3
$\begingroup$

This question might be below the level of MO, so apologies in advance. I posted the same question in MS about a week ago without an answer so far.

Let $R$ be a unital commutative ring and $L(R)$ denote the lattice of ideals of $R$. Let $\mathcal{S}\subseteq L(R)$ be the set of all ideals whose Jacobson radicals and nilradicals coincide.

Q1: For which classes of rings $\mathcal{S}$ is a sublattice (respectively, $\sigma$-complete or complete sublattice) of $L(R)$?

Q2: For which classes of rings $\mathcal{S}$ is a lattice? Specifically, we could define $I\vee_S J$ as the smallest ideal in $\mathcal{S}$ containing $I+J$ for a given pair $I,J\in\mathcal{S}$. For which classes of rings $I\vee_S J$ exists for any $I,J\in\mathcal{S}$?

For example, $\mathcal{S}=L(R)$ iff $R$ is a Hilbert-Jacobson ring, so $\mathcal{S}$ is trivially a complete lattice.


edit (Aug 9, 2022): Professor Keith Kearnes' reply below indeed answers the question in the title by providing a counterexample. I appreciate his detailed response. I'm carrying the two questions in the body of the post to a subsequent separate question that look for an affirmative answer.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ While I dont know the answer to this question, there is a sublety with the definition of sublattice, that occasionally causes problems. One definition for a lattice is a poset in which each subset has a greatest lower bound and a leaast upper bound. Then there are sub-posets which are also lattices for which the greatest lower bounds and least upper bounds dont agree with the ones for the big posets. For example $a\le b \le c,d \le e\le f$. In this poset the greatest lower bound of $c,d$ would be $b$, but if we look at the sub-poset given by $a,c,d,e$, it would be $a$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 8, 2022 at 7:33
  • $\begingroup$ @HenrikRüping thank you for your good Samaritan approach. I'm more interested in whether $\mathcal{S}$ is closed under sums and infinite intersections of its members. I think it is also interesting if $\mathcal{S}$ is a lattice without being a sublattice of $L(R)$. Specifically, given $I,J\in\mathcal{S}$, does there exist a smallest ideal in $\mathcal{S}$ that contain $I+J$? $\endgroup$
    – Onur Oktay
    Commented Aug 8, 2022 at 8:27

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let's call an ideal $I\lhd R$ Jacobson if $J(I)=\sqrt{I}$. I will answer the question in the title by constructing, in stages, an example of a unital ring $R$ where the set of Jacobson ideals is not a sublattice of the ideal lattice of $R$. It will turn out that more is true about this example: its ordered set of Jacobson ideals does not form a lattice at all.

Since the formation of Jacobson radical or nilradical commutes with intersection, it follows that if $A, B\lhd R$ are Jacobson, then $J(A\cap B)=J(A)\cap J(B)=\sqrt{A}\cap \sqrt{B}=\sqrt{A\cap B}$, so $A\cap B$ is also Jacobson. This means that the example I want to construct should have Jacobson ideals $A$ and $B$ where $A+B$ is not Jacobson.

Stage 1. Let $\mathbb Q$ be the field of rational numbers and let $L$ be the subring of $\mathbb Q$ consisting of fractions $m/n$ with odd denominator. The key fact here is that $L$ is a local integral domain with field of fractions equal to $\mathbb Q$.

Stage 2. Let $S$ be the subring of $\mathbb Q^{\omega}$ consisting of those tuples $\textbf{q}=(q_0,q_1,\ldots)\in \mathbb Q^{\omega}$ which are eventually constant and which satisfy the condition that the limit $q_{\infty}:=\lim_{n\to\infty} q_n$ belongs in the subring $L\leq \mathbb Q$. Saying that $\textbf{q}\in S$ means the same thing as saying that $\textbf{q}\in \mathbb Q^{\omega}$ and all but finitely many entries of $\textbf{q}$ are equal to some fixed $q_{\infty}\in L$.

