What Is CA

What is Commutative Algebra?
– based on the work of Emmy Noether –

Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City
January 2017
Shiro Goto
Professor Emeritus
Meiji University
. . . . . .
Shiro Goto (Professor Emeritus Meiji University) What is Commutative Algebra? 1 / 57
Emmy Noether, 1882–1935
Figure: Emmy Noether
Emmy Noether was a mathematician but also a physicist.

A. Einstein said ”Emmy Noether is one of the most influential
mathematicians who have contributed to the progress of physical
science”. . . . . . .
Len Fisher’s book: Weighing the Soul
.
Early in the twentieth century, the German physicist Emmy Noether (one
of the few women active in science at the time) discovered the even more
stunning mystery that underlies the conservation of momentum. She
showed that the principle follows directly from the fact that the laws of
physics do not change under ’translation of axes’ – in other words, if a law
applies when you are standing on the ground, the same law applies when
you are flying above the ground at constant speed in an aeroplane. This is
why your sandwiches don’t slide about on the tray or your drinks spill in
your lap, even though the plane is travelling at around 800km/h.
Emmy Noether went on to show that the conservation of angular
momentum similarly arises from the fact that the laws of physics do not
change when the frame of reference is rotated. It is a sad reflection on
the way in which science was (and is) a largely male preserve that
Noether was never awarded a Nobel Prize for her perceptive
.insights.
Shiro Goto (Professor Emeritus Meiji University)
. . . . . .
What is Commutative Algebra? 3 / 57
Emmy Noether is a big name in mathematics, especially in
algebra. Her name is kept, like Noetherian ring, Noether’s
normalization theorem, etc.
In the book of M. B. W. Tent : Emmy Noether, the Mother of

Modern Algebra, you can find Emmy Noether as a brilliant
mathematician and an excellent supervisor for gifted students,
say Bartel van der Waerden, as well.
. . . . . .
What is Commutative Algebra?
Commutative rings are, like the set of numbers, integers, or

polynomials, the sets of objects where you can freely make
addition +, multiplication ×, and substraction −.
Commutative algebra is an abstract and unified theory of

these sets, which is independent of the choice of materials.
This kind of abstraction dates back to D. Hilbert and was a

revolution in algebra, raised by Emmy Noether.
. . . . . .
Invariant theory 1
Let G be a group action on the polynomial ring
S = k[X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ] over a field k as automorphisms of
k-algebras and set R = S G , the invariant subring of S. Hence
R = {f ∈ S | σ(f ) = f for ∀σ ∈ G }.
Invariant theory is the research on the structure of R, say when

R is a finitely generated k-algebra, what kind of properties R
enjoys, for example, when R is again a polynomial ring, a
Gorenstein ring, Cohen-Macaulay ring, etc.
At the end of the 19-th century (and nowadays also), this was
one of the hottest topics of algebra. D. Hilbert gave a huge
contribution to it as the founder of abstract algebra.
. . . . . .
Invariant theory 2
It is famous that when Hilbert showed that every ideal in the

polynomial ring S = C[X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ] over the complex number
field C is finitely generated (that is S is a Noetherian ring),
people heaved a sigh that this was not mathematics but
theology.
Hilbert’s 14-th problem (about the finite generation of
R = S G ) was one of the problems posed for the 20-th century.
In 1905 E. Noether proved it affirmatively in the case where G is
a finite group. In 1955 M. Nagata gave a celebrated
counterexample.
. . . . . .
Van der Waerden : Modern Algebra
From 1922 to 1933 Emmy Noether stayed at University of
Göttingen. The monumental book Modern Algebra of Van der
Waerden, published in 1949, is a complication of her activity
during this interval.
50 years ago, this book was the book every student of algebra
courses must read, presenting modern algebra to be one world.
Around 1950’s, there existed no professionals of commutative
algebra.
After Van der Waerden’s book, the most important and classical
book was Commutative Algebra, I, II written by O. Zariski–P.
Samuel and published in 1958.
The title of Chapter 4 of Vol. I is Noetherian rings.
. . . . . .
The first book for students of undergraduate
courses
M. F. Atiyah and I. G. MacDonald

Introduction to Commutative Algebra
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969
. . . . . .
The ring Z of integers as the model of Noetherian
rings
Let Z be the set of all integers. Then we say that I is an ideal
of Z, if (1) ∅ ̸= I ⊆ Z and if (2) ax, x + y ∈ I for ∀a ∈ Z and
∀x, y ∈ I .
Z and {0} are ideals of Z.
Every ideal is an additive subgroup of Z.
For a given integer a ∈ Z, the set I = {ax | x ∈ Z} is an ideal of
Z, which we denote by (a). Hence (2) = {even integers},
(1) = (−1) = Z, and (0) = {0}.
Let a, b ∈ Z. Then b ∈ (a) ⇔ (b) ⊆ (a), which we denote by
a|b.
. . . . . .
.
Theorem
.
. I be an ideal of Z. Then I = (a) for some integer 0 ≤ a ∈ Z.
Let
.
Proof
.
We may assume that I ̸= {0}. Choose 0 < a ∈ I so that a is as small
as possible. Then I = (a). In fact, let n ∈ I and write n = aq + r
with q, r ∈ Z such that 0 ≤ r < a. Then since r = n + a(−q) ∈ I ,
we get r = 0 by the minimality of a. Thus n = aq and hence I ⊆ (a).
The reverse inclusion (a) ⊆ I is clear and follows from the fact that
.a ∈ I .
. . . . . .
.
Exercise
.
Let a, b be positive integers and set I = {ax + by | x, y ∈ Z}. Prove
the following.
(1) I is an ideal of Z and a, b ∈ I .
(2) Let 0 < d ∈ I such that I = (d). Then d = GCD(a, b).
How
. about LCM(a, b)?
. . . . . .
.
Corollary (ACC, Ascending Chain Condition)
.
Let I1 ⊆ I2 ⊆ · · · ⊆ In ⊆ · · · be an ascending chain of ideals. Then
∃k
. ≥ 1 such that Ik = Ik+1 = Ik+2 = · · · .
.
Proof
. ∪
We set I = n≥1 In . Then I is an ideal, whence I = (a) for some
a ∈ Z. Take an integer k ≫ 0 so that a ∈ Ik . Then I = (a) ⊆ Ik .
Hence
. Ik = Ik+1 = Ik+2 = · · · .
. . . . . .
.
Corollary (Maximal Condition)
.
Let S be a non-empty set of ideals. Then S contains an element
which
. is maximal with respect to inclusion.
.
Proof
.
Assume that S contains no maximal element. Then, for each I1 ∈ S,
we have I2 ∈ S such that I1 ⊊ I2 . Hence
∃I1 ⊊ I2 ⊊ I3 ⊊ · · · ⊊ In ⊊ · · ·
. S, which is impossible.
in
. . . . . .
.
Definition (Maximal ideals)
.
Let M be an ideal. Then we say that M is a maximal ideal, if
. ⊊ Z and if there is no ideal I such that M ⊊ I ⊊ Z.
M
.
Corollary
.
. et I be an ideal. If I ⊊ Z, then I ⊆ M for some maximal ideal M.
L
.
Proof
.
Set S = {J | J is an ideal such that I ⊆ J ⊊ Z}. Then I ∈ S. Apply
now
. Maximal Condition to this set S.
. . . . . .
.
Definition (Prime ideals)
.
Let P be an ideal. Then we say that P is a prime ideal, if P ⊊ Z
and if P satisfies the following condition.
. Let a, b ∈ Z. If ab ∈ P, then a ∈ P or b ∈ P.
.
Proposition
.
Every
. maximal ideal is a prime ideal.
.
Proof
.
Let M be a maximal ideal. Suppose that ab ∈ M but a ̸∈ M. Set
I = {x + y | x ∈ M, y ∈ (a)}. Then I is an ideal. Because
a = 0 + a1 ∈ I but a ̸∈ M, M ⊊ I . Hence I = Z, so that 1 ∈ I . Let
us write 1 = x + az with x ∈ M and z ∈ Z. Then
b = b1 = bx + (ab)z ∈ M, because x ∈ M and ab ∈ M. Hence M is
a. prime ideal. . . . . . .
.
Definition
.
Let a ≥ 2 be an integer.
(1) We say that a is a prime number, if (a) is a prime ideal of Z.
(2) We say that a is an irreducible number, if the following
condition is satisfied.
. Let 0 < b, c ∈ Z. If a = bc, then b = 1 or c = 1.
.
Remark
.
These
. two notion is theoretically different.
. . . . . .
.
Theorem (Euclid)
.
Let a ≥ 2 be an integer. Then a is a prime number if and only if a is
an
. irreducible number.
.
Proof
.
Suppose that a is irreducible and choose a maximal ideal M so that
(a) ⊆ M. Let M = (p) where p > 0 is an integer. Then p = a, since
a is irreducible and p|a. Hence a is a prime number, because
(a) = (p) = M is a maximal ideal.
Conversely suppose that a is a prime number and write a = bc with
positive integers b, c. Then since a|bc and (a) is a prime ideal, we
have b ∈ (a) or c ∈ (a). If b ∈ (a), we write b = ax with x ∈ Z.
Then a = bc = a(cx) and c = 1, since 1 = cx. Similarly b = 1, if
a|c.
.
. . . . . .
Euclid’s theorems
.
Exercise
.
Answer the following.
(1) Let a ≥ 2 be an integer. Then a can be expressed in the
following way.
a = p1 p2 · · · pn
where pi ’s are prime numbers. Show also that this expression is
unique (up to orders) for a.
(2) Let a, b, c be positive integers such that GCD(a, b) = 1. Show
that 1 = ax + by for some x, y ∈ Z. Using this, show that if
a|bc, then a|c.
(3) Show that there are infinitely many prime numbers.
. Show that (2016) = (7) ∩ (3 ) ∩ (2 ).
2 5
(4)
. . . . . .
Definition of commutative ring
.
Definition
.
A commutative ring R is a set equipped with two binary operations,
addition and multiplication, satisfying the following axioms:
1. R is an abelian group with respect to addition,
2. multiplication is associative: (ab)c = a(bc),
3. and distributive over addition: (a + b)c = ac + bc,
a(b + c) = ab + ac,
.4 ∃1 ∈ R such that a1 = 1a = a for all a ∈ R, and
.
. 5 multiplication is commutative: ab = ba.
.
Example
.
.Z, Q, R, C, and the polynomial rings over them.
. . . . . .
Ideals
.
Definition
.
Let R be a commutative ring.
1. A non-empty subset I of R is called an ideal of R, if
x + y , ax ∈ I for all x, y ∈ I and a ∈ R.

