Skip to main content
Ann was upright before the LaTeX; it should remain upright *with* the LaTeX
Source Link
Yemon Choi
  • 25.8k
  • 9
  • 69
  • 156

Would it be particularly surprising if this were true? If I have understood what you mean correctly (so that since you want to consider integrality in full generality a version of essentialness relative to the image of $R$ is required) I believe I have a proof:

First observe that we can reduce to $R$ local. Indeed one can check normality locally and this preserves minimality of primes (when they survive the localization) and so we can assume $R$ is a local reduced commutative ring with unit.

Now let $P$ be a minimal prime ideal in $R$ and consider the composite $R \rightarrow R/P \rightarrow k(P)$ and suppose that $b$ is an integral element in $k(P)$ over $R/P$ and hence over $R$. As in Jose's comment we know that $b$ is essential over $R/P$ and hence over $R$ (I don't see how to make sense of essential for non-injective morphisms otherwise, maybe I am being dense here). So by hypothesis $R/P[b]$ is a finitely generated projective $R$-module and so is free since $R$ is local. But $Ann(R/P[b])$$\operatorname{Ann}(R/P[b])$ is clearly at least $P$ so $P=0$ (since $R$ is reduced) and $R$ is in fact a domain.

I next claim that in fact $R$ is integrally closed in its field of fractions $K(R)$. To see this lets denote by $S$ the integral closure of $R$ in $K(R)$. Then $S = \operatorname{colim} R[\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n]$ where the $\alpha_i$ vary over all the integral elements. By hypothesis each of the modules occurring in the colimit is free so $S$ is flat over $R$. In particular, it is flat, finite, and $R \subseteq S$ so that it is faithfully flat over $R$. It now follows that $S=R$ by the following standard argument.

Suppose $a = \frac{x}{y}$ is in $S$, where $x,y$ are in $R$. Then $x$ is in $yS$ and $yS \cap R = yR$ by faithful flatness (we prove this below) so that $y$ divides $x$ in $R$ also. In particular $a$ is in $R$.

Proof that $yS \cap R = yR$: since $S$ is faithfully flat over $R$ we get by changing base a faithfully flat map for any ideal $I$, $R/I \rightarrow S\otimes_R R/I \cong S/IS$ which is injective (since faitfully flat maps are always injective - this follows by using the fact that the kernel of the functor on module categories given by base changing is trivial). In particular we have that $IS \cap R = I$.

In fact I think this gives something stronger. We have shown that the localization at each maximal ideal is a normal domain so in particular $R$ is normal. If $R$ is noetherian it follows that it is a product of finitely many normal domains.

Would it be particularly surprising if this were true? If I have understood what you mean correctly (so that since you want to consider integrality in full generality a version of essentialness relative to the image of $R$ is required) I believe I have a proof:

First observe that we can reduce to $R$ local. Indeed one can check normality locally and this preserves minimality of primes (when they survive the localization) and so we can assume $R$ is a local reduced commutative ring with unit.

Now let $P$ be a minimal prime ideal in $R$ and consider the composite $R \rightarrow R/P \rightarrow k(P)$ and suppose that $b$ is an integral element in $k(P)$ over $R/P$ and hence over $R$. As in Jose's comment we know that $b$ is essential over $R/P$ and hence over $R$ (I don't see how to make sense of essential for non-injective morphisms otherwise, maybe I am being dense here). So by hypothesis $R/P[b]$ is a finitely generated projective $R$-module and so is free since $R$ is local. But $Ann(R/P[b])$ is clearly at least $P$ so $P=0$ (since $R$ is reduced) and $R$ is in fact a domain.

I next claim that in fact $R$ is integrally closed in its field of fractions $K(R)$. To see this lets denote by $S$ the integral closure of $R$ in $K(R)$. Then $S = \operatorname{colim} R[\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n]$ where the $\alpha_i$ vary over all the integral elements. By hypothesis each of the modules occurring in the colimit is free so $S$ is flat over $R$. In particular, it is flat, finite, and $R \subseteq S$ so that it is faithfully flat over $R$. It now follows that $S=R$ by the following standard argument.

