Alg 3

Chapter 1
Basic Denitions And

Properties Of Rings
Denition 1.1 A ring is
A set R
a function + : R R R
a function : R R R
an element 0 R
an element 1 R
satisfying the following axioms:
(i) (R, +, 0) is an abelian group
(ii) (R, , 1) is a semigroup, which means for all a, b, c in the set we
have
(I) a(bc) = (ab)c
1
2CHAPTER 1. BASIC DEFINITIONS ANDPROPERTIES OF RINGS
(II) a 1 = 1 a = a.
Note the inverse axiom is missing.
(iii) Distributivity: a(b + c) = ab + ac and (b + c)a = ba + ca.
Remarks
+ is a group law, hence there exist inverses for + (i.e. ).
is a not group law, hence there do not necessarily exist in-
verses.
Examples
These are all rings:
Z, Q, R, C.
R[x], the polynomial ring. An element of R[x] is a polynomial
f(x) = a
0
+ a
1
x + + a
n
x
n
where the a
i
R.
M
n
(R), the set of n n matrices over R under matrix multipli-
cation.
The zero ring R = 0, since 0 + 0 = 0 0 = 0. (Here 1= 0 !)
Remarks
1. There is no mentioned in the denition, but we can build it
from what we know have. Recall (R; +, 0) is a group, so r R has
3
an inverse for the group law +. We can call this this element
r. If a, b R then we dene a b = a + (b). So we can
subtract elements in a general ring.
2. On the other hand we cant divide - it is not an axiom that R is
a group under . Indeed 2, 3 Z but 2 3 =
2
3
/ Z.
3. 0 and 1 are uniquely determined by the other structures and
axioms. For example if x and y are both zeroes for R, then
x = x + y = y.
4. Every ring has a 0 and a 1. In fact there is also a natural 2
in a general ring, dened as 2 = 1 + 1. Furthermore if R is
any ring then there exists a natural map Z R dened by
0
Z
0
R
, 1
Z
1
R
and if n Z, n > 0, n = 1 + + 1
. .
n
then
n 1 + + 1
. .
n
R. Finally if n > 0 then map n Z to
n R.
5. It is an axiom that (R; +, 0) is an abelian group, hence a + b =
b + a for all a, b R. It is not an axiom that a b = b a,
and indeed this may not be true in a general ring, for example
R = M
2
(R).
Denition 1.2 A ring R is called commutative if a b = b a for
all a, b R.
Examples
Z, Q, R, C, R[x], 0 are all commutative rings, but M
2
(R) is not.
Warnings
Our intuition is from rings R, Z etc. Here are some traps:
1. Let R = M
2
(R) and set r =
_
0 1
0 0
_
and s =
_
1 0
0 0
_
. Then
rs =
_
0 1
0 0
__
1 0
0 0
_
=
_
0 0
0 0
_
= 0.
So r, s ,= 0 but rs = 0.
2. Let n Z, n 1. The ring Z/nZ is, informally, the set 0, 1, . . . , n
1 with addition and multiplication dened modulo n. Let R =
Z/6Z, and take r = 2, s = 3 so that rs = 3 2 = 6 = 0.
As a consequence of (1) and (2), polynomials can have too
many roots. For example in Z/7Z the polynomial x
2
1 has
roots x = 1, 3, 5, 7. (This is because the proof that a polynomial
of degree n has n roots uses the fact rs = 0 = r = 0 or s = 0.)
3. We cant divide in a general ring and hence cant cancel factors.
For example if 3x = 3y for some x, y R then we cant deduce
that x = y.
Here is one way of dening our way around these issues:
Denition 1.3
5
(i) A ring R is a division ring if R 0 is a group under multi-
plication.
(ii) A commutative division ring is called a eld.
Example
Z is not a eld, but Q, R, C are. R[x] is not a eld: x is a polyno-
mial but
1
x
is not.
In group theory we have subgroups, normal subgroups and quotient
groups. There are similar structures with rings.
Denition 1.4 Let R be a ring. A subset S R is call a subring if
0, 1 S, for all s, t S we have s+t and st S, and nally S satises
all the axioms of a ring.
Lemma 1.5 If R is a ring and S R is a subset containing 0, 1 and
is closed under +, , then S is a subring.
Proof. We need to check that S satises all the ring axioms:
Is (S, +, 0) an abelian group? We have 0 S and s, t S =
s + t, s t S, hence (S, +, 0) is a subgroup of (R, +, 0). So in par-
ticular (S, +, 0) is a group.
Everything else is obvious, for example if s, t, u S then (st)u =
s(tu) since s, t, u R and R is a ring.
Example
Let d Z and d ,= n
2
for any integer n. Let Z
_
d
_
be the set of
all complex numbers a + b
d : a, b Z. Then:
Lemma 1.6 Z
_
d
_
is a ring.
Proof. It is certainly a subset of C, and contains 0 and 1. It is also
easy to see that if r, s Z
_
d
_
then so is r s. Finally, if we let
r = w + x
d and s = y + z
d then
rs =
_
w + x
d
__
y + z
d
_
= wy + xy
d + wz
d + xzd
= wy + xzd
. .
Z
+(xy + wz)
. .
Z
which is an element of Z
_
d
_
. Hence, by Lemma 1.5, Z
_
d
_
is
subring of C and is therefore a ring.
A less obvious fact about Z
_
d
_
is that if w, x, y, z Z and w +
x
d = y + z
d then w = y and x = z.
7
Proof.
w + x
d = y + z
d = w y =
d(z x)
= (w y)
2
= d(z x)
2
if z ,= x then d =
_
wy
zx
_
2
, the square of an integer. This is a contra-
diction by denition of d, hence we must have z = x = x = y.
In fact it turns out that:
Lemma 1.7 Q
_
d
_
is a eld.
Proof. Say r = a + b
d Q
_
d
_
and r ,= 0, then we just need to
show that
1
r
Q
_
d
_
.
First note that a
2
db
2
,= 0, for if a
2
db
2
= 0 then a
2
= db
2
, but
d is not a square = b = 0 = a = 0. But r ,= 0, hence we have a
contradiction.
Set
s =
a b
d
a
2
db
2
=
a
a
2
db
2
+
b
a
2
db
2
d Q
_
d
_
,
then
rs =
_
a + b
d
_
a b
d
a
2
db
2
= 1
hence s is the inverse of r.
We will now prove some basic properties of rings.
Proposition 1.8 Say R is a ring and r, s, r
i
, s
j
R. Then
(i) r0 = 0r = 0 for all r R.
(ii) (r)s = r(s) = (rs).
(iii) (r
1
+ + r
n
) (s
1
+ + s
m
) =
n
i=1
m
j=1
r
i
s
j
.
(iv) If r R and for all s R we have rs = s, then r = 1.
(v) If R is a ring and 0 = 1 then R = 0, the zero ring.
Proof.
(i) 0 + 0 = 0, since 0 is the identity element for +. Hence
r(0 + 0) = r0
= r0 + r0 = r0
= r0 = 0.
The proof for 0r is similar.
(ii)
(r)s + rs = (r + r)s
= 0s
= 0
9
Hence the inverse of (r)s under addition is rs, i.e. (r)s =
(rs). Similarly for the other case.
(iii) Obvious for m = n = 1. If m = 1 and n = 2 or m = 2 and n = 1
then result follows by distributivity. General case is proved by
induction and distributivity.
(iv) Set s = 1!
(v) Say r R, then
r = r1
= r0
= 0.
Hence R = 0.
Denition 1.9
(i) Say R is a ring and a R, a ,= 0. We say a is a left divisor of
0 if b R, b ,= 0 such that ab = 0.
We say a is a right divisor of 0 if b R, b ,= 0 such that
ba = 0.
If R is commutative then these notions coincide, and we say a is
a zero divisor.
(ii) If a R and b R such that ab = ba = 1, then we say a is a
unit. We write R
for the set of units of a ring R.

Remark
R
is easily checked to be a group under multiplication.

