Noetherian Algebras

1. Basic Theory
1.1. R ring with a 1, not necessarily commutative.
Denition. A left R-module is an abelian group M (under +) together with a
multiplication
R M M
(r, m) r.m
satisfying
r(m+n) = rm+rn
(r +s)m = rm+sm
(rs)m = r(sm)
1m = m
for all m, n M and r, s R.
Right R-modules are dened similarly.
Examples. (1) R itself is both a left R-module and a right R-module.
(2) Any abelian group M is a left (and right) Z-module.
(3) If R = k is a eld, an R-module is just a k-vector space.
1.2. Denition. The left R-module M is said to be cyclic if it can be generated
by a single element: M = Rx for some x M. M is nitely generated if it can be
written as a nite sum of cyclic submodules M = Rx
1
+Rx
2
+. . . +Rx
n
.
Lemma. Any cyclic left R-module M = Rx is isomorphic to a quotient of R.
Proof. The map R M given by r rx is a left R-module homomorphism which
is onto and has kernel ann(x) = r R : rx = 0. This is a left ideal of R, known
as the annihilator of x. Hence M

= R/ ann(x).
1.3. Lemma. Let M be a left R-module. The following are equivalent:
(i) Every submodule of M is nitely generated
(ii) Ascending chain condition: There does not exist an innite strictly as-
cending chain of submodules of M
(iii) Maximum condition: Every non-empty subset of submodules of M contains
at least one maximal element. (If o is a set of submodules, then N o is a
maximal element if and only if N

o, N N

implies N = N

).
Proof. (i) (ii). Suppose M
1
_ M
2
_ . . .. Let N = M
n
. Then N is a submodule
of M so N is nitely generated by m
1
, . . . , m
r
say. If m
i
M
n
i
, then it follows
that N = M
n
where n = max n
i
, a contradiction.
(ii) (iii) If o is a nonempty subset with no maximal element, pick M
1

o. Since o has no maximal element, we can nd M
2
o such that M
1
_ M
2
.
1
2
Continuing like this gives a strictly ascending innite chain M
1
_ M
2
_ . . ., a
contradiction.
(iii) (i) Let N be a submodule of M and let o be the set of submodules of
N which are nitely generated. Since 0 o, o has a maximal element L, say. Let
x N. Since L + Rx is a nitely generated submodule of N and L is maximal in
o, L +Rx = L so x L. Hence N = L is itself nitely generated.
Dually, we have the descending chain condition and the minimum condition;
these are equivalent to each other.
1.4. Denition. An R-module satisfying (i), (ii), (iii) of Lemma 1.3 is Noetherian.
The ring R is left Noetherian if it is Noetherian as a left R-module.
An R-module satisfying the descending chain condition is said to be Artinian.
The ring R is left Artinian if it is Artinian as a left R-module.
We have similar denitions on the right hand side. Note that if the ring is
commutative, there is no dierence between left and right.
Examples. (1) Any division ring D is right and left Noetherian (as well as
right and left Artinian)
(2) Any principal ideal domain R is Noetherian - for example, R = Z or R =
[x].
1.5. Proposition. Let N be a submodule of M, a left R-module. Then M is
Noetherian if and only if both N and M/N are Noetherian.
Proof. () Since any submodule of N is a submodule of M, N is left Noetherian.
If Q
1
/N < Q
2
/N < . . . is a strictly ascending chain in M/N then Q
1
< Q
2
< . . . is
a strictly ascending chain in M, so M/N is left Noetherian.
() Suppose N and M/N are Noetherian and let L
1
L
2
. . . be an ascending
chain in M. Then (L
1
+ N)/N (L
2
+ N)/N . . . is an ascending chain in
M/N which terminates since M/N is Noetherian. Hence there exists k such that
L
i
+ N = L
k
+ N for all i k. Since N is Noetherian, there exists m such that
L
i
N = L
m
N for all i m.
We claim that L
i
= L
n
for all i n := max(k, m). Clearly L
n
L
i
; let x L
i
.
Then x L
i
L
n
+N so there exists y L
n
and z N such that x = y +z. Now
z = x y L
i
N = L
n
N so x L
n
also, as required.
1.6. Lemma. Suppose M can be expressed as a sum M = M
1
+ M
2
+ . . . + M
n
.
Then M is Noetherian if and only if each M
i
is Noetherian.
Proof. Suppose each M
i
is Noetherian. By an easy induction using (1.5), the di-
rect sum N = M
1
M
2
M
n
is Noetherian. Now there is an R-module
homomorphism f : N M such that f(m
1
, . . . , m
n
) = m
1
+ . . . + m
n
. Since
M = M
1
+M
2
+. . . +M
n
, f is onto so M

= N/ ker f is Noetherian by (1.5).
3
Conversely, since each M
i
is a submodule of M, if M is Noetherian then each
M
i
is Noetherian, again by (1.5).
Corollary. Let R be a left Noetherian ring. Then any nitely generated left R-
module is left Noetherian.
Proof. Any nitely generated module is a sum of cyclic modules. The result follows
from (1.2) and (1.6).
1.7. Proposition. Let R be a left Noetherian ring and let S be a ring containing
R such that S is a nitely generated left R-module under left multiplication by R.
Then S is Noetherian.
Proof. By Corollary 1.6, S is Noetherian as a left R module. Since any left ideal
of S is necessarily an R-submodule, S satises the ACC on left ideals. Hence S is
Noetherian.
1.8. Examples of Noetherian rings.
(1) Rings which are nite dimensional vector spaces over a eld k, for example
M
n
(k) and group algebras kG of nite groups (see (1.12)). Use Proposition
1.7 with R = k.
(2) Rings of integers in algebraic number eld, M
n
(Z). These are both nitely
generated Z-modules.
(3) k[[X]], the power series ring in one variable over a eld k (this is a PID).
(4) Let p be a xed prime and let Z
(p)
= q = m/n : (m, n) = 1 and p [ n.
This is an example of a localisation of Z. The localisation of a Noetherian
ring is Noetherian - see later.
(5) R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
d
], k a eld. This is Hilberts Basis Theorem - see
Theorem 1.14.
1.9. Free algebras. Let k be a eld. A k-algebra is a ring R containing k as a
central subeld.
Denition. The free associative algebra on n generators kx
1
, . . . , x
n
) is the k-
vector space with basis given by all possible products y
1
y
m
where y
1
, . . . , y
m

x
1
, . . . , x
n
. Multiplication is given by concatenation on basis elements and is
extended by k-linearity to the whole of kx
1
, . . . , x
n
).
Note that kx
1
, . . . , x
n
) is not nite dimensional over k.
For example, if n = 1 then kx) has 1, x, x
2
, . . . as a basis. In fact kx)

= k[x],
the polynomial algebra.
Similarly, kx, y) has as a k-basis the set 1, x, y, x
2
, xy, yx, y
2
, x
3
, x
2
y, . . .. It
can be shown (Exercise) that kx, y) is not Noetherian. For n 3 there is a ring
homomorphism kx
1
, . . . , x
n
) kx
1
, x
2
) which sends x
i
to x
i
if i = 1 or 2 and to
0 if i 3. This map is surjective, so kx
1
, . . . , x
n
) is not Noetherian for n 2.
4
Let V be the vector space spanned by x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
n
. Then
T(V ) := k V (V V ) (V V V )
is the tensor algebra on V . Multiplication is given on homogeneous components
by concatenation and is extended by linearity to T(V ). Check that T(V )

=
kx
1
, . . . , x
n
) where n = dimV , as k-algebras.
1.10. Enveloping algebras.
Denition. Let k be a eld. A Lie algebra over k is a k-vector space g, equipped
with a Lie bracket [.] : g g g satisfying
(1) (x, y) [x, y] is bilinear
(2) [x, x] = 0 for all x g and hence [y, z] = [z, y] for all y, z g
(3) [x, [y, z]] + [y, [z, x]] + [z, [y, x]] = 0 for all x, y, z g.
Note that this bracket is not associative.
Examples. (1) Any (associative) k-algebra R becomes a Lie algebra under the
commutator bracket [x, y] = xy yx.
(2) gl
n
(k), the set of all n n matrices over k with the commutator bracket.
(3) sl
n
(k), the set of traceless n n matrices over k with commutator bracket.
(4) If V is any vector space, we can dene the trivial bracket [x, y] = 0 for all
x, y V . This is the abelian Lie algebra.
Denition. The universal enveloping algebra |(g) of the Lie algebra g is dened
to be
|(g) := kx
1
, . . . x
n
)/I
where x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
n
is a basis for g and I is the ideal of kx
1
, . . . x
n
) generated
by the set x
i
x
j
x
j
x
i
[x
i
, x
j
], 1 i, j n.
For example, if g is abelian, then |(g) is just the polynomial algebra k[x
1
, . . . , x
n
].
Proposition. |(g) is left (and right) Noetherian for any nite dimensional Lie
algebra g.
Proof. See Corollary 7.8.
1.11. Weyl algebras. We begin with a motivational result.
Lemma. Let A = k[x] and consider the k-linear maps

x
: A A and x : A A,
where x is multiplication by x. Then
[

x
, x] = 1.
Proof. By the product rule,
[

x
, x](f) = (xf)

xf

= f
for all f A.
5
Now consider the polynomial algebra A = k[x
1
, . . . , x
n
] and the k-linear maps
x
i
: A A and

x
i
: A A
f x
i
f f
f
x
i
,
for 1 i n. These maps are examples of dierential operators on A. It can be
veried that all these operators commute, except for

x
i
and x
i
, which satisfy the
relation
[

x
i
, x
i
] = 1.
Denition. Let k be a eld. The n-th Weyl algebra A
n
(k) over k is dened to be
A
n
(k) := kx
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . y
n
)/I
where I is the ideal of kx
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . y
n
) generated by
x
i
x
j
x
j
x
i
1 i, j n,
y
i
y
j
y
j
y
i
1 i, j n,
y
i
x
i
x
i
y
i
1 1 i n,
x
i
y
j
y
j
x
i
i ,= j.
When n = 1, we obtain
A
1
(k) = kx, y)/yx xy 1).
There is a surjection A
n
(k) S where S is the k-subalgebra of End
k
(A) gen-
erated by x
1
, . . . , x
n
,
f
x
1
, . . . ,
f
x
n
, mapping x
i
to x
i
and y
i
to
f
x
i
. In fact,
A
n
(k)

= S if and only if the characteristic of k is zero.
Proposition. The Weyl algebras are left (and right) Noetherian for all n 1.
Proof. See Corollary 7.8.
1.12. Group Algebras.
Denition. Let G be a group and let R be a ring. The group algebra RG consists
of formal linear combinations

gG
r
g
g,
where r
g
R for all g G and all but nitely many r
g
are zero. Addition and
multiplication is given by
(

gG
r
g
g) + (

gG
s
g
g) =

gG
(r
g
+s
g
)g
(

hG
r
h
h)(

kG
s
k
k) =

gG
(

h,kG
hk=g
r
h
s
k
)g.
6
When k is a eld and V is a k-vector space, recall that a representation of G on
V is a group homomorphism
: G Aut
k
(V ).
Such a homomorphism extends uniquely to a k-algebra homomorphism
: kG End
k
(V )
and V may then be regarded as a left kG-module, via
x.v = (x)(v)
for all x kG.
Conversely, if V is a left kG-module, there is a representation : G Aut
k
(V )
given by
(g)(v) = g.v
for all v V .
Thus there is a 1-1 correspondence between representations of G and left kG-
modules.
1.13. Group algebras of poly-(cyclic or nite) groups.
Denition. The group G is said to be poly-(cyclic or nite) if there is a chain
1 = G
0
G
1
. . . G
n1
G
n
= G
of subgroups of G such that each G
i
/G
i1
is cyclic or nite for each i = 1, . . . , n.
Examples. (1) Finite groups G.
(2) Innite cyclic G = x)

= Z. In this case, kG

= k[x
1
, x], the ring of
Laurent polynomials.
(3) Free abelian G = x
1
, . . . , x
n
)

= Z
n
: kG

= k[x
1
1
, x
1
, . . . , x
1
n
, x
n
].
(4) G =
_
_
_
1 Z Z
0 1 Z
0 0 1
_
_
_. Here we have the chain
1 G
1
G
2
G
3
= G
where G
1
=
_
_
_
1 0 Z
0 1 0
0 0 1
_
_
_ and G
2
=
_
_
_
1 Z Z
0 1 0
0 0 1
_
_
_.
Proposition. Let R be a left(right) Noetherian ring and let G be a poly-(cyclic or
nite) group. Then RG is left(right) Noetherian.
Proof. After the proof of Hilberts Basis Theorem.
Question. Suppose ZG is left Noetherian. Must G be poly-(cyclic or nite)?
Theorem (Auslander-Swan). Let G be a poly-(cyclic or nite) group. Then
7
(1) G is isomorphic to a subgroup of GL
n
(Z) for some n.
(2) G has a subgroup H of nite index isomorphic to a subgroup of Tr
n
(O),
the group of upper-triangular matrices in GL
n
(O), where O is the ring of
integers of an algebraic number eld.
Proof. Omitted.
1.14. Hilberts Basis Theorem. We will prove the following noncommutative
version of Hilberts Basis Theorem:
Theorem (McConnell, 1968). Let S be a ring, R a left Noetherian subring and let
x S.
(1) If R +xR = R +Rx and S = R, x), then S is left Noetherian.
(2) Suppose Aut(R) is such that rx = xr

for all r R. If S = R, x),

then S is left Noetherian.
(3) Suppose x is a unit in S such that x
1
Rx = R. If S = R, x, x
1
), then S
is left Noetherian.
Proof. (1). R +Rx +. . . +Rx
n
= R +xR +. . . +x
n
R:
This follows by from R+xR = R+Rx. To see this, use induction to show that
x
n
R R +Rx +. . . +Rx
n
and Rx
n
R +xR +. . . x
n
R for all n 1.
Consequences:
(a) The set of all elements of S of the form
r
0
+xr
1
+. . . +x
n
r
n
, n 0 ()
forms a subring of S. Since it contains both R and x and S = R, x), we see
that S is the ring of all such polynomials. Note that elements of S need not
be uniquely expressible in the form ().
(b) The set of polynomials of degree n, namely R + Rx + . . . + Rx
n
, is both a
left and a right R-submodule of S.
(c) For each r R and n 0 there exists r

R such that r

x
n
= x
n
r + s where
deg s < n.
Now, let I be a left ideal in S. We will show that I is nitely generated. Let
I
n
= r
n
R : there exists s I such that s = r
0
+xr
1
+. . . +x
n
r
n
.
Its clear that I
n
is closed under addition. Let r R. By part (c) above, we can
nd r

R such that r

x
n
x
n
r has degree < n. Since I is a left ideal, r

s I, and
r

s r

x
n
r
n
x
n
(rr
n
)
modulo terms of degree < n. Hence rr
n
I
n
so I
n
is a left ideal of R.
Next, if s =

n
i=0
x
i
r
i
I, then xs =

n+1
i=1
x
i
r
i1
I so r
n
I
n+1
. Hence
I
n
I
n+1
for all n 0.
Since R is left Noetherian, the increasing chain
I
0
I
1
. . . I
n
. . .
8
must terminate. Say I
m
= I
m+1
= . . .. For i = 0, . . . , m let r
ij
be nitely many
elements of R generating I
i
as a left ideal of R. Choose s
ij
= x
i
r
ij
+ lower degree
terms I.
Claim: X = s
ij
: 0 i m, all j generates I as a left ideal.
Let s = r
0
+ xr
1
+ . . . + x
n
r
n
I, so that r
n
I
n
; well show that s RX.
Proceed by induction on n, the case n = 0 being trivial.
If n m then r
n
I
m
so r
n
=

a
j
r
mj
for some a
j
R. Choose a

j
R such
that a

j
x
n
= x
n
a
j
+ lower degree terms. Then s

j
x
nm
s
mj
I and modulo
terms of degree < n,
s

j
x
nm
s
mj
x
n
r
n

j
x
n
r
mj
x
n
r
n

x
n
a
j
r
mj
= 0.
So s

j
x
nm
s
mj
has smaller degree than s and we can apply induction.
If n m then r
n
=

a
j
r
nj
for some a
j
R, so for suitable a

j
R, s

j
s
nj
I also has smaller degree than s. By induction, these smaller degree
elements of I lie RX, as required.
(2) If rx = xr

for all r R, then Rx = xR so R +xR = R +Rx. Apply (1).

(3) Let T = R, x). Then T is left Noetherian by (2). Let I be a left ideal of S.
Now, I T is a left ideal of T and is hence nitely generated: I T =

n
i=1
Ts
i
,
say. If s S, then x
m
s I T for some m 0, so s =

n
i=1
x
m
a
i
s
i
for some
a
i
T. Hence the s
i
s generate I as a left ideal of S.

