Primary ideal

Last updated

In mathematics, specifically commutative algebra, a proper ideal of a commutative ring is said to be primary if whenever is an element of then or is also an element of , for some . For example, in the ring of integers , is a primary ideal if is a prime number.

Contents

The notion of primary ideals is important in commutative ring theory because every ideal of a Noetherian ring has a primary decomposition, that is, can be written as an intersection of finitely many primary ideals. This result is known as the Lasker–Noether theorem. Consequently, [1] an irreducible ideal of a Noetherian ring is primary.

Various methods of generalizing primary ideals to noncommutative rings exist, [2] but the topic is most often studied for commutative rings. Therefore, the rings in this article are assumed to be commutative rings with identity.

Examples and properties

Lasker–Noether theorem

The Lasker–Noether theorem may be seen as a generalization of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (which applies to the decomposition of ideals of the integers ) to ideals in any Noetherian ring. While decompositions of ideals into prime ideals do not exist in the general case, the Lasker–Noether theorem states that ideals can be decomposed into primary ideals, and that the radicals of the primary ideals of the decompositions are unique up to reordering:

Theorem (Lasker–Noether)Let be a commutative Noetherian ring and let be an ideal of . Then may be written as the intersection of finitely many primary ideals; that is:

with each primary. The expression of in this way is said to be aprimary decompositionof Furthermore, if (1) the are all distinct and (2) for each , then the primary decomposition is said to beirredundant. Any primary decomposition can be reduced to an irredundant one, and, if

is another irredundant primary decomposition of , then and for each after possibly reindexing the

Footnotes

  1. To be precise, one usually uses this fact to prove the theorem.
  2. See the references to Chatters–Hajarnavis, Goldman, Gorton–Heatherly, and Lesieur–Croisot.
  3. For the proof of the second part see the article of Fuchs.
  4. Atiyah–Macdonald, Corollary 10.21
  5. Bourbaki , Ch. IV, § 2, Exercise 3.

References