18
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a noetherian integral scheme and let $f \colon X' \to X$ be the normalization morphism. It is known that, if non trivial, $f$ is never flat (see Liu, example 4.3.5).

What happens if we suppose $X$ normal, and we take the normalization in a finite (separable) extension of the function field of $X$? Note that in the easiest case, namely $X=\rm{Spec}(R)$, with $R$ a Dedekind domain, we have that $f$ is flat.

$\endgroup$

4 Answers 4

9
$\begingroup$

A characteristic zero example: Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero (or anything not $2$.) Let $L$ be the field $k(x,y)$ and let $K$ be the subfield $k(x^2, xy, y^2)$, so $[L:K]=2$. Let $S \subset L$ be the ring $k[x,y]$, and let $R = S \cap K = k[x^2, xy, y^2]$.

Then $S$ is the normalization of $R$ in $L$. I claim that $\mathrm{Spec} \ k[x,y] \to \mathrm{Spec} \ k[x^2, xy, y^2]$ is not flat. Proof: the map is generically $2 \to 1$. However, the fiber above the origin is $k[x,y] /(x^2, xy, y^2)$, which has length $3$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand why you assume the characteristic $\ne 2$. In this answer I've shown that $R\subset S$ (in your notation) isn't flat for any field. Am I mistaken? $\endgroup$
    – user26857
    Dec 28, 2014 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ @user26857 The original question specified that the extension of function fields should be separable, which it isn't if $\mathrm{char}(k)=2$. $\endgroup$ Dec 28, 2014 at 16:25
7
$\begingroup$

David's answer reminds me also of the following:

For ordinary double points $R = k[[x,y,z]]/f$, $\text{A}_n$, $\text{D}_n$, $\text{E}_6$, $\text{E}_7$, $\text{E}_8$. These all have normalization in some field extension as a regular ring (they are all quotient singularities). Let $R \subseteq S$ be the usual extension with $S$ regular that $R$ is a quotient of. Then $S$ has exactly 1 $R$-summand, and so $S$ can't be free (and thus can't be flat either).

I know one way to to deduce this from a paper of Huneke-Leuschke, but I don't know the proof off the top of my head that there is clearly exactly one summand. Maybe Graham or Long does?

EDIT: Here's a quick way to see it. If $R \subseteq S$ is local and etale in codimension 1, then the trace map generates $\mathrm{Hom}_R(S, R)$ as an $S$-module. Let's also suppose that $R$ and $S$ have the same residue field. The trace map is also surjective (at least if $k$ is characteristic zero, or the extension is tamely ramified). This gives one summand. If we had another summand, it would be obtained by pre-multiplying the trace map by some non-unit in $S$. But those non-units live in the maximal ideal of $S$, and the trace map sends the maximal ideal of $S$ into the maximal ideal of $R$, so any such potential map $S \to R$ cannot be surjective. Thus there are no other splittings.

Finally, I should also add:

Theorem: Let $S$ be a module finite local extension of a regular local ring $R$ (for example, $S$ is the normalization of $R$ in some extension field of $K(R)$), then $S$ is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if $S$ is free = flat as an $R$-module.

Hm, maybe I'll also point out...

Conjecture (Direct summand): Let $R$ be regular, and $S$ the integral closure of $R$ in some finite extension of $K(R)$. Then $S$ has at least one $R$-summand (in other words, $R \to S$ splits as a map of $R$-modules). In particular, for any $R$-module $M$, $M \otimes R \to M \otimes S$ is injective.

This conjecture is known for rings containing a field and for rings in mixed characteristic of dimension $\leq 3$.

EDIT: Now due to spectacular work of Yves Andre, this conjecture has been solved.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Karl - why exactly is $S$ indecomposable over $R$? Or are you saying that $S \cong M^n$ for a single indecomposable $M$? Either way, I'm confused. I think that if $f = xz-y^2$, then $R \cong k[[a^2,ab,b^2]] \subset k[[a,b]] = S$, and $S \cong R \oplus (a,b)R$. $\endgroup$ Aug 1, 2011 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ Graham, I probably didn't say what I meant to above very clearly. I am not claiming either I think. What I am claiming is that $S \cong R \oplus M$, as an $R$-module, where $M$ has no $R$-summands. $\endgroup$ Aug 1, 2011 at 22:23
4
$\begingroup$

A silly case: Suppose that $X$ is characteristic $p$ and normal and suppose that we embed $K(X) \subseteq L$ where $L = (K(X))^{1/p}$ (the stereo-typical inseparable extension). Then the normalization of $X$ is isomorphic to $X = X'$ again, and the natural map $f : X' \to X$ is Frobenius. Then

Theorem: (Kunz) $f$ is flat if and only if $X$ is regular.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

If $f: X' \to X$ is flat, then $X$ tends to inherit nice properties of $X'$ (for example, being regular). So if you arrange for $X'$ to be "nicer" than $X$, as in David and one of Karl's examples, then $f$ can't be flat.

Here is a quick and dirty proof when "nice" = "regular". The claim is that if $R\to S $ is a finite flat local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings and $S$ is regular, then $R$ is regular as well.

Let $m$ be the maximal ideals of $R$. Then as $S$ is regular, $S/mS$ has finite flat dimension (in fact, projective dim) over $S$. But $S$ is flat over $R$, so $S/mS$ has finite flat dimension over $R$. But as $R$-modules, $S/mS$ is direct sum of copies of $k=R/m$, so $k$ has finite flat dimension over $R$, which characterizes regularity.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.