Proof of Proposition 1.13. Choosing a chain of subgroups

1 = G
0
G
1
. . . G
n1
G
n
= G
we see that its sucient to show that if RG
i1
is left Noetherian then so is RG
i
for all i = 1, . . . , n.
Suppose rst that G
i
/G
i1
is nite. Choose a nite transversal X for G
i1
in
G
i
, so that G
i
=
xX
G
i1
x. Then
RG
i
=

xX
RG
i1
x
is a nitely generated left RG
i1
-module, so RG
i
is left Noetherian by Proposition
1.7. Now, if G
i
/G
i1
is innite cyclic, choose a generator xG
i1
; then RG
i
is gen-
erated by RG
i1
,x and x
1
. Since G
i1
G
i
, RG
i1
is invariant under conjugation
by x, so RG
i
is left Noetherian by Theorem 1.14(3).
9
2. Ideal structure
Throughout this chapter, R denotes an arbitrary ring, unless stated otherwise.
2.1. Simple modules.
Denition. An R-module is M is simple or irreducible if M ,= 0 and the only
submodules of M are 0 and M.
Suppose M is simple. Choose 0 ,= x M; then M = Rx so M

= R/I where
I = ann(x) is the point annihilator of x, by Lemma 1.2. Note that ann(x) need
not be equal to ann(y) if x, y are distinct nonzero elements of M, unless R is
commutative.
Note that M = Rx is simple if and only if ann(x) is a maximal left ideal of R.
2.2. Zorns Lemma.
Denition. A poset is a set equipped with a binary relation which is reexive,
transitive and antisymmetric. A chain in a poset o is a countable subset ( =
x
1
, x
2
, . . . of o such that
x
1
x
2
. . . .
An upper bound for a subset ( of o is an element u o such that x u for all
x (. We say that x o is a maximal element if x y with y o forces x = y.
Theorem (Zorns Lemma). Let o be a nonempty poset. Suppose every chain in o
has an upper bound. Then o has a maximal element.
This is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice, which we will always assume.
2.3. Lemma. Suppose L is a proper left ideal of R. Then L is contained in a
maximal ideal I of R. Equivalently, every cyclic module has a simple quotient.
Proof. Since L is proper, 1 / L. Let o = K
l
R : L K, 1 / K. Since L o,
this set is nonempty. o is partially ordered by inclusion. If K
1
K
2
. . . is a chain
in o, then K
n
also contains L and doesnt contain 1, i.e. K
n
o. Hence every
chain in o has an upper bound in o. By Zorns Lemma, o has a maximal element
I. Its clear that I is now a maximal left ideal of R containing L as required.
2.4. Primitive ideals. Recall that by an ideal of R we mean a two-sided ideal.
Denition. Let I be a two-sided ideal of R. Then I is primitive if I is the anni-
hilator of a simple left R-module M:
I = Ann
R
(M) = x R : xM = 0 =

xM
ann(x).
This denition is not symmetrical, and it is known that left primitivity does not
imply right primitivity. Nonetheless, the attribute left is usually omitted. Note
that the annihilator I of any module M is always an ideal of R.
10
Lemma. Let M = Rx be a simple left R-module. Then I = Ann
R
(M) is the
largest two-sided ideal contained in L = ann(x).
Proof. Note that this largest two-sided ideal K exists, since the sum of all two-sided
ideals contained in L is itself a two-sided ideal contained in L. Certainly I L, so
I K. Now KM = KRx Kx Lx = 0 since K is two-sided, so K I.
Corollary. Every maximal ideal of R is primitive. Moreover, if R is commutative,
every primitive ideal is maximal.
2.5. Jacobson radical.
Denition. The Jacobson radical J(R) of R is dened to be the intersection of all
primitive ideals of R. The ring R is said to be semiprimitive if J(R) = 0.
It will be shown in Corollary 2.7 that this denition is left-right symmetric. Note
that J(R) is the set of elements of R which annihilate every simple left R-module.
Lemma. J(R) is equal to the intersection K of all maximal left ideals of R.
Proof. Let I be a maximal left ideal. Then P = Ann
R
(R/I) is primitive, so J(R)
P I by Lemma 2.4. Hence J(R) K.
Now let P = Ann
R
(M) be a primitive ideal, where M is a simple R-module.
Note that P =
0=xM
ann(x) is an intersection of maximal left ideals, so K P.
It follows that K J(R) as required.
2.6. Nakayamas Lemma.
Lemma. Let M be a nitely generated nonzero left R-module and let J = J(R).
Then JM is strictly contained in M.
Proof. Since M is nitely generated, we can choose a cyclic quotient N of M, which
has a simple quotient M/K by Lemma 2.3. Then J.(M/K) = 0 so JM K which
is strictly contained in M.
Note that the condition that M is nitely generated is necessary here: if p is a
prime, R = Z
(p)
and M = then J = pR and JM = p = M.
2.7. Recall that an element x R is a unit if there exists y R such that
xy = yx = 1.
Proposition.
J(R) = x R : 1 axb is a unit for all a, b R =: K.
Proof. Let x K, let I be a maximal left ideal of R and suppose that x / I. Since
I is maximal, I + Rx = R, so 1 ax I for some a R. Since x K, 1 ax
is a unit, a contradicting the fact that I is proper. Hence x I so K I for all
maximal left ideals I of R. By Lemma 2.5, K J(R).
11
Now let x J(R). Since J(R) is a two-sided ideal, to show that x K its
sucient to show 1x is a unit. Now, if R(1x) is a proper left ideal, we can nd
a maximal left ideal L containing it by Lemma 2.3. By Lemma 2.5, x J(R) L
and 1 x L so 1 L, a contradiction. Hence there exists y R such that
y(1 x) = 1.
Now, 1 y = yx J(R), so by the above argument applied to 1 y, we can nd
z R such that
z(1 (1 y)) = zy = 1.
Hence zy(1 x) = 1 x = z so zy = 1 and yz = 1, meaning that z = 1 x is a
unit. as required.
This result shows that J(R) is the largest ideal A of R such that 1 A consists
entirely of units of R.
Corollary. The Jacobson radical is left-right symmetric. It follows that the inter-
section of all maximal left ideals of R is equal to the intersection of all maximal
right ideals.
2.8. Prime ideals.
Denition. The ideal P of R is said to be prime if P ,= R and whenever A, B are
ideals of R such that AB P, either A or B is contained in P. The ring R is
said to be prime if 0 is a prime ideal. The ideal N of R is nilpotent if there exists
n 0 such that N
n
= 0.
Note that if R is commutative, then P is prime if and only if R/P is an integral
domain, which agrees with the old denition.
Lemma. (1) Let P be prime and let N be nilpotent. Then N P.
(2) Any primitive ideal P = Ann
R
(M) is prime.
Proof. (1) Since N
n
= 0 P, either N P or N
n1
P. Continue.
(2) Suppose A, B R are such that AB P. Then ABM = 0. If BM = 0 then
B P. Otherwise, BM = M since M is simple, so AM = 0 and A P.
2.9. Minimal primes.
Denition. Let I R. A prime P of R is a minimal prime over I if P I and
I Q P with Q prime forces Q = P. P is a minimal prime of R if it is a
minimal prime over 0.
Proposition. Let R be a left Noetherian ring and let I R be a proper ideal. Then
(1) There exist primes P
1
, . . . , P
n
containing I such that P
1
P
n
I.
(2) The set of minimal primes over I is equal to the set of minimal primes in
P
1
, . . . , P
n
.
12
Proof. Suppose that (1) is false. Since R is left Noetherian, we can choose a maximal
counterexample I. Thus I contains no nite product of prime ideals containing I,
and I is maximal with respect to this property.
Claim: I is prime.
If I is not prime, we can nd A, B R such that AB I but A , I and B , I.
By maximality of I, I + A contains the product of primes P
1
, . . . , P
n
containing
I + A, and similarly Q
1
Q
m
I + B for some primes Q
1
, . . . , Q
m
containing
I +B. Hence
P
1
P
n
Q
1
Q
m
(I +A)(I +B) I
2
+AI +IB +AB I,
so I itself contains a nite product of primes containing it. This contradicts the
denition of I, so in fact I is prime.
Thus we have a contradiction, and (1) follows.
Hence we have a nite set of primes P
1
, . . . , P
n
containing I such that P
1
P
n

I. Let X
1
, . . . X
m
be the distinct minimal primes of P
1
, . . . , P
n
. Thus each P
j
contains some X
i
j
so I contains some product of the X
k
s, possibly with repetition:
X
i
1
X
i
n
P
1
P
n
I.
Now, suppose Q is any prime containing I. Then X
i
1
X
i
2
X
i
n
I Q which
forces X
i
j
Q for some j. If Q is a minimal prime over I, Q must equal X
i
j
.
Finally, we show that each X
k
is a minimal prime over I. If I Q X
k
then
X
j
Q X
k
for some j by the above. But the Xs are minimal in P
1
, . . . , P
n
,
so X
j
= Q = X
k
and (2) follows.
2.10. Prime radical.
Denition. The prime radical N(R) of R is the intersection of all prime ideals of
R. R is semiprime if N(R) = 0. An ideal I R is semiprime if its an intersection
of some collection of prime ideals, or equivalently, if N(R/I) = 0.
Note that by Lemma 2.8(1), N(R) contains every nilpotent ideal of R.
Proposition. Let R be a left Noetherian ring with nilradical N = N(R) and let
P
1
, . . . , P
n
be the minimal primes of R. Then
(1) N = P
1
. . . P
n
.
(2) N is nilpotent.
Proof. Part (1) is clear. By the proof of Proposition 2.9, 0 contains a product of k
of the P
i
s, possibly with repetition, so N
k
= 0, as required for (2).
2.11. When R is commutative, there is a nice characterisation of the nilradical.
Recall that an element x is nilpotent if x
n
= 0 for some n 0.
Proposition. Let R be a commutative ring. Then the set K of all nilpotent ele-
ments of R is an ideal and equals N(R).
13
Proof. Let x, y K, so that x
n
= y
m
= 0 for some integers n, m 0. Clearly
(xy)
n+m
= 0, so xy K. Now, each term in the binomial expansion of (x +y)
n+m
is a multiple of either x
n
or y
m
so (x + y)
n+m
= 0 and x + y K. Hence K is an
ideal.
Now, if x K, xR is nilpotent so xR N(R). Hence K N(R). Suppose
therefore that x / K. Then x is not nilpotent, so the set ( = 1, x, x
2
, . . . doesnt
contain 0. Let o = I R : I ( = . Since 0 o, o is nonempty and is clearly
closed under unions. By Zorns Lemma, o has a maximal element P. We will show
that P is prime.
Suppose A, B R are such that AB P but A, B are not contained in P. Then
x
n
P +A and x
m
P +B for some integers n, m, so x
n+m
(P +A)(P +B) P,
contradicting P o.
Hence x / K implies x / P for some prime ideal P, whence x / N(R).
There is a similar characterisation for N(R) when R is arbitrary in terms of
strongly nilpotent elements - see McConnell and Robson.
14
3. Artinian rings
3.1. Recall that a right Artinian ring R is one which is satises the DCC as a
right module.
Proposition. Suppose S be a ring containing a right Artinian ring R such that S
is a nitely generated right R-module under right multiplication by R. Then S is
right Artinian.
Proof. This can be proved in exactly the same way as Proposition 1.7. In fact, the
Artinian analogues of Propositions 1.5 and 1.6 are also valid.
Examples. The following rings are all right Artinian:
(1) The group algebra kG of a nite group G over a eld k.
(2) The matrix ring M
n
(D), where D is a division ring.
(3) Any nite ring, for example Z/mZ, m ,= 0.
(4) k[x]/(x
2
), k a eld.
The structure of a right Artinian ring is quite well understood. The following is
a summary of whats known:
Theorem. Let J = J(R) be the Jacobson radical of the right Artinian ring R.
(1) (Artin-Wedderburn) R/J is isomorphic to a nite direct sum of matrix
rings over division rings D
1
, . . . , D
k
:
R/J

= M
n
1
(D
1
) M
n
2
(D
2
) . . . M
n
k
(D
k
)
(2) J is nilpotent and J = N(R).
(3) (Hopkins) R is right Noetherian.
3.2. Semisimple modules.
Denition. A right R-module is said to be semisimple or completely reducible if
M is a direct sum of simple submodules.
Lemma. Let M be a semisimple R-module. The following are equivalent:
(1) M is Noetherian.
(2) M is Artinian.
(3) M is a direct sum of nitely many simple modules.
Proof. By Proposition 1.6 and its Artinian analogue, (3) implies (1) and (2). If M
is not a nite direct sum, we can nd a submodule N of M which is a countably
innite direct sum N = M
1
M
2
. . . of nonzero submodules M
i
. Now the chains
M
1
< M
1
M
2
< M
1
M
2
M
3
< . . .
and
M
1
M
2
M
3
> M
2
M
3
> . . .
show that M is not Noetherian nor Artinian.
15
3.3. Lemma. Any submodule N of a semisimple Artinian module M is itself
semisimple Artinian.
Proof. Let M = M
1
M
2
. . . M
n
be a direct sum of simple submodules M
i
.
Proceed by induction on n, the case n = 1 being obvious.
If N M
i
= 0 for some i, then N M
1
. . . M
i1
M
i+1
. . . M
n
, so N
is semisimple by induction. Hence we may assume that N M
i
,= 0 for all i. But
M
i
is simple, so M
i
N for all i, whence N = M is semisimple.
3.4. Proposition. Suppose R is semiprimitive and right Artinian. Then the right
R-module R
R
is semisimple.
Proof. Let o consist of all nite intersections I
1
. . . I
n
of maximal right ideals
I
j
. Since R is right Artinian, o has a minimal element L = I
1
. . . I
n
, say. Now
if I is a maximal right ideal, L I o, so L I = L by minimality of L. Hence
L I for all maximal I
r
R, whence L J(R) = 0 by Lemma 2.5.
Now, the natural map R
n
j=1
(R/I
j
) has kernel I
1
I
2
. . . I
n
= 0, so R
R
is a submodule of the semisimple Artinian module
n
j=1
(R/I
j
). The result follows
from Lemma 3.3.
Because of this result, a semiprimitive right Artinian ring is more commonly
known as semisimple Artinian. This is left-right symmetric by Wedderburns the-
orem - see comments in (3.7).
3.5. Some linear algebra.
Proposition. Let M = M
1
M
2
. . . M
n
be a direct sum of right R-modules.
Then End
R
(M) = Hom
R
(M, M) is isomorphic to the matrix ring
S =
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Hom(M
1
, M
1
) Hom(M
2
, M
1
) Hom(M
n
, M
1
)
Hom(M
1
, M
2
) Hom(M
2
, M
2
) . . . Hom(M
n
, M
2
)


Hom(M
1
, M
n
) Hom(M
2
, M
n
) Hom(M
n
, M
n
)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
with the obvious multiplication.
Proof. This is best seen by writing elements of M as column vectors and thinking
of R-module endomorphisms acting by matrix multiplication on the left of these
column vectors.
Let
j
: M
j
M and
i
: M M
i
be the canonical injections and projections.
Formally, we can dene a map : End
R
(M) S by setting the (i, j) element of
(f) to be the composition
M
j

j
M
f
M

i
M
i
;
16
thus (f)
ij
=
i
f
j
. We can also dene : S End
R
(M) by
(T) =

i,j

j
T
ji

i
.
Check that and are mutually inverse ring homomorphisms.
3.6. Schurs Lemma. Let M and N be simple right R-modules. Then
(1) End
R
(M) is a division ring.
(2) If M N then Hom
R
(M, N) = 0.
Proof. Let : M N be a nonzero R-module homomorphism. Then ker() < M
and Im() > 0. The simplicity of M and N forces ker() = 0 and Im() = N, so
is an isomorphism.
Part (2) follows immediately, whereas if N = M, the above argument shows that
every nonzero element of End
R
(M) is left and right invertible. Therefore End
R
(M)
is a division ring, proving (1).
3.7. Artin-Wedderburn.
Theorem. Let R be a semiprimitive right Artinian ring. Then R is isomorphic to
a direct sum of matrix rings over some division rings D
1
, . . . , D
k
:
R

= M
n
1
(D
1
) M
n
2
(D
2
) . . . M
n
k
(D
k
)
Proof. Consider : R Hom
R
(R
R
, R
R
) given by (x)(y) = xy. This is a ring
homomorphism. If (x) = 0, (x)(1) = x = 0, so is an injection. Also, if f : R
R is a right module map, then f(r) = f(1)r = (f(1))(r) so that f = (f(1)) and
is an isomorphism.
By Proposition 3.4, we can write R as a direct sum of simple right R-modules.
Grouping these together, we may write
R
R

= A
n
1
1
A
n
2
2
. . . A
n
k
k
where the A
i
are pairwise nonisomorphic simple modules. Applying Proposition
3.5, we obtain
R

= End
R
(R
R
)

=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
End
R
(A
n
1
1
) 0 0
0 End
R
(A
n
2
2
) 0


0 0 End
R
(A
n
k
k
)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
M
n
1
(D
1
) 0 0
0 M
n
2
(D
2
) 0


0 0 M
n
k
(D
k
)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
where each D
i
= End
R
(A
i
) is a division ring, by Schurs Lemma (3.6).
17
As an exercise, the reader should check directly that a ring of the form
M
n
1
(D
1
) M
n
2
(D
2
) . . . M
n
k
(D
k
)
is semisimple Artinian.
Note that if we were dealing with left R-modules, we would obtain that the op-
posite ring R
op
is isomorphic to the direct sum of matrix rings. Since M
n
(D
op
)
op
=
M
n
(D) and the opposite ring of a division ring is also a division ring, the theorem
holds with right replaced by left. This justies the term semisimple Artinian
ring, without reference to side.
3.8. Before we can prove Hopkins Theorem, we will need some results on semisim-
ple modules.
Proposition. Let R be an arbitrary ring and let M be an R-module. Suppose M
is a sum of simple submodules. Then M is semisimple.
Proof. Write M =

A
M

for some simple submodules M

of M. Let
o = B / : the sum

B
M

is direct.
Since o contains singletons for all /, o is nonempty. Its easy to check that
unions of chains in o are again in o, so by Zorns Lemma, o contains a maximal
element /
0
.
Now, if X =
A
0
M

,= M, we can nd M

such that M

_ X. Hence
M

X = 0 and the sum X +M is direct. Therefore /

0
o, contradicting
the maximality of /
0
. Hence X = M is a direct sum of simple modules, so M is
semisimple.
3.9. Lemma. Suppose the ring R is semisimple Artinian. Then every R-module
is semisimple.
Proof. R is a sum of simple modules by Proposition 3.4. Any cyclic module is a
homomorphic image of R and hence is a sum of simple modules. Now, an arbitrary
module is a sum of cyclic submodules, and hence also sum of simple modules. The
result follows, again from Proposition 3.8.
3.10. Proposition. The Jacobson radical J of a right Artinian ring R is nilpotent.
Proof. The descending chain J J
2
J
3
. . . must terminate since R is right
Artinian. Hence J
n
= J
n+1
= . . . for some n 0. Let X = lann(J
n
) = x R :
xJ
n
= 0, this is a two-sided ideal of R.
Suppose for a contradiction that X < R. Then R/X has a minimal nonzero sub-
module Y/X, being Artinian. Its easy to see that Y/X is simple. Now (Y/X).J = 0
so Y J X. It follows that Y J
n
= Y J
n+1
XJ
n
= 0, so Y lann(J
n
) = X,
contradicting Y/X ,= 0.
Hence X = R so J
n
= RJ
n
= XJ
n
= 0 as required.
18
Corollary. If R is right Artinian, then J(R) = N(R).
Proof. Since every primitive ideal is prime by Lemma 2.8(2), N(R) J(R) in
any ring. On the other hand if R is right Artinian then J(R) is nilpotent by
Proposition 3.10, so J(R) P for any prime ideal P by Lemma 2.8(1). Hence
J(R) N(R).
3.11. Hopkins Theorem. Let R be a right Artinian ring. Then R is right Noe-
therian.
Proof. By Proposition 3.10, J
n
= 0 where J is the Jacobson radical of R. Now,
each J
m
/J
m+1
is an R/J-module and R/J is semisimple Artinian. By Lemma 3.9,
each J
m
/J
m+1
is a semisimple Artinian R/J-module, and as such is Noetherian by
Lemma 3.2. The result follows from Proposition 1.5.
Its tempting to think that the left-right symmetry is so strong that every right
Artinian ring is left Artinian. This is not the case, however.
19
4. Commutative Rings
R is commutative with 1 throughout this chapter.
4.1. The Nullstellensatz. We saw in Corollary 3.10 that if R is right Artinian,
then N(R) = J(R).
Theorem. Let k be a eld and R be a nitely generated kalgebra (equivalently,
a quotient of the polynomial ring k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
]). Then
N(R) = J(R).
This is an unusual way of stating the Nullstellensatz, see (4.3).
4.2. Weak Nullstellensatz.
Theorem. Suppose k is a eld and R is a nitely generated kalgebra which is
also a eld. Then
(1) R is algebraic over k.
(2) If k is algebraically closed, then R

= k.
Corollary. If k =

k then the maximal ideals of k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] are of the form
m
a
= (X
1
a
1
, . . . , X
n
a
n
) where a = (a
1
, . . . , a
n
) k
n
.
Proof. Its clear that each m
a
is a maximal ideal, being of codimension 1. Now if I
is maximal, then the R/I

= k so X
i
+I a
i
for some a
i
k. Hence X
i
a
i
I for
all i = 1, . . . , n so m
a
I. Since the former ideal is maximal, the result follows.
4.3. Geometric viewpoint. Recall that by Proposition 2.11, I R is semiprime
if and only if f
n
I f I.
Denition. If R is commutative, an ideal is radical if it is semiprime.
In the rst lecture, we dened an algebraic set to be a subset of k
n
of the form
Z(A) = (a
1
, . . . , a
n
) k
n
: f(a
1
, . . . , a
n
) = 0 for all f A
where A is an ideal of k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
]. We also dened, for X k
n
I(X) = f k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] : f(a
1
, . . . , a
n
) = 0 for all (a
1
, . . . , a
n
) X
this is an ideal in k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
].
Its easy to check that Z(I(X)) = X for any algebraic set X. The Nullstellensatz
is usually stated as follows:
Theorem. Suppose k =

k. If A is a radical ideal of k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
], then
I(Z(A)) = A.
So we have a bijection between radical ideals and algebraic sets.
20
Proof. f I(Z(A)) f(a) = 0 for all a Z(A) f m
a
for all a Z(A)
f

aZ(A)
m
a
=

m
a
A
m
a
since a Z(A) i A(a) = 0 i A m
a
.
By Corollary 4.2, all maximal ideals of R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
]/A have the form
m
a
/A for some a k
n
, so f +A J(R) = 0 by Theorem 4.1 and f A.
Finally, if f A then f(Z(A)) = 0 so f I(Z(A)).
4.4. Proof of Theorem 4.2. We will only deal with the case when k is an un-
countable eld in this course. For the general case, see Atiyah and Macdonald, (7.8)
and (7.9).
Suppose R is not algebraic. Then we can nd R such that k()

= k(t),
the eld of fractions of the polynomial ring k[t]. Choose an uncountable subset
c
i
: i I of k and suppose
1
, . . . ,
m
k are such that

1
c
i
1
+

2
c
i
2
+. . . +

m
c
i
m
= 0.
Clearing denominators gives

1
( c
i
2
)( c
i
3
) ( c
i
m
) +. . . +
m
( c
i
1
)( c
i
2
) ( c
i
m1
) = 0.
Substituting
1
= c
i
1
into this equation gives
1
(c
i
1
c
i
2
)(c
i
1
c
i
3
) (c
i
1
c
i
m
) = 0
so
1
= 0 and similarly
j
= 0 for all j = 1, . . . , m.
Hence
1
c
i
k() : i I is an uncountable linearly independent subset of
R. But R is a quotient of the polynomial ring k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] and as such has a
countable spanning set, consisting of the images of the monomials in R. This is a
contradiction, proving (1).
Now, a nitely generated eld extension of k which is algebraic must necessarily
be nite dimensional. If k =

k then R is a nite eld extension of k so R

= k as
required for (2).
4.5. Lemma. Let k be a eld and let R be a nite dimensional kalgebra which
is a domain. Then R is a eld.
Proof. If 0 ,= x R then multiplication by x is an injective klinear map from R
to itself. Since dim
k
R < this map must be surjective. Hence there exists y R
such that xy = 1 and the result follows.
4.6. Proof of Theorem 4.1. As we have observed in the proof of Corollary 3.10,
N(R) J(R) for any ring R. Suppose a / N(R) so a is not nilpotent. By Sheet 1
Exercise 6(2), 1 ax is not a unit in the polynomial ring R[x]. By Lemma 2.3 we
can nd a maximal ideal M of R[x] containing 1 ax.
Since R is a nitely generated kalgebra, so is R[x]/M. By Theorem 4.2, R[x]/M
is algebraic over k and is hence nite dimensional over k. Now, we have a klinear
injection R/(R M) R[x]/M, so R/(R M) is a nite dimensional kalgebra
21
which is a domain. Hence R M is a maximal ideal of R by Lemma 4.5 and
a / R M as otherwise 1 M. Hence a / J(R) as required.
4.7. Associated primes. From now on well be dealing with a commutative Noe-
therian ring R and nitely generated Rmodules M.
Denition. A prime P of R is said to be an associated prime of M if there exists
x M such that ann(x) = P, or equivalently, if R/P M. The set of all
associated primes of M is denoted by Ass(M).
Example. Let R = Z and let M be a nite abelian group. Then M has an element
of order p for all primes p dividing [M[, so
Ass(M) = pZ : p [ [M[.
4.8. Lemma. If M ,= 0 then Ass(M) ,= .
Proof. Let o = ann(x) R : 0 ,= x M. Since R is Noetherian, we can pick a
maximal element P = ann(x) o. Suppose a / P and b / P but ab P. Then
bx ,= 0 so ann(bx) o. Since P ann(bx), P = ann(bx) by maximality of P. Now
abx = 0 so a P, a contradiction. Hence P is prime and so P Ass(M).
4.9. Proposition. Suppose M ,= 0.
(1) If P R is a prime then Ass(R/P) = P.
(2) Let N be a submodule of M. Then
Ass(N) Ass(M) Ass(N) Ass(M/N).
Proof. Let L = R/P and 0 ,= y L. Clearly, P ann(y). Now if ry = 0 then
r P since R/P is a domain. Hence P = ann(y) and (1) follows.
Next, the rst inclusion of (2) is obvious. Let P = ann(x) Ass(M). If
RxN = 0 then R/P

= Rx M/N and P Ass(M/N), so suppose RxN ,= 0.
Choose y RxN; then by the above ann(y) = P so P Ass(N) as required.
4.10. Theorem. Suppose M ,= 0. Then
(1) There exists a chain of submodules
0 = M
0
< M
1
< . . . < M
n
= M
of M such that M
i
/M
i1

= R/P
i
for some prime ideals P
1
, . . . , P
n
of R.
(2) Ass(M) is nite.
Proof. (1) By Lemma 4.8, Ass(M) ,= . Let M
1
= x
1
R for some x
1
M such
that ann(x
1
) = P
1
Ass(M). Then M
1
/M
0

= R/P
1
. If M
1
= M we are done.
Otherwise, M/M
1
is nonzero so we can nd P
2
= ann(x
2
) Ass(M/M
1
) for some
x
2
M/M
1
. Let M
2
be dened by M
2
/M
1
= x
2
R

= R/P
2
. This process must
stop since M is Noetherian.
22
(2) By Proposition 4.9,
Ass(M) Ass(M
1
) Ass(M
2
/M
1
) . . . Ass(M
n
/M
n1
) = P
1
, . . . , P
n

so Ass(M) is nite.
This result shows that any nitely generated Rmodule M can be thought of
as being built up from nitely many modules of the form R/P
i
for some primes P
i
.
4.11. Proposition. Every minimal prime of R is in Ass(R).
Proof. Let P
1
, . . . , P
n
be the distinct minimal primes of R. By Proposition 2.9,
we can nd integers s
1
, . . . , s
n
1 such that
P
s
1
1
P
s
2
2
P
s
n
n
= 0.
Its enough to show that P
1
Ass(R). Let M = P
s
2
2
P
s
n
n
if n > 1 and M = R
otherwise.
By Theorem 4.10(1) we can choose a chain
0 = M
0
< M
1
< . . . < M
t
= M
where M
i
/M
i1

= Q
i
for some primes Q
1
, . . . , Q
t
. Note that P
s
1
1
kills each
M
i
/M
i1
so P
s
1
1
Q
i
and hence P
1
Q
i
for all i = 1, . . . , t by the primality
of Q
i
.
Also, Q
1
Q
2
Q
t
M = 0 implies Q
1
Q
2
Q
t
P
s
2
2
P
s
n
n
P
1
. Since P
1
is prime
and P
i
_ P
1
for all i 2, Q
k
P
1
for some k, so in fact Q
k
= P
1
for some k.
Pick k 1 least such that Q
k
P
1
. Hence if k > 1 then Q
1
Q
k1
_ P
1
. If
k = 1 let r = 1 and if k > 1 choose r Q
1
Q
k1
P
1
. Since Ann(M
k
/M
k1
) =
Q
k
= P
1
and r / P
1
we can nd x M
k
such that rx / M
k1
.
Claim: P
1
= ann(rx). Note that rP
1
x Q
1
Q
2
Q
k1
Q
k
x = 0 so P
1

ann(rx). If srx = 0 then s(rx + M
k1
) = 0. We chose x so that rx / M
k1
, and
hence s P
1
because M
k
/M
k1

= R/Q
k

= R/P
1
is a domain. Hence ann(rx) =
P
1
Ass(M) as required.
4.12. Primary ideals.
Denition. Let P be a prime. An ideal Q R is Pprimary if Ass(R/Q) = P,
and primary if its P-primary for some prime P.
One should think of primary ideals as generalisations of prime powers in Z.
Lemma. (1) If Q is Pprimary, then P =

Q.
(2) If P is maximal and Q R has P =

Q, then Q is Pprimary.
Proof. Since any minimal prime over Q must be in Ass(R/Q) by Proposition 4.11,
we see that R/Q has precisely one minimal prime, namely P/Q. Hence N(R/Q) =

Q/Q = P/Q so P =

Q.
23
For (2), note that P/Q is the prime radical of R/Q and hence is the only prime
ideal of R/Q, being maximal. Hence Ass(R/Q) must be P, being nonempty by
Lemma 4.8, so Q is Pprimary.
Examples. (1) The primary ideals of Z are the prime powers and 0.
(2) Let R = k[x, y], Q = (x, y
2
). Then

Q = (x, y) =: P is maximal so Q is
primary. However, Q is not a prime power since P
2
_ Q _ P.
Warning: not all prime powers are primary!
4.13. Primary decomposition.
Denition. A primary decomposition of an ideal I R is an expression of the form
I = Q
1
Q
2
. . . Q
k
for some primary ideals Q
i
. The decomposition is minimal if
The primes P
i
s are pairwise distinct, where Q
i
is P
i
primary
For all i, Q
i
_

j=i
Q
j
.
Example. In Z, a nonzero ideal I has a minimal primary decomposition of the
form
I = (p
s
1
1
) (p
s
2
2
) (p
s
n
n
)
where I = (x) and x = p
s
1
1
p
s
n
n
is a factorization of x into prime powers.
4.14. Theorem.
(1) (Existence) Every proper ideal has a minimal primary decomposition.
(2) (Uniqueness) Let I = Q
1
. . . Q
k
be a minimal primary decomposition
of I, with Q
i
a P
i
primary ideal. Then
Ass(R/I) = P
1
, . . . , P
n
.
Proof. Omitted.
24
5. Commutative localisation
R is a commutative ring throughout this chapter.
5.1. Motivation. Let S be a subset of R which is multiplicatively closed (m.c. for
short). We will stick to the convention that any such S necessarily contains 1.
We will construct a ring R
S
, called the localisation of R at S by inverting the
elements of S - thus the elements of S are units in R
S
.
This generalises the process of constructing the eld of fractions of a commutative
integral domain R - there the set S = R0 of nonzero elements is m.c., S consists
of units in the eld of fractions F of R, and moreover every element of F can be
written in the form rs
1
for some r R and s S.
What if S contains zero divisors? If we want to invert S, then the elements
of R which kill an element of S must be zero in R
S
because ab = 0 and bc = 1
together imply a = abc = 0.
Denition. The assassinator of S is dened to be
ass(S) = x R : xs = 0 for some s S =
_
sS
ann(s).
Lemma. ass(S) is an ideal of R.
Proof. Let x, y ass(S). So there exist s, t S such that xs = yt = 0. Then
(x + y)st = 0 and st S so x + y ass(S). Also, if z R then (zx)s = 0 so
zx ass(S).
5.2. Commutative localisation.
Denition. Let S R be a m.c. subset. A localisation of R at S is a ring R
S
together with a homomorphism : R R
S
such that
(a) (s) is a unit in R
S
for all s S.
(b) Every element of R
S
can be written in the form (r)(s)
1
for some r R
and s S.
(c) ker = ass(S).
Note that is not in general injective.
Lemma. If R
S
exists, its unique upto isomorphism.
Proof. Suppose : R T is a ring homomorphism satisfying properties (a),(b),(c).
Dene : R
S
T by ((r)(s)
1
) = (r)(s)
1
. If (r)(s)
1
= (u)(v)
1
then rvus ker() = ass(S) so there exists t S such that (rvus)t = 0. Hence
rvt = ust so (r)(v)(t) = (u)(s)(t) and (r)(s)
1
= (u)(v)
1
. Therefore
is well dened and is easily checked to be a ring homomorphism.
The conditions on force to be onto, whereas if (r)(s)
1
= 0 then r
ker() = ass(S) = ker() so (r)(s)
1
= 0 and is injective. Hence is a ring
isomorphism.
25
5.3. Construction.
Denition. An element x R is regular if ann(x) = 0. Equivalently, x is not a
zero divisor.
Assume rst that S consists of regular elements, so that ass(S) = 0.
Dene a relation on R S by setting
(r, s) (u, v)
if and only if
rv = us.
This is clearly reexive and symmetric. If (r, s) (u, v) and (u, v) (a, b) then
rv = us and ub = av, so (rb as)v = rvb asv = ubs avs = 0 so rb as
ass(S) = 0 and (r, s) (a, b). Hence is an equivalence relation.
Let R
S
= R S/ as a set. Write r/s for the equivalence class of (r, s) in R
S
and dene addition and multiplication on R
S
by
r/s + u/v = (rv +us)/(sv)
r/s u/v = (ru)/(sv)
Exercise. Check the following:
(1) Addition is well dened.
(2) Multiplication is well dened.
(3) R
S
forms a commutative ring with zero element 0/1 and identity 1/1.
(4) The map : R R
S
given by (r) = r/1 is a ring homomorphism.
(5) Conditions (a), (b) and (c) in Denition 5.2 hold.
We check that addition is well-dened: Suppose r/s = r

/s

so rs

= r

s. Now,
r/s +u/v = (rv +us)/(sv) and (r

/s

) + (u/v) = (r

v +us

)/(s

v),
but (rv +us)(s

v) = (rs

)v
2
+uss

v = (r

s)v
2
+us

sv = (r

v +us

)(sv), so
r/s +u/v = r

/s

+u/v = r

/s

+u

/v

if u/v = u

/v

. Hence addition is well-dened.

