CONTENTS

Contents 1

Introduction 2

1 Commutative rings and theirs ideals 4

1.1. Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Ideals in commutative rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3. Prime ideals and maximal ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.4. Localization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2 Noetherian rings and primary decomposition 51

2.1. Noetherian and Artinian rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2. Prime Factorization and Primary Decompositions . . . . . . . . 62

1
 CHAPTER 1

COMMUTATIVE RINGS AND THEIRS IDEALS

1.1 Varieties

Let us explain in this section how algebra enters the field of geometry.
For this we have to introduce the main objects of study in algebraic geom-
etry: solution sets of polynomial equations over some field, the so-called
varieties.
In our whole course, a ring R is always meant to be a commutative
ring with 1. We do not require that this multiplicative unit 1 is distinct
from the additive neutral element 0, but if 1 = 0 then R must be the
zero ring. Subrings must have the same unit as the ambient ring, and ring
homomorphisms are always required to map 1 to 1.

1.1.1 Definition. (Varieties). Let K be a field, and let n ∈ N.

(a) We call

AnK := {(c1 , . . . , cn ) | ci ∈ K for i = 1, . . . , n}

the affine n-space over K. If the field K is clear from the context, we will
write AnK also as An .
Note that AnK is just K n as a set. It is customary to use two different
notations here since K n is also a K-vector space and a ring. We will usually
use the notation AnK if we want to ignore these additional structures: for
example, addition and scalar multiplication are defined on K n , but not on
AnK . The affine space AnK will be the ambient space for our zero loci of
polynomials below.

4
 (b) For a polynomial f ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] as above and a point c =
(c1 , . . . , cn ) ∈ AnK we define the value of f at c to be
X
f (c) = ai1 ,...,in ci11 . . . cinn ∈ K.
i1 ,...,in ∈N

If there is no risk of confusion we will sometimes denote a point in AnK by the

same letter x as we used for the formal variables, writing f ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xn ]
for the polynomial and f (x) for its value at a point x ∈ AnK .
(c) Let S ⊆ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a set of polynomials. Then

V (S) := {x ∈ AnK | f (x) = 0 for all f ∈ S} ⊆ AnK

is called the zero locus of S. Subsets of AnK of this form are called (affine) va-
rieties. If S = (f1 , . . . , fk ) is a finite set, we will write V (S) = V ({f 1, . . . , fk })
also as V (f1 , . . . , fk ).

1.1.2 Example. Varieties, say over the field R of real numbers, can have
many different ”shapes”.
The following picture shows a few examples in A2R and A3R .

5
 Of course, the empty set ∅ and all of An are also varieties in An , since
∅ = V (1) and An = V (0).

It is the goal of algebraic geometry to find out the geometric properties

of varieties by looking at the corresponding polynomials from an algebraic
point of view (as opposed to an analytical or numerical approach). How-
ever, it turns out that it is not a very good idea to just look at the defining
polynomials given initially-simply because they are not unique. For exam-
ple, the variety (a) above was given as the zero locus of the polynomial
x21 + x22 − 1, but it is equally well the zero locus of (x21 + x22 − 1)2 , or of
the two polynomials (x1 − 1)(x21 + x22 − 1) and x2 (x21 + x22 − 1). In order
to remove this ambiguity, it is therefore useful to consider all polynomials
vanishing on X at once. Let us introduce this concept now.

1.1.3 Definition. (Rings and ideals associated to varieties) For a variety

X ⊆ AnK (and in fact also for any subset X of AnK ) we consider the set

I(X) := {f ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] | f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ X}

of all polynomials vanishing on X. Note that this is an ideal of K[x1 , . . . , xn ]:

it is clear that 0 ∈ I(X), and if two polynomials f and g vanish on X, then
so do f + g and f h for any polynomial h. We call I(X) the ideal of X.
With this ideal we can construct the quotient ring

A(X) := K[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I(X)

in which we identify two polynomials f, g ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] if and only if

f − g is the zero function on X, i. e. if f and g have the same value at
every point x ∈ X. So one may think of an element f ∈ A(X) as being the
same as a function
X → K, x 7→ f (x)

that can be given by a polynomial. We therefore call A(X) the ring of

polynomial functions or coordinate ring of X. Often we will simply say

6
that A(X) is the ring of functions on X since functions in algebra are
always given by polynomials. Moreover, the class of a polynomial f ∈
K[x1 , . . . , xn ] in such a ring will usually also be written as f ∈ A(X),
dropping the explicit notation for equivalence classes if it is clear from the
context that we are talking about elements in the quotient ring.

1.1.4 Remark. (Polynomials and polynomial functions) You probably

know that over some fields there is a subtle difference between polynomials
and polynomial functions: e. g. over the field K = Z2 the polynomial
f = x2 + x ∈ K[x] is certainly non-zero, but it defines the zero function on
A1K . In our current notation this means that the ideal I(A1K ) of functions
vanishing at every point of A1K is non-trivial, in fact that I(A1K ) = (x2 + x),
and that consequently the ring A(A1K ) = K[x]/(x2 + x) of polynomial func-
tions on A1K is not the same as the polynomial ring K[x]. In this class
we will skip over this problem entirely, since our main geometric intuition
comes from the fields of real or complex numbers where there is no difference
between polynomials and polynomial functions. We will therefore usually
assume silently that there is no polynomial f ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] vanishing on
all of AnK , i. e. that I(AnK ) = (0) and thus A(AnK ) = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].

1.1.5 Example. (Ideal of a point) Let a = (a1 , . . . , an ) ∈ AnK be a point.

We claim that its ideal I(a) := I({a}) ⊆ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is

I(a) = (x1 − a1 , . . . , xn − an ).

In fact, this is easy to see:

“ ⊆ ” If f ∈ I(a) then f (a) = 0. This means that replacing each xi by
ai in f gives zero, i. e. that f is zero modulo (x1 − a1 , . . . , xn − an ). Hence
f ∈ (x1 − a1 , . . . , xn − an ).
n
P
“ ⊇ ” If f ∈ (x1 − a1 , . . . , xn − an ) then f = (xi − ai )fi for some
i=1
f1 , . . . , fn ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xn ], and so certainly f (a) = 0, i. e. f ∈ I(a).

7
1.1.6 Definition. (Subvarieties) The ideals of varieties defined in Defini-
tion 1.1.3 all lie in the polynomial ring K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. In order to get a
geometric interpretation of ideals in more general rings it is useful to con-
sider a relative situation: let X ⊆ AnK be a fixed variety. Then for any
subset S ⊆ A(X) of polynomial functions on X we can consider its zero
locus
VX (S) = {x ∈ X | f (x) = 0 for all f ∈ S} ⊆ X
just as in Definition 1.1.1 (c), and for any subset Y ⊆ X as in Definition
1.1.3 the ideal

IX (Y ) = {f ∈ A(X) | f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ Y } ⊆ A(X)

of all functions on X that vanish on Y . It is clear that the sets of the

form VX (S) are exactly the varieties in AnK contained in X, the so-called
subvarieties of X.

If there is no risk of confusion we will simply write V (S) and I(Y ) again
instead of VX (S) and IX (Y ). So in this notation we have now assigned to
every variety X a ring A(X) of polynomial functions on X, and to every
subvariety Y ⊆ X an ideal I(Y ) ⊆ A(X) of the functions that vanish on
Y . This assignment of an ideal to a subvariety has some nice features:

1.1.7 Lemma. Let X be a variety with coordinate ring A(X). Moreover,

let Y and Y 0 be subsets of X, and let S and S 0 be subsets of A(X).
(a) If Y ⊆ Y 0 then I(Y 0 ) ⊆ I(Y ) in A(X); if S ⊆ S 0 then V (S 0 ) ⊆ V (S)
in X.
(b) Y ⊆ V (I(Y )) and S ⊆ I(V (S)).
(c) If Y is a subvariety of X then Y = V (I(Y )).
(d) If Y is a subvariety of X then A(X)/I(Y ) ∼= A(Y ).

Proof. (a) Assume that Y ⊆ Y 0 . If f ∈ I(Y 0 ) then f vanishes on Y 0 , hence

also on Y , which means that f ∈ I(Y ). The second statement follows in a
similar way.

8
 (b) Let x ∈ Y . Then f (x) = 0 for every f ∈ I(Y ) by definition of I(Y ).
But this implies that x ∈ V (I(Y )). Again, the second statement follows
analogously.
(c) By (b) it suffices to prove “ ⊇ ”. As Y is a subvariety of X we can
write Y = V (S) for some S ⊆ A(X). Then S ⊆ I(V (S)) by (b), and thus
V (S) ⊇ V (I(V (S))) by (a). Replacing V (S) by Y now gives the required
inclusion.
(d) The ring homomorphism A(X) → A(Y ) that restricts a polyno-
mial function on X to a function Y is surjective and has kernel I(Y ) by
definition. So the result follows from the homomorphism theorem.

1.1.8 Remark. (Reconstruction of geometry from algebra) Let Y be a sub-

variety of X. Then Lemma 1.1.7 (c) says that I(Y ) determines Y uniquely.
Similarly, knowing the rings A(X) and A(Y ), together with the ring homo-
morphism A(X) → A(Y ) that describes the restriction of functions on X
to functions on Y , is enough to recover I(Y ) as the kernel of this map, and
thus Y as a subvariety of X by the above. In other words, we do not lose
any information if we pass from geometry to algebra and describe varieties
and their subvarieties by their coordinate rings and ideals.

This map A(X) → A(Y ) corresponding to the restriction of functions

to a subvariety is already a first special case of a ring homomorphism as-
sociated to a “morphism of varieties”. Let us now introduce this notion.

1.1.9 Definition. (Morphisms of varieties) Let X ⊆ AnK and Y ⊆ Am

K be
two varieties over the same ground field. Then a morphism from X to Y
is just a set-theoretic map f : X → Y that can be given by polynomials, i.
e. such that there are polynomials f1 , . . . , fm ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] with f (x) =
(f1 (x), . . . , fm (x)) ∈ Y for all x ∈ X. To such a morphism we can assign a
ring homomorphism

ϕ : A(Y ) → A(X), g 7→ gf = g(f1 , . . . , fm )

9
given by composing a polynomial function on Y with f to obtain a poly-
nomial function on X. Note that this ring homomorphism ϕ
(a) reverses the roles of source and target compared to the original map
f : X → Y ; and
(b) is enough to recover f , since fi = ϕ(yi ) ∈ A(X) if y1 , . . . , ym denote
the coordinates of Am
K.

