arXiv:1605.08204v1 [math.CV] 26 May 2016

ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM IN
FUNCTION ALGEBRAS
RAYMOND MORTINI, RUDOLF RUPP, AND AMOL SASANE
Abstract. A version of the Krull Intersection Theorem states that for
Noetherian domains the Krull intersection ki(I) of every proper ideal I
is trivial; that is
∞
\
I n = {0}.
ki(I) :=
n=1

We investigate the validity of this result for various function algebras R,
present ideals I of R for which ki(I) 6= {0}, and give conditions on I so
that ki(I) = {0}.

1. Introduction
The aim of this note is to investigate the validity of the Krull Intersection
Theorem in various function algebras. We begin by recalling the following
version of the Krull Intersection Theorem [5, Corollary 5.4, p.152]. See also
[19] for a simple proof. As usual, given an ideal I, I n is the ideal of all
elements of the form
m
X

a1,i · · · an,i ,

m ∈ N, ak,i ∈ I.

i=1

Proposition 1.1 (Krull Intersection Theorem). If R is a Noetherian integral domain, and I a proper ideal of R, that is I ( R, then the Krull
intersection ki(I) of I, defined by
ki(I) :=

∞
\

I n,

n=1

is trivial, that is, ki(I) = {0}.
We note that neither of the assumptions on R can be dropped. Here are
some examples.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 46E25 (primary), and 13A15, 13G05, 46J15
(secondary).
Key words and phrases. function algebras, Krull Intersection Theorem.
Part of this work was done while the second author enjoyed a sabbatical. He wants to
thank TH Nürnberg for it.
1

2

R. MORTINI, R. RUPP, AND A. SASANE

Example 1.2 (Not Noetherian, and not an integral domain). This is based
on [5, p.153]. Let R = C ∞ (R), the ring of all infinitely differentiable realvalued functions on R. Then R is not Noetherian (since
In := {f ∈ C ∞ (R) : f (x) = 0 for x > n},

n ∈ N := {1, 2, 3, · · · },

form an ascending chain of ideals) and is not an integral domain. Let I be
the ideal hxi generated by x 7→ x. Let
 −1/x
e
if x > 0,
f (x) :=
0
otherwise.
Then f ∈ C ∞ (R). For n ∈ N, set

f (x)/xn if x > 0,
fn (x) =
0
otherwise.
Then fn ∈ C ∞ (R) too, and so f = fn xn ∈ I n . So we have 0 6= f ∈ ki(I). 3
Example 1.3 (Not Noetherian, but an integral domain). Let
R = H(C) = {f : C → C : f is entire}.
Denote the zero-set of a function f ∈ H(C) by
Z(f ) = {z ∈ C : f (z) = 0}.
If z0 ∈ Z(f ), let ord(z0 , f ) be the order of z0 as a zero of f . Define
(
)
∃N ∈ N, ∀n ∈ N : if n > N, then f (n) = 0
I := {0} ∪ f ∈ H(C) and lim ord(n, f ) = ∞
.
n→∞

Then it can be seen that I is an ideal. We will show that I 2 = I. To this end,
let 0 6= f ∈ I. Let f1 ∈ H(C) be an entire function with Z(f1 ) = Z(f ) ∩ N,
but such that for each n ∈ Z(f1 ),

 j
ord(n, f ) k
.
ord(n, f1 ) := max 1,
2
Here for x ∈ R, the notation ⌊x⌋ stands for the largest integer ≤ x. Then
f1 ∈ I. Set f2 = f /f1 . Then f2 ∈ I as well. Finally, f = f1 · f2 ∈ I · I = I 2 .
3
Example 1.4 (Noetherian, but not an integral domain). The ring C[z] is
Noetherian, and so it follows that R := C[z]/hz 2 − zi is Noetherian too. But
R is not an integral domain because [z][z − 1] = [0]. With I := h[z]i, the
ideal generated by [z] in R, we see that I 2 = I, because [z] is an idempotent,
and so I = h[z]i = h[z]2 i ⊆ I 2 ⊆ I.
3

ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM

3

Example 1.5 (Sequence spaces). Consider the sequence algebras
o
n
X
|an |2 < ∞ ,
ℓ2 :=
(an )n∈Z
ℓ
′

∞

:=

s (Z) :=

n

n

n∈Z

(an )n∈Z

o
sup |an | < ∞ ,
n∈Z

o
(an )n∈Z ∃M > 0, ∃m > 0, ∀n ∈ Z : |an | ≤ M (1 + |n|)m ,

endowed with termwise addition, termwise scalar multiplication, and termwise
(Hadamard) multiplication. Then for any of the above algebras R, I := c00 ,
the set of all sequences with compact support, is a proper ideal in R. If
a := (a1 , · · · , aN , 0, · · · ) ∈ c00 , then with bn any complex number such that
b2n = an , n = 1, · · · , N , and with b := (b1 , · · · , bN , 0, · · · ) ∈ c00 = I, we have
that I ∋ a = b · b ∈ I 2 . So I 2 = I, and hence ki(I) = I 6= {0}. We remark
that ℓ2 (Z) with the termwise operations is isomorphic to L2 (T) with convolution, where T := {z ∈ C : |z| = 1}, and s′ (Z) with termwise operations is
isomorphic to the algebra of periodic distributions D ′ (T) with convolution.
3
T
n
Here is an example of a non-Noetherian ring for which ∞
n=1 I = {0} for
every proper ideal I. (This example is included in [1, Theorem 4], but we
offer an elementary direct proof below.)
Example 1.6 (Non-Noetherian, but

