Definition: If is an ideal, is called radical if, whenever , we have . Alternatively, is radical if has no nilpotent elements. If is any ideal, then is the set of elements such that for some . Finally, the radical of the zero ideal, which is the set of nilpotent elements in , is called the nilradical of .
Remark: We’ve seen at various times in the past that the nilpotent elements of a (commutative) ring form an ideal.
Proposition: If is a proper ideal of , then the radical of is the intersection of all the prime ideals of containing .
Proof: It’s enough to prove that the nilradical of is the intersection of all prime ideals of . If is a prime ideal, and for some , choose the smallest such . Then so either or . By minimality of , this means that . So the nilradical is contained in every prime ideal.
For the converse, suppose that is not a nilpotent element of (and is not a unit in ). Then we will construct a prime ideal that does not contain . Let be the set of powers of : and let be the set of ideals of not meeting . This is a nonempty set, since it contains the zero ideal. If is a chain of ideals in , then the union of the is again an ideal in , so chains in have upper bounds. By Zorn’s lemma, has a maximal element . Now suppose that and are elements of and . Since is maximal in , we know that some power of is in and some power of is in . But then is in since . This is a contradiction, since is in . It follows that one of or must have been in , so is prime.
Corollary: Prime (and maximal) ideals of are radical ideals.
Integral Extensions
Definition: Let be a commutative algebra.
An element is integral over if it is the root of a monic polynomial in .
If every element of is integral over , then is called an integral extension of .
The subset of consisting of elements integral over is called the integral closure of in .
is integrally closed in if it is equal to its integral closure.
If is an integral domain, and is integrally closed in its field of fractions, then is integrally closed (full stop) or normal. The integral closure of in its field of fractions is called its normalization.
Proposition: The following are equivalent:
is integral over .
is a finitely generated module.
There is a subring containing wuch that is a finitely generated -module
Proof: If satisfies the monic polynomial , then any element of can be written as a linear combination of . So is finitely generated. The ring is a finitely generated module inside . Finally, if belongs to a finitely generated module , choose generators for over and consider the equations
The element satisfies the (monic) characteristic polynomial made from the entries , so is integral over .
Corollary: The sum and product of integral elements are integral; the integral closure of in is a subring of ; and if is integral over and is integral over then is integral over .
Corollary: Let be the integral closure of in . Then is integrally closed.
Proof: If is integral over , then since is integral over , we have is integral over so belongs to .
Proposition: Suppose that is an -algebra that is integral over . Then is a field if and only if is a field.
Proof: Suppose first that is a field. Choose . Then
where we can assume . Then
Since , we can divide the polynomial on the right by to obtain a multiplicative inverse for .
Now suppose that is a field. If , then , so . We have
so by clearing demoninators we can write as an element of .
Noether Normalization
Definition: Elements in a -algebra are called algebraically independent if there are no nonzero polynomial relations among them: there are no polynomials so that . In other words, they generate a copy of .
Theorem: (Noether Normalization) Let be a field and let be a finitely generated -algebra. Then there are algebraically independent elements in such that is integral over .
Proof: The proof is by induction and is (more or less) algorithmic. Start with generators for . If they are algebraically independent, you’re done. Otherwise you have a polynomial relation
This is a sum of monomials . The degree of is the largest of the sums of these exponents; call that . Then let be any integer bigger than ( works fine).
Introduce new coordinates (for ) by:
If we substitute the new coordinates, we get . But a monomial will contribute a term
and since we choose bigger than we have all . In other words, all of these exponents of are distinct (they are different in base ).
It follows that the polynomial has the form
and so is integral over the subring . But then for are integral over because they satisfy the equations . Therefore is integral over (which has fewer generators). Continue by induction.
Theorem: (the “weak” nullstellensatz) Let be an algebraically closed field and let . Then the maximal ideals of are all of the form where the .
Corollary: The correspondence between ideals and algebraic sets gives a bijection between points and maximal ideals of .
Corollary: Let . Then either the have a common zero, or there are polynomials in such that
Proof: (of the theorem) Clearly an ideal of the form is maximal, so suppose is a maximal ideal of . Let . Then is a finitely generated -algebra, so there are algebraically independent elements such that is integral over . But is a field, so is a field. But this can only happen if . Then is a finite integral (i.e. algebraic) extension of , and is algebraically closed, so . This means that each of the generators is congruent mod to an element of , or in other words is of the desired form.
For the corollaries, any proper ideal of is contained in a maximal ideal , so if contains the point corresponding to . So the points of correspond to the maximal ideals containing .
Finally, if the have no common zero, then they must not generate a proper ideal, so the ideal they generate contains .
Theorem: (Nullstellensatz, “strong” form) Let be an algebraically closed field. Then if is any ideal, . Thus (assuming is algebraically closed) there are mutually inverse bijections between algebraic sets in and radical ideals in .
Proof: We know that so we need to prove the opposite. We know that is finitely generated, say by . Let be any polynomial vanishing on . Make a new ring by introducing a new variable and a new ideal by adding the relation . (Notice that this means that is .) If the elements of had a common zero, all of the would vanish at that point and since so would . But that doesn’t happen, so can’t be a proper ideal and so we have an equation
We can divide this equation by a high power of so that the powers of in the coefficients are all negative. In other words, writing , we get an equation
where the are polynomials in and . This is an equation in , where , so this means (substituting for ) that we have an equation showing that is in the ideal generated by the , so .
Corollary: If is not algebraically closed, then we can still conclude that a set of polynomials that generates a proper ideal of must have common zeros in the algebraic closure of .