Examples
If R = Z/6Z then 2 and 3 are zero divisors, since 2 ,= 0, 3 ,= 0
and 2 3 = 0. Also 5 is a unit, because 5 5 = 1.
In M
2
(R), r =
_
0 1
0 0
_
is a left and a right zero divisor (in fact
r
2
= 0).
Remark
r R is called nilpotent if n 1 such that r
n
= 0. The above
example proves that non-zero nilpotent elements may exist!
Denition 1.10 A ring R is an integral domain if:
(i) R is commutative
(ii) 0 ,= 1 (i.e. R ,= 0)
(iii) R has no zero divisors.
A lot (but not all) of the rings weve seen so far are integral do-
mains, for example Z, Q, R, C, R[x].
Remarks
11
Any eld is an integral domain. We check the criteria of Deni-
tion 1.10:
(i) Part of the denition of a eld.
(ii) R = 0 isnt a eld since R 0 = isnt a group.
(iii) If a ,= 0 and ab = 0, then multiply by a
1
to deduce:
b = a
1
ab = a
1
0 = 0.
It is easy to prove that any subring of an integral domain is an
integral domain. Hence the rings Z
_
d
_
and Q
_
d
_
are integral
domains.
What about Z/mZ?
Lemma 1.11 Say m Z
1
. Then Z/mZ is an integral domain i m
is prime.
Proof.
If m = 1 then Z/mZ = 0 is not an integral domain, and 1 is
not prime.
If m > 1 and m = ab where a, b > 1, then m is composite and
a, b Z/mZ are zero divisors. Hence Z/mZ is not an integral
domain.
If m is prime then we claim that Z/mZ is an integral domain:
(i) It is commutative.
(ii) 0 ,= 1 as m > 1.
(iii) If [a], [b] Z/mZ and [a][b] = [0], then m divides ab. But
m is prime, so m divides a or m divides b, hence [a] or [b]
is zero.
We remarked earlier that we cannot cancel in a general ring, but
here are some positive results regarding cancellation:
Lemma 1.12
(i) If R is a ring, x, y, r R and r R
(r is a unit), then
rx = ry = x = y.
(ii) If R is an integral domain. x, y, r R and r ,= 0, then
rx = ry = x = y.
Proof.
(i) Choose s such that rs = sr = 1. Then
rx = ry = srx = sry = x = y.
(ii)
rx = ry = rx ry = 0 = r(x y) = 0.
13
But r ,= 0 and R is an integral domain, so must have x y =
0 = x = y.
Let R be a commutative ring. The polynomial ring R[x] has a
typical element f = a
0
+ a
1
x + + a
n
x
n
, n 0 with all a
i
R.
Addition is dened the obvious way, and multiplication is similarly
obvious, i.e.
(ax
m
) (bx
n
) = (ab)x
m+n
and we expand brackets as in Proposition 1.8 (iii). It is easy to show
that the polynomial ring is a ring.
If R f ,= 0 then f can be written f = a
0
+a
1
x + +a
n
x
n
with
a
n
,= 0, and we say n is the degree of f, written deg(f) = n. Degree
zero polynomials are non-zero constants, hence R 0 R[x].
Proposition 1.13 If R is an integral domain then R[x] is too.
Proof. Say f ,= 0 and g ,= 0. We will check that fg ,= 0, since the
other criteria are obvious. Say deg(f) = m, deg(g) = n. Then
f = ax
m
+
g = bx
n
+
_
= fg = abx
m+n
+
where a, b ,= 0, hence ab ,= 0 since R is an integral domain. Hence
fg ,= 0.
Corollary 1.14 If R is an integral domain then so is R[x
1
, . . . , x
n
].
Proof. Induction and Proposition 1.13.
15
Lemma 1.15 A nite integral domain is a eld.
(Finite is clearly necessary: Z is an integral domain but not a eld!)
Proof. Suppose A is a nite integral domain. It suces to check that
if 0 ,= a A then b A such that ab = 1. So let 0 ,= a A. Consider
the map
A
: A A, x ax. Claim that
A
is injective:
A
is easily checked to be a group homomorphism mapping (A, +, 0)
(A, +, 0). So to check that is it surjective, it suces to check that
ker (
A
) = 0 (by Group Theory). Suppose x ker(
A
), then
A
(x) = 0 = ax = 0. Since a A, a ,= 0 and A is an integral
domain, we must have x = 0.
So
A
is injective, and A is nite, hence
A
is a bijection. So b
such that
A
(b) = 1 = ab = 1.
Say A is a ring and F A is subring that happens to be eld. We
call F a subeld of A.
Example
R is a subeld of R[x] and of C.
If A is a ring an F A is a subeld, then A is a vector space over
F: if F and v A then dene v using multiplication in A (check
this as an exercise).
Corollary 1.16 The ring Z/mZ is a eld i m is prime.
Proof. Consequence of 1.11 and 1.15.
Chapter 2
Homomorphisms, Ideals
and Quotients
Denition 2.1 Let R and S be rings. A map : R S is called a
homomorphism (or a ring homomorphism) if
(0
R
) = 0
S
(1
R
) = 1
S
(x +
R
y) = (x) +
S
(y)
(x
R
y) = (x)
S
(y).
From now on will we drop the ring subscript on operators and ele-
ments.
Remarks
(a +b) = (a) +(b) implies that is a group homomorphism
mapping (R, +, 0) (S, +, 0) and hence (0) = 0.
17
18CHAPTER 2. HOMOMORPHISMS, IDEALS AND QUOTIENTS
Since it is a group homomorphism we also know that inverse
commute:
(a) = (a), (a b) = (a) (b).
Denition 2.2 A ring homomorphism : R S is said to be an
isomorphism if there exists a ring homomorphism : S R such that
= id : S S and = id : R R ( id is the identity function).
Equivalently, an isomorphism is a homomorphism that is bijective.
If R = S then we have more denitions:
A ring homomorphism : R R is called an endomorphism.
A ring isomorphism : R R is called an automorphism.
Examples
The identity map R R, x x is an automorphism.
Complex conjugation C C is an automorphism.
Reduction mod m: Z Z/mZ, t t mod m is a ring ho-
momorphism (see later).
If t R then there is a map R[x] R, f(x) f(t). This is
called an evaluation homomorphism, and is easily checked to be
a ring homomorphism.
19
Say R is a ring a p = 0 in R, p a prime (i.e. 1 + + 1
. .
p times
happens
to be 0). Assume also that R is commutative. Then the Frobe-
nius endomorphism F : R R, r r
p
is a ring homomorphism.
For the proof, the only non-obvious aspect is showing F(a+b) =
F(a) + F(b), i.e. (a + b)
p
= a
p
+ b
p
. This is true since
(a + b)
p
= a
p
+ pa
p1
b +
_
p
2
_
a
p2
b
2
+ + pab
p1
. .
vanish since they are divisible by p
+b
p
.
Lemma 2.3 If : R S is a ring homomorphism, then Im() =
(r) : r R is a subring of S.
Proof.
0 Im() since (0) = 0.
1 Im() since (1) = 1.
If x, y Im() then x = (a), y = (b) for some a, b R. Hence
x y = (a b) Im(), and xy = (ab) Im().
Hence Im() is a subring by Lemma 1.5.
On the other hand, Ker() = x R : (x) = 0 is hardly ever a
subring of R:
Let : R C be the obvious inclusion x x. Then Ker() =
0, which is not a subring since it does not contain 1 R.
The evaluation homomorphism R[x] R, f(x) f(7) has
kernel f R[x] : f(7) = 0 = multiples of x 7, which is
clearly not a subring.
Denition 2.4
A subset I R is a called a left ideal if I is a subgroup of
(R, +, 0) and if for all i I, r R we have ri I.
I is a called a right ideal if I is a subgroup of (R, +, 0) and if for
all i I, r R we have ir I.
I is called a bi-ideal, or two-sided ideal, if it is a left and right
ideal.
If R is commutative then all these ideas coincide and we say I is an
ideal of R (sometimes written I R).
Examples
0 and R are bi-ideals.
Let I be the set of polynomials f R[x] such that f is a multiple
of x, i.e. polynomials with no constant term. So
R = R[x], I = f R : f(0) = 0
= f = a
0
+ a
1
x + : a
0
= 1
Claim that I is an ideal:
21
Proof. Let f, g I, so f(0) = g(0) = 0. If h = f g then
h(0) = f(0) g(0) = 00 = 0, so h I. Hence I is closed under
+ and and 0 I, so I is a subgroup of R under + (by group
theory).
Say f I, r R. Then f = xp for some polynomial p, and
fr = (xp)r = x(pr) I since it is a multiple of x. Hence I is an
ideal.
What are the ideals of Z?
Choose n Z and set I = an : a Z, the set of multiples of
n. We claim I is an ideal:
Proof. If an, bn I then anbn = (ab)n I and 0 = 0n I,
hence I is a subgroup.
If x = an I and r Z then rx = ran = (ra)n I, so I is an
ideal.
We now claim that all ideals of Z are of this form:
Proof. If I = 0 then it is the set of multiples of 0. So say ideal
I ,= 0. So take t I. If t < 0 then I t > 0, hence there is
at least one positive integer in I. Let n be the smallest positive
integer in I. Since I is a group under addition, it contains all
multiples of n, i.e.
an : a Z I.
We now want to prove the converse, that I an : a Z. Take
t I and divide it by n, so
t = qn + r, q Z, 0 r < n.
We know t, n I, hence
qn I = t qn I
= r I.
But n is the smallest positive integer in I and 0 r < n, hence
we must have r = 0 = t = qn = t an : a Z.
Lemma 2.5 If I R is a left or right ideal and 1 I then I = R.
Proof. If r R then left ideal I contains 1r = r (or r1 = r I for
right ideal I).
Denition 2.6 If : R S is a ring homomorphism then the kernel
of is Ker() = r R : (r) = 0.
Proposition 2.7 If : R S is a ring homomorphism then Ker()
is a bi-ideal.
Proof. Let K = Ker(). Then K is subgroup of R under addition by
group theory. Let r R, k K, then (rk) = (r)(k) = (r) 0 =
0, hence rk K. Similarly for kr.
We should now ask: is any bi-ideal is the kernel of a homomorphism?
Denition 2.8 Suppose R is a ring and I R is a bi-ideal. We
23
dene the quotient ring
R
/I to be the quotient of the group (R, +, 0)
by subgroup I, i.e. it has elements a + I = a + i : i I. We dene
+ and by:
(a + I) + (b + I) = (a + b) + I
(a + I)(b + I) = ab + I.
Theorem 2.9
(i) + and are well dened on
R
/I.
(ii)
R
/I is a ring.
(iii) The map : R
R
/I, r r + I is a surjective ring homomor-
phism with kernel I.
Proof.
(i) Elements of
R
/I have more than one name in general, for example
we could have a ,= b in R but a + I = b + I in
R
/I. In fact we
know from group theory
a + I = b + I a b I. ()
R
/I gets + from R and is well dened, since it makes
R
/I a group
under + with identity 0 +I (since I is normal subgroup because
+ is commutative, see group theory).
Now we check that is well-dened. Let a + I, c + I
R
/I. We
want to dene (a + I)(c + I) = ac + I, but if a + I = b + I we
need to have ac + I = bc + I. By this is equivalent to proving
a b I = ac bc I.
This is clearly true since I is a bi-ideal, so if a b I, c R
then (a b)c I = ac bc I.
We can show with a similar argument that c + I = d + I =
ac + I = ad + I, so is well-dened.
(ii) We know
R
/I is a group under + from group theory.
Identity element under is 1 + I since (1 + I)(b + I) =
(b + I)(1 + I) = b + I.
((a+I)(b +I))(c +I) = (ab)c +I = a(bc) +I = (a+I)((b +
I)(c + I)) by associativity in R.
Distributivity is clear from distributivity in R.
Hence
R
/I is a ring.
(iii) Showing is a surjective homomorphism is trivial. Also Ker() =
r R : r + I = I = I.
Theorem 2.10: First Isomorphism Theory For Rings If :
R S is a ring homomorphism, then
(i) Im() := (R) is a subring of S
(ii) I = Ker() is a bi-ideal
25
(iii) induces the isomorphism
R
/I