The key facts here are that

  • $S$ has trivial Jacobson radical. This is because the $n$th coordinate projection $\pi_n\colon S\to \mathbb Q\colon \textbf{q}\mapsto q_n$ is surjective. Since the image of $\pi_n$ is a field we get that $\ker(\pi_n)\lhd S$ is a maximal ideal of $S$. This ideal contains exactly those elements of $S$ that vanish in the $n$th coordinate. If one intersects the maximal ideals of this type, one is left with $\{\textbf{0}\}=\{(0,0,\ldots)\}$ only. Thus, if one intersects all maximal ideals of $S$, one must get the zero ideal of $S$.
  • $S$ has trivial nilradical. This is because the nilradical is contained in the Jacobson radical.
  • $S$ has a retraction onto a subring $L'$ that is isomorphic to the $L$ from Stage 1. Here, the retraction is the map $(q_0,q_1,q_2, \ldots)\mapsto (q_{\infty},q_{\infty},q_{\infty},\ldots)$ where $q_{\infty}$ is $\lim_{n\to\infty} q_n$.

Stage 3. The ring that I have been aiming for is $R:=\{(\textbf{u},\textbf{v})\in S\times S\;|\;u_{\infty}=v_{\infty}\}$. To make this clear, let me repeat the definition using more words than symbols: $R$ is the subring of $S\times S$ consisting of those pairs of tuples that have the same limit.

The key facts here are that

  • $R\leq S\times S$ is a subdirect embedding. That is, $R$ projects onto $S$ in each of the two factors. This means that the composition of the embedding $R\leq S\times S$ with either projection $\pi_i\colon S\times S\to S$, $i=1,2$, is surjective. Let the kernels of these two projections be $A, B\lhd R$, so that
    $A=\ker(\pi_1)=\{\{(\textbf{0},\textbf{v})\in S\times S\;|\;v_{\infty}=0\}$ and $B=\ker(\pi_2)=\{\{(\textbf{u},\textbf{0})\in S\times S\;|\;u_{\infty}=0\}$.
    Notice that any pair of tuples in $A$ or $B$ is zero in all but finitely many coordinates.
  • $A$ and $B$ are Jacobson ideals of $R$. This is because $R/A\cong S$, $R/B\cong S$, and $S$ has trivial Jacobson radical.
  • Let $L''$ be the subring of $R$ consisting of all pairs $(\textbf{u},\textbf{v})=((\ell,\ell,\ell,\ldots),(\ell,\ell,\ell,\ldots))$ for some $\ell\in L$. I will refer to $L''$ as the 'diagonal copy' of $L$ inside $R$. It is clear that $L''\cong L$.
  • Let $C=A+B$. This is the ideal of $R$ consisting of exactly those pairs of tuples in $R$ that are zero almost everywhere.
    I claim that $C$ is the kernel of a retraction of $R$ onto $L''$. To see this, first consider the intersection $C\cap L''$: since pairs of tuples in $C$ are zero almost everywhere and $L''$ is the diagonal copy of $L$ in $R$, the only common pair must be the diagonal pair with all coordinates zero. Thus $C\cap L'' = \{(\textbf{0},\textbf{0})\}$.

    Now I want to show that $R=C+L''$. Choose any $x=(\textbf{u},\textbf{v})\in R$ and define $\ell:=u_{\infty}=v_{\infty}$. The pair $d:=((\ell,\ell,\ldots),(\ell,\ell,\ldots))$ belongs to $L''$ while the difference $x-d\in R$ is zero almost everywhere, hence belongs to $C$. Thus, $x=(x-d)+d\in C+L''$. This completes the proof that $C$ is the kernel of a retraction of $R$ onto $L''\cong L$. (That is, $C$ is an ideal of $R$, $L''$ is a subring of $R$, and the conditions $C\cap L'' = \{(\textbf{0},\textbf{0})\}, C+L''=R$ guarantee that $L''$ is a complete irredundant set of coset representatives for $C$ in $R$. The map that sends an element of $R$ to its $C$-coset representative in $L''$ is the retraction.)

