Let $k$ be a field, and let $| \ |$ be a norm on $k$. The norm induces a metric. To construct the completion $\hat{k}$ as a normed field, the standard recipe is to take the quotient of the ring $\mathcal{C}(k)$ of all Cauchy sequences in $k$ -- viewed as a subring of $k^{\infty} = \prod_{i=1}^{\infty} k$ -- by the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_0$ of all sequences converging to $0$.

This brings up the following [idle] question: what are the maximal ideals of $\mathcal{C}(k)$? The prime ideals?

My vague recollection had been that $\mathfrak{m}_0$ was the unique maximal ideal of $\mathcal{C}(k)$, but this is evidently not the case: for every $n$, there is a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_n$ consisting of sequences whose $n$th coordinate is $0$, the residue field being $k$ again. It is easy to see though that $\mathfrak{m}_0$ is the unique maximal ideal containing the prime ideal $\mathfrak{c} = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{\infty} k$. (Edit: $\mathfrak{c}$ is prime iff the norm is trivial.)

Now this reminds me of filters. The prime ideals of the (zero-dimensional) ring $k^{\infty}$ correspond precisely to the ultrafilters on $\mathbb{Z}^+$. The principal ultrafilter of all sets containing $n$ pulls back to the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_n$. Since every nonprincipal ultrafilter contains the Frechet filter of cofinite sets, it follows that it pulls back to $\mathfrak{m}_0$. But is it true that every maximal ideal of $\mathcal{C}(k)$ is pulled back from a prime (= maximal) ideal of $k^{\infty}$? If so, is this an instance of a general theorem?


Note that in the case that the norm is trivial -- so that the induced metric is the discrete metric -- a sequence converges iff it is eventually constant, so a sequence converges to $0$ iff it has only finitely many nonzero terms: $\mathfrak{c} = \mathfrak{m}_0$. The converse also holds: for any nontrivial norm there exist nowhere zero sequences converging to $0$, e.g. $\{x^n\}$ for any $x \in k$ with $0 < |x| < 1$.

Once the original question is worked out, I am also curious about generalizations. What is the analogue for the ring of minimal Cauchy filters in an arbitrary topological ring?


In this answer I will treat the case in which $|\text{ }|$ is not discrete.

I first claim that $\mathfrak m_0$ is not the restriction of any proper ideal in $k^{\infty}.$ Indeed, choose $x \in k$ such that $0 < |x| < 1$. Then $(x^i)$ is an element of $\mathfrak m_0$ which is invertible in $k^{\infty}$ (with inverse equal to $(x^{-i})$, and so $\mathfrak m_0$ generates the unit ideal of $k^{\infty}$.

This doesn't contradict anything; the maximal ideals of $k^{\infty}$ pull-back to prime ideals in $\mathcal C(k)$ which are simply not maximal (as often happens with maps of rings).

Furthermore, this pull-back is injective.

To see this, we first introduce some notation; namely, we let $\mathfrak m\_{\mathcal U}$ denote the prime ideal of $k^{\infty}$ corresponding to the non-principal ultra-filter ${\mathcal U}$,and recall that $\mathfrak m\_{\mathcal U}$ is defined as follows: an element $(x_i)$ lies in $\mathfrak m\_{\mathcal U}$ if and only if $\{i \, | \, x_i = 0\}$ lies in in $\mathcal U$.

Now suppose that $\mathcal U_1$ and $\mathcal U_2$ are two distinct non-principal ultra-filters. Let $A$ be a set lying in $\mathcal U_1$, but not in $\mathcal U_2$. Then $A^c$, the complement of $A$, lies in $\mathcal U_2$.
Choose $x \in k$ such $0 < | x | < 1,$ and let $x_i = x^i$ if $i \in A$ and $x_i = 0$ if $i \not\in A$. Then $(x_i)$ is an element of $\mathcal C(k)$, in fact of $\mathfrak m_0$, and it lies in $\mathfrak m\_{\mathcal U_2}$ but not in $\mathfrak m\_{\mathcal U_1}$.

Thus $\mathfrak m\_{\mathcal U_1}$ and $\mathfrak m\_{\mathcal U_2}$ have distinct pull-backs.

So the map Spec $k^{\infty} \rightarrow $ Spec $\mathcal C(k)$ is injective and dominant (since it comes from an injective map of rings), but is not surjective. Choosing the valuation $|\text{ }|$ allows us to add to Spec $k^{\infty}$ (which is the Stone-Cech compactification of $\mathbb Z\_+$) an extra point dominating all the other points at infinity (i.e. all the non-principal ultrafilters), because the valuation now gives us a definitive way to compute limits (provided we begin with a Cauchy sequence).


Suppose that we have an ideal $I$ of ${\mathcal C}(k)$ that is not contained in any one of the $\mathfrak m\_n.$ Then for each $n$, the ideal $I$ contains an element $(k_i)$ with $k_n \neq 0.$ Multiplying by the element $k_n^{-1} \underline{e}_n$, where $\underline{e}_n$ denotes the element which is $0$ in every coordinate except $n$, we find that $\underline{e}_n \in I$ for every $n$. Thus $I$ contains $\mathfrak c$.

In particular, if $I$ is maximal, then it coincides with $\mathfrak m_0$ (by your characterization of $\mathfrak m_0$ as the unique maximal ieal containing $\mathfrak p$).

So, barring a blunder, this seems to show that the maximal ideals of $\mathcal C(k)$ are precisely the $\mathfrak m_n$ and $\mathfrak m_0$.

The quotient $\mathcal C(k)/\mathfrak c$ is a local ring (by the uniquess of $\mathfrak m_0$), but I don't see anything else to say about it yet.

  • $\begingroup$ I'm thinking it over, and will report back if anything comes of my thoughts. $\endgroup$ – Emerton Jan 19 '10 at 6:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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