Proof of a stronger form of Chinese remainder theorem (12.3) in Neukirch
Multi tool use
$begingroup$
Let $mathcal O$ be an order in a number field and ${mathfrak a} neq 0$ an ideal in $mathcal O$. Then the theorem shows ${mathcal O}/{mathfrak a} = oplus_{{mathfrak p} supseteq {mathfrak a}} {mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}/ {mathfrak a}{mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}$.
In the proof we set ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}} = {mathcal O} cap {mathfrak a}{mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}$ and it is claimed that using the bijective correspondence between primes and primes after localizing it follows : if ${mathfrak p} supseteq {mathfrak a}$ then $mathfrak p$ is the only prime ideal containing ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$.
The correspondence works only among the primes and I don't see why it is directly applicable to ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$.
My approach was : if ${mathfrak p} neq {mathfrak q} supseteq {mathfrak a}$ with ${mathfrak q} supseteq {{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$ then we can get a contradiction if ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}} {mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$ contain a unit of ${mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$. However, ${mathfrak a} subseteq {mathfrak p} cap {mathfrak q}$ and I don't see how a unit can be constructed.
Another way could be to take the multiplicative set $S = {mathcal O} setminus ({mathfrak p} cup {mathfrak q})$ and relate ${mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$ to ${mathcal O}_S$. Here again the same problem occurs.
commutative-algebra algebraic-number-theory
asked Jan 15 at 21:28
SiddharthaSiddhartha
416
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $mathcal O$ be an order in a number field and ${mathfrak a} neq 0$ an ideal in $mathcal O$. Then the theorem shows ${mathcal O}/{mathfrak a} = oplus_{{mathfrak p} supseteq {mathfrak a}} {mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}/ {mathfrak a}{mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}$.
In the proof we set ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}} = {mathcal O} cap {mathfrak a}{mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}$ and it is claimed that using the bijective correspondence between primes and primes after localizing it follows : if ${mathfrak p} supseteq {mathfrak a}$ then $mathfrak p$ is the only prime ideal containing ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$.
The correspondence works only among the primes and I don't see why it is directly applicable to ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$.
My approach was : if ${mathfrak p} neq {mathfrak q} supseteq {mathfrak a}$ with ${mathfrak q} supseteq {{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$ then we can get a contradiction if ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}} {mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$ contain a unit of ${mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$. However, ${mathfrak a} subseteq {mathfrak p} cap {mathfrak q}$ and I don't see how a unit can be constructed.
Another way could be to take the multiplicative set $S = {mathcal O} setminus ({mathfrak p} cup {mathfrak q})$ and relate ${mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$ to ${mathcal O}_S$. Here again the same problem occurs.
commutative-algebra algebraic-number-theory
asked Jan 15 at 21:28
SiddharthaSiddhartha
416
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $mathcal O$ be an order in a number field and ${mathfrak a} neq 0$ an ideal in $mathcal O$. Then the theorem shows ${mathcal O}/{mathfrak a} = oplus_{{mathfrak p} supseteq {mathfrak a}} {mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}/ {mathfrak a}{mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}$.
In the proof we set ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}} = {mathcal O} cap {mathfrak a}{mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}$ and it is claimed that using the bijective correspondence between primes and primes after localizing it follows : if ${mathfrak p} supseteq {mathfrak a}$ then $mathfrak p$ is the only prime ideal containing ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$.
The correspondence works only among the primes and I don't see why it is directly applicable to ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$.
My approach was : if ${mathfrak p} neq {mathfrak q} supseteq {mathfrak a}$ with ${mathfrak q} supseteq {{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$ then we can get a contradiction if ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}} {mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$ contain a unit of ${mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$. However, ${mathfrak a} subseteq {mathfrak p} cap {mathfrak q}$ and I don't see how a unit can be constructed.
Another way could be to take the multiplicative set $S = {mathcal O} setminus ({mathfrak p} cup {mathfrak q})$ and relate ${mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$ to ${mathcal O}_S$. Here again the same problem occurs.
commutative-algebra algebraic-number-theory
asked Jan 15 at 21:28
SiddharthaSiddhartha
416
$endgroup$
Let $mathcal O$ be an order in a number field and ${mathfrak a} neq 0$ an ideal in $mathcal O$. Then the theorem shows ${mathcal O}/{mathfrak a} = oplus_{{mathfrak p} supseteq {mathfrak a}} {mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}/ {mathfrak a}{mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}$.
In the proof we set ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}} = {mathcal O} cap {mathfrak a}{mathcal O}_{mathfrak p}$ and it is claimed that using the bijective correspondence between primes and primes after localizing it follows : if ${mathfrak p} supseteq {mathfrak a}$ then $mathfrak p$ is the only prime ideal containing ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$.
The correspondence works only among the primes and I don't see why it is directly applicable to ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$.
My approach was : if ${mathfrak p} neq {mathfrak q} supseteq {mathfrak a}$ with ${mathfrak q} supseteq {{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}}$ then we can get a contradiction if ${{tilde{mathfrak a}}_{mathfrak p}} {mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$ contain a unit of ${mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$. However, ${mathfrak a} subseteq {mathfrak p} cap {mathfrak q}$ and I don't see how a unit can be constructed.
