2
$\begingroup$

I would like to know if one can weaken conditions of Proposition 2.8 in http://www.jmilne.org/math/xnotes/CA.pdf

The proposition says that if an ideal $a$ in a ring $A$ is contained in the union of ideals $p_1,...,p_r$ with $p_2,...,p_r$ prime, then $a$ is contained in one of $p_i$.

Why do we need to require that $p_2,...,p_r$ are all prime? What would be the simplest example where some of $p_i$ are non-prime and the proposition does not hold?

It seems to me at least that if $A$ is a polynomial ring $\mathbb C[x_1,...,x_n]$ then one does not need to require that $p_i$ are prime. Am I wrong?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

Some variants of prime avoidance (as this property is usually called) are in Eisenbud's "Commutative Algebra with a View..." on p. 114, including an example where it fails: for instance the ideal $(x,y)$ in $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z[x,y]/(x,y)^2$ is the union of three (smaller) non-prime ideals.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

For an infinite base field $k$, you are right. Assume $a\subset\cup_{i=1}^r a_i$ and choose $r$ the least such. Then we can pick $f_i\in a$ not in the union of the the $a_j$'s with $j\neq i$. Consider the $k$-vector space $V$ generated by the $f_i$'s and let $V_i=a_i\cap V$. Then $V\subset \cup V_i$, but $V_i$s are proper subspaces of $V$, a contradiction, since $k$ is infinite.

$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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