Algebra Homework Set 7

Hung Tran.

8.3.11
(⇒) Suppose R is PID then R is a UFD by theorem 8.3.14. Furthermore, since
every ideal of R is principal; in particular, any ideal generated by two elements is
principal. So R is a Bezout domain.
() Suppose R is a UFD and also a Bezout domain. Let I be an arbitrary ideal of
R. If I contains only zero, it is obviously principal. Otherwise, it contains nonzero
elements. Since R is UFD, each nonzero element of I can be uniquely factorized
as a product of irreducibles. Let a be one element with the minimal number of ir-
reducibles in its factorization (that exists since for each element UFD-ness implies
that the number of irreducibles is a finite integer). We claim that I = (a). Let b
be an arbitrary element in I. Since R is a Bezout domain, (a, b) = (d) for some d
in R.
Since d ∈ (a, b) there exists x, yinR such that d = xa + yb. Since a, b ∈ I, so is xa
and yb. Thus d is in I. But a ∈ (d) implies that a = rd for some r in R. Since R is
a UFD, each r and d has its unique factorizations. Then, because the factorization
of a is also unique, it must be the combination of the factorizations of r and d. If
r is not a unit, then d is the element in I that has a smaller number of irreducibles
then a, a contradition. So r is a unit, and so (d) = (a); therefore, b ∈ (a). As b is
arbitrary, I = (a). As I is arbitrary, R is a PID. 9.3.4.
a.
R is certainly a commutative ring with identity. It remains to show it does not
have any zero-divisor. Suppose (a + xH(x))(b + xG(x)) = 0 in R then the equality
certainly holds in Q[x]. But Q[x] is a Euclidean domain by theorem 9.2.3, so either
a + xH(x) = 0 or b + xG(x) = 0 in Q[x]. Then either is 0 in R also, making R an
integral domain
(a + xH(x))(b + xG(x)) = 1 then ab = 1 and bH(x) + aG(x) + xH(x)G(x) = 0.
Since each G(x),H(x) is a polynomial, the latter equality only holds iff both are of
degree 0 and then their constant terms must also be zero to make xG(x)H(x) be
of degree 0. So it comes down to ab = 1 for a, b ∈ Z. So a, b must be 1 or −1. Thus
the units are 1 and -1.
b.
a + xH(x) is a irreducible iff it can not be represented as a product of two non-unit
elements. If |a| 6 1 and H(x)0 then a + xH(x) = a(1 + xH(x)/a). H(x)Q(x) and
by part a, a and 1 + xH(x)/a are not units. So a + xH(x) is reducible if |a| 6 1 and
H(x)0.
If |a| = 1 then 1+xH(x) is reducible in R if it is reducible in Q[x] since the constant
term for each factor of it in Q[x] must have absolute value equal 1 and, hence, that
comes as a legal factorization in R. Moreover, if it is irreducible in Q[x] it certainly
must be irreducible in R as R ⊂ Q[x]. Now if F = a + xH(x) is irreducbile and F
divides MN in R, then certainly F divides M,N in Q[x]. Since Q[x] is a ED and in
particular, a UFD, and F is also irreducible in Q[x F is a prime in Q[x]. So either F
divides M or N in Q[x]; as F has a constant term 1, F also divides M or N in R(as
the result of dividing M or N by F in Q[x] has the constan term in Z that comes
from the constant term in M or N). Thus F is also a prime in R (1)
If H(x)0 then it is obvious that a is irreducible in R as a is irreducible in Z. So a
1
2

must be a prime or its associate. (2)

