Does this property of comaximal ideals always holds?












5












$begingroup$


I am reading a paper in which the following result is used but I can’t see the proof of this.




let $R$ be a commutative ring with only two maximal ideals say $M_1$ and $M_2$. Suppose $m_1 in M_1$ be such that $m_1 notin M_2$ then can be always find $m_2 in M_2$ such that $m_1+m_2=1$




Any ideas?






abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$, this ideal must be $R=(1)$ since $M_2$ is maximal
    $endgroup$
    – B.Swan
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Swan this approach doesn't work, to see why try writing out the details
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Mathers
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Set $I=(M_2 cup {m_1}) $, the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$. Elements of $I$ have the form $x+rm_1$, where $x in M_2$ and $r in R$. Since $m_1 notin M_2$ and $M_2$ maximal, it follows $I=R$. Thus there exists $s in R$ with $1=x+sm_1$. And I guess one gets stuck here. Sorry for the wrong approach and thanks for pointing it out.
    $endgroup$
    – B.Swan
    1 hour ago


















5












$begingroup$


I am reading a paper in which the following result is used but I can’t see the proof of this.




let $R$ be a commutative ring with only two maximal ideals say $M_1$ and $M_2$. Suppose $m_1 in M_1$ be such that $m_1 notin M_2$ then can be always find $m_2 in M_2$ such that $m_1+m_2=1$




Any ideas?






abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$, this ideal must be $R=(1)$ since $M_2$ is maximal
    $endgroup$
    – B.Swan
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Swan this approach doesn't work, to see why try writing out the details
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Mathers
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Set $I=(M_2 cup {m_1}) $, the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$. Elements of $I$ have the form $x+rm_1$, where $x in M_2$ and $r in R$. Since $m_1 notin M_2$ and $M_2$ maximal, it follows $I=R$. Thus there exists $s in R$ with $1=x+sm_1$. And I guess one gets stuck here. Sorry for the wrong approach and thanks for pointing it out.
    $endgroup$
    – B.Swan
    1 hour ago
















5












5








5


1



$begingroup$


I am reading a paper in which the following result is used but I can’t see the proof of this.




let $R$ be a commutative ring with only two maximal ideals say $M_1$ and $M_2$. Suppose $m_1 in M_1$ be such that $m_1 notin M_2$ then can be always find $m_2 in M_2$ such that $m_1+m_2=1$




Any ideas?






abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am reading a paper in which the following result is used but I can’t see the proof of this.




let $R$ be a commutative ring with only two maximal ideals say $M_1$ and $M_2$. Suppose $m_1 in M_1$ be such that $m_1 notin M_2$ then can be always find $m_2 in M_2$ such that $m_1+m_2=1$




Any ideas?






abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals




abstract-algebra ring-theory commutative-algebra maximal-and-prime-ideals






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 2 hours ago









Math LoverMath Lover

1,029315




1,029315












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$, this ideal must be $R=(1)$ since $M_2$ is maximal
    $endgroup$
    – B.Swan
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Swan this approach doesn't work, to see why try writing out the details
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Mathers
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Set $I=(M_2 cup {m_1}) $, the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$. Elements of $I$ have the form $x+rm_1$, where $x in M_2$ and $r in R$. Since $m_1 notin M_2$ and $M_2$ maximal, it follows $I=R$. Thus there exists $s in R$ with $1=x+sm_1$. And I guess one gets stuck here. Sorry for the wrong approach and thanks for pointing it out.
    $endgroup$
    – B.Swan
    1 hour ago




















  • $begingroup$
    Consider the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$, this ideal must be $R=(1)$ since $M_2$ is maximal
    $endgroup$
    – B.Swan
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Swan this approach doesn't work, to see why try writing out the details
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Mathers
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Set $I=(M_2 cup {m_1}) $, the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$. Elements of $I$ have the form $x+rm_1$, where $x in M_2$ and $r in R$. Since $m_1 notin M_2$ and $M_2$ maximal, it follows $I=R$. Thus there exists $s in R$ with $1=x+sm_1$. And I guess one gets stuck here. Sorry for the wrong approach and thanks for pointing it out.
    $endgroup$
    – B.Swan
    1 hour ago


