Hence, the localisation at S exists and is unique.
5.4. The general case. If ass(S) is not necessarily zero, let R = R/ ass(S) and
let S denote the image of S in R. Then ass(S) = 0 so we can form the localisation
R
S
, together with a ring homomorphism : R R
S
as constructed above. Let
: R R
S
be dened by = where is the natural projection of R onto R. So we have
Theorem. The localisation R
S
exists.
26
Proof. Since ass(S) = 0, ker() = 0 so ker() = ass(S). Thus : R R
S
satises
all the conditions of Denition 5.2.
Note that (r)(s)
1
= (u)(v)
1
i (rv us) = 0 i rvt = ust for some
t S. So we could have constructed R
S
by imposing the equivalence relation on
R S instead, where
(r, s) (u, v) if and only if rvt = ust for some t S.
5.5. Examples.
(1) If R is an integral domain then S = R0 is a m.s. set. Then R
S
is just
the eld of fractions of R. This is a special case of (2).
(2) If R is arbitrary and P is a prime ideal, then S = RP is m.c. The
localisation R
S
is usually denoted by R
P
and is called
the localisation at the prime ideal P.
The ring Z
(p)
from Example 1.8 (4) is a special case of this construction.
(3) For any x R, the set 1, x, x
2
, . . . is m.c., and the localisation is usually
denoted by R
x
.
(4) If 0 S then ass(S) = R so R
S
= 0.
(5) If I R then S = 1 +I is m.c.
Of these, Example (2) is the most important.
5.6. Localisation of modules.
Denition. Let S be a m.c. subset of R and let M be an Rmodule. The locali-
sation of M at S is dened to be the set of equivalence classes
M
S
= m/s : m M, s S
in M S under the equivalence relation given by
(m, s) (n, t) if and only if mtu = nsu for some u S.
This is an R
S
module, with the addition and R
S
action given by
m/s + n/t = (mt +ns)/(st)
m/s r/u = (mr)/(su)
for m/s, n/t M
S
and r/u R
S
. The S-torsion submodule of M is dened to be
ass
M
(S) = m M : ms = 0 for some s S.
Exercise. Check that
(1) The operations are well dened and turn M
S
into an R
S
module.
(2) N = ass
M
(S) is a submodule of M.
(3) ass
M/N
(S) = 0.
(4) The map : M M
S
given by (m) = m/1 has kernel precisely ass
M
(S).
27
(5) M
S
= 0 if and only if ass
M
(S) = M.
In fact, M
S
is naturally isomorphic to M
R
R
S
.
5.7. Exact sequences.
Denition. Let A, B, C be Rmodules and suppose we have Rmodule maps
f : A B and g : B C. The sequence
A
f
B
g
C
is said to be exact at B if Im(f) = ker(g). The sequence
0
0
A
f
B
g
C
0
0
is called a short exact sequence if it is exact at A, B and C, or equivalently, if f
is injective, Im(f) = ker(g) and g is surjective.
Note that whenever N is a submodule of N, we have a natural short exact
sequence
0 N

M

M/N 0
where is the inclusion of N into M and is the quotient map.
5.8. Exactness of localisation. One of the most important properties of locali-
sation is that it is exact, meaning that it takes exact sequences to exact sequences.
Suppose S is a m.c. set in R and f : M N is a map of Rmodules. Then we
can dene a map f
S
: M
S
N
S
by setting
f
S
(m/s) = f(m)/s for all m M, s S.
Exercise. Check that
(1) f
S
is well dened.
(2) f
S
is an R
S
module homomorphism.
Proposition. Localisation is exact. In other words, whenever
A
f
B
g
C
is a short exact sequence of Rmodules,
A
S
f
S
B
S
g
S
C
S
is a short exact sequence R
S
modules.
Proof. Since Im(f) = ker(g), g f = 0. Hence
g
S
(f
S
(a/s)) = g
S
(f(a)/s) = g(f(a))/s = 0
for any a A and s S, so g
S
f
S
= 0 and Im(f
S
) ker(g
S
).
28
Suppose b/s ker(g
S
). Then g
S
(b/s) = g(b)/s = 0 so there exists t S such
that g(b)t = g(bt) = 0. Hence bt ker(g) = Im(f) since the rst sequence is exact,
so we can nd a A such that bt = f(a). Now
f
S
(a/(st)) = f(a)/(st) = bt/(st) = b/s
so b/s Im(f
S
) and Im(f
S
) = ker(g
S
) as required.
5.9. Localisation at a prime ideal. Let P be a prime ideal of R and set S =
RP. A commutative ring is called local if it has a unique maximal ideal.
Proposition. (1) ass(S) P.
(2) R
P
is a local ring with maximal ideal P
P
.
Proof. If s / P and xs = 0 then xs P which is prime so x P, proving (1).
The natural short exact sequence
0 P R R/P 0
gives rise to the short exact sequence of R
P
modules
0 P
P
R
P
(R/P)
P
0
by Proposition 5.8. This means that P
P
is an ideal of R
P
with quotient isomorphic
to (R/P)
P
.
If x/s R
P
P
P
then x / P so x S and x/s is a unit in R
P
. Conversely, if x/s
is a unit then x/1 is a unit also, so x/1.y/t = 1 for some y/t R
P
. Hence xyu = t
for some t S, meaning that x / P.
Hence P
P
is the set of all nonunits of R
P
. If y + P
P
R
P
/P
P
is nonzero then
y / P
P
so y is invertible in R
P
and hence in R
P
/P
P
. Hence R
P
/P
P
is a eld so
P
P
is maximal. Moreover, any maximal ideal consists of nonunits and must hence
be contained in P
P
, proving (2).
Exercise. Let F denote the eld of fractions of R = R/P. Check that there is
a well dened ring isomorphism : (R/P)
P
F given by (r/s) = r/s. Hence
R
P
/P
P

= F.
5.10. Theorem. Suppose R is Noetherian and S is a m.c. subset. Then R
S
is
Noetherian.
Proof. Since R = R/ ass(S) is Noetherian by Proposition 1.5 and R
S

= R
S
, we
may assume that ass(S) = 0. Hence R R
S
.
Now, if I R
S
then (I R)R
S
I. If x/s I then x = x/s.s I R so
x/s = x.(1/s) (I R)R
S
. Hence I = (I R)R
S
for any I R
S
.
Suppose I
1
I
2
. . . is an increasing chain of ideals in R
S
. Since R is Noe-
therian, the chain I
1
R I
2
R . . . terminates, so there exists k such that
I
k
R = I
m
R for all m k. But then I
k
= (I
k
R)R
S
= (I
m
R)R
S
= I
m
for
all m k, so R
S
is Noetherian as required.
29
6. Noncommutative localisation
Now we drop the requirement that R be commutative and try to generalize the
results established so far about localisation.
6.1. We start with some denitions.
Denition. Let S be a m.c. subset of R. Its assassinator is dened to be
ass(S) = x R : xs = 0 for some s S =
_
sS
lann(s).
As before, ass(S) has to be zero in any ring in which S consists of units, but we
have to be careful about what kind of annihilators we take.
Denition. Let S R be a m.c. subset. A right localisation of R at S is a ring
R
S
together with a homomorphism : R R
S
such that
(a) (s) is a unit in R
S
for all s S.
(b) Every element of R
S
can be written in the form (r)(s)
1
for some r R
and s S.
(c) ker = ass(S).
We are interested in right fractions, i.e. those of the form rs
1
. Hence the term
right localisation. One can play this game on the left, too. Note that if R
S
exists,
then ass(S) has to be a two-sided ideal - this is not true in general.
6.2. The Ore condition. Suppose a right localisation R
S
of R at S exists. Then
for all r R and s S, the element (s)
1
(r) must lie in R
S
, so by condition (2)
we can nd a R and b S such that
(s)
1
(r) = (a)(b)
1
.
Hence (rbsa) = 0 so there exists t S such that r(bt) = s(at). Note that bt S
as S is m.c.
Denition. A m.c. set S is a right Ore set, or satises the right Ore condition if
and only if
for all r R, s S there exist r

R, s

R such that rs

= sr

.
This is a condition on the m.c. subset S which is automatically satised in
commutative rings. The above discussion shows that if the right localisation R
S
exists, then S must be a right Ore set.
Lemma. If S is a right Ore set, then ass(S) is a two-sided ideal of R.
Proof. Let x, y ass(S) be such that xs = yt = 0 for some s, t S. The right
Ore condition gives s

R and t

S such that st

= ts

. Now (x + y)(st

) =
(xs)t

+ (yt)s

= 0 and st

S as S is m.c. Hence x +y ass(S).

30
If z R then (zx)s = 0 so zx ass S. Also the Ore condition gives z

S
and s

S such that zs

= sz

. Hence (xz)s

= (xs)z

= 0 and s

S so
xz ass S.
6.3. Ores Theorem. We must rst rene Denition 5.3.
Denition. An element x R is said to be left regular if lann(x) = 0 and right
regular if rann(x) = 0. x R is regular if its both right and left regular, and thus
not a zero-divisor.
Assuming S is a right Ore set, we may factor out by the two-sided ideal ass(S)
and obtain a ring R such that the image S of S in R consists of left regular elements.
If the right localisation R
S
exists, then R is a subring of R
S
and (S) consists of
units. Hence every element of S must actually be regular (and not just left regular).
This is another necessary condition on the set S for R
S
to exist.
Theorem (Ore, 1930). Let S be a m.c. subset of the ring R. Then the right
localisation R
S
exists if and only if
(1) S is a right Ore set, and
(2) S consists of regular elements in R = R/ ass(S).
Proof. We have shown in the above discussions the necessity of these conditions.
Assuming (1) and (2), it remains to construct the ring R
S
satisfying the conditions
of Denition 6.1.
By Lemma 6.2, ass(S) is a two-sided ideal in R. Its easy to check that the
image S also satises the right Ore condition. As before, by passing to the quotient
R = R/ ass S and using condition (2), we may assume that S is a right Ore set in
R consisting of regular elements.
We can now construct R
S
as a set of equivalence classes in R S under a
certain equivalence relation, in a very similar spirit to the construction of R
S
in the
commutative case (5.3). The construction is very tedious and is non-examinable.
See handout.
Denition. A m.c. set S is said to be a right divisor set if conditions (1), (2) are
satised.
Note that if R is commutative, or slightly more generally, if S consists of central
elements (i.e. sr = rs for all s S, r R), then the two conditions are auto-
matically satised and the localisation R
S
exists. One can view this Theorem as a
generalisation of Theorem 5.4.
6.4. Ore domains.
Denition. A ring R is a domain if all nonzero elements are regular, or equiva-
lently if it has no zero divisors. R is a right Ore domain if S = R0 is a right Ore
set in R.
31
By Theorem 6.3, its clear that if R is a right Ore domain, then the localisation
R
S
exists. Moreover, every nonzero element r/s R
S
is invertible, so R
S
is a
division ring, known as the division ring of fractions of R.
Theorem. Let R be a right Noetherian domain. Then R is an Ore domain and
hence R has a division ring of fractions.
Proof. Let x, y S and suppose that xR yR = 0. Then xR yR R. Now,
x S is regular so xR

= R as right Rmodules. Hence
x(xR yR) = x
2
R xyR xR,
so x
2
R xyR yR R. Repeating this trick, we see that
x
n
R x
n1
yR x
n2
yR xyR yR R
for any n 1. Hence the sum yR + xyR + x
2
yR + . . . is direct, contradicting the
fact that R is right Noetherian.
Hence we can nd a, b R such that xa = yb ,= 0. Since x, y are regular, a, b
are nonzero so S is a right Ore set.
This proof might be reminiscent of Sheet 1, Exercise 12.
Examples. Let k be a eld. The following rings are all right Ore domains and
hence have division rings of fractions:
(1) The Weyl algebras A
n
(k).
(2) kG, where G is a torsionfree polycyclic group.
(3) |(g) where g is a f.d. Lie algebra over k.
(4) The Iwasawa algebra
G
if G is a torsionfree compact padic Lie group.
6.5. Modules.
Denition. Let S be a right divisor set in R and let M be a right Rmodule. The
localisation of M at S is dened to be the set of equivalence classes
M
S
= m/s : m M, s S
in M S under the equivalence relation given by
(m, s) (n, t) if and only if mt

u = ns

u for some u S,
where s

, t

R are such that st

= ts

S. The S-torsion submodule of M is

dened to be
ass
M
(S) = m M : ms = 0 for some s S.
Proposition. (1) M
S
has the structure of a right R
S
module.
(2) N = ass
M
(S) is an Rsubmodule of M.
(3) ass
M/N
(S) = 0.
(4) The map : M M
S
given by (m) = m/1 has kernel precisely ass
M
(S).
32
(5) M
S
= 0 if and only if ass
M
(S) = M.
(6) Localisation is exact.
Proof. Exercise - mimic proofs in (5.6), (5.8) and the handout.
Again, an alternative way of constructing M
S
is given by the isomorphism
M
S

= M
R
R
S
.
6.6. Goldies Theorem.
Denition. The classical right ring of quotients Q(R) is the localisation of R at
the m.c. subset S consisting of all regular elements of R, if it exists.
Theorem (Goldie, 1958, 1960). The ring R has a classical right ring of quotients
which is semisimple Artinian if and only if
(1) N(R) = 0,
(2) R contains no innite direct sum of right ideals, and
(3) R satises the ACC on right annihilators.
Corollary. If R is semiprime Noetherian, then Q(R) exists and is isomorphic to
M
n
1
(D
1
) M
n
2
(D
2
) . . . M
n
k
(D
k
)
for some division rings D
1
, . . . , D
k
.
Proof. Follows directly from Theorem 3.7 and Theorem 6.6.
We will only prove (), the other direction being easier and less interesting. For
the remainder of this chapter, assume that R is a ring satisfying conditions (1), (2)
and (3) of Theorem 6.6. Let S denote the set of all regular elements of R.
6.7. Essential right ideals.
Denition. Let M be an Rmodule. Then N M is essential if N K ,= 0 for
any nonzero K M.
There is a connection between right regular elements and essential right ideals.
Let a

= rann(a) for any a R. Note that x

= 0 i x is right regular and x

= R
i x = 0.
Proposition. T
r
R is essential if and only if T S ,= .
Proof. () Suppose x T is right regular. Its sucient to prove that xR is
essential since xR T.
Suppose 0 ,= I
r
R and I xR = 0. Consider the sum
L = I +xI +x
2
I +. . .
If

k
i=0
x
i
r
i
L, then r
0
= xr
1
. . . x
k
r
k
I xR = 0 so r
0
= 0 and
xr
1
+x
2
r
2
+. . . +x
k
r
k
= 0. Since x

= 0, r
1
+xr
2
+. . . +x
k1
r
k
= 0. Continuing
33
like this, r
0
= r
1
= . . . = r
k
= 0 so the sum is direct, contradicting (2). Hence xR
is essential.
() See (6.11).
6.8. Proof of Goldies Theorem - Step 1: R
S
exists.
Proof. By Theorem 6.3 its sucient to show that S is a right Ore set. Let r R
and s S; since s is regular, sR is essential in R by Proposition 6.7(). Let
T = a R : ra sR.
T is a right ideal in R; well show that T is essential. Suppose I
r
R is nonzero. If
rI = 0 then I T so I T ,= 0. Otherwise sR rI ,= 0 since sR is essential. If
0 ,= rx sR rI then 0 ,= x I T so I T ,= 0 as claimed.
By Proposition 6.7(), we can nd a T S. Then ra = sb for some b R
and S is a right Ore set.
6.9. Lemma. Let x R be right regular. Then x is regular.
Proof. Suppose yx = 0 but y ,= 0. Then y

,= R. Now xR y

so y

is essential
by Proposition 6.7(). Let z

_ R be a maximal annihilator containing y

- this
exists by assumption (3).
Now, if zRz = 0 then (RzR)
2
= 0, so z = 0 by assumption (1) and z

= R, a
contradiction. Hence there exists b R such that zbz ,= 0.
Hence z

(zbz)

,= R so z

= (zbz)

by maximality of z

. If u bzRz

then
u = bzv and zu = 0 so zbzv = 0. Hence v z

and u = bzv = 0. This shows that

bzR z

= 0 and bz ,= 0, so z

is not essential, a contradiction.

Hence y = 0 and x is regular.
6.10. Nil right ideals.
Denition. X R is nil if x is nilpotent for all x X.
Lemma. Let J
r
R.
(a) If J is nil then J = 0.
(b) If J ,= 0 then there exists y J such that yR y

= 0.
Proof. (a) Suppose for a contradiction that there exists nonzero a J. Then
aR J is nil, and hence Ra is also nil, because (ax)
n
= 0 (xa)
n+1
= 0.
Let o = b

: 0 ,= b Ra. By (3), we can pick 0 ,= b Ra so that b

is maximal
in o. Since N(R) = 0 by (1), bRb ,= 0, so we can nd x R such that bxb ,= 0.
Since Ra is nil and 0 ,= xb Ra, there exists m 2 such that (xb)
m1
,= 0 but
(xb)
m
= 0. Now ((xb)
m1
)

o and b

((xb)
m1
)

as by = 0 (xb)
m1
y = 0.
By maximality of b

, xb ((xb)
m1
)

= b

so bxb = 0, a contradiction.
(b) By (a), J is not nil. Choose z J which is not nilpotent. Now, the chain
z

(z
2
)

(z
3
)

34
stops by (1), so (z
n
)

= (z
n+1
)

= . . . for some n. Let y = z

n
so that (y
2
)

= y

.
Note that y ,= 0 since z is not nilpotent.
Suppose that u = yv yR y

. Then yu = y
2
v = 0 so v (y
2
)

= y

and
u = yv = 0. Hence yR y

= 0 as required.
6.11. Proof of Proposition 6.7().
Proof. Suppose for a contradiction that T S = . We will construct an innite
direct sum inside T. More precisely, we will construct a sequence x
1
, x
2
, . . . T
such that for all m 1
I
m
,= 0 where I
m
:= x
1
, . . . , x
m

.
The sum x
1
R +x
2
R +. . . +x
m
R + (I
m
T) is direct.
Proceed by induction on m.
Base case m = 1: Pick 0 ,= x
1
T such that x
1
Rx

1
= 0 using Lemma 6.10(b).
Since x
1
is not regular, its not right regular by Lemma 6.9, so I
1
= x

1
,= 0. The
sum x
1
R +x

1
is direct by construction, so x
1
R + (I
1
T) is also direct.
Inductive step: Since I
m
,= 0 by induction and T is essential, I
m
T ,= 0. Choose
x
m+1
I
m
T such that x

m+1
x
m+1
R = 0 using Lemma 6.10(b).
Note that since x
m+1
I
m
T, the sum
x
1
R +x
2
R +. . . +x
m+1
R
is direct, being contained in x
1
R+x
2
R. . . +(I
m
T) which is direct by induction.
Hence I
m+1
= x
1
, . . . , x
m+1

= (x
1
+ . . . + x
m+1
)

. Since x
1
+ . . . + x
m+1
T
and T contains no regular elements, I
m+1
,= 0.
It remains to show that x
1
R+x
2
R+. . . +x
m+1
R+ (I
m+1
T) is direct. Now,
x
m+1
R I
m
T
by construction, so if Z = x
1
R +. . . +x
m
R then
(Z +x
m+1
R) (I
m
T) = (Z I
m
T) +x
m+1
R = x
m+1
R
by the modular law, because Z I
m
= 0 by induction. Since I
m+1
= I
m
x

m+1
,
(Z +x
m+1
R) (I
m+1
T) = (Z +x
m+1
R) (I
m
T) x

m+1

x
m+1
R x

m+1
= 0,
as required. Thus the sum x
1
R + x
2
R + . . . is direct contradicting (2), so T must
contain a regular element.
6.12. Closed right ideals.
Denition. J
r
R is closed if for any I
r
R such that I _ J there exists 0 ,= L
r
R
with L I and L J = 0.
Draw a picture!
Lemma. R has the minimum condition on closed right ideals.
35
Proof. Suppose J
1
_ J
2
_ J
3
_ . . . is a strictly decreasing chain of closed right
ideals. Since J
1
_ J
2
, there exists 0 ,= L
1

r
R such that L
1
J
1
and L
1
J
2
= 0.
Similarly, since J
n
_ J
n+1
, there exists 0 ,= L
n

r
R such that L
n
J
n
and
L
n
J
n+1
= 0. Then we get an innite direct sum
L
1
L
2
L
3
. . . ,
contradicting (2).
6.13. Proof of Goldies Theorem - Step 2: R
S
is semisimple Artinian.
Proof. Let K
r
R
S
. By adapting the proof of Theorem 5.10, K = (KR).R
S
. We
claim that J = K R is closed.
For, suppose I _ J. Pick z IJ and let T = r R : zr J, a right ideal.
If s T S then zs J so z J.R
S
= K and z K R = J, a contradiction.
Hence T S = , so T is not essential by Proposition 6.7 (). Hence there exists
0 ,= V
r
R such that V T = 0.
It follows that zV I and zV J = 0 as required.
Now, if K
1
_ K
2
_ K
3
_ . . . is a strictly descending chain of right ideals in R
S
,
then K
1
R _ K
2
R _ K
3
R _ . . . is a strictly descending chain of closed right
ideals in R, contradicting Lemma 6.12. Hence R
S
is right Artinian.
Finally, Let J be the Jacobson radical of R
S
. By Proposition 3.10, J is nilpotent
and hence so is J R. As R is semiprime, J R = 0. But now J = (J R).R
S
= 0
so R
S
is semisimple Artinian, as required.
36
7. Filtrations, associated graded rings and completions
Throughout this chapter, k denotes a eld.
7.1. Filtered rings.
Denition. A (Z)ltration on a ring R is a set of additive subgroups (R
i
)
iZ
such that
R
i
R
i+1
for all i Z,
R
i
.R
j
R
i+j
for all i, j Z,
1 R
0
, and

iZ
R
i
= R.
If R has a ltration, R is a ltered ring. The ltration on R is said to be
positive if R
i
= 0 for all i < 0,
negative if R
i
= R for all i 0,
separated if
iZ
R
i
= 0.
Note that the axioms imply that R
0
is a subring of R and that each R
i
is a left
and right R
0
module. Note also that
iZ
R
i
is always an ideal in R.
Examples. (1) R = q = m/p
k
, m Z
(p)
, k 0, R
i
= p
i
Z
(p)
where p
is a xed prime.
(2) R = k[x, x
1
], R
i
= x
i
k[x
1
] = kx
i
, x
i1
, x
i2
, . . ..
(3) Suppose R is a nitely generated kalgebra with generating set x
1
, . . . , x
n
.
If i 0 let R
i
be the ksubspace of R spanned by words in the x
j
s of length
at most i, let R
0
= k and let R
i
= 0 whenever i < 0. This is a positive
ltration on R.
(4) R = Z, R
i
= p
i
Z for i 0 and R
i
= R otherwise. This is a negative
ltration. More generally,
(5) Let R be any ring and let I be an ideal of R. Then R
i
= I
i
is a negative
ltration, called the Iadic ltration.
7.2. Graded rings.
Denition. A (Z)graded ring is a ring S which can be written as
S =

iZ
S
i
for some additive subgroups S
i
S, satisfying S
i
.S
j
S
i+j
for all i, j Z and
1 S
0
. S
i
is called the ith homogeneous component of S, and an element s S
is homogeneous i it lies in some S
i
.
A graded right ideal J
r
S is a right ideal of the form
iZ
J
i
with J
i
S
i
.
Lemma. If J is a nitely generated graded right ideal of a graded ring S, then J
has a nite generating set consisting of homogeneous elements.
37
Proof. Since J is graded, note that J S
i
= J
i
for each i Z. Let x
1
, . . . , x
n
be
a generating set for J. If x
j
=

iZ
a
ij
for some a
ij
J
i
, we see that each a
ij
lies
in J and is homogeneous. Clearly, a
ij
: a
ij
,= 0 is now a nite generating set for
J consisting of homogeneous elements.
7.3. Associated graded ring.
Denition. Let R be a ltered ring with ltration (R
i
)
iZ
. Dene the abelian group
gr R =

iZ
R
i
/R
i1
.
Equip gr R with multiplication, which is given on homogeneous components by
R
i
/R
i1
R
j
/R
j1
R
i+j
/R
i+j1
r +R
i1
, s +R
j1
rs +R
i+j1
and on the whole of gr R by bilinear extension. Then gr R becomes a ring called the
associated graded ring of R.
Note that the multiplication is well-dened because R
i
R
j
R
i+j1
, R
i1
R
j

R
i+j1
and R
i
R
j1
R
i+j1
. One should think of gr R as an approximation
to the ring R which is often easier to understand but nonetheless contains useful
information about the ring R itself.
Notation. If r R
i
R
i1
then the symbol of r in gr R is the homogeneous element
(r) = r +R
i1
gr R.
7.4. Almost commutative algebras.
Denition. An almost commutative kalgebra is a nitely generated kalgebra
with generators x
1
, . . . , x
n
such that
x
i
x
j
x
j
x
i
k1, x
1
, . . . , x
n

for all i, j = 1, . . . , n.
Examples. (1) The commutative polynomial kalgebra k[x
1
, . . . , x
n
].
(2) The Weyl algebra A
n
(k).
(3) The universal enveloping algebra |(g) of a kLie algebra g, dim
k
g < .
(4) Any homomorphic image of |(g).
Proposition. Let R be an almost commutative algebra generated by x
1
, . . . , x
n
.
Equip R with the positive ltration as in Example 7.1(3). Then there exists a
surjective homomorphism of kalgebras
: k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] gr R
given by (X
i
) = (x
i
), i = 1, . . . , n.
38
Proof. Note that x
i
R
1
for all i. If x
i
, x
j
/ k, we have
(x
i
) = x
i
+R
0
R
1
/R
0
and (x
j
) = x
j
+R
0
R
1
/R
0
.
Since R is almost commutative,
(x
i
)(x
j
) = x
i
x
j
+R
1
= x
j
x
i
+R
1
= (x
j
)(x
i
),
meaning that (x
i
) and (x
j
) commute. If one of x
i
, x
j
lies in k then this is also
true. Hence the kalgebra map exists.
To show that is surjective, its sucient to show that u+R
t1
lies in Im for
any u R
t
R
t1
. Write u as a sum of words of length at most t in the generators
x
1
, . . . , x
n
. Since were interested in u + R
t1
, we can assume that each word
actually has length t.
Writing u =

m
j=1

j
x
i
(j)
1
x
i
(j)
2
x
i
(j)
t
for some i
(j)
1
, . . . , i
(j)
t
1, . . . , n, we have
u +R
t1
=
m

j=1

j
(X
i
(j)
1
)(X
i
(j)
2
) (X
i
(j)
t
) Im.

7.5. Proposition. Any almost commutative kalgebra R is a quotient of |(g) for

some nite dimensional kLie algebra g.
Proof. Let x
1
, . . . , x
n
be the generating subset of R and let g = k1, x
1
, . . . , x
n
.
R is a kLie algebra under the commutator bracket [a, b] = ab ba, and the
condition that R is almost commutative says precisely that g is a Lie subalgebra of
R and hence a nite dimensional Lie algebra itself.
Now we get a ring homomorphism : |(g) R extending the natural injection
g R of kLie algebras. Since x
1
, . . . , x
n
generates R as a kalgebra, is onto,
as required.
Example. Let h
2n+1
be the Heisenberg Lie algebra of dimension 2n +1 with gen-
erators x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
n
, z and relations [y
i
, x
i
] = z for i = 1, . . . , n, all the
other brackets being zero. Then there is a surjective map of kalgebras
: |(h
2n+1
) A
n
(k)
given by (x
i
) = x
i
, (y
i
) = y
i
and (z) = 1.
Note that one can also represent h
2n+1
by (n + 2) (n + 2) matrices:
h
2n+1

=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 k k k
0 0 0 k

0 0 0 k
0 0 0 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
gl
n+2
(k).
39
7.6. Filtered and graded modules.
Denition. Let R be a ltered ring with ltration (R
i
)
iZ
and let M be a right
Rmodule. A ltration on M is a set (M
i
)
iZ
of additive subgroups of M satisfying
M
i
M
i+1
for all i Z,
M
i
.R
j
M
i+j
for all i, j Z,

iZ
M
i
= M.
Positive, negative and separated ltrations are dened analogously to (7.1). Fil-
tered left modules are dened similarly.
Example. Let M be a nitely generated right Rmodule with generating set A.
Then M
i
= AR
i
for all i Z gives a ltration of M, known as the standard
ltration.
Denition. Let S =
iZ
S
i
be a graded ring. A graded right Smodule is a right
Smodule V of the form
V =

iZ
V
i
such that V
i
S
j
V
i+j
for all i, j Z.
7.7. Associated graded modules.
Denition. Let R be a ltered ring and let M be a ltered right Rmodule with
ltration (M
i
)
iZ
. Dene the abelian group
gr M =

iZ
M
i
/M
i1
.
Equip gr M with a gr Raction, which is given on homogeneous components by
M
i
/M
i1
R
j
/R
j1
M
i+j
/M
i+j1
m+M
i1
, r +R
j1
mr +M
i+j1
and on the whole of gr M by bilinear extension. Then gr M becomes a graded
gr Rmodule, called the associated graded module of M.
If N is a submodule of M, dene the subspace ltration (N
i
)
iZ
on N by N
i
=
N M
i
. Also, dene the quotient ltration ((M/N)
i
)
iZ
on M/N by (M/N)
i
=
(M
i
+N)/N.
Proposition. Let R be a ltered ring, let M be a ltered right Rmodule with
ltration (M
i
)
iZ
and let N be a submodule of M. Equip N with the subspace
ltration and M/N with the quotient ltration. Then
(1) There exists an injection : gr N gr M of right gr Rsubmodules.
(2) Identifying gr N with its image in gr M, we have
gr(M/N)

= gr M/ gr N
as right gr Rmodules.
40
Proof. The natural composition of maps N
i
M
i
and M
i
M
i
/M
i1
has kernel
N
i
M
i1
= N M
i1
= N
i1
. So we have an injection of abelian groups

i
: N
i
/N
i1
M
i
/M
i1
for all i Z. Putting these together we get an injection
=
i
: gr N gr M.
Exercise: check that is a right gr Rmodule homomorphism.
This proves (1).
We have the quotient ltration ((M
i
+N)/N)
iZ
of M/N. Consider the compo-
sition

i
: M
i
/M
i1
u
i

M
i
+N
M
i1
+N
v
i

(M
i
+N)/N
(M
i1
+N)/N
where u
i
(m+M
i1
) = m+M
i1
+N and v
i
is the natural isomorphism.
Note that u
i
is onto, whereas
ker(u
i
) =
M
i
(M
i1
+N)
M
i1
=
M
i1
+ (M
i
N)
M
i1
=
M
i1
+N
i
M
i1
= Im(
i
)
by the modular law. Since v
i
is an isomorphism,
i
is onto and ker(
i
) = Im(
i
)
for all i Z. Letting
=
i
: gr M gr(M/N)
we see that is onto and ker() = Im().
Exercise: check that is a right gr Rmodule homomorphism.
Hence induces the required isomorphism of right gr Rmodules
gr M/(gr N) = gr M/ ker()

= Im() = gr(M/N).

7.8. Lifting the Noetherian property - I.

Theorem. Suppose R is a positively ltered ring such that gr R is right Noetherian.
Then R is right Noetherian.
Proof. If I J are right ideals of R, equip I and J with the subspace ltrations
and J/I with the quotient ltration. Proposition 7.7 shows that gr I and gr J are
right ideals of gr R, and moreover that gr I gr J and gr(J/I)

= gr J/ gr I.
Suppose
I
1
I
2
I
3
. . .
is an increasing chain of right ideals of R. Applying gr we obtain an increasing
chain of right ideals of gr R
gr I
1
gr I
2
gr I
3
. . .
which stops because gr R is right Noetherian. So its sucient to prove that if
gr I = gr J for right ideals I J then I = J.
41
Let (R
i
)
iZ
be the ltration on R. If I < J then I R
i
< J R
i
for some i.
Since the ltration on R is positive, we can choose a least such i. Choose some
x (J R
i
)I. Then x / R
i1
as I R
i1
= J R
i1
by minimality of i. Now
(x) = x +R
i1
gr J = gr I
so there exists y I such that (x) = (y) = y + R
i1
. Hence x y R
i1
. But
x y J since y I J, so x y J R
i1
= I R
i1
. Hence x y I so
x I, a contradiction. The result follows.
Of course, the same result holds with right replaced by left.
Corollary. Any almost commutative algebra R is right and left Noetherian. This
includes A
n
(k) and |(g).
Proof. By Proposition 7.4, gr R is a quotient of a polynomial algebra k[X
1
, . . . , x
n
]
for some n, which is right and left Noetherian by Theorem 1.14. Hence R is right
and left Noetherian by Theorem 7.8.
7.9. Topologies. Assume until the end of this chapter that R is a negatively l-
tered ring and M is a negatively ltered right Rmodule with ltration (M
i
).
We can dene a topology on M called the ltration topology, by choosing the open
subsets to be unions of sets of the form m + M
i
. Then as required, the collection
of open sets is closed under arbitrary unions, and also under nite intersections -
since the intersection of m
1
+ M
i(1)
, . . . , m
n
+ M
i(n)
is a union of sets of the form
m + M
i
where i = mini(1), . . . , i(n). If the ltration is separated, we can dene
a metric on M : x a real number c > 1 and set
d(x, y) = c
k
where k = mini : x y M
i
.
Note that we need M
i
= 0 to ensure that d(x, y) = 0 x = y. It can be checked
that the topology we get on M from the metric is the ltration topology, so the
choice of the constant c is irrelevant.
Two ltrations (M
i
) and (M

i
) give the same ltration topology on M if and
only if for all i there exist s(i) such that M

s(i)
M
i
and t(i) such that M
t(i)
M

i
.
The ltrations are then said to be topologically equivalent.
7.10. Cauchy sequences and completions.
Denition. A Cauchy sequence on M is a sequence (x
n
)

n=0
such that for any
open set U containing 0, there exists c(U) N such that x
n
x
m
U whenever
n, m c(U). Two Cauchy sequences (x
n
) and (y
n
) are said to be equivalent if
x
n
y
n
0. Equivalently, given any open set U containing 0, there exists N(U) Z
such that x
n
y
n
U whenever n N(U).
Exercise. Check that this gives an equivalence relation on the set of all Cauchy
sequences on M.
42
Let [x
n
] denote the equivalence class of the Cauchy sequence (x
n
) under this
equivalence relation, and let

M denote the set of all such equivalence classes. The
operations
[x
n
] + [y
n
] = [x
n
+y
n
]
[x
n
] . [y
n
] = [x
n
y
n
] [x
n
], [y
n
]

R
turn

R into an ring, and
[x
n
] + [y
n
] = [x
n
+y
n
] [x
n
], [y
n
]

M
[x
n
] . [r
n
] = [x
n
r
n
] [x
n
]

M, [r
n
]

R
turn

M into a right

Rmodule. There is a ring homomorphism
R

R
r [r]
where [r] is the equivalence class of the constant sequence with value r. The kernel
of this map is R
i
. This also enables us to view

M as a right Rmodule, and we
have an analogous map of Rmodules
M

M
m [m]
Denition. We say that

R (

M) is the completion of R (M, respectively). We call

R (M) complete if the natural map R

R (M

M) is an isomorphism.
Note also that we can dene a ltration on

M by setting

M
i
= [x
n
] : c
i
N such that x
n
M
i
whenever n c
i

the set of equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences which end up in M

i
eventually.
Thus

R and

M have naturally dened topologies, and the natural maps M

M
and R

R are continuous with respect to these topologies.
Note that a complete module M is necessarily separated, since the kernel of the
natural map M

M is M
i
.
Exercise. Check all the details above!
7.11. Inverse limits. There is another way of approaching completions. Let r < s
and let
rs
: M/M
r
M/M
s
be the natural projection. Dene
lim

M/M
i
= (y
n
+M
n
)
nZ

iZ
M/M
n
:
rs
(y
r
+M
r
) = y
s
+M
s
whenever r < s.
This becomes a right Rmodule with pointwise addition and scalar multiplica-
tion. When M = R, these operations turn lim

R/R
i
into a ring.
Lemma.