∞
\

I n = {0} for all ideals I ( R). Let

n=1

I be a proper ideal in R := C[z1 , z2 , z3 , · · · ]. Then I is contained in some
maximal ideal M of R. But then ki(I) ⊆ ki(M ). We will show that the
maximal ideals M of R are just of the form hzn − ζn : n ∈ Ni for some
sequence of complex numbers ζ1 , ζ2 , ζ3 , · · · . Then we will use this structure
to show ki(M ) = {0}, and hence we can conclude that also ki(I) = {0} for
every proper ideal I in R.
Claim: M is a maximal ideal in C[z1 , z2 , z3 , · · · ] if and only if there exists
a sequence ζ1 , ζ2 , ζ3 , · · · of complex numbers such that
M = hzn − ζn : n ∈ Ni.
(This result is known; see [15]. Nevertheless, we include an elementary selfcontained proof, fashioned along the same lines as the proof of Hilbert’s
Nullstellensatz; see [22].)
If ζ = (ζn )n∈N is a sequence of complex numbers, then we first observe that
the ideal Mζ := hzn − ζn : n ∈ Ni is maximal as follows. We can look at
the evaluation homomorphism ϕζ from R := C[z1 , z2 , z3 , · · · ] to C sending
for every n ∈ N the indeterminate zn to ζn . Then ϕζ is surjective, and
ker ϕζ = {p ∈ R : p(ζ) = 0}. But as p(ζ) = 0, it follows from the Taylor
series centered at ζ for p that p belongs to Mζ . Hence by the isomorphism
theorem R/Mζ is isomorphic to C, and thus Mζ is maximal.

4

R. MORTINI, R. RUPP, AND A. SASANE

Now suppose that M is maximal. Let k ∈ N, and consider the ring homomorphism
ϕk : C[zk ] −→ C[z1 , z2 , z3 , · · · ]/M =: F
p 7−→ [p] := p + M.
If ϕk (pq) = 0, then since F is a field, either ϕk (p) = 0 or ϕk (q) = 0. Hence
ker ϕk is a prime ideal of C[xk ]. We will show first that ker ϕk 6= {0}.
Suppose that ker ϕk = {0}. Then ϕk : C[zk ] → F is an injective map.
Thus there exists an extension of ϕk to Φk : C(zk ) → F, namely
h p i ϕ (p)
hpi
k
Φk
=
∈ C(zk ), p ∈ C[zk ], q ∈ C[zk ] \ {0}.
,
q
ϕk (q)
q
It is straightforward to check that Φk is an injective homomorphism. Now
F is a C-vector space which is spanned by a countable number of elements:
namely m + M , where m is any monomial in C[z1 , z2 , z3 , · · · ]. Hence its
subspace, namely Φk (C(zk )) is also spanned by a countable sequence of
vectors, say {vn : n ∈ N}. As these vn are in Φk (C(zk )), there exist rn ∈
C(zk ) such that Φk (rn ) = vn . But then C(zk ) will be spanned by the rn :
indeed, if r ∈ C(zk ), then Φk (r) ∈ C(zk ) and so there exist α1 , · · · , αm ∈ C
such that Φk (r) = α1 vℓ1 + · · · + αm vℓm = Φk (α1 rℓ1 + · · · + αm rℓm ), and so
r = α1 rℓ1 + · · · + αm rℓm , thanks to the injectivity of Φk . So the C-vector
space C(zk ) is also spanned by a countable number of vectors. However, it
is easy to see that


1
:ζ ∈C ,
zk 7→
zk − ζ
is an uncountable linear independent set in C(zk ), a contradiction. Hence
ker ϕk 6= {0}. The kernel of ϕk is proper, because ϕk (1) = [1] (note that due
to ϕk (1) = ϕk (12 ), the only other possibility would be ϕk (1) = [0], giving
1 + M = [0]; a contradiction). Since ker ϕk is a nonzero proper prime ideal
in C[xk ], it follows that there is a ζk ∈ C such that zk − ζk ∈ ker ϕk . Hence
zk − ζk ∈ M .
As the choice of k ∈ N was arbitrary, we get a sequence ζ1 , ζ2 , ζ3 , · · · of
complex numbers such that zn − ζn ∈ M, and so hzn − ζn : n ∈ Ni ⊆ M . But
hzn − ζn : n ∈ Ni is maximal. Thus M = hzn − ζn : n ∈ Ni. This completes
the proof of the claim.
Let M = hzn − ζn : n ∈ Ni. Suppose that 0 6= f ∈ ki(M ), and let k be
such that f ∈ C[z1 , · · · , zk ]. Let Πk : C[z1 , z2 , z3 , · · · ] → C[z1 , · · · , zk ] be the
evaluation homomorphism that sends zn to ζn for n > k, and zn to zn itself
if n ≤ k. Then
∞
\
n
Πk (M ) .
f∈
n=1

Since Πk (M ) is just the maximal ideal hzn − ζn : 0 ≤ n ≤ ki in the ring
C[z1 , · · · , zk ], we conclude from the Krull Intersection Theorem (Proposition 1.1) applied to the Noetherian integral domain C[z1 , · · · , zk ], that f = 0.
Consequently, ki(M ) = {0}.
3

ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM

5

In this rest of this article, we will investigate ki(I) for (mainly maximal)
ideals I in algebras of (mainly holomorphic) functions. The organization of
the subsequent sections is as follows:
(1) In Section 2, we will determine ki(I) for certain ideals in the algebra
H(D) of holomorphic functions in a domain D ⊆ C.
(2) In Section 3, we will determine ki(I) for certain ideals in uniform
algebras.
(3) In Section 4, we will determine ki(I) for certain ideals in the algebra
H ∞ (D) of bounded holomorphic functions in the unit disk D.
2. ki(I) for ideals I in H(D)
Example 1.3 above can be generalized to the following.
Example 2.1. Let D ⊆ C be a domain (that is, an open path-connected
set). Let R = H(D), the algebra of holomorphic functions in D with
pointwise operations. Then there exists a proper ideal I of R such that
ki(I) 6= {0}. We construct such an ideal I as follows. Let (ζn )n∈N be any
sequence in D that converges to a point in the boundary ∂D of D (or more
generally, without accumulation points in D). Let h be any Weierstrass
product with simple zeros at ζn , n ∈ N. Consider the proper ideal I of R
generated by the functions fn , n ∈ N, given by
fn (z) :=

h(z)
,
(z − ζ1 ) · · · (z − ζn )

z ∈ D.

