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

Let $k$ be a field, with $F,k'$ field extensions of $k$. The ring $k' \otimes_k F$ is denoted by $F_{k'}$. In Borel's Linear Algebraic Groups, it is claimed (I believe erroneously) that "each of [$F_{k'}$'s] prime ideals is minimal." Indeed, by a result due to Grothendieck, the Krull dimension of $F_{k'}$ is the minimum of the transcendence degrees of $F/k, k'/k$. So there may be a tacit assumption that $F/k$ is algebraic, I am not sure. In any case, Borel claims results for three possibilities:

(a) $k'$ is separable algebraic over $k$.

Then $F_{k'}$ is reduced, but it may have more than one prime ideal.

(b) $k'$ is algebraic and purely inseparable over $k$.

Then $F_{k'}$ has a unique prime ideal (consisting of the nilpotent elements), but $F_{k'}$ need not be reduced.

(c) $k'$ is purely transcendental over $k$.

Then $F_{k'}$ is clearly an integral domain.

I was wondering if anyone might be able to provide references or proofs for any of the statements (a), (b), (c) as well as examples, e.g. an example where $F_{k'}$ has more than one prime ideal. Unfortunately, the reference Borel gives is an old algebraic geometry conference from the 1950s which I have had a lot of difficulty understanding.

share|cite|improve this question
EGA IV$_2$ 4.3 (relies on the same C-C Seminaire as Borel!). Borel meant $F/k$ to algebraic. In (a), by direct limits can assume $k'$ is $k$-finite, so $k'=k[x]/(f)$ for separable $f$, so $F_{k'} = F[x]/(f)$ is reduced (as ${\rm{gcd}}(f,f')=1$ over $F$ since OK over $k$); multiple primes for $F=k'$ nontrivial and $k$-finite. For (b) can assume char($k)=p>0$ and $k'$ is $k$-finite, so ${k'}^{p^e}\subset k$ for big $e$; non-reduced for $F=k'=k[x]/(x^p-a)$ for $a \in k-k^p$. For (c), with $k'=k(x_i)=S^{-1}k[x_i]$ for $S=k[x_i]-\{0\}$, we have $F_{k'} = S^{-1}F[x_i]$ is a localization of $F[x_i]$. – nfdc23 Jan 23 at 22:01
cf. of-two-fields-a-field for the result of Grothendieck mentioned in the question. – ACL Jan 24 at 14:54
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Looks like nfdc23 has explanations for (a),(b), and (c).

But: indeed, primes of $F_{k'}$ are not in general minimal if $F/k$ is not algebraic. Let $k'=k(x)$ and $F=k(y)$ be transcendental extensions of $k$.

Then $F_{k'}$ identifies with a subalgebra of the field $k(x,y)$, hence is an integral domain [assertion (c)] - i.e. $\{0\}$ is prime.

There is a homomorphism $\phi:F_{k'} = k' \otimes_k F \to k(t)$ - where $t$ is again transcendental - which on pure tensors is given by $f(x) \otimes g(y) \mapsto f(t) \cdot g(t)$. And then $x\otimes 1 - 1\otimes y$ is a non-zero element of $P = \ker \phi$, hence $P$ is a prime ideal which is not minimal.

share|cite|improve this answer

For a), if $L$ is a finite Galois extension of $k$ with Galois group $G$, then

$$L \otimes_k L \cong \prod_{g \in G} L$$

has $|G|$ prime ideals. For b), if $k = \mathbb{F}_p(a)$ and $L = k[x]/(x^p - a)$, then

$$L \otimes_k L \cong L[x]/(x^p - a) \cong L[x]/(x - \sqrt[p]{a})^p$$

is not reduced. I haven't thought about c).

share|cite|improve this answer

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.