The nilradical and Jacobson radical of $mathbb{Z}_m$
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to proove (finding explicit formulas) that the Jacobson radical of $mathbb{Z}_m$ equals its nilradical: i.e. $ mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_m)=mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_m) $. I prooved a formula (following Atiyah - Mac Donald, Introduction to commutative algebra - pag. 6 - Examples 1) for the ring $mathbb{Z}_m$, where $m>1$, $ m=p_1^{s_1}cdots p_t^{s_t} $ and $ I=lbrace 1,ldots,trbrace $; is
: $ mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_m)=bigcap_{ mathfrak{m}vartriangleleftcdot mathbb{Z}_m}mathfrak{m}=bigcap_{iin I}dfrac{p_imathbb{Z}}{mmathbb{Z}}=bigcap_{iin I}([p_i]_{mmathbb{Z}})=bigl(text{lcd} ([p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}},ldots,[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})bigl)=left(dfrac{[p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}}cdots[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}}}{text{GCD} ([p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}},ldots,[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})}right)= ([p_1cdots p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})=dfrac{p_1cdots p_tmathbb{Z}}{mmathbb{Z}}=dfrac{sqrt{mmathbb{Z}}}{mmathbb{Z}}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_m) $
Is it correct?
ring-theory commutative-algebra
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to proove (finding explicit formulas) that the Jacobson radical of $mathbb{Z}_m$ equals its nilradical: i.e. $ mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_m)=mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_m) $. I prooved a formula (following Atiyah - Mac Donald, Introduction to commutative algebra - pag. 6 - Examples 1) for the ring $mathbb{Z}_m$, where $m>1$, $ m=p_1^{s_1}cdots p_t^{s_t} $ and $ I=lbrace 1,ldots,trbrace $; is
: $ mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_m)=bigcap_{ mathfrak{m}vartriangleleftcdot mathbb{Z}_m}mathfrak{m}=bigcap_{iin I}dfrac{p_imathbb{Z}}{mmathbb{Z}}=bigcap_{iin I}([p_i]_{mmathbb{Z}})=bigl(text{lcd} ([p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}},ldots,[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})bigl)=left(dfrac{[p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}}cdots[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}}}{text{GCD} ([p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}},ldots,[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})}right)= ([p_1cdots p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})=dfrac{p_1cdots p_tmathbb{Z}}{mmathbb{Z}}=dfrac{sqrt{mmathbb{Z}}}{mmathbb{Z}}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_m) $
Is it correct?
ring-theory commutative-algebra
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to proove (finding explicit formulas) that the Jacobson radical of $mathbb{Z}_m$ equals its nilradical: i.e. $ mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_m)=mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_m) $. I prooved a formula (following Atiyah - Mac Donald, Introduction to commutative algebra - pag. 6 - Examples 1) for the ring $mathbb{Z}_m$, where $m>1$, $ m=p_1^{s_1}cdots p_t^{s_t} $ and $ I=lbrace 1,ldots,trbrace $; is
: $ mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_m)=bigcap_{ mathfrak{m}vartriangleleftcdot mathbb{Z}_m}mathfrak{m}=bigcap_{iin I}dfrac{p_imathbb{Z}}{mmathbb{Z}}=bigcap_{iin I}([p_i]_{mmathbb{Z}})=bigl(text{lcd} ([p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}},ldots,[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})bigl)=left(dfrac{[p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}}cdots[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}}}{text{GCD} ([p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}},ldots,[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})}right)= ([p_1cdots p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})=dfrac{p_1cdots p_tmathbb{Z}}{mmathbb{Z}}=dfrac{sqrt{mmathbb{Z}}}{mmathbb{Z}}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_m) $
Is it correct?
