§ Nilradical is contained in intersection of all prime ideals
Let x∈0. We must show that it is contained in all prime ideals.
Since x is in the nilradical, x is nilpotent, hence xn=0 for some n. Let p be an
arbitrary prime ideal. Since 0∈p for all prime ideals, we have
xn=0∈p for x. This means that xn=x⋅xn−1∈p,
and hence x∈p∨xn−1∈p. If x∈p we are done.
If xn−1∈p, recurse to get x∈p eventually.
§ Proof 1: Intersection of all prime ideals is contained in the Nilradical
Let f be in the intersection of all prime ideals. We wish to show that fis contained in the nilradical (that is, f is nilpotent). We know that Rf ( Rlocalized at f) collapses to the zero ring iff f is nilpotent. So we wish to
show that the sequence:
0→Rf→0
is exact. But exactness is a local property, so it suffices to check against each (Rf)m for
all maximal ideals m. Since (Rf)m=(Rm)f (localizations commute), let's reason about (Rm)f.
We know that Rm is a local ring as m is prime (it is maximal), and thus Rm has only a single
ideal m. Since f∈m for all maximal ideal m (since f lives in the intersection of all prime
ideals), localizing at f in Rm blows up the only remaining ideal, collapsing us the ring to give
us the zero ring. Thus, for each maximal ideal m, we have that:
0→(Rf)m→0
is exact. Thus, 0→Rf→0 is exact. Hence, f is nilpotent, or f belongs to the
nilradical.
§ Proof 2: Intersection of all prime ideals is contained in the Nilradical
Quotient the ring R by the nilradical N.
The statement in R/N becomes "in a ring with no ninpotents, intersection of all primes is zero".
This means that every non-zero element is not contained in some prime ideal. Pick some arbitrary element f=0∈R/N. We know f is not nilpotent, so we naturally consider Sf≡{fi:i∈N}.
The only thing one can do with a multiplicative subset like that is to localize. So we localize the ring R/N at S.
If all prime ideals contain the function f, then localizing at f destroys all prime ideals, thus blows up all maximal ideals, thereby collapsing the ring into the zero ring (the ring has no maximal ideals, so the ring is the zero ring).
Since S−1R/N=0, we have that 0∈S. So some fi=0. This contradicts the assumption that no element of R/Nis nilpotent. Thus we are done.
(Forward): Let S contain zero. Then we must show that S−1R=0. Consider some element x/s∈S−1R. We claim that x=0/1. To show this, we need to show that there exists an s′∈S such that xs′/s=0s′/1. That is, s′(x⋅1−0⋅s)=0. Choose s′=0 and we are done. Thus every element is S−1R is zero if Scontains zero.
(Backward): Let S−1R=0. We need to show that S contains zero. Consider 1/1∈S−1R. We have that 1/1=0/1. This means that there is an s′∈S such that s′1/1=s′0/1. Rearranging, this means that s′(1⋅1−1⋅0)=0. That is, s′1=0, or s′=0. Thus, the element s′ must be zero for 1 to be equal to zero. Hence, for the ring to collapse, we must have 0=s′∈S. So, if S−1R=0, then S contains zero.