.2 For given a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ R, the set
I = {c1 a1 + c2 a2 + · · · + cn an | ci ∈ R} forms an ideal of R,
which is denoted by (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ).
3. An ideal I of R is said to be finitely generated, if
. I = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) for some a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ R.

.
Example
.
Every ideal in the ring Z of integers has the form (a) = {an | n ∈ Z}
.for some a ∈ Z, so that every ideal in Z is finitely generated. . . . . . .
Definition of Noetherian ring
.
Theorem
.
and Definition
Let R be a commutative ring. Then we say that R is a Noetherian
ring, if the following equivalent conditions are satisfied:
1. Every ideal in R is finitely generated.
2. Let I ⊆ I ⊆ · · · ⊆ I ⊆ · · · be an ascending chain of ideals in

1 2 n
R. Then ∃k ≥ 1 such that Ik = Ik+1 = Ik+2 = · · · .
3. Let S be a non-empty set of ideals in R. Then S contains an
. element which is maximal with respect to inclusion.
. . . . . .
Proof of (1) ⇒ (2)
.
Proof
.
Let I1 ⊆ I2∪⊆ · · · ⊆ In ⊆ · · · be an ascending chain of ideals in R.
Then I = n≥1 In forms an ideal in R, so that
I = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an )
for some a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ R. Take k ≫ 0 so that a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ Ik .

