Timeline for Non-finite version of Nakayama's lemma?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2017 at 9:24 | comment | added | Fred Rohrer | @Mariano: Have a look at Bourbaki, Algèbre VIII.9.3 Théorème 2 Corollaire 1. (I hope it is ok that the book is not about commutative algebra...) | |
| Oct 9, 2014 at 21:56 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Someone should write a commutative algebra textbook ASAP and include this. | |
| Jul 27, 2010 at 15:38 | comment | added | Emerton | Dear Georges, Of course! Regards, Matt | |
| Jul 27, 2010 at 15:23 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | Dear Emerton: I find it very cold to address someone as friendly as you by surname. May I use the opportunity to ask for permission to call you Matt? ( I do this automatically if the first name is part of the username) | |
| Jul 27, 2010 at 14:52 | comment | added | Emerton | Dear Georges, Thanks for making this important point clear! | |
| Jul 27, 2010 at 14:43 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | This is, needless to say, perfectly correct. There is a caveat though: to say that $\mathfrak m$ is nilpotent means indeed that some power of this ideal is zero. This is stronger (for non-noetherian rings) than just asserting that $\mathfrak m$ consists of nilpotent elements: the terminology for this last condition is "nil ideal". | |
| Jul 27, 2010 at 14:33 | vote | accept | ashpool | ||
| Jul 27, 2010 at 14:27 | comment | added | Keenan Kidwell | I didn't know this was true. Thanks! | |
| Jul 27, 2010 at 14:25 | history | answered | Emerton | CC BY-SA 2.5 |