Another way could be to take the multiplicative set $S = {mathcal O} setminus ({mathfrak p} cup {mathfrak q})$ and relate ${mathcal O}_{mathfrak q}$ to ${mathcal O}_S$. Here again the same problem occurs.
commutative-algebra algebraic-number-theory
commutative-algebra algebraic-number-theory
asked Jan 15 at 21:28
SiddharthaSiddhartha
416
asked Jan 15 at 21:28
SiddharthaSiddhartha
416
asked Jan 15 at 21:28
SiddharthaSiddhartha
416
asked Jan 15 at 21:28
SiddharthaSiddhartha
416
asked Jan 15 at 21:28
SiddharthaSiddhartha
416
416
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
An order has Krull dimension 1, and in particular non-zero prime ideals are maximal. It follows that $mathcal{O}_{mathfrak{p}}$ has exactly two prime ideals, the maximal ideal $bar{mathfrak{p}}$ corresponding to $mathfrak{p}$ and $(0)$. Since $mathfrak{a}neq 0$, we have $(0)notsupseteq bar{mathfrak{a}}$. Therefore the only possibility is that $bar{mathfrak{a}}subseteq bar{mathfrak{p}}$. And this inclusion holds because we had $mathfrak{a}subseteq mathfrak{p}$.
answered Jan 15 at 23:31
PedroPedro
2,9441721
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks. This works.
$endgroup$
– Siddhartha
Jan 16 at 11:53
add a comment |
Your Answer
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
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3074990%2fproof-of-a-stronger-form-of-chinese-remainder-theorem-12-3-in-neukirch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
An order has Krull dimension 1, and in particular non-zero prime ideals are maximal. It follows that $mathcal{O}_{mathfrak{p}}$ has exactly two prime ideals, the maximal ideal $bar{mathfrak{p}}$ corresponding to $mathfrak{p}$ and $(0)$. Since $mathfrak{a}neq 0$, we have $(0)notsupseteq bar{mathfrak{a}}$. Therefore the only possibility is that $bar{mathfrak{a}}subseteq bar{mathfrak{p}}$. And this inclusion holds because we had $mathfrak{a}subseteq mathfrak{p}$.
answered Jan 15 at 23:31
PedroPedro
2,9441721
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks. This works.
$endgroup$
– Siddhartha
Jan 16 at 11:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An order has Krull dimension 1, and in particular non-zero prime ideals are maximal. It follows that $mathcal{O}_{mathfrak{p}}$ has exactly two prime ideals, the maximal ideal $bar{mathfrak{p}}$ corresponding to $mathfrak{p}$ and $(0)$. Since $mathfrak{a}neq 0$, we have $(0)notsupseteq bar{mathfrak{a}}$. Therefore the only possibility is that $bar{mathfrak{a}}subseteq bar{mathfrak{p}}$. And this inclusion holds because we had $mathfrak{a}subseteq mathfrak{p}$.
answered Jan 15 at 23:31
PedroPedro
2,9441721
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks. This works.
$endgroup$
– Siddhartha
Jan 16 at 11:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An order has Krull dimension 1, and in particular non-zero prime ideals are maximal. It follows that $mathcal{O}_{mathfrak{p}}$ has exactly two prime ideals, the maximal ideal $bar{mathfrak{p}}$ corresponding to $mathfrak{p}$ and $(0)$. Since $mathfrak{a}neq 0$, we have $(0)notsupseteq bar{mathfrak{a}}$. Therefore the only possibility is that $bar{mathfrak{a}}subseteq bar{mathfrak{p}}$. And this inclusion holds because we had $mathfrak{a}subseteq mathfrak{p}$.
answered Jan 15 at 23:31
PedroPedro
2,9441721
$endgroup$
An order has Krull dimension 1, and in particular non-zero prime ideals are maximal. It follows that $mathcal{O}_{mathfrak{p}}$ has exactly two prime ideals, the maximal ideal $bar{mathfrak{p}}$ corresponding to $mathfrak{p}$ and $(0)$. Since $mathfrak{a}neq 0$, we have $(0)notsupseteq bar{mathfrak{a}}$. Therefore the only possibility is that $bar{mathfrak{a}}subseteq bar{mathfrak{p}}$. And this inclusion holds because we had $mathfrak{a}subseteq mathfrak{p}$.
answered Jan 15 at 23:31
PedroPedro
2,9441721
answered Jan 15 at 23:31
PedroPedro
2,9441721
answered Jan 15 at 23:31
PedroPedro
2,9441721
answered Jan 15 at 23:31
PedroPedro
2,9441721
2,9441721
$begingroup$
Thanks. This works.
$endgroup$
– Siddhartha
Jan 16 at 11:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks. This works.
$endgroup$
– Siddhartha
Jan 16 at 11:53
$begingroup$
Thanks. This works.
$endgroup$
– Siddhartha
Jan 16 at 11:53
$begingroup$
Thanks. This works.
$endgroup$
– Siddhartha
Jan 16 at 11:53
add a comment |
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.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3074990%2fproof-of-a-stronger-form-of-chinese-remainder-theorem-12-3-in-neukirch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
d YQ,SUYQw Ai q7hXAvy SnqQAxY4RQX,MhwA GnNWGR14nSsca9lvF5LT1fgpT 3rsW,wo0xdKTZEM4LOi0,VnTGS3ouYD2h