1.1.10 Example. Let X = A1R (with coordinate x) and Y = A2R (with

coordinates y1 and y2 ), so that A(X) = R[x] and A(Y ) = R[y1 , y2 ] by
Remark 1.1.4. Consider the morphism of varieties

f : X → Y, x 7→ (y1 , y2 ) := (x, x2 )

whose image is obviously the standard parabola Z = V (y2 − y12 ) shown in

the picture in the below

Then the associated ring homomorphism

A(Y ) = R[y1 , y2 ] → R[x] = A(X)

of Definition 1.1.9 is given by composing a polynomial function in y1 and

y2 with f , i. e. by plugging in x and x2 for y1 and y2 , respectively:

R[y1 , y2 ] → R[x], g 7→ g(x, x2 ).

10
Note that with the images of g = y1 and g = y2 under this homomorphism
we just recover the polynomials x and x2 defining the map f .
If we had considered f as a morphism from X to Z (i. e. restricted
the target space to the actual image of f ) we would have obtained A(Z) =
K[y1 , y2 ]/(y2 − y12 ) and thus the ring homomorphism

R[y1 , y2 ]/(y2 − y12 ) → R[x], g 7→ g(x, x2 )

instead (which is obviously well-defined).

1.1.11 Remark. (Correspondence between geometry and algebra) Sum-

marizing what we have seen so far, we get the following first version of a
dictionary between geometry and algebra:

GEOMETRY −→ ALGEBRA

variety X ring A(X) of (polynomial)

functions on X

subvariety Y of X ideal I(Y ) ⊆ A(X) of functions

on X vanishing on Y
morphism f : X → Y of varieties ring homomorphism
A(Y ) → A(X), g 7→ gf
Moreover, passing from ideals to subvarieties reverses inclusions as in
Lemma 1.1.7 (a), and we have A(X)/I(Y ) ∼
= A(Y ) for any subvariety Y of
X by Lemma 1.1.7 (d) (with the isomorphism given by restricting functions
from X to Y ).

We have also seen already that this assignment of algebraic to geometric

objects is injective in the sense of Remark 1.1.8 and Definition 1.1.9 (b).
However, not all rings, ideals, and ring homomorphisms arise from this cor-
respondence with geometry, as we will see in Remark 1.1.8, Example 1.2.29
(b), and Remark 1.2.35. So although the geometric picture is very useful to
visualize algebraic statements, it can usually not be used to actually prove
them in the case of general rings.

11
 But before we can discuss these main topics of the class we have to start
now by developing more tools to work with ideals than what you know from
earlier classes.

1.1.12 Exercise. Show that the following subsets X of AnK are not varieties
over K:
(a) X = Z ⊆ A1R ;
(b) X = A1R \ {0} ⊆ A1R ;
(c) X = {(x1 , x2 ) ∈ A2R | x2 = sin(x1 )} ⊆ A2R ;
(d) X = {x ∈ A1C | |x| = 1} ⊆ A1C ;
(e) X = f (Y ) ⊆ AnR for an arbitrary variety Y and a morphism of
varieties f : Y → X over R.

1.2 Ideals in commutative rings

From the “Abstract Algebra” class you already know the basic con-
structions and properties concerning ideals and their quotient rings. For
our purposes however we have to study ideals in much more detail - so this
will be our goal for this and the next sections. Let us start with some gen-
eral constructions to obtain new ideals from old ones. The ideal generated
by a subset M of a ring will be written as (M ).

1.2.1 Definition. (Operations on ideals). Let I and J be ideals in a ring

R.

(a) The sum of the two given ideals is defined as usual by

I + J := {a + b | a ∈ I and b ∈ J}.

It is easy to check that this is an ideal. In fact, it is just the ideal

generated by I ∪ J.

(b) It is also obvious that the intersection I ∩ J is again an ideal of R.

12
 (c) We define the product of I and J as the ideal generated by all products
of elements of I and J, i. e.

IJ := ({ab | a ∈ I and b ∈ J}).

Note that just the set of products of elements of I and J would in

general not be an ideal: if we take R = R[x; y] and I = J = (x, y),
then obviously x2 and y 2 are products of an element of I with an
element of J, but their sum x2 + y 2 is not.

(d) The quotient of I by J is defined to be

I : J := {a ∈ R | aJ ⊆ I}
= {a ∈ R | ab ∈ J, ∀b ∈ J}
Again, it is easy to see that this is an ideal.

(e) We call
√
I := {a ∈ R | an ∈ I for some n ∈ N}

the radical of I. Let us check that this an ideal of R:

√
• We have 0 ∈ I, since 0 ∈ I.
√
• If a, b ∈ I, i. e. an ∈ I and bm ∈ I for some n, m ∈ N, then
n+m
X n + m 
(a + b)n+m = k ak bn+m−k
k=0

is again an element of I, since in each summand we must have that

the power of a is at least n (in which case ak ∈ I) or the power of
√
b is at least m (in which case bn+m−k ∈ I). Hence a + b ∈ I.
√
• If r ∈ R and a ∈ I, i. e. an ∈ I for some n ∈ N, then
√
(ra)n = rn an ∈ I, and hence ra ∈ I.
√ √
Note that we certainly have I ⊇ I. We call I a radical ideal if I = I,
i. e. if for all a ∈ R and n ∈ N with an ∈ I it follows that a ∈ I. This is

13
 √
a natural definition since the radical I of an arbitrary ideal I is in fact a
√
radical ideal in this sense: if an ∈ I for some n, so anm ∈ I for some m,
√
then this obviously implies a ∈ I.
Whether an ideal I is radical can also easily be seen from its quotient
ring R = I as follows.

1.2.2 Definition. (Nilradical, nilpotent elements, and reduced rings). Let

R be a ring. The ideal
q
(0) = {a ∈ R | an = 0 for some n ∈ N}

is called the nilradical of R; its elements are called nilpotent. If R has no

nilpotent elements except 0, i. e. if the zero ideal is radical, then R is called
reduced.

1.2.3 Lemma. An ideal I of the ring R is radical if and only if R/I is

reduced.

Proof. By Definition 1.2.1 (e), the ideal I is radical if and only if for all
a ∈ R and n ∈ N with an ∈ I it follows that a ∈ I. Passing to the quotient
ring R/I, this is obviously equivalent to saying that an = 0 implies a = 0,
i. e. that R/I has no nilpotent elements except 0.

1.2.4 Exercise. Let A = k[X, Y, Z, W ]/[(X, Y )∩(Z, W )], where k[X, Y, Z, W ]

is the polynomial ring over a field k. Show that A is not an integral domain
but a reduced ring.

1.2.5 Example. (Operations on ideals in principal ideal domains). Recall

that a principal ideal domain (or short: PID) is an integral domain in which
every ideal is principal, i. e. can be generated by one element. The most
prominent examples of such rings are probably Euclidean domains, i. e.
integral domains admitting a division with remainder, such as Z or K[x]
for a field K. We know that any principal ideal domain R admits a unique
prime factorization of its elements. As a consequence, all operations of

14
Definition 1.2.1 can then be computed easily: if I and J are not the zero
ideal we can write I = (a) and J = (b) for a = pa11 . . . pann and b = pb11 . . . pbnn
with distinct prime elements p1 , . . . , pn and a1 , . . . , an , b1 , . . . , bn ∈ N. Then
we obtain:

(a) I + J = (pc11 . . . pcnn ) with ci = min(ai , bi ) for i = 1, . . . , n: another

(principal) ideal contains I (resp. J) if and only if it is of the form
(pc11 . . . pcnn ) with ci ≤ ai (resp. ci ≤ bi ) for all i, so the smallest ideal
I + J containing I and J is obtained for ci = min(ai , bi );

(b) I ∩ J = (pc11 . . . pcnn ) with ci = max(ai , bi );

(c) IJ = (ab) = (pc11 . . . pcnn ) with ci = ai + bi ;

(d) I : J = (pc11 . . . pcnn ) with ci = max(ai − bi, 0);

√
(e) I = (pc11 . . . pcnn ) with ci = min(ai , 1).

In particular, we have I + J = (1) = R if and only if a and b have no

common prime factor, i. e. if a and b are coprime. We use this observation
to define the notion of coprime ideals in general rings:

1.2.6 Definition. (Coprime ideals). Two ideals I and J in a ring R are

called coprime if I + J = R.

1.2.7 Lemma. (Product and intersection of ideals). For any two ideals I
and J in a ring R we have

(a) IJ ⊆ I ∩ J;
√ √ √ √
(b) IJ = I ∩ J = I ∩ J.

Proof. (a) It suffices to check that all generators of IJ lie in I ∩ J. But for
a ∈ I and b ∈ J it is obvious that ab ∈ I ∩ J, so the result follows.
√ √
(b) We show a circular inclusion, with IJ ⊆ I ∩ J following from
(a).

15
 √
If a ∈ I ∩ J then an ∈ I ∩ J for some n ∈ N, so an ∈ I and an ∈ J,
√ √
and hence a ∈ I ∩ J.
√ √
Finally, if a ∈ I ∩ J then am ∈ I and an ∈ J for some m, n ∈ N,
√
therefore am+n ∈ IJ and thus a ∈ IJ.

Let F be the set of the ideals of R.

1.2.8 Exercise. Let I, J, K ∈ F. Verify the following.

(1) I ∪ J ⊆ I + J, IJ ⊆ I ∩ J, I ⊆ I : J

(2) If J ⊆ I, then I + J = I.

