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

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

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













































































            eQiv7XnTSVz,M wX6K
            aL0oOPFLRYZtSUIT9JZ2jE0lgk,HN Fpw,v12Wnj HMNA xZYC,z

            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Propositional logic and tautologies

            Distribution of Stopped Wiener Process with Stochastic Volatility