= (R).
Proof.
(i) This is Lemma 2.3.
(ii) This is Proposition 2.7.
(iii) By the First Isomorphism Theory for groups, we know induces
an isomorphism of groups
R
/I

= Im(), r + I (r).
We just need to check that the isomorphism behaves well under
, i.e.
r + I (r)
s + I (s)
_
= (r + I)(s + I) (r)(s)
or
(rs) = (r)(s)
but this is true since is a ring homomorphism.
Examples
R = Z, m 1, I = mZ = mn : n Z. Quotient ring is
Z/mZ (in the usual sense!)
Let R = C[x], I = polynomials with constant term 0 = multiples
of x. Claim that
R
/I

= C:
Proof. Dene evaluation e : R C, f f(0) = constant
term. e is a surjective ring homomorphism, since for all C,
f = R, and for all f, g R we have e(fg) = e(f)e(g),
e(f + g) = e(f) + e(g).
Now Ker(e) = f R : e(f) = 0 = f R : f(0) = 0 = I,
hence by Theorem 2.10:
R
/I

= Im(e) = C.
27
Generators Of Ideals And Ideals Gener-
ated By A Subset
Denition 2.11 If X = x
1
, . . . , x
n
is a nite subset of a ring R,
then the left ideal of R generated by X is
_
n
i=1
r
i
x
i
: r
i
R
_
= Rx
1
+ + Rx
n
where Rx = rx : r R, and set addition follows Y + Z = y + z :
y Y, z Z. (It can be thought of as the set of linear combinations
of the elements of X with coecients from R).
Similarly the right of R generated by X is
_
n
i=1
x
i
r
i
: r
i
R
_
and the bi-ideal of R generated by X is
_
n
i=1
r
i
x
i
s
i
: r
i
, s
i
R
_
.
If R is commutative then these all coincide, and we say
_
n
i=1
r
i
x
i
s
i
: r
i
, s
i
R
_
:= (x
1
, . . . , x
n
)
is the ideal of R generated by X.
Examples
Let R = Z and x = 4, then (x) is the ideal
4n : n Z = 4Z.
Dene map : R[x] R by f f(0). The kernel of is the
set of polynomials which are multiples of x = (x).
Proposition 2.12 Let R be a ring and X R be a nite subset,
then
I =
_
n
i=1
r
i
x
i
: r
i
R
_
is a left ideal of R.
Proof. First we check that I is a group under +. If we set all r
i
= 0
then we see that 0 I, and if =
n
i=1
r
i
x
i
, b =
n
i=1
s
i
x
i
I, then
=
n
i=1
(r
i
s
i
)x
i
I
by distributivity, so I is closed under + and and hence is a subgroup
of (R, +, 0). For any r R,
r = r
n
i=1
r
i
x
i
=
n
i=1
r(r
i
x
i
) =
n
i=1
(rr
i
)x
i
I
hence I is an ideal.
We have only dened explicitly the ideal generated by X if X is nite.
If X = x
1
, x
2
, . . . is innite, then the left ideal generated by X is
_
n
i=1
r
i
x
i
: r
i
R, x
i
X, n Z
0
_
.
29
Denition 2.13
(i) A ring R is left noetherian if any left ideal I of R can be written
I =
_
n
i=1
r
i
x
i
: r
i
R
_
for some nite subset X = x
1
, . . . , x
n
R, i.e. all left ideals
are nitely generated.
(ii) Right noetherianism is dened similarly.
(iii) If R is commutative and any ideal I R can be written
I = (x
1
, . . . , x
n
)
then we say R is noetherian.
(iv) A left ideal I is principal if I = Rx = rx : r R for some
element x R. We say x generates I.
(v) If R is an integral domain and all its ideals are principal, then we
say R is a principal ideal domain (PID).
Examples
Z is noetherian and a PID, since we proved that its only ideals
are 0 and nZ, n 1, 2, 3 . . . .
R = C[x, y], the ring of polynomials in two variables over C is
an integral domain that is not a PID. Consider ideal
I = (x, y) = fx + gy : f, g C[x, y]
which is the set of polynomials with no constant term, and claim
that it is not principal:
Proof. We will prove it by contradiction. If I is principal then
I = (h) for some h C[x, y] and hence x I is a multiple of
h. Hence h must be equal to or x for some C 0.
Since y I, by the same argument h must be or y for some
C 0. The only possibility then is h = = , a non-zero
constant in C. But there are no such elements in I, hence we
have a contradiction.
Consider evaluation homomorphism : R[x] C, f f(i).
The kernel of is the principal ideal I = (x
2
+ 1), since
f Ker() f(i) = 0
f(i) = 0
f(i) = 0
f(i) = 0.
From the result
R
/I

