Results 1 to 3 of 3

Math Help - [SOLVED] Seeking a better, more accurate and more elegant proof

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    410

    [SOLVED] Seeking a better, more accurate and more elegant proof

    Let N be the set of all nilpotent elements of a commutative ring R, and show that N\subseteq P for each prime ideal P of R.
    Proof: Let p\in P and a\in N. Then there is a positive integer m\geq 2 with a^m=0. Assume towards a contradiction that a\notin P. Since a^{m-1}a=a^m=0=0p\in P and a\notin P, then by definition of prime ideals we have a^{m-1}\in P. However, the same can be said for any integer n\geq 2, that is, if a^n\in P then a^{n-1}a\in P and therefore a^{n-1}\in P. By induction, since a^m\in P, then a\in P, which contradicts our assumption that a\notin P. So a\in P whenever a\in N, that is, N\subseteq P. \blacksquare

    The reasoning is sound, but I'm not quite sure how to best articulate it. I don't think "by induction" is completely appropriate, here. Also, I like to avoid by-contradiction proofs if possible. Does anyone have an idea for how I can more elegantly and accurately explain what's going on in this exercise?

    Thanks!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    Proof: Let p\in P and a\in N. Then there is a positive integer m\geq 2 with a^m=0. Assume towards a contradiction that a\notin P. Since a^{m-1}a=a^m=0=0p\in P and a\notin P, then by definition of prime ideals we have a^{m-1}\in P. However, the same can be said for any integer n\geq 2, that is, if a^n\in P then a^{n-1}a\in P and therefore a^{n-1}\in P. By induction, since a^m\in P, then a\in P, which contradicts our assumption that a\notin P. So a\in P whenever a\in N, that is, N\subseteq P. \blacksquare
    The reasoning is sound, but I'm not quite sure how to best articulate it. I don't think "by induction" is completely appropriate, here. Also, I like to avoid by-contradiction proofs if possible. Does anyone have an idea for how I can more elegantly and accurately explain what's going on in this exercise?

    Thanks!

    Why did you have to use contradiction at all? Let a be any nilpotent, then a^m=0\in P\Longrightarrow a\in P (as you showed this is fine)...and voila! No contradiction and short.

    Tonio
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    If you don't like that "finite induction" argument, you can derive the result about nilpotent elements as a corollary of a more general result:
    If a product a_1a_2\cdots a_n lies in a prime ideal P, then at least one of the elements a_i belongs to P.
    That result is easily proved, for all n\geqslant2, by a (standard) induction argument, the base case n=2 being just the definition of primality. The result about nilpotents follows by taking all the a_i to be equal to a.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Seeking for a Simple Proof
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 4th 2009, 07:10 AM
  2. Search for an 'elegant' solution
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 29th 2009, 05:50 AM
  3. Elegant Trigonometric Integral
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 9th 2008, 07:09 PM
  4. Seeking name for a formula
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 13th 2007, 12:28 PM
  5. Elegant Meaning of an Integral
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 19th 2006, 02:50 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum