The Stacks project

Proposition 10.63.6. Let $R$ be a Noetherian ring. Let $M$ be a finite $R$-module. The following sets of primes are the same:

  1. The minimal primes in the support of $M$.

  2. The minimal primes in $\text{Ass}(M)$.

  3. For any filtration $0 = M_0 \subset M_1 \subset \ldots \subset M_{n-1} \subset M_ n = M$ with $M_ i/M_{i-1} \cong R/\mathfrak p_ i$ the minimal primes of the set $\{ \mathfrak p_ i\} $.

Proof. Choose a filtration as in (3). In Lemma 10.62.5 we have seen that the sets in (1) and (3) are equal.

Let $\mathfrak p$ be a minimal element of the set $\{ \mathfrak p_ i\} $. Let $i$ be minimal such that $\mathfrak p = \mathfrak p_ i$. Pick $m \in M_ i$, $m \not\in M_{i-1}$. The annihilator of $m$ is contained in $\mathfrak p_ i = \mathfrak p$ and contains $\mathfrak p_1 \mathfrak p_2 \ldots \mathfrak p_ i$. By our choice of $i$ and $\mathfrak p$ we have $\mathfrak p_ j \not\subset \mathfrak p$ for $j < i$ and hence we have $\mathfrak p_1 \mathfrak p_2 \ldots \mathfrak p_{i - 1} \not\subset \mathfrak p_ i$. Pick $f \in \mathfrak p_1 \mathfrak p_2 \ldots \mathfrak p_{i - 1}$, $f \not\in \mathfrak p$. Then $fm$ has annihilator $\mathfrak p$. In this way we see that $\mathfrak p$ is an associated prime of $M$. By Lemma 10.63.2 we have $\text{Ass}(M) \subset \text{Supp}(M)$ and hence $\mathfrak p$ is minimal in $\text{Ass}(M)$. Thus the set of primes in (1) is contained in the set of primes of (2).

Let $\mathfrak p$ be a minimal element of $\text{Ass}(M)$. Since $\text{Ass}(M) \subset \text{Supp}(M)$ there is a minimal element $\mathfrak q$ of $\text{Supp}(M)$ with $\mathfrak q \subset \mathfrak p$. We have just shown that $\mathfrak q \in \text{Ass}(M)$. Hence $\mathfrak q = \mathfrak p$ by minimality of $\mathfrak p$. Thus the set of primes in (2) is contained in the set of primes of (1). $\square$

Comments (2)

Comment #8382 by Fawzy N. Hegab on

In the phrase: "By Lemma 0586 we have and hence is minimal in ", I think minimality of in follows from the inclusion {}, not .

Comment #8995 by on

We already know that (1) and (3) are equal. So all that the argument does is to show that the prime is an associated prime and then we of course get that it is minimal as an associated prime. So, I think it is fine as written.

There are also:

  • 16 comment(s) on Section 10.63: Associated primes

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Your email address will not be published.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.

In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 02CE. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.