Over a Commutative Ring
Nilpotents and units are closely related. In a commutative unital ring R, if x nilpotent, a unit, then a+x is again a unit. If 1+xy is a unit for every y∈R, then x∈R, the Jacobson radical, approximately nilpotent.
Let f=a0+a1x+...+anxn. If a1,a2,...,an are nilpotent, so will be f−a0. If moreover a0 is invertible, f will be invertible; if instead a0 is nilpotent, f is nilpotent. The converses are both true. For nilpotency, the highest degree term of fm is a sole amnxm, if f is nilpotent, an is forced to be; but then f−anxn is again nilpotent. For invertibility, immediately a0 is invertible; Suppose fg=1 with g=b0+b1x+...+brxr. Then anbr=0,anbr−1+an−1br=0,.... Multiplying the second by an, we get a2nbr−1=0; repeating this yields ar+1nb0=0, and b0 is invertible so an is nilpotent.
In particular, these implies the nilradical N=R in polynomial rings. If f∈R, then 1+xf is invertible. This means a0,...,an are all nilpotent, hence f nilpotent. In the proof of the Hilbert Nullstellensatz, we will see that this is valid also in prime quotients of polynomial rings.
If f is a zero-divisor, then a0,..,an are all zero-divisors. Indeed, if fg=0, then anbr=0, and fang=0, with degang<degg. Repeating this, eventually ang=0. This yields (f−anxn)g=0. Then aig=0,aibn=0,∀i.
A general version of Gauss's lemma holds: if (a0,...,an)=(1), then f is said to be primitive. If f,g are primitive, then so is fg. The proof is analogous: If (c0,...,cn)∈p for some maximal p, then in (A/p[x], we have fg=0. Since this is a domain, either f,g is 0, a contradiction.
The above is easily generalized to several variables (actually arbitrarily many, since a polynomial always involves only finite terms), keeping in mind A[X1,...,Xn]=A[X1,...,Xn−1][Xn].
The case of power series is different in many aspects. First, if f=a0+a1x+..., then f is invertible if and only if a0 is. This is because suppose g=b0+b1x+..., then fg=a0b0+(a0b1+a1b0)x+(a0b2+a1b1+a2b0)x2+... where ai can be solved inductively as long as a0b0=1. Second, although f nilpotent implies ai nilpotent for all i, via some similar induction focusing on the lowest degree term, the converse is not true. In fact, there are some restrictions on the vanishing degree: if fs=0, then as0=0, so (f−a0)2s=0; then a2s1=0, so (f−a1x)4s=0. In general a2isi=0. If the least si for asii=0 increases rapidly, making 2−isi→∞,i→∞, then f is not nilpotent. For example take si=3i,A=∏i∈Z+C[xi]/(xsii),ai=xi. The argument also applies in the polynomial case, but then n is finite.
If 1+gf is invertible iff 1+a0b0 is invertible. So f∈R(A[[x]]) iff a0∈R(A).
The ideal F(I) of f with a0∈I is an ideal of A[[x]]. Moreover A/I≅A[[x]]/F(I). So if I is prime, so is F(I); same for maximality. In fact, the same holds in A[x].
The above topic is from Atiyah, M. F.; MacDonald, I. G. (February 21, 1994). "Chapter 1: Rings and Ideals". Introduction to Commutative Algebra. Westview Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-201-40751-8.
The case of countable variables is also of interest. We will discuss this in later posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment