Ideal is maximal iff the zero ideal is maximal in the quotient ring [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $R$ a commutative ring with unit. Without using the ideal correspondence theorem for quotient rings, show that
beginalign
mathscrm subset R , , , textmaximal ideal Longleftrightarrow 0 subset R/mathscrm , , , textmaximal ideal
endalign



I have to know the proof of this statement for the exam, but I don't have any idea how to prove it.



Any suggestion? Thanks in advance!







share|cite|improve this question














closed as off-topic by Clayton, Jendrik Stelzner, GNU Supporter, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos Aug 10 at 20:37


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Clayton, Jendrik Stelzner, GNU Supporter, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • Do you know something that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring? I suspect that you are working with ring $R$ assumed to be commutative with unity. If so, when you add something about your knowledge of maximal ideals and quotient rings, you can also state that ring $R$ is commutative.
    – hardmath
    Aug 9 at 16:28










  • @hardmath yes sorry, the ring $R$ is commutative and with unit. Unfortunately in our algebra's course, the statement that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring is proved using the statement in the question...
    – userr777
    Aug 9 at 16:43






  • 1




    You ought to have proved the correspondence theorem by now. It would be silly if the correspondence of ideals was proven using correspondence of maximal ideals, so I assume that's not what you're referring to above.
    – rschwieb
    Aug 9 at 16:45






  • 1




    Thanks for the reply. That context would make a strong improvement to your Question, so that Readers appreciate you are looking for a proof that doesn't assume the characterization of maximal ideals through quotient rings that are fields. I'll make a slight change to the tags, but I encourage you to edit the body of your Question accordingly.
    – hardmath
    Aug 9 at 16:46














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $R$ a commutative ring with unit. Without using the ideal correspondence theorem for quotient rings, show that
beginalign
mathscrm subset R , , , textmaximal ideal Longleftrightarrow 0 subset R/mathscrm , , , textmaximal ideal
endalign



I have to know the proof of this statement for the exam, but I don't have any idea how to prove it.



Any suggestion? Thanks in advance!







share|cite|improve this question














closed as off-topic by Clayton, Jendrik Stelzner, GNU Supporter, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos Aug 10 at 20:37


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Clayton, Jendrik Stelzner, GNU Supporter, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • Do you know something that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring? I suspect that you are working with ring $R$ assumed to be commutative with unity. If so, when you add something about your knowledge of maximal ideals and quotient rings, you can also state that ring $R$ is commutative.
    – hardmath
    Aug 9 at 16:28










  • @hardmath yes sorry, the ring $R$ is commutative and with unit. Unfortunately in our algebra's course, the statement that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring is proved using the statement in the question...
    – userr777
    Aug 9 at 16:43






  • 1




    You ought to have proved the correspondence theorem by now. It would be silly if the correspondence of ideals was proven using correspondence of maximal ideals, so I assume that's not what you're referring to above.
    – rschwieb
    Aug 9 at 16:45






  • 1




    Thanks for the reply. That context would make a strong improvement to your Question, so that Readers appreciate you are looking for a proof that doesn't assume the characterization of maximal ideals through quotient rings that are fields. I'll make a slight change to the tags, but I encourage you to edit the body of your Question accordingly.
    – hardmath
    Aug 9 at 16:46












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Let $R$ a commutative ring with unit. Without using the ideal correspondence theorem for quotient rings, show that
beginalign
mathscrm subset R , , , textmaximal ideal Longleftrightarrow 0 subset R/mathscrm , , , textmaximal ideal
endalign



I have to know the proof of this statement for the exam, but I don't have any idea how to prove it.



Any suggestion? Thanks in advance!







share|cite|improve this question














Let $R$ a commutative ring with unit. Without using the ideal correspondence theorem for quotient rings, show that
beginalign
mathscrm subset R , , , textmaximal ideal Longleftrightarrow 0 subset R/mathscrm , , , textmaximal ideal
endalign



I have to know the proof of this statement for the exam, but I don't have any idea how to prove it.



Any suggestion? Thanks in advance!