We explained above why $A, B\lhd R$ are Jacobson ideals. Now I argue that $C:=A+B$ is not Jacobson, i.e., that $J(C)\neq \sqrt{C}$. For this we work in $R/C\cong L''\cong L$. It suffices to show that the zero ideal of this quotient is not Jacobson. Equivalently, we must show that the $J(0)\neq \sqrt{0}$ in $L$. But, $L$ is a local domain that is not a field, so $J(0)\neq 0=\sqrt{0}$.

The final observation I want to make is that $A$ and $B$ do not have a join in the ordered set of Jacobson ideals of $R$, so the Jacobson ideals of $R$ do not form a lattice. For this it suffices to note that the ideals of $L$ are $$ L\supsetneq (2) \supsetneq (4) \supsetneq (8) \supsetneq \cdots \supsetneq (0), $$ that $J(L)=\sqrt{L}=L$, and $J((2^k))=\sqrt{(2^k)}=(2)$ for $k>0$. This shows that every ideal of $L$ is Jacobson except the zero ideal. In particular, since there is no least nonzero ideal of $L$, there is no least Jacobson ideal of $L$. Now $L\cong R/C$ for $C=A+B$. We can translate this information back to $R$ to conclude that every ideal above $C$ is Jacobson except $C$ itself, and there is no least ideal properly above $C$. Writing this in terms of $A$ and $B$, this means that every ideal of $R$ containing both $A$ and $B$ is Jacobson except $A+B$, and there is no least element in the set of ideals properly above $A+B$. Hence there is no join of $A$ and $B$ in the ordered set of Jacobson ideals of $R$. \\\

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Professor @KeithKearnes, thank you for your helpful approach and extensive reply. Your construction is work of art in my humble opinion. Thanks also for all the details and explanation - words are like salad, help to digest the main course, clearly the more the merrier. $R$ is indeed a counterexample to the question in the title. May I ask what's your insight for the two questions in the body? Perhaps I should post these two in a separate question. $\endgroup$
    – Onur Oktay
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ I'd like to note for the readers like myself that the construction has immediate (made obvious by the stages) generalization if one starts with an integral domain and a prime ideal different from $D=\mathbb{Z}$ and $P=2\mathbb{Z}$ respectively. $L$ is the localization $D_P$. $S=c_{00}(\mathbb{N}\to D_{{0}})\oplus\mathbf{1}L$, where $\mathbf{1}=(1,1,\dots)$. $c_{00}$ could be substituted with another ring of sequences without $\mathbf{1}$ in it, e.g., $\ell^p(\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{Q})$ for $D=\mathbb{Z}$. $\endgroup$
    – Onur Oktay
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 15:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @OnurOktay: About the questions in the body (For which classes of rings $\ldots$), I think that these questions are too hard if you want to consider arbitrary classes. If $\mathcal C$ is a class of commutative unital rings that (i) is closed under the formation of products and subrings and (ii) contains a field that has a valuation subring that is not a subfield, then I think you can mimic the above construction within $\mathcal C$. This rules out a lot of classes. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ After pondering a while, I'm convinced that the problem is difficult in this generality. In a naive attempt to find the subsets of $\mathcal{S}$ that are closed under addition, let $E_m = E\cap maxspec(R)$ for $E\subseteq spec(R)$ and let $\mathcal{S}^* = \{E\in spec(R): k(E) = k(E_m)\}$ where $k(E)$ is the intersection of the prime ideals in $E$. $\mathcal{S}^*$ is closed under unions, so a slightly weaker version of Q1 above is: classify the maximal subsets of $\mathcal{S}^*$ that are closed under intersection. $\endgroup$
    – Onur Oktay
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps paraphrasing didn't lower the level of difficulty, but I believe an expert's eyes can catch what amateurs like myself may miss. I value your opinion and input as before. $\endgroup$
    – Onur Oktay
    Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 19:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .