arXiv:1710.05496v1 [] 16 Oct 2017

INFINITE PRIME AVOIDANCE
JUSTIN CHEN
Abstract. We investigate prime avoidance for an arbitrary set of prime ideals
in a commutative ring. Various necessary and/or sufficient conditions for prime
avoidance are given, which yield natural classes of infinite sets of primes that
satisfy prime avoidance. Examples and counterexamples are given throughout
to illustrate the phenomena that can occur. As an application, we show how
to use prime avoidance to construct counterexamples among rings essentially
of finite type.

The classical prime avoidance lemma is one of the most ubiquitous results in
commutative algebra. Prime avoidance, along with finiteness of associated primes,
is one of the basic building blocks of the theory of Noetherian rings. For example,
the two results can be jointly used to choose generic nonzerodivisors (such as in the
converse of Krull’s Altitude Theorem), or to select a single annihilator for an ideal
consisting of zerodivisors.
As a fundamental technical result, the prime avoidance lemma has found various
extensions in the literature (cf. [2], [5]). Moreover, special cases of infinite prime
avoidance have in the past been used to great effect, perhaps most famously as a
crucial step in Nagata’s example of an infinite-dimensional Noetherian ring. This
indicates the potential utility of understanding and applying infinite prime avoidance methodically. The goal of this note is to make initial steps in this direction.
To this end, we first make a definition. For a commutative ring R with 1 6= 0,
Spec R denotes the set (for now) of prime ideals of R.
Definition.
Let R be a ring, Λ ⊆ Spec R. We say that Λ satisfies prime avoidance
[
if I ⊆
p =⇒ I ⊆ p for some p ∈ Λ, for any R-ideal I.
p∈Λ

Note that in the definition of prime avoidance, it is enough to check the condition
for [
prime ideals I, since ideals which are maximal with
[ respect to being contained
in
p (i.e. not meeting the multiplicative set R \
p) exist by Zorn’s lemma,
p∈Λ

p∈Λ

and are prime.
Example 1. For any ring
[ R, the set of maximal ideals mSpec R satisfies prime
avoidance: if I ⊆
m, then I consists of nonunits, hence is contained
m∈mSpec R

in a maximal ideal. This example, though basic, is actually representative of all
examples in some sense: cf. Theorem 4(3), (6).
We now arrive at the classical prime avoidance lemma. For convenience we give
a short direct proof (as opposed to one using induction):
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13A15, 13B30.
1

2

JUSTIN CHEN

Lemma (Prime Avoidance). Let R be a ring, Λ ⊆ Spec R. If Λ is finite, then Λ
satisfies prime avoidance.
Proof. Write Λ = {p1 , . . . , pn }. Suppose I is an R-ideal such that I 6⊆ pi for any i,
and choose
primes for the union, we may choose
[ ai ∈ I \ pi . Removing redundant
Y
bi ∈ pi \
pj for each i. Set ci := ai
bj . Then ci ∈ pj iff j 6= i by primeness of
j6=i

pi , so c1 + . . . + cn ∈ I \

[

j6=i

pi .



General though prime avoidance is, its single restriction is quite severe: the set
Λ must be finite! The proof above offers no recourse to relaxing this constraint.
But it is not without good reason that this is the case, as prime avoidance may
simply fail when Λ is infinite, even for sets of minimal primes:
Example 2. Let k be a field, R = k[x0 , x1 , . . .]/(x2i x2i+1 | i ≥ 0). Then the
set of minimal primes Min(R) has cardinality 2ℵ0 : every minimal prime is of the
form (xa(i) | i ≥ 0) for a sequence {a(i)}i≥0 with a(i) ∈ {2i, 2i + 1}. Let podd :=
[
p.
(x1 , x3 , . . .) be the minimal prime of odd variables. Then podd ⊆
p∈Min(R)\{podd }

To see this, pick f ∈ podd. Write f as an R-linear combination of finitely many
generators of podd, say x1 , x3 , . . . , x2j−1 . Then e.g. (x1 , x3 , . . . , x2j−1 , x2j , x2j+2 , . . .)
is a minimal prime of R containing f which is distinct from podd.
By similar reasoning, every minimal prime of R is contained in the union of the
other minimal primes. We remark that in this ring, the set of all minimal primes
does satisfy prime avoidance, but even this need not hold in general: there exist
reduced rings of dimension > 0 where every nonzerodivisor is a unit.
Even in much tamer rings, infinite prime avoidance need not hold. For instance,
Noetherian rings have only finitely many minimal primes, which prevents minimal
primes from (mis)behaving as in Example 2. However, in this setting the principal
ideal theorem can sometimes force infinite prime avoidance to fail:
Proposition 1. Let R be a Noetherian ring.
[
(a) For any q ∈ Spec R, q ⊆
p (so prime avoidance fails if ht q ≥ 2).
ht p≤1

(b) Suppose R [
is also Jacobson. Then for any m ∈ mSpec R with ht m ≥ 2,
n.
m⊆
n∈mSpec(R)\{m}

Proof. (a): Pick f ∈ q, and take p a minimal prime of f . Then f ∈ p, and by
Krull’s Principal Ideal Theorem, ht p ≤ 1.
(b): Pick f ∈ m, and let p be a minimal prime of f contained in m (i.e. the
pullback to R of a minimal prime of (R/(f ))m ). Now ht p ≤ 1 =⇒ p 6= m =⇒ p
is not maximal; hence p is a (necessarily infinite) intersection of maximal ideals (as
R is Jacobson). Thus there is a maximal ideal n 6= m with p ⊆ n, so f ∈ n.

In spite of these examples, one can still ask for classes of infinite sets of primes
which do satisfy prime avoidance. It turns out that this question does have some
nice answers. Recall now that Spec R has the Zariski topology, with closed sets of
the form V (I) := {p | I ⊆ p} for an R-ideal I, and a ring map ϕ : R → S induces
a continuous map ϕ∗ : Spec S → Spec R via contraction.

INFINITE PRIME AVOIDANCE

3

Proposition 2. Let ϕ : R → S be a ring map, which is either a surjection or a
localization. If Λ ⊆ Spec S satisfies prime avoidance, then so does ϕ∗ (Λ).
[
Proof. Let p ⊆
ϕ−1 (q). Then for all x ∈ p, x ∈ ϕ−1 (q) for some q ∈ Λ, i.e.
q∈Λ

ϕ(x) ∈ q. Since ϕ is either a surjection or a localization, any element
[ of pS is of
the form s · ϕ(x) for some x ∈ p, s ∈ S, so this shows that pS ⊆
q. By prime
q∈Λ

avoidance of Λ, pS ⊆ q for some q ∈ Λ, hence p ⊆ ϕ−1 (pS) ⊆ ϕ−1 (q).



We use Proposition 2 to give examples of infinite sets satisfying prime avoidance.
Hereafter when convenient, we view Spec(U −1 R) inside Spec R as {p | p ∩ U = ∅}.
Corollary 3. Let R be a ring, U ⊆ R a multiplicative set, and I an R-ideal. Then
V (I) ∩ Spec(U −1 R) satisfies prime avoidance.
Proof. ϕ : R → U −1 (R/I) is a composite of localizations and surjections. Now
apply Proposition 2 twice to V (I) ∩ Spec(U −1 R) = ϕ∗ (Spec(U −1 (R/I))).
Notice: this shows that both V (I) and Spec(U −1 R) satisfy prime avoidance (by
taking U = {1} and I = 0, respectively). In addition, pulling back mSpec(U −1 (R/I))
above gives that V (I) ∩ mSpec(U −1 R) = ϕ∗ (mSpec(U −1 (R/I))) satisfies prime
avoidance.

Example 3. Proposition 2 may lead one to think that ϕ∗ (Spec S) satisfies prime
avoidance for any ring epimorphism ϕ : R → S, but this is not true. Let k = k be a
e = k[s, t, u], S = k[x, y], and define ϕ
e → S by s 7→ x, t 7→ xy, u 7→ xy 2 −y.
field, R
e:R
e
Then ϕ
e induces ϕ : R := R/(su
− t2 + t) → S, which is a ring epimorphism. Since
2
∼
any nonunit in R is also a nonunit in S. Thus if
R = k[x, xy, xy − y] ⊆ S,[
Λ := ϕ∗ (Spec S), then m ⊆
p for any m ∈ mSpec R. However, (s, t − 1, u) is a
p∈Λ

