3

I know that the spectrum of an infinite product of rings is not an infinite disjoint union of spaces. I always see this fact being proven using compactness, but I would like to understand where the argument of the finite case fails.

I started reasoning under the assumption that the ideals in a product of rings $R:=\prod _{i\in I}R_i$ , where the cardinality of $I$ is not finite, are exactly the subsets $\prod _{i\in I}J_i$, with $J_i\subset R_i$ ideals; but at this point the argument for the finite case seems to work fine, so probably the initial assumption is wrong. I'm not sure though: the product of ideals is an ideal in $R$, so I just need to know if any ideal in $R$ is of this form. Let $J\subset R$ be an ideal, and let $J_i\subset R_i$ be the image of $J$ under the corresponding projection. Clearly $J\subset J':=\prod _{i\in I}J_i$. Let $j:=(j_i)_{i\in I}$ be an element of $J'$: then for every $i$, the element of $J'$ whose coordinates are all $0$, except for the $i$-th one which is $j_i$, is contained in $J$. Can we say that $j\in J$ then? I'm not convinced, because the sum of an infinite number of terms does not make sense in general, but here maybe it does: the sum is defined coordinatewise, and at every coordinate we have a sum of all zeros but a term, that can be computed.

CRinge
  • 179
  • I'm not acquainted with the subject, but it seems to me that you might mean $\mathrm{Spec}$, typeset as $\mathrm{Spec}$. Notice the curly braces, so that mathrm applies to the following letters and not just the first one. – amrsa Aug 21 '22 at 13:40
  • 3
    @amrsa really what you want here is $\operatorname{Spec}$ which produces the correct spacing when interacting with other text, i.e. $\mathrm{Spec} A$ gives $\mathrm{Spec} A$ while $\operatorname{Spec} A$ gives $\operatorname{Spec} A$. – KReiser Aug 21 '22 at 13:50
  • 4
    To the OP: you're correct that there are more ideals of an infinite product than just the ideals you've identified. There are ideals coming from ultrafilters on the index set - see here and here on MSE for some material on this. If these answer your question, please let me know and I can mark this post as a duplicate for you. – KReiser Aug 21 '22 at 13:55
  • @KReiser Yes, my "correction" was kind of lazy... just a slight improvement; yours is definitive. – amrsa Aug 21 '22 at 14:20
  • Yes @KReiser they answer my question, thanks. Just one thing: do exist infinite (nonzero) rings such that, in their product $R$, any ideal is the product of ideals? I would say no, because in this case the argument of the finite situation extends, so the spectrum of $R$ would be a disjoint union of (nonempty) spaces. – CRinge Aug 21 '22 at 14:25

1 Answers1

3

As KReiser says in the comments, there are already some questions and answers here discussing what $\text{Spec}$ of an infinite product looks like; I don't consider this question a duplicate of those because the question here is specifically why the obvious argument does not work. This is the step that doesn't work:

Let $j:=(j_i)_{i\in I}$ be an element of $J'$: then for every $i$, the element of $J'$ whose coordinates are all $0$, except for the $i$-th one which is $j_i$, is contained in $J$. Can we say that $j\in J$ then?

No. If $R = \prod_i R_i$ is any infinite product of nonzero rings, it has an ideal $J$ consisting of all elements of $R$ whose coordinates vanish except at finitely many entries. The projection $J_i$ of $J$ to every factor $R_i$ is all of $R_i$ by construction, so $J' = (1)$ is the unit ideal. But $J$ is never the unit ideal itself, because it doesn't contain any element whose coordinates are nonzero infinitely often, and in particular never contains the identity. It is true that one can make sense of the "infinite sum" $\sum j_i$ here but ideals are simply not required to be closed under such sums.

The prime ideals containing $J$ are where the "interesting" part of $\text{Spec } R$ is, involving ultrafilters and so on as explained in the linked answers.


There is also a topological analogy here here which may be helpful motivation. Let $X$ be a topological space and consider the ring $C_b(X, \mathbb{C})$ of bounded continuous functions $X \to \mathbb{C}$. This ring is naturally a commutative unital $C^{\ast}$-algebra, so by the commutative Gelfand-Naimark theorem it can be identified with the ring of continuous functions on its spectrum, which is a compact Hausdorff space. The "obvious" part of the spectrum consists of the maximal ideals corresponding to evaluation at each $x \in X$; if $X$ is noncompact then there must be other points in the spectrum to guarantee compactness. And indeed the spectrum turns out to be exactly the Stone-Cech compactification $\beta X$.

In particular, if $X$ is a discrete space then $C_b(X, \mathbb{C})$ is naturally a subring of the infinite product $\prod_{x \in X} \mathbb{C}$ (the two turn out to have the same spectrum), and $\beta X$ turns out to be exactly the space of ultrafilters on $X$.

Qiaochu Yuan
  • 419,620
  • Thank you! Your nice example also answers my other doubt in the comments (since if an ideal is a product of ideals, it is the product of its projections) – CRinge Aug 21 '22 at 16:29
  • You're welcome. One last comment which is hopefully not too confusing: one might take the point of view that the appearance of ultrafilters and so on is a sign that we're actually doing the wrong thing. There's an argument to be made that an infinite product $\prod_i R_i$ of rings should not be considered a ring but a topological ring, with the product topology (where each $R_i$ has the discrete topology), and that we should consider only ideals which are closed with respect to this topology. The product topology is the topology of pointwise convergence so we actually do get "infinite sums"! – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '22 at 16:50
  • One could more abstractly think of this product not as a ring but as a pro-ring (a pro-object in the category of rings), or maybe as a condensed ring in the sense of condensed mathematics. This is in the same spirit as the idea that the Galois group of an infinite Galois extension should not be considered an abstract group but a profinite group. – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 22 '22 at 16:51