Ideal (ring theory)

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists

In mathematics, and more specifically in ring theory, an ideal of a ring is a special subset of its elements. Ideals generalize certain subsets of the integers, such as the even numbers or the multiples of 3. Addition and subtraction of even numbers preserves evenness, and multiplying an even number by any integer (even or odd) results in an even number; these closure and absorption properties are the defining properties of an ideal. An ideal can be used to construct a quotient ring in a way similar to how, in group theory, a normal subgroup can be used to construct a quotient group.

Among the integers, the ideals correspond one-for-one with the non-negative integers: in this ring, every ideal is a principal ideal consisting of the multiples of a single non-negative number. However, in other rings, the ideals may not correspond directly to the ring elements, and certain properties of integers, when generalized to rings, attach more naturally to the ideals than to the elements of the ring. For instance, the prime ideals of a ring are analogous to prime numbers, and the Chinese remainder theorem can be generalized to ideals. There is a version of unique prime factorization for the ideals of a Dedekind domain (a type of ring important in number theory).

The related, but distinct, concept of an ideal in order theory is derived from the notion of ideal in ring theory. A fractional ideal is a generalization of an ideal, and the usual ideals are sometimes called integral ideals for clarity.

History

Ernst Kummer invented the concept of ideal numbers to serve as the "missing" factors in number rings in which unique factorization fails; here the word "ideal" is in the sense of existing in imagination only, in analogy with "ideal" objects in geometry such as points at infinity.[1] In 1876, Richard Dedekind replaced Kummer's undefined concept by concrete sets of numbers, sets that he called ideals, in the third edition of Dirichlet's book Vorlesungen รผber Zahlentheorie, to which Dedekind had added many supplements.[1][2][3] Later the notion was extended beyond number rings to the setting of polynomial rings and other commutative rings by David Hilbert and especially Emmy Noether.

Definitions

Given a ring Template:Mvar, a left ideal is a subset Template:Mvar of Template:Mvar that is a subgroup of the additive group of R that "absorbs multiplication from the left by elements of Template:Tmath"; that is, I is a left ideal if it satisfies the following two conditions:

  1. (I,+) is a subgroup of Template:Tmath,
  2. For every rR and every Template:Tmath, the product rx is in Template:Tmath.[4]

In other words, a left ideal is a left submodule of Template:Mvar, considered as a left module over itself.[5]

A right ideal is defined similarly, with the condition rxI replaced by Template:Tmath. A two-sided ideal is a left ideal that is also a right ideal.

If the ring is commutative, the three definitions are the same, and one talks simply of an ideal. In the non-commutative case, "ideal" is often used instead of "two-sided ideal".

If Template:Mvar is a left, right or two-sided ideal, the relation xy if and only if

xyI

is an equivalence relation on Template:Mvar, and the set of equivalence classes forms a left, right or bi module denoted R/I and called the quotient of Template:Mvar by Template:Mvar.[6] (It is an instance of a congruence relation and is a generalization of modular arithmetic.)

If the ideal Template:Mvar is two-sided, R/I is a ring,[7] and the function

RR/I

that associates to each element of Template:Mvar its equivalence class is a surjective ring homomorphism that has the ideal as its kernel.[8] Conversely, the kernel of a ring homomorphism is a two-sided ideal. Therefore, the two-sided ideals are exactly the kernels of ring homomorphisms.

Note on convention

By convention, a ring has the multiplicative identity. But some authors do not require a ring to have the multiplicative identity; i.e., for them, a ring is a rng. For a rng Template:Mvar, a left ideal Template:Mvar is a subrng with the additional property that rx is in Template:Mvar for every rR and every xI. (Right and two-sided ideals are defined similarly.) For a ring, an ideal Template:Mvar (say a left ideal) is rarely a subring; since a subring shares the same multiplicative identity with the ambient ring Template:Mvar, if Template:Mvar were a subring, for every rR, we have r=r1I; i.e., I=R.

