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

(Background: In any category, an epimorphism is a morphism $f:X\to Y$ which is "surjective" in the following sense: for any two morphisms $g,h:Y\to Z$, if $g\circ f=h\circ f$, then $g=h$. Roughly, "any two functions on $Y$ that agree on the image of $X$ must agree." Even in categories where you have underlying sets, epimorphisms are not the same as surjections; for example, in the category of Hausdorff topological spaces, $f$ is an epimorphism if its image is dense.)

What do epimorphisms of (say commutative) rings look like? It's easy to verify that for any ideal $I$ in a ring $A$, the quotient map $A\to A/I$ is an epimorphism. It's also not hard to see that if $S\subset A$ is a multiplicative subset, then the localization $A\to S^{-1}A$ is an epimorphism. Here's a proof to whet your appetite.

If $g,h:S^{-1}A\to B$ are two homomorphisms that agree on $A$, then for any element $s^{-1}a\in S^{-1}A$, we have

Also, if $A\to B_i$ is a finite collection of epimorphisms, where the $B_i$ have disjoint support as $A$-modules, then $A\to\prod B_i$ is an epimorphism.

Is every epimorphism of rings some product of combinations of quotients and localizations? To put it another way, suppose $f: A\to B$ is an epimorphism of rings with no kernel which sends non-units to non-units and such that $B$ has no idempotents. Must $f$ be an isomorphism?

share|improve this question
Upvoting for providing background. Let's all try to do this more! –  Scott Morrison Oct 6 '09 at 6:19
Seconded! (And some more characters to take me over the minimum) –  Andrew Stacey Oct 6 '09 at 6:50
@Andrew: you can vote up a comment (click the little up-arrow that appears to the left of the comment when you mouse-over it). It doesn't generate any reputation, but it highlights good comments. –  Anton Geraschenko Oct 6 '09 at 19:02
Are you fishing for an up-vote for your answer! In fact I have up-voted both the question and your answer, did they not register? (My comment above was left before your answer, by the way.) –  Andrew Stacey Oct 7 '09 at 6:59
@Anton: incidentally, I think that in $\mathbf{Top}$, epis do lie over surjective functions (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimorphism). Another way to see this is to note that the forgetful functor $\mathbf{Top}\to\mathbf{Set}$ has a right adjoint (indiscrete topology), and therefore preserves colimits, and in particular pushouts (see also Ex. 4, p. 72 of Mac Lane) –  user2734 May 10 '10 at 14:28
show 5 more comments

5 Answers

up vote 34 down vote accepted

No, not every epimorphism of rings is a composition of localizations and surjections.

An epimorphism of commutative rings is the same thing as a monomorphism of affine schemes. Monomorphisms are not only embeddings, e.g., any localization is an epimorphism and the corresponding morphism of schemes is not a locally closed embedding.

Example: Let C be the nodal affine cubic and let X be its normalization. Pick any point x above the node. Then X\{x}->C is a monomorphism (see Proposition below). The corresponding homomorphism of rings is injective but not a localization.

Proposition (EGA IV 17.2.6): Let f:*X*->Y be a morphism locally of finite type between schemes. TFAE:

(i) f is a monomorphism.

(ii) Every fiber of f is either an isomorphism or empty.

Remark: A flat epimorphism A->B is a localization if A is normal and Q-factorial. This is a result by D. Lazard and P. Samuel. [cf. Lazard "Autour de la platitude" (IV, Prop 4.5)]

Remark: There was a seminar on epimorphisms of rings directed by P. Samuel in 1967-68.

share|improve this answer
+1 beautiful example, as always. Thanks for the references. –  Anton Geraschenko Oct 7 '09 at 1:32
If there were a book, "Counterexamples in Algebraic Geometry," much like the existing books "Counterexamples in Analysis" or "Counterexamples in Topology," I think the normalization of a nodal curve would have to be in the top 5. –  Jack Huizenga Apr 16 '11 at 18:53
This seminar is the definite answer for all questions about epimorphisms ... –  Martin Brandenburg Jul 5 '12 at 7:16
add comment

George Bergman gave me a reference (Isbell's "Epimorphisms and dominions, IV") and a very pretty counterexample. In particular, he says that the characterization of epimorphisms Andrew gave us works for non-commutative rings as well:

Recall that an inclusion A in B is an epimorphism if and only if the "dominion" of A in B is all of B, where this dominion is defined as the subring of elements b of B which behave the same under all pairs of homomorphisms on B that agree on elements of A.

