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

I am having trouble understanding one of the results in the following paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0104/0104175v1.pdf

In proposition 3.1, the author says

Let $(R,\frak{m})$ be a regular local ring, $p,q$ prime ideals s.t. $rad(p+q)= \frak{m}$ and $dim(R/p)+dim(R/q)=dim(R)$. If $R/p$ is regular then $p^{(m)}\cap q^{(n)}\subseteq p^{(m)}\frak{m}^n$.

If I take $q=\frak{m}$ (the condition on the radical is automatically satisfied) and $n=1$, then this would imply $p^{(m)} \subseteq p^{(m)}\frak{m}$ (for any associated prime $p$ of $R$ since this would satisfy the condition on dimension and requiring that $R/p$ is regular). Am I missing something here?

share|improve this question
$R$ is a domain; the only associated prime is $(0)$. –  Keerthi Madapusi Pera May 18 '11 at 6:04
For readers like myself who haven't seen the notation before, $\mathfrak{p}^{(m)}$ is defined as $R \cap \mathfrak{p}^m R_\mathfrak{p}$ –  Hurkyl May 18 '11 at 6:11
To expand on Keerthi's comment: The Auslander–Buchsbaum theorem (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auslander-Buchsbaum_theorem) states that every regular local ring is a unique factorization domain. In fact, it is sort of amusing that you can use this result to prove the Auslander-Buchsbaum theorem - since if $p^{(m)} \subseteq p^{(m)}m$, then by Nakayama's lemma $p^{(m)}= 0$, which implies that $p=0$! –  auniket May 18 '11 at 6:33

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The short answer to what you're missing is that you ignored the dimension criterion. $R/\mathfrak{m}$ is zero-dimensional, so the only prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ to which the the theorem would apply is $\mathfrak{p} = (0)$.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. I did realize that $R/\frak{m}$ is zero dimensional (which is how I concluded that the dimensiona criterion will hold for any associated prime $p$. What I failed to realize was that this would imply $p=0$. –  Ajay Patwardhan May 18 '11 at 13:38
Yah, I overlooked your comment on that the first time. Sorry 'bout that. –  Hurkyl May 18 '11 at 20:19

Hurkyl's answer here is spot on. The point is that the dimension equality is very restrictive.

share|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.