7
$\begingroup$

The following it from Atiyah-Macdonald's Introduction to Commutative Algebra, exercise 1.22.
Apparently this should be very easy, my apologies for asking.
I have been stuck for almost 1 day and I cannot figure out what is wrong with my arguments.

Let $A=\prod_{i=1}^n A_i$ be the direct product of rings $A_i$. Show that $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ is the disjoint union of open (and closed) subspaces $X_i$, where $X_i$ is canonically homeomorphic with $\operatorname{Spec}(A_i)$.

What I tried so far:
I know that $A=\prod_{i=1}^nA_i$, so I tried to find all the prime ideals in the product.
One of the lemma I showed was that for each prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}\subseteq\prod_{i=1}^nA_i$, it must be of the form:
$A_1\times\dotsb\times\mathfrak{p}_i\times\dotsb\times A_n$,
where $\mathfrak{p}_i$ is a prime ideal in $A_i$.
Hence I concluded that $\operatorname{Spec}(A)=\coprod_{i=1}^nX_i$, where $X_i=A_1\times\dotsb\times \operatorname{Spec}(A_i)\times\dotsb\times A_n$.

If my lemma is right this should cover all cases of prime ideals in $\prod_{i=1}^nA_i$,
but I have trouble when I am checking its properties.

Namely: $X_i\cap X_j$ should be $\emptyset$ for $i\neq j$, since I am looking for disjoint union.
But looking at $X_1\cap X_2$ there seems to be a non-empty intersection at
$(\operatorname{Spec}(A_1),\dots)\cap (A_1,\dots)=(\operatorname{Spec}(A_1),\dots)$.
(Or should $\operatorname{Spec}(A_1)\cap A_1=\emptyset$?)

Intuitively it seems like I may be able to define the following:
$\operatorname{Spec}(A)\cong \operatorname{Spec}(A_1)\times\dotsb\times \operatorname{Spec}(A_n)$
Then letting $X_i=(0,\dots,\operatorname{Spec}(A_i),\dots,0)$ seems to resolve the disjoint union problem.
Also, clearly each $X_i$ is a collection of prime ideals.
However, this looks like I will be missing cases like $A_1\times\dotsb\times \operatorname{Spec}(A_i)\times\dotsb\times A_n$.

Where did I go wrong?
Or am I misinterpreted anything wrongly?
Thanks for reading!

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

3
$\begingroup$

I think you essentially captured the idea of the proof; but the notation is misleading. Indeed, your $X_i$ should be defined as follows: $$ X_i:=\{A_1\times\dots\times\mathfrak p\times\dots\times A_n\,|\,\mathfrak p\in\textrm{Spec }A_i \}\subset\textrm{Spec }A. $$ Then of course $X_i\cong \textrm{Spec }A_i$ and $\textrm{Spec }A\cong\coprod X_i$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ All answers were helpful but I could only choose 1... Picking Matt's answer as he pinpointed the confusion I had. I gave you an upvote. =D Thanks for your time! $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Yong Hao Ng: My pleasure :) $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 18:30
2
$\begingroup$

$\DeclareMathOperator{\Spec}{Spec}$I think you're confusing yourself by writing $A_1\times\cdots\times\Spec(A_i)\times\cdots\times A_n$; you should immediately identify this with $\Spec(A_i)$ by the canonical homeomorphism $\mathfrak{p}\mapsto A_1\times\cdots\times\mathfrak{p}\times\cdots\times A_n$.

This should also encourage you not to talk about $A_1\cap\Spec(A_1)$; this intersection is empty simply because the two spaces contain entirely different objects, but this isn't the point. You shouldn't try to intersect $X_i$ and $X_j$ by intersecting each factor in the product seperately, but by thinking about what kind of object must lie in both - from your definition, such an object would have a prime ideal as only the $i$-th factor, and only the $j$-th factor, giving a contradiction unless $i=j$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer! You pinpointed the confusion I had. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 18:34
2
$\begingroup$

Be careful, $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathrm A)$ is a set while $\mathrm A$ is a ring. What you have written at first is correct : the primes of the product have the form $$ \mathfrak{P} = \mathrm A_1 \times ... \times \,\mathfrak{p}_i \times ... \times \mathrm A_n$$

And we have $\mathrm X_i \simeq \mathrm{Spec}(\mathrm A_i)$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer! All answers were helpful but I could only choose 1... Picking Matt's answer as he pinpointed the confusion I had. I gave you an upvote. =D P.S. May I ask what does the symbol $\simeq$ means? I have not used it before. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ It means "is isomorphic to". $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ So may I assume that it has the same meaning as $\cong$? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ Yep, it is just a little shorter. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ Got it, thanks for the info. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 18:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.