Sufficient conditions for two ideals with the same zero set to be equal
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $R$ be a one-dimensional noetherian ring finite over $k[x]$. Let $I$, $J$ be two integral ideals of $R$ with $J subseteq I$ and $I$ invertible. Moreover, assume that $V(I) = V(J)$.
What are sufficient conditions for $I = J$?
What I tried:
From $V(I) = V(J)$ one concludes $operatornameRad(J) = operatornameRad(I)$ and thus there is some $n in mathbbN$ such that $$I^n subseteq J subseteq I.$$
Until now I did not use the 'invertible'-assumption on $I$. From that it follows at least that $V(I)$ and a fortiori $V(J)$ is finite. It also follows that $I cap k[x] = fk[x] neq 0$.
I appreciate any kind of help or idea.
Edit: You may also assume that $f in J$ and hence $J cap k[x] = I cap k[x]$.
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra divisors-algebraic-geometry
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $R$ be a one-dimensional noetherian ring finite over $k[x]$. Let $I$, $J$ be two integral ideals of $R$ with $J subseteq I$ and $I$ invertible. Moreover, assume that $V(I) = V(J)$.
What are sufficient conditions for $I = J$?
What I tried:
From $V(I) = V(J)$ one concludes $operatornameRad(J) = operatornameRad(I)$ and thus there is some $n in mathbbN$ such that $$I^n subseteq J subseteq I.$$
Until now I did not use the 'invertible'-assumption on $I$. From that it follows at least that $V(I)$ and a fortiori $V(J)$ is finite. It also follows that $I cap k[x] = fk[x] neq 0$.
I appreciate any kind of help or idea.
Edit: You may also assume that $f in J$ and hence $J cap k[x] = I cap k[x]$.
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra divisors-algebraic-geometry
What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
â Marc Paul
Aug 13 at 7:51
@MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
â windsheaf
Aug 13 at 7:53
What kind of condition are you looking for? E.g., if $R$ is normal, you're really only fixing the support of the divisor; the coefficients can be whatever.
â user501746
Aug 13 at 10:46
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $R$ be a one-dimensional noetherian ring finite over $k[x]$. Let $I$, $J$ be two integral ideals of $R$ with $J subseteq I$ and $I$ invertible. Moreover, assume that $V(I) = V(J)$.
What are sufficient conditions for $I = J$?
What I tried:
From $V(I) = V(J)$ one concludes $operatornameRad(J) = operatornameRad(I)$ and thus there is some $n in mathbbN$ such that $$I^n subseteq J subseteq I.$$
Until now I did not use the 'invertible'-assumption on $I$. From that it follows at least that $V(I)$ and a fortiori $V(J)$ is finite. It also follows that $I cap k[x] = fk[x] neq 0$.
I appreciate any kind of help or idea.
Edit: You may also assume that $f in J$ and hence $J cap k[x] = I cap k[x]$.
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra divisors-algebraic-geometry
Let $R$ be a one-dimensional noetherian ring finite over $k[x]$. Let $I$, $J$ be two integral ideals of $R$ with $J subseteq I$ and $I$ invertible. Moreover, assume that $V(I) = V(J)$.
What are sufficient conditions for $I = J$?
What I tried:
From $V(I) = V(J)$ one concludes $operatornameRad(J) = operatornameRad(I)$ and thus there is some $n in mathbbN$ such that $$I^n subseteq J subseteq I.$$
Until now I did not use the 'invertible'-assumption on $I$. From that it follows at least that $V(I)$ and a fortiori $V(J)$ is finite. It also follows that $I cap k[x] = fk[x] neq 0$.
I appreciate any kind of help or idea.
Edit: You may also assume that $f in J$ and hence $J cap k[x] = I cap k[x]$.
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra divisors-algebraic-geometry
edited Aug 13 at 7:58
asked Aug 13 at 7:26
windsheaf
503311
503311
What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
â Marc Paul
Aug 13 at 7:51
@MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
â windsheaf
Aug 13 at 7:53
What kind of condition are you looking for? E.g., if $R$ is normal, you're really only fixing the support of the divisor; the coefficients can be whatever.
â user501746
Aug 13 at 10:46
add a comment |Â
What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
â Marc Paul
Aug 13 at 7:51
@MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
â windsheaf
Aug 13 at 7:53
What kind of condition are you looking for? E.g., if $R$ is normal, you're really only fixing the support of the divisor; the coefficients can be whatever.
â user501746
Aug 13 at 10:46
What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
â Marc Paul
Aug 13 at 7:51
What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
â Marc Paul
Aug 13 at 7:51
@MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
â windsheaf
Aug 13 at 7:53
@MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
â windsheaf
Aug 13 at 7:53
What kind of condition are you looking for? E.g., if $R$ is normal, you're really only fixing the support of the divisor; the coefficients can be whatever.
â user501746
Aug 13 at 10:46
What kind of condition are you looking for? E.g., if $R$ is normal, you're really only fixing the support of the divisor; the coefficients can be whatever.
â user501746
Aug 13 at 10:46
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
There is a possibility to characterize elements that generate $I$ in terms of having zeros relative to $I$ as follows:
We say that $f in I$ has a zero $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ relative to $I$ if $f in mathfrakmI$.
Then we obtain the following
Lemma:
Let $I subset R$ be an invertible ideal and let $f_1,ldots,f_n in I$. Then
$$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I quadquad Leftrightarrowquadquad f_1,ldots,f_n text do not share a common zero relative to I.$$
$ $Proof:
Let $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$ and assume there is $mathfrakm$ such that $f_1,ldots,f_n in mathfrakmI$, then $R = langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 subset mathfrakm$; a contradiction!
Conversely, let $f_1,ldots,f_n$ don't have any common zero relative to $I$, that is for all $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ we have $$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle not subset mathfrakmI quadRightarrowquad langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 not subset mathfrakm$$
and thus $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1$ is an integral ideal not contained in any prime ideal and therefore it must be equal to $R$, hence $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
There is a possibility to characterize elements that generate $I$ in terms of having zeros relative to $I$ as follows:
We say that $f in I$ has a zero $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ relative to $I$ if $f in mathfrakmI$.
Then we obtain the following
Lemma:
Let $I subset R$ be an invertible ideal and let $f_1,ldots,f_n in I$. Then
$$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I quadquad Leftrightarrowquadquad f_1,ldots,f_n text do not share a common zero relative to I.$$
$ $Proof:
Let $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$ and assume there is $mathfrakm$ such that $f_1,ldots,f_n in mathfrakmI$, then $R = langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 subset mathfrakm$; a contradiction!
Conversely, let $f_1,ldots,f_n$ don't have any common zero relative to $I$, that is for all $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ we have $$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle not subset mathfrakmI quadRightarrowquad langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 not subset mathfrakm$$
and thus $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1$ is an integral ideal not contained in any prime ideal and therefore it must be equal to $R$, hence $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There is a possibility to characterize elements that generate $I$ in terms of having zeros relative to $I$ as follows:
We say that $f in I$ has a zero $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ relative to $I$ if $f in mathfrakmI$.
Then we obtain the following
Lemma:
Let $I subset R$ be an invertible ideal and let $f_1,ldots,f_n in I$. Then
$$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I quadquad Leftrightarrowquadquad f_1,ldots,f_n text do not share a common zero relative to I.$$
$ $Proof:
Let $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$ and assume there is $mathfrakm$ such that $f_1,ldots,f_n in mathfrakmI$, then $R = langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 subset mathfrakm$; a contradiction!
Conversely, let $f_1,ldots,f_n$ don't have any common zero relative to $I$, that is for all $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ we have $$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle not subset mathfrakmI quadRightarrowquad langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 not subset mathfrakm$$
and thus $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1$ is an integral ideal not contained in any prime ideal and therefore it must be equal to $R$, hence $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
There is a possibility to characterize elements that generate $I$ in terms of having zeros relative to $I$ as follows:
We say that $f in I$ has a zero $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ relative to $I$ if $f in mathfrakmI$.
Then we obtain the following
Lemma:
Let $I subset R$ be an invertible ideal and let $f_1,ldots,f_n in I$. Then
$$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I quadquad Leftrightarrowquadquad f_1,ldots,f_n text do not share a common zero relative to I.$$
$ $Proof:
Let $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$ and assume there is $mathfrakm$ such that $f_1,ldots,f_n in mathfrakmI$, then $R = langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 subset mathfrakm$; a contradiction!
Conversely, let $f_1,ldots,f_n$ don't have any common zero relative to $I$, that is for all $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ we have $$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle not subset mathfrakmI quadRightarrowquad langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 not subset mathfrakm$$
and thus $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1$ is an integral ideal not contained in any prime ideal and therefore it must be equal to $R$, hence $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.
There is a possibility to characterize elements that generate $I$ in terms of having zeros relative to $I$ as follows:
We say that $f in I$ has a zero $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ relative to $I$ if $f in mathfrakmI$.
Then we obtain the following
Lemma:
Let $I subset R$ be an invertible ideal and let $f_1,ldots,f_n in I$. Then
$$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I quadquad Leftrightarrowquadquad f_1,ldots,f_n text do not share a common zero relative to I.$$
$ $Proof:
Let $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$ and assume there is $mathfrakm$ such that $f_1,ldots,f_n in mathfrakmI$, then $R = langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 subset mathfrakm$; a contradiction!
Conversely, let $f_1,ldots,f_n$ don't have any common zero relative to $I$, that is for all $mathfrakm in operatornameSpec(R)$ we have $$langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle not subset mathfrakmI quadRightarrowquad langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1 not subset mathfrakm$$
and thus $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle I^-1$ is an integral ideal not contained in any prime ideal and therefore it must be equal to $R$, hence $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.
answered Aug 13 at 11:31
windsheaf
503311
503311
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2881093%2fsufficient-conditions-for-two-ideals-with-the-same-zero-set-to-be-equal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
â Marc Paul
Aug 13 at 7:51
@MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
â windsheaf
Aug 13 at 7:53
What kind of condition are you looking for? E.g., if $R$ is normal, you're really only fixing the support of the divisor; the coefficients can be whatever.
â user501746
Aug 13 at 10:46