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 9 at 21:13









Badam Baplan

3,356721




3,356721










asked Aug 9 at 16:22









userr777

1319




1319




closed as off-topic by Clayton, Jendrik Stelzner, GNU Supporter, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos Aug 10 at 20:37


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Clayton, Jendrik Stelzner, GNU Supporter, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by Clayton, Jendrik Stelzner, GNU Supporter, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos Aug 10 at 20:37


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Clayton, Jendrik Stelzner, GNU Supporter, Shailesh, José Carlos Santos
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • Do you know something that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring? I suspect that you are working with ring $R$ assumed to be commutative with unity. If so, when you add something about your knowledge of maximal ideals and quotient rings, you can also state that ring $R$ is commutative.
    – hardmath
    Aug 9 at 16:28










  • @hardmath yes sorry, the ring $R$ is commutative and with unit. Unfortunately in our algebra's course, the statement that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring is proved using the statement in the question...
    – userr777
    Aug 9 at 16:43






  • 1




    You ought to have proved the correspondence theorem by now. It would be silly if the correspondence of ideals was proven using correspondence of maximal ideals, so I assume that's not what you're referring to above.
    – rschwieb
    Aug 9 at 16:45






  • 1




    Thanks for the reply. That context would make a strong improvement to your Question, so that Readers appreciate you are looking for a proof that doesn't assume the characterization of maximal ideals through quotient rings that are fields. I'll make a slight change to the tags, but I encourage you to edit the body of your Question accordingly.
    – hardmath
    Aug 9 at 16:46
















  • Do you know something that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring? I suspect that you are working with ring $R$ assumed to be commutative with unity. If so, when you add something about your knowledge of maximal ideals and quotient rings, you can also state that ring $R$ is commutative.
    – hardmath
    Aug 9 at 16:28










  • @hardmath yes sorry, the ring $R$ is commutative and with unit. Unfortunately in our algebra's course, the statement that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring is proved using the statement in the question...
    – userr777
    Aug 9 at 16:43






  • 1




    You ought to have proved the correspondence theorem by now. It would be silly if the correspondence of ideals was proven using correspondence of maximal ideals, so I assume that's not what you're referring to above.
    – rschwieb
    Aug 9 at 16:45






  • 1




    Thanks for the reply. That context would make a strong improvement to your Question, so that Readers appreciate you are looking for a proof that doesn't assume the characterization of maximal ideals through quotient rings that are fields. I'll make a slight change to the tags, but I encourage you to edit the body of your Question accordingly.
    – hardmath
    Aug 9 at 16:46















Do you know something that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring? I suspect that you are working with ring $R$ assumed to be commutative with unity. If so, when you add something about your knowledge of maximal ideals and quotient rings, you can also state that ring $R$ is commutative.
– hardmath
Aug 9 at 16:28




Do you know something that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring? I suspect that you are working with ring $R$ assumed to be commutative with unity. If so, when you add something about your knowledge of maximal ideals and quotient rings, you can also state that ring $R$ is commutative.
– hardmath
Aug 9 at 16:28












@hardmath yes sorry, the ring $R$ is commutative and with unit. Unfortunately in our algebra's course, the statement that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring is proved using the statement in the question...
– userr777
Aug 9 at 16:43




@hardmath yes sorry, the ring $R$ is commutative and with unit. Unfortunately in our algebra's course, the statement that connects maximality of an ideal and the quotient ring is proved using the statement in the question...
– userr777
Aug 9 at 16:43




1




1




You ought to have proved the correspondence theorem by now. It would be silly if the correspondence of ideals was proven using correspondence of maximal ideals, so I assume that's not what you're referring to above.
– rschwieb
Aug 9 at 16:45




You ought to have proved the correspondence theorem by now. It would be silly if the correspondence of ideals was proven using correspondence of maximal ideals, so I assume that's not what you're referring to above.
– rschwieb
Aug 9 at 16:45




1




1




Thanks for the reply. That context would make a strong improvement to your Question, so that Readers appreciate you are looking for a proof that doesn't assume the characterization of maximal ideals through quotient rings that are fields. I'll make a slight change to the tags, but I encourage you to edit the body of your Question accordingly.
– hardmath
Aug 9 at 16:46




Thanks for the reply. That context would make a strong improvement to your Question, so that Readers appreciate you are looking for a proof that doesn't assume the characterization of maximal ideals through quotient rings that are fields. I'll make a slight change to the tags, but I encourage you to edit the body of your Question accordingly.
– hardmath
Aug 9 at 16:46










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Let $pi: R rightarrow R/mathfrakm$ be the canonical projection. The gist of the proof is looking at preimages/images of ideals under $pi$, and employing a few elementary properties of ring homomorphisms. Note that $pi$ is surjective and has kernel $mathfrakm$.



For a ring homomorphism $phi: R rightarrow S$, we recall that:

(1) If $J subset S$ is an ideal, then $phi^-1(J)$ is an ideal.

