Please help me understand “The Weak Nullstellensatz.”












1












$begingroup$


I'm studying Lovett. "Abstract Algebra." Chapter 12. Multivariable Polynomial Rings. Section 3. The Nullstellensatz.



The book deduces The weak nullstellensatz from proposition 12.3.2. The author doesn't give proof for the weak nullstellensatz.




Proposition 12.3.2 $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $E$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. If $E$ is a field then it is a finite extension of $F$.



Theorem 12.3.3 (The Weak Nullstellensatz) $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $R$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then the field $R/M$ is a finite extension of $F$. In particular, if $F$ is algebraically closed, then $R/M cong F$.




I don't understand two parts (Actually there are more that I don't understand but I think I can solve the rest myself once I understand these two parts).



1) Why is $R$ a ring? To talk about the ideal in $R$, $R$ should be a ring. I think the author is assuming that $(R, +, [,])$ is a ring in the $F$-algebra structure $(F, +, times, R, + cdot, [,])$, where the first $+$ and $times$ are addition and multiplication in $F$, the second $+$ is an addition in $R$, $cdot$ is a scalar multiplication, and $[,]$ is an $F$-bilinear map in $R$. I know that if $[,]$ is associative then $R$ is a ring. But I can't prove that.



2) Why is $R/M$ an $F$-algebra? To deduce that $R/M$ is a fiinite extension of $F$ from proposition 12.3.2, $R/M$ should be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. I think the author is assuming that $(F, +, times, R/M, +, cdot, [,])$ is an $F$-algebra structure, where for the second $+$,
$$+: R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 + r_2},$$
$$cdot: F times R/M to R/M, (f, overline{r}) mapsto overline{fr},$$ and
$$[,]:R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 r_2}.$$
But if $cdot$ is to be well-defined, shouldn't $M$ be a submodule of $R$? I don't see why $M$ is a submodule.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    How is an $F$-algebra defined?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:39












  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:39












  • $begingroup$
    Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:43










  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:45
















1












$begingroup$


I'm studying Lovett. "Abstract Algebra." Chapter 12. Multivariable Polynomial Rings. Section 3. The Nullstellensatz.



The book deduces The weak nullstellensatz from proposition 12.3.2. The author doesn't give proof for the weak nullstellensatz.




Proposition 12.3.2 $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $E$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. If $E$ is a field then it is a finite extension of $F$.



Theorem 12.3.3 (The Weak Nullstellensatz) $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $R$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then the field $R/M$ is a finite extension of $F$. In particular, if $F$ is algebraically closed, then $R/M cong F$.




I don't understand two parts (Actually there are more that I don't understand but I think I can solve the rest myself once I understand these two parts).



1) Why is $R$ a ring? To talk about the ideal in $R$, $R$ should be a ring. I think the author is assuming that $(R, +, [,])$ is a ring in the $F$-algebra structure $(F, +, times, R, + cdot, [,])$, where the first $+$ and $times$ are addition and multiplication in $F$, the second $+$ is an addition in $R$, $cdot$ is a scalar multiplication, and $[,]$ is an $F$-bilinear map in $R$. I know that if $[,]$ is associative then $R$ is a ring. But I can't prove that.



2) Why is $R/M$ an $F$-algebra? To deduce that $R/M$ is a fiinite extension of $F$ from proposition 12.3.2, $R/M$ should be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. I think the author is assuming that $(F, +, times, R/M, +, cdot, [,])$ is an $F$-algebra structure, where for the second $+$,
$$+: R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 + r_2},$$
$$cdot: F times R/M to R/M, (f, overline{r}) mapsto overline{fr},$$ and
$$[,]:R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 r_2}.$$
But if $cdot$ is to be well-defined, shouldn't $M$ be a submodule of $R$? I don't see why $M$ is a submodule.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    How is an $F$-algebra defined?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:39












  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:39












  • $begingroup$
    Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:43










  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:45














1












1








1





$begingroup$


I'm studying Lovett. "Abstract Algebra." Chapter 12. Multivariable Polynomial Rings. Section 3. The Nullstellensatz.



The book deduces The weak nullstellensatz from proposition 12.3.2. The author doesn't give proof for the weak nullstellensatz.




Proposition 12.3.2 $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $E$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. If $E$ is a field then it is a finite extension of $F$.



Theorem 12.3.3 (The Weak Nullstellensatz) $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $R$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then the field $R/M$ is a finite extension of $F$. In particular, if $F$ is algebraically closed, then $R/M cong F$.




I don't understand two parts (Actually there are more that I don't understand but I think I can solve the rest myself once I understand these two parts).



1) Why is $R$ a ring? To talk about the ideal in $R$, $R$ should be a ring. I think the author is assuming that $(R, +, [,])$ is a ring in the $F$-algebra structure $(F, +, times, R, + cdot, [,])$, where the first $+$ and $times$ are addition and multiplication in $F$, the second $+$ is an addition in $R$, $cdot$ is a scalar multiplication, and $[,]$ is an $F$-bilinear map in $R$. I know that if $[,]$ is associative then $R$ is a ring. But I can't prove that.



2) Why is $R/M$ an $F$-algebra? To deduce that $R/M$ is a fiinite extension of $F$ from proposition 12.3.2, $R/M$ should be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. I think the author is assuming that $(F, +, times, R/M, +, cdot, [,])$ is an $F$-algebra structure, where for the second $+$,
$$+: R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 + r_2},$$
$$cdot: F times R/M to R/M, (f, overline{r}) mapsto overline{fr},$$ and
$$[,]:R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 r_2}.$$
But if $cdot$ is to be well-defined, shouldn't $M$ be a submodule of $R$? I don't see why $M$ is a submodule.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I'm studying Lovett. "Abstract Algebra." Chapter 12. Multivariable Polynomial Rings. Section 3. The Nullstellensatz.



The book deduces The weak nullstellensatz from proposition 12.3.2. The author doesn't give proof for the weak nullstellensatz.




Proposition 12.3.2 $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $E$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. If $E$ is a field then it is a finite extension of $F$.



Theorem 12.3.3 (The Weak Nullstellensatz) $;$ Let $F$ be a field and let $R$ be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $R$. Then the field $R/M$ is a finite extension of $F$. In particular, if $F$ is algebraically closed, then $R/M cong F$.




I don't understand two parts (Actually there are more that I don't understand but I think I can solve the rest myself once I understand these two parts).



1) Why is $R$ a ring? To talk about the ideal in $R$, $R$ should be a ring. I think the author is assuming that $(R, +, [,])$ is a ring in the $F$-algebra structure $(F, +, times, R, + cdot, [,])$, where the first $+$ and $times$ are addition and multiplication in $F$, the second $+$ is an addition in $R$, $cdot$ is a scalar multiplication, and $[,]$ is an $F$-bilinear map in $R$. I know that if $[,]$ is associative then $R$ is a ring. But I can't prove that.



2) Why is $R/M$ an $F$-algebra? To deduce that $R/M$ is a fiinite extension of $F$ from proposition 12.3.2, $R/M$ should be a finitely generated $F$-algebra. I think the author is assuming that $(F, +, times, R/M, +, cdot, [,])$ is an $F$-algebra structure, where for the second $+$,
$$+: R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 + r_2},$$
$$cdot: F times R/M to R/M, (f, overline{r}) mapsto overline{fr},$$ and
$$[,]:R/M times R/M to R/M, (overline{r_1}, overline{r_2}) mapsto overline{r_1 r_2}.$$
But if $cdot$ is to be well-defined, shouldn't $M$ be a submodule of $R$? I don't see why $M$ is a submodule.







abstract-algebra modules polynomial-rings






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 31 '18 at 9:41









zxcvzxcv

1919




1919












  • $begingroup$
    How is an $F$-algebra defined?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:39












  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:39












  • $begingroup$
    Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:43










  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:45


















  • $begingroup$
    How is an $F$-algebra defined?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:39












  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:39












  • $begingroup$
    Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
    $endgroup$
    – Kenny Lau
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:43










  • $begingroup$
    @Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
    $endgroup$
    – zxcv
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:45
















$begingroup$
How is an $F$-algebra defined?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:07




$begingroup$
How is an $F$-algebra defined?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:07












$begingroup$
@Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39






$begingroup$
@Kenny Let $R$ be a commutative ring. An $R$-algebra is a pair $(M, [,])$ where $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ and where $[,]$ is a $R$-bilinear map $[,]: M times M to M$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39














$begingroup$
@Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39






$begingroup$
@Kenny $R$-bilinear map is defined as follows: Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $M$, $N$, $P$ be three $R$-modules. A function $varphi: M times N to P$ is called bilinear if (1) $varphi(m_1+m_2,n)=varphi(m_1,n)+varphi(m_2,n)$ for all $m_1,m_2in M$ and all $nin N$; (2) $varphi(rm,n)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$; (3) $varphi(m,n_1+n_2)=varphi(m,n_1)+varphi(m,n_2)$ for all $min M$ and all $n_1,n_2in N$; (4) $varphi(m,rn)=rvarphi(m,n)$ for all $rin R$, all $min M$, and all $nin N$.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:39














$begingroup$
Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:43




$begingroup$
Is it how it is defined in Lovett?
$endgroup$
– Kenny Lau
Dec 31 '18 at 10:43












$begingroup$
@Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:45




$begingroup$
@Kenny Yes, I copied down the whole definition.
$endgroup$
– zxcv
Dec 31 '18 at 10:45










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.



In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
$$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057549%2fplease-help-me-understand-the-weak-nullstellensatz%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









    1












    $begingroup$

    In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.



    In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
    $$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
    for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.



      In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
      $$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
      for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.



        In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
        $$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
        for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        In thm.12.3.3, $R$ should be assumed to be an associative $F$-algebra (with identity), hence it is a ring.



        In the presence of identity element, every ideal $M$ of an $F$-algebra $R$ is also a submodule (subspace):
        $$lambdacdot m=[(lambdacdot 1),m]in M$$
        for any $min M$ and $lambdain F$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:47









        BerciBerci

        62k23776




        62k23776






























            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057549%2fplease-help-me-understand-the-weak-nullstellensatz%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

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?