Those readers who are not familiar with the arguments are invited to read for example [15] or the book of Bourbaki [2].
An ultrafilter on a set may be identified with a point of Stone-Cech compactification of ( with discrete topology). A non principal ultrafilter is identified with a boundary point.
Let be an ideal of defined as follows:
Then we define a ring as follows:
We denote by the canonical projection from to .
If in for a positive integer , then there exists such that . On the other hand, as we have mentioned in Lemma 4.5 above, being a member of a non-principal filter , cannot be a finite set. This is a contradiction, since non-zero member in has only finite ``zeros'' on the ``arithmetic curve'' . Thus the characteristic of is zero.
The definition above is partly inspired by works of Kirchberg (See [12] for example.) We would like to give a little explanation on . We regard it as a kind of `limit'. If we are given a member of and we have an element, say, of for each primes , then, by assigning arbitrary element to `exceptional' primes (that means, primes which are not in ), we may interpolate and consider
The element ('limit') does not actually depend on the interpolation. Thus we may refer to the element without specifying the interpolation. In particular, this applies to the case where we have for almost all primes . The same type of argument applies for polynomials. We summarize this in the following Lemma.
Then we may define the `limit'
by taking `limit' of each of the coefficients. The same arguments also applies for polynomial maps.
For any non-principal ultra filter on (prime numbers) , We may consider the following ring.
It turns out that,