ring-theory commutative-algebra
I want to proove (finding explicit formulas) that the Jacobson radical of $mathbb{Z}_m$ equals its nilradical: i.e. $ mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_m)=mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_m) $. I prooved a formula (following Atiyah - Mac Donald, Introduction to commutative algebra - pag. 6 - Examples 1) for the ring $mathbb{Z}_m$, where $m>1$, $ m=p_1^{s_1}cdots p_t^{s_t} $ and $ I=lbrace 1,ldots,trbrace $; is
: $ mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_m)=bigcap_{ mathfrak{m}vartriangleleftcdot mathbb{Z}_m}mathfrak{m}=bigcap_{iin I}dfrac{p_imathbb{Z}}{mmathbb{Z}}=bigcap_{iin I}([p_i]_{mmathbb{Z}})=bigl(text{lcd} ([p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}},ldots,[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})bigl)=left(dfrac{[p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}}cdots[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}}}{text{GCD} ([p_1]_{mmathbb{Z}},ldots,[p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})}right)= ([p_1cdots p_t]_{mmathbb{Z}})=dfrac{p_1cdots p_tmathbb{Z}}{mmathbb{Z}}=dfrac{sqrt{mmathbb{Z}}}{mmathbb{Z}}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_m) $
Is it correct?
ring-theory commutative-algebra
ring-theory commutative-algebra
edited Nov 18 at 14:12
asked Nov 18 at 12:10
Giuseppe Joseph Peppe Arnone
33
33
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Your formula is correct and in fact we have that $mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m})$. Indeed, if $P$ is a non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ then $P=nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$ for some $ninmathbb{Z}$ by the correspondence theorem (3rd isomorphism theorem) for rings. But note that $nmathbb{Z}$ is a prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ since $mathbb{Z}_{m}/P$ is an integral domain and
$$mathbb{Z}_{m}/P=(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})/(nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})simeqmathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$$
by the correspondence theorem. But this implies that $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$ is a field because every non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ is maximal and therefore $P$ is a maximal ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ as well. Thus
$$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$
Bug: $,P = (4) = (2)$ is prime in $Bbb Z_6$ but $,Bbb Z_6/4 notcong Bbb Z/4 $
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 15:05
There really isn't a bug @BillDubuque since $nmid m$ by the correspondence theorem and $4notmid 6$, though I could have been more explicit.
– YumekuiMath
Nov 20 at 15:24
Yes, the bug can easily be fixed, but without mention of that in the proof it is still a bug, as the example I gave shoiws.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 20 at 15:32
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Your formula is correct and in fact we have that $mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m})$. Indeed, if $P$ is a non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ then $P=nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$ for some $ninmathbb{Z}$ by the correspondence theorem (3rd isomorphism theorem) for rings. But note that $nmathbb{Z}$ is a prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ since $mathbb{Z}_{m}/P$ is an integral domain and
$$mathbb{Z}_{m}/P=(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})/(nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})simeqmathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$$
by the correspondence theorem. But this implies that $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$ is a field because every non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ is maximal and therefore $P$ is a maximal ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ as well. Thus
$$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$
Bug: $,P = (4) = (2)$ is prime in $Bbb Z_6$ but $,Bbb Z_6/4 notcong Bbb Z/4 $
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 15:05
There really isn't a bug @BillDubuque since $nmid m$ by the correspondence theorem and $4notmid 6$, though I could have been more explicit.
– YumekuiMath
Nov 20 at 15:24
Yes, the bug can easily be fixed, but without mention of that in the proof it is still a bug, as the example I gave shoiws.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 20 at 15:32
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Your formula is correct and in fact we have that $mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m})$. Indeed, if $P$ is a non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ then $P=nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$ for some $ninmathbb{Z}$ by the correspondence theorem (3rd isomorphism theorem) for rings. But note that $nmathbb{Z}$ is a prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ since $mathbb{Z}_{m}/P$ is an integral domain and
$$mathbb{Z}_{m}/P=(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})/(nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})simeqmathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$$
by the correspondence theorem. But this implies that $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$ is a field because every non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ is maximal and therefore $P$ is a maximal ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ as well. Thus
$$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$
Bug: $,P = (4) = (2)$ is prime in $Bbb Z_6$ but $,Bbb Z_6/4 notcong Bbb Z/4 $
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 15:05
There really isn't a bug @BillDubuque since $nmid m$ by the correspondence theorem and $4notmid 6$, though I could have been more explicit.
