Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $A$ be an artinian ring and $B$ be an $A$-algebra such that $B \otimes_A B \to B$ is an isomorphism, i.e. that $A \to B$ is an epimorphism in the category of commutative rings, see the Seminar Les épimorphismes d'anneaux for a detailed account. In Exposé 3, page 10, it is claimed that in this situation $A \to B$ is surjective. But the proof is only sketched and I don't understand it. Can someone fill in the details, or even better give a different proof? Remark that we may assume that $A$ is local artinian.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I won't be surprised if you already know this, but here is a proof for $A$ noetherian and/or $B$ finite over $A$:

0) We can replace $A$ with its image in $B$ and assume $A\rightarrow B$ is injective.

1) The result is clear if $A$ is a field.

2) The isomorphism $B\otimes_AB\rightarrow B$ descends to an isomorphism $\overline{B}\otimes_{\overline{A}}\overline{B}$, where the overbar means reduction mod the maximal ideal. From this and 1) we have surjectivity of $\overline{A}\rightarrow\overline{B}$.

3) Now if $A$ is noetherian we are done: By 2), $B=A+MB$ where $M$ is the maximal ideal in $A$; from this we have $B=A+M^nB$ for all $n$; but if $A$ is noetherian then $M$ is nilpotent so $B=A$.

4) Alternatively, if $B$ is finite as an $A$-module, then the cokernel of $A\rightarrow B$ vanishes mod $M$ and hence vanishes by Nakayama.

share|improve this answer
"if $A$ is noetherian then $M$ is nilpotent" here you use that $A$ is artinian, right? –  Martin Brandenburg Jul 7 '12 at 1:33
Martin: Yes, I used that $A$ is both artinian and noetherian. –  Steven Landsburg Jul 7 '12 at 2:11
Martin: But of course I should have remembered that artinian implies noetherian, so "if $A$ is noetherian" is unnecessary here. Which means, I think, that this is a complete proof. –  Steven Landsburg Jul 7 '12 at 2:26
Yes. Thank you! –  Martin Brandenburg Jul 7 '12 at 2:40
@Steven: I understand your proof if $R$ is local Artinian, but I think it's false/incomplete if $R$ isn't local (and neither the question nor your answer makes this assumption). The problem is that you suppose $M$ is nilpotent, but this isn't true in general: Take a direct product of fields $R=F\times F$. Then $F\times 0$ is a maximal ideal of $R$ that isn't nilpotent! –  tj_ Mar 18 '13 at 19:58

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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