Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

0

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?

flag	asked May 18 2011 at 4:51 Ajay Patwardhan 3●1

	$R$ is a domain; the only associated prime is $(0)$. – Keerthi Madapusi Pera May 18 2011 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 2011 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 2011 at 6:33

Hurkyl · Accepted Answer · 2011-05-18 07:02:15Z UTC

3

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 $\mathfrak{p} = (0)$.

answered May 18 2011 at 7:02

Hurkyl
1,163●3●15

	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 2011 at 13:38
	Yah, I overlooked your comment on that the first time. Sorry 'bout that. – Hurkyl May 18 2011 at 20:19

Sean Sather-Wagstaff · Answer 2 · 2011-05-18 12:14:38Z UTC

4

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

answered May 18 2011 at 12:14

Sean Sather-Wagstaff
164●3

Symbolic powers in regular local rings

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

2 Answers

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.