Definition 19.1:
A ring
is called artinian if and only if each descending chain
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7519f/7519f973aae4ea5715a360418f0b3ec19a5fa7f5" alt="{\displaystyle I_{1}\supseteq I_{2}\supseteq \cdots \supseteq I_{k}\supseteq \cdots }"
of ideals of
eventually terminates.
Equivalently,
is artinian if and only if it is artinian as an
-module over itself.
Proposition 19.2:
Let
be an artinian integral domain. Then
is a field.
Proof:
Let
. Consider in
the descending chain
.
Since
is artinian, this chain eventually stabilizes; in particular, there exists
such that
.
Then write
, that is,
, that is (as we are in an integral domain)
and
has an inverse.
Corollary 19.3:
Let
be an artinian ring. Then each prime ideal of
is maximal.
Proof:
If
is a prime ideal, then
is an artinian (theorem 12.9) integral domain, hence a field, hence
is maximal.
Proof:
First assume that the zero ideal
of
can be written as a product of maximal ideals; i.e.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1f36/f1f36fe6873365859b3278c9147047bbedd51d8f" alt="{\displaystyle \langle 0\rangle =m_{1}\cdots m_{n}}"
for certain maximal ideals
. In this case, if either chain condition is satisfied, one may consider the normal series of
considered as an
-module over itself given by
.
Consider the quotient modules
. This is a vector space over the field
; for, it is an
-module, and
annihilates it.
Hence, in the presence of either chain condition, we have a finite vector space, and thus
has a composition series (use theorem 12.9 and proceed from left to right to get a composition series). We shall now go on to prove that
is a product of maximal ideals in cases
is noetherian and every prime ideal is maximal
is artinian.
1.: If
is noetherian, every ideal (in particular
) contains a product of prime ideals, hence equals a product of prime ideals. All these are then maximal by assumption.
2.: If
is artinian, we use the descending chain condition to show that if (for a contradiction)
is not product of prime ideals, the set of ideals of
that are product of prime ideals is inductive with respect to the reverse order of inclusion, and hence contains a minimal (w.r.t. inclusion) element
. We lead this to a contradiction.
We form
. Since
as
,
. Again using that
is artinian, we pick
minimal subject to the condition
. We set
and claim that
is prime. Let indeed
and
. We have
, hence, by minimality of
, data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0aaa4/0aaa42690f378a6c0f5577ec3452e0a9a6862d46" alt="{\displaystyle aB+A=B}"
and similarly for
. Therefore
,
whence
. We will soon see that
. Indeed, we have
, hence
and therefore
.
This shows
, and
contradicts the minimality of
.