In commutative rings text books it is usually asked to prove that as long as
$(R,m)$ is a Noetherian local ring, the following are equivalent:
(i) $m^n=m^{n+1}$ for some integer $n$;
(ii) $m^n=0$ for some $n$;
(iii) the Krull dimension of $R$ is $0$.
By Nakayama lemma I found that (i) yields (ii), the reverse direction being evident. But, their relevance to (iii) is unclear to me. By the way, is the Noetherianness a necessary condition? Thanks for any help.
Patrick's answer shows that Noetherianness is sufficient, and I hope to show it's necessary by providing some counterexamples.
Clearly (ii) always implies (i) and (iii) even without the Noetherian condition.
Example 1: Local, Krull dimension $0$, but $m^k\neq \{0\}$ for all $k$.
Take a field $F$ and the polynomial ring $F[x_2,x_3,x_4\ldots]$ in countably many variables, and take the quotient by the ideal $(x_2^2,x_3^3,x_4^4,\ldots)$. As you can see $m=(x_2,x_3,x_4,\ldots)$ is not finitely generated and nil, and it contains elements of arbitrarily high nilpotency index, so it is not nilpotent.
Example 2: Local and $\{0\}\neq m=m^2$ .
In the same picture as above, throw in more generators to the ideal you are quotienting by to include things of the form $x_i -x_{i+1}x_{i+2}$. When this is done, $m=\{x_2,x_3,x_4,\ldots\}$ is now idempotent in addition to being the unique maximal ideal.
(Yeah, I see that example two actually does both things, but the thing is that I came up with the first one and then tinkered a long time before settling on the second one :) )