-1

Motivation This question came from my efforts to solve this problem presented by Andre Weil in 1951.

Can we prove the following theorem without Axiom of Choice?

Theorem Let $A$ be an integrally closed domain containing a field $k$ as a subring. Suppose $A/fA$ is a finite $k$-module for every non-zero element $f \in A$. Then the following assertions hold.

(1) Every ideal of $A$ is finitely generated.

(2) Every non-zero ideal of $A$ is invertible.

(3) Every non-zero ideal of $A$ has a unique factorization as a product of prime ideals.

EDIT May I ask the reason for the downvotes? Is this the reason for the downvotes?

EDIT What's wrong with trying to prove it without using AC? When you are looking for a computer algorithm for solving a mathematical problem, such a proof may provide a hint. At least, you can be sure that there is a constructive proof.

EDIT Why worry about the axiom of choice?

Makoto Kato
  • 42,602
  • 7
    Take an arbitrary statement of non-trivial commutative algebra and ask if it holds in ZF - what's the point? Do you know that in ZF there might be nontrivial rings with no maximal ideals at all? So why should one expect that any "spectral" methods take over? – Martin Brandenburg Jul 12 '12 at 13:39
  • http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/159699/the-group-of-invertible-fractional-ideals-of-a-noetherian-domain-of-dimension-1 – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 13:54
  • What's spectral methods? – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 13:55
  • See the comments here:http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/169550/existence-of-a-prime-ideal-in-an-integral-domain-of-finite-type-over-a-field-wit/169602#169602 – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 13:57
  • 13
    I completely agree with Martin. It is very easy to generate a huge amount of these questions all across the board in mathematics. Especially since almost all your questions in this topic are either sparse ("reprove all basic calculus for me.") or you end up writing an answer on your own, it would seem to me that you would really benefit from having your own blog where you can post these things in a complete and self-contained format. If you intend to keep posting, every few days, another question of this form and then answer it yourself... then there is something wrong, in my eyes. – Asaf Karagila Jul 12 '12 at 13:57
  • @AsafKaragila I'm trying to solve this problem:http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/155392/existence-of-valuation-rings-in-an-algebraic-function-field-of-one-variable – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 14:01
  • I think I solved it. But it's long. So I split it to several questions. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 14:04
  • So it's not arbitrary. Understood? – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 14:04
  • 8
    Write a paper and put it on arXiv. – Asaf Karagila Jul 12 '12 at 14:06
  • I don't think it's worth it. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 14:09
  • Just because you are not interested in this type of questions does not necessarily mean others are so, too. Please ignore these questions. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 14:51
  • 11
    Why do you think I am uninteresting in this type of questions? In fact I love these sort of questions as they are interesting (research-wise) for me, and to some extent keep the AC related questions in the mathematical interest so it is not becomes a void topic that only a few weirdos care about. What I do feel hard to ignore is someone practically turning this website to his blog posting questions and answers that he solved, and making about gazillion edits in the process instead of preparing the answers and questions in advance to post them once, and then make final improvements later. – Asaf Karagila Jul 12 '12 at 15:07
  • What's so wrong in writing answers to my question? My answers are not necessarily correct. If they are wrong, anyone can always correct it. Anyone else can post his answer too. Usually there are several(or many) answers to a question. I've never dreamt my answers were models, nor I'm implying it. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 19:52
  • @AsafKaragila What's so wrong in editing answers? I asked this many times but you've never answered except you continue to imply it's wrong. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 20:01
  • 1
    @AsafKaragila You don't like my editing style. Everyone has his preference. That's okay, but trying to force your preference to others just because you don't like theirs is not okay. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 20:09
  • 5
    Aren't you forcing me your preference by editing so much? Are you not forcing me this just because you don't like to prepare things before posting them? I thought you thought it is not okay to do that. – Asaf Karagila Jul 12 '12 at 20:12
  • 1
    @Asafkaragila No. Please discuss it in meta. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 20:17
  • 7
    Discussion require both sides willing to listen. You have clearly expressed no interest in listening. You wish to complain that people are complaining, but you have no sense whatsoever to what other people dim socially acceptable in this site. How can I discuss this with you, and why would I discuss this with someone else? Especially since if the discussion with someone else will end in agreement that your usage of the site is wrong, you will cry that we are trying to force you just because we don't like it... – Asaf Karagila Jul 12 '12 at 20:23
  • 14
    The use of boldface and triple question marks looks like you are yelling/whining/crying. If you want to ask a question in a civilized way and not look like a pouting child, drop the histrionics. (No, I did not downvote). – Arturo Magidin Jul 12 '12 at 20:24
  • @ArturoMagidin I'm usually polite, but there are exceptions in my rules. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 21:05
  • @AsafKaragila Please explain rationally what's wrong with what I'm doing. I think I'm rational enough(meaning not affected by emotion), so there's a chance that you can convince me. However, you've never convinced me so far. – Makoto Kato Jul 12 '12 at 21:12
  • @AsafKaragila I'm wating for your reply. – Makoto Kato Jul 13 '12 at 00:08
  • @AsafKaragila You continue to say I better write my blog. I disagree. A personal blog can disappear anytime. I believe writing an answer here have more benefits for the members. – Makoto Kato Jul 13 '12 at 00:17
  • @AsafKaragila you seem to be so eager to discourage me from posting answers to my questions. Is there any particular reason other than you just don't like it? – Makoto Kato Jul 13 '12 at 00:25
  • I wonder why some people can't take a mathematical problem just as a mathematical problem. I think whether a questioner knows an answer or not does not matter. As I wrote before, I think whether a problem is homework or not does not matter, either. If an interesting problem is given and I can solve it, I'll post an answer with pleasure no matter whether the questioner has an answer or not, no matter whether it is homework or not. – Makoto Kato Jul 13 '12 at 00:52
  • Honestly I hadn't had an answer to this question when I asked it. I came up with an answer only a few days ago.

