migrate dexample to new fancythm version

This commit is contained in:
Maximilian Keßler 2022-02-16 02:01:11 +01:00
parent 4382b6318d
commit e813f9dfc2

View file

@ -1525,13 +1525,13 @@ Recall the definition of a normal field extension in the case of finite field ex
There are, however, examples of Noetherian rings which fail to be universally Japanese. There are, however, examples of Noetherian rings which fail to be universally Japanese.
\end{remark} \end{remark}
\begin{dexample}[Counterexample to going down] \begin{example}+[Counterexample to going down]
Let $R = \mathfrak{k}[X,Y]$ and $A = \mathfrak{k}[X,Y, \frac{X}{Y}]$. Then going down does not hold for $A / R$: Let $R = \mathfrak{k}[X,Y]$ and $A = \mathfrak{k}[X,Y, \frac{X}{Y}]$. Then going down does not hold for $A / R$:
For any ideal $Y \in \fq \subseteq A$ we have $X = \frac{X}{Y} \cdot Y \in \fq$. For any ideal $Y \in \fq \subseteq A$ we have $X = \frac{X}{Y} \cdot Y \in \fq$.
Consider $(Y)_R \subsetneq (X,Y)_R \subseteq \fq \cap R$. As $(X,Y)_R$ is maximal and the preimage of a prime ideal is prime and thus proper, we have $(X,Y)_R = \fq \cap R$. Consider $(Y)_R \subsetneq (X,Y)_R \subseteq \fq \cap R$. As $(X,Y)_R$ is maximal and the preimage of a prime ideal is prime and thus proper, we have $(X,Y)_R = \fq \cap R$.
The prime ideal $(\frac{X}{Y},Y)_A = (\frac{X}{Y}, X,Y)_A$ is lying over $(X,Y)_R$, so going down is violated. The prime ideal $(\frac{X}{Y},Y)_A = (\frac{X}{Y}, X,Y)_A$ is lying over $(X,Y)_R$, so going down is violated.
\end{dexample} \end{example}
\subsubsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{$\codim(\{y\},Y) = \trdeg(\mathfrak{K}(Y) / \mathfrak{k})$}{codim(\{y\},Y) = trdeg(K(Y) /k)}} \subsubsection{Proof of \texorpdfstring{$\codim(\{y\},Y) = \trdeg(\mathfrak{K}(Y) / \mathfrak{k})$}{codim(\{y\},Y) = trdeg(K(Y) /k)}}
@ -1684,12 +1684,12 @@ From the fact about integrality and fields (\ref{fintaf}), it follows that $A_1
\begin{remark} \begin{remark}
As a consequence of his principal ideal theorem, Krull has shown the finiteness of $\hght(\fp)$ for $\fp \in \Spec A$ when $A$ is a Noetherian ring. But $\dim A = \sup_{\fp \in \Spec A} \hght(\fp) = \sup_{\mathfrak{m} \in \MaxSpec A} \hght(\mathfrak{m})$, the Krull dimension of the Noetherian topological space $\Spec A$ may nevertheless be infinite. As a consequence of his principal ideal theorem, Krull has shown the finiteness of $\hght(\fp)$ for $\fp \in \Spec A$ when $A$ is a Noetherian ring. But $\dim A = \sup_{\fp \in \Spec A} \hght(\fp) = \sup_{\mathfrak{m} \in \MaxSpec A} \hght(\mathfrak{m})$, the Krull dimension of the Noetherian topological space $\Spec A$ may nevertheless be infinite.
\end{remark} \end{remark}
\begin{dexample}[Noetherian ring with infinite dimension]\footnote{\url{https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1109732/noetherian-ring-with-infinite-krull-dimension-nagatas-example}} \begin{example}+[Noetherian ring with infinite dimension]\footnote{\url{https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1109732/noetherian-ring-with-infinite-krull-dimension-nagatas-example}}
Let $A = \mathfrak{k}[X_i | i \in \N]$ and $m_1, m_2, \ldots \in \N$ an increasing sequence such that $m_{i+1}-m_i > m_i - m_{i-1}$. Let $A = \mathfrak{k}[X_i | i \in \N]$ and $m_1, m_2, \ldots \in \N$ an increasing sequence such that $m_{i+1}-m_i > m_i - m_{i-1}$.
Let $\fp_i \coloneqq (X_{m_{i}+1},\ldots,X_{m_{i+1}})$ and $S \coloneqq A \setminus \bigcup_{i \in \N} \fp_i$. Let $\fp_i \coloneqq (X_{m_{i}+1},\ldots,X_{m_{i+1}})$ and $S \coloneqq A \setminus \bigcup_{i \in \N} \fp_i$.
$S$ is multiplicatively closed. $S$ is multiplicatively closed.
$A_S$ is Noetherian but $\hght((\fp_i)_S) = m_{i+1}- m_{i}$ hence $\dim(A_S) = \infty$. $A_S$ is Noetherian but $\hght((\fp_i)_S) = m_{i+1}- m_{i}$ hence $\dim(A_S) = \infty$.
\end{dexample} \end{example}
% Lecture 10 % Lecture 10
@ -1765,12 +1765,12 @@ From the fact about integrality and fields (\ref{fintaf}), it follows that $A_1
\begin{remark} \begin{remark}
It is not particularly hard to come up with examples which show that the converse implication does not hold. It is not particularly hard to come up with examples which show that the converse implication does not hold.
\end{remark} \end{remark}
\begin{dexample} \begin{example}+
Let $A = \mathfrak{k}[X_n | n \in \N] / I$ where $I$ denotes the ideal generated by $\{X_i^2 | i \in \N\}$. Let $A = \mathfrak{k}[X_n | n \in \N] / I$ where $I$ denotes the ideal generated by $\{X_i^2 | i \in \N\}$.
$A$ is not Noetherian, since the ideal $J$ generated by $\{X_i | i \in \N\} $ is not finitely generated. $A$ is not Noetherian, since the ideal $J$ generated by $\{X_i | i \in \N\} $ is not finitely generated.
$A / J \cong \mathfrak{k}$, hence $J$ is maximal. As every prime ideal must contain $\nil(A) \supseteq J$, $J$ is the only prime ideal. $A / J \cong \mathfrak{k}$, hence $J$ is maximal. As every prime ideal must contain $\nil(A) \supseteq J$, $J$ is the only prime ideal.
Thus $\Spec A$ contains only one element and is hence Noetherian. Thus $\Spec A$ contains only one element and is hence Noetherian.
\end{dexample} \end{example}
\begin{corollary}[About the smallest prime ideals containing $I$ ]\label{smallestprimesvi} \begin{corollary}[About the smallest prime ideals containing $I$ ]\label{smallestprimesvi}
If $R$ is Noetherian and $I \subseteq R$ an ideal, then the set $\Vspec(I) = \{\fp \in \Spec R | I \subseteq \fp\}$ has finitely many $\subseteq$-minimal elements $(\fp_i)_{i=1}^k$ and every element of $V(I)$ contains at least one $\fp_i$. If $R$ is Noetherian and $I \subseteq R$ an ideal, then the set $\Vspec(I) = \{\fp \in \Spec R | I \subseteq \fp\}$ has finitely many $\subseteq$-minimal elements $(\fp_i)_{i=1}^k$ and every element of $V(I)$ contains at least one $\fp_i$.