Lemma 10.14.1. Let $R$ be a ring, $I$ and $J$ two ideals and $\mathfrak p$ a prime ideal containing the product $IJ$. Then $\mathfrak {p}$ contains $I$ or $J$.

## 10.14 Miscellany

The proofs in this section should not refer to any results except those from the section on basic notions, Section 10.3.

**Proof.**
Assume the contrary and take $x \in I \setminus \mathfrak p$ and $y \in J \setminus \mathfrak p$. Their product is an element of $IJ \subset \mathfrak p$, which contradicts the assumption that $\mathfrak p$ was prime.
$\square$

Lemma 10.14.2 (Prime avoidance). Let $R$ be a ring. Let $I_ i \subset R$, $i = 1, \ldots , r$, and $J \subset R$ be ideals. Assume

$J \not\subset I_ i$ for $i = 1, \ldots , r$, and

all but two of $I_ i$ are prime ideals.

Then there exists an $x \in J$, $x\not\in I_ i$ for all $i$.

**Proof.**
The result is true for $r = 1$. If $r = 2$, then let $x, y \in J$ with $x \not\in I_1$ and $y \not\in I_2$. We are done unless $x \in I_2$ and $y \in I_1$. Then the element $x + y$ cannot be in $I_1$ (since that would mean $x + y - y \in I_1$) and it also cannot be in $I_2$.

For $r \geq 3$, assume the result holds for $r - 1$. After renumbering we may assume that $I_ r$ is prime. We may also assume there are no inclusions among the $I_ i$. Pick $x \in J$, $x \not\in I_ i$ for all $i = 1, \ldots , r - 1$. If $x \not\in I_ r$ we are done. So assume $x \in I_ r$. If $J I_1 \ldots I_{r - 1} \subset I_ r$ then $J \subset I_ r$ (by Lemma 10.14.1) a contradiction. Pick $y \in J I_1 \ldots I_{r - 1}$, $y \not\in I_ r$. Then $x + y$ works. $\square$

Lemma 10.14.3. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $x \in R$, $I \subset R$ an ideal, and $\mathfrak p_ i$, $i = 1, \ldots , r$ be prime ideals. Suppose that $x + I \not\subset \mathfrak p_ i$ for $i = 1, \ldots , r$. Then there exists an $y \in I$ such that $x + y \not\in \mathfrak p_ i$ for all $i$.

**Proof.**
We may assume there are no inclusions among the $\mathfrak p_ i$. After reordering we may assume $x \not\in \mathfrak p_ i$ for $i < s$ and $x \in \mathfrak p_ i$ for $i \geq s$. If $s = r + 1$ then we are done. If not, then we can find $y \in I$ with $y \not\in \mathfrak p_ s$. Choose $f \in \bigcap _{i < s} \mathfrak p_ i$ with $f \not\in \mathfrak p_ s$. Then $x + fy$ is not contained in $\mathfrak p_1, \ldots , \mathfrak p_ s$. Thus we win by induction on $s$.
$\square$

Lemma 10.14.4 (Chinese remainder). Let $R$ be a ring.

If $I_1, \ldots , I_ r$ are ideals such that $I_ a + I_ b = R$ when $a \not= b$, then $I_1 \cap \ldots \cap I_ r = I_1I_2\ldots I_ r$ and $R/(I_1I_2\ldots I_ r) \cong R/I_1 \times \ldots \times R/I_ r$.

If $\mathfrak m_1, \ldots , \mathfrak m_ r$ are pairwise distinct maximal ideals then $\mathfrak m_ a + \mathfrak m_ b = R$ for $a \not= b$ and the above applies.

**Proof.**
Let us first prove $I_1 \cap \ldots \cap I_ r = I_1 \ldots I_ r$ as this will also imply the injectivity of the induced ring homomorphism $R/(I_1 \ldots I_ r) \rightarrow R/I_1 \times \ldots \times R/I_ r$. The inclusion $I_1 \cap \ldots \cap I_ r \supset I_1 \ldots I_ r$ is always fulfilled since ideals are closed under multiplication with arbitrary ring elements. To prove the other inclusion, we claim that the ideals