7.3.14 
1 0 0 0
 0 1 0 0 
Let I = 
 0 0 1 0 


0 0 0 1
 
0 1 0 0
 −1 0 0 0 
Y =  0 0 0 −1 


 0 0 1 0 
0 0 1 0
 0 0 0 1 
J = −1 0 0 0 


0 −1 0 0
 
0 0 0 1
 0 0 −1 0 
K=  0 1 0 0 


−1 0 0 0
Then by easy calculation, Y 2 = J 2 = K 2 = −I; Y J = −JY = K; JL = −KJ = Y ;
KY = −Y K = J. So let φ : H → M4 (R) be such that: φ(d + ai + bj + ck) =
dI +aY +bJ +cK then φ is an injective ring homomorphism. Let M ∗ be the subring
generated by I, Y, J, K over R (all finite linear combination of those four matrices
with real coefficients) then it is obvious that H ∼= M ∗ . (these four matrices come
from writing out the multiplication of 2 elements in H and trying to recognize them
as matrices) QED

7.3.34.c
2Z and 4Z are ideals of Z. (2Z)(4Z) = 8Z while 2Z ∩ 4Z = 4Z. QED

7.4.6
(⇒) Suppose R is a division ring and I is a nontrivial left ideal. So there exists
x ∈ I and x 6= 0. Since R is a division ring, there exists y such that yx = 1. So I
contains 1 and as a result, I = R. So the left ideals are only 0 and R.
(⇐) Suppose the left ideals are only 0 and R. Let x be an arbitrary non-zero ele-
ment in R. Then Rx = {rx, r ∈ R} is clearly a left ideal in R. Since Rx contains
at least x, it is nontrivial and by the hypothesis, Rx = R. Since R is supposed to
contain the identity, there exists y such that yx = 1. It is obvious that y is non-zero
and we repeat the argument for Ry to obtain zy = 1. So z = z1 = zyx = 1x = x.
So y is the multiplicative inverse for x. Since x is arbitrary, R is a division ring. QED

7.4.19.
By proposition 7.4.13, P is a prime ideal iff the quotient ring R/P is an integral
domain. Since R is finite, R/P is also finite (it has at most |R| elements). By
corollary 7.1.3, R/P is a field. By proposition 7.4.12, P is a maximal ideal. QED

7.4.36
Let order the prime ideals by inclusion as follows: P ≤ Q is Q ⊂ P .
 3

Let P1 , P2 ... be an arbitrary chain of proper prime ideals with respect to that order.
We’ll construct
T∞ an upper bound for that sequence.
Let P = i=1 Pi . For any r in R, p in P, p is in any Pi so rp is in any Pi . Thus
rp ∈ P . So P is an ideal.
Now we’ll show that P is a prime ideal. Suppose ab ∈ P . If a ∈ P we are done. If
not, then a is not in P so there is some k such that a ∈ / Pk . Since for any n > k,
Pn ⊂ Pk , a ∈ / Pn . Since ab ∈ P , ab ∈ Pn for any n. Particularly for n ≥ k, a ∈/ Pn ,
b ∈ Pn . For m < k, since Pm contains Pk , it also contains b. Thus b is in any Pi .
So b ∈ P . Thus P is a prime ideal.
P is certainly a proper ideal (maybe trvial though) since it is a subset of a proper
ideal. For any i, P ≥ Pi since P ⊂ Pi . So P is the upper bound for the chain
P1 , P2 .... Therefore, by Zorn’s lemma, the set of all prime ideals has a minimal
element (the maximal one in the sense of our definition). QED

7.6.7.
Let m = pβ1 1 ...pβkk and n = pα αk
1 ...pk , for 0 ≤ αi ≤ βi and pi is a prime. By corollary
1

7.6.18,
Z/mZ ∼ = Z/p1 1 Z × ... × Z/pkk Z and Z/nZ ∼
β β
= Z/pα
αk
1 Z × ... × Z/pk Z.
1

The natural ring projection φ : Z/mZ → Z/nZ induces natural ring projection
φi : Z/pβi i Z → Z/pα βi αi
i Z as φi (x + Z/pi Z) = x + Z/pi Z and φ = φ1 × ... × φk .
i

× αi αi
If x ∈ (Z/nZ) then x + Z/pi Z ∈ (Z/pi Z) so x ≡ xi modpα
× αi
i for xi ∈ Z/pi Z
i