(3) I + J = J + I, IJ = JI

(4) I + (J + K) = (I + J) + K, I(JK) = (IJ)K

(5) (0) + I = I + (0) = I, RI = IR = I

(6) I(J + K) = IJ + IK, (I + J)K = IK + JK

Consequently, (F, +) and (F, ·) are commutative monoids with (0) and
n
P
R identity elements, respectively. Hence, finite sums Ii and finite prod-
i=1
n
Q
ucts Ii are naturally defined. In particular, the powers
i=1

I 0 = R, I n = I n−1 I (n ≥ 1)

are defined, so that we have

I m I n = I m+n , (I m )n = I mn , (IJ)n = I n J n (m, n ≥ 0)

and the expansion formula

X
n
(I + J) = I i J j (n ≥ 0),
i+j=n

where I, J ∈ F.

1.2.9 Exercise. Let J be an ideal of R. Verify the following.

16
 (1) Let a ∈ R and set aJ = {aj | j ∈ J}. Then (a)J = aJ.

(2) Let a1 , a2 , · · · , an ∈ R and set I = (a1 , a2 , · · · , an ). Then IJ =

Pn
i=1 ai J.

1.2.10 Proposition (Modular Law). Let I, J, K be ideals of R. If J ⊆ I,

then
I ∩ (J + K) = J + (I ∩ K).

1.2.11 Exercise. Let a1 , a2 , . . . , an ∈ R and set I = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ). Then

n
X
I m
= {aα1 1 aα2 2 · · · aαnn | 0 ≤ αi ∈ Z, αi = m}
i=1

for ∀m ≥ 1.

1.2.12 Exercise. Let I1 , . . . , In be pairwise coprime ideals in a ring R.

Prove that I1 . . . In = I1 ∩ . . . ∩ In .

1.2.13 Exercise. Show that the ideal (x1 , . . . , xn ) ⊆ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] cannot

be generated by fewer than n elements. Hence in particular, the polynomial
ring K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is not a principal ideal domain for n ≥ 2.

We see that these polynomial rings still admit unique prime factoriza-
tions of its elements, so that the results of Example 1.2.5 continue to hold
for principal ideals in these rings.

1.2.14 Remark. (Ideals of subvarieties = radical ideals). Radical ideals

play an important role in geometry: if Y is a subvariety of a variety X
and f ∈ A(X) with f n ∈ I(Y ), then (f (x))n = 0 for all x ∈ Y - but this
obviously implies f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ Y , and hence f ∈ I(Y ). So ideals of
subvarieties are always radical. In fact, if the ground field K is algebraically
closed, i. e. if every non-constant polynomial over K has a zero (as e. g.
for K = C), we will see that it is exactly the radical ideals in A(X) that are
ideals of subvarieties. So in this case there is a one-to-one correspondence

17
In other words, we have V (I(Y )) = Y for every subvariety Y of X (which
we have already seen in Lemma 1.1.7 (c)), and I(V (I)) = I for every radical
ideal I ⊆ A(X). In order to simplify our geometric interpretations we will
therefore usually assume from now on in our geometric examples that the
ground field is algebraically closed and the above one -to-one correspon-
dence holds. Note that this will not lead to circular reasoning as we will
never use these geometric examples to prove anything.

1.2.15 Exercise. (a) Give a rigorous proof of the one-to-one correspon-

dence of Remark 1.2.14 in the case of the ambient variety A1C , i. e. between
subvarieties of A1C and radical ideals in A(A1C ) = C[x].
(b) Show that this one-to-one correspondence does not hold in the case
of the ground field R, i. e. between subvarieties of A1R and radical ideals in
A(A1C ) = R[x].

1.2.16 Remark. (Geometric interpretation of operations on ideals). Let X

be a variety over an algebraically closed field, and let A(X) be its coordinate
ring. Assuming the one-to-one correspondence of Remark 1.2.14 between
subvarieties of X and radical ideals in A(X) we can now give a geometric
interpretation of the operations of Definition 1.2.1:
(a) As I +J is the ideal generated by I ∪J, we have for any two (radical)
ideals I, J ⊆ A(X)
V (I + J) = {x ∈ X | f (x) = 0 for all f ∈ I ∪ J}
= {x ∈ X | f (x) = 0 for all f ∈ I} ∩ {x ∈ X | f (x) = 0 for all f ∈ J}
= V (I) ∩ V (J)
So the intersection of subvarieties corresponds to the sum of ideals. (Note
however that the sum of two radical ideals may not be radical, so strictly

18
speaking the algebraic operation corresponding to the intersection of sub-
varieties is taking the sum of the ideals and then its radical).
Moreover, as the whole space X and the empty set ∅ obviously corre-
spond to the zero ideal (0) resp. the whole ring (1) = A(X), the condition
I + J = A(X) that I and J are coprime translates into the intersection of
V (I) and V (J) being empty.
(b) For any two subvarieties Y, Z of X
I(Y ∪ Z) = {f ∈ A(X) | f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ Y ∪ Z}
= {f ∈ A(X) | f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ Y }
∩ {f ∈ A(X) | f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ Z}
= I(Y ) ∩ I(Z),
and thus the union of subvarieties corresponds to the intersection of ideals.
As the product of ideals has the same radical as the intersection by Lemma
1.2.7 (b), the union of subvarieties also corresponds to taking the product
of the ideals (and then its radical).
(c) Again for two subvarieties Y, Z of X we have
I(Y \ Z) = {f ∈ A(X) | f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ Y \ Z}
= {f ∈ A(X) | f (x).g(x) = 0 for all x ∈ Y and g ∈ I(Z)}
= {f ∈ A(X) | f.I(Z) ⊂ I(Y )}
= I(Y ) : I(Z),
so taking the set-theoretic difference Y \ Z corresponds to quotient ideals.
(Strictly speaking, the difference Y \ Z is in general not a variety, so the
exact geometric operation corresponding to quotient ideals is taking the
smallest subvariety containing Y \ Z).

Summarizing, we obtain the following translation between geometric and

algebraic terms:

19
1.2.17 Exercise. Show that the equation of ideals

(x3 − x2 , x2 y − x2 , xy − y, y 2 − y) = (x2 , y) ∩ (x − 1, y − 1)

holds in the polynomial ring C[x, y]. Is this a radical ideal? What is its
zero locus in A2C ?

As an example that links the concepts introduced so far, let us now

consider the Chinese Remainder Theorem that you already know for the
integers and generalize it to arbitrary rings.

1.2.18 Proposition. (Chinese Remainder Theorem) Let I1 , . . . , In be ide-

als in a ring R, and consider the ring homomorphism

ϕ : R → R/I1 × . . . × R/In , a 7→ (a, . . . , a)

:
(a) ϕ is injective if and only if I1 ∩ . . . ∩ In = (0).
(b) ϕ is surjective if and only if I1 , . . . , In are pairwise coprime.

Proof. (a) This follows immediately from kerϕ = I1 ∩ . . . ∩ In .

(b) “ ⇒: ” If j is surjective then (1, 0, . . . , 0) ∈ Im ϕ. In particular,
there is an element a ∈ R with a = 1 mod I1 and a = 0 mod I2 . But then
1 = (1 − a) + a ∈ I1 + I2 , and hence I1 + I2 = R. In the same way we see
Ii + Ij = R for all i 6= j.

20
 “ ⇐: ” Let Ii + Ij = R for all i 6= j. In particular, for i = 2, . . . , n there
are ai ∈ I1 and bi ∈ Ii with ai + bi = 1, so that bi = 1 − ai = 1 mod I1
and bi = 0 mod Ii . If we then set b := b2 . . . bn we get b = 1 mod I1 and
b = 0 mod Ii for all i = 2, . . . , n. So (1, 0, . . . , 0) = ϕ(b) ∈ Im ϕ. In the
same way we see that the other unit generators are in the image of ϕ, and
hence ϕ is surjective.

1.2.19 Example. (a) Consider the case R = Z, and let a1 , . . . , an ∈ Z be

pairwise coprime. Then the residue class map

ϕ : Z → Za1 × . . . × Zan , x 7→ (x, . . . , x)

is surjective by Proposition 1.2.18 (b). Its kernel is (a1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ (an ) =

(a) with a := a1 . . . an by Exercise 1.2.12, and so by the homomorphism
theorem we obtain an isomorphism

Za → Za1 × . . . × Zan , x 7→ (x, . . . , x),

which is the well-known form of the Chinese Remainder Theorem for the
integers.
(b) Let X be a variety, and let Y1 , . . . , Yn be subvarieties of X. Recall
from Remark 1.1.11 that for i = 1, . . . , n we have isomorphisms A(X)/I(Yi ) ∼ =
A(Yi ) by restricting functions from X to Yi . Using the translations from
Remark 1.2.16, Proposition 1.2.18 therefore states that the combined re-
striction map
ϕ : A(X) → A(Y1 ) × . . . × A(Yn )

to all given subvarieties is

• injective if and only if the subvarieties Y1 , . . . , Yn cover all of X,
• surjective if and only if the subvarieties Y1 , . . . , Yn are disjoint.
In particular, if X is the disjoint union of the subvarieties Y1 , . . . , Yn ,
then the Chinese Remainder Theorem says that ϕ is an isomorphism, i. e.
that giving a function on X is the same as giving a function on each of the

21
subvarieties - which seems obvious from geometry. In our study of ideals,
let us now consider their behavior under ring homomorphisms.

1.2.20 Definition. (Contraction and extension). Let ϕ : R → R0 be a ring

homomorphism.
(a) For any ideal I ⊆ R0 the inverse image ϕ−1 (I) is an ideal of R. We
call it the inverse image ideal or contraction of I by ϕ, sometimes denoted
I c if it is clear from the context which morphism we consider.
(b) For I ⊆ R the ideal generated by the image ϕ(I) is called the image
ideal or extension of I by ϕ. It is written as ϕ(I).R0 , or I e if the morphism
is clear from the context.