Let g ∈ R \ {0} be a Weierstrass product which vanishes exactly at ζn of
order ord(g, ζn ) = n, for each n ∈ N. We claim that g ∈ I n for n ∈ N. For
n ∈ N, set
n
Y
qn :=
(z − ζk )k .
k=1

Then G := g/qn has the zero set ZD (G) = {ζn+1 , ζn+2 , · · · }, with orders
of zeros ζk given by ord(G, ζk ) = k, for k > n. Again by the Weierstrass’
Factorization Theorem, we must have that fnn divides G in H(D), and hence
there exist hn ∈ H(D) such that g = qn G = qn hn fnn ∈ I n . Since n ∈ N was
arbitrary, g ∈ ki(I).
3

On the other hand, we have the following result saying that for non-free/fixed
ideals I of H(D), ki(I) = {0}.
Definition 2.2 (Free ideals in H(D)). Let D ⊆ C be a domain. For an
element f ∈ H(D), let ZD (f ) denote the set of zeros of f . An ideal I in
H(D) is called free if the zero set of I,
\
ZD (I) :=
ZD (f )
f ∈I

is the empty set ∅, and fixed/non-free otherwise.

6

R. MORTINI, R. RUPP, AND A. SASANE

Proposition 2.3. For a proper fixed ideal I of H(D), ki(I) = {0}.
Proof. Suppose that ζ ∈ ZD (I). Let
m := min{ord(f, ζ) : f ∈ I}.
Then m ≥ 1 and each function g ∈ I n has ζ as a zero of order at least mn.
But any holomorphic function belonging to I n for all n ∈ N must therefore
be identically zero since D is a domain.

For maximal ideals of H(D), one can say more, and we have the following
results given in Theorem 2.5. But first we proof a helpful lemma, which will
be used in the proof of Theorem 2.5 (and also in the subsequent result).
Lemma 2.4. Let D be a domain, and M be a maximal ideal in the ring
H(D). If f ∈ M , and h ∈ H(D) is such that ZD (f ) ⊆ ZD (h) (disregarding
multiplicities), then h ∈ M too.
Proof. Suppose that h is not in M . Then the ideal hhi + M , which strictly
contains M , must be H(D), thanks to the maximality of M . Thus there
exists m ∈ M and g ∈ H(D) such that 1 = gh + m. Hence we have that
ZD (h) ∩ ZD (m) = ∅. Thus ZD (f ) ∩ ZD (m) = ∅. By the Nullstellensatz for
H(D), it follows that there exist u, v ∈ H(D) such that 1 = uf + vm ∈ M .
This is absurd, because m, f ∈ M and M is proper.

Theorem 2.5. Let D be a domain in C, and M be a free maximal ideal of
H(D). Then
n
o
(1) {0} ∪ f ∈ M : f 6= 0 and lim ord(f, ζ) = ∞ ⊂ ki(M ).
ζ∈ZD (f )
n
o
(2) ki(M ) ⊆ {0} ∪ f ∈ M : f 6= 0 and sup ord(f, ζ) = ∞ .
ζ∈ZD (f )

Hence ki(M ) = {0} if and only if there exists a ζ ∈ D such that M = hz−ζi.
Here, by assumption that
lim

ζ∈ZD (f )

ord(f, ζ) = ∞,

we mean that given any n > 0, there exists a finite set K ⊂ ZD (f ) such
that ord(f, ζ) > n for all ζ ∈ ZD (f ) \ K.
Proof. (1) First we observe that M contains no polynomial. (Otherwise, if
a polynomial p ∈ M , it follows, by using the fact that M is in particular
prime, that M contains a linear factor z − w of p. But then we have that
M ⊆ Mw := {f ∈ H(D) : f (w) = 0}. Since the later ideal is proper, and M
is maximal, M = Mw would be a fixed ideal.)
Let f ∈ M \ {0} with
lim

ζ∈ZD (f )

ord(f, ζ) = ∞.

Suppose that n ∈ N. Then it is possible to factorize f as f = fn p, where p is
a polynomial and the orders of all zeros of fn are at least n. By the primeness

ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM

7

of (the maximal!) ideal M , and the fact that M contains no polynomials, it
follows that fn ∈ M too. But now we can write fn = g1 · · · gn , where each of
the functions gk have the same zero set (disregarding multiplicities). Again
the primeness of M , and Lemma 2.4, allow us to conclude that all the gk
belong to M . Hence f ∈ M n . As the choice of n ∈ N was arbitrary, we
obtain that f ∈ ki(M ).
(2) Assume that f ∈ ki(M ) and let n ∈ N. Then f can be decomposed into
a finite sum of the form
N
X
f=
f1,k · · · fn,k ,
k=1

with each fj,k ∈ M . All these functions fj,k ∈ M must have a common zero,
since otherwise (by the Nullstellensatz for H(D)), we can generate 1 in M ,
a contradiction to the fact that M is proper. But then the order of this
common zero of f must be at least n. As the choice of n ∈ N was arbitrary,
it follows that sup ord(f, ζ) = ∞.

ζ∈ZD (f )

We remark that a somewhat different characterization of ki(M ) was provided in [11, Theorem 3,p.714] for the algebra H(C) of entire functions. We
extend Henriksen’s result to domains, and then compare our result above
with his result below. Since Henriksen’s proof was, in our viewpoint, very
condensed, we provide all details in the more general case. Since prime ideals
appear very naturally in the description of ki(M ), we include a nice property
shared by this class of ideals. Also that result is known; [11, Theorem 1].
Given f ∈ H(D), let
o(f ) :=

sup ord(f, ζ).
ζ∈ZD (f )

If q ≡ 0, we set o(q) := ∞.
Lemma 2.6. Let P be a prime ideal in H(D), where D is a domain in C.
Then P is non-maximal if and only if o(f ) = ∞ for every f ∈ P .
Proof. The only if direction is a direct consequence of Lemma 2.4. So suppose that P is prime and contains an element f with N := o(f ) < ∞. Let M
be a maximal ideal with P ⊆ M . We show that P = M . Write f = f1 . . . fN ,
where each zero of any fj is simple. Since P is prime, at least one of the
N factors belongs to P . Say it is f1 . Fix g ∈ M and let d = gcd(f1 , g).
Then, by Wedderburn’s Theorem [20, p.119], d ∈ hf1 , gi ⊆ M . Now f1 = dh
for some h ∈ H(D). Since the zeros of f1 are simple, Z(d) ∩ Z(h) = ∅.
Hence, h cannot belong to P ⊆ M , because otherwise H(D) = hd, hi ⊆ M ,
a contradiction. Thus d ∈ P and so g ∈ P . Consequently, M = P .

Proposition 2.7 (Henriksen). Let D ⊆ C be a domain, and let M be a
free, maximal ideal of H(D). Then


whenever d ∈ H(D) \ M is a divisor of f,
ki(M ) = f ∈ M
.
say f = q · d, we have o(q) = ∞

8

R. MORTINI, R. RUPP, AND A. SASANE

Moreover ki(M ) is the largest nonmaximal prime ideal contained in M .
Proof. Since every finitely generated ideal of H(D) is principal, ki(M ) is
easily seen to be the set of all f ∈ H(D) such that for all n ∈ N, we have a
factorization f = hn dnn , with hn ∈ H(D), dn ∈ M .
Let



whenever d ∈ H(D) \ M is a divisor of f,
K := f ∈ M
.
say f = q · d, we have o(q) = ∞

We first prove that ki(M ) ⊆ K. Let f ∈ ki(M ) and suppose that d is a
divisor of f which does not belong to M . Say f = dq. We need to show that
o(q) = ∞. If not, then let n := o(q) and k = 2n. Since f ∈ ki(M ), there
exists an hk ∈ H(D) and a gk ∈ M such that dq = f = hk gkk . But then
every zero of gk must be a zero of d (disregarding multiplicities) (because
each zero of q appears at most n times; on the other hand every zero of gk
appears at least 2n times). Thus ZD (gk ) ⊆ ZD (d). Since gk ∈ M , we have
d ∈ M by our Lemma 2.4, a contradiction.
Next we will show that K ⊆ ki(M ). Given f ∈ K ⊆ M , and n ∈ N, we
may factor f ∈ M as f = f1 f2 , where Z(f2 ) = {ζ ∈ Z(f ) : ord(f, ζ) ≥ n+1}
and Z(f1 ) = {ζ ∈ Z(f ) : ord(f, ζ) ≤ n}. If one of these sets is empty, we
just let the associated function equal to be 1.
If f2 6∈ M , then we end up with f1 ∈ M . But the definition of K now
implies that ∞ = o(f1 ) ≤ n. Thus in our factorization M ∋ f = f1 f2 , we
have f2 ∈ M . Take a function hn such that we have ZD (hn ) = ZD (f2 ), and
such that hn has only simple zeros. Then by Lemma 2.4, hn ∈ M because
f2 ∈ M . By construction, hnn divides f2 , and so f2 = ghnn . Summarizing,
f = f1 f2 = f1 ghnn ∈ M n . Since n ∈ N was arbitrary, it follows that
f ∈ ki(M ). This completes the proof that ki(M ) = K.
Next we show that ki(M ) is prime. Assume that f = f1 ·f2 ∈ ki(M ) ⊆ M .
Since M is prime, we have one of three possible cases:
1◦ f1 ∈ M and f2 6∈ M ,
2◦ f1 ∈
6 M and f2 ∈ M ,
◦
3 f1 ∈ M and f2 ∈ M .
Case 1◦ : Let d ∈ H(D) \ M be a divisor of f1 . Say f1 = gd. Then
f = g(df2 ), where df2 ∈
/ M . Since ki(M ) = K, we deduce that g ∈ ki(M ).
So f1 ∈ ki(M ). Case 2◦ works in the same way.
Now only the case left is when both f1 , f2 are in M . Assuming that neither
f1 nor f2 belongs to ki(M ), we proceed as follows. In this case, there exist
di dividing fi , with di ∈ H(D) \ M , qi := fi /di ∈ M , and o(qi ) < ∞,
i = 1, 2. Since M is maximal, and in particular prime, d1 d2 ∈ H(D) \ M ,
and o(q1 q2 ) ≤ o(q1 ) + o(q2 ) < ∞. So f1 f2 6∈ ki(M ).
Consequently, ki(M ) is prime. Finally, we will show the following:
Claim: ki(M ) is the largest nonmaximal prime ideal contained in M .

ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM

9

First we show that ki(M ) is not maximal. Take any nonzero f ∈ M , and let
h ∈ H(D) be such that Z(h) = Z(f ), but ord(h, ζ) = 1 for all ζ ∈ ZD (h).
Then by Lemma 2.4, h ∈ M too. But with d := 1 ∈ H(D) \ M , and q := h,
we have f = qd = h ∈ M , but o(q) = 1 < ∞. Hence f = h 6∈ ki(M ). Thus
ki(M ) ( M , and so ki(M ) is nonmaximal.
Suppose now that P is a prime ideal such that ki(M ) ( P ⊆ M . Let
f ∈ P \ ki(M ). Then there exists d ∈ H(D) \ M and q ∈ M such that
f = q · d and o(q) < ∞. But as d 6∈ M and hence not in P either, we have
q ∈ P . By Lemma 2.6, P = M .
This completes the proof of Proposition 2.7.

Example 2.8. The aim of this example is to contrast the results from
Theorem 2.5 and Proposition 2.7. If we call
n
o
A := {0} ∪ f ∈ M : f 6= 0 and lim ord(f, ζ) = ∞ ,
(1)
ζ∈ZD (f )
n
o
B := {0} ∪ f ∈ M : f 6= 0 and sup ord(f, ζ) = ∞ ,
(2)
ζ∈ZD (f )

then in Theorem 2.5 we have shown that A ⊆ ki(M ) ⊆ B whenever M is a
maximal free ideal in H(D). We will show that
(1) there exists an element f ∈ B \ ki(M ), showing that B 6= ki(M );
(2) there exists an element g ∈ ki(M ) \ A, showing that A 6= ki(M ).

To this end, first note that A and B are not ideals. In fact, concerning A, just
consider f ∈ A and multiply f by a function with simple zeros outside Z(f ).
Concerning B, let f ∈ M have simple zeros (for the existence, see Lemma
2.4). Now let g1 , g2 be in H(D) with Z(g1 ) ∩ Z(g2 ) = ∅ and o(gj ) = ∞.
Choose aj ∈ H(D) so that 1 = a1 g + a2 g2 . Then f aj gj ∈ B, but
f a1 g1 + f a2 g2 = f ∈
/ B.
Hence we conclude that A ⊂ ki(M ) ⊂ B, the inclusions being strict.
3. Sufficient conditions for ki(I) = I in uniform algebras
We recall the definition of a uniform algebra.
Definition 3.1 (Uniform algebra). R is called a uniform algebra on X if
(1) X is a compact topological space,
(2) R ⊆ C(X; C), the algebra of complex-valued continuous functions
on X, and R separates the points of X, that is, for every x, y ∈ X
with x 6= y, there exists f ∈ R such that f (x) 6= f (y),
(3) the constant function 1 ∈ R,
(4) R is a closed subalgebra of C(X; C), where the latter is endowed
with the usual supremum norm k · k∞ .
We also recall below the following two well-known results from the theory
of uniform algebras; see [2, Lemma 1.6.3, p.72-73 and Theorem 1.6.5, p.74].

10

R. MORTINI, R. RUPP, AND A. SASANE

Both of these results involve the notion of an approximate identity, given
below.
Definition 3.2 (Approximate identity). Let R be a commutative unital
Banach algebra, and M be a maximal ideal of R. We say that M has an
approximate identity if there exists a constant K such that for every ǫ > 0,
and every f1 , · · · , fn ∈ M , there exists an e ∈ M , kek ≤ K, such that
kefi − fi k < ǫ for all i = 1, · · · , n. (In other words, there exists a bounded
net (eα ) in M such that eα f → f for every f ∈ M .)
Proposition 3.3. Let R be a uniform algebra on X, and let x ∈ X. Then
the following are equivalent:
(1) (Existence of an approximate identity.) The maximal ideal
M := {f ∈ R : f (x) = 0}
has an approximate identity.
(2) (Existence of a weak peak function.) There exists a function f ∈ R
with kf k = 1, f (x) = 1, and such that for every neighbourhood U of
x, we have |f (y)| < 1 for all y ∈ X \ U .
(3) There exists a constant K, such that for every neighbourhood U of
x, and every ǫ > 0, there exists an f ∈ R with kf k < K, f (x) = 1,
and |f (y)| < ǫ for all y ∈ X \ U .
In (2), the point x is referred to as a weak peak point.
Proposition 3.4 (Cohen Factorization Theorem). Let R be a commutative
unital Banach algebra, M a maximal ideal of R, and suppose that M has an
approximate identity. Then for every f ∈ M , there exist f1 , f2 ∈ M such
that f = f1 f2 .
An immediate consequence of these results is the following.
Corollary 3.5. Let R be a uniform algebra on X, and let x ∈ X. Suppose
that x is a weak-peak point. Set M := {f ∈ R : f (x) = 0}. Then
ki(M ) = M.
Proof. Since M is maximal, by the Cohen Factorization Theorem, we have
M2 = M.

Thus, for every uniform algebra R we have “many” ideals M with M 2 = M ,
namely any maximal ideal M of the form Mx = {f ∈ R : f (x) = 0}, where x
is a weak peak point. See [2, p. 101] and also [4]. We emphasize that the set
of weak peak points (sometimes called the Choquet boundary of R; see also
[2, Definition on p.87 and Theorem 2.3.4]) is dense in the Šilov boundary of
R (by [3, Corollary 4.3.7(i)]). We recall here that a closed subset F of X is
called a closed boundary for R if
sup |f (x)| = sup |f (x)|.
x∈F

x∈X

ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM

11

The intersection of all the closed boundaries for R is called the Šilov boundary
of R.
Example 3.6 (Disk algebra and Wiener algebra). As illustrative examples,
consider the disk algebra and the Wiener algebra. Let
D := {z ∈ C : |z| < 1},
and set
A(D) := {f ∈ H(D) : f has a continuous extension to D ∪ ∂D},
∞
∞
o
n
X
X
n
|an | < ∞ ,
an z ∈ H(D) : kf k1 :=
W (D) :=
f=
+

