Sufficient conditions for two ideals with the same zero set to be equal

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











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $R$ 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 $J cap k[x] = I cap k[x]$.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
    – Marc Paul
    Aug 13 at 7:51










  • @MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
    – 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.
    – user501746
    Aug 13 at 10:46














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 $J cap k[x] = I cap k[x]$.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
    – Marc Paul
    Aug 13 at 7:51










  • @MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
    – 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.
    – user501746
    Aug 13 at 10:46












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 $J cap k[x] = I cap k[x]$.







share|cite|improve this question














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 $J cap k[x] = I cap k[x]$.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 13 at 7:58

























asked Aug 13 at 7:26









windsheaf

503311




503311











  • What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
    – Marc Paul
    Aug 13 at 7:51










  • @MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
    – 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.
    – user501746
    Aug 13 at 10:46
















  • What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
    – Marc Paul
    Aug 13 at 7:51










  • @MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
    – 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.
    – user501746
    Aug 13 at 10:46















What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
– Marc Paul
Aug 13 at 7:51




What do you mean by 'integral ideals'?
– Marc Paul
Aug 13 at 7:51












@MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
– windsheaf
Aug 13 at 7:53





@MarcPaul Ideals contained in $R$ in contrast to fractional ideals.
– 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.
– 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.
– user501746
Aug 13 at 10:46










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 $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















    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: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    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%2f2881093%2fsufficient-conditions-for-two-ideals-with-the-same-zero-set-to-be-equal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    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 $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      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 $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        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 $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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 $langle f_1,ldots,f_nrangle = I$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Aug 13 at 11:31









        windsheaf

        503311




        503311






















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


























             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

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