1.2.21 Remark. (a) Note that for the construction of the image ideal of
an ideal I ⊆ R under a ring homomorphism ϕ : R → R0 we have to take
the ideal generated by ϕ(I), since ϕ(I) itself is in general not yet an ideal:
take e. g. ϕ : Z → Z[x] to be the inclusion and I = Z. But if ϕ is surjective
then ϕ(I) is already an ideal and thus I e = ϕ(I):
• for b1 , b2 ∈ ϕ(I) we have a1 , a2 ∈ I with b1 = ϕ(a1 ) and b2 = ϕ(a2 ),
and so b1 + b2 = ϕ(a1 + a2 ) ∈ ϕ(I),
• for b ∈ ϕ(I) and s ∈ R0 we have a ∈ I and r ∈ R with ϕ(a) = b and
ϕ(r) = s, and thus sb = ϕ(ra) ∈ ϕ(I).
(b) If R is a field and R0 6= {0} then any ring homomorphism ϕ : R → R0
is injective: its kernel is 0 since an element a ∈ R \{0} with ϕ(a) = 0 would
lead to the contradiction

1 = ϕ(1) = ϕ(a−1 a) = ϕ(a−1 ).ϕ(a) = 0.

This is the origin of the names “contraction” and “extension”, since in this
case these two operations really make the ideal “smaller” and “bigger”,
respectively.

1.2.22 Remark. (Geometric interpretation of contraction and extension)

As in Definition 1.1.9, let f : X → Y be a morphism of varieties, and let

22
ϕ : A(Y ) → A(X), g 7→ gf be the associated map between the coordinate
rings.
(a) For any subvariety Z ⊆ X we have
I(f (Z)) = {g ∈ A(Y ) | g(f (x)) = 0 for all x ∈ Z}
= {g ∈ A(Y ) | ϕ(g) ∈ I(Z)}
= ϕ−1 (I(Z)),
so taking images of varieties corresponds to the contraction of ideals.
(b) For a subvariety Z ⊆ Y the zero locus of the extension I(Z)e by ϕ
is
V ((I(Z))) = {x ∈ X | g(f (x)) = 0 for all g ∈ I(Z)}
= f −1 ({y ∈ Y | g(y) = 0 for all g ∈ I(Z)})
= f −1 (V (I(Z)))
= f −1 (Z)
by Lemma 1.1.7 (c). Hence, taking inverse images of subvarieties corre-
sponds to the extension of ideals.

So we can add the following two entries to our dictionary between ge-
ometry and algebra:

1.2.23 Exercise. Let ϕ : R → R0 a ring homomorphism. Prove:

(a) I ⊆ (I e )c for all ideal I of R;
(b) I ⊇ (I c )e for all ideal I of R0 ;
(c) (IJ)e = I e J e for all ideals I, J of R;
(d) (I ∩ J)c = I c ∩ J c for all ideal I, J of R0 .

23
1.2.24 Exercise. Let f : X → Y be a morphism of varieties, and let Z and
W be subvarieties of X. The geometric statements below are then obvious.
Find and prove corresponding algebraic statements for ideals in rings.
(a) f (Z ∪ W ) = f (Z) ∪ f (W );
(b) f (Z ∩ W ) ⊆ f (Z) ∩ f (W );
(c) f (Z \ W ) ⊆ f (Z) \ f (W ).

An important application of contraction and extension is that it allows

an easy explicit description of ideals in quotient rings.

1.2.25 Lemma. (Ideals in quotient rings) Let I be an ideal in a ring R.

Then contraction and extension by the quotient map ϕ : R → R/I give a
one-to-one correspondence

Proof. As the quotient map ϕ is surjective, we know by Remark 1.2.21 (a)

that contraction and extension are just the inverse image and image of an
ideal, respectively. Moreover, it is clear that the contraction of an ideal in
R/I yields an ideal of R that contains I, and that the extension of an ideal
in R gives an ideal in R/I. So we just have to show that contraction and
extension are inverse to each other on the sets of ideals given in the lemma.
But this is easy to check:
• For any ideal J ⊆ R/I we have (J c )e = ϕ(ϕ−1 (J)) = J since ϕ is
surjective.
• For any ideal J ⊆ R with J ⊇ I we get

(J e )c = ϕ−1 (ϕ(J)) = {a ∈ R | ϕ(a) ∈ ϕ(J)} = J + I = J.

24
1.2.26 Exercise. Let I ⊆ J be ideals in a ring R. By Lemma 1.2.25, the
extension J/I of J by the quotient map R → R/I is an ideal in R/I. Prove
that
(R/I)/(J/I) ∼
= R/J.

At the end of this section, let us now consider ring homomorphisms from
a slightly different point of view that will also tell us which rings “come
from geometry”, i. e. can be written as coordinate rings of varieties.

1.2.27 Definition. (Algebras and algebra homomorphisms). Let R be a

ring.
(a) An R-algebra is a ring R0 together with a ring homomorphism ϕR0 :
R → R0 .
(b) Let R1 and R2 be R-algebras with corresponding ring homomor-
phisms ϕR1 : R → R1 and ϕR2 : R → R2 . A morphism or R-algebra
homomorphism from R1 to R2 is a ring homomorphism ϕ : R1 → R2 with
ϕϕR1 = ϕR2 .
It is often helpful to draw these maps in a diagram as shown in the
below.

Then the condition ϕ.ϕR1 = ϕR2 just states that this diagram commutes,
i. e. that any two ways along the arrows in the diagram having the same
source and target - in this case the two ways to go from R to R2 -will give
the same map.
(c) Let R0 be an R-algebra with corresponding ring homomorphism ϕR0 :
∼
R → R0 . An R-subalgebra of R0 is a subring R of R0 containing the image
∼
of ϕ. Note that R is then an R-algebra using the ring homomorphism

25
 ∼ ∼
ϕ ∼ : R → R given by ϕR0 with the target restricted to R. Moreover, the
R
∼
inclusion R → R0 is an R-algebra homomorphism in the sense of (b).

In most of our applications, the ring homomorphism ϕR0 : R → R0

needed to define an R-algebra R0 will be clear from the context, and we
will write the R-algebra simply as R0 . In fact, in many cases it will even be
injective. In this case we usually consider R as a subring of R0 , drop the
homomorphism ϕR0 in the notation completely, and say that R ⊆ R0 is a
ring extension.

1.2.28 Remark. The ring homomorphism ϕR0 : R → R0 associated to an

R-algebra R0 can be used to define a “scalar multiplication” of R on R0 by

R × R0 → R0 , (a, c) 7→ a.c := ϕR0 (a).c.

Note that by setting c = 1 this scalar multiplication determines ϕR0 back.

So one can also think of an R-algebra as a ring together with a scalar multi-
plication with elements of R that has the expected compatibility properties.
In fact, one could also define R-algebras in this way.

1.2.29 Example. (a) Without doubt the most important example of an

algebra over a ring R is the polynomial ring R[x1 , . . . , xn ], together with
the obvious injective ring homomorphism R → R[x1 , . . . , xn ] that embeds
R into the polynomial ring as constant polynomials. In the same way, any
quotient R[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I of the polynomial ring by an ideal I is an R-algebra
as well.
(b) Let X ⊆ AnK be a variety over a field K. Then its coordinate
ring A(X) = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I(X) is a K-algebra by (a), with K mapping
to A(X) as the constant functions. Moreover, the ring homomorphism
A(Y ) → A(X) of Definition 1.1.9 corresponding to a morphism f : X → Y
to another variety Y is a K-algebra homomorphism, since composing a
constant function with f gives again a constant function. In fact, one can
show that these are precisely the maps between the coordinate rings coming

26
from morphisms of varieties, i. e. that Definition 1.1.9 gives a one-to-one
correspondence
1:1
{morphisms X → Y } ↔ {K − algebra homomorphisms A(Y ) → A(X)}.

1.2.30 Definition. (Generated subalgebras). Let R0 be an R-algebra.

(a) For any subset M ⊆ R0 let
\
R[M ] := T
T ⊇M
R−subalgebra ofR0

be the smallest R-subalgebra of R0 that contains M . We call it the R-

subalgebra generated by M . If M = {c1 , . . . , cn } is finite, we write R[M ] =
R[{c1 , . . . , cn }] also as R[c1 , . . . , cn ].
(b) We say that R0 is a finitely generated R-algebra if there are finitely
many c1 , . . . , cn with R[c1 , . . . , cn ] = R0 .

1.2.31 Remark. Note that the square bracket notation in Definition 1.2.30
is ambiguous: R[x1 , . . . , xn ] can either mean the polynomial ring over R
if x1 , . . . , xn are formal variables, or the subalgebra of an R-algebra R0
generated by x1 , . . . , xn if x1 , . . . , xn are elements of R0 . Unfortunately, the
usage of the notation R[x1 , . . . , xn ] for both concepts is well-established in
the literature, so we will adopt it here as well. Its origin lies in the following
lemma, which shows that the elements of an R-subalgebra generated by a
set M are just the polynomial expressions in elements of M with coefficients
in R.

1.2.32 Lemma. (Explicit description of R[M ]). Let M be a subset of an

R-algebra R0 . Then
X
R[M ] = ai1 ,...in ci11 . . . cinn | ai1 ,...in ∈ R, c1 , . . . , cn ∈ M,
i1 ,...,in ∈N
only finitely many ai1 ,...in 6= 0},
where multiplication in R0 with elements of R is defined as in Remark
1.2.28.

27
Proof. It is obvious that this set of polynomial expressions is an R-subalgebra
of R0 . Conversely, every R-subalgebra of R0 containing M must also contain
these polynomial expressions, so the result follows.

1.2.33 Example. In the field C of complex numbers the Z-algebra gener-

ated by the imaginary unit i is

Z[i] = {f (i) | f ∈ Z[x]} = {a + bi | a, b ∈ Z} ⊆ C

by Lemma 1.2.32. (Note again the double use of the square bracket nota-
tion: Z[x] is the polynomial ring over Z, whereas Z[i] is the Z-subalgebra
of C generated by i.)

1.2.34 Lemma. (Finitely generated R-algebras). An algebra R0 over a

ring R is finitely generated if and only if R0 ∼
= R[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I for some
n ∈ N and an ideal I in the polynomial ring R[x1 , . . . , xn ].

Proof. Certainly, R[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I is a finitely generated R-algebra since it

is generated by the classes of x1 , . . . , xn . Conversely, let R0 be an R-algebra
generated by c1 , . . . , cn ∈ S. Then
X X
ϕ : R[x1 , . . . , xn ] → R0 , ai1 ,...in xi11 . . . xinn 7→ ai1 ,...in ci11 . . . cinn
i1 ,...,in ∈N i1 ,...,in ∈N

is a ring homomorphism, and its image is precisely R[c1 , . . . , cn ] = R0 by

Lemma 1.2.32. So by the homomorphism theorem ϕ induces a ring isomor-
phism R[x1 , . . . , xn ]/ker ϕ ∼
= R0 , which by construction is also an R-algebra
isomorphism.