Suppose $a = \frac{x}{y}$ is in $S$, where $x,y$ are in $R$. Then $x$ is in $yS$ and $yS \cap R = yR$ by faithful flatness (we prove this below) so that $y$ divides $x$ in $R$ also. In particular $a$ is in $R$.

Proof that $yS \cap R = yR$: since $S$ is faithfully flat over $R$ we get by changing base a faithfully flat map for any ideal $I$, $R/I \rightarrow S\otimes_R R/I \cong S/IS$ which is injective (since faitfully flat maps are always injective - this follows by using the fact that the kernel of the functor on module categories given by base changing is trivial). In particular we have that $IS \cap R = I$.

In fact I think this gives something stronger. We have shown that the localization at each maximal ideal is a normal domain so in particular $R$ is normal. If $R$ is noetherian it follows that it is a product of finitely many normal domains.

Would it be particularly surprising if this were true? If I have understood what you mean correctly (so that since you want to consider integrality in full generality a version of essentialness relative to the image of $R$ is required) I believe I have a proof:

First observe that we can reduce to $R$ local. Indeed one can check normality locally and this preserves minimality of primes (when they survive the localization) and so we can assume $R$ is a local reduced commutative ring with unit.

Now let $P$ be a minimal prime ideal in $R$ and consider the composite $R \rightarrow R/P \rightarrow k(P)$ and suppose that $b$ is an integral element in $k(P)$ over $R/P$ and hence over $R$. As in Jose's comment we know that $b$ is essential over $R/P$ and hence over $R$ (I don't see how to make sense of essential for non-injective morphisms otherwise, maybe I am being dense here). So by hypothesis $R/P[b]$ is a finitely generated projective $R$-module and so is free since $R$ is local. But $\operatorname{Ann}(R/P[b])$ is clearly at least $P$ so $P=0$ (since $R$ is reduced) and $R$ is in fact a domain.

I next claim that in fact $R$ is integrally closed in its field of fractions $K(R)$. To see this lets denote by $S$ the integral closure of $R$ in $K(R)$. Then $S = \operatorname{colim} R[\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n]$ where the $\alpha_i$ vary over all the integral elements. By hypothesis each of the modules occurring in the colimit is free so $S$ is flat over $R$. In particular, it is flat, finite, and $R \subseteq S$ so that it is faithfully flat over $R$. It now follows that $S=R$ by the following standard argument.

Suppose $a = \frac{x}{y}$ is in $S$, where $x,y$ are in $R$. Then $x$ is in $yS$ and $yS \cap R = yR$ by faithful flatness (we prove this below) so that $y$ divides $x$ in $R$ also. In particular $a$ is in $R$.

Proof that $yS \cap R = yR$: since $S$ is faithfully flat over $R$ we get by changing base a faithfully flat map for any ideal $I$, $R/I \rightarrow S\otimes_R R/I \cong S/IS$ which is injective (since faitfully flat maps are always injective - this follows by using the fact that the kernel of the functor on module categories given by base changing is trivial). In particular we have that $IS \cap R = I$.

In fact I think this gives something stronger. We have shown that the localization at each maximal ideal is a normal domain so in particular $R$ is normal. If $R$ is noetherian it follows that it is a product of finitely many normal domains.

Fixed maths rendering
Source Link
Andrew Stacey
  • 26.8k
  • 12
  • 113
  • 187

Would it be particularly surprising if this were true? If I have understood what you mean correctly (so that since you want to consider integrality in full generality a version of essentialness relative to the image of R$R$ is required) I believe I have a proof:

First observe that we can reduce to R$R$ local. Indeed one can check normality locally and this preserves minimality of primes (when they survive the localization) and so we can assume R$R$ is a local reduced commutative ring with unit.

Now let P$P$ be a minimal prime ideal in R$R$ and consider the composite R \rightarrow R/P \rightarrow k(P) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%20%5Crightarrow%20R%2FP%20%5Crightarrow%20k%28P%29$R \rightarrow R/P \rightarrow k(P)$ and suppose that b$b$ is an integral element in k(P)$k(P)$ over R/P$R/P$ and hence over R$R$. As in Jose's comment we know that b$b$ is essential over R/P$R/P$ and hence over R $R$ (I don't see how to make sense of essential for non-injective morphisms otherwise, maybe I am being dense here). So by hypothesis R/P[b]$R/P[b]$ is a finitely generated projective R$R$-module and so is free since R$R$ is local. But Ann(R/P[b])$Ann(R/P[b])$ is clearly at least P$P$ so P=0$P=0$ (since R$R$ is reduced) and R$R$ is in fact a domain.

I next claim that in fact R$R$ is integrally closed in its field of fractions K(R)$K(R)$. To see this lets denote by S$S$ the integral closure of R$R$ in K(R)$K(R)$. Then
  S = \mathrm{colim} ;R[\alpha\sb 1,\ldots,\alpha\sb n] http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?S%20%3D%20%5Cmathrm%7Bcolim%7D%20%5C%3BR%5B%5Calpha%5F1%2C%5Cldots%2C%5Calpha%5Fn%5D
$S = \operatorname{colim} R[\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n]$ where the \alpha\sb i http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Calpha%5Fi$\alpha_i$ vary over all the integral elements. By hypothesis each of the modules occurring in the colimit is free so S$S$ is flat over R$R$. In particular, it is flat, finite, and R \subseteq S http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%20%5Csubseteq%20S$R \subseteq S$ so that it is faithfully flat over R$R$. It now follows that S=R$S=R$ by the following standard argument.

Suppose a = \frac{x}{y} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?a%20%3D%20%5Cfrac%7Bx%7D%7By%7D$a = \frac{x}{y}$ is in S$S$, where x,y$x,y$ are in R$R$. Then x$x$ is in yS$yS$ and yS \cap http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccap R = yR$yS \cap R = yR$ by faithful flatness (we prove this below) so that y$y$ divides x$x$ in R$R$ also. In particular a$a$ is in R$R$.

Proof that yS \cap http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccap R = yR$yS \cap R = yR$: since S$S$ is faithfully flat over R$R$ we get by changing base a faithfully flat map for any ideal I
R/I \rightarrow S\otimes\sb R R/I \cong S/IS http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%2FI%20%5Crightarrow%20S%5Cotimes%5FR%20R%2FI%20%5Ccong%20S%2FIS
$I$, $R/I \rightarrow S\otimes_R R/I \cong S/IS$ which is injective (since faitfully flat maps are always injective - this follows by using the fact that the kernel of the functor on module categories given by base changing is trivial). In particular we have that IS \cap R = I http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?IS%20%5Ccap%20R%20%3D%20I$IS \cap R = I$.

In fact I think this gives something stronger. We have shown that the localization at each maximal ideal is a normal domain so in particular R$R$ is normal. If R$R$ is noetherian it follows that it is a product of finitely many normal domains.

Would it be particularly surprising if this were true? If I have understood what you mean correctly (so that since you want to consider integrality in full generality a version of essentialness relative to the image of R is required) I believe I have a proof:

First observe that we can reduce to R local. Indeed one can check normality locally and this preserves minimality of primes (when they survive the localization) and so we can assume R is a local reduced commutative ring with unit.

Now let P be a minimal prime ideal in R and consider the composite R \rightarrow R/P \rightarrow k(P) http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%20%5Crightarrow%20R%2FP%20%5Crightarrow%20k%28P%29 and suppose that b is an integral element in k(P) over R/P and hence over R. As in Jose's comment we know that b is essential over R/P and hence over R (I don't see how to make sense of essential for non-injective morphisms otherwise, maybe I am being dense here). So by hypothesis R/P[b] is a finitely generated projective R-module and so is free since R is local. But Ann(R/P[b]) is clearly at least P so P=0 (since R is reduced) and R is in fact a domain.

I next claim that in fact R is integrally closed in its field of fractions K(R). To see this lets denote by S the integral closure of R in K(R). Then
  S = \mathrm{colim} ;R[\alpha\sb 1,\ldots,\alpha\sb n] http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?S%20%3D%20%5Cmathrm%7Bcolim%7D%20%5C%3BR%5B%5Calpha%5F1%2C%5Cldots%2C%5Calpha%5Fn%5D
where the \alpha\sb i http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Calpha%5Fi vary over all the integral elements. By hypothesis each of the modules occurring in the colimit is free so S is flat over R. In particular, it is flat, finite, and R \subseteq S http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%20%5Csubseteq%20S so that it is faithfully flat over R. It now follows that S=R by the following standard argument.

Suppose a = \frac{x}{y} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?a%20%3D%20%5Cfrac%7Bx%7D%7By%7D is in S, where x,y are in R. Then x is in yS and yS \cap http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccap R = yR by faithful flatness (we prove this below) so that y divides x in R also. In particular a is in R.

Proof that yS \cap http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Ccap R = yR: since S is faithfully flat over R we get by changing base a faithfully flat map for any ideal I
R/I \rightarrow S\otimes\sb R R/I \cong S/IS http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%2FI%20%5Crightarrow%20S%5Cotimes%5FR%20R%2FI%20%5Ccong%20S%2FIS
which is injective (since faitfully flat maps are always injective - this follows by using the fact that the kernel of the functor on module categories given by base changing is trivial). In particular we have that IS \cap R = I http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?IS%20%5Ccap%20R%20%3D%20I

In fact I think this gives something stronger. We have shown that the localization at each maximal ideal is a normal domain so in particular R is normal. If R is noetherian it follows that it is a product of finitely many normal domains.

Would it be particularly surprising if this were true? If I have understood what you mean correctly (so that since you want to consider integrality in full generality a version of essentialness relative to the image of $R$ is required) I believe I have a proof:

First observe that we can reduce to $R$ local. Indeed one can check normality locally and this preserves minimality of primes (when they survive the localization) and so we can assume $R$ is a local reduced commutative ring with unit.

Now let $P$ be a minimal prime ideal in $R$ and consider the composite $R \rightarrow R/P \rightarrow k(P)$ and suppose that $b$ is an integral element in $k(P)$ over $R/P$ and hence over $R$. As in Jose's comment we know that $b$ is essential over $R/P$ and hence over $R$ (I don't see how to make sense of essential for non-injective morphisms otherwise, maybe I am being dense here). So by hypothesis $R/P[b]$ is a finitely generated projective $R$-module and so is free since $R$ is local. But $Ann(R/P[b])$ is clearly at least $P$ so $P=0$ (since $R$ is reduced) and $R$ is in fact a domain.

I next claim that in fact $R$ is integrally closed in its field of fractions $K(R)$. To see this lets denote by $S$ the integral closure of $R$ in $K(R)$. Then $S = \operatorname{colim} R[\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n]$ where the $\alpha_i$ vary over all the integral elements. By hypothesis each of the modules occurring in the colimit is free so $S$ is flat over $R$. In particular, it is flat, finite, and $R \subseteq S$ so that it is faithfully flat over $R$. It now follows that $S=R$ by the following standard argument.

Suppose $a = \frac{x}{y}$ is in $S$, where $x,y$ are in $R$. Then $x$ is in $yS$ and $yS \cap R = yR$ by faithful flatness (we prove this below) so that $y$ divides $x$ in $R$ also. In particular $a$ is in $R$.

Proof that $yS \cap R = yR$: since $S$ is faithfully flat over $R$ we get by changing base a faithfully flat map for any ideal $I$, $R/I \rightarrow S\otimes_R R/I \cong S/IS$ which is injective (since faitfully flat maps are always injective - this follows by using the fact that the kernel of the functor on module categories given by base changing is trivial). In particular we have that $IS \cap R = I$.

In fact I think this gives something stronger. We have shown that the localization at each maximal ideal is a normal domain so in particular $R$ is normal. If $R$ is noetherian it follows that it is a product of finitely many normal domains.

had an error
Source Link
Greg Stevenson
  • 8.7k
  • 1
  • 40
  • 38

If one restricts to considering injective morphisms I don't think one has to do much more work. Suppose \bar{b} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7Bb%7D is integral and essential in k(P) over R/P. Let \bar{h} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7Bh%7D be an element of R/P[x] that \bar{b} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7Bb%7D satisfies. Now consider the following commutative diagram

R \rightarrow R[x] \rightarrow R[x]/(h) \cong R[b] http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%20%5Crightarrow%20R%5Bx%5D%20%5Crightarrow%20R%5Bx%5D%2F%28h%29%20%5Ccong%20R%5Bb%5D
\downarrow http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cdownarrow%20 \quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20 \downarrow http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cdownarrow%20 \quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20 \downarrow http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cdownarrow%20 \quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20
\bar{R} \rightarrow \bar{R}[x] \rightarrow \bar{R}[x]/(\bar{h}) \cong \bar{R}[\bar{b}] http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7BR%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20%5Cbar%7BR%7D%5Bx%5D%20%5Crightarrow%20%5Cbar%7BR%7D%5Bx%5D%2F%28%5Cbar%7Bh%7D%29%20%5Ccong%20%5Cbar%7BR%7D%5B%5Cbar%7Bb%7D%5D

where R/P = \bar{R} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%2FP%20%3D%20%5Cbar%7BR%7D so my diagram lines up. Since this commutes we see that b is essential over R and it is clearly integral so R[b] is free over R by hypothesis and hence R/P[\bar{b} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7Bb%7D] is free over R/P since one just obtains the bottom row by tensoring. One then runs the same argument as above for R/P i.e., we now know its integral closure in k(P) is flat and hence faithfully flat over R/P and so they must agree.

If one restricts to considering injective morphisms I don't think one has to do much more work. Suppose \bar{b} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7Bb%7D is integral and essential in k(P) over R/P. Let \bar{h} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7Bh%7D be an element of R/P[x] that \bar{b} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7Bb%7D satisfies. Now consider the following commutative diagram

R \rightarrow R[x] \rightarrow R[x]/(h) \cong R[b] http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%20%5Crightarrow%20R%5Bx%5D%20%5Crightarrow%20R%5Bx%5D%2F%28h%29%20%5Ccong%20R%5Bb%5D
\downarrow http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cdownarrow%20 \quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20 \downarrow http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cdownarrow%20 \quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20\quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20 \downarrow http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cdownarrow%20 \quad http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cquad%20
\bar{R} \rightarrow \bar{R}[x] \rightarrow \bar{R}[x]/(\bar{h}) \cong \bar{R}[\bar{b}] http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7BR%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20%5Cbar%7BR%7D%5Bx%5D%20%5Crightarrow%20%5Cbar%7BR%7D%5Bx%5D%2F%28%5Cbar%7Bh%7D%29%20%5Ccong%20%5Cbar%7BR%7D%5B%5Cbar%7Bb%7D%5D

where R/P = \bar{R} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?R%2FP%20%3D%20%5Cbar%7BR%7D so my diagram lines up. Since this commutes we see that b is essential over R and it is clearly integral so R[b] is free over R by hypothesis and hence R/P[\bar{b} http://latex.mathoverflow.net/png?%5Cbar%7Bb%7D] is free over R/P since one just obtains the bottom row by tensoring. One then runs the same argument as above for R/P i.e., we now know its integral closure in k(P) is flat and hence faithfully flat over R/P and so they must agree.

added argument to deal with injectivity
Source Link
Greg Stevenson
  • 8.7k
  • 1
  • 40
  • 38
Loading
Source Link
Greg Stevenson
  • 8.7k
  • 1
  • 40
  • 38
Loading