The notion of an ideal does not involve associativity; thus, an ideal is also defined for non-associative rings (often without the multiplicative identity) such as a Lie algebra.

Examples and properties

(For the sake of brevity, some results are stated only for left ideals but are usually also true for right ideals with appropriate notation changes.)

  • In a ring R, the set R itself forms a two-sided ideal of R called the unit ideal. It is often also denoted by (1) since it is precisely the two-sided ideal generated (see below) by the unity Template:Tmath. Also, the set {0R} consisting of only the additive identity 0R forms a two-sided ideal called the zero ideal and is denoted by Template:Tmath.[note 1] Every (left, right or two-sided) ideal contains the zero ideal and is contained in the unit ideal.Template:Sfnp
  • An (left, right or two-sided) ideal that is not the unit ideal is called a proper ideal (as it is a proper subset).[9] Note: a left ideal ๐”ž is proper if and only if it does not contain a unit element, since if u๐”ž is a unit element, then r=(ru1)u๐”ž for every Template:Tmath. Typically there are plenty of proper ideals. In fact, if R is a skew-field, then (0),(1) are its only ideals and conversely: that is, a nonzero ring R is a skew-field if (0),(1) are the only left (or right) ideals. (Proof: if x is a nonzero element, then the principal left ideal Rx (see below) is nonzero and thus Rx=(1); i.e., yx=1 for some nonzero Template:Tmath. Likewise, zy=1 for some nonzero z. Then z=z(yx)=(zy)x=x.)
  • The even integers form an ideal in the ring โ„ค of all integers, since the sum of any two even integers is even, and the product of any integer with an even integer is also even; this ideal is usually denoted by Template:Tmath. More generally, the set of all integers divisible by a fixed integer n is an ideal denoted Template:Tmath. In fact, every non-zero ideal of the ring โ„ค is generated by its smallest positive element, as a consequence of Euclidean division, so โ„ค is a principal ideal domain.Template:Sfnp
  • The set of all polynomials with real coefficients that are divisible by the polynomial x2+1 is an ideal in the ring of all real-coefficient polynomials Template:Tmath.
  • Take a ring R and positive integer Template:Tmath. For each Template:Tmath, the set of all n×n matrices with entries in R whose i-th row is zero is a right ideal in the ring Mn(R) of all n×n matrices with entries in Template:Tmath. It is not a left ideal. Similarly, for each Template:Tmath, the set of all n×n matrices whose j-th column is zero is a left ideal but not a right ideal.
  • The ring C(โ„) of all continuous functions f from โ„ to โ„ under pointwise multiplication contains the ideal of all continuous functions f such that Template:Tmath.Template:Sfnp Another ideal in C(โ„) is given by those functions that vanish for large enough arguments, i.e. those continuous functions f for which there exists a number L>0 such that f(x)=0 whenever Template:Tmath.
  • A ring is called a simple ring if it is nonzero and has no two-sided ideals other than Template:Tmath. Thus, a skew-field is simple and a simple commutative ring is a field. The matrix ring over a skew-field is a simple ring.
  • If f:RS is a ring homomorphism, then the kernel ker(f)=f1(0S) is a two-sided ideal of Template:Tmath.Template:Sfnp By definition, Template:Tmath, and thus if S is not the zero ring (so Template:Tmath), then ker(f) is a proper ideal. More generally, for each left ideal I of S, the pre-image f1(I) is a left ideal. If I is a left ideal of R, then f(I) is a left ideal of the subring f(R) of S: unless f is surjective, f(I) need not be an ideal of S; see also #Extension and contraction of an ideal below.
  • Ideal correspondence: Given a surjective ring homomorphism Template:Tmath, there is a bijective order-preserving correspondence between the left (resp. right, two-sided) ideals of R containing the kernel of f and the left (resp. right, two-sided) ideals of S: the correspondence is given by If(I) and the pre-image Template:Tmath. Moreover, for commutative rings, this bijective correspondence restricts to prime ideals, maximal ideals, and radical ideals (see the Types of ideals section for the definitions of these ideals).
  • (For those who know modules) If M is a left R-module and SM a subset, then the annihilator AnnR(S)={rRrs=0,sS} of S is a left ideal. Given ideals ๐”ž,๐”Ÿ of a commutative ring R, the R-annihilator of (๐”Ÿ+๐”ž)/๐”ž is an ideal of R called the ideal quotient of ๐”ž by ๐”Ÿ and is denoted by Template:Tmath; it is an instance of idealizer in commutative algebra.
  • Let ๐”ži,iS be an ascending chain of left ideals in a ring R; i.e., S is a totally ordered set and ๐”ži๐”žj for each Template:Tmath. Then the union iS๐”ži is a left ideal of R. (Note: this fact remains true even if R is without the unity 1.)
  • The above fact together with Zorn's lemma proves the following: if ER is a possibly empty subset and ๐”ž0R is a left ideal that is disjoint from E, then there is an ideal that is maximal among the ideals containing ๐”ž0 and disjoint from E. (Again this is still valid if the ring R lacks the unity 1.) When R0, taking ๐”ž0=(0) and Template:Tmath, in particular, there exists a left ideal that is maximal among proper left ideals (often simply called a maximal left ideal); see Krull's theorem for more.
  • An arbitrary union of ideals need not be an ideal, but the following is still true: given a possibly empty subset X of R, there is the smallest left ideal containing X, called the left ideal generated by X and is denoted by Template:Tmath. Such an ideal exists since it is the intersection of all left ideals containing X. Equivalently, RX is the set of all the (finite) left R-linear combinations of elements of X over R:
    RX={r1x1++rnxnnโ„•,riR,xiX}.
(since such a span is the smallest left ideal containing X.)[note 2] A right (resp. two-sided) ideal generated by X is defined in the similar way. For "two-sided", one has to use linear combinations from both sides; i.e.,
RXR={r1x1s1++rnxnsnnโ„•,riR,siR,xiX}.
  • A left (resp. right, two-sided) ideal generated by a single element x is called the principal left (resp. right, two-sided) ideal generated by x and is denoted by Rx (resp. Template:Tmath). The principal two-sided ideal RxR is often also denoted by Template:Tmath. If X={x1,,xn} is a finite set, then RXR is also written as Template:Tmath.
  • There is a bijective correspondence between ideals and congruence relations (equivalence relations that respect the ring structure) on the ring: Given an ideal I of a ring Template:Tmath, let xy if Template:Tmath. Then is a congruence relation on Template:Tmath. Conversely, given a congruence relation on Template:Tmath, let Template:Tmath. Then I is an ideal of Template:Tmath.

Types of ideals

To simplify the description all rings are assumed to be commutative. The non-commutative case is discussed in detail in the respective articles.

Ideals are important because they appear as kernels of ring homomorphisms and allow one to define factor rings. Different types of ideals are studied because they can be used to construct different types of factor rings.

Two other important terms using "ideal" are not always ideals of their ring. See their respective articles for details:

Ideal operations

The sum and product of ideals are defined as follows. For ๐”ž and Template:Tmath, left (resp. right) ideals of a ring R, their sum is

๐”ž+๐”Ÿ:={a+ba๐”ž and b๐”Ÿ},

which is a left (resp. right) ideal, and, if ๐”ž,๐”Ÿ are two-sided,

๐”ž๐”Ÿ:={a1b1++anbnai๐”ž and bi๐”Ÿ,i=1,2,,n; for n=1,2,},

i.e. the product is the ideal generated by all products of the form ab with a in ๐”ž and b in Template:Tmath.

Note ๐”ž+๐”Ÿ is the smallest left (resp. right) ideal containing both ๐”ž and ๐”Ÿ (or the union Template:Tmath), while the product ๐”ž๐”Ÿ is contained in the intersection of ๐”ž and Template:Tmath.

The distributive law holds for two-sided ideals Template:Tmath,

If a product is replaced by an intersection, a partial distributive law holds:

๐”ž(๐”Ÿ+๐” )๐”ž๐”Ÿ+๐”ž๐” 

where the equality holds if ๐”ž contains ๐”Ÿ or ๐” .

Remark: The sum and the intersection of ideals is again an ideal; with these two operations as join and meet, the set of all ideals of a given ring forms a complete modular lattice. The lattice is not, in general, a distributive lattice. The three operations of intersection, sum (or join), and product make the set of ideals of a commutative ring into a quantale.

If ๐”ž,๐”Ÿ are ideals of a commutative ring R, then ๐”ž๐”Ÿ=๐”ž๐”Ÿ in the following two cases (at least)

(More generally, the difference between a product and an intersection of ideals is measured by the Tor functor: Template:Tmath.[13])

An integral domain is called a Dedekind domain if for each pair of ideals ๐”ž๐”Ÿ, there is an ideal ๐”  such that Template:Tmath.Template:Sfnp It can then be shown that every nonzero ideal of a Dedekind domain can be uniquely written as a product of maximal ideals, a generalization of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

Examples of ideal operations

In โ„ค we have

(n)(m)=lcm(n,m)โ„ค

since (n)(m) is the set of integers that are divisible by both n and Template:Tmath.

Let R=โ„‚[x,y,z,w] and let Template:Tmath. Then,

  • ๐”ž+๐”Ÿ=(z,w,x+z,y+w)=(x,y,z,w) and ๐”ž+๐” =(z,w,x)
  • ๐”ž๐”Ÿ=(z(x+z),z(y+w),w(x+z),w(y+w))=(z2+xz,zy+wz,wx+wz,wy+w2)
  • ๐”ž๐” =(xz+z2,zw,xw+zw,w2)
  • ๐”ž๐”Ÿ=๐”ž๐”Ÿ while ๐”ž๐” =(w,xz+z2)๐”ž๐” 

In the first computation, we see the general pattern for taking the sum of two finitely generated ideals, it is the ideal generated by the union of their generators. In the last three we observe that products and intersections agree whenever the two ideals intersect in the zero ideal. These computations can be checked using Macaulay2.[14][15][16]

Radical of a ring

Template:Main

Ideals appear naturally in the study of modules, especially in the form of a radical.

For simplicity, we work with commutative rings but, with some changes, the results are also true for non-commutative rings.

Let R be a commutative ring. By definition, a primitive ideal of R is the annihilator of a (nonzero) simple R-module. The Jacobson radical J=Jac(R) of R is the intersection of all primitive ideals. Equivalently,

J=๐”ช maximal ideals๐”ช.

Indeed, if M is a simple module and x is a nonzero element in M, then Rx=M and R/Ann(M)=R/Ann(x)M, meaning Ann(M) is a maximal ideal. Conversely, if ๐”ช is a maximal ideal, then ๐”ช is the annihilator of the simple R-module Template:Tmath. There is also another characterization (the proof is not hard):

J={xR1yx is a unit element for every yR}.

For a not-necessarily-commutative ring, it is a general fact that 1yx is a unit element if and only if 1xy is (see the link) and so this last characterization shows that the radical can be defined both in terms of left and right primitive ideals.

The following simple but important fact (Nakayama's lemma) is built-in to the definition of a Jacobson radical: if M is a module such that Template:Tmath, then M does not admit a maximal submodule, since if there is a maximal submodule Template:Tmath, J(M/L)=0 and so Template:Tmath, a contradiction. Since a nonzero finitely generated module admits a maximal submodule, in particular, one has:

If JM=M and M is finitely generated, then Template:Tmath.

A maximal ideal is a prime ideal and so one has

nil(R)=๐”ญ prime ideals ๐”ญJac(R)

where the intersection on the left is called the nilradical of R. As it turns out, nil(R) is also the set of nilpotent elements of R.

If R is an Artinian ring, then Jac(R) is nilpotent and Template:Tmath. (Proof: first note the DCC implies Jn=Jn+1 for some n. If (DCC) ๐”žAnn(Jn) is an ideal properly minimal over the latter, then J(๐”ž/Ann(Jn))=0. That is, Template:Tmath, a contradiction.)