We then have
I = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) ⊆ Ik ,
thanks to the definition of ideals. Hence
. Ik = Ik+1 = Ik+2 = · · · .
. . . . . .
Proof of (2) ⇒ (3)
.
Proof
.
Let S be a non-empty set of ideals in R and assume that S contains
no maximal element. Then, for each I1 ∈ S, one gets I2 ∈ S such
that I1 ⊊ I2 . Hence
∃I1 ⊊ I2 ⊊ I3 ⊊ · · ·
.in S, which is impossible.
. . . . . .
Proof of (3) ⇒ (1)
.
Proof
.
Let I be an ideal of R and assume that I is not finitely generated. We
put S = {J | J is a finitely generated ideal in R, J ⊆ I }. Then S ̸= ∅,
since {0} ∈ S. We choose a maximal element J ∈ S and write
J = (a1 , a2 , . . . an )
with a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ R. Since J ⊊ I , we have an+1 ∈ I \ J, which is

impossible, because
J = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) ⊊ (a1 , a2 , . . . an , an+1 ) ⊆ I
and J is maximal in S. Hence these three conditions are equivalent

to
. each other.
. . . . . .
Examples from numerical semigroup rings
Let N = {0, 1, 2, . . .} be the set of non-negative integers. We say
that H is a numerical semigroup, if the following conditions are
satisfied.
(1) 0 ∈ H ⊆ N.
(2) a + b ∈ H for ∀a, b ∈ H.
(3) ∃k ∈ Z such that n ∈ H for ∀n ≥ k.
For example, let S = k[t] be the polynomial ring over a field k and
consider H = {3x + 5y + 7z | x, y , z ∈ N}. We say that H is a
numerical semigroup generated by 3, 5, 7 and denote it by
H = ⟨3, 5, 7⟩ .
. . . . . .
Examples from numerical semigroup rings
.
Example
.
0 1 2 0 1 2 3
⟨3, 5, 7⟩ = , ⟨4, 5, 6⟩ =
3 4 5 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 8 9 10 11
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
. . . . . .
∑
We set k[H] = h∈H kt h and call it the semigroup ring of H. When
H = ⟨3, 5, 7⟩, k[H] = k[t 3 , t 5 , t 7 ]. The ring k[H] is a subring of k[t]
and
∑
k[H] = { cn t n | cn ∈ k for ∀n ∈ N but cn = 0 if n ̸∈ H}.
n∈N
We generally have the following.

.
Exercise
.
Let H be a numerical semigroup. Then
1. H = ⟨a , a , . . . , a ⟩ for some a , a , . . . , a ∈ H.
1 2 n 1 2 n
.2 Set c(H) = min{n ∈ Z | m ∈ H for ∀m ∈ Z such that m ≥ n}.
Then c(H) = (a − 1)(b − 1) if H = ⟨a, b⟩, where 0 < a, b ∈ N
such that GCD(a, b) = 1.
.
. 3 The ring k[H] is necessarily a Noetherian ring.
. . . . . .
.
Exercise (Non-Noetherian rings)
.
(1) Let ℓ > 0 be an integer and set ∪
H =∑ {(a, b) ∈ N2 | a, b ≥ 0, a ≥ ℓ} {(0, 0)}. Let
R = (a,b)∈H kX a Y b in the polynomial ring S = k[X , Y ] over a
field k. Prove that R is not a Noetherian ring.
(2) Let R be the set of the algebraic integers, that is those z ∈ C
which are integral over Z. Prove that R is not a Noetherian ring.
. Show that P = P 2 for every prime ideal P in R.
. . . . . .
The Noether boys
– Witness of the birth of modern algebra –
always gathered around her, as if they were her bodyguards,
discussing many kinds of things, not only mathematics, from morning
to night. While giving lectures, Emmy Noether had only a piece of
chalk, and spoke very quickly about her thoughts of new
mathematics.
. . . . . .
Commutative algebra is the theory of Noetherian
rings
The reason for the great success of Noetherian ring

theory is:
Very easy to construct concrete examples.
Many rings we meet in application are Noetherian.
.
Remark
.
The ring of algebraic integers is non-Noetherian but still
enjoys
. very nice properties.
. . . . . .
.
Theorem
.
Let R be a Noetherian ring. We then have
1. R/I is a Noetherian ring for every ideal I in R.
2. (Hilbert’s basis theorem) The polynomial rings
R[X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ] and the formal power series rings

R[[X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ]] are always Noetherian. Hence
3. The ideal-adic completion R b of R is a Noetherian ring for every
ideal in R.
4. The localization S −1 R is a Noetherian ring for every
. multiplicative system S in R.
Starting from Z, Q, R, C, this theorem enables us to construct

numerous examples of Noetherian rings. We can apply all the results
of abstract Noetherian rings to those examples. This is a surprising
way of thinking in algebra which Emmy .Noether . .
invented.
. . .
Hilbert’s basis theorem
.
Theorem
.
Let R be a Noetherian ring. Then the polynomial ring
S = R[X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ] is also a Noetherian ring. Hence every ideal in
. polynomial ring C[X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ] is finitely generated.
the
. . . . . .
.
Proof (E. Kunz)
.
We may assume n = 1. Let I be an ideal of the polynomial ring R[X ]
and assume that I is not finitely generated. Then since I ̸= (0), there
is a polynomial 0 ̸= f0 ∈ I . Choose f0 so that d0 = deg f0 is as small
as possible. Then since I is not finitely generated, I ̸= (f0 ). Therefore
we can choose a polynomial f1 ∈ I \ (f0 ) so that d1 = deg f1 is as
small as possible among the polynomials contained in I \ (f0 , f1 ).
Then we have d0 ≤ d1 , since f1 ∈ I \ (f0 ). Repeating this procedure,
we get a sequence f0 , f1 , · · · , fn , · · · of elements in I satisfying the
following conditions.
(1) fn ̸∈ (f0 , f1 , . . . , fn−1 ) for all n ≥ 0.
(2) dn = deg fn is the smallest among the polynomials contained in
I \ (f0 , f1 , · · · , fn−1 ) for all n ≥ 0, whence dn−1 ≤ dn for all n ≥ 1.
(Here
. (f0 , f1 , . . . , fn−1 ) = (0) for n = 0.)
. . . . . .
.
Proof (Continued)
.
Let us write fn = an X dn + (lower terms) with an ∈ R and consider the
ascending chain
(a0 ) ⊆ (a0 , a1 ) ⊆ · · · ⊆ (a0 , a1 , . . . , an ) ⊆ · · ·
of ideals in R. We choose an integer n ≫ 0 so that∑

(a0 , a1 , . . . , an−1 ) = (a0 , a1 , . . . , an ) and write an = n−1
i=0 ci ai with
ci ∈ R. Now consider the difference
∑
n−1
g = fn − ci X dn −di fi .
i=0
Then g ∈ I but g ̸∈ (f0 , f1 , . . . , fn−1 ), since fn ̸∈ (f0 , f1 , . . . , fn−1 ).

Therefore the minimality of dn forces that dn ≤ deg g , which is
.impossible because of the definition of g . Thus . R[X
. ] is
. Noetherian.
. . .
Emmy Noether worked a lot on the invariant theory of finite groups
and established several fundamental results.
She also gave the most fundamental result of ideal theory, which is
called Lasker-Noether’s decomposition theorem of ideals.
. . . . . .
.
Definition
.
Let R be a commutative ring and Q, P, M (̸= R) be ideals in R.
Then we say that
1. Q is a primary ideal of R, if a ∈ Q or b n ∈ Q for some n > 0
whenever ab ∈ Q.
.2 P is a prime ideal of R, if a ∈ P or b ∈ P whenever ab ∈ P.
.
√
For each ideal I in R, we put I = {a ∈ R | an ∈ I for some n > 0}
and call it the radical
√ of I . The radicals of ideals are again ideals of
R and the radical Q of a primary ideal Q is a prime ideal.
.
Remark
.
Prime ideals are generalization of prime numbers, and primary
.ideals are generalization of powers of prime numbers.
. . . . . .
Lasker-Noether’s decomposition theorem
.
Theorem (Lasker-Noether, 1921)
.
Let I ⊊ R be an ideal of a Noetherian ring R. Then I has a
decomposition
I = Q1 ∩ Q2 ∩ · · · ∩ Qn ,
where Q√i′ s are primary ideals in R. One can arrange so that the prime
ideals { Qi }1≤i≤n are distinct and I ̸= Q1 ∩ · · ·√∩ Q̌i ∩ · · · Qn for
each 1 ≤ i ≤ n. When this is the case, the set { Qi }1≤i≤n of prime
ideals is independent of the choice of the decomposition
I. = Q1 ∩ Q2 ∩ · · · ∩ Qn , and uniquely determined by I .
.
Remark
.
This is a generalization of the well-known fact that every integer
a. ≥ 2 is a unique product of powers of prime numbers.
. . . . . .
Proof of Lasker-Noether’s decomposition theorem
The proof is divided into the following two propositions.
.
Definition
.
Let I be an ideal of R. Then we say that I is irreducible, if I ̸= R
and if the following condition is satisfied.
. Let J, K be ideals of R. If I = J ∩ K , then I = J or I = K .

.
Proposition
.
Let I be an ideal in a Noetherian ring R. Supose that I ̸= R. Then I
has a decomposition
I = I1 ∩ I2 ∩ · · · ∩ In ,
where
. Ii ’s are irreducible ideals in R.
. . . . . .
.
Proof
.
We just apply the Noetherian induction (a use of Maximal
Condition). Let S be the set of ideals I ̸= R which do not have
irreducible decompositions. If S ̸= ∅, then choose a maximal element
I ∈ S. Then since I is not an irreducible ideal and I ̸= R,
I =J ∩K
for some ideals J, K such that I ⊊ J and I ⊊ K . Then J, K ̸∈ S and

J, K ̸= R. Hence both J and K have irreducible decompositions,
.whence so does I , which is a contradiction.
. . . . . .
.
Proposition
.
Let I be an irreducible ideal in a Noetherian ring R. Then I is a
primary
. ideal of R.
.
Proof
.
Let a, b ∈ R and assume that ab ∈ I . Consider the ascending chain
I : b ⊆ I : b 2 ⊆ · · · ⊆ I : b n ⊆ I : b n+1 ⊆ · · ·
of ideals in R and choose n ≫ 0 so that I : b n = I : b n+1 . Then

[I + (a)] ∩ [I + (b n )] = I . To see this, since
[I + (a)] ∩ [I + (b n )] = I + [(a) ∩ (I + (b n ))], we have only to show
.(a) ∩ [I + (b )] ⊆ I .
n
. . . . . .
.
Proof (Continued)
.
Let f ∈ (a) ∩ [I + (b n )] and write f = ax = i + b n y for some
x, y ∈ R and i ∈ I . Then bf = (ab)x = bi + b n+1 y . Since ab ∈ I
and bi ∈ I , we get b n+1 y ∈ I , so that y ∈ I : b n+1 = I : b n .
Consequently, b n y ∈ I , whence f = i + b n y ∈ I . Thus
[I + (a)] ∩ [I + (b n )] = I
and therefore by the irreducibility of I we have I = I + (a) or

I. = I + (b n ). Thus a ∈ I or b n ∈ I . Hence I is a primary ideal of R.
. . . . . .
The theorem is the foundation of the theory of Noetherian rings.
All the results have their grounding in this theorem.
Figure: Emanuel Lasker
It’s said that Lasker was a chess player, a world champion, and
not a professional mathematician.
. . . . . .
The development after Emmy Noether
W. Krull : Krull’s intersection theorem, Krull’s altitude theorem;

the paradigm of ideal-theoretic commutative algebra
C. Chevalley : the abstract theory of multiplicities
F. S. Macaulay : ”The algebraic theory of modular systems”
(modular system = ideal)
I. S. Cohen : the structure theorem of complete local rings
. . . . . .
Serre’s work – revolution in commutative algebra–
The revolution in commutative algebra was brought in 1955 by J.-P.

Serre, introducing homological methods to commutative algebra and
proving one of the most important theorems in commutative algebra.
. . . . . .
Let R be a Noetherian ring. Then we say that R is local, if R
contains a unique maximal ideal. Suppose R is a local ring with
maximal ideal m. We put
dim R = sup{n ≥ 0 | ∃a chain P0 ⊊ P1 ⊊ · · · ⊊ Pn of prime ideals in R}
and call it the dimension of R. Then it is known that
dim R ≤ v (R),
where v (R) denotes the least number of elements in R which

generates the maximal ideal m in R.
.
Definition
.
We
. say that R is a regular local ring, if dim R = v (R).
. . . . . .
.
Example
.
The formal power series ring R = k[[X1 , X2 , . . . , Xd ]] is a regular local
ring
. with dim R = d, where k is a field.
. . . . . .
.
Problem (Localization problem)
.
Suppose that (R, m) is a regular local ring and let P be a prime ideal
in
. R. Then is RP again regular?
Around 1950, this was one of the biggest open problems in

commutative algebra. Serre applied homological methods and proved
this problem affirmatively, which was the glorious success of Serre.
. . . . . .
He actually showed:
1. gldim R := sup pd M = pd R/m.

M R R
2. R is regular ⇔ gldim R < ∞.
Then the affirmative answer of the localization problem readily

follows and we now have the following.
.
Theorem (Serre, 1955)
.
Suppose that (R, m) is a regular local ring. Then RP is again a
.regular local ring for every a prime ideal P in R.
.
Even
. nowadays, we have no proof other than that of Serre.
. . . . . .
In 1960’s A. Grothendieck developed the theory of schemes,
abstract algebraic geometry.
Commutative Algebra is a local theory of schemes.
Local Cohomology
. . . . . .
.
The first golden ages
.
D. Rees, M. Nagata, H. Bass, D. A. Buchsbaum,

M.
. Auslander
. . . . . .
.
The second golden ages (the last 30 years of the 20th
century)
.
M. Hochster, C. Huneke (rings of positive characteristic

p > 0), D. Eisenbud, G. Valla, R. Y. Sharp, P. Roberts, W. V.
Vasconcelos, W. Bruns, J. Herzog, some of Japanese
Mainly
. concentrated in the study of Cohen-Macaulay rings
. . . . . .
Hierarchy of rings
Regular rings ⇒ Complete intersections ⇒ Gorenstein rings

⇒ Cohen–Macaulay rings ⇒ Buchsbaum rings ⇒ FLC rings
In Ch p > 0 case, there is another path.
Regular rings ⇒ F–regular rings ⇒ F–rational rings ⇒

Cohen–Macaulay and normal rings ⇒ Cohen–Macaulay rings
. . . . . .
Commutative algebra is now exploding into many different directions.
Algebraic geometry, singularity theory, combinatorics, and number
theory have strong interactions with commutative algebra, as well as
the usage of computers.
In every branch you will visit, you can feel the doctrine of
Emmy Noether.
Including the direct summand conjecture, the monomial conjecture,
the canonical element conjecture, and the Jacobian conjecture, etc.,
problems are left open and waiting for challenging and ambitious
young researchers.
. . . . . .
One of the most important subjects is
Combinatorial Aspects in Commutative Algebra
. . . . . .
That’s all of my talk.
Thank you for your attention.
. . . . . .
Continued to
the lecture for students of
graduated courses
. . . . . .

What Is CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is Commutative Algebra?

– based on the work of Emmy Noether –

Figure: Emmy Noether

Emmy Noether was a mathematician but also a physicist.

In the book of M. B. W. Tent : Emmy Noether, the Mother of

Commutative rings are, like the set of numbers, integers, or

Commutative algebra is an abstract and unified theory of

This kind of abstraction dates back to D. Hilbert and was a

Invariant theory is the research on the structure of R, say when

It is famous that when Hilbert showed that every ideal in the

M. F. Atiyah and I. G. MacDonald

2. multiplication is associative: (ab)c = a(bc),

3. and distributive over addition: (a + b)c = ac + bc,

x + y , ax ∈ I for all x, y ∈ I and a ∈ R.

. I = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) for some a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ R.

2. Let I ⊆ I ⊆ · · · ⊆ I ⊆ · · · be an ascending chain of ideals in

. element which is maximal with respect to inclusion.

for some a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ R. Take k ≫ 0 so that a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ Ik .

with a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ R. Since J ⊊ I , we have an+1 ∈ I \ J, which is

J = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) ⊊ (a1 , a2 , . . . an , an+1 ) ⊆ I

and J is maximal in S. Hence these three conditions are equivalent

We generally have the following.

The reason for the great success of Noetherian ring

2. (Hilbert’s basis theorem) The polynomial rings

R[X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ] and the formal power series rings

Starting from Z, Q, R, C, this theorem enables us to construct

(a0 ) ⊆ (a0 , a1 ) ⊆ · · · ⊆ (a0 , a1 , . . . , an ) ⊆ · · ·

of ideals in R. We choose an integer n ≫ 0 so that∑

Then g ∈ I but g ̸∈ (f0 , f1 , . . . , fn−1 ), since fn ̸∈ (f0 , f1 , . . . , fn−1 ).

. Let J, K be ideals of R. If I = J ∩ K , then I = J or I = K .

for some ideals J, K such that I ⊊ J and I ⊊ K . Then J, K ̸∈ S and

of ideals in R and choose n ≫ 0 so that I : b n = I : b n+1 . Then

and therefore by the irreducibility of I we have I = I + (a) or

Figure: Emanuel Lasker

W. Krull : Krull’s intersection theorem, Krull’s altitude theorem;

The revolution in commutative algebra was brought in 1955 by J.-P.

dim R = sup{n ≥ 0 | ∃a chain P0 ⊊ P1 ⊊ · · · ⊊ Pn of prime ideals in R}

and call it the dimension of R. Then it is known that

where v (R) denotes the least number of elements in R which

Around 1950, this was one of the biggest open problems in

1. gldim R := sup pd M = pd R/m.

Then the aﬃrmative answer of the localization problem readily

Commutative Algebra is a local theory of schemes.

D. Rees, M. Nagata, H. Bass, D. A. Buchsbaum,

M. Hochster, C. Huneke (rings of positive characteristic

Regular rings ⇒ Complete intersections ⇒ Gorenstein rings

In Ch p > 0 case, there is another path.

Regular rings ⇒ F–regular rings ⇒ F–rational rings ⇒

Combinatorial Aspects in Commutative Algebra

You might also like