Prime avoidance lemma

From The Right Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

In algebra, the prime avoidance lemma says that if an ideal I in a commutative ring R is contained in a union of finitely many prime ideals Pi's, then it is contained in Pi for some i. There are many variations of the lemma (cf. Hochster); for example, if the ring R contains an infinite field or a finite field of sufficiently large cardinality, then the statement follows from a fact in linear algebra that a vector space over an infinite field or a finite field of large cardinality is not a finite union of its proper vector subspaces.[1]

Statement and proof

The following statement and argument are perhaps the most standard. Statement: Let E be a subset of R that is an additive subgroup of R and is multiplicatively closed. Let I1,I2,,In,n1 be ideals such that Ii are prime ideals for i3. If E is not contained in any of Ii's, then E is not contained in the union Ii. Proof by induction on n: The idea is to find an element that is in E and not in any of Ii's. The basic case n = 1 is trivial. Next suppose n ≥ 2. For each i, choose

ziEjiIj

where the set on the right is nonempty by inductive hypothesis. We can assume ziIi for all i; otherwise, some zi avoids all the Ii's and we are done. Put

z=z1zn1+zn.

Then z is in E but not in any of Ii's. Indeed, if z is in Ii for some in1, then zn is in Ii, a contradiction. Suppose z is in In. Then z1zn1 is in In. If n is 2, we are done. If n > 2, then, since In is a prime ideal, some zi,i<n is in In, a contradiction.

E. Davis' prime avoidance

There is the following variant of prime avoidance due to E. Davis.

Theorem — [2] Let A be a ring, 𝔭1,,𝔭r prime ideals, x an element of A and J an ideal. For the ideal I=xA+J, if I⊄𝔭i for each i, then there exists some y in J such that x+y∉𝔭i for each i.

Proof:[3] We argue by induction on r. Without loss of generality, we can assume there is no inclusion relation between the 𝔭i's; since otherwise we can use the inductive hypothesis. Also, if x∉𝔭i for each i, then we are done; thus, without loss of generality, we can assume x𝔭r. By inductive hypothesis, we find a y in J such that x+yI1r1𝔭i. If x+y is not in 𝔭r, we are done. Otherwise, note that J⊄𝔭r (since x𝔭r) and since 𝔭r is a prime ideal, we have:

𝔭r⊅J𝔭1𝔭r1.

Hence, we can choose y in J𝔭1𝔭r1 that is not in 𝔭r. Then, since x+y𝔭r, the element x+y+y has the required property.

Application

Let A be a Noetherian ring, I an ideal generated by n elements and M a finite A-module such that IMM. Also, let d=depthA(I,M) = the maximal length of M-regular sequences in I = the length of every maximal M-regular sequence in I. Then dn; this estimate can be shown using the above prime avoidance as follows. We argue by induction on n. Let {𝔭1,,𝔭r} be the set of associated primes of M. If d>0, then I⊄𝔭i for each i. If I=(y1,,yn), then, by prime avoidance, we can choose

x1=y1+i=2naiyi

for some ai in A such that x1∉1r𝔭i = the set of zero divisors on M. Now, I/(x1) is an ideal of A/(x1) generated by n1 elements and so, by inductive hypothesis, depthA/(x1)(I/(x1),M/x1M)n1. The claim now follows.

Notes

  1. Proof of the fact: suppose the vector space is a finite union of proper subspaces. Consider a finite product of linear functionals, each of which vanishes on a proper subspace that appears in the union; then it is a nonzero polynomial vanishing identically, a contradiction.
  2. Matsumura 1986, Exercise 16.8.
  3. Adapted from the solution to Matsumura 1986, Exercise 1.6.

References

  • Mel Hochster, Dimension theory and systems of parameters, a supplementary note
  • Matsumura, Hideyuki (1986). Commutative ring theory. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Vol. 8. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-36764-6. MR 0879273. Zbl 0603.13001.