= Im() we can also deduce that
R
/I

= C.
Ideals dont push forward: if I R is an ideal and : R S is
a ring homomorphism then we cant expect (I) to be an ideal. But
they do push back:
Proposition 2.14 Say : R S is a ring homomorphism and I S
is a left ideal, then
1
(I) = r R : (r) I
is a left ideal of R. Similarly for right and bi ideals.
31
Proof. By group theory, the pre-image of I is a subgroup of R under
+. If r R and a
1
(I) then
(ra) = (r)(a) I
since (a) I and I is a left ideal. Hence ra
1
(I) so
1
(I) is a
left ideal. Proof similar for right and bi ideals.
Proposition 2.15 Say R is a commutative ring. Then R is a eld i
R has exactly two ideals (namely R and 0).
Proof.
(=)
Say R is eld. Then 0 ,= 1 so R ,= 0, hence R has at least
two ideals. Now say I R is any ideal. If I ,= 0 then choose
0 ,= I. R is a eld, so
1
R = 1 =
1
I = r =
r 1 I r R = I = R.
(=)
R has two ideals = R ,= 0. Hence the two ideals must be R
and 0. Now say 0 ,= R. If we can nd a multiplicative
inverse for then R is a eld. Then the principal ideal () = R
is not 0 since it contains , hence it is R. So R such that
= 1, and is the inverse we seek.
Let R be a ring, I and J both left ideals. Dene their sum
I + J = i + j : i I, j J.
It is easy to check that I + J is also a left ideal.
Remark
I + J is the smallest left ideal of R containing both I and J.
Denition 2.16
Let R be a commutative ring and say I R is an ideal. We say
I is a prime ideal (or I is prime) if
(i) I ,= R
(ii) If a, b R and ab I then a I or b I.
We say I is a maximal ideal (or I is maximal) if
(i) I ,= R
(ii) If J is an ideal with I J R then either I = J or J = R
(i.e. I is maximal subject to not being the whole ring).
Proposition 2.17 Say R is commutative and M is an ideal. Then
M is maximal
R
/M is a eld.
Proof.
(=)
Say M is maximal, a R and a / M. Need to check that the
33
coset a + M
R
/M has an inverse.
Set J = (a) +M = ar +m : r R, m M Then J is an ideal,
M L R and a J as a = a 1 + 0, hence J ,= M. (Our
motivation is that J is the smallest ideal containing M and a).
Now
M maximal = J = R
= r R, m M such that ar + m = 1
= r + M is the multiplicative inverse of a + M
R
/M.
Hence
R
/M is a eld.
(=)
Say
R
/M is a eld. Say J is an ideal of R with M J R and
J ,= M. We need to prove J = R.
Choose j J with j / M. Then j +M is a non-zero element of
the eld
R
/M. Therefore s R such that (j +M)(s +M) = 1 +
M, i.e. js = 1+m for some m M. This means 1 = jsm J
(since js J and m M J), hence J = R.
Proposition 2.18 Say R is a commutative ring and P is an ideal.
Then
P is prime
R
/P is an integral domain.
This motivates the denition of an integral domain!
Proof. If P = R then P is not prime by denition and
R
/P = 0 isnt
an integral domain by denition.
So assume R ,= P. Then
R
/P is not an integral domain
a, b R such that a + P ,= P, b + P ,= P, ab + P = P
a, b R such that a / P, b / P, ab P
P is not prime.
Corollary 2.19 Say R is a commutative ring, then all maximal ideals
of R are prime.
Proof. Clear since a eld is an integral domain.
Corollary 2.20 Say R is a commutative ring, then:
(i) 0 is a prime ideal of R R is an integral domain
(ii) 0 is a maximal ideal of R R is a eld.
Proof. Clear since
R
/0 = R.
Remarks
Prime ideals may not be maximal, e.g. (0) is a prime but non-
maximal ideal in Z. This is implied by Z being an integral domain
but not a eld.
35
It is not true either that all non-zero prime ideal are maximal.
Consider ring R = Z[x] and surjective homomorphism R Z
dened by f f(0). The kernel is (x), hence (x) is a non-zero,
prime, non-maximal ideal of R.
Prime ideals of Z are (0) and (p), where p is a prime number.
The maximal ideals of Z are (p).
Proof. By Cor. 1.16,
Z
/mZ is a eld m is a prime number,
hence the second result. Recall that all ideals of Z are of the
form mZ = (m), m Z
0
. A nite integral domain is a eld,
so for m Z
>0
,
Z
/mZ is nite, and so it is an integral domain i
it is a eld, i.e. i m is prime. Also Z is an integral domain, so
0 = (0) is a prime ideal, hence the rst result.
Chapter 3
Factorisation In Integral
Domains
This chapter puts the usual proof of unique prime factorisation into
a general conceptual framework. Throughout this chapter we assume
that R is a commutative ring.
Denition 3.1 Let R be a (commutative) ring. Then for x, y R,
We say x divides y and write x [ y if y = rx for some r R.
We say x and y are associates if x = uy for some unit u R.
Lemma 3.2
(i) x R is a unit (x) = R.
(ii) x [ y y (x) (y) (x).
37
38 CHAPTER 3. FACTORISATION IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS
(iii) If R is an integral domain then x and y are associates (x) =
(y).
Proof.
(i) (x) = R 1 (x) y R such that xy = 1.
(ii) Exercise.
(iii)
(=)
If x and y are associates then y = ux with uv = vu = 1 for
some v R, hence x = vy. So x [ y and y [ x, hence by (ii)
we have (x) = (y).
(=)
If (x) = (y) we can write y = ax, x = by = y = aby. If
y = 0 then x = 0, and x and y are associates since 1 is a
unit. If y ,= 0, then y(ab 1) = 0. R is an integral domain,
so ab 1 = 0, i.e. ab = 1. This means a and b are units, so
x and y are associates.
From now on throughout this chapter we assume that R is an
integral domain.
Denition 3.3
39
(i) We say r R is irreducible if r ,= 0, r is not a unit, and whenever
r = ab with a, b R then a or b is a unit.
(ii) We say r R is prime if r ,= 0, r is not a unit, and if r [ ab then
r [ a or r [ b.
Confusingly, if p is a prime number in the usual sense then it is an
irreducible of Z (but it is a result that it is also a prime element).
Remarks
The irreducible elements of Z are p : p prime number.
The element 2 is no longer irreducible in Z[i] = a+bi : a, b Z,
since 2 = (1 + i)(1 i). Hence irreducibility is not an absolute
notion: it exists only with respect to a ring.
By studying R = Z
_
5
we will show that prime and irre-

ducible can be dierent notions.
Introduce N : R Z
0
dened by N
_
a + b
5
_
= a
2
+5b
2
, i.e.
N(z) = zz = [z[
2
. It is easy to show that N(rs) = N(r)N(s),
and N(z) = 0 z = 0.
Say r R is a unit. Then
s R such that rs = 1
= N(r)N(s) = N(1) = 1
= N(r) = 1.
Conversely,
N(r) = 1 = r = a + b
5 and a
2
+ 5b
2
= 1 with a, b Z
= b = 0 (since b ,= 0 = LHS 5)
= r = a = 1 is a unit.
Hence
R
= 1 = r R : N(r) = 1.
What about r R such that N(r) = 2? None exist, since
a
2
+5b
2
= 2 has no solution with a, b Z. Similarly a
2
+5b
2
= 3
has no solution, and the only solutions to a
2
+5b
2
= 4 must have
b = 0, hence a = 2.
Claim that if r R and N(r) = 4 then r is irreducible:
Proof. If r = ab then 4 = N(r) = N(a)N(b), so N(a) = 1, 2 or
4.
N(a) = 1 = a is a unit.
N(a) = 2 = no solution.
N(a) = 4 = N(b) = 1, so b is a unit.
So either a or b is a unit, hence r is irreducible.
Similarly we can show that N(r) = 6 or 9 = r is irreducible.
Hence 2, 3, 1
5 are all irreducible in R. However none of

them are prime, for example
2 [ 6 =
_
1 +
5
_
. .
a
_
1
5
_
. .
b
41
but 2 a, b since
1+
5
2
/ R, so 2 is not prime. Similarly for 3
and 1
5.
The upshot is that 6 has more than one factorisation into irre-
ducibles and (it turns out) no factorisation into primes, so irreducibles
may fail to be prime. However, primes are always irreducible:
Lemma 3.4 All prime elements of R are irreducible.
Proof. For a contradiction, say r R is prime but not irreducible.
Then r ,= 0 and r is not a unit, so r not being implies r = ab with
neither a nor b a unit. Now r [ ab, so say r [ a without loss of generality.
Then
a = r for some R = r = ab = rb
= b = 1 (since r ,= 0 and R is an I.D.)
= b is a unit.
This means r is irreducible, a contradiction.
This is our motivation for the non-obvious denition of prime ele-
ments:
Lemma 3.5 If 0 ,= r R then r is prime (r) is a prime ideal.
Proof. If r is a unit then r is not prime, and (r) = R is not a prime
ideal.
If r isnt a unit, then
(r) prime ideal
_
ab (r) = a (r) or b (r)
_
_
ab [ r R = a [ r or b [ r
_
r prime.
43
Euclidean Domains
Now we want to use a generalised Euclidean algorithm, saying a =
qb + r with r < b.
Denition 3.6 An integral domain R is said to be a Euclidean
domain if there is a function : R 0 Z
0
satisfying:
(i) (ab) (a) if a, b ,= 0
(ii) If a, b R and b ,= 0 then q, r R such that a = qb + r where
either r = 0 or (r) < (b).
Remarks
We call q and r the quotient and remainder respectively.
(a) is supposed to be the size of a.
Examples
Let R = Z, (r) = [r[. It is easy to check that is valid.
Let F be any eld and R = F[x], its polynomial ring in one
variable. Dene : R 0 Z
0
, (f) = deg(f). It is easy
to check (i), by showing if f, g are non-zero polynomials then
deg(fg) = deg(f) + deg(g). Proving (ii) is messier but not hard
(build Q term by term).
Theorem 3.7 If R is a Euclidean domain then R is a principal ideal
domain.
Proof. Say I R is an ideal and R is a Euclidean domain. If I =
0 = (0) then it is principal. If not, choose x I 0 such that
(x) = min(s) : s I 0.
Claim that I = (x), which implies R is a PID:
Certainly (x) I. If i I then i = qx + r with r R and either
r = 0 or (r) < (x). But r = i qx I = (r) (x) by
our choice of x, hence we must have r = 0. Therefore i (x), so
I (x).
Examples
Z with (r) = [r[ and F[x] with (f) = deg(f) are EDs.
We will show that R = Z[i] is a ED. We will try (a+ib) = a
2
+b
2
,
i.e. (z) = [z[
2
. Check the conditions:
(i) (zw) = (z)(w) z, w R and (z) 1 z R 0.
(ii) Given z, w R with w ,= 0 we want q, r R such that
z = wq + r with [r[ < [w[.
Compute z w =
z
w
C and choose q Z[i] as close as
possible to
z
w
. Now
z
w
q
<
2
2
< 1, hence [z qw[ < [w[.
Set r = z qw R, then z = qw + r and [r[ < [w[.
So Z[i] is a ED, and hence a PID.
We can show that Z
_
2
is an ED in a similar way. When

checking condition (ii) we use the fact that the distance from
(0, 0) to
_
1
2
,
2
2
_
is < 1, hence
z
w
q
< 1 and our works.