M is isomorphic to lim

M/M
i
as Rmodules.
43
Proof. If (x
n
) is a Cauchy sequence in M, then for each i Z there exists c(M
i
) N
such that x
n
x
m
mod M
i
for all n, m c(M
i
). We can choose the c(M
i
) to
satisfy
c(M
0
) c(M
1
) c(M
2
) . . . .
Now if r < s then
rs
(x
c(M
r
)
+ M
r
) = x
c(M
r
)
+ M
s
= x
c(M
s
)
+ M
s
since c(M
r
)
c(M
s
), which means that (x
c(M
i
)
+M
i
)
iZ
lim

M/M
i
.
Dene
:

M lim

M/M
i
[x
n
] (x
c(M
i
)
+M
i
)
iZ
.
Note that this doesnt depend on the choice of the numbers c(M
i
): if d(M
i
) are
such that x
n
x
m
mod M
i
whenever n, m d(M
i
), then
x
c(M
i
)
x
max(c(M
i
),d(M
i
))
x
d(M
i
)
mod M
i
for all i Z.
Now, if [x
n
] = [y
n
]

M, then x
n
y
n
0 as n . Hence for all i Z there
exists t(M
i
) such that x
n
y
n
M
i
whenever n t(M
i
). Let c(M
i
), d(M
i
) be the
integers corresponding to [x
n
] and [y
n
]. Letting e(M
i
) = max(c(M
i
), d(M
i
), t(M
i
)),
we have
x
c(M
i
)
x
e(M
i
)
y
e(M
i
)
y
d(M
i
)
mod M
i
for all i Z. Hence ([x
n
]) doesnt depend on the choice of Cauchy sequence inside
the equivalence class [x
n
], so is well dened.
Exercise. Check that is a map of right Rmodules.
It remains to show that is an isomorphism. If [x
n
] ker(), then x
c(M
i
)
M
i
and hence x
n
M
i
for all n c(M
i
). Hence x
n
0 and [x
n
] = 0, so is injective.
If y = (y
i
+M
i
)
iZ
lim

M/M
i
, let x
n
= y
n
M for all n N. Then (x
n
)

n=0
is a Cauchy sequence and that ([x
n
]) = y. Hence is surjective.
Equip each M/M
i
with the discrete topology and

iZ
M/M
i
with the (Ty-
chonov) product topology. Then the map constructed above is actually a home-
omorphism, where we give

M the ltration topology and lim

M/M
i

iZ
M/M
i
the subspace topology.
Also, in the case when M = R, is a ring isomorphism.
The advantage of inverse limits is that the elements are easy to manipulate; the
disadvantage is that everything is dependent on the ltration.
7.12. Examples.
(1) Z
p
, the ring of padic integers is the completion of R = Z with respect to
the padic ltration R
i
= p
i
Z for i 0. Thus Z
p
= lim

Z/p
i
Z.
44
(2) More generally, if R is any ring and I R is a two-sided ideal, we can
complete R with respect to the Iadic ltration:

R = lim

R/I
i
.
(3) If R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] and I = (X
1
, . . . , X
n
) R then

R

= k[[X
1
, . . . , X
n
]],
the ring of power series. Here we identify a power series with the sequence
of partial sums. For example, if n = 1,
a
0
+a
1
X +a
2
X
2
+. . . (a
0
+I, a
0
+a
1
X +I
2
, . . .)
This works similarly for arbitrary n - the notation is cumbersome.
(4) Consider the group of all n n invertible matrices with coecients in Z
p
.
This is GL
n
(Z
p
). Let
K = M GL
n
(Z
p
) : M I
nn
mod p = ker(GL
n
(Z
p
) GL
n
(F
p
)).
K is an example of a torsionfree compact padic Lie group.
Let R = Z
p
[K] be the group algebra of K over Z
p
. Let I be the mod p
augmentation ideal of R: I = ker() where
: R F
p

gK

g
g

gK

g
where F
p
is the reduction of Z
p
modulo p. Then

R, the completion
of R with respect to the Iadic ltration is the Iwasawa algebra of K,
written
K
.
7.13. Proposition. Let R be a ring and I R an ideal such that R/I is a division
ring. Then the completion

R of R with respect to the Iadic ltration is a local
ring, that is, it has a unique maximal left and right ideal.
Proof. Let x

I = (x
n
+I
n
) lim

R/I
n
: x
1
I. Then
y = 1 +x +x
2
+x
3
+. . . = (1 +I, 1 +x
2
+I
2
, 1 +x
3
+x
2
3
+I
3
, . . .)

R
and y(1 x) = (1 x)y = 1, so 1 x is invertible in

R whenever x

I. Now if
u = (u
n
+ I
n
) /

I, then u
1
/ I. Since R/I is a division ring, we can nd v R
such that u
1
v vu
1
1 mod I. Hence uv 1

I so uv and vu are invertible by
the above. Hence u is invertible whenever u /

I so

I is the unique maximal left
and right ideal of

R as required.
This shows that Z
(p)
Z
p
for any prime p.
45
7.14. Lifting the Noetherian property - II.
Theorem. Let R be a complete negatively ltered ring such that gr R is right Noe-
therian. Then R is right Noetherian.
Proof. Let I
r
R be a right ideal. Then gr I is a graded right ideal of gr R by
Proposition 7.7. Since gr R is right Noetherian, gr I is nitely generated. We can
choose a homogeneous generating set, by Lemma 7.2:
gr I =
m

i=1
s
i
gr R
where s
1
, . . . , s
m
are all homogeneous. Each s
i
is the symbol of some x
i
I:
s
i
= (x
i
) R
n(i)
/R
n(i)1
, say.
We will show that
I =
m

i=1
x
i
R.
Since each x
i
I and I is a right ideal, the reverse inclusion is obvious. Let y I
and suppose that y R
j
R
j1
(if y R
j
then y = 0

m
i=1
x
i
R since the
ltration on R is separated.)
Now (y) = y +R
j1
gr I =

m
i=1
s
i
gr R so we can nd t
i
gr R such that
(y) =
m

i=1
s
i
t
i
.
Since (y) and the s
i
are homogeneous, we may assume that t
i
R
jn(i)
/R
jn(i)1
,
i = 1, . . . , m. If t
i
= 0 set r
i1
= 0, otherwise choose r
i1
R
jn(i)
R
jn(i)1
such
that t
i
= r
i1
+R
jn(i)1
. Hence
y
m

i=1
x
i
r
i1
mod R
j1
.
Now let y
1
= y

m
i=1
s
i
r
i1
I R
j1
. If y
1
= 0, stop; if not, repeat the
above with y
1
in place of y. This gives a sequence (r
i1
, r
i2
, r
i3
, . . .) such that r
ik

R
jn(i)k+1
and
y
k
= y
m

i=1
x
i
k

l=1
r
il
I R
jk
for every k 1. But now (

k
l=1
r
il
)

k=1
is a Cauchy sequence in R which converges
to some r
i
R because R is complete. Also, y
k
0 since y
k
R
jk
for all k.
Hence, letting r
i
=

l=1
r
il
, we obtain
y =
m

i=1
x
i
r
i

m

i=1
x
i
R
as required.
46
Examples. (1) Giving Z
p
the padic ltration, gr Z
p

= F
p
[t] which is Noe-
therian, and of course Z
p
is complete with respect to this ltration. Hence
Z
p
is Noetherian.
(2) Suppose K is a compact padic Lie group of a special type, namely a uni-
form pro-p group, of dimension d. One example is the K appearing in
Example 7.12(4), it has dimension n
2
. It can be shown that there is a l-
tration of
K
which is topologically equivalent to the Iadic ltration of

K
, such that
gr
K

= F
p
[X
0
, X
1
, . . . , X
d
],
the polynomial algebra over F
p
in d + 1 variables. Hence
K
is right and
left Noetherian.
47
8. Weyl algebras
Throughout this chapter, k denotes a eld of characteristic 0, and all modules
will be left modules.
8.1. Recall. The n-th Weyl algebra A
n
has generators x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
n
as
a kalgebra and relations [y
i
, x
i
] = 1 for i = 1, . . . n.
Let A = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] be the polynomial algebra. From (1.11), we know that
there is a natural kalgebra homomorphism
: A
n
End
k
(A)
x
i
(f X
i
f)
y
i
(f
f
X
i
).
We can therefore think of A as a left A
n
module, via
r.f = (r)(f) for all r A
n
, f A.
8.2. Notation.
When = (
1
, . . . ,
n
) N
n
, write x

= x

1
1
x

n
n
and y

= y

1
1
y

n
n
.
The degree of the monomial x

is dened to be [[ =
1
+ . . . +
n
. We
also write ! =
1
!
n
!.
((A
n
)
m
) is the positive ltration on A
n
dened in Example 7.1(3): (A
n
)
m
consists of the span of all words in the generators x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
n

of length at most m. This is also known as the Bernstein ltration on A

n
.
The degree of a nonzero element r A
n
is the integer m = deg r such that
r (A
n
)
m
(A
n
)
m1
.
8.3. Proposition. The set x

: , N
n
is a basis for A
n
.
Proof. Any word in the generators can be brought to a linear combination of the
x

s by pushing xs to the left, using the relations y

i
x
i
= x
i
y
i
+ 1. Hence
x

spans A
n
.
Next, suppose r =

,N
n

A
n
is zero but some coecient

is
nonzero. Choose N
n
such that

,= 0 for some N
n
, but

= 0 whenever
[[ < [[.
Now, if [[ [[ then either = or
i
>
i
for some i. But in the latter case,
y

i
i
.X

i
i
= 0 so y

.X

= 0, whereas y

.X

= !. Hence
r.X

=

||<||

.X

||||,=

.X

N
n
!

= !

N
n

,= 0
since char(k) ,= 0 and

,= 0. This contradicts r = 0 and the result follows.

In fact, this is true even when char(k) > 0.

48
Corollary. Equip A
n
with the positive ltration (A
n
)
m
given in Example 7.1(3).
Then
gr A
n

= k[Z
1
, . . . , Z
2n
].
Proof. Let : k[Z
1
, . . . , Z
2n
] gr A
n
be the surjective kalgebra homomorphism
given by (Z
i
) = (x
i
), (Z
i+n
) = (y
i
), i = 1, . . . , n, as in Proposition 7.4.
Note that sends homogeneous polynomials of degree m into the mth graded
part of gr A
n
. Hence if f ker() then we may assume f to be homogeneous of
degree m say:
f =

,N
n
||+||=m

1
1
Z

n
n
Z

1
n+1
Z

n
2n
.
Now (f) = 0 implies that

,N
n
||+||=m

(A
n
)
m1
.
Since the x

are linearly independent over k by Proposition 8.3,

= 0 for
all relevant , and hence f = 0. Hence is an isomorphism.
8.4. Zero divisors.
Proposition. Suppose R is a ltered ring with a separated ltration (R
i
)
iZ
, such
that gr R is a domain. Then R is a domain also.
Proof. Suppose for a contradiction that r, s R are nonzero but rs = 0. Since the
ltration is separated, there exist i, j Z such that r R
i
R
i1
and s R
j
R
j1
.
But now (r) = r +R
i1
and (s) = s +R
j1
are nonzero in gr R and
(r).(s) = rs +R
i+j1
= 0,
contradicting the assumption that gr R is a domain.
Corollary. (1) A
n
is a domain.
(2) If G is a uniform pro-p group, then the Iwasawa algebra
G
is a domain.
8.5. PBW Theorem. Let g be a nite dimensional kLie algebra with basis
x
1
, . . . , x
n
. The enveloping algebra |(g) contains the standard monomials
x

= x

1
1
x

2
2
x

n
n
for all N
n
.
Theorem (Poincare-Birkho-Witt). x

: N
n
form a basis for |(g).
Proof. Omitted.
We can deduce exactly as in Corollary 8.3 that gr |(g) is a polynomial algebra in
n variables, and it follows from Proposition 8.4 that |(g) is a domain. This works
also when char(k) > 0.
49
8.6. Proposition.
(1) Z(A
n
) = k.
(2) A
n
is a simple ring.
Proof. First, note that if a, b, c are elements of some ring R then
[ab, c] = a[b, c] + [a, c]b and [a, bc] = b[a, c] + [a, b]c.
Next, we prove that a, b satisfy [a, b] = 1 then [a
m
, b] = ma
m1
. This is true when
m = 1 so assume inductively that m > 1 and [a
m1
, b] = (m1)a
m2
. Then
[a
m1
, b] = a[a
m1
, b] + [a, b]a
m1
= (m1)aa
m2
+a
m1
= ma
m1
as claimed. In particular, since [y
i
, x
i
] = 1, [y

i
i
, x
i
] =
i
y

i
1
i
for all
i
N.
Now let e
i
N
n
be the element with 1 in ith position and 0s elsewhere.
Because x
i
commutes with every generator apart from y
i
, the above shows that
inside A
n
,
[x

, x
i
] =
i
x

y
e
i
.
Similarly, since [x
i
, y
i
] = 1 we see that [x

i
i
, y
i
] =
i
x

i
1
i
so
[x

, y
i
] =
i
x
e
i
y

.
Now if r =

,N
n

Z(A
n
) then r must commute with each generator.
Hence
[r, x
i
] =

,N
n

y
e
i
= 0
so
i

= 0 for every possible i, , by Proposition 8.3. By considering [r, y

i
] we
obtain
i

= 0 for all i, , . As char(k) = 0,

,= 0
i
=
i
= 0 for all i, so
the only possible nonzero coecient in r is
0,0
. Hence r k and part (1) follows.
Next, suppose that I is a nonzero two-sided ideal of A
n
. Pick a nonzero element
r I of least degree m, say. The above equation for [r, x
i
] shows that
deg[r, x
i
] deg r 1 < m
and similarly deg[r, y
i
] deg r 1 for all i. Since I is a two-sided ideal [r, x
i
] and
[r, y
i
] must lie in I for all i. By minimality of m, these must all be zero and hence
r Z(A
n
) = k. Since r ,= 0 and k is a eld, 1 I and hence I = A
n
.
Warning: this result is false in positive characteristic!
8.7. Rings of dierential operators. Let R be a commutative kalgebra. The
ring of dierential operators of R is a subring of End
k
(R). We construct it induc-
tively. Note that we have an injection a ( a : r ar) of R into End
k
(R). Thus
we can identify R with a subring of End
k
(R). Dene
D
0
(R) = D End
k
(R) : [D, a] = 0 for all a R
D
1
(R) = D End
k
(R) : [D, a] D
0
(R) for all a R
50
D
2
(R) = D End
k
(R) : [D, a] D
1
(R) for all a R
and so on. These are kvector spaces D
0
(R) D
1
(R) D
2
(R) . . . End
k
(R).
Lemma. Let P D
n
(R) and Q D
m
(R). Then PQ D
m+n
(R).
Proof. Induct on n + m. If n + m = 0, then n = m = 0 so P, Q commute with R
and hence PQ also commutes with R, meaning that PQ D
0
(R).
Suppose now that this is true whenever m+n < l and consider the case m+n = l.
Fix a R. By denition, [Q, a] D
m1
(R) and [P, a] D
n1
(R), so by inductive
hypothesis P[Q, a] D
m+n1
(R) and [P, a]Q D
m+n1
(R). Hence
[PQ, a] = P[Q, a] + [P, a]Q D
m+n1
(R)
and hence PQ D
m+n
(R) as required.
Denition. The ring of dierential operators D(R) of R is the subring

n=0
D
n
(R)
of End
k
(R).
Note that by Lemma 8.7, D(R) is a subring, and moreover, (D
i
(R))
iZ
is a
positive ltration on D(R), provided we assume D
k
(R) = 0 for negative k.
8.8. Derivations.
Denition. A derivation of a commutative kalgebra R is a klinear map D :
R R satisfying the Leibnitz rule
D(ab) = aD(b) +D(a)b for all a, b R.
The kvector space of all derivations of R is denoted by Der(R).
Note also that if x R then xD : R R is another derivation, since
( xD)(ab) = x(aD(b) +D(a)b) = a( xD)(b) + ( xD)(a)b
Hence Der(R) is a left Rmodule.
For small values of n, we have alternative descriptions of D
n
(R).
Proposition. Let R be a commutative kalgebra. Then
(1) D
0
(R) = a : a R, and
(2) D
1
(R) = D
0
(R) + Der(R).
Proof. (1) Since R is commutative, a D
0
(R) for all a R. On the other hand,
if D D
0
(R) then D(a) = D(a.1) = (D. a)(1) = ( a.D)(1) = a(D(1)) =

D(1)(a).
Hence D =

D(1) as required.
(2) If D Der(R) and a R, then
[D, a](b) = (D a)(b) ( aD)(b) = D(ab) aD(b)
= D(a)b =

