0

Let $R$ be a ring, and an ideal $I = ( p(x) )$ of $R[x]$.

Then consider the statement: " $I$ is a maximal ideal if and only if $p(x)$ is irreducible "

Does that statement need the hypothesis "$R[x]$ is a principal ideals domain" to be true? Or is that statement true anyway?

2 Answers2

1

Tne statement is actually false even if $R$ is a PID.

E.g. consider the case $R=\Bbb Z$ and the chain of prime ideals with proper inclusions $$ (0)\subset(x)\subset(2,x). $$

Andrea Mori
  • 26,969
  • Sorry I made a mistake. The hypothesis I wanted to refer was R[x] is a PID (instead of R) – Lourdes LB Dec 05 '20 at 16:32
  • @LourdesLB, well, $R[x]$ is a PID only when $R$ is a field. Indeed if $r\in R$ is a non-invertible element the ideal $(r,x)$ is not principal. – Andrea Mori Dec 05 '20 at 22:46
0

Suppose $p(x)$ is not the zero polynomial and is reducible, then there exists some non-constant polynomial such that $q(x)\mid p(x)\implies (p(x))\subsetneq (q(x))\ne R[x]$, so $(p(x))$ is not maximal. This proves the forward direction.

For the other direction, suppose $p(x)\subsetneq J$, some proper ideal of $R[x]$, and that $p(x)$ is irreducible. Then we must have $(p(x),q(x))\subset J$ whence $q(x)$ is coprime to $p(x)$. By Bézout's identity, $\exists a(x),b(x)\in R[x]$ such that $a(x)p(x)+b(x)q(x)=1\in J$, but then $J=R[x]$, a contradiction. So $p(x)$ is reducible in fact, which proves the statement.

Divide1918
  • 2,093