    http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/155392/existence-of-valuation-rings-in-an-algebraic-function-field-of-one-variable

    – Makoto Kato Jul 13 '12 at 01:12
  • 2
    @Makoto Are you able to accept the answers you post for your questions? This would take them off the unanswered list. – Keenan Kidwell Jul 13 '12 at 01:19
  • @KeenanKidwell I don't know. Is that a problem if I couldn't and it would take them off there? – Makoto Kato Jul 13 '12 at 01:40
  • @MakotoKato Well, when you look at the answer that you've posted, is there a check mark under it that you can click? In general there should be I think, although I'm not sure if it's there for unregistered users. If you've answered your question to your satisfaction, then I think you'd want it off the unanswered list since it's specifically for questions which haven't been answered. – Keenan Kidwell Jul 13 '12 at 23:06
  • 2
    @Keenan: Just to be clear, in case you were not aware, an edit to a question or answer will still bump a post to the front page of the site regardless of whether there is an accepted answer, so I don't think having Makoto accept his or her own answers will address the main complaint of Asaf and others. – Zev Chonoles Jul 14 '12 at 15:44
  • @Zev Thanks for the info. I wasn't necessarily endorsing the complaints of Asaf and others. I just thought it would be good for a completely answered question to be clearly indicated as such. – Keenan Kidwell Jul 14 '12 at 19:44
  • @ZevChonoles The main complaint of Asaf Karagila is not that my edits bump my post to the front page of the site. He has never complained it to me. – Makoto Kato Jul 15 '12 at 04:00

2 Answers2

1

Lemma 1 Let $A$ be a commutative algebra over a field $k$. Suppose $A/fA$ is a finite $k$-module for every non-zero element $f \in A$. Then every ideal of $A$ is finitely generated.

Proof: Let $I$ be a non-zero ideal of $A$. Let $f \in I$ be a non-zero element. By the assumption, $A/fA$ is a finite $k$-module. Hence $I/fA$ is also a finite $k$-module. Hence $I/fA$ is a finite $A$-module. Since $fA$ is a finite $A$-module, $I$ is also a finite $A$-module. QED

Lemma 2 Let $A$ be a commutative ring. Let $P_1, ..., P_{n+1}$ be distinct maximal ideals of $A$. Then $P_1...P_n \neq P_1...P_{n+1}$.

Proof: Suppose $P_1...P_n = P_1...P_{n+1}$. Then $P_1...P_n \subset P_{n+1}$. Hence $P_i \subset P_{n+1}$ for some $i \leq n$. This is a contradiction. QED

Lemma 3 Let $k$ be a field. Let $A$ be a commutative algebra over a field $k$. Suppose $A$ is a finite $k$-module. Then Spec($A$) is finite.

Proof: Since $A$ is a finite $k$-module, any prime ideal of $A$ is maximal. Hence the assertion follows from Lemma 2. QED

Lemma 4 Let $A$ be a commutative algebra over a field $k$. Suppose $A$ is a finite $k$-module. By Lemma 3, Spec($A$) is finite. Let Spec($A$) = {$P_1, ..., P_r$}. Let $I = P_1 \cap ..., \cap P_r$. Then $I$ is nilpotent.

