Krull intersection theorem for modules: Difference between revisions

From Commalg
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Noetherian ring result}}
{{applicationof|Artin-Rees lemma}}
{{applicationof|Artin-Rees lemma}}
{{applicationof|Nakayama's lemma}}
{{applicationof|Nakayama's lemma}}
Line 18: Line 19:
* [[Nakayama's lemma]]
* [[Nakayama's lemma]]


==Proof==
===The intersection equals its product with <math>I</math>===
We first show that the intersection equals its product with <math>I</math>. This is the step where we se the Artin-Rees lemma.
Let:
<math>N := \bigcap_1^\infty I^jM</math>
Now consider the filtration:
<math>M \supset IM \supset I^2M \supset \ldots</math>
this is an <math>I</math>-adic filtration and the underlying ring is [[Noetherian ring|Noetherian]], hence by the [[Artin-Rees lemma]], the following filtration is also <math>I</math>-adic:
<math>N \supset IM \cap N \supset I^2M \cap N\supset \ldots</math>
Since each <math>I^jM</math> contains <math>N</math>, the filtration below is the same as the filtration:
<math>N \supset N \supset N \supset \ldots</math>
This being <math>I</math>-adic forces that <math>IN = N</math>.
===Finding the element <math>r</math>===
Since <math>IN = N</math>, we can find an element <math>r \in I</math> such that <math>(1 - r)N = 0</math>. This is an application of the [[Cayley-Hamilton theorem]]: we first find the Cayley-Hamilton polynomial, then observe that <math>1</math> is a root of the polynomial, and then take the negative of the sum of all coefficients of higher degree terms.
===Proving the intersection is trivial for an integral domain===
If <math>R</math> is an integral domain, and we set <math>M = R</math> in the above, we find an element <math>r \in I</math> such that <math>(1 - r)(\bigcap_j I^j) = 0</math>. Thus <math>1 - r</math> is a zero divisor on the intersection. Since <math>R</math> is an [[integral domain]], one of these must hold:
* <math>1 - r = 0</math>. This forces <math>1 \in I</math>, contradicting the assumption that <math>I</math> is a [[proper ideal]]
* <math>\bigcap_j I^j = 0</math>
This completes the proof.
===Proving that the intersection is trivial for a local ring===
In this case, <math>I</math> is contained inside the unique maximal ideal <math>\mathfrak{m}</math>, which is the Jacobson radical. As above, let <math>N = \bigcap_j I^j</math>. Then, we have <math>IN = N</math>. Since <math>I</math> is contained in the [[Jacobson radical]], this forces <math>N = 0</math>.
==References==
==References==



Revision as of 18:21, 3 March 2008

This article defines a result where the base ring (or one or more of the rings involved) is Noetherian
View more results involving Noetherianness or Read a survey article on applying Noetherianness

This fact is an application of the following pivotal fact/result/idea: Artin-Rees lemma
View other applications of Artin-Rees lemma OR Read a survey article on applying Artin-Rees lemma

This fact is an application of the following pivotal fact/result/idea: Nakayama's lemma
View other applications of Nakayama's lemma OR Read a survey article on applying Nakayama's lemma

Statement

Let be a Noetherian ring and be an ideal inside .

  • If is a finitely generated -module, then there exists such that:

Results used

Proof

The intersection equals its product with

We first show that the intersection equals its product with . This is the step where we se the Artin-Rees lemma.

Let:

Now consider the filtration:

this is an -adic filtration and the underlying ring is Noetherian, hence by the Artin-Rees lemma, the following filtration is also -adic:

Since each contains , the filtration below is the same as the filtration:

This being -adic forces that .

Finding the element

Since , we can find an element such that . This is an application of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem: we first find the Cayley-Hamilton polynomial, then observe that is a root of the polynomial, and then take the negative of the sum of all coefficients of higher degree terms.

Proving the intersection is trivial for an integral domain

If is an integral domain, and we set in the above, we find an element such that . Thus is a zero divisor on the intersection. Since is an integral domain, one of these must hold:

  • . This forces , contradicting the assumption that is a proper ideal

This completes the proof.

Proving that the intersection is trivial for a local ring

In this case, is contained inside the unique maximal ideal , which is the Jacobson radical. As above, let . Then, we have . Since is contained in the Jacobson radical, this forces .

References

Textbook references