5
$\begingroup$

Given a commutative ring $A$ we say that a property P is local if

$A$ has P $\leftrightarrow$ $A_{p}$ has P for all prime ideals $p$ of $A$

It is usually the case that this requirement is equivalent to $A_{m}$ having P for all maximal ideals $m$ of $A$. I was wondering which (if any) are the strongest/most interesting local properties $P$ of a commutative ring that do not satisfy the second equivalence. Similarly, I would like to know the strongest/most interesting non-local properties P that are true at all localizations at $p$.

That is to say, what are the most interesting properties P of $A$ such that:

(1) $A_{p}$ has P for all prime ideals $p$ of $A$ but P is NOT local

or

(2) P is local BUT it is NOT true that if $A_m$ has P for all maximal ideals $m$ of $A$ then $A$ has P.

EDIT: After comments and answers received have edited (and expanded) the question. Hope it is clear and unambiguous now.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the more natural and common definition is: $P$ is local if it can be tested locally with respect to the Zariski topology. This means that $A$ has $P$ iff there is a partition of unity $f_1,...,f_n$ such that each $A_{f_i}$ has $P$. Anyway, your question is interesting. So you're asking for a property such that "$A_m$ has P for all maximal ideals $m$ iff $A$ has P", but it is not true for prime ideals? $\endgroup$
    – Martin Brandenburg
    Oct 23, 2011 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin Yes, i.e. there is a prime ideal for which P doesn't hold at $A_p$ even though it holds for all maximal $m$ at $A_m$ $\endgroup$
    – Chuck
    Oct 23, 2011 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ A standard example is the ideal class group of a Dedekind domain $R$, which measures the failure of freeness for projective rank one modules over $R$. Locally the group is trivial. $\endgroup$
    – Tommaso Centeleghe
    Oct 23, 2011 at 21:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Martin: this is a pretty widely used notion of a property being local. The idea is that if your property is open and local in this sense, then it is local in your sense. A lot of the properties for which this interpretation of local is used is a singularity condition, such as being regular, Cohen-Macaulay, Gorenstein, $S_n$, etc. are inherently open, so the two interpretations of local agrees for them. $\endgroup$
    – Sándor Kovács
    Oct 23, 2011 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Chuck, I think your formulation is slightly ambiguous. My interpretation is that you want a property that holds for the local rings of $A$ at maximal ideals, but does not hold for some (all?) localizations at non-maximal primes. Since the other two answers interpret your question as finding a property that holds at *all primes but not true for the ring itself, it might be useful if you merged your two requirements in grey boxes into a statement that we can all agree upon. Thanks in advance and sorry for giving you some work: your interesting question deserves a crystal-clear formulation. $\endgroup$
    – Georges Elencwajg
    Oct 24, 2011 at 8:38

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
10
$\begingroup$

A simple example is obtained by taking $P$ to mean "has positive dimension".
Every local domain of positive dimension $(A,\mathfrak m)$ has $P$ at all maximal ideals (i.e. just at $ \mathfrak m$ !) since $A_{\mathfrak m}=A$ , but $P$ fails at the generic point $\eta=(0)$ since $A_\eta=Frac(A)$ has dimension zero, being a field.

Edit In order to address Chuck's comment, let me emphasize that the answer above is very easily adapted to non-local rings.
For example any finitely generated domain $A$ of positive dimension $d$ over a field has property $P$ when localized at a maximal ideal $\frak m$ but not at the zero ideal.
More precisely, $dim A_{(0)}=0$ and $dimA_{\frak m}=d$ for any maximal ideal ${\frak m}$ : this equidimensionality result follows from Noether's normalization theorem.
This shows that if property $P_d$ is " has dimension $d$ ", then $P_d$ holds for $A_{\frak m}$ if ${\frak m}$ is maximal and does not hold for $A_{\frak p}$ if the prime $\frak p$ is not maximal.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this Georges - I considered local rings too just to make sure that there is such a P as the one I am asking about. I would like to know about more interesting non-local P's with the maximal property though - the question was about the most 'interesting/strongest (i.e. local-flavoured)' non-local P for which this holds. I actually can't think of any (non-trivial ones) for a non-local ring, which is why I asked the question. $\endgroup$
    – Chuck
    Oct 23, 2011 at 17:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Dear Chuck, I have added a class of non-local examples in an edit. Needless to say, however, I will never write an answer claiming that it contains "the most interesting/strongest " property, example,... in any subject whatsoever. $\endgroup$
    – Georges Elencwajg
    Oct 23, 2011 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ That was stupid of me, apologies $\endgroup$
    – Chuck
    Oct 24, 2011 at 0:35
  • $\begingroup$ A more general version of this would be "having dimension at least $d$" for some positive $d$. $\endgroup$
    – Sándor Kovács
    Oct 24, 2011 at 2:38
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Chuck, no need to apologize: it is perfectly legitimate for you to require the most interesting and strongest answer! It's another matter with the answerer... $\endgroup$
    – Georges Elencwajg
    Oct 24, 2011 at 8:00
9
$\begingroup$

On the class of noetherian rings, the property "having finite Krull dimension" holds for every local ring, hence is equivalent for $A_m$ at all $m$ maximal, or for $A_p$ at all $p$. However the property is not local since there are noetherian rings of infinite Krull dimension (Nagata).

If you want the property to be defined over all commutative rings, just build-in noetherianity by changing P into: "is non-noetherian or of finite Krull dimension". ;-)

As to the final such property, it is probably P="being local". Indeed, it is a non-local property but it holds for all $A_m$, or equivalently for all $A_p$. At this stage I'm wondering whether I understood the question right. :)))

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Grüezi, Paul ! $\endgroup$
    – Georges Elencwajg
    Oct 24, 2011 at 8:27
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ No, "being local" is not nearly as strong as some other such properties, for example "being isomorphic to $\mathbb C$". $\endgroup$
    – Tom Goodwillie
    Oct 24, 2011 at 14:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Right! I update strongest into "final". $\endgroup$
    – Paul Balmer
    Oct 25, 2011 at 0:11
6
$\begingroup$

Let P be the property of "being an integral domain". Then

1: If $A$ is an integral domain, then $A_p$ is an integral domain for every prime ideal $p\subseteq A$.

On the other hand.

2: Let $A=A_1\oplus A_2$ be a direct sum of two integral domains. Then it is obviously not an integral domain, although $A_p$ is an integral domain for every prime ideal $p\subseteq A$. So P is not local.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
3
$\begingroup$

If I understand correctly (1), the following properties are not local

  • being a PID (including fields): take a non principal Dedekind domain;
  • being Noetherian (consider an infinite product of $\mathbb F_2$);
  • being Artinian (same example as above).
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

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.