The nilradical and Jacobson radical of $mathbb{Z}_m$











up vote
0
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    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?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      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?










      share|cite|improve this question















      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 18 at 14:12

























      asked Nov 18 at 12:10









      Giuseppe Joseph Peppe Arnone

      33




      33






















          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
          $$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • 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













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          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

























          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
          $$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • 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

















          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
          $$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • 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















          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
          $$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$






          share|cite|improve this answer












          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
          $$mathcal{J}(mathbb{Z}_{m})=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{m}text{ is maximal}}mathfrak{m}=bigcaplimits_{mathfrak{p}text{ is prime}}mathfrak{p}=mathcal{N}(mathbb{Z}_{m}).$$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 18 at 14:25









          YumekuiMath

          26114




          26114












          • 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












          • 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




















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bundesstraße 106

          Verónica Boquete

          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten