2
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a commutative ring and $M$ a not necessary finitely presented $R$-module. I am looking for a prove or a counterexample to the following statement: $M$ is flat as an $R$-module if and only if $\mathrm{Tor}^R_1(R/I,M)=0$ for all radical ideals $I$.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

If you're not assuming $R$ is Noetherian, this is false.

Namely, let $R$ be a valuation domain with value group $\mathbb Q$, let $m$ be its maximal ideal, and let $M=k=R/m$. Then the only radical ideals of $R$ are $0$ and $m$, and one can show that $\operatorname{Tor}_1^R(R/I,k) = 0$ for $I=0, m$, but it is also clear that $k$ is not flat. A full argument, along with a way to construct additional such counterexamples, is given in Remark 3.5 of my joint work with Jay Shapiro, ``Strong Krull primes and flat modules'', available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7458.

(Note that as you suspected, in the above situation $k$ is not finitely presented, since $m$ is not finitely generated.)

However, if $R$ is Noetherian, then your assertion is true, as noted in the comment by @user76758 after my original, ill-considered answer to your question. Namely, it is enough to consider finitely generated modules $N$ in the first coordinate of the $\operatorname{Tor}$, and then by taking a prime filtration of such $N$, one may merely check that $\operatorname{Tor}_1^R(R/P, M) = 0$ for any prime ideal (by induction on the [necessarily finite] length of said filtration).

Further results in this vein are explored in our article. For instance, if $R$ is a reduced but not necessarily Noetherian ring, flatness of $M$ is equivalent to the vanishing (or even the torsion-freeness) of $\operatorname{Tor}_1^R(R/I, M)$ for all finitely generated ideals $I$. (See Theorem 3.3 in the paper.)

For the Noetherian case, see my paper with Yongwei Yao, ``Criteria for flatness and injectivity'', published in Math. Z. (2011), also available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4726.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For any noetherian ring $R$ it suffices to test against prime ideals $I$. Indeed, by direct limit considerations we just need ${\rm{Tor}}_1(N,M)=0$ for finitely generated $N$, and any such $N$ has a finite composition series whose successive quotients are $R/P$ for prime ideals $P$ since $R$ is noetherian. $\endgroup$
    – user76758
    Nov 28, 2013 at 23:06
  • $\begingroup$ Ah; good point. We even mention that in passing in our paper (me & Yongwei Yao). Sorry to be absent-minded. Should I edit my answer to that effect? $\endgroup$ Nov 29, 2013 at 5:00
  • $\begingroup$ Do whatever you wish. If you alert me via comment that you make such an edit then I will delete my (then moot) comments. $\endgroup$
    – user76758
    Nov 29, 2013 at 5:32
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer. I was aware of the noetherian case. Note that the ring in the counterexample is not Jacobson. I thought the statement is maybe true in case the ring is assumed to be Jacobson. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2013 at 9:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user7d229955: Interesting question. I don't know. You could try $R=k[\{x^q \mid q \in {\mathbb Q}_{\geq 0}\}]$ (which is probably a Jacobson ring), where $k$ is a field, and see what happens with $M=k=R/m$, where $m$ is the maximal ideal generated by all the positive powers of $x$. My guess is that this will give you a Jacobson counterexample. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2013 at 19:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.