Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 2, 2010 at 12:23 comment added Pete L. Clark The "of course" doesn't make sense to me, because that's not what was meant in the standard text that I referenced (Eisenbud). The point is that it's subtle whether the weaker sense of locally implies the stronger sense (yes for Noetherian rings or with local constancy of the rank; no in general).
Feb 2, 2010 at 12:05 comment added Martin Brandenburg Yes of course locally refers to the Zariski topology ;-). I didn't read the proof of Bourbaki, but the argument above is the most slick proof I can imagine.
Feb 2, 2010 at 11:25 comment added Pete L. Clark I took the weaker use of "locally free" from Eisenbud, loc. cit.
Feb 2, 2010 at 11:19 comment added Pete L. Clark I suppose it also depends on what you mean by locally free: I meant that the localization at each prime ideal is free. If instead you mean "locally in the Zariski topology" -- your condition about the f_i's above -- then that implies the local constancy of the rank (same theorem in Bourbaki).
Feb 2, 2010 at 8:40 comment added Pete L. Clark Bourbaki, Section II.5.2: For an A-module P, TFAE: (a) P is finitely generated projective. (c) P is finitely generated, for each p in Spec(A), P_{p} is free, and the rank function p |-> rank(P_{p}) is locally constant on Spec(A).
Feb 2, 2010 at 8:25 comment added Martin Brandenburg hm? I don't need any constancy.
Feb 2, 2010 at 3:31 comment added Pete L. Clark I believe this is not quite correct, depending upon what you mean by "finite rank". It is true though if the rank is finite and constant, which is the situation I asked about.
Feb 2, 2010 at 2:52 history edited Martin Brandenburg CC BY-SA 2.5
added 104 characters in body
Feb 2, 2010 at 2:44 history answered Martin Brandenburg CC BY-SA 2.5