More Concepts in Algebraic Geometry
As before, k denotes an algebraically closed field.
Recall that we have a bijection between radical ideals of and closed subsets of
.
The bijection reverses the inclusion so if and only if
. Not too surprisingly, operations on ideals translate to operations on the corresponding closed subsets.
Proposition 1.
Suppose closed subsets
correspond to radical ideals
.
corresponds to
.
corresponds to
.
Proof
For the first claim:
- Since
for any j, we have
and thus
.
- Conversely, if
, then any
gives
for some n > 0 so
is a finite sum of terms
. Each such
so
and thus
. We have shown:
.
- Finally, since
is a radical ideal, we are done.
Second claim:
- First, we show
.
- Since
we have
. Likewise
and we have shown ⊆.
- Conversely, if
lies outside S and T then there exist
and
such that
and thus
. Since
this gives
.
- Since intersection of radical ideals is radical, we have
. And since
from proposition 1 here, we are done. ♦
Prime and Maximal Ideals
Next, we wish to find the closed subsets corresponding to maximal and prime ideals of A.
Proposition 2.
Maximal ideals correspond to singleton subsets of
.
Proof
For a singleton set {P}, consider the evaluation map:
which is a ring homomorphism. This is clearly surjective so its kernel is a maximal ideal. By definition
.
Conversely, for a maximal ideal , since
its corresponding subset
by the Nullstellensatz. Thus it contains some P. From
we get
. By maximality of
equality holds so S = {P}. ♦
Exercise A
Prove that if then
.
Prime ideals are a little trickier, so we will have to introduce a new topological concept.
Definition.
A topological space X is said to be irreducible if it is non-empty, and any non-empty open subset of X is dense in X. Otherwise we say it is reducible.
We are getting repetitive, but empty spaces are excluded from the class of irreducible spaces for the same reason 1 is not prime. Later, we will see that closed subsets can be uniquely “factored” as a union of irreducible closed subsets.
Lemma 1.
The following are equivalent for any non-empty topological space X.
- X is irreducible.
- Any two non-empty open subsets of X must intersect.
- If closed subsets
have union X, then C = X or C’ = X.
Note
All criteria for irreducibility are useful at some point of time so it pays to take heed. We will study such spaces in greater detail at a later time.
Proof
The equivalence between 2 and 3 is straightforward. For equivalence of 1 and 2, use the fact that a subset of a topological space is dense if and only if every non-empty open subset intersects it. ♦
Proposition 3.
The prime ideals of A correspond to the irreducible closed subspaces of
.
Proof
Suppose V is irreducible and . Then
and
are closed subsets of V and
. Thus
so we have
.
Conversely suppose for a prime ideal
. Let
be closed subsets (of V, and hence of
) with union V. Write
for radical ideals
Thus corresponds to the ideal
and we have
. It remains to prove the following, which we will leave as an easy exercise. ♦
Exercise B
Suppose are ideals of any ring A with
prime. If
and
, then
or
.
Simple Example
We will work through a simple example step-by-step.
Let and consider the closed subset V cut out by
and
. Geometrically this gives the points of intersection between
(a circle) and
(a line). Clearly, we get two points (1, 1) and (-1, -1).
[Graph plotted by GeoGebra.]
Let us verify this algebraically.
Let . We have
so it remains to show that
is a radical ideal. We prove this by applying the following to the quotient ring
.
Lemma 2.
A ring A is said to be reduced if (0) is a radical ideal in A. Then an ideal
is radical if and only if
is reduced.
Proof
Exercise. ♦
First note that for any ring A and , we have an evaluation map
taking
. The kernel of this map is precisely (X – a); indeed it clearly contains (X – a), conversely any
can be written as
with
; if
we have r = 0. Hence we have
where the isomorphism takes X to a.
With that in mind we get:
because the first isomorphism takes X to Y. This corresponds to a set of two points {-1, +1} in the affine line . Now by Chinese Remainder Theorem, we have
which is a reduced ring. Hence is a reduced ring and
is a radical ideal.
The set of two points is reducible so its corresponding ideal is not prime. Indeed, we saw that
, but
.
Slight Variation
Let us now consider the set cut out by and
. Geometrically, we now have only one point of intersection.
[Graph plotted by GeoGebra.]
Let now. We have
This ring is non-reduced so is not a radical ideal. In fact,
which corresponds to the geometric picture.
But the story is not quite over!
Note that upon taking the radical of , we are actually losing information on the multiplicity of intersection. Since
satisfies
, this suggests that the intersection multiplicity is 2 here. Indeed we can construct a theory of intersection via considering general ideals instead of merely radical ideals.
Note
This seems like a tremendous amount of work for such simple geometric examples. But it looks tedious only because we took pains to explicitly justify every step. As you progress, the above computations will eventually seem too trivial to even contemplate.
In the following articles, we will consider a much harder example when we have more tools at our disposal.
It would be useful to mention that k is algebraically closed at the beginning of the post.
Good point. Done.
Could you explain how to obtain the radical of the ideal”a” in the secret example.
“Second example
By observation. Note that
. Also
is a maximal ideal so
cannot contain anything more.
The first part of the proof of the statement “The prime ideals of A correspond to the irreducible closed subspaces of \mathbb A^n_k.” does not seem entirely right. Should there be a comma between f and g? like “Suppose V is irreducible and
. Then the closed subsets …’
Thanks good catch!