n=0

n=0

with pointwise operations. A(D) is endowed with the sup-norm k · k∞ , while
W + (D) is endowed with the k · k1 -norm defined above. The maximal ideal
M := {f ∈ A(D) : f (1) = 0} has an approximate identity given by the
sequence (1 − pn )n∈N , where p is the peak function given by
1+z
p :=
, z ∈ D,
2
(for details of the proof, we refer the reader to [21, Theorem 6.6].)
Let (rn )n∈N be any sequence such that rn ց 1, and
z−1
, n ∈ N.
en (z) :=
z − rn
Then (en )n∈N is a bounded approximate identity for
M := {f ∈ W + (D) : f (1) = 0}.
A rather lengthy proof of this result in the case when
1
rn = 1 + , n ∈ N,
n
can be found in [14], while the result is also mentioned without proof in [6].
A short proof due to the first author of this article can be found in [17] or
in [21, Theorem 6.10].
3
4. ki(I) for ideals I in H ∞ (D)
Let H ∞ (D) denote the algebra of all bounded holomorphic functions in D.
We sometimes write H ∞ instead of H ∞ (D). The spectrum (or maximal ideal
space), M (H ∞ ) of H ∞ is the set of nonzero multiplicative linear functionals
on H ∞ .
Observation 4.1. Let I be an ideal in H ∞ . Suppose that I is a non-free
ideal; that is,
\
ZD (I) :=
ZD (f ) 6= ∅.
f ∈I

Then ki(I) = {0}.

12

R. MORTINI, R. RUPP, AND A. SASANE

Proof. If ZD (I) = D, then I = (0) and so ki(I) = {0}. So suppose that
there exists an isolated point z0 ∈ ZD (I). Let f ∈ ki(I) and n ∈ N be given.
Then ord(f, z0 ) ≥ n. Hence f ≡ 0. Again ki(I) = {0}.

A description of the maximal ideals M in H ∞ with ki(M ) = {0} is already
implicit in Kenneth Hoffman’s work [12]. Recall that fb ∈ C(M (H ∞ ); C)
denotes the Gelfand transform of f ∈ H ∞
b

f
m 7−→ m(f ) =: fb(m),

m ∈ M (H ∞ ).

For m ∈ M (H ∞ ), and f ∈ H ∞ , let us define
ord(f, m) = ord(fb ◦ Lm , 0),

where Lm : D → P (m) is the Hoffman map associated with m; that is
z + zα
,
Lm (z) = lim
1 + zαz
where (zα ) is a net in D converging to m (all limits being taken in the
weak-∗/Gelfand topology of M (H ∞ )). Note that fb ◦ Lm is holomorphic in
D. In particular, ord(f, m) = ∞ if and only if fb ≡ 0 on P (m), where P (m)
denotes the Gleason part containing m. Recall the pertinent definitions
below.
Definition 4.2 (Pseudohyperbolic distance and the Gleason part). The
pseudohyperbolic distance between two points m, m
e ∈ M (H ∞ ) is defined by
n
o
ρ(m, m)
e := sup |fb(m)|
e : f ∈ H ∞ , kf k∞ ≤ 1, fb(m) = 0 .
For m ∈ M (H ∞ ), let

P (m) := {m
e ∈ M (H ∞ ) : ρ(m, m)
e < 1}

denote the Gleason part of M (H ∞ ) containing m.
By [12],

n
o
ord(f, m) = sup n ∈ N : f = f1 . . . fn , fbj (m) = 0 for all j = 1, . . . , n .

Lemma 4.3. Let I be an ideal in H ∞ . Then ord(f, m) = ∞ for every
f ∈ ki(I) and m ∈ Z(I).
o
\n
Here Z(I) := ZM (H ∞ ) (I) :=
m ∈ M (H ∞ ) : fb(m) = 0 .
f ∈I

Proof. Let f ∈ ki(I). Fix n ∈ N. Then
f=

K
X

fk,1 . . . fk,n

k=1

for fk,ℓ ∈ I. In particular, fd
k,ℓ (m) = 0 for every m ∈ Z(I). Hence
ord(f, m) ≥ n. Since n was arbitrary, we conclude that ord(f, m) = ∞. 

ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM

13

Theorem 4.4. Let M be a maximal ideal in H ∞ and m ∈ M (H ∞ ) with
ker m = M . Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(1) ki(M ) = M .
(2) M does not contain an interpolating Blaschke product.
(3) The Gleason part P (m) containing m is the singleton {m}.
In all cases, that is for all maximal ideals in H ∞ ,

n
o

ki(M ) = I P (m), H ∞ := f ∈ H ∞ : fb ≡ 0 on P (m) ,

where E denotes the closure of the set E ⊆ M (H ∞ ). In particular, ki(M )
is a closed prime ideal, and
ki(M ) = {0} ⇐⇒ M = Mz0 := {f ∈ H ∞ : f (z0 ) = 0} for some z0 ∈ D.

