Prove $(0) = (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$ in $R=frac{k[x,y,z]}{(x^2,xy)}$












0














Studying for my algebra final and doing some practice problems, and I can't seem to understand this one...



Full problem:



Let $k$ be a field, and $R=frac{k[x,y,z]}{(x^2,xy)}$. For $ninmathbb{N}, lambdain k^*,$ show $(0) = (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$.



I was going to do a proof by contradiction, but I'm having trouble understanding the form of elements of $R$. I feel like if I understood that better, it would be fairly easy to show that no nonzero element of R can be in the right hand side of the equation provided.



Any help and hints are greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!



edit: So my next thought is to find a minimal primary decomposition for $(x^2, xy)$, as it's my understanding that that decomposition is the same as the primary decomposition for $(0)$ in $R$. It's a monomial ideal, so you can reduce it to $(x)cap(x^2,y)$. I'm not really sure where to go from here though.










share|cite|improve this question





























    0














    Studying for my algebra final and doing some practice problems, and I can't seem to understand this one...



    Full problem:



    Let $k$ be a field, and $R=frac{k[x,y,z]}{(x^2,xy)}$. For $ninmathbb{N}, lambdain k^*,$ show $(0) = (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$.



    I was going to do a proof by contradiction, but I'm having trouble understanding the form of elements of $R$. I feel like if I understood that better, it would be fairly easy to show that no nonzero element of R can be in the right hand side of the equation provided.



    Any help and hints are greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!



    edit: So my next thought is to find a minimal primary decomposition for $(x^2, xy)$, as it's my understanding that that decomposition is the same as the primary decomposition for $(0)$ in $R$. It's a monomial ideal, so you can reduce it to $(x)cap(x^2,y)$. I'm not really sure where to go from here though.










    share|cite|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0







      Studying for my algebra final and doing some practice problems, and I can't seem to understand this one...



      Full problem:



      Let $k$ be a field, and $R=frac{k[x,y,z]}{(x^2,xy)}$. For $ninmathbb{N}, lambdain k^*,$ show $(0) = (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$.



      I was going to do a proof by contradiction, but I'm having trouble understanding the form of elements of $R$. I feel like if I understood that better, it would be fairly easy to show that no nonzero element of R can be in the right hand side of the equation provided.



      Any help and hints are greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!



      edit: So my next thought is to find a minimal primary decomposition for $(x^2, xy)$, as it's my understanding that that decomposition is the same as the primary decomposition for $(0)$ in $R$. It's a monomial ideal, so you can reduce it to $(x)cap(x^2,y)$. I'm not really sure where to go from here though.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Studying for my algebra final and doing some practice problems, and I can't seem to understand this one...



      Full problem:



      Let $k$ be a field, and $R=frac{k[x,y,z]}{(x^2,xy)}$. For $ninmathbb{N}, lambdain k^*,$ show $(0) = (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$.



      I was going to do a proof by contradiction, but I'm having trouble understanding the form of elements of $R$. I feel like if I understood that better, it would be fairly easy to show that no nonzero element of R can be in the right hand side of the equation provided.



      Any help and hints are greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!



      edit: So my next thought is to find a minimal primary decomposition for $(x^2, xy)$, as it's my understanding that that decomposition is the same as the primary decomposition for $(0)$ in $R$. It's a monomial ideal, so you can reduce it to $(x)cap(x^2,y)$. I'm not really sure where to go from here though.







      abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra ideals polynomial-rings






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 8 at 20:32

























      asked Dec 8 at 18:38









      tenzs

      63




      63






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Let $pi: k[x,y,z] rightarrow k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ be the canonical projection. Note that an ideal $J subseteq k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ is $0$ iff $pi^{-1}(J) subseteq (x^2, xy)$. Thus we don't really need to work in the factor ring at all. Rather, it suffices to show that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) subseteq k[x,y,z]$ implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.



          To do this, write $f = g(xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) = hx$ for some $g,h in k[x,y,z]$. Since $x$ is a prime element in $k[x,y,z]$, necessarily $x$ divides $g$ or $xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n$. The latter is clearly impossible, so $x$ divides $g$, and it follows quickly that $f in (x^2, xy)$.