For Z
_
5
this fails, and indeed the ring is not a ED.

45
Lemma 3.8 If R is a PID, then r R irreducible r prime.
Proof.
(=)
This is a consequence of Lemma 3.4.
(=)
Say r is irreducible, and r [ ab for some a, b R. Let
I = (r, a) = r + a : , R.
R is a PID, so I = (d) for some d R. Hence d [ r and d [ a. In
particular r = sd for some s R. Since r is irreducible, s or d
must be a unit.
If s is a unit then r and d are associates, so by Lemma 3.2 (iii),
(r) = (d) = (r, a) = a (r)
= r [ a
so r is prime.
If d is a unit, then by Lemma 3.2 (i), (r, a) = (d) = R 1. So
, R such that r +a = 1 = rb +ab = b. But r [ rb
and r [ ab, hence r [ rb + ab = b. So r is prime.
Denition 3.9 An integral domain R is called a unique factorisation
domain if:
(i) [Factorisation] If 0 ,= r R then r = ur
1
r
n
where u is a unit
and r
1
, . . . , r
n
are irreducible
(ii) [Uniqueness] If 0 ,= r R and r = ur
1
r
n
= vs
1
s
m
with
u, v units, r
1
, . . . , r
n
, s
1
, . . . , s
m
irreducible, then m = n and (after
reordering if necessary) r
i
and s
i
are associates for i = 1, . . . , n.
Theorem 3.10 A PID is a UFD.
Proof. Say R is a PID. Now we will prove the two UFD conditions
hold:
(i) Say this fails for r R for a contradiction. Then r cannot be
irreducible or a unit, hence r = ab with neither a nor b a unit.
Set a = r
1
, b = s
1
. These must both fail (i), since if they didnt
then neither would r. Hence r
1
= r
2
s
2
, with r
2
, s
2
not satisfying
(i).
Continuing like this, we get a r
n
for n = 1, 2, . . . We have (r
n
)
r
n1
, since r
n1
= r
n
s
n
= (r
n
) (r
n1
). Furthermore (r
n
) ,=
(r
n1
) as s
n
is not a unit, so r
n
and r
n1
are not associates.
Therefore we have
(r
1
) (r
2
) (r
3
)
Dene I =
_
n1
(r
n
) R. It is to check that I is an ideal, hence it
must be principal since R is a PID, so say I = (d). So
d
_
n1
(r
n
) = d (r
N
) = (d) (r
N
)
47
for some N. Hence
(d) (r
N
) (r
N+1
) I = (d).
This is a contradiction!
(ii) Say r = ur
1
r
n
= vs
1
s
m
. If n = 0 then r is a unit, hence
no irreducible divides r and m = 0.
If n > 0 then r
1
[ r = vs
1
s
m
. Now r
1
is irreducible, and hence
prime by Lemma 3.8, so r
1
[ s
i
for some i. But s
i
is irreducible,
therefore r
1
and s
i
are associates. Without loss of generality let
i = 1 (by rearranging) and cancel r
1
and s
1
(possible since R is an
ID). We can continue cancelling associates in this way, until we
have u = vs
1
s
N
. By our rst argument we must have N = 0,
hence n = m and u = v.
Chapter 4
Localisation
Localisation generalises the way we construct Q from Z. Throughout
this chapter we assume that R is an integral domain.
Theorem 4.1 (Let R be an integral domain.) There exists a eld F
and an injective homomorphism : R F such that for any f F
we can write f =
(r)
(s)
for some r, s R with s ,= 0. The pair (F, )
is unique up to isomorphism
, and we call F the eld of fractions of

R, or Frac(R).
By unique up to isomorphism we mean if (F

/
,
/
) also satises
the conditions then there is an isomorphism : F F
/
such
that
F
>>
F
/
49
50 CHAPTER 4. LOCALISATION
commutes, i.e.
/
= and is unique.
Proof.
Consider X = R(R0), the set of pairs (a, b) : a, b R, b ,=
0. Dene the relation on X by
(a, b) (c, d) ad = bc.
We claim is an equivalence relation:
1. [Symmetric] (a, b) (c, d) = ad = bc = cb = da =
(c, d) (a, b).
2. [Reexive] (a, b) (a, b) ab = ba which is true since R is
commutative.
3. [Transitive] Assume (a, b) (c, d) and (c, d) (e, f). We want
to show that this implies (a, b) (e, f), i.e. that
ad = bc and cf = de = af = be.
So (ad)e = (bc)e = acf = bce since de = cf. If c ,= 0 then
we can cancel it since R is an ID and get af = be as required. If
c = 0 then ad = bc = 0, hence a = 0 (since 0 ,= d R 0).
Also de = cf = 0, so e = 0. Now af = be 0 = 0.
So is an equivalence relation. Let F be the set of equivalence classes
for . Write [a : b] for the equivalence class of (a, b). (We should think
of [a : b] as
a
/b.)
Let 0 = [0 : 1] = [0 : t] t R0, 1 = [1 : 1] = [t : t] t R0
and dene
[a : b] + [c : d] = [ad + bc : bd], [a : b][c : d] = [ac, bd].
51
We claim that F is a ring:
is well dened:
Need to check that
[a : b] = [A : B] = [a : b][c : d] = [A : B][c : d].
We have aB = bA = aBcd = bAcd = [ac : bd] = [Ac : Bd],
hence result.
+ is well dened:
Need to check that
[a : b] = [A : B] = [a : b] + [c : d] = [A : B] + [c : d]
i.e.
aB = bA = [ad + bc : bd] = [Ad + Bc : Bd]
(ad + bc)Bd = (Ad + Bc)bd.
We know d ,= 0, so
(ad + bc)Bd = (Ad + Bc)bd (ad + bx)B = (Ad + Bc)b
adB + bcB = Adb + Bcb
adB = Adb
aB = Ab.
[0 : 1] + [a : b] = [a : b] so our 0 is valid.
[1 : 1] [a : b] = [a : b] so our 1 is valid.
[a : b] + [a : b] = [0 : b
2
] = 0 so we have inverses under +.
Associativity, Distributivity: Exercise.
Now we claim that F is a eld:
If F [a : b] ,= [0 : 1] then
[a : b] [b : a] = [ab : ab] = 1.
[b : a] F since a ,= 0 and it is the inverse of [a : b] under .
Hence F is a eld.
Now dene : R F by (a) = [a : 1]. is a ring homomorphism:
(0) = [0 : 1] = 0.
(1) = [1 : 1] = 1.
(a + b) = [a + b : 1] = [a : 1] + [b : 1] = (a) + (b).
(ab) = [ab : 1] = [a : 1][b : 1] = (a)(b).
is also injective, since
(a) = (b) = [a : 1] = [b : 1] = a = b.
If f = [a : b] F then
f = [a : 1][1 : b] = [a : 1][b : 1]
1
= (a)(b)
1
=
(a)
(b)
.
53
Now assume we have (
/
, F
/
) with the same properties. Dene : F
F
/
by
([a : b]) =

/
(a)
/
(b)
.
Check that
/
= and that is an isomorphism (exercise). Now
for any isomorphism such that
/
= we must have
/
(a) = ((a)) = ([a : 1])
and so
([a : b]) =
_
[a : 1][b : 1]
1
_
=
([a : 1])
([b : 1])
=

/
(a)
/
(b)
.
Hence the we dened is unique.
Corollary 4.2 Every integral domain is (isomorphic to) a subring of
a eld.
Proof. R Frac(R).
Denition 4.3 A multiplicative subset of R is a subset S R such
that
1 S
If a, b S then ab S
0 / S.+
Examples
R 0 is a multiplicative subset of R (since we assumed that
R is an ID).
R = Z, S = 1, n, n
2
, n
3
, . . . where n ,= 0.
If P is a prime ideal of R then S=RP is a multiplicative subset:
Proof.
1 S since if 1 P then P = R, contradiction.
0 P so 0 / S.
Take a, b S. If ab / S then ab P = a P or b P, a
contradiction. Hence ab S.
Denition 4.4 Let R be an ID, S a multiplicative subset. Then we
we dene R
S
, the localisation of R at S to be
a subset of Frac(R) consisting of elements that can be written as
a
/b (= [a : b]) where b S
or equivalently the denition Frac(R) with X = R S.
Example
Let R = Z, p a prime number, S = 1, p, p
2
, p
3
, . . . . Then
R
S
=
a
/b : b S. We call this Z[
1
/p].
55
Lemma 4.5 Suppose A is a commutative ring, R an ID and S R
multiplicative. Then if : R A is a ring homomorphism such that
(s) is a unit for all s S, then extends uniquely to a homomor-
phism
S
: R
S
A, i.e.
S
(
r
/1) = (r) for all r R.
Proof. Take x R
S
. By denition, we can write x =
r
/s where r R,
s S. Now dene
S
(x) =
(r)
/(s), which is valid since (s) is a unit
in A. We can check that this is a well-dened ring homomorphism
(exercise).
To prove uniqueness, suppose
S
is any ring homomorphism map-
ping R
S
A which is an extension of . We must have
(r) =
S
(r) =
S
(s
r
/s) =
S
(s)
S
(
r
/s) = (s)
S
(
r
/s).
Since (s) is a unit, this implies
S
(
r
/s) =
(r)
/(s).
Example
Consider R = Z[
1
/p]. Now Z has maximal ideals () where is
prime.
R (p) = (1)
Denition 4.6 A commutative ring is local if it has a unique maximal
ideal.
Example
If R is a eld then it is local, since it has maximal ideal 0.
Zorns Lemma
A partially ordered set (or poset) is a set S equipped with a binary
relation satisfying:
(i) s s for all s S
(ii) If s t and t s then t = s
(iii) If s t and t u then s u.
Note that we did not demand that for all s, t S, either s t or
t s! If this was true, then we would have a totally ordered set.
A chain C S is a totally ordered subset of S.
Example
For any set X, the set of subsets of X called S is a poset, with
s t if s t.
Say S is a poset and X S a poset. We say s S is an upper
bound for X if for all x X, x s.
Say S is a poset. We say s S is a maximal element if for all
t S, s t s = t.
Zorns Lemma states that if S is a poset and every chain C S
has an upper bound, then S has a maximal element.
Example
57
R with the usual relation has no maximal element. Indeed the
chain 0, 1, 2, . . . has no upper bound.
Proof. To prove Zorns Lemma, we rst consider chain C = , the
empty chain. This has upper bound s
1
for any s
1
S. If s
1
is maxi-
mal then we are done, if not then s
2
such that s
1
s
2
, s
1
,= s
2
. If s
2
is maximal then we are done, if not then s
3
such that s
2
s
3
, s
2
,= s
3
.
Continuing this way, we end up with a list of elements
s
1
s
2
s
2
s
3

such that
s
1
,= s
2
,= s
2
,= s
3
,=
Now dene chain C = s
1
, s
2
, . . . . By our hypothesis it must have an
upper bound s
. Now we must have s

i
s
for all i < . If s
is
maximal then we are done, if not then s
+1
such that s
< s
+1
.
(Dene s < t to mean s t and s ,= t, and similarly dene s > t to
mean t < s.)
We can continue and get
s
1
< s
2
< s
2
< s
3
< < s
< s
+1
< < s
+n
<
and apply our hypothesis to C = s
1
, . . . , s
, s
+1
, . . . to obtain
upper bound s
2
. We can keep going forever, and this proves the
theorem (read about ordinals!).
Here is a standard application of Zorns Lemma:
Theorem 4.7 If R is a ring (not necessarily commutative) and I R
is a left ideal with I ,= R, then there exists a maximal left ideal M
with I M R.
Proof. Set
S = J R : J is a left ideal, I J, J ,= R.
Dene relation on S by J
1
J
2
if J
1
J
2
, so that S is a poset.
Now say C S is any chain, i.e. if J
1
, J
2
C then either J
1
J
2
or
J
2
J
1
. Let K be the union of all elements of C. It is easy to show
that K is a left ideal.
K S, since if not
K = R 1 K
1 J
i
for some i
J
i
= R.
So every chain has an upper bound, hence S has a maximal element,
and this is clearly a maximal left ideal.
Corollary 4.9 If R ,= 0 is a ring, then R has a maximal left ideal.
Proof. 0 is a left ideal of R.
So in particular, a non-zero commutative ring has at least one max-
imal ideal. We can use this, along with the theory of localisation, to
construct lots of local rings.
Proposition 4.10 Say R is a commutative ring and I ,= R is an
ideal. Then I the unique maximal ideal of R i every element of R I
is a unit.
59
Proof.
(=)
Say I is a unique maximal ideal of R, and R I. Let J =
() = R. If J ,= R then by J is a subset of the maximal ideal
of R, namely I. But J , I as / I, so we have a contradiction.
Hence J = R = 1 J = R
.
(=)
Say R I consists entirely of units. If J R is any ideal and
J ,= R then J cant contain any units (since this would mean
1 J). Hence J I, so I is the unique maximal ideal.
Constructing Local Rings
Let R be an integral domain and say M R is a maximal ideal.
Set S = R M. Then S is a multiplicative subset of R, since maximal
ideals are prime. It is easy to check that localisation R
S
= R
M
is a
local ring by 4.10. The maximal ideal of R
M
is
_
m
s
: m M, s S
_
and anything not in this set is a unit.
Chapter 5
Polynomial Rings
We aim to show that:
If R is noetherian then so is R[x]
If R is a UFD then so is R[x].
We already know that if R is an ID then so is R[x]. Throughout this
chapter we assume that R is a commutative ring.
Theorem 5.1 - Hilberts Basis Theorem
If R is noetherian then so is R[x].
Proof. Say I R[x] is an ideal. Let
X
n
= f I : deg(f) = n R[x].
So
I = 0 X
1
X
2

61
62 CHAPTER 5. POLYNOMIAL RINGS
(which is a disjoint union) and dene
J
n
= 0 r R : f X
n
with x
n
coecient r R
i.e. J
n
= 0 leading terms of degree n polynomials in I.
Claim that J
n
is an ideal for n = 0, 1, 2, . . . :
If r, s J
n
then f, g I such that f = rx
n
+ , g = sx
n
+ .
Now f g I, hence r s J
n
.
If a R then af I, hence ar J
n
.
Claim J
0
J
1
J
2
:
If r J
n
then f = rx
n
+ I, so xf I hence r J
n+1
.
Claim if J =
_
n0
J
n
then J is an ideal of R:
Easy to check.
R is noetherian hence J is nitely generated, so say J = (s
1
, . . . , s
n
)
for some s
i
J. Now there exists some N 0 such that all the s
i
are
in J
N
. J
N
is an ideal, hence
J = (s
1
, , s
n
) J
N
J
so we must have
J
N
= J
N+1
= J
N+2
= = J.
Now we will nd a nite generating set for I. We know each J
i
is
nitely generated, so say
J
i
= (r
i1
, . . . , r
im
i
)
63
for i N. By denition there exist polynomials f
ij
= r
ij
x
i
+ I.
Claim the f
ij
for 0 i N are a nite generating set for I R[x]:
All f
ij
I by denition, so if I
/
= (f
ij
) then I
/
I. We will
show I I
/
by induction on degree.
For our base case, suppose f I and deg(f) = 0. We want to
prove f I
/
. Now f = r = rx
0
J
0
for some r R and J
0
is
nitely generated, so
f = r =
m
0
j=1
0j
r
0j
for some
0j
R. We have r
0j
= f
0j
, hence
f =
m
0
j=1
0j
f
0j
I
/
.
Now take f I where deg(f) = n, and say we have already
proved that any polynomial in I of degree < n is in I
/
. We want
to prove f I
/
.
Case 1 Suppose n N. Now
f = rx
n
+ for some r J
n
= (r
n1
, . . . , r
nm
n
)
= r =
m
n
j=1
j
r
nj
for some
j
R
=
m
n
j=1
j
f
nj
= rx
n
+ since f
nj
= r
nj
x
n
+ .
Call this last term f
/
. Then f I, f
/
I
/
I. Therefore
f f
/
I, since I is an ideal. But deg(f f
/
) < n, so by
our inductive assumption f f
/
I
/
. I
/
is an ideal, hence
(f f
/
) + f
/
= f I
/
.
Case 2 Similar to Case 1. Suppose n > N. Now
f = rx
n
+ for some r J
n
= J
N
= (r
N1
, . . . , r
Nm
N
)
= r =
m
N
j=1
j
r
Nj
for some
j
R
=
m
N
j=1
j
f
Nj
= rx
N
+ since f
Nj
= r
Nj
x
N
n + .
Dene
f
/
= x
nN
m
N
j=1
j
f
Nj
.
Then f
/
I
/
I and f
/
= rx
n
+ . Therefore f f
/
I,
but deg(f f
/
) < n, so by our inductive assumption f f
/

