Primary Decomposition of Ideals
Definition.
Let
be a proper ideal. A primary decomposition of
is its primary decomposition as an A-submodule of A:
where each
is
-primary for some prime
, i.e.
.
Here is a quick way to determine if an ideal is primary.
Proposition 1.
A proper ideal
is
-primary for some
if and only if:
,
in which case
.
Recall that is the radical of the ideal
.
Proof
(⇒) Suppose . By proposition 3 here, the set of zero-divisors (in A) of
is
. Now if
and
, then
is a zero-divisor of
so
.
To prove that , suppose
; then
is a zero-divisor for
so
and we have
. Conversely, if
, then since every minimal prime in
is an associated prime of
(by proposition 2 here), x is contained in every minimal prime of
. By proposition 5 here,
.
(⇐) Suppose satisfies the given condition; we first show that
is prime. Suppose
and
. For some n > 0,
. But
so by the given condition
and
.
Let ; it remains to show
. First,
is the unique minimal element of
so
.
Conversely, it remains to show any zero-divisor of as an A-module lies in
. But if
and
are such that
, then by the given condition
. ♦
We thus say a proper ideal is primary if:
.
Note that prime ideals are primary, and by proposition 1, the radical of a primary ideal is prime.
Exercise A
1. Prove that if is a ring homomorphism and
is a primary ideal, then
is a primary ideal of A. Also
.
2. Prove that for an ideal , there is a bijection between primary ideals of A containing
and primary ideals of
.
Primary Decomposition and Localization
Throughout this section is a fixed multiplicative subset.
Proposition 2.
There is a bijection between:
- primary ideals
such that
;
- primary ideals
Furthermore, if
is in the first set and
, then
.
Proof
By exercise A.2 above and proposition 3 here, it suffices to show: if is primary and
then
is primary, and
.
For the first claim, note that is a proper ideal since
. Suppose
satisfy
; then for some
we have
. Since
no power of s’ is contained in
so
.
For the second claim, clearly . Conversely let
satisfy
. For some
we have
. As above
so
. ♦
Finally, we will see later that unlike factorization of ideals in a Dedekind domain, primary decompositions are not unique. However we can still salvage the following.
Proposition 3.
Suppose we have minimal primary decompositions
with
for each i. If
is minimal in
then
.
Proof
We localize at
. But since
is minimal in
, we have
.
Hence . By proposition 2 this gives
which is uniquely determined by
. ♦
Exercise B
Prove the following.
1. If is a reduced ideal, then it (i.e.
) has no embedded primes.
2. If is maximal, then
is
-primary if and only if
for some n > 0.
A power of a prime ideal is not primary in general. E.g. let k be a field and
with
, which is prime since
.
Then is not primary because
but
and
.
Worked Examples
Throughout this section, k denotes a field.
Example 1
In an earlier example, we saw that for and
, the A-module
has two associated primes: (X) and (X, Y). The following are primary decompositions, both of which are clearly minimal:
.
To check that these ideals are primary:
is prime and hence primary;
is a power of the maximal ideal
; by exercise B.2 it is primary;
so
is primary by exercise B.2.
Note that . Geometrically, the k-scheme with coordinate ring
looks like the following.
Example 2
Let with
. Then
.
We have , an intersection of primary ideals with
and
. This translates to
with and
is already prime.
Example 3
Let with
. Then each of
,
and
is primary (the first ideal is prime; the remaining two ideals are powers of a maximal ideal). Hence this gives a primary decomposition of
so its associated primes are
,
and
, with the latter two embedded.
Geometrically, the k-scheme with coordinate ring looks like:
Computing an explicit set of generators for is not trivial, but it can be done with Buchberger’s algorithm.
Exercise C (from Atiyah & MacDonald, Exercise 4.5)
Let and
,
,
be ideals of A. Set
. Prove that
is a minimal primary decomposition of .