          Note that we didn't need $k$ to be a field, it could have been any commutative ring.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Thanks so much, this was really helpful!
            – tenzs
            Dec 9 at 5:43



















          1














          For a geometric perspective, we think of $R$ as the ring of polynomial functions on $X = operatorname{Spec} R$ which we can think of as ${(a,b,c) in k^3 : a^2 = ab = 0}$. This is contained inside the plane ${a = 0}$. But because of the square, there is a non-reduced structure. Namely, if $b = 0$ then $a^2 = 0$ is the only remaining equation and we think of this as having a doubled line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ inside $X$. Therefore $X$ is the plane ${a = 0}$ where the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ is doubled.



          To say that a function $f in R$ is zero now means that $f$ should vanish if we substitute $x = 0$ and should vanish "doubly" if we substitute $x = 0, y = 0$.



          So now let's say we have a function (i.e. polynomial) $f in (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$. Then we can factor $f$ as $f = xg = (xz^{n - 1} + lambda y^n)h$. If we substitute $x = 0$ then we can see that $f = xg = 0$. So indeed $f$ vanishes on the plane ${a = 0}$ in $k^3$.



          On the other hand, still keeping $x = 0$, we have $0 = f = lambda y^n h$. Now if we substitute $y = 0$ we can see that somehow $f$ is vanishing a second time. To make this more precise, the fact that $lambda y^n h(0,y,z) = 0$ means $h$ factors as $h = xh_0$ so that $f = (x z^{n - 1} + lambda y^{n-1})x h_0$ and now setting $y = 0$ we get $f = x^2z^{n - 1}$ which indeed vanishes doubly on the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$.



          Ignoring the geometric perspective, you can still see that we have shown that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n - 1} lambda y^n)$ (inside $k[x,y,z]$) implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3031463%2fprove-0-x-cap-xzn-1-lambda-yn-in-r-frackx-y-zx2-xy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            Let $pi: k[x,y,z] rightarrow k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ be the canonical projection. Note that an ideal $J subseteq k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ is $0$ iff $pi^{-1}(J) subseteq (x^2, xy)$. Thus we don't really need to work in the factor ring at all. Rather, it suffices to show that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) subseteq k[x,y,z]$ implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.



            To do this, write $f = g(xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) = hx$ for some $g,h in k[x,y,z]$. Since $x$ is a prime element in $k[x,y,z]$, necessarily $x$ divides $g$ or $xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n$. The latter is clearly impossible, so $x$ divides $g$, and it follows quickly that $f in (x^2, xy)$.



            Note that we didn't need $k$ to be a field, it could have been any commutative ring.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Thanks so much, this was really helpful!
              – tenzs
              Dec 9 at 5:43
















            2














            Let $pi: k[x,y,z] rightarrow k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ be the canonical projection. Note that an ideal $J subseteq k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ is $0$ iff $pi^{-1}(J) subseteq (x^2, xy)$. Thus we don't really need to work in the factor ring at all. Rather, it suffices to show that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) subseteq k[x,y,z]$ implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.



            To do this, write $f = g(xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) = hx$ for some $g,h in k[x,y,z]$. Since $x$ is a prime element in $k[x,y,z]$, necessarily $x$ divides $g$ or $xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n$. The latter is clearly impossible, so $x$ divides $g$, and it follows quickly that $f in (x^2, xy)$.



            Note that we didn't need $k$ to be a field, it could have been any commutative ring.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Thanks so much, this was really helpful!
              – tenzs
              Dec 9 at 5:43














            2












            2








            2






            Let $pi: k[x,y,z] rightarrow k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ be the canonical projection. Note that an ideal $J subseteq k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ is $0$ iff $pi^{-1}(J) subseteq (x^2, xy)$. Thus we don't really need to work in the factor ring at all. Rather, it suffices to show that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) subseteq k[x,y,z]$ implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.



            To do this, write $f = g(xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) = hx$ for some $g,h in k[x,y,z]$. Since $x$ is a prime element in $k[x,y,z]$, necessarily $x$ divides $g$ or $xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n$. The latter is clearly impossible, so $x$ divides $g$, and it follows quickly that $f in (x^2, xy)$.