$begingroup$
Consider the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$, this ideal must be $R=(1)$ since $M_2$ is maximal
$endgroup$
– B.Swan
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Consider the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$, this ideal must be $R=(1)$ since $M_2$ is maximal
$endgroup$
– B.Swan
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
@B.Swan this approach doesn't work, to see why try writing out the details
$endgroup$
– Alex Mathers
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@B.Swan this approach doesn't work, to see why try writing out the details
$endgroup$
– Alex Mathers
2 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Set $I=(M_2 cup {m_1}) $, the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$. Elements of $I$ have the form $x+rm_1$, where $x in M_2$ and $r in R$. Since $m_1 notin M_2$ and $M_2$ maximal, it follows $I=R$. Thus there exists $s in R$ with $1=x+sm_1$. And I guess one gets stuck here. Sorry for the wrong approach and thanks for pointing it out.
$endgroup$
– B.Swan
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
Set $I=(M_2 cup {m_1}) $, the ideal generated by $M_2$ and $m_1$. Elements of $I$ have the form $x+rm_1$, where $x in M_2$ and $r in R$. Since $m_1 notin M_2$ and $M_2$ maximal, it follows $I=R$. Thus there exists $s in R$ with $1=x+sm_1$. And I guess one gets stuck here. Sorry for the wrong approach and thanks for pointing it out.
$endgroup$
– B.Swan
1 hour ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.



Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.




Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    Take $R=mathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$, $M_1=mathbb{Q}times{0}$, $M_2={0}timesmathbb{Q}$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$



    Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.



    Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      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%2f3148803%2fdoes-this-property-of-comaximal-ideals-always-holds%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5












      $begingroup$

      First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.



      Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.




      Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        5












        $begingroup$

        First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.



        Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.




        Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.



          Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.




          Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          First notice that $1-m_1$ cannot be a unit, because this would imply $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical of $R$, and in particular we would have $m_1in M_2$.



          Now it follows that the ideal of $R$ generated by $1-m_1$ must be contained in a maximal ideal, but it cannot be contained in $M_1$ because then it would follow that $1in M_1$. Thus this ideal is contained in $M_2$ (the only other maximal ideal), i.e. you get $1-m_1in M_2$.




          Edit: I think my reasoning for $1-m_1$ not being a unit is wrong (it seems we would need that $1-m_1x$ is a unit for every $xin R$ to conclude $m_1$ is in the Jacobson radical). The rest of the argument goes through, so I'm going to leave my answer up for a while in hopes that somebody can help figure that part out.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 1 hour ago

























          answered 2 hours ago









          Alex MathersAlex Mathers

          11.1k21344




          11.1k21344























              2












              $begingroup$

              Take $R=mathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$, $M_1=mathbb{Q}times{0}$, $M_2={0}timesmathbb{Q}$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$



              Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.



              Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                Take $R=mathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$, $M_1=mathbb{Q}times{0}$, $M_2={0}timesmathbb{Q}$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$



                Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.



                Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  Take $R=mathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$, $M_1=mathbb{Q}times{0}$, $M_2={0}timesmathbb{Q}$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$



                  Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.



                  Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Take $R=mathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$, $M_1=mathbb{Q}times{0}$, $M_2={0}timesmathbb{Q}$, and $m_1=(2,0)in M_1setminus M_2$. Then $(1,1)inmathbb{Q}timesmathbb{Q}$ satisfies that $$(1,1)-(2,0)=(-1,1)notin M_2$$



                  Therefore, that property is not satisfied in general.