αi βi
such as xi and pi are coprime. Since pi is a prime, xi and pi are also coprime.Let
y be in Z/mZ such that y ≡ xi modpβi i for 1 ≤ i ≤ k; hence, y ∈ (Z/mZ)× . Since
the natural projection φi (xi ) = xi , φ(y) = x. As x is an arbitrary unit of Z/nZ, y
is a unit of Z/mZ, the induced map on units is also surjective. QED

15.1.4
For a former series Σ∞ n
n=0 an x , define the anti-leading coefficient as the non-zero
coefficient of the term with lower degree for a nontrivial formal series, and 0 for
the trivial former series. Let I be an arbitrary ideal of R[[x]]. Now let L0 be the
set of antileading coefficient of formal series of I, which has the lowest degree 0,
together with 0. It is clear that L0 is an ideal of R. Similarly, we build L1 be the
ideal of antileading coefficients of formal series, whose lowest degree is 1, together
with 0. If f has lowest degree 0, then xf has lower degree 1 and f and xf have the
same antileading coefficient. So L0 ⊂ L1 . Thus, we build an chain of ideals in R
by repeating that argument: L0 ⊂ L1 ⊂ L2 .... Since R is Noetherian, R satisfies
A.C.C. so there is m such that L0 ... ⊂ Lm = Lm+1 = .... (1)
Since each Li is finitely generated as R is Noetherian, we can choose {aij } for
0 ≤ i ≤ m and 1 ≤ j ≤ ki as generators. Let fij be the corresponding formal power
series in I. We claim that I = ({fij }) for 0 ≤ i ≤ m and 1 ≤ j ≤ ki .
Let f = Σ∞ n
n=0 an x be an arbitrary formal power series in I and at1 its antileading
coefficient. By (1), at is in Li for some 0 ≤ i ≤ m and it can be written as a finite
linear combination of {aij }. So the finite linear combination of {fij } multiplied
with an appropriate power of x, xT1 (to adjust to the case t > m) yields a former
series h1 such that the term of lowest degree in h1 is t1 and f −h1 = f1 has the term
of lowest degree whose degree is greater than t. Similarly, we construct h2 , h3 ...
associated with f2 , f3 with each hs a finite combination of {fij } and for i < j the
degree of the term of lowest degree in hi is less then its counterpart in hj . We claim
4

that f = h1 + h2 + .....
Suppose it is not true then there exists N such that the coefficients associated with
xN in two power series are different. But by the construction, for M sufficiently
large, f − Σn=M
n=1 hn has the term of lowest degree whose degree is greater than N.
So that leads to a contradiction and concludes that f = h1 + h2 + ....
Now we have hs = Σ0≤i≤m,1≤j≤ki bijs xTs fij so
f = h1 + h2 + .... = Σ0≤i≤m,1≤j≤ki (Σ∞ Ts
s=1 bijs x )fij
So f is a finite combination of the generators. Since f is arbitrary, that proves the
claim. Since I is arbitrary, that concludes the problem. QED