            Note that we didn't need $k$ to be a field, it could have been any commutative ring.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Let $pi: k[x,y,z] rightarrow k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ be the canonical projection. Note that an ideal $J subseteq k[x,y,z]/(x^2, xy)$ is $0$ iff $pi^{-1}(J) subseteq (x^2, xy)$. Thus we don't really need to work in the factor ring at all. Rather, it suffices to show that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) subseteq k[x,y,z]$ implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.



            To do this, write $f = g(xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n) = hx$ for some $g,h in k[x,y,z]$. Since $x$ is a prime element in $k[x,y,z]$, necessarily $x$ divides $g$ or $xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n$. The latter is clearly impossible, so $x$ divides $g$, and it follows quickly that $f in (x^2, xy)$.



            Note that we didn't need $k$ to be a field, it could have been any commutative ring.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 8 at 22:08

























            answered Dec 8 at 21:58









            Badam Baplan

            4,361722




            4,361722












            • Thanks so much, this was really helpful!
              – tenzs
              Dec 9 at 5:43


















            • Thanks so much, this was really helpful!
              – tenzs
              Dec 9 at 5:43
















            Thanks so much, this was really helpful!
            – tenzs
            Dec 9 at 5:43




            Thanks so much, this was really helpful!
            – tenzs
            Dec 9 at 5:43











            1














            For a geometric perspective, we think of $R$ as the ring of polynomial functions on $X = operatorname{Spec} R$ which we can think of as ${(a,b,c) in k^3 : a^2 = ab = 0}$. This is contained inside the plane ${a = 0}$. But because of the square, there is a non-reduced structure. Namely, if $b = 0$ then $a^2 = 0$ is the only remaining equation and we think of this as having a doubled line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ inside $X$. Therefore $X$ is the plane ${a = 0}$ where the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ is doubled.



            To say that a function $f in R$ is zero now means that $f$ should vanish if we substitute $x = 0$ and should vanish "doubly" if we substitute $x = 0, y = 0$.



            So now let's say we have a function (i.e. polynomial) $f in (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$. Then we can factor $f$ as $f = xg = (xz^{n - 1} + lambda y^n)h$. If we substitute $x = 0$ then we can see that $f = xg = 0$. So indeed $f$ vanishes on the plane ${a = 0}$ in $k^3$.



            On the other hand, still keeping $x = 0$, we have $0 = f = lambda y^n h$. Now if we substitute $y = 0$ we can see that somehow $f$ is vanishing a second time. To make this more precise, the fact that $lambda y^n h(0,y,z) = 0$ means $h$ factors as $h = xh_0$ so that $f = (x z^{n - 1} + lambda y^{n-1})x h_0$ and now setting $y = 0$ we get $f = x^2z^{n - 1}$ which indeed vanishes doubly on the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$.



            Ignoring the geometric perspective, you can still see that we have shown that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n - 1} lambda y^n)$ (inside $k[x,y,z]$) implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              For a geometric perspective, we think of $R$ as the ring of polynomial functions on $X = operatorname{Spec} R$ which we can think of as ${(a,b,c) in k^3 : a^2 = ab = 0}$. This is contained inside the plane ${a = 0}$. But because of the square, there is a non-reduced structure. Namely, if $b = 0$ then $a^2 = 0$ is the only remaining equation and we think of this as having a doubled line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ inside $X$. Therefore $X$ is the plane ${a = 0}$ where the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ is doubled.



              To say that a function $f in R$ is zero now means that $f$ should vanish if we substitute $x = 0$ and should vanish "doubly" if we substitute $x = 0, y = 0$.



              So now let's say we have a function (i.e. polynomial) $f in (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$. Then we can factor $f$ as $f = xg = (xz^{n - 1} + lambda y^n)h$. If we substitute $x = 0$ then we can see that $f = xg = 0$. So indeed $f$ vanishes on the plane ${a = 0}$ in $k^3$.