Proof. By [12] (see also [7]), the statements (2) and (3) are equivalent. If
(3) holds, then by [12], M = M 2 (even in the strict sense: each f ∈ M can
be written as f = g · h, where g, h ∈ M ). So ki(M ) = M .
If b is an interpolating Blaschke product contained in M , then b ∈
/ M 2,
because otherwise
K
X
fk gk ,
b=
k=1

with fk , gk ∈ M . Hence ord(b, m) ≥ 2, a contradiction; see [12]. This shows
the equivalence of (1), (2) and (3).
To prove the rest, we note that
o
n
f ∈ H ∞ : fb ≡ 0 on P (m) = {f ∈ H ∞ : ord(f, m) = ∞}.
Moreover, for every n ∈ N, any such f admits a factorization of the form
f = g1 · · · gn with gbk (m) = 0. Hence


I P (m), H ∞ ⊆ ki(M ).
Conversely, if f ∈ ki(M ), then f is a sum of functions in M each having
order at least n at m. Thus ord(f, m) = ∞ for every f ∈ ki(M ) and so
fb ≡ 0 on P (m); see [12]. Thus


ki(M ) = I P (m), H ∞ .

Since
• P (m) is a proper subset of M (H ∞ ) if and only if m ∈ M (H ∞ ) \ D, and
• P (z0 ) = D for every z0 ∈ D,
we conclude that ki(M ) = {0} if and only if M = Mz0 .


It is easily seen and well-known that I P (m), H ∞ is a closed prime ideal.

Using Izuchi’s [13] extensions of Hoffman’s factorization theorems, we also
obtain the following result:

14

R. MORTINI, R. RUPP, AND A. SASANE

Proposition 4.5. Let E ⊆ M (H ∞ ) be a hull-kernel closed subset of M (H ∞ ),
that is, E is the zero-set of the ideal
n
o
I(E, H ∞ ) = f ∈ H ∞ : fb|E ≡ 0 .
Suppose that E is a union of Gleason parts. Then

ki I(E, H ∞ ) = I(E, H ∞ ).

Proof. Let f ∈ I(E, H ∞ ) and n ∈ N. Since we have that ord(f, m) = ∞ for
every m ∈ E (because, by hypothesis, m ∈ E implies P (m) ⊆ E), it follows
that f ∈ I(E, H ∞ ) has a factorization f = f1 · · · fn , with fk ∈ I(E, H ∞ );
see [13]. Conversely, if f ∈ ki(I(E, H ∞ )), then ord(f, m) = ∞ for every
m ∈ E. This yields the assertion.

Corollary 4.6. Let I be a non-maximal closed prime ideal in H ∞ .Then
ki(I) = I.
Proof. By [8], every non-maximal closed prime ideal in H ∞ has the form
I = I(E, H ∞ ), where E = Z(I) is a union of Gleason parts.

We will now collect a few technical results, which will be used in the proof
of Proposition 4.8 below.
Let g ∈ H ∞ be zero-free. Suppose that kgk∞ ≤ 1. Then there exists a
positive measure µ on the unit circle T such that

Z
z+ξ
dµ(ξ) .
g(z) = gµ (z) := exp
T z−ξ

If ξ = eit , this µ has the form

1
dt + dµs (ξ),
|g(eit )|
where µs is singular with respect to Lebesgue measure on T.
The following result corresponds to assertion (1.1) in [16, p. 170], given
there without proof.
dµ(ξ) = log

Lemma 4.7. Let g = gµ ∈ H ∞ be zero-free and suppose that kgk∞ ≤ 1.
Then, for every z ∈ D,
1 + |z|
µ(T).
|1 − g(z)| ≤
1 − |z|
Proof. First we note that for w ∈ C with Re w ≤ 0,
Z
w
eζ dζ ≤ |w|.
|1 − e | =
[0,w]

Since Re

z+ξ
|z|2 − 1
=
≤ 0 and µ ≥ 0, we deduce that
z−ξ
|z − ξ|2
Z
1 + |z|
z+ξ
dµ(ξ) ≤
µ(T).
|1 − g(z)| ≤
z
−
ξ
1 − |z|
T



ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM

15

Proposition 4.8. If P is a prime ideal in H ∞ , then ki(P ) = {0} if and
only if P is a maximal ideal of the form Mz0 for some z0 ∈ D.
Proof. We have already seen that ki(Mz0 ) = {0}. If ZD (P ) ∩ D 6= ∅, then it
easily follows that P ⊆ (z − z0 )H ∞ for all z0 ∈ ZD (P ) ∩ D. Due to primeness
z − z0 ∈ P (each f ∈ P factors as f = (z − z0 )n g, where n is the order of
the zero z0 , but then g 6∈ P , so z − z0 ∈ P ), and so P = Mz0 again. Now
suppose that ZD (P ) = ∅; that is, P is a free prime ideal. We show that
ki(P ) contains elements different from the zero function.
Case 1◦ Suppose that P contains a Blaschke product B, with zero sequence
(zn ) (multiplicities included). In particular,
∞
X

(1 − |zn |2 ) < ∞.

n=1

For each k, choose a tail of the sequence so that
∞
X
1
(1 − |zn |2 ) ≤ k .
2
n=Nk

Let Bk be the Blaschke product associated with these zero sequences. Since
Bk differs from B only by finitely many zeros, the freeness of P implies that
Bk ∈ P (otherwise we would have z − z0 ∈ P , hence P = Mz0 again). Since
∞ X
∞
X

(1 − |zj |2 ) < ∞,

k=1 j=Nk

the collection of all zeros of all Bk is a Blaschke sequence again. Hence, due
to absolute convergence of the associated products, any reordering converges
again, and so
∞
Y
Bk
B∗ :=
k=1

is a Blaschke product again. Clearly, B∗ ∈ ki(P ).

Case 2◦ Let Bg ∈ P , where g is a zero-free function, and we may assume
that kgk∞ ≤ 1. Either B ∈ P (and we are done by the first case) or g ∈ P .
Since g has roots of any order, we see that g 1/n ∈ P for every n. Choose nk
going to infinity so fast that
1
sup |1 − g 1/nk (z)| < k ,
2
|z|≤1−1/k
which is possible by Lemma 4.7 above. Then the infinite product
∞
Y
h=
g1/nk
k=1

converges locally uniformly to a function h ∈ H ∞ . Clearly, h ∈ ki(P ).



