Let $I$ and $J$ be two ideal of a ring $R$ (commutative with $1$) such that $I\subseteq Ann_R(Ann_R(J))$ and $I$ is a principal ideal. Is there any conditions on $I$ or $J$ or both of them under which we can deduce that $I\subseteq J$?

  • $\begingroup$ Is the existence of some $R$-module supposed to be implicit here? What is $J$ annihilating things in? I am not an expert in commutative algebra by any means, so forgive me if this is a common convention. $\endgroup$ – Alec Rhea Feb 14 '18 at 6:11
  • $\begingroup$ @AlecRhea An ideal is an $R$-module. $\endgroup$ – André 3000 Feb 14 '18 at 6:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I haven't been able to think of any nontrivial conditions (e.g. when $R$ is a dual ring, and $Ann(Ann(J))=J$ for all $J$.) Is there some motivation for a connection you could share? $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Feb 14 '18 at 19:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think there is any non-trivial condition that gives you this. On one hand you always have $J\subseteq \mathrm{Ann}(\mathrm{Ann}(J))$. On the other hand if $J\subsetneq \mathrm{Ann}(\mathrm{Ann}(J))$, then let $t\in \mathrm{Ann}(\mathrm{Ann}(J))\setminus J$ and $I=(t)$. Then this $I$ satisfies the condition, but the desired statement fails. The only way to guarantee this is that $J= \mathrm{Ann}(\mathrm{Ann}(J))$, but that's a trivial condition. $\endgroup$ – Sándor Kovács Feb 15 '18 at 2:52

A semiprime operation on a ring $R$ (commutative with identity) is a closure operation $c: I \longmapsto I^c$ on the lattice of all ideals of $R$ such that $I^c J^c \subseteq (IJ)^c$ for all ideals $I$ and $J$ of $R$.

I think it's useful to observe that the operation $r: J \longmapsto (0 : (0 : J))$ on the ideals of $R$ is the largest semiprime operation $c$ on $R$ such that $(0)^c = (0)$. More generally, for any fixed ideal $H$ of $R$, the operation $J \longmapsto (H : (H : J))$ is the largest semiprime operation $c$ on $R$ such that $H^c = H$.

By definition of $r$, one has $(0 : (0 : J)) = J$ if and only if $J$ is $r$-closed, that is, if and only if $J^r = J$. Moreover, if $J$ is $r$-closed, then $(J : H)$ is $r$-closed for any ideal $H$ (which allows you to get many more $r$-closed ideals from a single one), and the intersection of any family of $r$-closed ideals is $r$-closed. This is because $r$ is a semiprime operation. Thus, for example, any ideal that $J$ that is of the form $(0:H)$ for some ideal $H$ of $R$ is $r$-closed. Conversely, any $r$-closed ideal of $R$ has this form, since $J = (0:H)$ for $H = (0:J)$ if $J$ is $r$-closed. Thus, the $r$-closed ideals are equivalently the ideals that are the annihilator of some ideal. You can also see this by observing that $(0: (0 : (0 : J))) = (0:J)$ for any ideal $J$ of a ring $R$ (which implies that $r$ is indeed a closure operation).

Now, one has $(*)$ $J^r = J$ for all ideals $J$ of $R$, if and only if any ideal of $R$ is an annihilator of some ideal of $R$, if and only if $r$ acts trivially on all ideals of $R$, if and only if the only semiprime operation $c$ on $R$ such that $(0)^c = (0)$ is the trivial semiprime operation $J \longmapsto J$. This is a very strong condition. It implies that $R$ can have no proper ideals containing a non-zerodivisor. In fact, suppose that $R$ is a reduced ring satisfying $(*)$. Then the radical operation $J \longmapsto \sqrt{J}$ is a semiprime operation on $R$ with $\sqrt{(0)} = (0)$. Therefore one must have $\sqrt{J} = J$ for all ideals $J$ of $R$, which holds if and only if $R$ is von Neumann regular (or equivalently, reduced and of Krull dimension zero). Therefore, a reduced ring satisfying $(*)$ must be von Neumann regular. However, there probably exist von Neumann regular rings that don't satisfy $(*)$, although I can't verify an example at the moment. Certainly a finite direct product of fields satisfies $(*)$, as does any finite direct product of rings satisfying $(*)$. Does an arbitrary direct product of fields satisfy $(*)$? I doubt it (you have to look at filters to check this), but an arbitrary direct product of fields is von Neumann regular, so that could be an example.

  • $\begingroup$ Nice answer but partial: OP asks about conditions both on $a\in R$ and/or $J$ which would ensure that $a$ cannot lie in $J^r\setminus J$. $\endgroup$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Feb 24 '18 at 14:58
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed it's partial, but it was too long to include just as a comment. I characterized the $J$ for which there can be no $a$ in $J^r \backslash J$. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Elliott Feb 24 '18 at 22:44

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.

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