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

Suppose that $k$ is a field of characteristic $p$ such that $k$ is not a finite $k^p$-module. For example, $k = \mathbb{F}_p(x_1, x_2, x_3, ...)$.

Is it true that $k[[x]]$ is a free $(k[[x]])^p$-module? We know that it is flat by a theorem of Kunz. However, it is certainly not finite, so flat is not the same as free.

The naive thing to try (in terms of a basis) is to do the following. Choose {$\lambda_i$} a basis for $k$ over $k^p$. Consider the set {$\lambda_i x^j$} for $0 \leq j \leq p-1$. If $k$ is a finite $k^p$-vector space, this set is easily seen to be a basis for $k[[x]]$ over $(k[[x]])^p$.

However, because of our (ugly) field, we can consider the power series:

$$\lambda_0 + \lambda_1 x^1 + \lambda_2 x^2 + ... + \lambda_n x^n + ...$$

where say $\lambda_0, \lambda_1, ...$ runs over some countably infinite subset of the {$\lambda_i$}. It is easy to see that this cannot be written as a finite $(k[[x]])^p$-linear combination of subset of the $\lambda_i x^j$ (where again $0 \leq j \leq p-1$).

But of course, maybe there's some clever way to choose a basis that actually does work?

share|improve this question
    
$k^p=k\times\stackrel{p}\cdots\times k$? –  Fernando Muro Apr 9 '13 at 19:20
    
Dear @Fernando, $k^p$ means $\{\alpha^p:\alpha\in k\}$, i.e., the image of the Frobenius endomorphism of $k$. –  Keenan Kidwell Apr 9 '13 at 19:28
1  
maybe not? since $\prod_{I} \mathbb{Z}$ is not free over $\mathbb{Z}$ when $I$ is not finite.. –  user20421 Apr 9 '13 at 20:04
2  
It seems to me that the larger ring $S$ is the $x$-adic completion of the extension by scalars along $k^p \to k$ of the power series ring $R$ over $k^p$. Since $k$ is a free $k^p$-module of infinite rank, the question becomes: is the $x$-adic completion of a free $R$-module of infinite rank also free? The answer to this should be no, as an infinite rank free $R$-module is never $x$-adically complete. –  anon Apr 10 '13 at 2:57
1  
@Karl: By passing to direct summands (which preserves completeness), it suffices to show that $M :== \oplus_{i=1}^\infty R$ is not $x$-adically complete for any ring $R$ with a regular element $x$. Consider the elements $m_n:=\sum_{i=1}^n x^i \cdot e_i$, where $e_i$ is the $i$-th basis vector. Then $\{m_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $M$ with no limit (as any $m := \sum_{i=1}^N a_i \cdot e_i \in M$ admits an open neighbourhood $m + x^{N+2} M$ that does not contain a single $m_n$). –  anon Apr 10 '13 at 15:04

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

The answer to the question is no.

Let $R = k[[x]]$, $S = k[[y]]$, and $f:R \to S$ is the absolute Frobenius. We must show that $S$ is not a free $R$-module. By assumption on $k$, we know that $S$ must have infinite rank if it were free. On the other hand, $S$ is $x$-adically complete (since $x^p = y \in S$). Hence, the claim follows from:

Lemma: The $R$-module $M := R^{\oplus I}$ is $x$-adically complete if and only if $I$ is finite.

Proof: The "if" direction is clear. For the reverse, note that direct summands of complete $R$-modules are complete. By replacing $I$ with a subset, we may assume $I = \mathbf{N}$. Now consider the sequence $m_n := \sum_{i=1}^n x^i \cdot e_i \in M$, where $e_i$ is the $i$-th basis vector. This sequence is Cauchy (clear); I claim it has no limit in $M$. If there was a limit $m = \sum_{i=1}^N a_i \cdot e_i \in M$ with $a_i \in R$, then the neighbhourhood $m \in m + x^k M$ would contain infinitely many $m_n$ for any fixed $k$, but staring at the coefficient of $e_{N+1}$ shows this is false as long as $k \geq N+2$.

share|improve this answer
    
@anon: could you specify your notationa bit? I guess you impose $y=x^p$ in the definition of $S$. But why is it $R$-adically complete, then? Thanks –  Filippo Alberto Edoardo Apr 11 '13 at 0:59
    
@Filippo: The $R$-submodule $x^p S \subset S$ is exactly the ideal $(x^p) \subset S$, so I don't understand the question. –  anon Apr 11 '13 at 5:18
    
...neither do I, at least not anymore. I am sorry. –  Filippo Alberto Edoardo Apr 25 '13 at 17:36

Your Answer

 
discard

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.