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

This is with reference to theorem 5.20 in Vasconcelos book linked (google books) here: http://tinyurl.com/2967eov

I shall restate the theorem here for easy reference: "If $A=k[[x_1,x_2,...,x_n]]/I$ is a complete intersection and $dim_k A$ is not divisible by $char(k)$ then the Jacobian ideal generates the socle of $A$".

I am looking for a proof of this theorem. Vasconcelos references three places to look for one. One is a result of Tate - I have looked at this. One is supposed to be in Kunz's - Introduction to commutative algebra and algebraic geometry" - I could not find a result similar to this in there (it's not a pointed reference). Finally there is a Scheja-Storch paper linked below. http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/crll.1975.278-279.174 I am specifically looking for a proof similar to Scheja-Storch (Tate seems to use a different approach), but the above paper is in German and I am not fluent at it. It's probably unlikely, but if anyone has an english reference on this proof, I would really appreciate it.

share|improve this question
    
@Graham: Thanks, fixed. –  Timothy Wagner Nov 18 '10 at 2:52
    
This doesn't probably help really (since it's not a proof), but this seems to be an exercise on page 382 of Kunz's book, "Kahler differentials". Perhaps reading near there will suggest the proof? –  Karl Schwede Nov 18 '10 at 4:16
    
Ah, thanks Karl. I guess Vaconcelos referenced a different Kunz's book in error. But I checked two versions and in both the above one was cited. I shall look into the Kahler differentials one. Thank you. –  Timothy Wagner Nov 18 '10 at 4:42
2  
This paper by Eisenbud, Huneke, and Vasconcelos (msri.org/people/staff/de/papers/pdfs/1992-001.pdf) attributes the result to Scheja and Storch, Cor. 4.7 of the paper you linked, but gives no indications of proof. Aha! Prop.2 of this paper by Eisenbud (projecteuclid.org/euclid.bams/1183541138) attributes it 'essentially' to Berger, and has a sketch of a proof. –  Graham Leuschke Nov 18 '10 at 14:11
    
@Graham: Thanks a lot for the references. I will have to look more closely at the second one. –  Timothy Wagner Nov 19 '10 at 23:39
add comment

1 Answer

I'm promoting this comment to an answer, since it appears no one else is jumping in with a proof. Prop. 2 of this paper by Eisenbud attributes it 'essentially' to Berger, and has a sketch of a proof.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.