characterization of prime ideals
This entry gives a number of equivalent http://planetmath.org/node/5865characterizationsof prime ideals in rings of different generality.
We start with a general ring .
Theorem 1.
Let be a ring and a two-sided ideal. Then thefollowing statements are equivalent:
- 1.
Given (left, right or two-sided) ideals of such that the product of ideals , then or .
- 2.
If such that , then or .
Proof.
- •
“12”:
Let such that . Let and be the(left, right or two-sided) ideals generated by and ,respectively. Then each element of the product of ideals canbe expanded to a finite sum of products
each of which contains or is afactor of the form for a suitable . Since is anideal and , it follows that . Assuming statement 1, we have , or . But , so we have or and hence or .
- •
“21”:
Let be (left, right or two-sided) ideals, such that the productof ideals . Now or (depending on what type of ideal we consider), so . If , nothing remains to be shown. Otherwise,let , then for all . Since we have by statement 2 that for all , hence .
∎
There are some additional properties if our ring is commutative.
Theorem 2.
Let a commutative ring and an ideal. Then thefollowing statements are equivalent:
- 1.
Given ideals of such that the product ofideals , then or .
- 2.
The quotient ring
is a cancellation ring.
- 3.
The set is a subsemigroup of themultiplicative semigroup of .
- 4.
Given such that , then or .
- 5.
The ideal is maximal in the set of such ideals of which do not intersect a subsemigroup of the multiplicative semigroup of .
Proof.
- •
“12”:
Let be arbitrary nonzero elements. Let and be representatives of and , respectively,then and . Since is commutative, eachelement of the product of ideals can be written as a productinvolving the factor . Since is an ideal, we would have if which by statement 1 wouldimply or in contradiction
with and . Hence, and thus.
- •
“23”:
Let . Let be the canonicalprojection. Then and are nonzero elements of. Since is a homomorphism
and due to statement 2,. Therefore , that is is closed under multiplication. The associativeproperty is inherited from .
- •
“34”:
Let such that . If both were not elements of, then by statement 3 would not be an element of. Therefore at least one of is an element of .
- •
“41”:
Let be ideals of such that . If , nothing remains to be shown. Otherwise, let . Then for all the product , hence . Itfollows by statement 4 that , and therefore.
- •
“45”:
The condition 4 that the set is a multiplicative semigroup. Now is trivially the greatest ideal which does not intersect .
- •
“54”:
We presume that is maximal of the ideals of which do not intersect a semigroup and that . Assume the contrary of the assertion, i.e. that and . Therefore, is a proper subset
of both and . Thus the maximality of implies that
So we can choose the elements and of such that
where , and . Then we see that the product
would belong to the ideal . But this is impossible because is an element of the multiplicative semigroup and does not intersect . Thus we can conclude that either or belongs to the ideal .
∎
If has an identity element , statements 2 and 3 ofthe preceding theorem become stronger:
Theorem 3.
Let be a commutative ring with identity element . Then an ideal of is a prime ideal if and only if is an integraldomain
. Furthermore, is prime if and only if is amonoid with identity element with respect to the multiplication in.
Proof.
Let be prime, then since otherwise would be equalto . Now by theorem 2 is a cancellationring. The canonical projection is a homomorphism,so is the identity element of . This in turn implies thatthe semigroup is a monoid with identity element .∎