(2) If $I subset R$ is an ideal, then $phi(I)$ is an ideal when $phi$ is surjective.

(3) $phibig(phi^-1(J)big) = J$ when $phi$ is surjective (but always have $subset$)

(4) $phi^-1big(phi(I)big) = I$ when $ker(phi) subset I$ (but always have $supset$)



If you haven't seen these before, proving them is a good place to start (more good exam material!) I'll just show the $subset$ containment in (4). Indeed we have $x in phi^-1big(phi(I)big)$ iff $phi(x) in phi(I)$ iff there exists $y in I$ with $phi(x) = phi(y)$, equivalently $phi(x-y) = 0$. By assumption that $ker(phi) subset I$, we get $x in I$.



Note that these properties taken together give us the correspondence between ideals of $R$ and ideals of $R/mathfrakm$. In practice, the point is that we can use surjective homomorphisms to transport ideals back and forth between rings without losing any information, a very powerful tool.



Proof that $mathfrakm subset R$ is maximal $iff$ $(0) subset R/mathfrakm$ is maximal:



Suppose that $mathfrakm$ is a maximal ideal of $R$, and that $0 subset J$ is an ideal of $R/mathfrakm$. Then $pi^-1(J)$ is an ideal of $R$ (1) and since $mathfrakm=pi^-1(0) subset pi^-1(J)$, we have that $mathfrakm = pi^-1(J)$ or $R = pi^-1(J)$ by maximality of $mathfrakm$. In the first case this gives $0 = pi(mathfrakm) = pibig(pi^-1(J)big) = J$ (last equality by (3)), and similarly in the second that $R/mathfrakm = J$. Hence $(0)$ is maximal in $R / mathfrakm$.



For the other direction, assume that $(0)$ is maximal in $R /mathfrakm$. If $mathfrakm subset I$ then $pi(I)$ is an ideal (2) so it must be either $0$ or the whole ring $R/mathfrakm$. We need to show that this implies $I$ is either equal to $mathfrakm$ or the whole ring $R$. If $pi(I) = 0$ then we have $mathfrakm subset I subset pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(0) = mathfrakm$, and we see $mathfrakm = I$. If $pi(I) = R / mathfrakm$, then $I = pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(R/mathfrakm)) = R$ (first equality by (4))






share|cite|improve this answer





























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    Let $pi: R rightarrow R/mathfrakm$ be the canonical projection. The gist of the proof is looking at preimages/images of ideals under $pi$, and employing a few elementary properties of ring homomorphisms. Note that $pi$ is surjective and has kernel $mathfrakm$.



    For a ring homomorphism $phi: R rightarrow S$, we recall that:

    (1) If $J subset S$ is an ideal, then $phi^-1(J)$ is an ideal.

    (2) If $I subset R$ is an ideal, then $phi(I)$ is an ideal when $phi$ is surjective.

    (3) $phibig(phi^-1(J)big) = J$ when $phi$ is surjective (but always have $subset$)

    (4) $phi^-1big(phi(I)big) = I$ when $ker(phi) subset I$ (but always have $supset$)



    If you haven't seen these before, proving them is a good place to start (more good exam material!) I'll just show the $subset$ containment in (4). Indeed we have $x in phi^-1big(phi(I)big)$ iff $phi(x) in phi(I)$ iff there exists $y in I$ with $phi(x) = phi(y)$, equivalently $phi(x-y) = 0$. By assumption that $ker(phi) subset I$, we get $x in I$.



    Note that these properties taken together give us the correspondence between ideals of $R$ and ideals of $R/mathfrakm$. In practice, the point is that we can use surjective homomorphisms to transport ideals back and forth between rings without losing any information, a very powerful tool.



    Proof that $mathfrakm subset R$ is maximal $iff$ $(0) subset R/mathfrakm$ is maximal:



    Suppose that $mathfrakm$ is a maximal ideal of $R$, and that $0 subset J$ is an ideal of $R/mathfrakm$. Then $pi^-1(J)$ is an ideal of $R$ (1) and since $mathfrakm=pi^-1(0) subset pi^-1(J)$, we have that $mathfrakm = pi^-1(J)$ or $R = pi^-1(J)$ by maximality of $mathfrakm$. In the first case this gives $0 = pi(mathfrakm) = pibig(pi^-1(J)big) = J$ (last equality by (3)), and similarly in the second that $R/mathfrakm = J$. Hence $(0)$ is maximal in $R / mathfrakm$.