1.2.35 Remark. (Coordinate rings = reduced finitely generated K-algebras).

Let K be an algebraically closed field. Then by Remark 1.2.14 the coordi-
nate rings of varieties over K are exactly the rings of the form K[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I
for a radical ideal I ⊆ K[x1 , . . . , xn ], so by Lemma 1.2.3 and Lemma 1.2.34
precisely the reduced finitely generated K-algebras.

28
1.3 Prime ideals and maximal ideals

There are two special kinds of ideals that are of particular importance,
both algebraically and geometrically: the so-called prime and maximal ide-
als. Let us start by defining these concepts.

1.3.1 Definition. (Prime and maximal ideals) Let I be an ideal in a ring

R with I 6= R.
(a) I is called a prime ideal if for all a, b ∈ R with ab ∈ I we have a ∈ I
or b ∈ I. By induction, this is obviously the same as saying that for all
a1 , . . . , an ∈ R with a1 , . . . an ∈ I one of the ai must be in I.
(b) I is called a maximal ideal if there is no ideal J with I ( J ( R.
(c) The set of all prime ideals of R is called the spectrum, the set of all
maximal ideals the maximal spectrum of R. We denote these sets by SpecR
and mSpecR, respectively.

1.3.2 Remark. Let R 6= {0} be a ring. Note that its two trivial ideals R
and (0) are treated differently in Definition 1.3.1:
(a) The whole ring R is by definition never a prime or maximal ideal.
In fact, maximal ideals are just defined to be the inclusion-maximal ones
among all ideals that are not equal to R.
(b) The zero ideal (0) may be prime or maximal if the corresponding
conditions are satisfied. More precisely, by definition (0) is a prime ideal if
and only if R is an integral domain, and it is maximal if and only if there
are no ideals except (0) and R, i. e. if R is a field.

In fact, there is a similar criterion for arbitrary ideals if one passes to

quotient rings:

1.3.3 Lemma. Let I be an ideal in a ring R with I 6= R.

(a) I is a prime ideal if and only if R/I is an integral domain.
(b) I is a maximal ideal if and only if R/I is a field.

29
Proof. (a) Passing to the quotient ring R/I, the condition of Definiton 1.3.1
(a) says that I is prime if and only if for all a, b ∈ R/I with ab = 0 we have
a = 0 or b = 0, i. e. if and only if R/I is an integral domain.
(b) By Lemma 1.2.25, the condition of Definition 1.3.1 (b) means ex-
actly that the ring R/I has only the trivial ideals I/I and R/I, which is
equivalent to R/I being a field.

We can view this lemma as being analogous to Lemma 1.2.3, which

asserted that I is a radical ideal if and only if R/I is reduced. The fact
that these properties of ideals are reflected in their quotient rings has the
immediate consequence that they are preserved under taking quotients as
in Lemma 1.2.25:

1.3.4 Corollary. Let I ⊆ J be ideals in a ring R. Then J is radical

(resp. prime or maximal) in R if and only if J/I is radical (resp. prime
or maximal) in R/I.

Proof. By Lemma 1.2.3, the ideal J is radical in R if and only if R/J is

reduced, and J/I is radical in R/I if and only if (R/I)/(J/I) is reduced.
But these two rings are isomorphic by Exercise 1.2.26, so the result follows.
The statement about prime and maximal ideals follows in the same way,
using Lemma 1.3.3 instead of Lemma 1.2.3.

1.3.5 Corollary. Every maximal ideal in a ring is prime, and every prime
ideal is radical.

Proof. Passing to the quotient ring, this follows immediately from Lemma
1.2.3 and Lemma 1.3.3 since a field is an integral domain and an integral
domain is reduced.

1.3.6 Example. (a) Let R be an integral domain, and let p ∈ R \ {0} not
be a unit, i. e. it does not have a multiplicative inverse in R. Then by
definition the ideal (p) is prime if and only if for all a, b ∈ R with p | ab,

30
we have p | a or p | b, i. e. by definition if and only if p is a prime element
of R. Of course, this is the origin of the name “prime ideal”.
(b) We claim that for non-zero ideals in a principal ideal domain R
the notions of prime and maximal ideals agree. To see this, is suffices by
Corollary 1.3.5 to show that every non-zero prime ideal is maximal. So
let I ⊆ R be prime. Of course, we have I = (p) for some p ∈ R as R
is a principal ideal domain, and since I 6= R by definition and I 6= 0 by
assumption we know by (a) that p is prime. Now if J ⊇ I is another ideal
we must have J = (q) for some q | p. But p is prime and thus irreducible,
i. e. it cannot be written as a product of two non-units in R. So up to a
unit q must be 1 or p. But then J = R or J = I, respectively, which means
that I must have been maximal.
(c) Let K be a field, and consider the ideal I(a) = (x1 −a1 , . . . , xn −an ) ⊆
K[x1 , . . . , xn ] of a for a given point a = (a1 , . . . , an ) ∈ AnK as in Example
1.1.5. Then the ring homomorphism

K[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I(a) → K, f 7→ f (a)

is obviously an isomorphism, since f ∈ I(a) is by definition equivalent to

f (a) = 0. So K[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I(a) ∼
= K is a field, and thus by Lemma 1.3.3
(b) the ideal I(a) is maximal.
For general fields, not all maximal ideals of K[x1 , . . . , xn ] have to be of
this form. For example, the ideal (x2 + 1) ⊆ R[x] is also maximal by (a)
and (b), since the real polynomial x2 + 1 is irreducible and thus prime in
R[x]. But if K is algebraically closed, we will see that the ideals considered
above are the only maximal ideals in the polynomial ring. In fact, it is
easy to see that we would expect this if we look at the following geometric
interpretation of maximal ideals.

1.3.7 Remark. (Geometric interpretation of prime and maximal ideals).

Let X be a variety over an algebraically closed field K, so that we have a
one-to-one correspondence between subvarieties of X and radical ideals in

31
A(X) by Remark 1.2.14.
(a) As the correspondence between subvarieties and ideals reverses in-
clusions, the maximal ideals of A(X) correspond to minimal subvarieties
of X, i. e. to points of X. For example, we have just seen in Example
1.3.6 (c) that the maximal ideal (x1 − a1 , . . . , xn − an ) ⊆ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is
the ideal I(a) of the point a = (a1 , . . . , an ) ∈ AnK .
(b) Let Y be a non-empty subvariety of X, corresponding to a proper
ideal I(Y ) ⊆ A(X).
If I(Y ) is not prime then there are functions f1 , f2 ∈ A(X) such that
f1 f2 vanishes on Y , but f1 and f2 do not. Hence the zero loci Y1 := VY (f1 )
and Y2 := VY (f2 ) of f1 and f2 on Y are not all of Y , but their union is
Y1 ∪ Y2 = VY (f1 f2 ) = Y . So we can write Y as a non-trivial union of two
subvarieties. If a variety has this property we call it reducible, otherwise
irreducible. As shown in the picture below, the union Y = V (x1 x2 ) of the
two coordinate axes in A2R is a typical example of a reducible variety, with
f1 = x1 and f2 = x2 in the notation above.

Conversely, if Y is reducible with Y = Y1 ∪Y2 for two proper subvarieties

Y1 and Y2 , we can find f1 ∈ I(Y1 ) \ I(Y ) and f2 ∈ I(Y2 ) \ I(Y ). Then
f1 f2 ∈ A(X) vanishes on Y although f1 and f2 do not, and thus I(Y ) is
not a prime ideal.

Summarizing, we get the following correspondence:

32
 SUBVARIETIES ←→ IDEALS

irreducible prime ideal

point maximal ideal

1.3.8 Exercise. Which of the following ideals are prime, which ones are
maximal in Z[x]?

I = (5, x3 + 2x + 3) J = (4, x2 + x + 1, x2 + x − 1)

1.3.9 Exercise. Let ϕ : R → S be a ring homomorphism, and let I ⊆ S.

Show that:
(a) If I is radical, then so is ϕ−1 (I).
(b) If I is prime, then so is ϕ−1 (I).
(c) If I is maximal, then ϕ−1 (I) need not be maximal.

1.3.10 Theorem (Prime avoidance theorem). Let I, P1 , P2 , · · · , Pn (n ≥

1) be ideals of A and assume that P1 , P2 , · · · , Pn are prime ideals of R except
Sn
two of them. If I ⊆ Pi , then I ⊆ Pi for some 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
i=1

Proof. We may assume that n ≥ 2 and that our assertion holds true for
n − 1. Suppose that I 6⊆ Pi for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. If n = 2, choose a1 ∈ I
and a2 ∈ I so that a1 6∈ P2 and a2 6∈ P1 , and set a = a1 + a2 . Then, since
ai ∈ I ⊆ P1 ∪ P2 , we get ai ∈ Pi (i = 1, 2). On the other hand, since a ∈ I,
we must have a ∈ P1 or a ∈ P2 . However, if a = a1 + a2 ∈ P1 , then a2 ∈ P1
since a1 ∈ P1 . If a = a1 + a2 ∈ P1 , then a1 ∈ P2 since a2 ∈ P2 . Thus
a 6∈ P1 ∪ P2 . Hence n ≥ 3.
We may assume that P1 is a prime ideal of R. By the hypothesis of
S
induction on n, we may also assume that I 6⊆ j6=i Pj for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
S
Choose an element ai ∈ I, so that ai 6∈ j6=i Pj . Then ai ∈ Pi but ai 6∈
Pj (j 6= i). We set a = a1 + ni=2 ai . Then a ∈ I but a 6∈ ∪ni=1 Pi . In fact, if
Q

a = a1 + ni=2 ai ∈ P1 , then ni=2 ai ∈ P1 since a1 ∈ P1 , which is impossible,

Q Q

33
because P1 is a prime ideal of R and ai 6∈ P1 (i ≥ 2). Therefore, a ∈ Pj
with j ≥ 2, so that ni=2 ai ∈ Pj , whence a1 ∈ Pj , which is impossible.
Q

1.3.11 Exercise. Let R be a ring. Let I1 , . . . , In ⊆ R be ideals of R, and

let P ⊆ R be a prime ideal. If P ⊇ I1 ∩ . . . ∩ In , prove that P ⊇ Ik for
some k = 1, . . . , n.

1.3.12 Theorem (Davis). Let a ∈ R and I an ideal of R. Let P1 , P2 , · · · , Pn

n
S n
S
(n ≥ 1) be prime ideals of R. If (a) + I 6⊆ Pi , then a + x 6∈ Pi for
i=1 i=1
some x ∈ I.

Proof. Let n = 1. If a + x ∈ P1 for all x ∈ I, then a = a + 0 ∈ P1 and

I ⊆ P1 , so that (a) + I ⊆ P1 . Suppose that n ≥ 2 and that our assertion
holds true for n − 1. We may assume that n−1
S
i=1 Pi 6⊆ Pn . Then since
(a) + I 6⊆ i=1 Pi , we can choose an element y ∈ I so that a + y 6∈ n−1
Sn−1 S
i=1 Pi .
If a + y 6∈ Pn , then this y is a required one. Suppose a + y ∈ Pn . Then
I 6⊆ Pn . (In fact, if I ⊆ Pn , we have a ∈ Pn because a + y ∈ Pn , so that
(a) + I ⊆ Pn .) Consequently, we get I· n−1
Q
i=1 Pi 6⊆ Pn , since Pn is a prime
ideal of A. We now choose an element z ∈ I· n−1
Q
i=1 Pi so that z 6∈ Pn , and
set x = y + z. Then, this x ∈ I is a required one. In fact, suppose that
a + x ∈ Pi . If i = n, then z ∈ Pn since a + y ∈ Pn , and if i < n, then
a + y ∈ Pi since z ∈ Pi , both of which are impossible.

1.3.13 Exercise. Let R be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions

on the unit interval [0, 1]. Similarly to Definition 1.1.1 (c), for any subset
S of R we denote by

V (S) := {a ∈ [0, 1] | f (a) = 0 for all f ∈ S} ⊆ [0, 1]

the zero locus of S. Prove:

(a) For all a ∈ [0, 1] the ideal Ia := {f ∈ R | f (a) = 0} is maximal.
(b) If f1 , . . . , fn ∈ R with V (f1 , . . . , fn ) = ∅, then f12 +. . .+fn2 is invertible
in R.
(c) For any ideal I ⊆ R with I 6= R we have V (I) 6= ∅.

34
 (d) The assignment [0, 1] → mSpecR, a 7→ Ia gives a one-to-one cor-
respondence between points in the unit interval and maximal ideals of R
(compare this to Remark 1.3.7 (a)).

1.3.14 Exercise. Let R be a ring such that for all a ∈ R there is a natural
number n > 1 with an = a.
(a) Show that every prime ideal of R is maximal.
(b) Give an example of such a ring which is neither a field nor the zero
ring.

We have now studied prime and maximal ideals in some detail, but
left out one important question: whether such ideals actually always exist.
More precisely, if I is an ideal in a ring R with I 6= R, is it guaranteed
that there is a maximal (and hence also prime) ideal that contains I? In
particular, taking I = (0), is it clear that there is any maximal ideal in R
at all? From a geometric point of view this seems to be trivial: using the
translations of Remark 1.3.7 (a) we are just asking whether a non-empty
variety always contains a point-which is of course true. But we know already
that not every ring is the coordinate ring of a variety, so for general rings we
have to find an algebraic argument that ensures the existence of maximal
ideals. It turns out that this is rather tricky, so let us start by giving the
idea how such maximal ideals could be found.

1.3.15 Remark. (Naive strategy to find maximal ideals). Let I be an

ideal in a ring R with I 6= R, we want to find a maximal ideal that contains
I. Set I0 := I. Of course, there is nothing to be done if I0 is already
maximal, so let us assume that it is not. Then there is an ideal I1 with
I0 ( I1 ( R. Now if I1 is maximal we are done, otherwise we find an ideal I2
with I0 ( I1 ( I2 ( R. Continuing this process, we either find a maximal
ideal containing I after a finite number of steps, or arrive at an infinite
strictly increasing chain

I0 ( I1 ( I2 ( . . .

35
of ideals in R.
Is it possible that such an infinite chain of ideals exists? In general, the
answer to this question is yes (see e. g. Example 2.1.2 (c)). There is a
special and very important class of rings however - the Noetherian rings
that we will discuss in Chapter 2 - that do not admit such infinite increasing
chains of ideals. In these rings the above process must terminate, and so we
can easily find a maximal ideal containing I. In fact, all coordinate rings
of varieties turn out to be Noetherian (see Remark 2.1.11), which is why
our geometric picture above suggested that the existence of maximal ideals
might be trivial.
But what can we do if the chain above does not terminate? The main
observation is that we can then form a “limit”
[
I∞ := In
n∈N

over all previous ideals (it is easy to see that this is in fact an ideal which
is not equal to R; we will check this in the proof of Corollary 1.3.16). Of
course, I∞ is strictly bigger than every In . So it is an ideal that we have not
seen before in the chain, and consequently we can continue the above pro-
cess with this limit ideal: if it is maximal we are finished, otherwise choose
a bigger one which we might call I∞+1 , and so on. Unless we find a maximal
ideal at some point, we can thus construct another infinite increasing chain
starting with I∞ , take the limit over this chain again, repeat the whole
process of constructing a chain and taking its limit infinitely many times,
take the limit over all these infinitely many limit ideals, and so on. Intu-
itively speaking, we obtain an increasing “chain” of ideals in this way that
is really long, certainly not indexed any more by the natural numbers, and
not even countable. Continuing our sloppy wording, we could hope that
eventually we would have to obtain even more ideals in this way than there
are subsets of R at all. This would of course be a contradiction, suggesting
that the process must stop at some point and give us a maximal ideal.

36
 In fact, we will now make this argument precise. The key step in the
proof is Zorn’s Lemma, which abstracts from the above situation of rings
and ideals and roughly states that in any sort of structure where you can
compare objects and the above “limiting process over chains” works to get
something bigger than what you had before, you will find a maximal object.
To be able to formulate this rigorously we need some definitions regarding
orders on sets.

1.3.16 Proposition. (Existence of maximal ideals) Let I be an ideal in

a ring R with I 6= R. Then I is contained in a maximal ideal of R. In
particular, every ring R 6= 0 has a maximal ideal.

Proof. Let M be the set of all ideals J ⊆ R with J ⊇ I and J 6= R. The

maximal ideals of R containing I are exactly the maximal elements of M ,
and hence by Zorn’s Lemma it suffices to show that every totally ordered
subset of M has an upper bound.
So let A ⊆ M be a totally ordered subset, i. e. a family of proper ideals
of R containing I such that, for any two of these ideals, one is contained in
the other. If A = ∅ then we can just take I ∈ M as an upper bound for A.
Otherwise, let
[
J 0 := J
J∈A
be the union of all ideals in A. We claim that this is an ideal:
• 0 ∈ J 0 , since 0 is contained in each J ∈ A, and A is non-empty.
• If a1 , a2 , ∈ J 0 , then a1 ∈ J1 and a2 ∈ J2 for some J1 , J2 ∈ A. But A is
totally ordered, so without loss of generality we can assume that J1 ⊆ J2 .
It follows that a1 + a2 ∈ J2 ⊆ J 0 .
• If a ∈ J 0 , i. e. a ∈ J for some J ∈ A, then ra ∈ J ⊆ J 0 for any r ∈ R.
Moreover, J 0 certainly contains I, and we must have J 0 6= R since 1 ∈
/J
/ J 0 . Hence J 0 ∈ M , and it is certainly an upper
for all J ∈ A, so that 1 ∈
bound for A. Thus, by Zorn’s Lemma, M has a maximal element, i. e.
there is a maximal ideal in R containing I.

37
1.3.17 Lemma. For every ideal I in a ring R we have
√ \
I= P.
P prime
P ⊇I

√
Proof. “ ⊆ ” If a ∈ I then an ∈ I for some n. But then also an ∈ P for
every prime ideal P ⊇ I, which implies a ∈ P by Definition 1.3.1 (a).
√
/ I, i. e. an ∈
“ ⊇ ” Let a ∈ R with a ∈ / I for all n ∈ N. Consider the
set
M = {J | J ⊆ R with J ⊇ I and an ∈
/ J for all n ∈ N.
In the same way as in the proof of Proposition 1.3.16 we see that every
totally ordered subset of M has an upper bound (namely I if the subset
is empty, and the union of all ideals in the subset otherwise). Hence by
Zorn’s Lemma there is a maximal element P of M . It suffices to prove that
P is prime, for then we have found a prime ideal P ⊇ I with a ∈
/ P , so
that a does not lie in the right hand side of the equation of the lemma.
So assume that we have b, c ∈ R with bc ∈ P , but b ∈
/ P and c ∈
/ P.
Then P +(b) and P +(c) are strictly bigger than P , and thus by maximality
cannot lie in M . This means that there are n, m ∈ N such that an ∈ P + (b)
and am ∈ P + (c), from which we obtain

an+m ∈ (P + (b)).(P + (c)) ⊇ P + (bc) = P,

in contradiction to P ∈ M . Hence P must be prime, which proves the

lemma.

1.3.18 Remark. Let Y be a subvariety of a variety X. Then the statement

of Lemma 1.3.17 for the (already radical) ideal I(Y ) in the ring A(X)
corresponds to the geometrically obvious statement that the variety Y is
the union of its irreducible subvarieties (see Remark 1.3.7).

1.3.19 Exercise. (Minimal primes). Let I be an ideal in a ring R with

I 6= R. We say that a prime ideal P ⊆ R is minimal over I if I ⊆ P and
there is no prime ideal Q with I ⊆ Q ( P .

38
 (a) Prove that there is always a minimal prime ideal over I.
(b) Determine all minimal prime ideals over (x2 y, xy 2 ) in R[x, y].
If R is the coordinate ring of a variety and I the ideal of a subvariety,
what is the geometric interpretation of a prime ideal minimal over I?

1.3.20 Exercise. Let P and Q be two distinct maximal ideals in a ring R,

and let n, m ∈ N. Show that P n and Qm are coprime.

1.3.21 Exercise. Show that for any ring R the following three statements
are equivalent:
(a) R has exactly one prime ideal.
(b) Every element of R is either a unit or nilpotent.
p
(c) (0) is a maximal ideal.
Give an example for such a ring which is not a field.

1.3.22 Exercise. Let M be an infinite set.

(a) Use Zorn’s Lemma to prove that M can be written as a disjoint
union of sets that are all countably infinite.
(b) Show that for any non-empty and at most countable set A there is
a bijection between M and M × A.

1.3.23 Exercise. (a) Show that every vector space has a basis (even if it
is not finitely generated).
(b) Let n, m ∈ N∗ with n 6= m. Of course, you know that Rn and Rm
are not isomorphic as R-vector spaces. However, prove now that Rn and
Rm are isomorphic as groups (with the standard addition).
(Hint: Consider Rn and Rm as Q-vector spaces, and use Exercise 1.3.22
(b)).

We set
U(R) = {a ∈ R | a is an unit R},

Max R = {M | M is a maximal ideal of R},

39
 \
J(R) = M.
M ∈Max R

Then J(R) is called the Jacobson radical of R.

1.3.24 Exercise. Prove that J(R) = {a ∈ R | 1 + ax ∈ U(R) for ∀x ∈ R}.

1.3.25 Proposition (Nakayama’s lemma). Let J = J(R) and let I be a

finitely generated ideal of R. If I = JI, then I = (0).

Proof. Suppose I 6= (0) and write I = (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ), where n is as small

Pn
as possible. Therefore n ≥ 1 and xn ∈ JI. Let us write xn = ai x i
i=1
(ai ∈ J). Then by Exercise 1.3.24 we get xn ∈ (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn−1 ), because
n−1
P
(1 − an )xn = ai xi and 1 − an ∈ U(R). Hence I = (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn−1 ),
i=1
which violates the minimality of n. Thus I = (0).

1.4 Localization

Localization is a very powerful technique in commutative algebra that

often allows to reduce questions on rings and modules to a union of smaller
“local” problems. It can easily be motivated both from an algebraic and a
geometric point of view, so let us start by explaining the idea behind it in
these two settings.

1.4.1 Remark. (Motivation for localization).

(a) Algebraic motivation: Let R be a ring which is not a field, i. e.
in which not all non-zero elements are units. The algebraic idea of local-
ization is then to make more (or even all) non-zero elements invertible by
introducing fractions, in the same way as one passes from the integers Z to
the rational numbers Q.
Let us have a more precise look at this particular example: in order
to construct the rational numbers from the integers we start with R = Z,
and let S = Z \ {0} be the subset of the elements of R that we would like

40
to become invertible. On the set R × S we then consider the equivalence
relation
(a, s) ∼ (a0 , s0 ) ↔ as0 − a0 s = 0
and denote the equivalence class of a pair (a, s) by as . The set of these “frac-
tions” is then obviously Q, and we can define addition and multiplication
a a0 as0 +a0 s 0
aa0
on it in the expected way by s + s0 := ss0 and as . as0 := ss0 .
(b) Geometric motivation: Now let R = A(X) be the ring of polynomial
functions on a variety X. In the same way as in (a) we can ask if it makes
sense to consider fractions of such polynomials, i. e. rational functions
f (x)
X → K, x 7→
g(x)
for f, g ∈ R. Of course, for global functions on all of X this does not work,
since g will in general have zeroes somewhere, so that the value of the
rational function is ill-defined at these points. But if we consider functions
on subsets of X we can allow such fractions. The most important example
from the point of view of localization is the following: for a fixed point
a ∈ X let S = {f ∈ A(X) | f (a) 6= 0} be the set of all polynomial
f
functions that do not vanish at a. Then the fractions g for f ∈ R and
g ∈ S can be thought of as rational functions that are well-defined at a.
f
In fact, the best way to interpret the fractions g with f ∈ R and g ∈ S
is as “functions on an arbitrarily small neighborhood of a”, assuming that
we have a suitable topology on X: although the only point at which these
functions are guaranteed to be well-defined is a, for every such function
there is a neighborhood on which it is defined as well, and to a certain
extent the polynomials f and g can be recovered from the values of the
function on such a neighborhood. In this sense we will refer to functions
f
of the form g with f ∈ R and g ∈ S as “local functions” at a. In fact,
this geometric interpretation is the origin of the name “localization” for the
process of constructing fractions described in this section.

Let us now introduce such fractions in a rigorous way. As above, R will

41
always denote the original ring, and S ⊆ R the set of elements that we
would like to become invertible. Note that this subset S of denominators
for our fractions has to be closed under multiplication, for otherwise the
a a0 as0 +a0 s 0
aa0
formulas s + s0 := ss0 and as . as0 := ss0 for addition and multiplication
of fractions would not make sense. Moreover, the equivalence relation on
R × S to obtain fractions will be slightly different from the one in Remark
1.4.1 (a) - we will explain the reason for this later in Remark 1.4.5.

1.4.2 Definition. Let R be a ring. A subset S ⊆ R is called multiplicatively

closed if 1 ∈ S, and ab ∈ S for all a, b ∈ S.

1.4.3 Lemma. Let S ⊆ R be a multiplicatively closed set. Then

(a, s) ∼ (a0 , s0 ) ↔ there is an element u ∈ S such that u(as0 − a0 s) = 0

is an equivalence relation on R × S. We denote the equivalence class of a

pair (a, s) ∈ R × S by as . The set of all equivalence classes
a
S −1 R := { | a ∈ R, s ∈ S}
s
a a0 as0 +a0 s
is a ring together with the addition and multiplication s + s0 := ss0 and
0 0
a a aa
s . s0 := ss0 .

Proof. The relation ∼ is clearly reflexive and symmetric. It is also tran-

sitive: if (a, s) ∼ (a0 , s0 ) and (a, s) ∼ (a00 , s00 ) there are u, v ∈ S with
u(as0 − a0 s) = v(a0 s00 − a00 s0 ) = 0, and thus

s0 uv(as00 − a00 s) = vs00 .u(as0 − a0 s) + us.v(a0 s00 − a00 s0 ) = 0. (∗)

But this means that (a.s) ∼ (a00 , s00 ), since S is multiplicatively closed and
therefore s0 uv ∈ S.
In a similar way we can check that the addition and multiplication in
S −1 R are well-defined: if (a, s) ∼ (a00 , s00 ), i. e. u(as00 − a00 s) = 0 for some
u ∈ S, then

u(as0 + a0 s)(s00 s0 ) − (a00 s0 + a0 s00 )(ss0 ) = (s0 )2 .u(as00 − a00 s) = 0

42
and
u(aa0 )(s00 s0 ) − (a00 a0 )(ss0 ) = a0 s0 .u(as00 − a00 s) = 0.
as0 +a0 s a00 s0 +a0 s00 aa0 a00 a0
and so ss0 = s00 s0 and ss0 = s00 s0 .
It is now verified immediately that these two operations satisfy the ring
axioms - in fact, the required computations to show this are exactly the
same as for ordinary fractions in Q.

1.4.4 Definition. Let S ⊆ R be a multiplicatively closed set. Then the

ring S −1 R is called the localization of R at the multiplicatively closed set
S

1.4.5 Remark. (Explanation for the equivalence relation in Lemma 1.4.3.

Compared to Remark 1.4.1 (a) it might be surprising that the equivalence
relation (a, s) ∼ (a0 , s0 ) for S −1 R is not just given by as0 − a0 s = 0, but by
u(as0 − a0 s) = 0 for some u ∈ S. Again, there is both an algebraic and a
geometric reason for this:
(a) Algebraic reason: Without the additional element u ∈ S the relation
∼ would not be transitive. In fact, if we set u = v = 1 in the proof of
transitivity in Lemma 1.4.3, we could only show that s0 (as00 − a00 s) = 0 in
(∗). Of course, this does not imply as00 −a00 s = 0 if S contains zero-divisors.
(On the other hand, if S does not contain any zero-divisors, the condition
u(as0 −a0 s) = 0 for some u ∈ S can obviously be simplified to as0 −a0 s = 0).
(b) Geometric reason, continuing Remark 1.4.1 (b): Let X = V (xy) in
A2R be the union of the two coordinate axes as in the picture in the below

43
So that A(X) = R[x, y]/(xy). Then the functions y and 0 on X agree in a
y 0
neighborhood of the point a = (1, 0), and so 1 and 1 should be the same
local function at a, i. e. the same element in S −1 R with S = {f ∈ A(X) |
f (a) 6= 0}. But without the additional element u ∈ S in Lemma 1.4.3
this would be false, since y.1 − 0.1 6= 0 ∈ A(X). However, if we can set
y
u = x ∈ S, then x(y.1 − 0.1) = xy = 0 ∈ A(X), and hence 1 = 0
1 ∈ S −1 R
as desired.

1.4.6 Remark. Let S be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring R.

(a) There is an obvious ring homomorphism
a
ϕ : R → S −1 R, a 7→
1
that makes S −1 R into an R-algebra. However, ϕ is only injective if S does
a 0
not contain zero-divisors, as 1 = 1 by definition only implies the existence
of an element u ∈ S with u(a.1 − 0.1) = ua = 0. We have already seen a
concrete example of this in Remark 1.4.5 (b): in that case we had y 6= 0 ∈ R,
y
but 1 = 0
1 ∈ S −1 R.
(b) In Definition 1.4.2 of a multiplicatively closed subset we have not
excluded the case 0 ∈ S, i. e. that we “want to allow division by 0”.
However, in this case we trivially get S −1 R = 0, since we can then always
take u = 0 in Lemma 1.4.3.

1.4.7 Example. (Standard examples of localization). Let us now give

some examples of multiplicatively closed sets in a ring R, and thus of local-
izations. In fact, the following are certainly the most important examples
- probably any localization that you will meet is of one of these forms.
(a) Of course, S = {1} is a multiplicatively closed subset, and leads to
the localization S −1 R ∼
= R.
(b) Let S be the set of non-zero-divisors in R. Then S is multiplicatively
closed: if a, b ∈ S then ab is also not a zero-divisor, since abc = 0 for some
c ∈ R first implies bc = 0 since a ∈ S, and then c = 0 since b ∈ S.

44
 Of particular importance is the case when R is an integral domain. Then
S = R \ {0}, and every non-zero element a
s is a unit in S −1 R, with inverse
s
a. Hence S −1 R is a field, the so-called quotient field QuotR of R.
Moreover, in this case every localization T −1 R at a multiplicatively
closed subset T with 0 6= T is naturally a subring of QuotR, since
a a
T −1 R → QuotR, 7→
s s
is an injective ring homomorphism. In particular, by (a) the ring R itself
can be thought of as a subring of its quotient field QuotR as well.
(c) For a fixed element a ∈ R let S = {an | n ∈ N}. Then S is
obviously multiplicatively closed. The corresponding localization S −1 R is
often written as Ra ; we call it the localization of R at the element a.
(d) Let P ⊆ R be a prime ideal. Then S = R \ P is multiplicatively
closed, since a ∈
/ P and b ∈
/ P implies ab ∈
/ P by Definition 1.3.1 (a).
The resulting localization S −1 R is usually denoted by RP and called the
localization of R at the prime ideal P .
In fact, this construction of localizing a ring at a prime ideal is probably
the most important case of localization. In particular, if R = A(X) is the
ring of functions on a variety X and

P = I(a) = {f ∈ A(X) | f (a) = 0}

the ideal of a point a ∈ X (which is maximal and hence prime, see Remark
1.3.7), the localization RP is exactly the ring of local functions on X at a as
in Remark 1.4.1 (b). So localizing a coordinate ring at the maximal ideal
corresponding to a point can be thought of as studying the variety locally
around this point.

1.4.8 Example. (Localizations of Z). As concrete examples, let us apply

the constructions of Example 1.4.7 to the ring R = Z of integers. Of
course, localizing at Z \ {0} as in (b) gives the quotient field QuotZ = Q
as in Remark 1.4.1 (a). If p ∈ Z is a prime number then localization at the

45
element p as in (c) gives the ring
a
Zp = { | a ∈ Z, n ∈ N} ⊆ Q,
pn
whereas localizing at the prime ideal (p) as in (d) yields
a
Z(p) = { | a ∈ Z, p 6 | b} ⊆ Q,
b
(these are both subrings of Q by Example 1.4.7 (b)). So note that we have
to be careful about the notations, in particular since Zp is usually also used
to denote the quotient Z/pZ.

After having seen many examples of localizations, let us now turn to the
study of their properties. We will start by relating ideals in a localization
S −1 R to ideals in R.

1.4.9 Proposition. (Ideals in localizations) Let S be a multiplicatively

closed subset of a ring R. In the following, we will consider contractions
and extensions by the ring homomorphism ϕ : R → S −1 R.
(a) For any ideal I ⊆ R we have
a
Ie = { | a ∈ I, s ∈ S}.
s
(b) For any ideal I ⊆ S −1 R we have (I c )e = I.
(c) Contraction and extension by ϕ give a one-to-one correspondence
1:1
{prime ideals in S −1 R} ←→ {prime ideals Iin R with I ∩ S = ∅}

I 7→ I c

I e 7→ I

Proof. (a) As 1
s ∈ S −1 R for s ∈ S, the ideal I e generated by ϕ(I) must
contain the elements 1s .ϕ(a) = a
s for a ∈ I. But it is easy to check that
{ as | a ∈ I, s ∈ S} is already an ideal in S −1 R, and so it has to be equal to
I e.

46
 (b) By Exercise 1.2.23 (b) it suffices to show the inclusion “ ⊇ ”. So let
a
s ∈ I. Then a ∈ ϕ−1 (I) = I c since ϕ(a) = a
1 = s. as ∈ I. By (a) applied to
a
I c it follows that s ∈ (I c )e .
(c) We have to check a couple of assertions.
The map “ → ” is well-defined: If I is a prime ideal in S −1 R then I c is a
prime ideal in R by Exercise 1.3.9 (b). Moreover, we must have I c ∩ S = ∅
as all elements of S are mapped to units by ϕ, and I cannot contain any
units.
The map “ ← ” is well-defined: Let I ⊆ R be a prime ideal with
I ∩ S = ∅. We have to check that I e is a prime ideal. So let as , bt ∈ S −1 R
with as . bt ∈ I e . By (a) this means that ab
st = u
c for some c ∈ I and u ∈ S,
i. e. there is an element v ∈ S with v(abu − stc) = 0. This implies that
uvab ∈ I. Since I is prime, one of these four factors must lie in I. But u
and v are in S and thus not in I. Hence we conclude that a ∈ I or b ∈ I,
a b
and therefore s ∈ I e or t ∈ I e by (a).
(I c )e = I for any prime ideal I in S −1 R: this follows from (b).
(I e )c = I for any prime ideal I in R with I ∩ S = ∅. By Exercise 1.2.23
(a) we only have to check the inclusion “ ⊆ ”. So let a ∈ (I e )c , i. e.
a a b
ϕ(a) = 1 ∈ I e . By (a) this means 1 = s for some b ∈ I and s ∈ S, and thus
there is an element u ∈ S with u(as − b) = 0. Therefore sua ∈ I, which
means that one of these factors is in I since I is prime. But s and u lie in
S and hence not in I. So we conclude that a ∈ I.

1.4.10 Example. (Prime ideals in RP ). Applying Proposition 1.4.9 (c)

to the case of a localization of a ring R at a prime ideal P , i. e. at the
multiplicatively closed subset R \ P as in Example 1.4.7 (d), gives a one-
to-one correspondence by contraction and extension
1:1
{prime ideals in RP } ←→ { prime ideals I in R with I ⊆ P } (∗)

One should compare this to the case of prime ideals in the quotient ring
R/P : by Lemma 1.2.25 and Corollary 1.3.4 we have a one-to-one corre-

47
spondence
1:1
{prime ideals in R/P } ←→ {prime ideals I in R with I ⊇ P } (∗)

this time by contraction and extension by the quotient map. Unfortunately,

general ideals do not behave as nicely: whereas ideals in the quotient R/P
still correspond to ideals in R containing P , the analogous statement for
general ideals in the localization RP would be false.
As we will see now, another consequence of the one-to-one correspon-
dence (∗) is that the localization RP has exactly one maximal ideal (of
course it always has at least one by Corollary 1.3.16). Since this is a very
important property of rings, it has a special name.

1.4.11 Definition. (Local rings). A ring is called local if it has exactly one
maximal ideal.

1.4.12 Exercise. Prove that R is a local ring if and only if R \ U(R) is an

ideal of R.

1.4.13 Corollary. (RP is local). Let P be a prime ideal in a ring R. Then

RP is local with maximal ideal P e = { as | a ∈ P, s ∈
/ P }.

Proof. Obviously, the set of all prime ideals of R contained in P has the
upper bound P . So as the correspondence (∗) of Example 1.4.10 preserves
inclusions, we see that every prime ideal in RP is contained in P e . In partic-
ular, every maximal ideal in RP must be contained in P e . But this means
that P e is the only maximal ideal. The formula for P e is just Proposition
1.4.9 (a).

1.4.14 Remark. Let S be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring R, and

let I be an ideal in R. We set S −1 I := { as | a ∈ I, s ∈ S}. Then by
Proposition 1.4.9 (a), S −1 I is just the extension I e of I with respect to the
canonical map R → S −1 R, a 7→ a1 .

48
1.4.15 Exercise. Let S be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring R,
and let I, J be ideals of R. Prove:
(a) S −1 (I + J) = S −1 I + S −1 J.
(b) S −1 (I ∩ J) = S −1 I ∩ S −1 J.
√ √
(c) S −1 I = S −1 I.

Note however that arbitrary localizations as in Definition 1.4.3 are in

general not local rings.

1.4.16 Remark. (Rings of local functions on a variety are local). If R =

A(X) is the coordinate ring of a variety X and P = I(a) the maximal ideal
of a point a ∈ X, the localization RP is the ring of local functions on X
at a as in Example 1.4.7 (d). By Corollary 1.4.13, this is a local ring with
unique maximal ideal P e , i. e. with only the maximal ideal corresponding
to the point a. This fits nicely with the interpretation of Remark 1.4.1 (b)
that RP describes an “arbitrarily small neighborhood” of a: although every
function in RP is defined on X in a neighborhood of a, there is no point
except a at which every function in RP is well-defined.

1.4.17 Exercise. (Universal property of localization). Let S be a multi-

plicatively closed subset of a ring R. Prove that the localization S −1 R sat-
isfies the following universal property: for any homomorphism α : R → R0
to another ring R0 that maps S to units in R0 there is a unique ring homo-
morphism ϕ : S −1 R → R0 such that ϕ( 1r ) = α(r) for all r ∈ R.

1.4.18 Exercise. (a) Let R = R[x, y] = (xy) and P = (x − 1) ⊆ R. Show

that P is a maximal ideal of R, and that RP ∼
= R[x](x−1) . What does this
mean geometrically?
(b) Let R be a ring and a ∈ R. Show that Ra ∼
= R[x]/(ax − 1), where
Ra denotes the localization of R at a as in Example 1.4.7 (c). Can you give
a geometric interpretation of this statement?

49
1.4.19 Exercise. Let S be a multiplicatively closed subset in a ring R,
and let I ⊆ R be an ideal with I ∩ S = ∅. Prove the following “localized
version” of Corrolary 1.3.16:
(a) The ideal I is contained in a prime ideal P of R such that P ∩ S = ∅
and S −1 P is a maximal ideal in S −1 R.
(b) The ideal I is not necessarily contained in a maximal ideal P of R
with P ∩ S = ∅.

1.4.20 Exercise. (Saturations). For a multiplicatively closed subset S of

a ring R we call

S := {s ∈ R | as ∈ S for some a ∈ R}

the saturation of S. Show that S is a multiplicatively closed subset as well,

and that S −1 R ∼
= S −1 R.

50