Characterizing von Neumann regularity
$begingroup$
Let $R$ be a commutative unital ring. I want to show the following equivalences:
(1) $R$ is zero-dimensional and reduced,
(2) every ideal in $R$ is radical,
(3) $R$ is von Neumann regular.
See wikipedia for the definitions. The only step I am missing is (1) to (2). I only see that the zero ideal (0) is radical. Any idea would be welcome. Or a reference to a textbook containing this proof. Thanks.
commutative-algebra
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:45
rayray
809
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $R$ be a commutative unital ring. I want to show the following equivalences:
(1) $R$ is zero-dimensional and reduced,
(2) every ideal in $R$ is radical,
(3) $R$ is von Neumann regular.
See wikipedia for the definitions. The only step I am missing is (1) to (2). I only see that the zero ideal (0) is radical. Any idea would be welcome. Or a reference to a textbook containing this proof. Thanks.
commutative-algebra
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:45
rayray
809
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $R$ be a commutative unital ring. I want to show the following equivalences:
(1) $R$ is zero-dimensional and reduced,
(2) every ideal in $R$ is radical,
(3) $R$ is von Neumann regular.
See wikipedia for the definitions. The only step I am missing is (1) to (2). I only see that the zero ideal (0) is radical. Any idea would be welcome. Or a reference to a textbook containing this proof. Thanks.
commutative-algebra
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:45
rayray
809
$endgroup$
Let $R$ be a commutative unital ring. I want to show the following equivalences:
(1) $R$ is zero-dimensional and reduced,
(2) every ideal in $R$ is radical,
(3) $R$ is von Neumann regular.
See wikipedia for the definitions. The only step I am missing is (1) to (2). I only see that the zero ideal (0) is radical. Any idea would be welcome. Or a reference to a textbook containing this proof. Thanks.
commutative-algebra
commutative-algebra
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:45
rayray
809
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:45
rayray
809
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:45
rayray
809
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:45
rayray
809
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:45
rayray
809
809
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
(2) <-> (3) is pretty much trivial. The key observations are that $x^2R$ being radical implies that $x$ is a Von Neumann Regular (VNR) element, and that $x$ being a VNR element implies that $x^n$ divides $x$.
So if you're good with (3) -> (1), we might as well just show (1) -> (3) directly.
For good measure we'll do it two ways.
First Way: (This is the way I've seen most often). We start by considering the module $xR / x^2R$. If we can show that this is the zero module, then we'll have $xR = x^2R$ — end of proof. Being zero is a local property, so in fact we only need to show that $(xR / x^2R)_mathfrak{m} = 0$ for each maximal ideal of $R$. Since localization distributes over quotients, we're actually looking at $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m}$. By assumption that $R$ is $0$-dimensional and reduced, $R_mathfrak{m}$ is a field. Hence the image of $x$ in $R_mathfrak{m}$ is either $0$ or a unit. In either case, certainly $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m} = 0$.
Second Way: Note that $x in R$ is a VNR element iff $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$. Indeed, if $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$, then $xR + J = R$ with $xR cap J = 0$, so we can write $xa + j = 1$ for some $a in R, j in J$. Then $xj = 0$ and $x^2a = x$ follows. Conversely, if $x^2a = x$, then $axR = xR$ and $ax$ is an idempotent. When $e in R$ is an idempotent, one always has $eR oplus (1-e)R = R$.
With this in mind, our approach will be to show that $xR oplus Ann(x) = R$ for any element $x$ of a reduced $0$-dimensional ring. First check that $xR cap Ann(x) = 0$ because $R$ is reduced (indeed this characterizes reduced rings). Then note $xR + Ann(x)$ is never contained in a minimal prime of a reduced ring, as $PR_P = 0$. Since $R$ is assumed to be $0$-dimensional, moreover $xR + Ann(x)$ is not contained in any prime ideal, and must be the entire ring.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:01
Badam BaplanBadam Baplan
4,665722
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could one prove the assertion that $xR+Ann(x)$ is not contained in a minimal prime without using localisations? (I am not yet familiar with this power tool in algebra; I am an analyst).
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 9:28
$begingroup$
I think one can proceed as follows: use that the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$ if and only if for all $ain R$ there is $yin R$ and $nin N$ such that $a^n(1+ay)=0$. Since $aRcap Ann(a)=0$ we get that $n=1$.
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14
add a comment |
Your Answer
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
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%2f3056948%2fcharacterizing-von-neumann-regularity%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
$begingroup$
(2) <-> (3) is pretty much trivial. The key observations are that $x^2R$ being radical implies that $x$ is a Von Neumann Regular (VNR) element, and that $x$ being a VNR element implies that $x^n$ divides $x$.
So if you're good with (3) -> (1), we might as well just show (1) -> (3) directly.
For good measure we'll do it two ways.
First Way: (This is the way I've seen most often). We start by considering the module $xR / x^2R$. If we can show that this is the zero module, then we'll have $xR = x^2R$ — end of proof. Being zero is a local property, so in fact we only need to show that $(xR / x^2R)_mathfrak{m} = 0$ for each maximal ideal of $R$. Since localization distributes over quotients, we're actually looking at $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m}$. By assumption that $R$ is $0$-dimensional and reduced, $R_mathfrak{m}$ is a field. Hence the image of $x$ in $R_mathfrak{m}$ is either $0$ or a unit. In either case, certainly $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m} = 0$.
Second Way: Note that $x in R$ is a VNR element iff $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$. Indeed, if $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$, then $xR + J = R$ with $xR cap J = 0$, so we can write $xa + j = 1$ for some $a in R, j in J$. Then $xj = 0$ and $x^2a = x$ follows. Conversely, if $x^2a = x$, then $axR = xR$ and $ax$ is an idempotent. When $e in R$ is an idempotent, one always has $eR oplus (1-e)R = R$.
With this in mind, our approach will be to show that $xR oplus Ann(x) = R$ for any element $x$ of a reduced $0$-dimensional ring. First check that $xR cap Ann(x) = 0$ because $R$ is reduced (indeed this characterizes reduced rings). Then note $xR + Ann(x)$ is never contained in a minimal prime of a reduced ring, as $PR_P = 0$. Since $R$ is assumed to be $0$-dimensional, moreover $xR + Ann(x)$ is not contained in any prime ideal, and must be the entire ring.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:01
Badam BaplanBadam Baplan
4,665722
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could one prove the assertion that $xR+Ann(x)$ is not contained in a minimal prime without using localisations? (I am not yet familiar with this power tool in algebra; I am an analyst).
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 9:28
$begingroup$
I think one can proceed as follows: use that the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$ if and only if for all $ain R$ there is $yin R$ and $nin N$ such that $a^n(1+ay)=0$. Since $aRcap Ann(a)=0$ we get that $n=1$.
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(2) <-> (3) is pretty much trivial. The key observations are that $x^2R$ being radical implies that $x$ is a Von Neumann Regular (VNR) element, and that $x$ being a VNR element implies that $x^n$ divides $x$.
So if you're good with (3) -> (1), we might as well just show (1) -> (3) directly.
For good measure we'll do it two ways.
First Way: (This is the way I've seen most often). We start by considering the module $xR / x^2R$. If we can show that this is the zero module, then we'll have $xR = x^2R$ — end of proof. Being zero is a local property, so in fact we only need to show that $(xR / x^2R)_mathfrak{m} = 0$ for each maximal ideal of $R$. Since localization distributes over quotients, we're actually looking at $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m}$. By assumption that $R$ is $0$-dimensional and reduced, $R_mathfrak{m}$ is a field. Hence the image of $x$ in $R_mathfrak{m}$ is either $0$ or a unit. In either case, certainly $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m} = 0$.
Second Way: Note that $x in R$ is a VNR element iff $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$. Indeed, if $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$, then $xR + J = R$ with $xR cap J = 0$, so we can write $xa + j = 1$ for some $a in R, j in J$. Then $xj = 0$ and $x^2a = x$ follows. Conversely, if $x^2a = x$, then $axR = xR$ and $ax$ is an idempotent. When $e in R$ is an idempotent, one always has $eR oplus (1-e)R = R$.
With this in mind, our approach will be to show that $xR oplus Ann(x) = R$ for any element $x$ of a reduced $0$-dimensional ring. First check that $xR cap Ann(x) = 0$ because $R$ is reduced (indeed this characterizes reduced rings). Then note $xR + Ann(x)$ is never contained in a minimal prime of a reduced ring, as $PR_P = 0$. Since $R$ is assumed to be $0$-dimensional, moreover $xR + Ann(x)$ is not contained in any prime ideal, and must be the entire ring.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:01
Badam BaplanBadam Baplan
4,665722
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could one prove the assertion that $xR+Ann(x)$ is not contained in a minimal prime without using localisations? (I am not yet familiar with this power tool in algebra; I am an analyst).
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 9:28
$begingroup$
I think one can proceed as follows: use that the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$ if and only if for all $ain R$ there is $yin R$ and $nin N$ such that $a^n(1+ay)=0$. Since $aRcap Ann(a)=0$ we get that $n=1$.
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(2) <-> (3) is pretty much trivial. The key observations are that $x^2R$ being radical implies that $x$ is a Von Neumann Regular (VNR) element, and that $x$ being a VNR element implies that $x^n$ divides $x$.
So if you're good with (3) -> (1), we might as well just show (1) -> (3) directly.
For good measure we'll do it two ways.
First Way: (This is the way I've seen most often). We start by considering the module $xR / x^2R$. If we can show that this is the zero module, then we'll have $xR = x^2R$ — end of proof. Being zero is a local property, so in fact we only need to show that $(xR / x^2R)_mathfrak{m} = 0$ for each maximal ideal of $R$. Since localization distributes over quotients, we're actually looking at $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m}$. By assumption that $R$ is $0$-dimensional and reduced, $R_mathfrak{m}$ is a field. Hence the image of $x$ in $R_mathfrak{m}$ is either $0$ or a unit. In either case, certainly $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m} = 0$.
Second Way: Note that $x in R$ is a VNR element iff $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$. Indeed, if $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$, then $xR + J = R$ with $xR cap J = 0$, so we can write $xa + j = 1$ for some $a in R, j in J$. Then $xj = 0$ and $x^2a = x$ follows. Conversely, if $x^2a = x$, then $axR = xR$ and $ax$ is an idempotent. When $e in R$ is an idempotent, one always has $eR oplus (1-e)R = R$.
With this in mind, our approach will be to show that $xR oplus Ann(x) = R$ for any element $x$ of a reduced $0$-dimensional ring. First check that $xR cap Ann(x) = 0$ because $R$ is reduced (indeed this characterizes reduced rings). Then note $xR + Ann(x)$ is never contained in a minimal prime of a reduced ring, as $PR_P = 0$. Since $R$ is assumed to be $0$-dimensional, moreover $xR + Ann(x)$ is not contained in any prime ideal, and must be the entire ring.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:01
Badam BaplanBadam Baplan
4,665722
$endgroup$
(2) <-> (3) is pretty much trivial. The key observations are that $x^2R$ being radical implies that $x$ is a Von Neumann Regular (VNR) element, and that $x$ being a VNR element implies that $x^n$ divides $x$.
So if you're good with (3) -> (1), we might as well just show (1) -> (3) directly.
For good measure we'll do it two ways.
First Way: (This is the way I've seen most often). We start by considering the module $xR / x^2R$. If we can show that this is the zero module, then we'll have $xR = x^2R$ — end of proof. Being zero is a local property, so in fact we only need to show that $(xR / x^2R)_mathfrak{m} = 0$ for each maximal ideal of $R$. Since localization distributes over quotients, we're actually looking at $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m}$. By assumption that $R$ is $0$-dimensional and reduced, $R_mathfrak{m}$ is a field. Hence the image of $x$ in $R_mathfrak{m}$ is either $0$ or a unit. In either case, certainly $xR_mathfrak{m}/x^2R_mathfrak{m} = 0$.
Second Way: Note that $x in R$ is a VNR element iff $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$. Indeed, if $xR$ is a direct summand of $R$, then $xR + J = R$ with $xR cap J = 0$, so we can write $xa + j = 1$ for some $a in R, j in J$. Then $xj = 0$ and $x^2a = x$ follows. Conversely, if $x^2a = x$, then $axR = xR$ and $ax$ is an idempotent. When $e in R$ is an idempotent, one always has $eR oplus (1-e)R = R$.
With this in mind, our approach will be to show that $xR oplus Ann(x) = R$ for any element $x$ of a reduced $0$-dimensional ring. First check that $xR cap Ann(x) = 0$ because $R$ is reduced (indeed this characterizes reduced rings). Then note $xR + Ann(x)$ is never contained in a minimal prime of a reduced ring, as $PR_P = 0$. Since $R$ is assumed to be $0$-dimensional, moreover $xR + Ann(x)$ is not contained in any prime ideal, and must be the entire ring.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:01
Badam BaplanBadam Baplan
4,665722
answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:01
Badam BaplanBadam Baplan
4,665722
answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:01
Badam BaplanBadam Baplan
4,665722
answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:01
Badam BaplanBadam Baplan
4,665722
4,665722
$begingroup$
Could one prove the assertion that $xR+Ann(x)$ is not contained in a minimal prime without using localisations? (I am not yet familiar with this power tool in algebra; I am an analyst).
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 9:28
$begingroup$
I think one can proceed as follows: use that the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$ if and only if for all $ain R$ there is $yin R$ and $nin N$ such that $a^n(1+ay)=0$. Since $aRcap Ann(a)=0$ we get that $n=1$.
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could one prove the assertion that $xR+Ann(x)$ is not contained in a minimal prime without using localisations? (I am not yet familiar with this power tool in algebra; I am an analyst).
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 9:28
$begingroup$
I think one can proceed as follows: use that the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$ if and only if for all $ain R$ there is $yin R$ and $nin N$ such that $a^n(1+ay)=0$. Since $aRcap Ann(a)=0$ we get that $n=1$.
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14
$begingroup$
Could one prove the assertion that $xR+Ann(x)$ is not contained in a minimal prime without using localisations? (I am not yet familiar with this power tool in algebra; I am an analyst).
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 9:28
$begingroup$
Could one prove the assertion that $xR+Ann(x)$ is not contained in a minimal prime without using localisations? (I am not yet familiar with this power tool in algebra; I am an analyst).
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 9:28
$begingroup$
I think one can proceed as follows: use that the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$ if and only if for all $ain R$ there is $yin R$ and $nin N$ such that $a^n(1+ay)=0$. Since $aRcap Ann(a)=0$ we get that $n=1$.
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14
$begingroup$
I think one can proceed as follows: use that the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$ if and only if for all $ain R$ there is $yin R$ and $nin N$ such that $a^n(1+ay)=0$. Since $aRcap Ann(a)=0$ we get that $n=1$.
$endgroup$
– ray
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14
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.
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%2f3056948%2fcharacterizing-von-neumann-regularity%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
