Mixing
Looking for alternative argument $(x^2 - y^3, y^2 - z^3)subset k[x,y,z]$ is prime ideal.
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Consider $I=(x^2 - y^3, y^2 - z^3)subset k[x,y,z]$ as an ideal with $k$ a field.
$textbf{Q:}$ I am Looking for alternative argument to conclude $I$ is prime ideal. It is clear that I can use parametrization $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ by parametrization $(x,y,z)to (t^9, t^6, t^4)$ and argue this descends to a monomorphism under quotient $k[x,y,z]/I$. Note this map is clearly not surjection. Hence this is not isomorphic to $A^1_k$ and this is already indicated by singularity at $(0,0,0)$. Can I conclude primeness of ideal $I$ by some other better argument? Say intersection,grobner basis,...
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry
asked 2 days ago
user45765
2,3822720
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Consider $I=(x^2 - y^3, y^2 - z^3)subset k[x,y,z]$ as an ideal with $k$ a field.
$textbf{Q:}$ I am Looking for alternative argument to conclude $I$ is prime ideal. It is clear that I can use parametrization $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ by parametrization $(x,y,z)to (t^9, t^6, t^4)$ and argue this descends to a monomorphism under quotient $k[x,y,z]/I$. Note this map is clearly not surjection. Hence this is not isomorphic to $A^1_k$ and this is already indicated by singularity at $(0,0,0)$. Can I conclude primeness of ideal $I$ by some other better argument? Say intersection,grobner basis,...
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry
asked 2 days ago
user45765
2,3822720
$(x,x^{-1},y,z) mapsto (t^9,t^{-9},t^4,t^6)$ is an isomorphism $k[x,x^{-1},y,z]/I to k(t)$ and $V(I) setminus (0,0,0) simeq A^1_k setminus (0)$ ?
– reuns
2 days ago
@reuns Then you are using embedding implicitly which is essentially showing $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ inducing an embedding and this will induce $k-$algebra level isomorphism for function fields.
– user45765
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Consider $I=(x^2 - y^3, y^2 - z^3)subset k[x,y,z]$ as an ideal with $k$ a field.
$textbf{Q:}$ I am Looking for alternative argument to conclude $I$ is prime ideal. It is clear that I can use parametrization $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ by parametrization $(x,y,z)to (t^9, t^6, t^4)$ and argue this descends to a monomorphism under quotient $k[x,y,z]/I$. Note this map is clearly not surjection. Hence this is not isomorphic to $A^1_k$ and this is already indicated by singularity at $(0,0,0)$. Can I conclude primeness of ideal $I$ by some other better argument? Say intersection,grobner basis,...
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry
asked 2 days ago
user45765
2,3822720
Consider $I=(x^2 - y^3, y^2 - z^3)subset k[x,y,z]$ as an ideal with $k$ a field.
$textbf{Q:}$ I am Looking for alternative argument to conclude $I$ is prime ideal. It is clear that I can use parametrization $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ by parametrization $(x,y,z)to (t^9, t^6, t^4)$ and argue this descends to a monomorphism under quotient $k[x,y,z]/I$. Note this map is clearly not surjection. Hence this is not isomorphic to $A^1_k$ and this is already indicated by singularity at $(0,0,0)$. Can I conclude primeness of ideal $I$ by some other better argument? Say intersection,grobner basis,...
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry
asked 2 days ago
user45765
2,3822720
asked 2 days ago
user45765
2,3822720
asked 2 days ago
user45765
2,3822720
asked 2 days ago
user45765
2,3822720
asked 2 days ago
user45765
2,3822720
2,3822720
$(x,x^{-1},y,z) mapsto (t^9,t^{-9},t^4,t^6)$ is an isomorphism $k[x,x^{-1},y,z]/I to k(t)$ and $V(I) setminus (0,0,0) simeq A^1_k setminus (0)$ ?
– reuns
2 days ago
@reuns Then you are using embedding implicitly which is essentially showing $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ inducing an embedding and this will induce $k-$algebra level isomorphism for function fields.
– user45765
yesterday
add a comment |
$(x,x^{-1},y,z) mapsto (t^9,t^{-9},t^4,t^6)$ is an isomorphism $k[x,x^{-1},y,z]/I to k(t)$ and $V(I) setminus (0,0,0) simeq A^1_k setminus (0)$ ?