15.1.11.
a.
Let Λ be the set of ideals of R that are not finitely generated and suppose it is
non-empty. We set up an order in Λ by inclusion, I ≤ J iff I ⊂ J.
Let I1 ≤ I2 ... be a chain in Λ with respect to that order. We claim that the chain
has an upper
S∞ bound in Λ.
Let I = i=1 Ii . Obviously, I is an ideal and Ii ≤ I for any i. Suppose I is finitely
generated, say by a1 , ...an . So each aj must belong to some Iji . Since the set is
ordered by inclusion, if JI is the maximal number of {ji} for 1 ≤ j ≤ n then IJI
contains all aj . So IJI ⊂ I = (a1 , ..., an ) ⊂ IJI . Thus IJI = (a1 , ..., an ), or is
finitely generated, a contradiction. So I is not finitely generated. I is also proper
since R = R1 is finitely generated. Thus, I ∈ Λ so an arbitrary chain in Λ always
has an upper bound.
So by Zorn’s lemma, Λ contains a maximal element, again denoted by I. By the
lattice theorem for ring homomorphism, any ideal T in R/I is corresponding to
an ideal in T that contains I in R. Since I is maximal in Λ, T must be finitely
generated. As a consequence, T is finitely generated (if a = c1 a1 + ...cn an then
a = (c1 )(a1 ) + ...(cn )(an ) by straightforward examination). So R/I is Noetherian.
b.
Since any prime ideal is finitely generated, I is not a prime ideal. That is, there ex-
ists a, b such that a, b ∈ / I and ab ∈ I. Let J1 = I+ < a > and J2 = I+ < b > then
J1 and J2 properly contains I. As I is the maximal element in Λ, J1 and J2 must be
finitely generated. As a consequence, J1 J2 is also finitely generated because of the
distributive law. Moreover, each element of J1 J2 is a finite combination of terms
of the form:
(i + r1 a)(j + r2 b) for i,j in I and r1 , r2 ∈ R.
Then,(i + r1 a)(j + r2 b) = ij + r1 aj + r2 bi + r1 r2 ab ∈ I as ab is in I. So J1 J2 ⊂ I
c.
Obviously, J1 /J1 J2 is an ideal in R and, hence, in J1 . Thus we can talk about
J1 /J1 J2 as a ring. For any r in R and j in J1 we have:
(r + I)(j + J1 J2 ) = rj + jI + rJ1 J2 + IJ1 J2 ∼ rj + J1 J2 since I ⊂ J2 and thus
jI ⊂ J1 J2 (1)
So for rk ∈ R/I and j ∈ J1 /J1 J2 the operation rk j = rk j is a well-defined action of
R/I on J1 /J1 J2 . (from now on, rk is an element of R/I while any other overlined
term is an element of J1 /J1 J2 )
With that action, J1 /J1 J2 is a R/I module and we claim that J1 /J1 J2 is finitely
generated over R/I.
Since J1 is finitely generated over R by a1 , ..., an any element can be written as
 5

j = r1 a1 + ...rn an for ri ∈ R. Also by (1),

k=n
j = r1 a1 + ...rn an = Σk=0 rk ak = Σk=n
k=0 (rk )(ak )
So J1 /J1 J2 is finitely generated over R/I. As R/I is Noetherian, by exercise 8
(proved in class) ,J1 /J1 J2 is also Noetherian.
It remains to show that I/J1 J2 is a R/I-submodule of J1 /J1 J2 . For i in I we have:
ri = ri in I/J1 J2 as I is also an ideal of R
So I/J1 J2 is finitely generated R/I-submodule of J1 /J1 J2 .
d.
Let I/J1 J2 be finitely generated by a1 , ....an . We claim that a1 , ...an together with
generators of J1 J2 generate I.
For any i ∈ I/J1 J2 there are r1 , ..rn ∈ R/I such that
i = (r1 )(a1 ) + ...(rn )(an ) = r1 a1 + ...rn an
So a − (r1 a1 + ...rn an ) ∈ J1 J2 . So that proves the claim. In part (b) we show that
J1 J2 is finitely generated over R, so I is finitely generated over R, a contradiction
to the fact that I ∈ Λ. Thus the priori assumption is absurd, and, therefore, Λ is
empty, and R is Noetherian as all ideals are finitely generated. QED

