MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A totally ordered finite set $\quad \mathcal P_0 \varsubsetneq \mathcal P_1\varsubsetneq \dots \mathcal \varsubsetneq \mathcal P_n \quad$ of prime ideals of a ring $A$ is said to be a chain of length $n$. As is well known, the supremum of the lengths of such chains is called the Krull dimension $dim(A)$ of the ring $A$.

If the lengths of these chains are not bounded, the ring is said to be infinite dimensional:$dim(A)=\infty$.This can happen, surprisingly, even for a Noetherian ring $A$.

But in the infinite dimensional case we could consider arbitrary totally ordered subsets $\Pi \subset Spec(A)$ of prime ideals, their cardinality $card(\Pi)$ and then take the sup of all those cardinals. Let us call this sup the cardinal Krull dimension of the ring $A$.

An equality $dim(A)=\aleph $ would then be a more quantitative measure of the infinite dimensionality of $A$ than just $dim(A)=\infty$

My question is whether results are known related to that cardinal Krull dimension. For example: for X a topological space, has the cardinal Krull dimension of $\mathcal C(X)$ (the ring of continuous functions on $X$) been calculated? I don't find this trivial, even for $X=\mathbb R$. There are obvious variants of this question concerning rings of differentiable functions on manifolds, etc. Thanks in advance for any information on this topic.

share|cite|improve this question
At least the way I've seen krull dimension constructed, we need to use Euler-Poincare maps, which don't make sense in higher cardinalities. Check out the chapter "Dimension Theory" in Atiyah-MacDonald, Hartshorne, and even Lang. They all define dimension in the same way, so there must be a reason for it. – Harry Gindi Jan 21 '10 at 21:16
The problem is that the higher ordinals don't form a group. You may be able to rectify this by using surreals. You could also take the commutative monoid of ordinals less than a fixed inaccessible ordinal and perform the Grothendieck k construction on it, but this seems like it would be quite a challenge. – Harry Gindi Jan 21 '10 at 21:19
Harry- I don't follow. Are you saying that this definition of Krull dimension is somehow ill-defined? or that it won't have some property one usually expects? What do Euler-Poincare maps have to do with anything? They certainly don't appear in the discussion on the Wikipedia page. – Ben Webster Jan 21 '10 at 21:25
As with Ben, I don't follow (and not for a lack of knowledge of the material in the list of books cited above). The Krull dimension is just a definition: what's the construction? – Pete L. Clark Jan 21 '10 at 21:40
So apparently I mixed up the hilbert-serre result with the definition of the length of a module. – Harry Gindi Jan 22 '10 at 1:14

The Krull dimension, as defined by Gabriel and Rentschler, of not-necessarily commutative rings is an ordinal. See, for example, [John C. McConnell, James Christopher Robson, Lance W. Small, Noncommutative Noetherian rings].

More generally, they define the deviation of a poset $A$ as follows. If $A$ does not have comparable elements, $\mathrm{dev}\;A=-\infty$; if $A$ is has comparable elements but satisfies the d.c.c., then $\mathrm{dev}\;A=0$. In general, if $\alpha$ is an ordinal, we say that $\mathrm{dev}\;A=\alpha$ if (i) the deviation of $A$ is not an ordinal strictly less that $\alpha$, and (ii) in any descending sequence of elements in $A$ all but finitely many factors (ie, the intervals of $A$ determined by the successive elements in the sequence) have deviation less that $\alpha$.

Then the Gabriel-Rentschler left Krull dimension $\mathcal K(R)$ of a ring $R$ is the deviation of the poset of left ideals of $R$. A poset does not necessarily have a deviation, but if $R$ is left nötherian, then $\mathcal K(R)$ is defined.

A few examples: if a ring is nötherian commutative (or more generally satisfies a polynomial identity), then its G-R Krull dimension coincides with the combinatorial dimension of its prime spectrum, so in this definition extends classical one when these dimensions are finite. A non commutative example is the Weyl algebra $A_{n}(k)$: if $k$ has characteristic zero, then $\mathcal K(A_n(k))=n$, and if $k$ has positive characteristic, $\mathcal K(A_n(k))=2n$. The book by McConnel and Robson has lots of information and references.

share|cite|improve this answer
I find the definition interesting, especially since it's not obvious to me that it's equivalent to the usual definition (which uses prime ideals only)! [I am thinking here only about the commutative case.] Do they make any remark about the equivalence? Does anyone want to help me out? – Pete L. Clark Jan 21 '10 at 21:53
I just have to ask: where did you get the habit of writing "nötherian"? I understand that this has the same German pronunciation, but "oe" is a normal feature of German names; the German word for Noetherian is "Noethersch." – Ben Webster Jan 21 '10 at 23:08
If you are having trouble locating the book of McConnell/Robson, then you could try searching for the book of K. Goodearl and R.B. Warfield, Jr. titled "An Introduction to Noncommutative Noetherian Rings." – Manny Reyes Jan 21 '10 at 23:17
You're right, Ben. I have just checked some mathematics books in German (by Neukirch, Kunz, Fischer, Brieskorn,Schulze-Pillot,...) as well as the German Wikipedia: everybody writes Noether and Noethersch. – Georges Elencwajg Jan 21 '10 at 23:27
@Ben: I dunno, I like umlaute I guess :P I've seen it in various places, though. tells us that Max apparently preferred to write oe... – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 21 '10 at 23:42

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.