Now the Silver-Mazet-Isbell Zigzag Lemma for rings says that the dominion of A in B consists of those elements of B which can be written XYZ, where X is a row, Y a matrix, and Z a column over B, such that XY and YZ have entries in A. (It is easy to verify that such a product is in the dominion of A -- a generalization of the proof that if Y is in A and has an inverse in B, then this inverse is in the dominion of A.)

Let k be a field. Consider the inclusion of k[x, xy, xy2 - y] into k[x,y]. I claim that this is an epimorphism. Note that it is an inclusion, no non-units become units, and k[x,y] has no idempotents.

Suppose f and g are two morphisms from k[x,y] to some other commutative ring which agree on the given subring. Using f(xy)=g(xy) and f(x)=g(x), we see that f(xy2)=g(xy2):

f(yxy) = f(yx)f(y) = g(yx)f(y) = g(y)g(x)f(y) = g(y)f(x)f(y) = g(y)f(xy) = g(y)g(xy) = g(yxy)

Since f and g agree on xy2-y, they agree on y, so they agree on all of k[x,y].

Finally, to see that the inclusion is not an isomorphism, consider the surjective morphism k[x,y] to k[x,x-1] sending y to x-1. This sends the subring to k[x], which is clearly smaller, so the inclusion of k[x,xy,xy2-y] into k[x,y] must be strict.

share|improve this answer
That's great! That's also a counter-example to my conjecture above which settles that question as well. I was sure that there was a simple counter-example like that but couldn't quite see it ... –  Andrew Stacey Oct 6 '09 at 18:31
add comment

A little searching turned up:

Ring epimorphisms and C(X) by Michael Barr, W.D. Burgess and R. Raphael (article).

They consider this question for rings of the form of continuous functions on a topological space. They quote the following characterisation of epimorphisms in the category of commutative rings:

Proposition: A homomorphism f : A → B is an epimorphism if and only if for all b ∈ B there exist matrices C, D, E of sizes 1 × n, n × n, and n × 1 respectively, where (i) C and E have entries in B, (ii) D has entries in f(A), (iii) the entries of CD and of DE are elements of f(A) and (iv) b = CDE. (Such a triple is called a zig-zag for b.)

This seems a little more complicated than localisation, though I haven't checked the details.

They then go on to prove that

2.12: A subspace Y of a perfectly normal first countable space X induces an epimorphism if and only if it is locally closed.

If I understand all the terminology correctly, then this implies that

C([0,1],ℝ) → C((0,1),ℝ)

is an epimorphism.

There are plenty more references in that article, and it would be nice to have an actual zig-zag for this situation. But in the spirit of open-source mathematics, I thought I'd post this and see if someone (possibly me later on) can fill in the details.

Added Later: The example I gave: C([0,1],ℝ) → C((0,1),ℝ) is a localisation. It is obtained by inverting all functions in C([0,1],ℝ) which are zero only at the end-points. Given a function f ∈ C((0,1),ℝ), there will be a function g ∈ C([0,1],ℝ) which is non-zero apart from at 0 and 1 and which goes to 0 at 0 and 1 faster enough that the product g f also goes to 0 at the end-points. Then g f is (the restriction of something in) C([0,1],ℝ) and g becomes invertible in C((0,1),ℝ). So f = g-1 (g f) is in the specified localisation of C([0,1],ℝ).

Indeed, the Barr et. al. paper comments on the fact that in all the examples they consider (function rings), the zig-zag has length 1. I conjecture that if the zig-zags always have length 1 (for a particular function f: A → B), then B is formed by a localisation on A. A possibly stronger version of this conjecture would be that this is an if-and-only-if. In which case, finding a counter-example to Anton's conjecture would involve finding a case where there was a zig-zag of length 2. I suspect that a universal construction would be the best approach to finding one.

In the spirit of wiki-ness and only doing a little at a time, I'll leave this here.

Added Even Later: (Should I timestamp these? I know that the system does so, but is it useful to embed them in the edit?)

Here's one direction for my conjecture above.

If B = S-1A, then for b ∈ B, we have b = s-1a for some s ∈ S and a ∈ A. Then we put C = s-1, D = s, E = b = s-1 a. Then CD = 1, DE = a, D ∈ f(A), and CDE = b. So in a localisation, zig-zags have length 1.

share|improve this answer
Condition (iv) used to say "b = CDE". I fixed it; let me know if I screwed up. –  Scott Morrison Oct 6 '09 at 6:20
Yup. There was a mistake, but it was earlier: there should have been a "for each b ∈ B" earlier on. But thanks to your attempted fix, I realised that there was a genuine error so it was still worth doing! –  Andrew Stacey Oct 6 '09 at 6:49
@Andrew: no need to timestamp. If somebody wants to see the edit history, they can click the "edited X minutes/hours ago" link. –  Anton Geraschenko Oct 6 '09 at 14:27
add comment

Here is another perspective on your question. As $\mathbb{Z}$ is the initial object of unital (commutative) rings, one might first of all ask: What do epimorphisms from $\mathbb{Z}$ look like?

So if $A = \mathbb{Z}$ in the original question, what can $B$ be? The answer to this is known. In fact, these rings $B$ and their classification seem to have been (re)invented several times, as "solid rings" by Bousfield and Kan (see MO question 95160: Solid Rings and Tor), as "T-rings" by R. A. Bowshell and P. Schultz (Unital rings whose additive endomorphisms commute, Math. Ann. 228 (1977), 197-214, http://eudml.org/doc/162991;jsessionid=07C5F5F5BBD354C0914511776DA20F5E), and the generalisation to Dedekind domains has been done in W. Dicks and W. Stephenson: Epimorphs and Dominions of Dedekind Domains, J. London Math. Soc. (1984) s2-29(2): 224-228, http://jlms.oxfordjournals.org/content/s2-29/2/224.extract . (Also, by Martin Brandenburg and myself this summer, before we found these papers ...)

So here is a positive answer under a restrictive assumption: If $A \rightarrow B$ is an epimorphism and $A$ is a Dedekind domain, then $B$ will be built up from localisations and quotients of $A$ by suitable finite products and direct limits. To make "suitable" more specific, here follows a more concrete description (the literature above mostly says "take colimits/pullbacks"; see Martin's comment for other descriptions). I restrict to $A = \mathbb{Z}$ for (mostly notational) simplicity:

Let $P$ be the set of prime numbers and let $n: P \rightarrow \mathbb{N} \cup \lbrace 0, \infty \rbrace $ be any map (a "supernatural number"). Let $P_{fin}(n)$ be the set of primes $p$ with $n(p) < \infty$. Define

$B_n := \lbrace ((b_p)_p, b_l) \in \prod_{p \in P_{fin}(n)} \mathbb{Z} / p^{n(p)} \times \mathbb{Z}[P_{fin}(n)^{-1}] :$ $$b_p \equiv b_l \text{ mod } p^{n(p)} \text{ for all but finitely many } p \in P_{fin}(n)(b_l) \rbrace$$

(index "$l$" for "localisation part") where:
-- $\mathbb{Z}[P_{fin}(n)^{-1}]$ is the localisation of $\mathbb{Z}$ at the multiplicative set generated by $P_{fin}(n)$, i.e. the subring of $\mathbb{Q}$ generated by $\lbrace p^{-1}: p \in P_{fin}(n) \rbrace$;
-- with $v_p$ being the $p$-adic valuation on $\mathbb{Q}$, $P_{fin}(n)(b_l) := \lbrace p \in P_{fin}: v_p(b_l) \ge 0 \rbrace$ and the condition $b_p \equiv b_l \text{ mod } p^{n(p)}$ makes sense and is to be understood in the subring of $\mathbb{Q}$ where only the $p$'s with $v_p(b_l) < 0$ are inverted.

Then $B_n$ is in fact a subring of the direct product, and for $n$ ranging over the supernatural numbers, these are all $B$ with injective epimorphisms $\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow B$. (The non-injective ones are just the quotients. With more complicated notation, one could include this case by counting 0 as a prime.)

Here are two easy-to-see properties:

  • $B_n$ is noetherian if and only if $|P_{fin}(n) \setminus P_0(n) | < \infty$ (where $P_0(n) :=$ set of primes $p$ with $n(p) = 0$), if and only if $B_n$ is the direct product of a quotient and a localisation, namely, $\mathbb{Z}/n \times \mathbb{Z}[P_{fin}(n)^{-1}]$ where by abuse of notation $n$ is the natural number $\prod_{p \in P_{fin}(n)} p^{n(p)}$.

  • The non-zero primes of $B_n$ correspond to the ones in $P \setminus P_0(n)$. In particular, $B_n$ is artinian if and only if its Krull dimension is 0 if and only if $|P \setminus P_0(n)| < \infty$. Otherwise, its Krull dimension is 1.

All this remains true cum grano salis for any Dedekind domain $A$ instead of $\mathbb{Z}$. In particular, as soon as $A$ has infinitely many primes, there are epimorphisms $A \rightarrow B$ where $B$ is non-noetherian. On the other hand, if $A$ has only finitely many primes (which by the way makes it a PID), $B$ will be of the form $A/a \times S^{-1}A$ with $a \in A$ and $S \subseteq A$ multiplicative containing all primes dividing $a$ (and possibly 0). In any case, $B$ will be a colimit of products of localisations and quotients as above, so the answer to the question

suppose $f:A \rightarrow B$ is an epimorphism of rings with no kernel which sends non-units to non-units and such that $B$ has no idempotents. Must f be an isomorphism?

seems to be yes if $A$ is a Dedekind domain: E.g. in the above setting, non-units to non-units implies $P_0(n) = \emptyset$ and $B$ having no idempotents implies $P_{fin}(n) \setminus P_0(n) = \emptyset$.

Further remarks:

Remark 1 (cf. David Rydh's first remark): Flat epimorphisms (from any unital ring) are localisations for a certain Gabriel topology and have a kind of a calculus of fractions. For a precise statement, see Quelques observations sur les épimorphismes plats (à gauche) d'anneaux by N. Popescu and T. Spircu, Journ. Alg. vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 40-59, 1970, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-8693(70)90039-6, or Bo Stenström's book Rings of Quotients, theorem 2.1 in chapter XI.

Remark 2: Further information might be in the papers of H. H. Storrer, e.g. http://retro.seals.ch/digbib/view?rid=comahe-002:1973:48::11

Remark 3: I have not checked all the details in the generalisation to Dedekind domains, so beware (at least, Martin and I had reached the same result for PIDs). Also, I do not know if there is a generalisation beyond Dedekind domains; I guess Krull domains might be attackable, but I have not seriously tried.

share|improve this answer
There are further nice descriptions/definitions of $B_n$. Let $Q=P_{fin}(n)$. Then: 1) $B_n$ is the colimit of the (noetherian) $R$-algebras $\prod_{p \in E} R/p^{n(p)} \times (P \setminus Q \cup E)^{-1}R$, where $E$ runs through the finite subsets of $Q$. 2) $B_n$ is the tensor product over $(P \setminus Q)^{-1} R$ of the algebras $R/p^{n(p)} \times p^{-1} R$, where $p \in Q$. 3) $B_n=(P \setminus Q)^{-1} R[(x_p)_{p \in Q}]/(x_p(1−p x_p),p^{n(p)}(1−p x_p))_{p \in Q}$. –  Martin Brandenburg Jan 31 '13 at 15:03
Not just a great answer, I truly appreciate the fact that you told us about you and Martin Brandenburg reproving this. It is a type of candor I always appreciate in mathematicians :). –  Pablo Zadunaisky Oct 17 '13 at 9:01
add comment

A special case where epimorphisms are surjective is the category of finite-dimensional commutative $k$-algebras where $k$ is a field. See for example this page in the Stacks Project.

This may come in handy on occasion; I was trying to convince myself this morning that monomorphisms between cocommutative $k$-coalgebras are those whose underlying functions are injective, and needed the result above as a lemma (first check the result on finite-dimensional cocommutative $k$-coalgebras by taking linear duals on the result above, and then use the fact that every coalgebra is the directed colimit of the system of finite-dimensional subcoalgebras and inclusions between them).

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.