– reuns
2 days ago
@reuns Then you are using embedding implicitly which is essentially showing $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ inducing an embedding and this will induce $k-$algebra level isomorphism for function fields.
– user45765
yesterday
$(x,x^{-1},y,z) mapsto (t^9,t^{-9},t^4,t^6)$ is an isomorphism $k[x,x^{-1},y,z]/I to k(t)$ and $V(I) setminus (0,0,0) simeq A^1_k setminus (0)$ ?
– reuns
2 days ago
$(x,x^{-1},y,z) mapsto (t^9,t^{-9},t^4,t^6)$ is an isomorphism $k[x,x^{-1},y,z]/I to k(t)$ and $V(I) setminus (0,0,0) simeq A^1_k setminus (0)$ ?
– reuns
2 days ago
@reuns Then you are using embedding implicitly which is essentially showing $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ inducing an embedding and this will induce $k-$algebra level isomorphism for function fields.
– user45765
yesterday
@reuns Then you are using embedding implicitly which is essentially showing $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ inducing an embedding and this will induce $k-$algebra level isomorphism for function fields.
– user45765
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Lemma: Let $f:Xto Y$ be a continuous map of topological spaces. If $X$ is irreducible, then $f(X)$ is irreducible.
Proof: If $f(X)$ had a decomposition in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets $Acup B$, then $f^{-1}(A)cup f^{-1}(B)$ would be a decomposition of $X$ in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets, contradicting irreducibility of $X$.
We apply this to the situation at hand in the following fashion: $V(I)$ is the image of the morphism $Bbb A^1toBbb A^3$ given by $tmapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$, so $V(I)$ is irreducible. Thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
KReiser
9,02711233
Then in this setting, I really should think irreducibility as "connectedness" which transcends down to the map?
– user45765
yesterday
2
Sort of - one can see that irreducibilty is a little finer than connectedness (it's possible for different irreducible components to meet), but going forwards along the map is exactly the same.
– KReiser
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
KReiser has given a really nice answer, but I just wanted to add that you're already essentially there with what you've written in your question. You've observed that the map $(x,y,z)mapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$ induces an injection $k[x,y,z]/I hookrightarrow k[t]$. The latter ring is a domain, and any subring of a domain is a domain, thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
jgon
9,74611538
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Lemma: Let $f:Xto Y$ be a continuous map of topological spaces. If $X$ is irreducible, then $f(X)$ is irreducible.
Proof: If $f(X)$ had a decomposition in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets $Acup B$, then $f^{-1}(A)cup f^{-1}(B)$ would be a decomposition of $X$ in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets, contradicting irreducibility of $X$.
We apply this to the situation at hand in the following fashion: $V(I)$ is the image of the morphism $Bbb A^1toBbb A^3$ given by $tmapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$, so $V(I)$ is irreducible. Thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
KReiser
9,02711233
Then in this setting, I really should think irreducibility as "connectedness" which transcends down to the map?
– user45765
yesterday
2
Sort of - one can see that irreducibilty is a little finer than connectedness (it's possible for different irreducible components to meet), but going forwards along the map is exactly the same.
– KReiser
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Lemma: Let $f:Xto Y$ be a continuous map of topological spaces. If $X$ is irreducible, then $f(X)$ is irreducible.
Proof: If $f(X)$ had a decomposition in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets $Acup B$, then $f^{-1}(A)cup f^{-1}(B)$ would be a decomposition of $X$ in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets, contradicting irreducibility of $X$.
We apply this to the situation at hand in the following fashion: $V(I)$ is the image of the morphism $Bbb A^1toBbb A^3$ given by $tmapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$, so $V(I)$ is irreducible. Thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
KReiser
9,02711233
Then in this setting, I really should think irreducibility as "connectedness" which transcends down to the map?
– user45765
yesterday
2
Sort of - one can see that irreducibilty is a little finer than connectedness (it's possible for different irreducible components to meet), but going forwards along the map is exactly the same.
– KReiser
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Lemma: Let $f:Xto Y$ be a continuous map of topological spaces. If $X$ is irreducible, then $f(X)$ is irreducible.
Proof: If $f(X)$ had a decomposition in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets $Acup B$, then $f^{-1}(A)cup f^{-1}(B)$ would be a decomposition of $X$ in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets, contradicting irreducibility of $X$.