Proof: Since $A$ is a finite $k$-module, every prime ideal is maximal. Hence every element of $I$ is nilpotent by Lemma 3 of my answer to this question. By Lemma 1, $I$ is finitely generated. Hence $I$ is nilpotent. QED

Lemma 5 Let $A$ be a commutative algebra over a field $k$. Let $I$ be a non-zero proper ideal of $A$. Suppose $A/I$ is a finite $k$-module. Then there exist maximal ideals $P_1, ..., P_r$ such that $P_1...P_r \subset I$.

Proof: By Lemma 3, Spec($A/I$) is finite. Let Spec($A/I$) = {$Q_1, ..., Q_s$}. Let $J = Q_1 \cap ... \cap Q_s$. Since each $Q_i$ is maximal, $J = Q_1...Q_s$. By Lemma 4, $J^k = 0$ for some integer $k \geq 1$. Let $P_i$ be the inverse image of $Q_i$ by the canonical morphism $A \rightarrow A/I$. Then $(P_1...P_s)^k \subset I$. QED

Lemma 6 Let $A$ be an integrally close domain containing a field $k$ as a subring. Suppose $A/fA$ is a finite $k$-module for every non-zero element $f \in A$. Then every non-zero prime ideal of $A$ is invertible.

Proof: Let $P$ be a non-zero prime ideal of $A$. We claim that $P^{-1} \neq A$. Let $a \in P$ be non-zero. By Lemma 5, there exist maximal ideals $P_1, ..., P_r$ such that $P_1...P_r \subset aA$. Choose $r$ such that $r$ is minimal. Since $P_1...P_r \subset P$, one of $P_i = P$. Without loss of generality, we can assume $P_1 = P$. By the minimality of r, $P_2...P_r$ is not contained in $aA$. Hence there exits $b \in P_2...P_r$ such that $b$ is not contained in $aA$. Since $bP \subset aA$, $ba^{-1}P \subset A$. Hence $ba^{-1} \in P^{-1}$. Since $ba^{-1}$ is not contained in $A$, $P^{-1} \neq A$. Since $P$ is maximal and $P \subset PP^{-1} \subset A$, $P = PP^{-1}$ or $PP^{-1} = A$. Suppose $P = PP^{-1}$. Since $P$ is finitely generated by Lemma 1, every element of $P^{-1}$ is integral over A. Since $A$ is integrally closed $P^{-1} \subset A$. This is a contradiction. QED

Lemma 7 Let $A$ be an integrally close domain containing a field $k$ as a subring. Suppose $A/fA$ is a finite $k$-module for every non-zero element $f \in A$. Then every non-zero ideal is invertible.

Proof. Suppose there exists a non-zero ideal $I$ which is not invertible. We choose $I$ such that $dim_k A/I$ is minimal. Since $A \neq I$, there exists a maximal ideal $P$ such that $I \subset P$. $I \subset IP^{-1} \subset II^{-1} \subset A$. If $I = IP^{-1}$, since $P$ is finitely generated by Lemma 1, every element of $P^{-1}$ is integral over $A$. Since $A$ is integrally closed, this cannot happen by the proof of Lemma 6. Hence $I \neq IP^{-1}$. By the minimality of $dim_k A/I$, $IP^{-1}$ is invertible. Hence $I$ is invertible. This is a contradiction. QED

Lemma 8 Let $A$ be an integrally close domain containing a field $k$ as a subring. Suppose $A/fA$ is a finite $k$-module for every non-zero element $f \in A$. Then every non-zero ideal is a product of prime ideals.

Proof: Suppose there exists a non-zero ideal $I$ which is not a product of prime ideals. We choose $I$ such that $dim_k A/I$ is minimal. Since $I$ is not maximal, there exists a prime ideal $P$ such that $I \subset P$. Then $IP^{-1} \subset A$ and $IP^{-1} \neq A$. Suppose $I = IP^{-1}$. Since I is finitely generated by Lemma 1, every element of $P^{-1}$ is integral over $A$. Since $A$ is integrally closed, this cannot happen by the proof of Lemma 6. Hence $I \neq IP^{-1}$. Since $I \subset IP^{-1}$, $IP^{-1}$ is a product of prime ideals. Then $I$ is a product of prime ideals. This is a contradiction. QED

Proposition Let $A$ be an integrally close domain containing a field $k$ as a subring. Suppose $A/fA$ is a finite $k$-module for every non-zero element $f \in A$. Then every non-zero ideal has a unique factorization as a product of prime ideals.

Proof: This follows immediately from Lemma 8 and Lemma 6.

Makoto Kato
  • 42,602
-2

let $A$ be an algebra over field $K$ such that every element of $A$ is algebraic over $K$ show that $A$ is Dedekind finite

gnometorule
  • 4,640
ziba
  • 1