generate the ring $R$. We prove this by induction on $r$. It holds when $r = 2$. If $r > 2$, then we see that $R$ is the sum of the ideals $I_1 \ldots \hat I_ i \ldots I_{r - 1}$, $i = 1, \ldots , r - 1$. Hence $I_ r$ is the sum of the ideals $I_1 \ldots \hat I_ i \ldots I_ r$, $i = 1, \ldots , r - 1$. Applying the same argument with the reverse ordering on the ideals we see that $I_1$ is the sum of the ideals $I_1 \ldots \hat I_ i \ldots I_ r$, $i = 2, \ldots , r$. Since $R = I_1 + I_ r$ by assumption we see that $R$ is the sum of the ideals displayed above. Therefore we can find elements $a_ i \in I_1 \ldots \hat I_ i \ldots I_ r$ such that their sum is one. Multiplying this equation by an element of $I_1 \cap \ldots \cap I_ r$ gives the other inclusion. It remains to show that the canonical map $R/(I_1 \ldots I_ r) \rightarrow R/I_1 \times \ldots \times R/I_ r$ is surjective. For this, consider its action on the equation $1 = \sum _{i=1}^ r a_ i$ we derived above. On the one hand, a ring morphism sends 1 to 1 and on the other hand, the image of any $a_ i$ is zero in $R/I_ j$ for $j \neq i$. Therefore, the image of $a_ i$ in $R/I_ i$ is the identity. So given any element $(\bar{b_1}, \ldots , \bar{b_ r}) \in R/I_1 \times \ldots \times R/I_ r$, the element $\sum _{i=1}^ r a_ i \cdot b_ i$ is an inverse image in $R$.

To see (2), by the very definition of being distinct maximal ideals, we have $\mathfrak {m}_ a + \mathfrak {m}_ b = R$ for $a \neq b$ and so the above applies. $\square$

Lemma 10.14.5. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $n \geq m$. Let $A$ be an $n \times m$ matrix with coefficients in $R$. Let $J \subset R$ be the ideal generated by the $m \times m$ minors of $A$.

For any $f \in J$ there exists a $m \times n$ matrix $B$ such that $BA = f 1_{m \times m}$.

If $f \in R$ and $BA = f 1_{m \times m}$ for some $m \times n$ matrix $B$, then $f^ m \in J$.

**Proof.**
For $I \subset \{ 1, \ldots , n\} $ with $|I| = m$, we denote by $E_ I$ the $m \times n$ matrix of the projection

and set $A_ I = E_ I A$, i.e., $A_ I$ is the $m \times m$ matrix whose rows are the rows of $A$ with indices in $I$. Let $B_ I$ be the adjugate (transpose of cofactor) matrix to $A_ I$, i.e., such that $A_ I B_ I = B_ I A_ I = \det (A_ I) 1_{m \times m}$. The $m \times m$ minors of $A$ are the determinants $\det A_ I$ for all the $I \subset \{ 1, \ldots , n\} $ with $|I| = m$. If $f \in J$ then we can write $f = \sum c_ I \det (A_ I)$ for some $c_ I \in R$. Set $B = \sum c_ I B_ I E_ I$ to see that (1) holds.

If $f 1_{m \times m} = BA$ then by the Cauchy-Binet formula (72) we have $f^ m = \sum b_ I \det (A_ I)$ where $b_ I$ is the determinant of the $m \times m$ matrix whose columns are the columns of $B$ with indices in $I$. $\square$

Lemma 10.14.6. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $n \geq m$. Let $A = (a_{ij})$ be an $n \times m$ matrix with coefficients in $R$, written in block form as

where $A_1$ has size $m \times m$. Let $B$ be the adjugate (transpose of cofactor) matrix to $A_1$. Then

where $f = \det (A_1)$ and $c_{ij}$ is (up to sign) the determinant of the $m \times m$ minor of $A$ corresponding to the rows $1, \ldots , \hat j, \ldots , m, i$.

**Proof.**
Since the adjugate has the property $A_1B = B A_1 = f$ the first block of the expression for $AB$ is correct. Note that

where $A_1^{ij}$ means $A_1$ with the $j$th row and $k$th column removed. This last expression is the row expansion of the determinant of the matrix in the statement of the lemma. $\square$

## Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like `$\pi$`

). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

## Comments (5)

Comment #1124 by OlgaD on

Comment #1529 by Johan on

Comment #3419 by Peter Fleischmann on

Comment #3424 by Fan on

Comment #3481 by Johan on