maximal ideal of R that is not in Λ: if s ∈ ϕ−1 (x − a, y − b), then a = 0, and then
ϕ(t) = xy = x(y − b) + bx ∈ (x, y − b) =⇒ t ∈ ϕ−1 (x, y − b).
Example 4. It follows from Corollary 3 that basic Zariski-open sets (i.e. sets of the
form D(f ) := (Spec R) \ V (f ) for some f ∈ R) satisfy prime avoidance. However,
arbitrary Zariski-open sets need not: if R = k[x, y] for k a field, Λ1 := D(x),
Λ2 := D(y), then Λ1 ∪ Λ2 = (Spec R) \ {(x, y)} does not satisfy prime avoidance, by
Proposition 1(b). This example also shows that the class of sets satisfying prime
avoidance is neither closed under union nor taking complements in Spec R.
Definition. Let R be a ring. For Λ ⊆ Spec R, define the following sets:
• Λmax := {p ∈ Λ | p 6⊆ q, ∀q ∈ Λ}, the subset of maximal elements of Λ.
Notice: Λmax may be empty, even if Λ is not!
• Λcl := {q ∈ Spec R | ∃p ∈ Λ, q ⊆ p}, the downward-closure of Λ in the poset
Spec R. Notice: (·)cl is a closure
(i.e. monotonic, increasing, and
[ operation[
idempotent). Indeed, Λcl =
({p}cl ) =
Spec(Rp ).
p∈Λ

p∈Λ

These definitions allow for various characterizations of prime avoidance. For a
ring map ϕ : R → S, we say that ϕ∗ is surjective on closed points if mSpec R ⊆
ϕ∗ (Spec S) (or equivalently, mSpec R ⊆ ϕ∗ (mSpec S)). In the following, keep in

4

JUSTIN CHEN

mind that although W −1 I ⊆ W −1 J does not imply that I ⊆ J in general, the
implication does hold if J is prime (and does not meet W ).
[
Theorem 4. Let R be a ring, Λ ⊆ Spec R, W := R \
p. Then the following are
p∈Λ

equivalent:
(1) Λ satisfies prime avoidance
(2) mSpec(W −1 R) ⊆ Λmax
(3) mSpec(W −1 R) = Λmax
(4) mSpec(W −1 R) ⊆ Λcl
(5) Spec(W −1 R) = Λcl
(6) There is a ring map ϕ : R → S such that
(i)
Λmax = ϕ∗ (mSpec S) (so ∃ induced map W −1 R → S), and
(ii) Spec S → Spec(W −1 R) is surjective on closed points
(7) Λcl satisfies prime avoidance
(8) Λmax satisfies prime avoidance and Λ ⊆ (Λmax )cl .
[
[
Proof. (1) ⇐⇒ (7):
p=
p′ , and I ⊆ p for some p ∈ Λ iff I ⊆ p′ for some
p∈Λ

p′ ∈Λcl

p′ ∈ Λcl .
(1) =⇒ (2): Take m ∈ mSpec(W −1 R). Then m = W −1 q where q ∈ Spec R is
maximal with respect to q ∩ W = ∅. By prime avoidance, q ⊆ p for some p ∈ Λ.
But p ∩ W = ∅, so q = p ∈ Λmax by maximality of q.
(2) =⇒ (3): Take p ∈ Λmax . Then W −1 p is a proper ideal in W −1 R, so
−1
W p ⊆ m for some maximal ideal m ∈ mSpec(W −1 R). By assumption, m = W −1 q
for some q ∈ Λmax . Localizing further at q gives pRq ⊆ qRq which implies p ⊆ q,
so by maximality of p in Λ, p = q, hence W −1 p = m ∈ mSpec(W −1 R).
(3) =⇒ (4): Clear.
(4) =⇒ (5): Follows from Λ ⊆ Spec(W −1 R) = (mSpec(W −1 R))cl ⊆ Λcl .
(5) =⇒ (7): Follows from Corollary 3.
(3) =⇒ (6): Take S := W −1 R, ϕ : R → S the canonical map. Then (i) follows
from (3), and (ii) is automatic.
(6) =⇒ (2): Clear.
(3) + (5) =⇒ (8): Clear.
(8) =⇒ (1): Λmax ⊆ Λ ⊆ (Λmax )cl =⇒ (Λmax )cl = Λcl . Now apply (7).