    For the other direction, assume that $(0)$ is maximal in $R /mathfrakm$. If $mathfrakm subset I$ then $pi(I)$ is an ideal (2) so it must be either $0$ or the whole ring $R/mathfrakm$. We need to show that this implies $I$ is either equal to $mathfrakm$ or the whole ring $R$. If $pi(I) = 0$ then we have $mathfrakm subset I subset pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(0) = mathfrakm$, and we see $mathfrakm = I$. If $pi(I) = R / mathfrakm$, then $I = pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(R/mathfrakm)) = R$ (first equality by (4))






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      up vote
      2
      down vote



      accepted










      Let $pi: R rightarrow R/mathfrakm$ be the canonical projection. The gist of the proof is looking at preimages/images of ideals under $pi$, and employing a few elementary properties of ring homomorphisms. Note that $pi$ is surjective and has kernel $mathfrakm$.



      For a ring homomorphism $phi: R rightarrow S$, we recall that:

      (1) If $J subset S$ is an ideal, then $phi^-1(J)$ is an ideal.

      (2) If $I subset R$ is an ideal, then $phi(I)$ is an ideal when $phi$ is surjective.

      (3) $phibig(phi^-1(J)big) = J$ when $phi$ is surjective (but always have $subset$)

      (4) $phi^-1big(phi(I)big) = I$ when $ker(phi) subset I$ (but always have $supset$)



      If you haven't seen these before, proving them is a good place to start (more good exam material!) I'll just show the $subset$ containment in (4). Indeed we have $x in phi^-1big(phi(I)big)$ iff $phi(x) in phi(I)$ iff there exists $y in I$ with $phi(x) = phi(y)$, equivalently $phi(x-y) = 0$. By assumption that $ker(phi) subset I$, we get $x in I$.



      Note that these properties taken together give us the correspondence between ideals of $R$ and ideals of $R/mathfrakm$. In practice, the point is that we can use surjective homomorphisms to transport ideals back and forth between rings without losing any information, a very powerful tool.



      Proof that $mathfrakm subset R$ is maximal $iff$ $(0) subset R/mathfrakm$ is maximal:



      Suppose that $mathfrakm$ is a maximal ideal of $R$, and that $0 subset J$ is an ideal of $R/mathfrakm$. Then $pi^-1(J)$ is an ideal of $R$ (1) and since $mathfrakm=pi^-1(0) subset pi^-1(J)$, we have that $mathfrakm = pi^-1(J)$ or $R = pi^-1(J)$ by maximality of $mathfrakm$. In the first case this gives $0 = pi(mathfrakm) = pibig(pi^-1(J)big) = J$ (last equality by (3)), and similarly in the second that $R/mathfrakm = J$. Hence $(0)$ is maximal in $R / mathfrakm$.



      For the other direction, assume that $(0)$ is maximal in $R /mathfrakm$. If $mathfrakm subset I$ then $pi(I)$ is an ideal (2) so it must be either $0$ or the whole ring $R/mathfrakm$. We need to show that this implies $I$ is either equal to $mathfrakm$ or the whole ring $R$. If $pi(I) = 0$ then we have $mathfrakm subset I subset pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(0) = mathfrakm$, and we see $mathfrakm = I$. If $pi(I) = R / mathfrakm$, then $I = pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(R/mathfrakm)) = R$ (first equality by (4))






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        2
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        2
        down vote



        accepted






        Let $pi: R rightarrow R/mathfrakm$ be the canonical projection. The gist of the proof is looking at preimages/images of ideals under $pi$, and employing a few elementary properties of ring homomorphisms. Note that $pi$ is surjective and has kernel $mathfrakm$.



        For a ring homomorphism $phi: R rightarrow S$, we recall that:

        (1) If $J subset S$ is an ideal, then $phi^-1(J)$ is an ideal.

        (2) If $I subset R$ is an ideal, then $phi(I)$ is an ideal when $phi$ is surjective.

        (3) $phibig(phi^-1(J)big) = J$ when $phi$ is surjective (but always have $subset$)

        (4) $phi^-1big(phi(I)big) = I$ when $ker(phi) subset I$ (but always have $supset$)



        If you haven't seen these before, proving them is a good place to start (more good exam material!) I'll just show the $subset$ containment in (4). Indeed we have $x in phi^-1big(phi(I)big)$ iff $phi(x) in phi(I)$ iff there exists $y in I$ with $phi(x) = phi(y)$, equivalently $phi(x-y) = 0$. By assumption that $ker(phi) subset I$, we get $x in I$.



