Fdtxjr

Is it possible to have a strip of cold climate in the middle of a planet?

Can someone explain how this makes sense electrically?

Aragorn's "guise" in the Orthanc Stone

Why did the HMS Bounty go back to a time when whales are already rare?

When were female captains banned from Starfleet?

What should you do if you miss a job interview (deliberately)?

Loading commands from file

Is "staff" singular or plural?

250 Floor Tower

Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank

When a Cleric spontaneously casts a Cure Light Wounds spell, will a Pearl of Power recover the original spell or Cure Light Wounds?

Argument list too long when zipping large list of certain files in a folder

Is there a single word describing earning money through any means?

If a character has darkvision, can they see through an area of nonmagical darkness filled with lightly obscuring gas?

How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?

Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?

Calculating Wattage for Resistor in High Frequency Application?

Electoral considerations aside, what are potential benefits, for the US, of policy changes proposed by the tweet recognizing Golan annexation?

Problem with TransformedDistribution

Melting point of aspirin, contradicting sources

What is this called? Old film camera viewer?

Lowest total scrabble score

Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?

Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?

Does this property of comaximal ideals always hold?

Unital commutative ring and distinct maximal ideals.Intersection of distinct maximal ideals in a commutative ring with identity.Where does the proof for commutative rings break down in the non-commutative ring when showing only two ideals implies the ring is a field?Direct-Sum Decomposition of an Artinian moduleProve that $m_1m_2ldots m_r=n_1n_2ldots n_s$ implies $r=s$ for distinct maximal idealshow is $m_1 m_2…m_i/m_1 m_2…m_i+1$ a vector space over $A/m_i+1$?Question about maximal ideals in a commutative Artinian ringDoes an Artinian ring have only finitely many maximal left ideals?Are non-coprime ideals always contained in some prime ideal?Product of ideals equals intersection but they are not comaximal

5

1

$begingroup$

I am reading a paper in which the following result is used, but I can’t see the proof of this.

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with only two maximal ideals, say $M_1$ and $M_2$. Suppose $m_1 in M_1$ is such that $m_1 notin M_2$. Then can we always find $m_2 in M_2$ such that $m_1+m_2=1$?

Any ideas?

abstract-algebra ring-theory maximal-and-prime-ideals

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 15 at 18:42

Peter Mortensen

563310

asked Mar 15 at 2:05

Math LoverMath Lover

1,034315

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Consider the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$, this ideal must be $R=(1)$ since $M_2$ is maximal
  $endgroup$
  – B.Swan
  Mar 15 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @B.Swan this approach doesn't work, to see why try writing out the details
  $endgroup$
  – Alex Mathers
  Mar 15 at 2:17
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Set $I=(M_2 cup m_1) $, the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$. Elements of $I$ have the form $x+rm_1$, where $x in M_2$ and $r in R$. Since $m_1 notin M_2$ and $M_2$ maximal, it follows $I=R$. Thus there exists $s in R$ with $1=x+sm_1$. And I guess one gets stuck here. Sorry for the wrong approach and thanks for pointing it out.
  $endgroup$
  – B.Swan
  Mar 15 at 2:27
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

1

$begingroup$

I am reading a paper in which the following result is used, but I can’t see the proof of this.

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with only two maximal ideals, say $M_1$ and $M_2$. Suppose $m_1 in M_1$ is such that $m_1 notin M_2$. Then can we always find $m_2 in M_2$ such that $m_1+m_2=1$?

Any ideas?

abstract-algebra ring-theory maximal-and-prime-ideals

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 15 at 18:42

Peter Mortensen

563310

asked Mar 15 at 2:05

Math LoverMath Lover

1,034315

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Consider the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$, this ideal must be $R=(1)$ since $M_2$ is maximal
  $endgroup$
  – B.Swan
  Mar 15 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @B.Swan this approach doesn't work, to see why try writing out the details
  $endgroup$
  – Alex Mathers
  Mar 15 at 2:17
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Set $I=(M_2 cup m_1) $, the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$. Elements of $I$ have the form $x+rm_1$, where $x in M_2$ and $r in R$. Since $m_1 notin M_2$ and $M_2$ maximal, it follows $I=R$. Thus there exists $s in R$ with $1=x+sm_1$. And I guess one gets stuck here. Sorry for the wrong approach and thanks for pointing it out.
  $endgroup$
  – B.Swan
  Mar 15 at 2:27
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

I am reading a paper in which the following result is used, but I can’t see the proof of this.

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with only two maximal ideals, say $M_1$ and $M_2$. Suppose $m_1 in M_1$ is such that $m_1 notin M_2$. Then can we always find $m_2 in M_2$ such that $m_1+m_2=1$?

Any ideas?

abstract-algebra ring-theory maximal-and-prime-ideals

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 15 at 18:42

Peter Mortensen

563310

asked Mar 15 at 2:05

Math LoverMath Lover

1,034315

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 15 at 18:42

Peter Mortensen

563310

asked Mar 15 at 2:05

Math LoverMath Lover

1,034315

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 15 at 18:42

Peter Mortensen

563310

asked Mar 15 at 2:05

Math LoverMath Lover

1,034315

edited Mar 15 at 18:42

Peter Mortensen

563310

edited Mar 15 at 18:42

Peter Mortensen

563310

asked Mar 15 at 2:05

Math LoverMath Lover

1,034315

asked Mar 15 at 2:05

Math LoverMath Lover

1,034315

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

8

$begingroup$

Take $R=mathbbQtimesmathbbQ$, $M_1=mathbbQtimes0$, $M_2=0timesmathbbQ$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbbQtimesmathbbQ$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$

Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.

Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 3:52

answered Mar 15 at 3:00

user647486user647486

47919

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

5

$begingroup$

First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.

Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.

---

Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 2:29

answered Mar 15 at 2:15

Alex MathersAlex Mathers

11.1k21344

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3148803%2fdoes-this-property-of-comaximal-ideals-always-hold%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

8

$begingroup$

Take $R=mathbbQtimesmathbbQ$, $M_1=mathbbQtimes0$, $M_2=0timesmathbbQ$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbbQtimesmathbbQ$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$

Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.

Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 3:52

answered Mar 15 at 3:00

user647486user647486

47919

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

8

$begingroup$

Take $R=mathbbQtimesmathbbQ$, $M_1=mathbbQtimes0$, $M_2=0timesmathbbQ$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbbQtimesmathbbQ$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$

Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.

Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 3:52

answered Mar 15 at 3:00

user647486user647486

47919

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Take $R=mathbbQtimesmathbbQ$, $M_1=mathbbQtimes0$, $M_2=0timesmathbbQ$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbbQtimesmathbbQ$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$

Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.

Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 3:52

answered Mar 15 at 3:00

user647486user647486

47919

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 3:52

answered Mar 15 at 3:00

user647486user647486

47919

answered Mar 15 at 3:00

user647486user647486

47919

answered Mar 15 at 3:00

user647486user647486

47919

5

$begingroup$

First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.

Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.

---

Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 2:29

answered Mar 15 at 2:15

Alex MathersAlex Mathers

11.1k21344

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

5

$begingroup$

First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.

Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.

---

Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 2:29

answered Mar 15 at 2:15

Alex MathersAlex Mathers

11.1k21344

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.

Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.

---

Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 2:29

answered Mar 15 at 2:15

Alex MathersAlex Mathers

11.1k21344

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 15 at 2:29

answered Mar 15 at 2:15

Alex MathersAlex Mathers

11.1k21344

answered Mar 15 at 2:15

Alex MathersAlex Mathers

11.1k21344

answered Mar 15 at 2:15

Alex MathersAlex Mathers

11.1k21344