D(a)(b).
51
Thus [ a, D] =

D(a) D
0
(R) by (1) for any a R, showing that Der(R) D
1
(R).
Hence D
0
(R) + Der(R) D
1
(R).
On the other hand, let Q D
1
(R) and set P = Q

Q(1) D
1
(R), so that
P(1) = 0. Now P D
1
(R) so [P, a] D
0
(R) for any a R and hence [[P, a],

b] = 0
for any a, b R. Applying this to 1 R we get
0 = [P, a]

b(1)

b[P, a](1) = (P a aP)(b)

b(P a aP)(1) =
= P(ab) aP(b) bP(a) +baP(1)
so P(ab) = aP(b)+bP(a) and P Der(R). Hence Q = P +

Q(1) Der(R)+D
0
(R)
as required.
8.9. The case R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
].
Proposition. Let R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] and let
i
=

X
i
. Then
Der(R) =
n

i=1
R
i
.
Proof. Its clear that every map D : R R of the form D =

n
i=1

f
i

i
is a
derivation. Conversely, let D Der(R). Then D(X
m
i
) = mX
m1
i
D(X
i
) by an easy
induction. Hence
(D
n

i=1
D(X
i
)
i
)(X

1
1
X

n
n
) = 0
so D =

n
i=1
D(X
i
)
i

n
i=1
R
i
, since the monomials form a kbasis for R.
By this result and Proposition 8.8(2), we see that
D
1
(R) = R +R
1
+. . . +R
n
.
This is a part of the Weyl algebra. Indeed, we have
Theorem. D(R) =

N
n
R

= A
n
.
Proof. Omitted.
Warning: this is false in characteristic p > 0!
8.10. A
n
modules.
Proposition. (1) The natural A
n
module A = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] is simple.
(2) A

= A
n
/

n
i=1
A
n
y
i
as left A
n
modules.
(3) No nonzero left A
n
module M is nite dimensional over k.
Proof. (1) Let 0 ,= f A. Let X

= X

1
1
X

n
n
be a monomial of maximal
degree in f with nonzero coecient , say. Then
y

.f = y

.X

= ! ,= 0
52
since char(k) = 0 so 1 A
n
f. Hence any nonzero element of A generates A, so A
is simple.
(2) We have A = A
n
.1 is a cyclic module, so A

= A
n
/I where I = ann(1)
r
A
n
.
Since y
i
.1 = 0 for all i = 1, . . . , n, I contains

n
i=1
A
n
y
i
. Suppose r I. By
Proposition 8.3, we can write r = a+b where a = a(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) k[x
1
, . . . , x
n
] and
b

n
i=1
A
n
y
i
. Now r.1 = a.1 = a(X
1
, . . . , X
n
) = 0 forces a = 0 so r

n
i=1
A
n
y
i
as required.
(3) Suppose M is a nite dimensional A
n
module of dimension t. The action
of A
n
gives a ring homomorphism
: A
n
End
k
(M)

= M
t
(k).
Now (y
1
)(x
1
) (x
1
)(y
1
) = I
tt
. Since tr(UV ) = tr(V U) for any matrices
U, V , taking traces we conclude that t = 0, so M = 0 as required.
Part (3) is a special case of Bernsteins Inequality. (1) and (3) are false in positive
characteristic, and only (2) remains valid.
8.11. Solutions of PDEs. Suppose we have a nite set of elements P
1
, . . . , P
m

A
n
. Then we can consider the set of simultaneous partial dierential equations
() P
1
.f = P
2
.f = . . . = P
m
.f = 0
where f A = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
]. The A
n
module associated with this system of
equations is M
P
1
,...,P
m
= A
n
/

m
i=1
A
n
P
i
.
Proposition. The kvector space of polynomial solutions of () is isomorphic to
Hom
A
n
(M
P
1
,...,P
m
, A).
Proof. We can dene a left A
n
module map
f
: A
n
A by
f
(1) = f. If f A
is a solution, then P
i
ker(
f
) for all i, so we obtain a map
f
: M
P
1
,...,P
m
A.
Conversely, if : M
P
1
,...,P
m
A is a map of left A
n
modules, then (1) A is
a solution of the system (). This gives a bijective correspondence.
One can also look for solutions in other spaces B, which are A
n
modules - the
solution space will be Hom
A
n
(M
P
1
,...,P
m
, B).
For example, when k = 1, we can take B = (

(U), the set of all innitely

dierentiable functions f : U 1, for some open set U 1
n
. This is a left
A
n
module, with the action given by
(x
i
.f)(a
1
, . . . , a
n
) = a
i
f(a
1
, . . . , a
n
) and
y
i
.f =
f
a
i
.
53
9. Dimensions
Throughout, k denotes a eld. Again, modules will be on the left.
9.1. Hilbert polynomials. We start by considering nitely generated graded
modules
N =

i=0
N
i
for the commutative polynomial algebra S = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] =

i=0
S
i
. Here S
i
is
the space of all homogeneous polynomials of degree i.
Pick a homogeneous generating set u
1
, . . . , u
m
for N, where deg u
j
= k
j
, say.
Then
N =
m

j=1
u
j
S =

i=0
_
_
m

j=1
u
j
S
ik
j
_
_
so N
i
=
m

j=1
u
j
S
ik
j
for all i 0. Since each graded component S
i
of S is nite dimensional over k, we
see that each N
i
must itself be nite dimensional over k.
Denition. The Poincare series for N is the power series
P(N, t) =

i=0
(dimN
i
) t
i
Z[[t]].
Theorem (Hilbert,Serre). Let S and N be as above. Then
(1) There exists f(t) Z[t] such that
P(N, t) =
f(t)
(1 t)
n
.
(2) Let d N be the order of the pole at t = 1 of P(N, t). Then there exists
(t) [t] of degree d 1, such that for large enough i, dimN
i
= (i).
(3) There exists (t) [t] of degree d, such that for large enough i,
i

j=0
dimN
j
= (i).
Proof. (1) Proceed by induction on n. When n = 0, N is a nitely generated
kmodule, and hence dim
k
N < . Hence N
i
= 0 for large enough i, so P(N, t) is
clearly a polynomial.
Now, assume n > 1 and consider the map : N N given by (v) = X
n
v.
Since R is commutative, this is a map of Rmodules. Since X
n
has degree 1,
maps N
i
to N
i+1
. Let K
i
= ker(
|N
i
) and let L
i+1
= coker(
|N
i
) = N
i+1
/X
n
N
i
.
Let K =

i=0
K
i
and L =

i=0
L
i
where we set L
0
= N
0
. Then K = ker()
and L = coker(). Note that both K and L are nitely generated Smodules since
S is Noetherian and N is nitely generated. Also, both are killed by X
n
, and are
54
hence nitely generated graded k[X
1
, . . . , X
n1
]modules. By induction, P(K, t)
and P(L, t) have the required form:
P(K, t) =
a(t)
(1 t)
n1
and P(L, t) =
b(t)
(1 t)
n1
for some a(t), b(t) Z[t]. Since N
i
/K
i

= X
n
N
i
as kvector spaces, we see that
dimN
i
dimK
i
= dimN
i+1
dimL
i+1
.
Multiply this equation by t
i+1
and sum over i to get
tP(N, t) tP(K, t) = P(N, t) P(L, t),
since P(N, 0) = P(L, 0). Hence
P(N, t) =
P(L, t) tP(K, t)
1 t
=
b(t) ta(t)
(1 t)
n
as required.
(2) By cancelling powers of (1 t) if necessary, we may assume that
f(t) = a
0
+a
1
t +. . . +a
s
t
s
Z[t]
satises f(1) ,= 0, so that P(N, t) = f(t)(1 t)
d
with d the order of the pole of
P(N, t) at t = 1.
Now, (1 t)
1
= 1 +t +t
2
+. . .. Repeated dierentiation gives
(1 t)
d
=

m=0
_
d +m1
d 1
_
t
m
, so
P(N, t) =
s

j=0
a
j
t
j

m=0
_
d +m1
d 1
_
t
m
=

i=0
_
_
min(s,i)

j=0
a
j
_
d +i j 1
d 1
_
_
_
t
i
.
We deduce that for all i = s, s + 1, . . .,
() dimN
i
= a
0
_
d +i 1
d 1
_
+a
1
_
d +i 2
d 1
_
+. . . +a
s
_
d +i s 1
d 1
_
.
The right hand side of this expression can be rearranged as (i) for some polynomial
(t) [t]. Note also that
(t) =
f(1)
(d 1)!
t
d1
+ lower degree terms.
Since f(1) ,= 0, we see that (t) has degree d 1.
(3) Since
_
a
b
_
=
_
a1
b1
_
+
_
a1
b
_
, we see that
i

j=0
_
d +j 1
d 1
_
=
_
d +i
d
_
.
Replacing i by j in () and summing from j = 0 to i, we obtain
i

j=0
dimN
j
= a
0
_
d +i
d
_
+a
1
_
d +i 1
d
_
+. . . +a
s
_
d +i s
d
_
= (i)
55
for some polynomial (t) [t] of degree d. This is valid whenever i s.
9.2. Denition. Let S = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] and let N =

i=0
N
i
be a nitely gener-
ated graded Smodule. The objects appearing in Theorem 9.1 have names:
The Hilbert polynomial of N is (t) [t].
The Samuel polynomial of N is (t) [t].
The dimension of N is the integer d = d(N).
The multiplicity of N is the integer m(N) = d!a where a is the leading
coecient of (t).
Our next goal will be to dene dimension and multiplicity for nitely generated
modules over almost commutative algebras. For this, we rst need to make a
digression to study Rees rings and good ltrations.
9.3. Rees rings and modules. Let R be a ltered ring with ltration (R
i
)
iZ
,
and let M be a ltered left Rmodule with ltration (M
i
)
iZ
.
Denition. The Rees ring

R of R is a subring of the ring of Laurent polynomials
R[t, t
1
]:

R =

iZ
R
i
t
i

iZ
Rt
i
= R[t, t
1
].
The Rees module

M of M is the abelian group

M =

iZ
M
i
t
i
where the action of

R is given by on homogeneous components by
R
i
t
i
M
j
t
j
M
i+j
t
i+j
r
i
t
i
, m
j
t
j
m
i
r
j
t
i+j
.
Note that t

R is a central regular element, since 1 R
1
always. There is a
certain amount of interplay between the Rees ring of R and the associated graded
ring gr R.
Lemma. Let R and M be as above. Then
(1)

R/t

R

= gr R as rings,
(2)

M/t

M

= gr M as left gr Rmodules,
(3)

R/(t 1)

R

= R as rings,
(4)

M/(t 1)

M

= M as left Rmodules.
Proof. We will only prove the result for the rings, leaving the modules as an exercise.
(1). We have an isomorphism of abelian groups

R/t

R =

iZ
R
i
t
i

iZ
R
i1
t
i

iZ
R
i
/R
i1

= gr R.
It can be checked that this is also a ring isomorphism.
56
(2). Dene a ring homomorphism :

R R by (

r
i
t
i
) =

r
i
. Since
(R
i
t
i
) = R
i
we see that is onto. Clearly t 1 ker(). Check that in fact
ker() = (t 1)

R. The result follows.

So

R is a ring which has both R and gr R as epimorphic images. Therefore,
sometimes gr R is thought of as a deformation of R. Also note that if

R is right
(or left) Noetherian, then so are both R and gr R.
Thanks are due to Lorenzo Di-Biagio for pointing out that an earlier version of
the following Lemma was incorrect.
9.4. Lemma. Suppose R is an almost commutative algebra with nite generating
set x
1
, . . . , x
n
. Equip R with the positive ltration as in Example 7.1(3). Then

R = R
0
R
1
t R
2
t
2

is right and left Noetherian.
Proof. We observe rst that k[t] is a subring of

R and that

R is generated as
a k[t]algebra by tx
1
, tx
2
, . . . , tx
n
. Note that we can widen the denition of
almost commutative kalgebra in 7.4 to the case when k is any commutative
ring, and that Proposition 7.4 will still be valid.
Since we can write [tx
i
, tx
j
] as a k[t]linear combination of tx
1
, . . . , tx
n
, we
see that

R is an almost commutative k[t]algebra. Hence gr

R is a quotient of
k[t][X
1
, . . . , X
n
] by Proposition 7.4, and therefore is Noetherian by Theorem 1.14.
Hence

R is right and left Noetherian, by Corollary 7.8.
This result will be useful to us in what follows.
9.5. Good ltrations.
Denition. Let R be a ltered ring and let M be a left Rmodule.
A ltration (M
i
) on M is said to be good i the Rees module

M is nitely
generated over

R.
Two ltrations (M
i
) and (M

i
) on M are algebraically equivalent (or just
equivalent) if there exist c, d Z such that
M

i
M
i+c
and M
j
M

j+d
for all i, j Z.
Note that if (M
i
) is a good ltration, then gr M

=

M/t

M is nitely generated
over gr R and M

=

M/(t 1)

M is nitely generated over R, by Proposition 9.3.

Proposition. Let R be a ltered ring and let M be a left Rmodule.
(1) A ltration (M
i
) on M is good if and only if there exist k
1
, k
2
, . . . , k
s
Z
and m
1
M
k
1
, m
2
M
k
2
, . . . , m
s
M
k
s
such that
M
i
= R
ik
1
m
1
+R
ik
2
m
2
+ +R
ik
s
m
s
for all i Z.
(2) All good ltrations on M are equivalent.
57
Proof. (1) If the graded module

M is nitely generated, it has a nite homogeneous
generating set t
k
1
m
1
, . . . , t
k
s
m
s
say, with m
j
M
k
j
. Then the ith homogeneous
component of

M is
t
i
M
i
= R
ik
1
t
ik
1
(t
k
1
m
1
) + +R
ik
s
t
ik
s
(t
k
s
m
s
), so
M
i
= R
ik
1
m
1
+R
ik
2
m
2
+ +R
ik
s
m
s
.
Conversely, any ltration of this form is good, since t
k
1
m
1
, . . . , t
k
s
m
s
is then
a generating set for

M.
(2) Take two good ltrations (M
i
) and (M

i
). Then we have
M
i
= R
ik
1
m
1
+ +R
ik
s
m
s
for all i
M

j
= R
jl
1
m

1
+ +R
jl
r
m

r
for all j.
We can nd c Z such that m

t
M
l
t
+c
for all t = 1, . . . , r. Then M

i
M
i+c
for
all i, and similarly there exists d Z such that M
i
M

i+d
for all i.
One consequence of this result is that any nitely generated module has some
good ltration: just take a generating set X = x
1
, . . . , x
s
and set the integers k
i
to be 0, so that M
i
= R
i
x
1
+ . . . + R
i
x
s
= R
i
X (the standard ltration on M) is
good.
9.6. Dimension theory for almost commutative algebras. Let R be an al-
most commutative algebra with generating set x
1
, . . . , x
n
. Let (R
i
) be the usual
ltration on R, so that gr R is a quotient of the polynomial algebra k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
]
by Proposition 7.4. Let M be a nitely generated left Rmodule and let (M
i
) be
some good ltration on M.
Note that each M
i
is nite dimensional over k by Proposition 9.5(1), since each
R
i
is. Also, gr M is a nitely generated graded gr Rmodule by Lemma 9.3 and
hence a nitely generated graded k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
]module. As such, it has a Samuel
polynomial (t) dened in (9.2). Note that
(i) =
i

j=0
dim(M
j
/M
j1
) = dimM
i
dimM
1
for suciently large i.
Denition. The dimension d(M) of M is the degree d of (t). The multiplicity
m(M) is d!a where a is the leading coecient of (t). Thus d(M) = d(gr M) and
m(M) = m(gr M).
At rst sight, this depends on the choice of good ltration (M
i
) on M. However,
let (M

i
) be another good ltration on M and let

(t) be the corresponding Samuel

polynomial. By Proposition 9.5(2), there exists c N such that
M

jc
M
j
M

j+c
for all j Z,
58
so dimM

jc
dimM
j
M

j+c
. Hence, for large enough j,

(j c) (j)

(j +c).
Since the behaviour of a polynomial for large enough j is determined by its leading
term, we see that dimension and multiplicity is well dened.
9.7. Examples.
(1) Let R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] and let (R
i
) be the usual positive ltration on R,
given by R
i
= k.X

: [[ i. Then dimR
i
is the number of monomials
in n variables of length at most i which is well known to be
dimR
i
=
_
n +i
n
_
=
(i +n)(i +n 1) (i + 1)
n!
=
i
n
n!
+o(i
n1
).
So if we view R as an Rmodule by multiplication, we can read o d(R) = n
and m(N) = 1.
(2) Let R = A
n
with the usual ltration. Viewing R as a ltered module
over itself with the same ltration, we see that gr R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
2n
] by
Corollary 8.3, so d(R) = 2n and m(R) = 1.
(3) Let R = A
n
and let M = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] be the natural A
n
module with
the usual ltration. Then d(M) = n and m(M) = 1.
(4) Let R be any almost commutative kalgebra and M a nitely generated
Rmodule. Then d(M) = 0 if and only if dimM < .
9.8. Theorem. Let R be an almost commutative kalgebra and let M be a nitely
generated Rmodule. Suppose N is a submodule of M. Then
(1) d(M) = maxd(N), d(M/N).
(2) If d(N) = d(M/N) then m(M) = m(N) +m(M/N).
Proof. Let (M
i
) be a good ltration on M. Give N the subspace ltration (N
i
)
and M/N the quotient ltration (M/N)
i
. First, we prove that these ltrations are
good.
Note that N
i
M
i
and M
i
/N
i
= M
i
/(N M
i
)