              On the other hand, still keeping $x = 0$, we have $0 = f = lambda y^n h$. Now if we substitute $y = 0$ we can see that somehow $f$ is vanishing a second time. To make this more precise, the fact that $lambda y^n h(0,y,z) = 0$ means $h$ factors as $h = xh_0$ so that $f = (x z^{n - 1} + lambda y^{n-1})x h_0$ and now setting $y = 0$ we get $f = x^2z^{n - 1}$ which indeed vanishes doubly on the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$.



              Ignoring the geometric perspective, you can still see that we have shown that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n - 1} lambda y^n)$ (inside $k[x,y,z]$) implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                For a geometric perspective, we think of $R$ as the ring of polynomial functions on $X = operatorname{Spec} R$ which we can think of as ${(a,b,c) in k^3 : a^2 = ab = 0}$. This is contained inside the plane ${a = 0}$. But because of the square, there is a non-reduced structure. Namely, if $b = 0$ then $a^2 = 0$ is the only remaining equation and we think of this as having a doubled line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ inside $X$. Therefore $X$ is the plane ${a = 0}$ where the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ is doubled.



                To say that a function $f in R$ is zero now means that $f$ should vanish if we substitute $x = 0$ and should vanish "doubly" if we substitute $x = 0, y = 0$.



                So now let's say we have a function (i.e. polynomial) $f in (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$. Then we can factor $f$ as $f = xg = (xz^{n - 1} + lambda y^n)h$. If we substitute $x = 0$ then we can see that $f = xg = 0$. So indeed $f$ vanishes on the plane ${a = 0}$ in $k^3$.



                On the other hand, still keeping $x = 0$, we have $0 = f = lambda y^n h$. Now if we substitute $y = 0$ we can see that somehow $f$ is vanishing a second time. To make this more precise, the fact that $lambda y^n h(0,y,z) = 0$ means $h$ factors as $h = xh_0$ so that $f = (x z^{n - 1} + lambda y^{n-1})x h_0$ and now setting $y = 0$ we get $f = x^2z^{n - 1}$ which indeed vanishes doubly on the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$.



                Ignoring the geometric perspective, you can still see that we have shown that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n - 1} lambda y^n)$ (inside $k[x,y,z]$) implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                For a geometric perspective, we think of $R$ as the ring of polynomial functions on $X = operatorname{Spec} R$ which we can think of as ${(a,b,c) in k^3 : a^2 = ab = 0}$. This is contained inside the plane ${a = 0}$. But because of the square, there is a non-reduced structure. Namely, if $b = 0$ then $a^2 = 0$ is the only remaining equation and we think of this as having a doubled line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ inside $X$. Therefore $X$ is the plane ${a = 0}$ where the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$ is doubled.



                To say that a function $f in R$ is zero now means that $f$ should vanish if we substitute $x = 0$ and should vanish "doubly" if we substitute $x = 0, y = 0$.



                So now let's say we have a function (i.e. polynomial) $f in (x)cap (xz^{n-1} + lambda y^n)$. Then we can factor $f$ as $f = xg = (xz^{n - 1} + lambda y^n)h$. If we substitute $x = 0$ then we can see that $f = xg = 0$. So indeed $f$ vanishes on the plane ${a = 0}$ in $k^3$.



                On the other hand, still keeping $x = 0$, we have $0 = f = lambda y^n h$. Now if we substitute $y = 0$ we can see that somehow $f$ is vanishing a second time. To make this more precise, the fact that $lambda y^n h(0,y,z) = 0$ means $h$ factors as $h = xh_0$ so that $f = (x z^{n - 1} + lambda y^{n-1})x h_0$ and now setting $y = 0$ we get $f = x^2z^{n - 1}$ which indeed vanishes doubly on the line ${a = 0, b = 0}$.



                Ignoring the geometric perspective, you can still see that we have shown that $f in (x) cap (xz^{n - 1} lambda y^n)$ (inside $k[x,y,z]$) implies $f in (x^2, xy)$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 8 at 22:37









                Trevor Gunn

                14.2k32046




                14.2k32046






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3031463%2fprove-0-x-cap-xzn-1-lambda-yn-in-r-frackx-y-zx2-xy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Bressuire

                    Cabo Verde

                    Gyllenstierna