Theorem 4(7) implies in particular that prime avoidance is determined by the
downward-closed subsets of Spec R, and for downward-closed sets, prime avoidance
behaves well with intersections:
Proposition 5. Let R be a ring, {Λi } a collection
of downward-closed sets in
\
Spec R satisfying prime avoidance. Then Λ :=
Λi is also downward-closed and
satisfies prime avoidance.
[
\ [
Proof. It is clear that Λ is downward-closed. Let q ∈ Spec R, q ⊆
p⊆
p.
p∈Λ

i p∈Λi

By prime avoidance of Λi , there exist pi ∈ Λi such that q is contained in pi , for
every i. Then q ∈ (Λi )cl = Λi for every i, i.e. q ∈ Λ.

We can also give an analogue of Proposition 1(b) in (co)dimension 1 (whose
proof we postpone until after Proposition 7):

INFINITE PRIME AVOIDANCE

5

Proposition 6. Let R be a Noetherian normal ring of dimension 1.
(a) For m ∈ mSpec R, mSpec(R) \ {m} satisfies prime avoidance iff [m] is
torsion in Cl R (the divisor class group of R).
(b) Every Λ ⊆ Spec R satisfies prime avoidance iff Cl R is a torsion group.
Proposition 6(b) naturally leads one to ask: what are the rings such that every
set of primes satisfy prime avoidance? Such rings were introduced under the name
of compactly-packed (C.P.) rings in [4], and have been fairly well-studied, e.g. in
[6], [3]. The condition which replaces torsion in the class group turns out to be
that of arithmetic rank 1. Recall that
p the arithmetic√rank of an ideal I is defined
as ara I := inf{n | ∃x1 , . . . , xn ∈ R, (x1 , . . . , xn ) = I}.
Proposition 7. Let R be a ring. Then the following are equivalent:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

For
For
For
For
For

all
all
all
all
all

Λ ⊆ Spec R, Λ satisfies prime avoidance
downward-closed Λ ⊆ Spec R, Λ satisfies prime avoidance
Zariski-open sets U ⊆ Spec R, U satisfies prime avoidance
q ∈ Spec R, (Spec R) \ V (q) satisfies prime avoidance
q ∈ Spec R, ara q ≤ 1.

Proof. (1) =⇒ (2) =⇒ (3) =⇒ (4): Clear.
(4) [
=⇒ (5): Let q ∈ Spec R. Then
[q 6⊆ p for all p 6∈ V (q), so by prime avoidance
p, and such an x has q as its only minimal
p. Thus there is x ∈ q \
q 6⊆
p6∈V (q)

p6∈V (q)

p
prime (if x ∈ p for some p ∈ Spec R, then[p ∈ V (q)), i.e. (x) = q. p
(5) =⇒ (1): Let q ∈ Spec R, q ⊆
p. By hypothesis q = (x) for some
p∈Λ

x ∈ R. Then x ∈ p for some p ∈ Λ =⇒ q =

p
(x) ⊆ p.



Proof of Proposition 6. If R is Dedekind and m ∈ mSpec
p R, then ara m = 1 iff [m]
is torsion in Cl R: by unique factorization of ideals, (x) = m ⇐⇒ (x) = mn for
some n ∈ N. If now R is any Noetherian normal ring of dimension 1, then R is a
finite product of Dedekind domains and fields, so the above reasoning, along with
(1) ⇐⇒ (4) in Proposition 7, gives (a) and (b).

It is shown in [3] that if R is Noetherian, then (5) in Proposition 7 may be
replaced with (5′ ): For all m ∈ mSpec R, ara m = 1 (which implies dim R ≤ 1, since
ht I ≤ ara I in a Noetherian ring). In other words, under these assumptions the
minimal primes also have arithmetic rank 1. In general though, it is possible for a
minimal prime to be contained in a union of height 1 primes not containing it:
Example 5. Let k be a field, R = k[x, y, z]/(xy, xz), and q := (y, z), the nonprincipal
[ minimal prime of R. If Λ = all height 1 primes not containing q, then
q ⊆
p: to see this, take 0 6= f ∈ q, and let f1 be an irreducible factor of f
p∈Λ

in R/(x) ∼
= k[y, z]. Then (x, f1 ) is a height 1 prime of R containing f , but not q.
Together with the above reasoning, this shows that ara q = 2.
There is another interesting characterization of the C.P. property for domains
via overrings: a Dedekind domain R is C.P. iff every overring of R (i.e. a ring S
with R ⊆ S ⊆ Quot(R)) is a localization of R. Moreover, a Noetherian domain of