Additional problems
1.
Statement: Let R be an arbitrary ring and R× its set of units. Then R× is a group
under multiplication. Then the integral group ring contruction yields a functor
from groups to rings, left adjoint to the functor from rings to groups that assigns
to a given ring its group of units with multiplication as group law.
Proof:
First we show R× is a group under multiplication. Certainly, it’s a set with asso-
ciativity and contains 1. If x ∈ R× then there exists y such that xy = yx = 1,
so y is also in R× and denote y = x−1 with respect to multiplication law. So
the set is closed under taking inverse. If x, z in R× then x−1 , z −1 ∈ R× and
(xz)(z −1 x−1 ) = (z −1 x−1 )(xz) = 1, so xz is also in the set. Thus, it is closed under
multiplication. Therefore,R× is group with group law is multiplication, and 1 the
identity.
Now suppose there is a ring homomorphism φ : RG → R, then φ(1) = 1 so
φ(g)φ(g −1 ) = 1 so φ(g) ∈ R× . Since φ is a ring homomorphism, φ(g)φ(h) = φ(gh)
for g, h in G. Thus, the restriction of φ on G is a group homomorphism from G to
R× . Certainly it is unique in the sense that it is the restriction of the ring homo-
morphism on G.(1)
Conversely, suppose δ : G → R× is a group homomorphism. Then we’ll show there
is a unique extension of δ to a ring homomorphism δ ∗ : RG → R such that its
restriction on G is δ. If δ ∗ : RG → R is a ring homomorphism such that its restric-
tion on G is δ, then
δ ∗ (Σgi ∈G ai gi ) = Σgi ∈G ai δ(gi ).
Thus δ ∗ is uniquely determined. Then it is routine to check that if δ ∗ is defined as
above, it is a group ring homomorphism.(2)
(1) and (2) show that the integral group ring contruction yields a functor from
groups to rings, left adjoint to the functor from rings to groups that assigns to a
given ring its group of units. QED
6

2.
(⇒)
Suppose I is a maximal left ideal. Then by the lattice homomorphism theorem,
R/I has no left-ideals other than 0 and R/I. Therefore, by problem 7.4.6, R is a
division ring.
(⇐)
Suppose R/I is a division ring, then also by 7.4.6, 0 and R/I are precisely the
left ideals of R/I. So by the lattice homomorphism theorem, there is no proper
left-ideal of R that properly contains I. So I is a maximal left-ideal.QED

3.
By identifying h in k with h1 with 1 is the multiplicative identity in R, we recognize
k as a subring of R (indeed by the k-linear property, k is in the center of R). With
that identification, it is obvious to see that any ideal in R is a subspace of R as
vector spaces. Since dimk (R) < ∞ R satisfies the A.C.C and D.C.C on ideals. (1)
Suppose P is a proper prime ideal and x ∈ / P . Then < x >⊇< x2 >⊇ .... is
a descending chain of ideals and since R satisfies D.C.C on ideals, there exists
n such that < xn >=< xn+1 >. Thus, xn = rxn+1 for some r in R. That is,
xn (rx − 1) = 0 ∈ P . Since P is prime, either xn ∈ P or rx − 1 ∈ P . However, if
xn ∈ P then by repeating the argument n times at most, x is in P, a contradiction.
So rx − 1 ∈ P ; hence, 1 ∈ P + < x >. Since P + < x > is an ideal of R, that im-
plies, P + < x >= R. Since x is arbitry, that shows P is a maximal ideal (otherwise
choose x in the maximal ideal that contains P and x not in P then P + < x >≤ M
a proper ideal of R, implying a contradiction).QED

4.
Let Λ be the set of proper submodules of R-module M that contain N. Λ is nonempty
since at least N in Λ. We set up an order in Λ by inclusion, I ≤ J iff I ⊂ J.
Let I1 ≤ I2 ... be a chain in Λ with respect to that order. We claim that the chain
has an upper
S∞ bound in Λ.
Let I = i=1 Ii . Obviously, I contains N. For any i, j in I, there must be some
s,t such that i ∈ Is and j ∈ It . Since the order is by inclusion, Is , It ⊂ Imax{s,t} .
So i + j ∈ Imax{s,t} ⊂ I and, for any r in R, ri ∈ Imax{s,t} ⊂ I, implying I is a
submodule of M.
It remains to show that I is a proper submodule. Suppose not then I = M and M
is finitely generated by a1 , ..., ak . Then, I = Ra1 + ... + Rak . Each aj must belong
to some Iji . Since the set is ordered by inclusion, if JI is the maximal number of
{ji} for 1 ≤ j ≤ k then IJI contains all aj .
So IJI ⊂ I = Ra1 + ... + Ran ⊂ IJI . Thus IJI = I = M , a contradiction since
IJI ∈ Λ, the set of proper submodules. So I ∈ Λ; that is, an arbitrary chain in Λ
always has an upper bound.
So by Zorn’s lemma, Λ contains a maximal element.