8

Let $X\in\mathbb{A}^n$ and $Y\in\mathbb{A}^m$ be affine varieties (irreducible algebraic sets). Then, if we denote by $i_X$ and $i_Y$ their ideals in their respective affine spaces, we define their product in $\mathbb{A}^{n+m}$ as the set $$ X\times Y = \{(x,y):x\in X\text{ and } y\in Y\} = \{(x,y):x\in Z(i_X)\text{ and }y\in Z(i_Y)\}. $$ Using the second characterization it's easy to show that in fact $X\times Y$ is closed in $\mathbb{A}^{n+m}$ and particularly that $X\times Y = Z(I_X+I_Y)$, where $I_X$ and $I_Y$ are the vanishing ideals of $X\times\mathbb{A}^m$ and $\mathbb{A}^n\times Y$ (these ideals clearly are in bijective correspondence with $i_X$ and $i_Y$, respectively).

Then, by the Nullstellensatz, we get $I(X\times Y) = \sqrt{I_X+I_Y}$. The problem is that the references I've seen claim that in fact $I(X\times Y) = I_X+I_Y$ (Gathmann's notes, example 2.3.9 in page 25, and Georges' answer in this math.se post, specially the last display).

This would only be true if $I_X+I_Y$ is radical, which I haven't been able to show for this case and know isn't true in general (see this math.se post). Are my references wrong, or what am I missing?

57Jimmy
  • 6,408
hjhjhj57
  • 4,211
  • 2
    What is your base field? This depends on the base field. – Mohan Feb 19 '16 at 01:40
  • @Mohan really? Could you expand a little on that? I think the only hypothesis on the field is that it's algebraically closed. – hjhjhj57 Feb 19 '16 at 01:44
  • 2
    Algebraically closed is fine and then you can prove it many ways, but try Nullstellensatz. Here is a counterexample when it is not. Let $X,Y\mathbb{A}^1_L$ where $L=k(t)$, $k$ is a field of characteristic $p>0$ and $X,Y$ are defined by $u^p-t=0, v^p-t=0$ where $u,v$ are the co-ordinates, where there are 2 affine lines. – Mohan Feb 19 '16 at 01:49
  • @Mohan Cool, I'll work on the example. Just to be clear: the answer to my question is that $I_X+I_Y$ is a radical ideal. Thanks for the help. – hjhjhj57 Feb 19 '16 at 01:52
  • 1
    In fact, it is always true that $I(X\times Y)=I_X+I_Y$ regardless of the base field. The catch is that the ideals of the "counterexamples" do not actually define algebraic sets (there is no variety for the ideal generated by $u^p-t$ over $k(t)$). You can see a proof of the statement here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/297014/is-it-true-that-for-algebraic-sets-v-w-we-have-iv-times-w-iv-iw – Jose Brox Oct 14 '19 at 14:21

1 Answers1

8

Lemma. Let $k$ be a perfect field, and let $J_X \subseteq k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and $J_Y \subseteq k[y_1,\ldots,y_m]$ be radical ideals. Denote by $I_X, I_Y \subseteq k[x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m]$ the ideals they generate in the bigger ring $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m]$. Then $I = I_X + I_Y$ is radical.

Proof. Let $A = k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/J_X$ and $B = k[y_1,\ldots,y_m]/J_Y$. The ideal $I$ is the kernel of the ring homomorphism \begin{align*} \phi \colon k[x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m] = k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \otimes_k k[y_1,\ldots,y_m] &\to A \otimes_k B \end{align*} induced by the quotient maps $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \to A$ and $k[y_1,\ldots,y_m] \to B$. Moreover, $\phi$ is surjective, so we get an isomorphism $$k[x_1,\ldots,y_m]/I \stackrel \sim \longrightarrow A \otimes_k B.$$ Since $J_X$ and $J_Y$ are radical, the $k$-algebras $A$ and $B$ are reduced. Over a perfect field, this implies that $A \otimes_k B$ is reduced (see for example this answer I gave a few weeks ago, or see Tag 034N). Thus, $I$ is radical. $\square$

In particular, this settles the question over an algebraically closed field. On the other hand, as Mohan noted, over $k = \mathbb F_p(t)$, you can take $J_X = (x^p - t)$ and $J_Y = (y^p - t)$; then $I = (x^p - t, y^p - t)$, which contains $x^p - y^p = (x-y)^p$, but not $x-y$.

Remy
  • 5,105
  • Great! Thanks for the detailed answer. The only result I'll have to go through is the one about the tensor of reduced $k$-algebras being reduced. Everything else is quite straightforward. – hjhjhj57 Feb 19 '16 at 02:15
  • It is true that over a nonperfect field there are counterexamples to the claim "the sum of two radical ideals is radical", but there are no counterexamples to the claim "the sum of two ideals coming from affine algebraic sets is radical". – Jose Brox Oct 14 '19 at 14:24