I
/
. Hence
(f f
/
) + f
/
= f I
/
.
Corollary 5.2
(i) If K is a eld then K[x
1
, . . . , x
n
] is noetherian.
(ii) Z[x
1
, . . . , x
n
] is noetherian.
65
Proof. Fields and PIDs are Noetherian, and then induction on n.
Lemma 5.3 If : A B is a surjective ring homomorphism and A
is noetherian then so is B.
Proof. Say I B is an ideal and set
J =
1
(I) = a A : (a) I.
Then by Prop 2.14, J is an ideal of A. Hence J = (a
1
, . . . , a
n
), say. It
is easy to check that (a
1
), . . . , (a
n
) generates I.
Corollary 5.4 Any ring nitely generated over a eld is Noetherian
(i.e. all rings showing up in a rst course on algebraic geometry).
Proof. If A is nitely generated over K then there exists a surjection
K[x
1
, . . . , x
n
] A.
Our goal now is to prove that if R is a UFD then so is R[x]. So
take R a UFD and let F = Frac(R) be its eld of fractions. Recall
that the prime factorisations ensured by a UFD are only unique up to
units, and two irreducibles r and S are associates if r = us for some
unit u. We will now choose a representative for each equivalence class
of irreducibles up to associativity.
For example, in Z the associate classes are +p, p for p prime
and we could choose +p to be our representative for each class.
Let P denote the set of representatives that we have chosen. Now
any non-zero r R can be written
r = up
1
p
2
p
n
with the p
i
P unique up to reordering and u, n unique. We can write
r = u
p
i
P
p
i
e
i
with e
i
0 and e
i
= 0 for all but nitely many p
i
(dening p
i
0
= 1).
More generally, if 0 ,= f F = Frac(R), we can write f =
r
/s and
deduce from the factorisations of r and s that
f = u
p
i
P
p
i
e
i
where this time e
i
Z and again and all but nitely many e
i
are zero.
For example, in Z we have
12
35
= 1 2
2
3 5
1
7
1
11
0
13
0

Denition 5.5 Fix p P and dene the p-adic valuation val
p
:
F
Z thus: if f F
then write f = u
p
i
P
p
i
e
i
and say w.l.o.g.
that p = p
1
, then dene
val
p
(f) = e
1
.
In other words, val
p
(f) is the number of times p goes into f.
Examples
67
Say R = Z, p = 3. Then
val
p
(45) = 2 since 45 = 3
2
5
val
p
_
10
3
_
= 1 since
10
3
= 2 3
1
5
val
p
(100) = 1 since 3 100.
Say R = C[z], p = z 3. Then
val
p
_
(z 3)
2
(z 7)(z )
_
= 2
val
p
_
z+4
(z3)
5
_
= 5.
Say R = C[z], p = z. Then
val
p
_
c
m
z
m
+ c
m+1
z
m+1
+ + c
N
z
N
_
= m
if c
m
,= 0.
val
p
is the order of the zero at p.
Lemma 5.6 Suppose R is a UDF, P as above, p P and write v for
val
P
: F
Z. Then for all x, y F
:
(i) v(xy) = v(x) + v(y)
(ii) If v(x) = 0 and v(y) > 0 then v(x + y) = 0.
Remarks
In other words:
(i) says if the orders of vanishing of f abd g are a and b respectively,
then the order of vanishing of fg is a + b.
(ii) says if p x and p [ y then p x + y.
Proof.
(i) x = p
e
(elements prime to p) and y = p
f
(elements prime to
p),
so xy = p
e+f
(elements prime to p).
(ii) Write x =
a
/b with p a and p b, and y =
c
/d with p [ c and p d.
Then
x + y =
ad + bc
bd
.
Now p b and p d p bd. (Problem Sheet), and similarly p a
and p d p ad. Now p [ c p [ bc, but if p [ ad + bc then p
must divide the dierence, which is ad, so we have a contradiction.
Hence p ad + bc and p bd, so p does not divide the numerator
or denominator of x + y and so v(x + y) = 0.
Exercise
Prove that
(i) v(x + y) minv(x), v(y)
(ii) v(x + y) = minv(x), v(y) if v(x) , = v(y) (dene v(0) = +)
(iii) if we dene for a, b F
:
|a| = e
v(a)
, d(a, b) = |a b|
then d is a metric.
69
Now say h F[x]. We will extend val
p
so that val
p
(h) makes sense.
Write
h = a
0
+ a
1
x + + a
n
x
n
where the a
i
F and dene
val
p
(h) = min
0in
val
p
(a
i
)
ignoring val
p
(a
i
) if a
i
= 0.
Remark
If h ,= 0 and p P does not divide the numerator or denominator of
any of the non-zero a
i
, then val
p
(h) = 0. Hence for h ,= 0, val
p
(h) = 0
for all but nitely many p.
Given 0 ,= f F[x] what do we multiply it by so that the product is
in R[x] and no prime divides all cooecients? (i.e. gcd(coeecient)=1)?
This section gives the answer.
Denition 5.7 The content of non-zero f F[x] is
cont(f) =
pP
p
val
p
(f)
.
If cont(f) = 1 then we say it is primitive.
The content does depend on choice of P, but only up to a unit.
Example
Let R = Z and consider
f =
15
2
+
21
4
x +
9
4
x
2
.
We have
val
2
(f) = min1, 2, 2 = 2,
val
3
(f) = min1, 1, 2 = 1,
val
5
(f) = min1, 0, 0 = 0,
val
7
(f) = min0, 1, 0 = 0
and if p > 7 then
val
p
(f) = min0, 0, 0 = 0.
71
Hence
cont(f) = 2
2
3 =
3
4
.
Remarks
An easy result:
cont(f) R val
p
(f) 0 p
val
p
(a
i
) 0 p i
a
i
R i
f R[x].
It is also easy to show that cont(f) = 1 f R[x] and no p divides
all the a
i
(i.e. gcd(coeecient)=1).
Lemma 5.8 If F
and 0 ,= f F[x], then

cont(f) = u cont(f)
for some unit u R
.
Proof. Say f =
a
i
x
i
. Then f =
a
i
x
i
and
val
p
(a
i
) = val
p
() + val
p
(a
i
)
by 5.6. Hence
val
p
(f) = val
p
() + val
p
(f)
cont(f) =
pP
p
val
p
()+val
p
(f)
=
pP
p
val
p
()
cont(f)
But since R is a UFD,
=
pP
p
val
p
()
u
where u F
is such that no primes divide its numerator or denomi-