16

R. MORTINI, R. RUPP, AND A. SASANE

Remark 4.9. The proof above shows the following:
(1) If I is any free ideal in H ∞ containing a Blaschke product, then
ki(I) 6= {0}.
(2) If I is any free ideal in H ∞ containing a zero-free function g and all
of its roots, then ki(I) 6= {0}.
Let us also remark that there do exist free ideals with ki(I) = {0}, as
demonstrated below.
Observation 4.10. ki(SH ∞ ) = {0}, where S is the atomic inner function
 1 + z
, z ∈ D.
S(z) = exp −
1−z
Proof. If f ∈ ki(SH ∞ ), f 6≡ 0, then, for every n,
n
m Y
X
(hkj S) = hn S n .
f=
k=1 j=1

Sn

In particular,
divides the inner factor ϕ of f for every n, say ϕ = un S n
for inner functions un . This is impossible though, because S n goes to zero
locally uniformly in D, and so due to the boundedness of un , ϕ = 0.

Observation 4.11. Let I be a countably generated free prime ideal in H ∞ .
Then ki(I) = I.
Proof. By [9, 16], I is generated by {Sα (z)1/n : n ∈ N}, where


α+z
Sα (z) = exp −
α−z
1/n

for some α ∈ T . But I = {h Sα : n ∈ N, h ∈ H ∞ }. Hence, given n ∈ N,
1/p
every f = hSα ∈ I can be factorized as
f = h Sα1/(pn) . . . Sα1/(pn) .
|
{z
}
n−times

So f ∈

I n.



References
[1] Daniel Anderson. The Krull intersection theorem. Pacific Journal of Mathematics,
57:11-14, no. 1, 1975.
[2] Andrew Browder. Introduction to Function Algebras. W.A. Benjamin Inc., New YorkAmsterdam, 1969.
[3] Garth Dales. Banach Algebras and Automatic Continuity. London Mathematical Society Monographs, New Series, 24, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
[4] Garth Dales and Ali Ülger. Approximate identities in Banach function algebras. Studia Mathematica, 226:155-187, no. 2, 2015.
[5] David Eisenbud. Commutative Algebra with a view Toward Algebraic Geometry. GTM
150, Springer, 2004.
[6] V.M. Faı̆vyševskiı̆. The structure of the ideals of certain algebras of analytic functions.
(Russian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 211:537-539, 1973. English translation in Soviet
Math. Dokl., 14:1067-1070, 1973.

ON THE KRULL INTERSECTION THEOREM

17

[7] John Garnett. Bounded Analytic Functions. Revised first edition. Graduate Texts in
Mathematics, 236. Springer, New York, 2007.
[8] Pamela Gorkin and Raymond Mortini. Alling’s conjecture on closed prime ideals in
H ∞ . Journal of Functional Analysis, 148:185-190, no. 1, 1997.
[9] Pamela Gorkin and Raymond Mortini. Countably generated prime ideals in H ∞ .
Mathematische Zeitschrift, 251:523-533, 2005.
[10] Melvin Henriksen. On the ideal structure of the ring of entire functions. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 2:179-184, 1952.
[11] Melvin Henriksen. On the prime ideals of the ring of entire functions. Pacific Journal
of Mathematics, 3:711-720, 1953.
[12] Kenneth Hoffman. Bounded analytic functions and Gleason parts. Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, 86:74-111, 1967.
[13] Keiji Izuchi. Factorization of Blaschke products. Michigan Mathematical Journal,
40:53-75, no. 1, 1993.
[14] K. Koua. Un exemple d’algèbre de Banach commutative radicale a unité approchée
bornée sans multiplicateur non trivial. Mathematica Scandinavica, no. 1, 56:70-82,
1985.
[15] Serge Lang. Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz in infinite-dimensional space. Proceedings of the
American Mathematical Society, 3:407-410, 1952.
[16] Raymond Mortini. Factorization for bounded analytic functions in the unit disk and
an application to prime ideals. Mathematica Scandinavica, 99:168-174, 2006.
[17] R. Mortini and A.J. Sasane. On the pre-Bézout property of Wiener algebras on the
disc and the half-plane. New Zealand Journal of Mathematics, 38:45-55, 2008.
[18] Raymond Mortini and Amol Sasane. Ideals of denominators in the disk-algebra. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 41:669-675, no. 4, 2009.
[19] Hervé Perdry. An elementary proof of Krull’s intersection theorem. American Mathematical Monthly, 111:356-357, no. 4, 2004.
[20] Reinhold Remmert. Funktionentheorie. II. Grundwissen Mathematik, 6. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1991.
[21] Amol Sasane. Algebras of Holomorphic Functions and Control Theory. Dover, 2009.
[22] Jugal Verma. Basic Ring Theory. Notes for the lectures given in the Advanced Training in Mathematics School for Lecturers in Algebra and Linear Algebra at IIT Bombay, 5 June-1 July, 2006.
Université de Lorraine, Département de Mathématiques et Institut Élie
Cartan de Lorraine, UMR 7502, Ile du Saulcy, F-57045 Metz, France
E-mail address: Raymond.Mortini@univ-lorraine.fr
Fakultät für Angewandte Mathematik, Physik und Allgemeinwissenschaften,

TH-Nürnberg, Kesslerplatz 12, D-90489 Nürnberg, Germany
E-mail address: Rudolf.Rupp@th-nuernberg.de
Department of Mathematics, London School of Economics, Houghton Street,
London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom
E-mail address: sasane@lse.ac.uk