                  Maybe the property that they are really using is that there exist $ain M_1$ and $bin M_2$ such that $a+b=1$. Not arbitrary $a,b$. This other property is immediate by using the maximality of $M_1$ and $M_2$, which implies that $M_1+M_2=R$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 25 mins ago

























                  answered 1 hour ago









                  user647486user647486

                  413




                  413






























                      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%2f3148803%2fdoes-this-property-of-comaximal-ideals-always-holds%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

                      Reichsarbeitsdienst

                      Image
                      Hausflagge des RAD mit Symbol Staatssekretär Konstantin Hierl schreitet auf dem Tempelhofer Feld die Front des RAD ab. Maifeier Berlin, 1. Mai 1934 RAD beim Straßenbau, 1936 RAD-Parade: „Der große Aufmarsch der 38.000 Arbeits­dienst­männer vor dem Führer auf dem Zeppelin­feld“, „Reichs­partei­tag der Arbeit“. Männer des RAD mit ge­schulter­tem Spaten vor Hitler im Auto, 6.–13. Sep. 1937 Reichsparteitag Nürnberg, Arbeits­dienst-Zeltlager mit Arbeitsmaiden, August 1939 Paramilitärischer Aufmarsch des Ar­beits­dienstes, ca. 1940 Vormaliges RAD-Lager (4/224), Ober­mill­statt, um 1940 erbaut als Quartier für junge, zum Arbeits­dienst eingezogene Frau­en, auch Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM), die bei den Ober­mill­stätter Bauern ein­gesetzt waren, 1950 Der Reichsarbeitsdienst ( RAD ) war eine Organisation im nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Reich. Das Gesetz für den Reichsarbeitsdienst wurde am 26. Juni 1935 erlassen. § 1 (2) lautete: „Alle jungen Deutschen beider
                      Read more

                      Statuo de Libereco

                      Image
                      Koordinatoj: 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Statuo de Libereco angle: Statue of Liberty statuo Statuo de Libereco de antaŭe Oficiala nomo: Liberty Enlightening the World Lando  Usono Ŝtato Novjorkio Regiono Novjorko Insulo Insulo de Libereco Situo Statuo de Libereco  - koordinatoj 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Alteco de statuo 46 m  - alteco kun soklo 93 m Pezo 205 000 kg (451 948 lb) Materialoj bronzo, ŝtalo Proponinto Gustave Eiffel  - skulptisto Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi  - proponinto de soklo Richard Morris Hunt  - kapo laŭ modelo de Isabella Eugenie Boyer Transdonita 4-an de julio 1886 Por publiko alirebla por publiko Horzono OT (UTC-5)  - somera tempo OT (UTC-4) Loko
                      Read more

                      Tanganjiko

                      Image
                      Lago Tanganjiko Situo centra Afriko Ĉefaj fontoj Kalambo, Lufuko, Malagarasi kaj Ruzizi Ĉefaj elfluoj Lukugo Setlejoj Bujumbura, Kalemie Datenoj Koordinatoj 6°  S , 30°  O -6.3827777777778 29.615 782 Koordinatoj: 6°  S , 30°  O DEC Supermara alteco 782 m Surfaca areo 32 893 km² f5 Maksimuma longo 673 km f6 Maksimuma larĝo 72 km f7 Akva volumeno 18.900 km³ dep1 f8 Maksimuma profundo 1470 m f10 Averaĝa profundo 570 m f11 v   •   d   •   r Mapo de la lago Tanganjiko estas lago en orienta Afriko, inter Burundo, Kongo Kinŝasa, Tanzanio kaj Zambio. Ĝi apartenas al la Granda Rifto kaj estas unu el la Afrikaj Grandaj Lagoj. Tanzanio (46%) kaj DRK (40%) havas la majoritaton de la lago. Ĝi havas longon de 673 km, areon de ĉ. 32.900 km² kaj maksimuman profundon taksatan je 1470 metroj; pro tiu ĉi granda profundo ankaŭ ĝia volumeno estas sufiĉe granda, 18.900 km³. Oni konsi
                      Read more