out that we really want to look at $iota_K(A)$ and $iota_K(A_mathfrak{m})$, especially since it really doesn't add much content.)
$endgroup$
– Stahl
Dec 16 '18 at 20:45




$begingroup$
@ZFR Right; technically, $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ share no elements (as $A_mathfrak{m}$ is typically defined as equivalence classes of ordered pairs $(a,s)in Atimes(Asetminusmathfrak{m})$), but as there are natural inclusions $Ato A_mathfrak{m}$ and $A_mathfrak{m}to K,$ we often identify both $A$ and $A_mathfrak{m}$ with their isomorphic images in $K$ to ease notation. (It would be somewhat obnoxious to always be spelling out that we really want to look at $iota_K(A)$ and $iota_K(A_mathfrak{m})$, especially since it really doesn't add much content.)
$endgroup$
– Stahl
Dec 16 '18 at 20:45












$begingroup$
And as you say, one can (and often does) also identify $A$ with its image in $A_mathfrak{m}$ under the natural map $amapsto frac{a}{1} := [(a,1)]$.
$endgroup$
– Stahl
Dec 16 '18 at 20:46






$begingroup$
And as you say, one can (and often does) also identify $A$ with its image in $A_mathfrak{m}$ under the natural map $amapsto frac{a}{1} := [(a,1)]$.
$endgroup$
– Stahl
Dec 16 '18 at 20:46














$begingroup$
The most natural thing here is to identify $A$ with ${1}^{-1} A$, which is $A$ localized at the minimal multiplicative subset.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Dec 16 '18 at 21:30




$begingroup$
The most natural thing here is to identify $A$ with ${1}^{-1} A$, which is $A$ localized at the minimal multiplicative subset.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Dec 16 '18 at 21:30


















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%2f3042994%2fintersection-over-all-maximal-ideals-of-localizations%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

Image
Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l...
Read more

Puebla de Zaragoza

Image
Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc...
Read more

Musa

Image
Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo...
Read more