2
$\begingroup$

All rings are assumed commutative and unital.

Some context (feel free to skip right to the questions below). I am trying to understand to what extent the property "being prime" for an ideal $I$ is intrinsic. For example, how robust "primeness" is under the relative point of view. To this end I consider only such ring morphisms that generically do not (need to) modify $I$. For example, if $I \lhd R$ and $R \xrightarrow{\varphi} S$ is any ring morphism, then there are two issues:

  • $\varphi$ may not be injective, i.e. it may not preserve $I$ faithfully;
  • Even if $\varphi$ is injective, the image $\varphi(I)$ need not be an ideal in $S$, so we need to extend scalars $S \varphi(I)$, which changes $I$ (i.e. the fact that in general the extension of a prime ideal need not be prime is a non-problem in this context).

Therefore, what I want to consider is actually the following setting. Let $R \subset S$ be an extension of rings and let $I \subset R$ such that $I \lhd S$ (hence $I \lhd R$). If $I \in \operatorname{Spec} S$, then clearly $I \in \operatorname{Spec} R$ (special case of the simple fact that preimages of prime ideals are prime), so we have robustness in one direction. I have pondered the converse of this, but I have neither been able to find a counter-example nor to prove it, although it seems too general to be true. So, I want to ask the following question:

(Q1) Suppose that $R \subset S$ is a ring inclusion and $0 \neq I \subset R$ is such that $I \lhd S$ and $I \in \operatorname{Spec} R$. Must $I \in \operatorname{Spec} S$?

(If $I = 0$, this is easily satisfied, e.g. $\mathbb{Z} \subset \mathbb{Z}[t]/(t^2)$.)

A related secondary question is:

(Q2) Is there an example of a ring inclusion $R \subset S$ such that $\dim R > \dim S$? (The idea being that such a ring extension might provide an ideal that is a counter-example to the above.)

Another potential source of a counter-example is probably a ring extension $R \subset S$ with $\dim R = \dim S = \infty$ (e.g. Nagata's example), but I haven't been able to construct a counter-example.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ (Q1) The ideal $(x^2,x^3) \subseteq k[x]$ is not prime, but its restriction to the subring $k[x^2,x^3]$ is. (Q2) The inclusion $\mathbf Z \subseteq \mathbf Q$ satisfies $\dim R > \dim S$, but there are not a lot of nonzero ideals in $\mathbf Q$. $\endgroup$ May 22, 2023 at 14:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @R.vanDobbendeBruyn You are correct: I misread the question. $\endgroup$ May 22, 2023 at 14:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DryBones I too gave a similar example at first (as did Jason), but the question is about a situation where $I$ is an ideal in both $R$ and $S$ (here you have to take the extension $IS$ which is the ideal generated by $I$ in $S$). $\endgroup$ May 22, 2023 at 14:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suppose it's worth saying, for a ring and its normalization $R \subseteq S$, the conductor $\mathrm{Ann}_R(S/R)$ is the largest ideal that is simultaneously an ideal in both rings. Normalizations then give lots of such examples (if you view Specs of non-normal rings as gluings of normal rings). $\endgroup$ May 22, 2023 at 15:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I was just working on writing up an answer with some further comments! $\endgroup$ May 22, 2023 at 15:21

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

As noted (implicitly) in the comments, it is not very common that $I \subseteq R$ is also an ideal in $S$. For instance, if $R$ and $S$ are domains and $I$ is nonzero, this implies that $\operatorname{Frac} R \to \operatorname{Frac} S$ is an isomorphism, and $R \to S$ is finite if $I$ is finitely generated (e.g. when $R$ is Noetherian).

Indeed, write $K = \operatorname{Frac} R$ and $L = \operatorname{Frac} S$. If $s \in S$ is an element that is $K$-linearly independent from $1$ in $L$ and $x \in I$ is nonzero, then $sx \in L$ cannot be in $K$, contradicting the assumption that $I$ is an $S$-ideal. This proves $K = L$. For the other statement, since $I$ is an $S$-module, we get a ring homomorphism $S \to \operatorname{End}_R(I)$, which is injective since $S$ is a domain and $I$ is nonzero. If $I$ is finitely generated, then so is $\operatorname{End}_R(I)$, hence so is $S$. (I am not really sure if there is an analogue of this in the non-Noetherian case.)

But with these restrictions, you can easily produce examples. For instance, let $S = k[x]$ and let $R$ be the subring $k[x^2,x^3] \cong k[u,v]/(u^3-v^2)$. The ideal $I = (x^2,x^3) \subseteq k[x]$ is contained in $R$ (hence also an $R$-ideal). But $I$ is not prime in $k[x]$, whereas it is prime in $k[x^2,x^3]$ (as it corresponds to the origin $(u,v)$ in $k[u,v]/(u^3-v^2)$).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for taking the time to write up an expanded answer! $\endgroup$
    – M.G.
    May 22, 2023 at 15:45
2
$\begingroup$

Since you didn't ask that $S$ be a domain, here is a very simple example, although it might feel as cheating and @R.vanDobbendeBruyn's example is excellent. The only value in this one is perhaps its simplicity.

Anyway, let $R$ be an arbitrary ring with a prime ideal $I\triangleleft R$ and $R'$ another arbitrary (non-zero) ring. Finally, let $S=R\oplus R'$. As $I$ is a prime ideal, $R/I\neq 0$, so $S/I\simeq R/I\oplus R'$ is not a domain, so $I$ cannot be a prime ideal in $S$.

As pointed out by @M.G., this example does not really work, because $R$ is only a subring of $S$ as non-unital rings. So, here is an improvement of (sort of) the same idea:

Let $(R,\mathfrak m,k)$ be a local ring and let $S=R[t] \big /\!\left((t^2)+t\cdot \mathfrak m\right)\simeq R[\varepsilon]$ where $\varepsilon^2=0$ and $\varepsilon\cdot\mathfrak m=0$. Then

  1. $R\subseteq S$ is a subring, and
  2. $\mathfrak m$ is also an ideal in $S$, but
  3. $S/\mathfrak m\simeq k[t]/(t^2)\simeq k[\varepsilon]$, so $\mathfrak m$ is not prime in $S$.
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for taking the time to write an answer! But I am not sure I understand your example. What do you mean by a direct sum of rings, their product? If so, how is $R$ a subring of $S$? Are you perhaps assuming the rings to be non-unital? $\endgroup$
    – M.G.
    Jun 15, 2023 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ You are right. $R$ is only a subring of $S$ as non-unital rings (thought they could both be unital on their own). $\endgroup$ Jun 15, 2023 at 19:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the edit! This is a nice and straightforward construction! $\endgroup$
    – M.G.
    Jun 15, 2023 at 20:50

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.