Extension and contraction of an ideal

Let A and B be two commutative rings, and let f : A โ†’ B be a ring homomorphism. If ๐”ž is an ideal in A, then f(๐”ž) need not be an ideal in B (e.g. take f to be the inclusion of the ring of integers Z into the field of rationals Q). The extension ๐”že of ๐”ž in B is defined to be the ideal in B generated by Template:Tmath. Explicitly,

๐”že={yif(xi):xi๐”ž,yiB}

If ๐”Ÿ is an ideal of B, then f1(๐”Ÿ) is always an ideal of A, called the contraction ๐”Ÿc of ๐”Ÿ to A.

Assuming f : A โ†’ B is a ring homomorphism, ๐”ž is an ideal in A, ๐”Ÿ is an ideal in B, then:

  • ๐”Ÿ is prime in B ๐”Ÿc is prime in A.
  • ๐”žec๐”ž
  • ๐”Ÿce๐”Ÿ

It is false, in general, that ๐”ž being prime (or maximal) in A implies that ๐”že is prime (or maximal) in B. Many classic examples of this stem from algebraic number theory. For example, embedding Template:Tmath. In B=โ„ค[i], the element 2 factors as 2=(1+i)(1i) where (one can show) neither of 1+i,1i are units in B. So (2)e is not prime in B (and therefore not maximal, as well). Indeed, (1±i)2=±2i shows that Template:Tmath, Template:Tmath, and therefore Template:Tmath.

On the other hand, if f is surjective and ๐”žkerf then:

Remark: Let K be a field extension of L, and let B and A be the rings of integers of K and L, respectively. Then B is an integral extension of A, and we let f be the inclusion map from A to B. The behaviour of a prime ideal ๐”ž=๐”ญ of A under extension is one of the central problems of algebraic number theory.

The following is sometimes useful:Template:Sfnp a prime ideal ๐”ญ is a contraction of a prime ideal if and only if Template:Tmath. (Proof: Assuming the latter, note ๐”ญeB๐”ญ=B๐”ญ๐”ญe intersects Template:Tmath, a contradiction. Now, the prime ideals of B๐”ญ correspond to those in B that are disjoint from Template:Tmath. Hence, there is a prime ideal ๐”ฎ of B, disjoint from Template:Tmath, such that ๐”ฎB๐”ญ is a maximal ideal containing Template:Tmath. One then checks that ๐”ฎ lies over Template:Tmath. The converse is obvious.)

Generalizations

Ideals can be generalized to any monoid object Template:Tmath, where R is the object where the monoid structure has been forgotten. A left ideal of R is a subobject I that "absorbs multiplication from the left by elements of Template:Tmath"; that is, I is a left ideal if it satisfies the following two conditions:

  1. I is a subobject of R
  2. For every r(R,) and every Template:Tmath, the product rx is in Template:Tmath.

A right ideal is defined with the condition "Template:Tmath" replaced by "'Template:Tmath". A two-sided ideal is a left ideal that is also a right ideal, and is sometimes simply called an ideal. When R is a commutative monoid object respectively, the definitions of left, right, and two-sided ideal coincide, and the term ideal is used alone.

An ideal can also be thought of as a specific type of [[Module_(mathematics)|Template:Math-module]]. If we consider R as a left R-module (by left multiplication), then a left ideal I is really just a left sub-module of Template:Tmath. In other words, I is a left (right) ideal of R if and only if it is a left (right) R-module that is a subset of Template:Tmath. I is a two-sided ideal if it is a sub-R-bimodule of Template:Tmath.

Example: If we let Template:Tmath, an ideal of โ„ค is an abelian group that is a subset of Template:Tmath, i.e. mโ„ค for some Template:Tmath. So these give all the ideals of Template:Tmath.

See also

Notes

Template:Reflist

References

Template:Reflist Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

Template:Authority control


Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "note", but no corresponding <references group="note"/> tag was found