We apply this to the situation at hand in the following fashion: $V(I)$ is the image of the morphism $Bbb A^1toBbb A^3$ given by $tmapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$, so $V(I)$ is irreducible. Thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
KReiser
9,02711233
Lemma: Let $f:Xto Y$ be a continuous map of topological spaces. If $X$ is irreducible, then $f(X)$ is irreducible.
Proof: If $f(X)$ had a decomposition in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets $Acup B$, then $f^{-1}(A)cup f^{-1}(B)$ would be a decomposition of $X$ in to two nontrivial proper closed subsets, contradicting irreducibility of $X$.
We apply this to the situation at hand in the following fashion: $V(I)$ is the image of the morphism $Bbb A^1toBbb A^3$ given by $tmapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$, so $V(I)$ is irreducible. Thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
KReiser
9,02711233
answered yesterday
KReiser
9,02711233
answered yesterday
KReiser
9,02711233
answered yesterday
KReiser
9,02711233
9,02711233
Then in this setting, I really should think irreducibility as "connectedness" which transcends down to the map?
– user45765
yesterday
2
Sort of - one can see that irreducibilty is a little finer than connectedness (it's possible for different irreducible components to meet), but going forwards along the map is exactly the same.
– KReiser
yesterday
add a comment |
Then in this setting, I really should think irreducibility as "connectedness" which transcends down to the map?
– user45765
yesterday
2
Sort of - one can see that irreducibilty is a little finer than connectedness (it's possible for different irreducible components to meet), but going forwards along the map is exactly the same.
– KReiser
yesterday
Then in this setting, I really should think irreducibility as "connectedness" which transcends down to the map?
– user45765
yesterday
Then in this setting, I really should think irreducibility as "connectedness" which transcends down to the map?
– user45765
yesterday
2
2
Sort of - one can see that irreducibilty is a little finer than connectedness (it's possible for different irreducible components to meet), but going forwards along the map is exactly the same.
– KReiser
yesterday
Sort of - one can see that irreducibilty is a little finer than connectedness (it's possible for different irreducible components to meet), but going forwards along the map is exactly the same.
– KReiser
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
KReiser has given a really nice answer, but I just wanted to add that you're already essentially there with what you've written in your question. You've observed that the map $(x,y,z)mapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$ induces an injection $k[x,y,z]/I hookrightarrow k[t]$. The latter ring is a domain, and any subring of a domain is a domain, thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
jgon
9,74611538
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
KReiser has given a really nice answer, but I just wanted to add that you're already essentially there with what you've written in your question. You've observed that the map $(x,y,z)mapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$ induces an injection $k[x,y,z]/I hookrightarrow k[t]$. The latter ring is a domain, and any subring of a domain is a domain, thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
jgon
9,74611538
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
KReiser has given a really nice answer, but I just wanted to add that you're already essentially there with what you've written in your question. You've observed that the map $(x,y,z)mapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$ induces an injection $k[x,y,z]/I hookrightarrow k[t]$. The latter ring is a domain, and any subring of a domain is a domain, thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
jgon
9,74611538
KReiser has given a really nice answer, but I just wanted to add that you're already essentially there with what you've written in your question. You've observed that the map $(x,y,z)mapsto (t^9,t^6,t^4)$ induces an injection $k[x,y,z]/I hookrightarrow k[t]$. The latter ring is a domain, and any subring of a domain is a domain, thus $I$ must be prime.
answered yesterday
jgon
9,74611538
answered yesterday
jgon
9,74611538
answered yesterday
jgon
9,74611538
answered yesterday
jgon
9,74611538
9,74611538
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005288%2flooking-for-alternative-argument-x2-y3-y2-z3-subset-kx-y-z-is-pri%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$(x,x^{-1},y,z) mapsto (t^9,t^{-9},t^4,t^6)$ is an isomorphism $k[x,x^{-1},y,z]/I to k(t)$ and $V(I) setminus (0,0,0) simeq A^1_k setminus (0)$ ?
– reuns
2 days ago
@reuns Then you are using embedding implicitly which is essentially showing $k[x,y,z]to k[t]$ inducing an embedding and this will induce $k-$algebra level isomorphism for function fields.
– user45765
yesterday