Let $R=\mathbb{R}[X_1,\dots,X_n]$, and

$$\mathfrak{I}_d=\{ \text{ideals for which there is minimal generating system with $d$ elements} \}\setminus \{\text{ ideals generated by $d$ monomials}\}$$

be partially ordered by inclusions. Is there an algorithm or criterion that can determine if a given ideal $I$ is maximal in $\mathfrak{I}_2$. If an ideal is not maximal, then the algorithm should provide a list of all ideals in $\mathfrak{I}_2$ that contain $I$.

This question arose from my [previous question] about ideals 1 for which Pace Nielsen provided very nice examples: $$I_1:= \langle x_1 x_2, x_1(x_2^4+x_1^2)-x_2^3(x_1 x_2) \rangle = \langle x_1x_2,x_1^3 \rangle \subsetneq I_2:= \langle x_1x_2,x_2^4+x_1^2 \rangle . $$

In this case $I_1$ is not maximal but $I_2$ might be. For example, is $gcd(I)=1$ sufficient?

I am even more interested in the same question for subrings, let $$\mathfrak{S}_d=\{ \text{subrings of $R$ for which there is minimal generating system with $d$ elements} \}\setminus \{\text{ subrings generated by $d$ monomials}.\}$$

Given a subring $S$ how can we determine if it is maximal or what are larger subrings with the same number of minimal generators.

I placed the bounty for an answer dealing with the question about subrings.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm pretty sure that $I_2$ is not maximal, since it is contained in the 2-generated ideal $\langle x_1,x_2\rangle$. $\endgroup$ – Pace Nielsen Mar 10 '15 at 23:02
  • $\begingroup$ @PaceNielsen: I always ask slightly wrong question. One could consider $\mathfrak{I}_d \setminus \{\text{ ideals generated by $d$ monomials}\}$ instead. $\endgroup$ – warsaga Mar 11 '15 at 6:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your intermediate question about whether $\gcd(I)=1$ is sufficient has a negative answer. For instance $\langle x_3^2,x_1+x_2\rangle$ is not generated by monomials, and has trivial gcd, but it is not maximal with respect to those properties since it is properly contained in $\langle x_3,x_1+x_2\rangle$. The condition of not being generated by monomials is somewhat strange for a number of reasons. For example, it is not preserved under automorphisms of the ring. $\endgroup$ – Pace Nielsen Mar 16 '15 at 2:58

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.