= (M
i
+N)/N. A computation
similar to the proof of Proposition 7.7 shows that

N

M and

_
M
N
_

=

M/

N
as left

Rmodules.
Now

R is left Noetherian by Lemma 9.4, so both

N and

M/N are nitely gener-
ated

Rmodules, as (M
i
) is good. Hence the ltrations on N and M/N are good
and we can use them to compute dimensions and multiplicities.
Next, we have
dim
N
j
N
j1
+ dim
(M/N)
j
(M/N)
j1
= dim
M
j
M
j1
59
so summing over j, we see that for large enough i,
(*)
N
(i) +
M/N
(i) =
M
(i).
Hence
N
+
M/N
=
M
as polynomials, since () holds for innitely many i.
Since the leading coecients of the Samuel polynomials are positive, we cannot
have cancellation, so (1) follows. Moreover, if d(N) = d(M/N) then the leading
coecients add, and we obtain (2).
9.9. Proposition. Let R be an almost commutative algebra with d(R) = n.
(1) If M is a nitely generated left Rmodule, then d(M) n.
(2) If R is a domain and 0 ,= I
r
R then d(R/I) < n.
Proof. From Theorem 9.8(1), we see that d(R
m
) = d(R) = n for any m 1.
Since M is nitely generated, its a left Rmodule quotient of R
m
for some m, so
d(M) d(R
m
) = n, proving (1).
Next, pick 0 ,= x I. Since R/I R/Rx, we see that d(R/I) d(R/Rx) by
Theorem 9.8(1). Suppose for a contradiction that d(R/Rx) = d(R) = n. Since
R is a domain, Rx

= R as left Rmodules, so d(Rx) = d(R/Rx). But now by
Theorem 9.8(2), m(Rx) + m(R/Rx) = m(R) so m(R/Rx) = 0, a contradiction.
Hence d(R/Rx) < n as required.
9.10. Bernsteins Inequality.
Theorem (Bernstein, 1972). Suppose char(k) = 0 and let M be a nonzero nitely
generated left A
n
(k)module. Then d(M) n.
Proof. (Joseph)
Pick a nite generating set X and let (M
i
) be the standard ltration on M
given by M
i
= (A
n
)
i
X. This ltration is good and positive. Let (t) be the
Samuel polynomial of gr M with respect to this ltration. Then for large enough i,
(i) = dimM
i
by the remarks in (9.6).
Claim: dimR
i
dimHom
k
(M
i
, M
2i
) = (dimM
i
)(dimM
2i
).
Assuming the claim is true, for large enough i, dimR
i
(i)(2i). Since
dimR
i
=
_
i+2n
2n
_
is a polynomial in i of degree 2n, (t)(2t) must be a polyno-
mial of degree 2n. But it has degree 2d(M), so d(M) n as required.
To prove the claim, consider the klinear map

i
: R
i
Hom
k
(M
i
, M
2i
)
r (m rm)
Its sucient to show that
i
is injective. Equivalently, we must show that if
0 ,= r R
i
then rM
i
,= 0. Proceed by induction on i. When i = 0, r k0 is a
unit so rM
0
= M
0
= kX ,= 0 since M ,= 0.
60
Now assume i > 0 and suppose for a contradiction that 0 ,= r R
i
is such
that rM
i
= 0. Then r / k = Z(A
n
) by Proposition 8.6(1), so [r, u] ,= 0 for some
u x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
n
. Weve seen in the proof of Proposition 8.6 that
[r, u] R
i1
,
so [r, u]M
i1
,= 0 by induction. But uM
i1
M
i
and rM
i
= 0 so
[r, u]M
i1
= (ru ur)M
i1
= 0,
a contradiction. The result follows.
Note that when n = 1, this says that any nonzero nitely generated A
n
module
is innite dimensional over k, by Example 9.7(4). This is also the content of Propo-
sition 8.10(3).
Noetherian Algebras
Michaelmas 2004
Example Sheet 1
Throughout this sheet, k denotes an arbitrary eld.
1. Let R
1
, . . . , R
n
be rings. The direct product R = R
1
R
n
is a ring with componentwise
multiplication and addition. The identity element of R is given by (1, 1, . . . , 1). We can view each
R
i
as an additive subgroup of R which is closed under multiplication. However, R
i
is not a subring
of R (unless n = 1) since the identity elements are dierent.
Show that R is left Noetherian if and only if each R
i
is left Noetherian. Show that the same result
holds with Noetherian replaced by Artinian.
2. Show that the ring

Z Q
0 Q

is right, but not left Noetherian. Find an example of a ring which is

left Noetherian but not right Noetherian.
3. Let R be a ring and let M be a Noetherian left R-module. Suppose : M M is an R-module
homomorphism. Show that if is surjective, then it is also injective. Deduce that if R is a left
Noetherian ring with ab = 1 for some a, b R then ba = 1.
4. By considering trailing coecient ideals show that a commutative ring R is Noetherian if and only
if the power series ring R[[x]] is Noetherian.
5. Let R be a ring and suppose a R is nilpotent. Show that 1 + a is a unit. If R is commutative,
show that the sum of a unit and a nilpotent element is a unit. Is this true if R is noncommutative?
6. Let R be a commutative ring and let a = a
0
+a
1
x +. . . +a
n
x
n
R[x].
(a) Show that a is nilpotent if and only if each a
i
is nilpotent.
(b) Show that a is a unit if and only if a
0
is a unit in R and a
i
is nilpotent for each i 1.
(c) Deduce that J(R[x]) = N(R[x]).
7. Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring and let f R[[x]]. Prove that f is nilpotent if and only if
all its coecients are nilpotent.
1
8. Let R = k[x
1
, x
2
, . . .] be the polynomial ring with countably many indeterminates over and let I
be the ideal generated by all the elements x
i
i
, i 1. Show that R/I is not Noetherian and that its
prime radical is not nilpotent.
9. Let R be a ring.
(a) Show that R has a prime ideal.
(b) Show that R has a minimal prime, with respect to inclusion.
10. Let R be a ring with a prime ideal P. Let P[x] = {a
0
+a
1
x +. . . +a
n
x
n
R[x] : a
i
P for all i}.
Show that P[x] is a prime ideal in R[x]. If P is maximal, is P[x] maximal?
11. Show that the free algebra kx, y is not left Noetherian.
12. Let G be a group. If H
1
H
2
. . . is a strictly ascending chain of subgroups of G, show that the
left ideals I
j
of the group algebra kG generated by {h 1 : h H
j
} form a strictly ascending chain
I
1
I
2
. . . .
13. Show that any subgroup or quotient of a poly-{cyclic or nite} group is poly-{cyclic or nite}.
14. (a) Let g be a nite dimensional Lie algebra over k. An ideal of g is a k-subspace h such that
[g, h] h. Suppose g has an ideal h of codimension 1 and that U(h) is left Noetherian. Use the
noncommutative version of Hilberts Basis Theorem to show that U(g) is also left Noetherian.
(b) The Lie algebra g is solvable if it has a chain of subspaces
0 = g
0
g
1
. . . g
n
= g
such that [g
i
, g
i
] g
i1
for each i = 1, . . . , n. Suppose g is a nite dimensional solvable Lie
algebra. Show that U(g) is left and right Noetherian.
15. Let A be a commutative ring. Suppose A
n
injects into A
m
as A-modules. Must n m ?
Comments to K.Ardakov@dpmms.cam.ac.uk.
2
Noetherian Algebras
Michaelmas 2004
Example Sheet 2
1. Let D be a division ring and let R = M
n
(D). Express R as a direct sum of minimal nonzero right
ideals and also as a direct sum of minimal nonzero left ideals. Show that R is a simple ring, that
is, the only (two-sided) ideals are 0 and R.
2. Let R be a right Artinian ring and let x R be a right regular element, that is,
rann(x) := {r R : xr = 0}
is zero. Show that x must be a unit. Deduce that a right Artinian ring with no zero divisors must
be a division ring.
3. Find an example of a right Artinian ring which is not left Artinian.
4. Let R be a nite dimensional kalgebra, where k is an algebraically closed eld and let M be a
simple Rmodule. Show that End
R
(M)

= k.
5. (Maschke) Let G be a nite group and let k be a eld, so kG is left and right Artinian. Show that
kG is semisimple if and only if char k |G|.
6. Let G be a nite group and let k be a eld with char k |G|. By considering the centre of kG,
show that the number of isomorphism classes of simple right kGmodules is at most the number
of conjugacy classes of elements of G.
7. Let G be a nite p-group and let k be a eld of characteristic p. Let J be the Jacobson radical of
kG. Show that J = ker() where : kG k is the trivial representation.
8. Let R be a ring. An element e R is an idempotent if e
2
= e. Suppose e R is a central idempotent.
(a) Show that 1 e is also a central idempotent.
(b) Show that eR is a ring with the same multiplication as in R, but with identity element e.
(c) Show that R

= eR (1 e)R.
1
9. A commutative ring is local if it has a unique maximal ideal. Show that a commutative ring is
Artinian if and only if it is the direct product of nitely many Artinian local rings.
10. Let R, S be commutative rings and let : R S be a ring homomorphism. Let P S be a prime
ideal. Show that
1
(P) R is also a prime ideal. Is this true if R and S are not assumed to be
commutative?
11. Let k be a eld and let I = (xy, y
2
) k[x, y]. Find two distinct primary decompositions of I.
12. Let R be a commutative ring and let M be a Noetherian Rmodule. Show that R/ Ann(M) is also
Noetherian.
13. Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring and let M be a nitely generated Rmodule. Show that

Ann(M) =

PAss(M)
P.
14. Let D be the set of zero divisors in a commutative Noetherian ring R. Show that
D =

PAss(R)
P.
A ring R is called von Neumann regular if for any a R there exists x R such that axa = a.
15. Let R be a ring. Prove that:
(a) If M is a semisimple Rmodule, then End
R
(M) is von Neumann regular.
(b) R is von Neumann regular if and only if every principal right ideal generated by an idempotent.
(c) A right Noetherian ring is von Neumann regular if and only if it is semisimple Artinian.
(d) A commutative ring is von Neumann regular if and only if it is semiprime and every prime
ideal is maximal.
16. Let R be a von Neumann regular ring. Show that every nitely generated right ideal in R is
generated by an idempotent.
Comments to K.Ardakov@dpmms.cam.ac.uk.
2
Noetherian Algebras
Michaelmas 2004
Example Sheet 3
1. Suppose R is a commutative ring, S is a multiplicatively closed subset of R and M is a nitely
generated Rmodule. Show that
(a) M
S
= 0 if and only if there exists s S with Ms = 0.
(b) Ann(M)
S
= Ann(M
S
).
2. Let R be a commutative ring and let S be a multiplicatively closed subset of R. Show that the
prime ideals of R
S
are in 1-1 correspondence with the prime ideals of R which are contained in R\S.
3. Let I be an ideal in a commutative ring R. Show that S = 1 +I is a multiplicatively closed subset
of R and that I
S
is contained in the Jacobson radical of R
S
.
4. Let M be an module for a commutative ring R. Show that the following are equivalent:
(a) M = 0,
(b) M
P
= 0 for all prime ideals P,
(c) M
Q
= 0 for all maximal ideals Q.
5. Let : M N be an Rmodule map for a commutative ring R. Show that the following are
equivalent:
(a) is injective,
(b)
P
: M
P
N
P
is injective for every prime ideal P,
(c)
Q
: M
Q
N
Q
is injective for every maximal ideal Q.
Is the same true if injective is replaced by surjective?
6. Let R be a commutative ring. The support of an Rmodule M is dened to be the set Supp(M)
of prime ideals P of R such that M
P
= 0. Show that
(a) If 0 A B C 0 is an exact sequence of Rmodules, then
Supp(B) = Supp(A) Supp(C).
(b) If M is nitely generated, then Supp(M) consists of all the prime ideals containing Ann(M).
1
7. Let R be a commutative ring. Suppose that for every prime ideal P, the local ring R
P
is semiprime.
Show that R is semiprime. If R
P
is an integral domain for every prime P, must R be an integral
domain, too?
8. Let R be a ring and let M be a right Rmodule. Let X and Y be submodules of M and let S be
a right divisor subset of R. Show that
(a) (X +Y )
S
= X
S
+Y
S
, and
(b) (X Y )
S
= X
S
Y
S
. viewed as submodules of M
S
.
9. Find a ring R with elements a, b R such that ab = 1 but ba = 1. Show that S = {1, a, a
2
, . . .}
satises the right Ore condition and that ass(S) = 0, but that no element of S\{1} is right regular.
10. Let R =

Z Z
0 Z

and let P =

Z Z
0 0

. Show that P is a prime ideal in R. Also, show that

S = R\P is multiplicatively closed but is not a right Ore set. Prove that S is a left divisor set and
that
S
R

= Q.
11. Let R be a ring and let M be a right Rmodule. Show that
(a) If X
e
Y and Y
e
M then X
e
M.
(b) If X M then there exists Y M such that X Y = 0 and X Y
e
M. (Hint: Zorn.)
(c) M is semisimple if and only if any proper submodule of M is not essential.
(Hint for (): do this rst when M is cyclic.)
12. Let S be a right Ore subset of a ring R consisting of regular elements. Let A
r
R and let B
r
R
S
.
Show that A
e
R if and only if A
S

e
R
S
, and that B
e
R
S
if and only if B R
e
R. Use this to
give another proof of the second part of Goldies Theorem which does not use the notion of closed
right ideals. (Show that if R satises conditions (1),(2),(3) of Theorem 6.6 and if S is the set of all
regular elements of R, then R
S
is semisimple Artinian.)
13. Let R be a prime ring (so 0 is a prime ideal of R). Show that any nonzero two-sided ideal I of R is
essential as a right ideal (and as a left ideal).
14. Let R be a prime right Noetherian ring. Show that R has a classical right ring of quotients isomorphic
to M
n
(D) for some division ring D and some integer n 1.
15. Let R be a ring and S a right Ore subset of R consisting of regular elements. Suppose that R
S
is
right Noetherian. Show that if I is a two-sided ideal of R then I
S
is a two-sided ideal of R
S
.
16. Let R be a simple right Noetherian ring. Show that the classical right ring of quotients Q exists.
Show also that the centre of R is equal to the centre of Q and is a commutative eld.
Comments to K.Ardakov@dpmms.cam.ac.uk.
2
Noetherian Algebras
Michaelmas 2004
Example Sheet 4
A topological group is a topological space G which is also a group, such that the maps
m : G G G and
x , y xy
c : G G
x x
1
are continuous, when we equip GG with the product topology.
1. Let R be a negatively ltered ring and let M be a negatively ltered Rmodule.
(a) Show that M is a topological group under addition with respect to the ltration topology.
(b) Show that M is Hausdor if and only if the ltration on M is separated.
2. Show that the ring of padic integers Z
p
is compact.
3. Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring and let I be an ideal of R.
(a) Show that the Rees ring of R with respect to the Iadic ltration is also Noetherian.
(b) (Artin-Rees Property) Let A be another ideal of R. Show that there exists n N such that
A I
n
AI.
(c) Suppose R is local with maximal ideal I. Using Nakayamas Lemma, or otherwise, show that

n=0
I
n
= 0.
4. Suppose R is a commutative Noetherian integral domain and I is a proper ideal of R. Show that

n=0
I
n
= 0.
(This is Krulls Intersection Theorem.)
5. Let R be a commutative ring and let D
1
, D
2
Der(R). Show that [D
1
, D
2
] Der(R).
1
6. From now on, k is a eld. Let R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] and let J be an ideal of R. Dene Der
J
(R) to
be the set of all derivations D of R such that D(J) J. Show that J Der(R) Der
J
(R), and that
Der(R/J)

= Der
J
(R)/J Der(R)
as kvector spaces.
7. Let Sp
2n
(k) be the group of symplectic matrices, given by
Sp
2n
(k) = {B GL
2n
(k) : B
T

0 I
n
I
n
0

B =

0 I
n
I
n
0

}.
Show that there is a natural action of Sp
2n
(k) on A
n
by kalgebra automorphisms, which preserves
the Bernstein ltration and hence induces an action of Sp
2n
(k) on gr A
n
.
8. Suppose char(k) = 0 and let M, N be simple left A
n
modules. Show that M N is a cyclic left
A
n
module. (Hint: use the fact that A
n
is simple.)
9. Suppose char(k) > 0 and let n 1. Show that
(a) A
1
is not isomorphic to the subring of End
k
(k[x]) generated by x and

x
,
(b) A
n
is not simple,
(c) There exist nonzero left A
n
modules which are nite dimensional over k.
10. Let k be such that
n
= 1 for any n 1. Suppose R is a kalgebra with units x, y R
satisfying xy = yx. Show that R has no nonzero left modules which are nite dimensional over k.
11. Let f R = k[X
1
, . . . , X
n
] be a homogeneous polynomial. Calculate the Hilbert polynomial (t)
for the graded module R/Rf.
12. Let 0 = r A
n
. Show that d(A
n
/A
n
r) = 2n 1.
13. Let J
m
= A
n
y
m+1
+ +A
n
y
n

l
A
n
, where 0 m n 1. Show that d(A
n
/J
m
) = n +m.
14. Let I be a nonzero left ideal of A
n
(k). Show that I is not Artinian as an A
n
(k)module.
15. Let R be a prime almost commutative kalgebra. Show that d(R/I) < d(R) for any nonzero
two-sided ideal I of R. (Hint: Sheet 3, Question 13.)
16. Let R be a complete negatively ltered ring, such that gr R is left Noetherian. Show that the Rees
ring

R is also left Noetherian.
Comments to K.Ardakov@dpmms.cam.ac.uk.
2