nator, i.e. u is a unit in R.
Lemma 5.9 (Gauss Lemma) Let R be a UFD, F = Frac(R) and
0 ,= f, g F[x]. Then
cont(fg) = cont(f) cont(g).
Proof. Set c = cont(f) and d = cont(g). Then f = cf
1
for some
f
1
F[x] and by 5.8:
c = cont(f) = cont(cf
1
) = uc cont(f
1
).
We know c is a product of p P, hence unit u = 1 and so cont(f
1
) = 1.
Similarly cont(g
1
) = 1. Now
cont(fg) = cont(cf
1
dg
1
)
= ucd cont(f
1
g
1
)
and again unit u = 1 since c and d are products of p P. If we show
that cont(f
1
g
1
) = 1 then we will have proved the Lemma.
73
Well,
cont(f
1
) = cont(g
1
) = 1
f
1
, g
1
R[x]
f
1
g
1
R[x]
cont(f
1
g
1
) R.
Say p P. We want to prove that
val
p
(f
1
g
1
) = 0
which implies that cont(f
1
g
1
) = 1. Say f
1
=
a
i
x
i
, g
1
=
b
i
x
i
for
a
i
, b
i
R. We know that val
p
(f
1
) = 0 since cont(f
1
) = 1, hence at
least one of the a
i
is not a multiple of p. Set
f
1
=
(a
i
mod p)x
i
R
/(p)[x]
where
R
/(p) is the quotient ring R over prime ideal (p). Then f
1
,= 0
so f
1
has degree r = maxi : p a
i
. Similarly g
1
,= 0 and has degree
s = maxi : p b
i
. Hence the degree of f
1
g
1
is r +s and, in particular,
f
1
g
1
= f
1
g
1
,= 0
since
R
/(p) is an ID. Hence val
p
(f
1
g
1
) = 0.
(As an exercise you could alternatively check directly that the co-
ecient of x
r+s
in f
1
g
1
is not a multiple of p.)
Corollary 5.10 (Gauss Lemma) If f R[x] has degree 1 and
is irreducible with respect to R[x], then f is irreducible with respect
to F[x].
Proof. We will prove reducible in F[x] reducible in R[x]. So suppose
f = gh for some g, h F[x]. Now f is irreducible and has degree 1
so it has no non-unit factors in R, and hence is primitive. Choose
a, b F such that ag and bh are primitive. Then
abf = abgh = ag bh.
The right hand side is primitive by 5.9, so f and abf are primitive.
Now
1 = cont(abf) = uab cont(f) = uab
for some unit u R, so ab is a unit in R. Hence we can write
f = (ab)
1
ag bh
which is the product of three units, so f is a unit and hence reducible.
Proposition 5.11 Let R be a UFD, F = Frac(R) and say 0 ,= f
R[x]. The f can be written as
f = cg
1
g
n
with c R and g
i
R[x] with g
i
primitive and irreducible elements of
F[x]. This factorisation is unique up to re-ordering the g
i
and multi-
plying factors by units in R.
Proof. F is a eld, hence F[x] is a ED (by previous example in ED
section). By 3.8 F[x] is a PID, and by 3.11 this implies it is a UFD.
Hence f can be factored as
f = g
1
g
n
75
where the g
i
F[x] are irreducible. For each i, set
g
i
=
g
i
cont(g
i
)
.
which is primitive by 5.8. Hence we can write
f = cg
1
g
n
for c =
n
i=1
1
cont(g
i
)
F
. Now
cont(f) = cont(cg
1
g
n
) = uc
for some unit u R, and cont(f) R hence c R.
Now we prove uniqueness. Say
f = cg
1
g
n
= dh
1
h
m
.
Since F[x] is a UFD we can deduce that n = m and g
i
=
i
h
i
for some
unit
i
F[x]
= F
. Now
1 = cont(g
i
) = cont(
i
h
i
) = u
i
1
so
i
R
. Finally by taking the contents of

f = cg
1
g
n
= dh
1
h
m
we can deduce that c = ud for some u R
.
Theorem 5.12 If R is a UFD then R[x] is a UFD. The irreducible
elements of R[x] are of two kinds:
(i) irreducibles in R
(ii) primitive polynomials in R[x] of degree 1 which are irreducible
in F[x].
Finally, R[x]
= R
.
Proof. The two conditions for a UFD are precisely what we proved in
5.11. The units in R[x] are R
because R and R[x] (by 1.13) are IDs.

Finally, say f is irreducible in R[x]. By 5.11, f factors as cg
1
g
n
in
R[x] so either:
(i) c / R
, hence n = 0 and f = c is irreducible in R

(ii) c R
, n = 1 and f is primitive and irreducible in F[x].

Corollary 5.13 If R is a UFD then so is R[x
1
, . . . , x
n
].
Proof. By induction.
Hence Z[x
1
, . . . , x
n
] and K[x
1
, . . . , x
n
] are UFDs for eld K. How-
ever they are not PIDs (consider ideals (2, x) and (x
1
, x
2
) respectively).
Chapter 6
Modules
In this chapter, R is a ring, but not necessarily commutative. The
intrinsic arithmetic of elds is nearly non-existent, so we go straight
onto vector spaces. A module is a vector space over a ring, but
because a ring may have one of lots of kinds of arithmetic, a module
may be more complicated than R
n
.
Denition 6.1 An R-module, or left R-module, is an abelian group
M equipped with a map R M M simply written (r, m) rm
such that r, s R m, n M:
1. r(m + n) = rm + rn
2. (r + s)m = rm + sm
3. r(sm) = (rs)m
4. 1m = m.
Remarks
77
78 CHAPTER 6. MODULES
If R is a eld then these are the axioms for a vector space.
It is called a left R-module because R acts on the left (the de-
nition of a right R-module is obvious).
Note that
0
R
m + 0
R
m = (0
R
+ 0
R
)m = 0
R
m
hence 0
R
m = 0
R
m0
R
m = 0
M
.
Similarly (1)m = m, the inverse of m in M, since
(1)m + m = (1 + 1)m = 0m = 0
M
.
More generally we can show (exercise) that
(r)m = (rm).
Examples
1. Set M = R and use the obvious action (r, m) rm. More
generally, set M = R
n
and if
M m =
_
_
r
1
.
.
.
r
n
_
_
then dene
(r, m)
_
_
rr
1
.
.
.
rr
n
_
_
.
The conditions are immediately checked.
79
2. Let I be a left ideal of R. Then if r R and i I we know
ri I, and hence I is an R-module under this action.
3. Set R = Z and let M be any R-module. If r R and m M
then what are the possibilities for rm? In fact the conditions
force us to dene rm in the following way:
We know 1m = m and 0m = 0. Now
2m = (1 + 1)m = 1m + 1m = m + m
and similarly by induction on r 0 we can show
rm = m + + m
. .
r times
.
Finally if r = s for s 0 then
rm = (s)m = (sm) = (m + + m
. .
s times
).
So any abelian group can be made into a Z-module in at most
one way. Conversely, if M is any abelian group then we can
dene an action of Z on M by
rm = m + + m
. .
r times
and it can be easily checked that this satises the module con-
ditions. So if R = Z, any Z-module is the same as an abelian
group. In particular there exist Z-modules which are not isomor-
phic to Z
n
for any n, for example M =
Z
/3Z or M = Q. These
Z-modules have no basis.
4. Let F be a eld and set R = M
n
(F), the group of nn matrices
over F, and set M = F
n
. There is an obvious way to dene rm
with vector/matrix multiplication, and the conditions are easily
veried.
Note that if n > 1 then M ,
= R
d
for any d because F-dim of M
is n and F-dim of R
d
is n
2
d ,= n.
5. I remember vivivly sitting in the bath in 1991 and having an
epiphany. Let F be a eld and set R = F[x]. What is an R-
module?
Well if R is any ring, M is an R-module and S R is a subring,
then M with the obvious action is an S-module. So if R = F[x]
and M is an R-module then M is naturally an F-module (since
F R), i.e. a vector space over F.
But x R, so it makes sense to talk about map : M M
dened by (m) = xm m M. Claim is an F-linear map:
Proof. For all m, n M and F,
(m + n) = x(m + n)
= xm + xn
= (m) + (n)
81
and
(m) = x(m)
= x(m)
= (x)m
= (x)m
= (xm)
= (m).
So an F[x]-module gives rise to an F vector space M and an
F-linear map : M M.
Conversely, given an F-vector space M and an F-linear map
: M M we can naturally make M into an R-module. If
f =
n
i=0
i
x
i
F[x]
and m M then dene
fm =
n
i=0
i
(m)
where
i
=
. .
i times
and we dene
0
to be the identity map.
6. Let F be a eld, G be a group and dene the group ring
F[G] = R to be the F-vector space with basis G, i.e. R contains
the formal sums
n
i=1
i
g
i
for
i
F and g
i
G. This is like a polynomial ring over F in
elements of G. Then, just as in example 5, an R-module is an
F-vector space V equipped with a group homomorphism
: G GL
F
(V )
where GL
F
(V ) is the set of linear maps V V . (g) is the
endomorphism of V induced by g G R.
Remarks
The ring structure on R is the obvious choice: g h = gh and
extend linearly.
Even the case F = C, G nite, V nite-dimensional is fantasti-
cally rich (consists of all of Representation Theory!).
Denition 6.2
Let R be a ring and let M and N be R-modules.
A map f : M N is an R-module homomorphism if f is a
homomorphism of abelian groups such that f(rm) = rf(m).
83
An endomorphism of M is an R-module homomorphism f : M
M.
An isomorphism f : M N is an R-module homomorphism f
such that there exists an R-module homomorphism g : N M
such that f g = id
N
and g f = id
M
.
An R-module automorphism of M is an isomorphism f : M
M.

Alg 3

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Alg 3

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Chapter 1

Basic Denitions And

for the set of units of a ring R.

is easily checked to be a group under multiplication.

we will show that prime and irre-

5 are all irreducible in R. However none of

is an ED in a similar way. When

< 1 and our works.

this fails, and indeed the ring is not a ED.

, and we call F the eld of fractions of

By unique up to isomorphism we mean if (F

. Now we must have s

for all i < . If s

Z. Then for all x, y F

and 0 ,= f F[x], then

is such that no primes divide its numerator or denomi-

. Finally by taking the contents of

because R and R[x] (by 1.13) are IDs.

, hence n = 0 and f = c is irreducible in R

, n = 1 and f is primitive and irreducible in F[x].

También podría gustarte