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.
$\mathrm{Spec}$
. Notice the curly braces, so thatmathrm
applies to the following letters and not just the first one. – amrsa Aug 21 '22 at 13:40$\operatorname{Spec}$
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