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

In SGA 1, chapter 4, there is a corollary describing a flatness condition for a module of finite type over a local noetherian integral ring. The corollary is number 4.4, and states:

Suppose that $A$ is a local noetherian integral ring with maximal ideal $I$ and residue field $k = A/I$ and field of fractions $K$. Let $M$ be a module of finite type over $A$. Then saying that $M$ is flat (note: SGA actually cites here a previous proposition with equivalent conditions of flatness which in this case is satisfied) is equivalent to saying that $M\otimes_A K$ and $M\otimes_A k$ are vector spaces of the same dimension.

There is a remark immediately following this corollary saying the reader is left to generalize this to the case where $A$ is only assumed to be a ring without nilpotent elements. How does one show this more general case?

share|improve this question
3  
Your title seems to be incomplete. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 18 '12 at 23:56
    
Ah, fixed--sorry about that :) –  Lucy Feb 19 '12 at 5:15
    
Now there seems to be something more than what you intended! :D –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 19 '12 at 5:26
    
Hahaha, fail >.< –  Lucy Feb 19 '12 at 5:55

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I assume you are referring to page 78 here. I think the author is only implying that you may drop the condition of $A$ being an integral domain (in favor of it being a ring without nilpotent elements). You should still assume that $A$ is noetherian and local with maximal ideal $I$ (since in the formulation of the corollary left to the reader, the author still refers to the field $k=A/I$, which would be ambiguous otherwise; also there are conditions on $A$ and $I$ in place throughout the entire section which prohibit you from working with an arbitrary ring).

So you can apply the criterion for flatness given in Corollary 4.4 to the $A/{\mathfrak p}$-module $M/{\mathfrak p} M$ for each minimal prime $\mathfrak p$ of $A$ (since $A/\mathfrak p$ will be an integral domain again). What you want to show then is that $M$ is flat as an $A$-module if and only if $M/{\mathfrak p}M$ is flat as an $A/{\mathfrak p}$-module for each minimal prime $\mathfrak p$. By the foregoing Corollary 4.3, this is the same as showing that $M$ is free if and only if $M/\mathfrak p M$ is free for any minimal prime $\mathfrak p$ (however, the "and only if"-part is trivial).

Here is how I think the proof goes: Since $A$ is local, we may lift a $k$-basis of $k\otimes M$ to a minimal $A$-generating set of $M$ (by Nakayama's lemma). We get an exact sequence $$ A^i \stackrel{\varphi}{\longrightarrow} A^{dim_k k\otimes M} \longrightarrow M \longrightarrow 0 $$ for some $i\in\mathbb Z_{\geq 0}$ and some $\varphi\in A^{dim_kk\otimes M \times i}$. If $\varphi$ is zero then $M$ is free. So assume $\varphi$ is not zero and $x$ is some non-zero entry of the matrix. Because $A$ has no nilpotent elements there is some minimal prime $\mathfrak p$ such that $x \notin \mathfrak p$. Now, by tensoring $$ (A/\mathfrak p)^i \stackrel{\varphi}{\longrightarrow} (A/\mathfrak p)^{dim_k k\otimes M} \longrightarrow M/\mathfrak p M \longrightarrow 0 $$ with the fraction field $K$ of $A/\mathfrak p$, we see that $dim_K K\otimes (M/\mathfrak p M) < dim_k k \otimes M= dim_k k\otimes (M/\mathfrak p M)$, i.e. $M/\mathfrak p M$ is not flat/free/projective by Corollary 4.4 (i.e., we have shown: $M$ not free $\Longrightarrow$ $M/\mathfrak p M$ not free for some minimal prime $\mathfrak p$).

share|improve this answer

For a generalization to arbitrary noetherian reduced rings, see EGA III, 7.6.9. Applied to a projective resolution $P_*\to M$ for a finitely generated $A$-module $M$, it says in particular that $d(x)\colon x\mapsto\dim_{k(x)}(M\otimes k(x))$ is semi-continuous on $\mathrm{Spec}(A)$, and $M$ is flat iff $d$ is locally constant. The statement in SGA is a special case since semi-continuity together with $\dim_K(M\otimes K)=\dim_k(M\otimes k)$ already implies that $d$ is constant. A more elementary statement can be found in Mumford's treatment of semi-continuity in his Abelian Varieties (Lemma 1 in section II.5).

share|improve this answer

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.