        Note that these properties taken together give us the correspondence between ideals of $R$ and ideals of $R/mathfrakm$. In practice, the point is that we can use surjective homomorphisms to transport ideals back and forth between rings without losing any information, a very powerful tool.



        Proof that $mathfrakm subset R$ is maximal $iff$ $(0) subset R/mathfrakm$ is maximal:



        Suppose that $mathfrakm$ is a maximal ideal of $R$, and that $0 subset J$ is an ideal of $R/mathfrakm$. Then $pi^-1(J)$ is an ideal of $R$ (1) and since $mathfrakm=pi^-1(0) subset pi^-1(J)$, we have that $mathfrakm = pi^-1(J)$ or $R = pi^-1(J)$ by maximality of $mathfrakm$. In the first case this gives $0 = pi(mathfrakm) = pibig(pi^-1(J)big) = J$ (last equality by (3)), and similarly in the second that $R/mathfrakm = J$. Hence $(0)$ is maximal in $R / mathfrakm$.



        For the other direction, assume that $(0)$ is maximal in $R /mathfrakm$. If $mathfrakm subset I$ then $pi(I)$ is an ideal (2) so it must be either $0$ or the whole ring $R/mathfrakm$. We need to show that this implies $I$ is either equal to $mathfrakm$ or the whole ring $R$. If $pi(I) = 0$ then we have $mathfrakm subset I subset pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(0) = mathfrakm$, and we see $mathfrakm = I$. If $pi(I) = R / mathfrakm$, then $I = pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(R/mathfrakm)) = R$ (first equality by (4))






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Let $pi: R rightarrow R/mathfrakm$ be the canonical projection. The gist of the proof is looking at preimages/images of ideals under $pi$, and employing a few elementary properties of ring homomorphisms. Note that $pi$ is surjective and has kernel $mathfrakm$.



        For a ring homomorphism $phi: R rightarrow S$, we recall that:

        (1) If $J subset S$ is an ideal, then $phi^-1(J)$ is an ideal.

        (2) If $I subset R$ is an ideal, then $phi(I)$ is an ideal when $phi$ is surjective.

        (3) $phibig(phi^-1(J)big) = J$ when $phi$ is surjective (but always have $subset$)

        (4) $phi^-1big(phi(I)big) = I$ when $ker(phi) subset I$ (but always have $supset$)



        If you haven't seen these before, proving them is a good place to start (more good exam material!) I'll just show the $subset$ containment in (4). Indeed we have $x in phi^-1big(phi(I)big)$ iff $phi(x) in phi(I)$ iff there exists $y in I$ with $phi(x) = phi(y)$, equivalently $phi(x-y) = 0$. By assumption that $ker(phi) subset I$, we get $x in I$.



        Note that these properties taken together give us the correspondence between ideals of $R$ and ideals of $R/mathfrakm$. In practice, the point is that we can use surjective homomorphisms to transport ideals back and forth between rings without losing any information, a very powerful tool.



        Proof that $mathfrakm subset R$ is maximal $iff$ $(0) subset R/mathfrakm$ is maximal:



        Suppose that $mathfrakm$ is a maximal ideal of $R$, and that $0 subset J$ is an ideal of $R/mathfrakm$. Then $pi^-1(J)$ is an ideal of $R$ (1) and since $mathfrakm=pi^-1(0) subset pi^-1(J)$, we have that $mathfrakm = pi^-1(J)$ or $R = pi^-1(J)$ by maximality of $mathfrakm$. In the first case this gives $0 = pi(mathfrakm) = pibig(pi^-1(J)big) = J$ (last equality by (3)), and similarly in the second that $R/mathfrakm = J$. Hence $(0)$ is maximal in $R / mathfrakm$.



        For the other direction, assume that $(0)$ is maximal in $R /mathfrakm$. If $mathfrakm subset I$ then $pi(I)$ is an ideal (2) so it must be either $0$ or the whole ring $R/mathfrakm$. We need to show that this implies $I$ is either equal to $mathfrakm$ or the whole ring $R$. If $pi(I) = 0$ then we have $mathfrakm subset I subset pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(0) = mathfrakm$, and we see $mathfrakm = I$. If $pi(I) = R / mathfrakm$, then $I = pi^-1big(pi(I)big) = pi^-1(R/mathfrakm)) = R$ (first equality by (4))







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Aug 9 at 21:22

























        answered Aug 9 at 21:05









        Badam Baplan

        3,356721




        3,356721












            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

            Carbon dioxide