MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm trying to motivate the notion of integrality in a ring extension. It seems that the following would be a good motivation, because it would show that the notion of algebraic elements over a ring is not useful.

Here's the thing I believe is true: Let $R\subseteq S$ be a ring extension. The set of elements of $S$ that are algebraic over $R$ (i.e. satisfy a polynomial equation with coefficients in $R$) is not necessarily a ring.

But I can find no discussion of this point on the internet. Can someone provide a concrete example? Thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 12 down vote accepted

You definition of "algebraic" is very strange when $R$ is not a domain. Due to that strangeness, it is easy to find examples: Let $k$ be a field, let $R = k \times k$ and let $S = k[t] \times k[t]$. Then $(t,0)$ obeys $(0,1) \cdot (t,0)=(0,0)$ and $(0,t)$ obeys $(1,0) \cdot (0,t) = (0,0)$.

However, I claim that $(t,t)=(t,0) + (0,t)$ is not algebraic over $R$. If $$\sum (a_i, b_i) (t,t)^i=0$$ then $\sum a_i t^i=\sum b_i t^i=0$ in $k[t]$, so all $a_i$ and all $b_i$ are zero.

A more reasonable definition would probably be to require that your element satisfy a polynomial which is not zero modulo any minimal prime of $R$. But perhaps the failure of the unreasonable definition is good enough for your purposes.

share|cite|improve this answer
Actually I do want $R$ to be a domain. – Drew Armstrong Apr 18 '14 at 16:59
To be specific: Let $A$ be a finitely generated $K$-algebra (with no zero divisors), say $A=K[u_1,\ldots,u_n]$. I want to prove that every maximal algebraically independent subset of the generators is a transcendence basis in the sense that if $\{u_1,\ldots,u_d\}$ is such a set then every element of $A$ is algebraic over $K[u_1,\ldots,u_d]$. The proof I'm looking at passes to the field of fractions of $A$ and I don't see why we really need to do that. – Drew Armstrong Apr 18 '14 at 17:05
A satisfactory explanation of the proof is here:… I suppose we could prove directly that the algebraic closure of $R$ in $S$ is a ring by using resultants to construct equations, but I suppose passing to the field of fractions is quicker and easier... – Drew Armstrong Apr 18 '14 at 17:18

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.