– YumekuiMath
Nov 20 at 15:24
Yes, the bug can easily be fixed, but without mention of that in the proof it is still a bug, as the example I gave shoiws.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 20 at 15:32
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Your formula is correct and in fact we have that $mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m})$. Indeed, if $P$ is a non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ then $P=nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$ for some $ninmathbb{Z}$ by the correspondence theorem (3rd isomorphism theorem) for rings. But note that $nmathbb{Z}$ is a prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ since $mathbb{Z}_{m}/P$ is an integral domain and
$$mathbb{Z}_{m}/P=(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})/(nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})simeqmathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$$
by the correspondence theorem. But this implies that $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$ is a field because every non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ is maximal and therefore $P$ is a maximal ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ as well. Thus
$$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$
Your formula is correct and in fact we have that $mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m})$. Indeed, if $P$ is a non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ then $P=nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z}$ for some $ninmathbb{Z}$ by the correspondence theorem (3rd isomorphism theorem) for rings. But note that $nmathbb{Z}$ is a prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ since $mathbb{Z}_{m}/P$ is an integral domain and
$$mathbb{Z}_{m}/P=(mathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})/(nmathbb{Z}/mmathbb{Z})simeqmathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$$
by the correspondence theorem. But this implies that $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$ is a field because every non-zero prime ideal in $mathbb{Z}$ is maximal and therefore $P$ is a maximal ideal in $mathbb{Z}_{m}$ as well. Thus
$$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$
answered Nov 18 at 14:25
YumekuiMath
34114
34114
Bug: $,P = (4) = (2)$ is prime in $Bbb Z_6$ but $,Bbb Z_6/4 notcong Bbb Z/4 $
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 15:05
There really isn't a bug @BillDubuque since $nmid m$ by the correspondence theorem and $4notmid 6$, though I could have been more explicit.
– YumekuiMath
Nov 20 at 15:24
Yes, the bug can easily be fixed, but without mention of that in the proof it is still a bug, as the example I gave shoiws.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 20 at 15:32
add a comment |
Bug: $,P = (4) = (2)$ is prime in $Bbb Z_6$ but $,Bbb Z_6/4 notcong Bbb Z/4 $
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 15:05
There really isn't a bug @BillDubuque since $nmid m$ by the correspondence theorem and $4notmid 6$, though I could have been more explicit.
– YumekuiMath
Nov 20 at 15:24
Yes, the bug can easily be fixed, but without mention of that in the proof it is still a bug, as the example I gave shoiws.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 20 at 15:32
Bug: $,P = (4) = (2)$ is prime in $Bbb Z_6$ but $,Bbb Z_6/4 notcong Bbb Z/4 $
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 15:05
Bug: $,P = (4) = (2)$ is prime in $Bbb Z_6$ but $,Bbb Z_6/4 notcong Bbb Z/4 $
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 18 at 15:05
There really isn't a bug @BillDubuque since $nmid m$ by the correspondence theorem and $4notmid 6$, though I could have been more explicit.
– YumekuiMath
Nov 20 at 15:24
There really isn't a bug @BillDubuque since $nmid m$ by the correspondence theorem and $4notmid 6$, though I could have been more explicit.
– YumekuiMath
Nov 20 at 15:24
Yes, the bug can easily be fixed, but without mention of that in the proof it is still a bug, as the example I gave shoiws.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 20 at 15:32
Yes, the bug can easily be fixed, but without mention of that in the proof it is still a bug, as the example I gave shoiws.
– Bill Dubuque
Nov 20 at 15:32
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003456%2fthe-nilradical-and-jacobson-radical-of-mathbbz-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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