6

JUSTIN CHEN

dimension 1 is C.P. iff every sublocalization (i.e. an overring that is an intersection
of localizations) is a localization. See [1], Corollaries 2.8 and 3.13 for more details.
It would also be remiss not to mention the geometric interpretation of prime
avoidance, which is closer in spirit to the titular “avoidance”. For an affine scheme
X = Spec R, a (prime) cycle in X will mean an integral closed subscheme of X
(i.e. a subscheme of the form V (p) for some p ∈ Spec R). A set of cycles {Zi }
in X satisfies prime avoidance iff for any cycle Z not containing any Zi , there is
a hypersurface in X containing Z but not any Zi . If the Zi ’s consist of closed
points, then this may be restated as: any cycle avoiding the Zi can be extended
to a hypersurface avoiding the Zi . One can use this to see that a set Λ of closed
points in A2k with |Λ| < |k| satisfies prime avoidance: if p 6∈ Λ, then there are ≥ |k|
lines through p, and ≤ |Λ| of these can meet Λ. This includes e.g. any discrete (=
has no limit points) set of points in A2R .
We conclude with some applications of the ideas of prime avoidance. In general,
prime avoidance is a constraint on a set of primes which can be used to justify one’s
intuition about the set (one interpretation of Theorem 4(3) is that prime avoidance
means there are no “unexpected” closed points in the localization). In particular,
prime avoidance can be used to construct rings essentially of finite type satisfying
given conditions. Although the examples below are of independent interest, we use
prime avoidance to verify certain properties of each:
Example 6. We give an example of a reduced, connected Noetherian affine scheme
such that the closure of the closed points is a proper closed set of codimension 0.
Algebraically, this is a Noetherian ring with no nilpotents or idempotents such that
the Jacobson radical Rad R is nonzero, but consists of zerodivisors. In other words,
Rad R lies strictly between the intersection and union of the minimal primes:
\
\
[
p(
m(
p
p∈Min R

m∈mSpec R

p∈Min R

For the example:
let k = k be a field, T := k[x, y]/(xy), Λ := V (x) ⊆ Spec T ,
[
W := T \
p, and R := W −1 T . By Corollary 3, Λ satisfies prime avoidance, so
p∈Λ

−1
by
\ Theorem 4, mSpec R = {W (x, y − a) | a ∈ k}. Since k is infinite, Rad R =
W −1 (x, y − a) = W −1 (x) 6= 0, and x is a zerodivisor in R.

a∈k

Example 7. We give an example of a Jacobson ring R with the property that every
ring surjection R ։ S induces a surjection
on units R× ։ S × . Let T := C[x],
[
Λ := {(x − n) | n ∈ N}, W := T \
p, and R := W −1 T . Since Cl T = 0, by
p∈Λ

Proposition 6 every subset of Spec T satisfies prime avoidance, so by Theorem 4
mSpec(R) = {W −1 (x − n) | n ∈ N}, hence R is a 1-dimensional Jacobson PID.
−1
If ϕ : R ։ S is surjective, set I := ker ϕ. Then
 gI= (f )R = W (f ) for some
g
∈ S × . Since S ∼
6∈ R× , but ϕ
f ∈ T . Suppose ∃g ∈ T with
= R/I =
1
1
−1
−1
∼
W T /W (f ) = T /(f ), it suffices to show that g + f1 ∈ W for some f1 ∈ (f ),
i.e. g + f1 has no roots in N. Since f, g have no common roots, this is possible by
taking f1 = cf n where c ∈ C, n ∈ N are such that deg f n > deg g and |c| ≫ 0.

INFINITE PRIME AVOIDANCE

7

References
[1] Heinzer, W. and Roitman, M. Well-centered overrings of an integral domain. J. Algebra 272
(2004), no. 2: 435–455.
[2] Hochster, M. and Huneke, C. Localization and test exponents for tight closure. Michigan
Math. J. 48 (2000), no. 1: 305–329.
[3] Pakala, J. V. and Shores, T. S. On compactly packed rings. Pacific J. Math. 97 (1981), no. 1:
197–201.
[4] Reis, Clive M. and Viswanathan, T. M. A compactness property for prime ideals in Noetherian rings. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1970): 353–356.
[5] Sharp, R. Y. and Vámos, P. Baire’s category theorem and prime avoidance in complete local
rings. Arch. Math. 44 (1985): 243–248.
[6] Smith, W. W. A covering condition for prime ideals. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 30 (1971):
451–452.
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720
U.S.A
E-mail address: jchen@math.berkeley.edu

