Prime Composition Series
Throughout this article, A is a noetherian ring and all A-modules are finitely generated.
Recall (proposition 1 here) that if M is a noetherian and artinian module, we can find a sequence of submodules whose consecutive factors are simple modules. Correspondingly we have:
Proposition 1.
For finitely generated M, there exists a sequence of submodules
such that each
as A-modules for prime ideals
.
Proof
Assume . Since
by proposition 3 here, there is an embedding of A-modules
. If equality holds, we are done. Otherwise, let
be the image of the map and repeat with
to obtain a submodule
. Repeating this process, this must eventually terminate since we cannot have an infinite ascending chain of submodules
. ♦
Corollary 1.
Let
be as in proposition 1 with
for some prime
. Then
.
In particular if M is finitely generated then
is finite.
Proof
Repeatedly applying proposition 4 here, we have
Since each for each i, we are done. ♦
Associated Primes and Support
If , then there is a map
; upon localizing at
we get an A-linear
and so
. Hence we have shown:
Lemma 1.
For any module M,
.
For a partial reverse inclusion, we have:
Proposition 2.
If
is a minimal element of
then
.
Proof
By proposition 5 here, we have
which is non-empty since . By lemma 1 this set lies in
; but since
is minimal in
, by exercise B.2 here
has exactly one element:
so
so by proposition 5 here again. ♦
Definition.
If
is not a minimal prime of
, we call it an embedded prime of M.
Example
Let k be a field, and
, considered as an A-module. Note that
with radical
so we get (by proposition 1 here)
.
On the other hand, we claim that . Indeed we have:
so and
is an embedded prime of M.
Conversely, we pick the chain of submodules with
generated by
. Then
; as shown above,
. Also
so by corollary 1
.
Exercise A
Find an A-module M and prime ideals with
but
.
Existence of Primary Decomposition
In this section we fix an ambient non-zero A-module M (finitely generated of course) and consider its submodules. For each prime , take the set
of all submodules
such that
. Note that
.
Now for each prime , fix a maximal element
.
Lemma 2.
We have
.
Note
If then
so the above intersection only needs to be taken over
, i.e. a finite number of terms.
Proof
Let . If
it has an associated prime
. Since
we have
, a contradiction. ♦
Lemma 3.
Let
. Then
.
Proof
By proposition 4 here, we have . Since
we have
. On the other hand if
, then we have an injection
whose image is of the form
. But now
which does not contain , contradicting maximality of
. Hence no such
exists. ♦
Definition.
For an associated prime
of M, a
–primary submodule of M is an
such that
.
A primary decomposition of M is an expression
where each
is a
-primary submodule of M.
The decomposition is irredundant if for any
,
. It is minimal if it is irredundant and all
are distinct.
By lemmas 2 and 3, a minimal primary decomposition exists for every non-zero module.
It is not true that in every primary decomposition
,
must be a maximal element of
. We will see an example in the next article.
Exercise B
Prove that if are
-primary submodules, so is
.
Hence given any primary decomposition, we can get a minimal one by first removing the redundant terms then taking the intersection of all with the same corresponding
.
Properties of Primary Decomposition
Here, we will discuss properties of a general primary decomposition. Throughout this section we fix:
where
is
-primary in M.
Proposition 3.
Every
must occur among the
.
Proof
Since the canonical map
is injective. Hence
♦
Proposition 4.
If the primary decomposition is irredundant, then every
is an associated prime of M.
Proof
If then among the injections
and
, we have
since
and
are disjoint. Thus
is injective
and , contradicting the condition of irredundancy. ♦
Note
Thus proposition 4 gives us a way to compute : find a primary decomposition and remove terms until it becomes irredundant. However, note that proposition 4 does not require
to be distinct.
Corollary 2.
If the primary decomposition is minimal, then
has exactly n elements.
Proof
Apply propositions 3 and 4. ♦
Finally, we define the primary decomposition of submodules.
Defintion.
Let
be a submodule. A primary decomposition of N in M is an expression
such that
is a
-primary submodule of M.
Note
A primary decomposition of N in M corresponds bijectively to a primary decomposition of M/N. We say the primary decomposition of N in M is irredundant or minimal if the corresponding primary decomposition of M/N is so.