2
$\begingroup$

Hi all

Quick question that I think is true but haven't been able to prove.

Suppose there is a subring $R \subset k[x_1, \ldots, x_r]$ containing field $k$ and generated by homogenous polynomials $p_1, \ldots, p_t$. Now assume the radical of the homogenous ideal of $k[x_1, \ldots, x_k]$ generated by the $p_i$ is the maximal ideal $(x_1, \ldots, x_r)$. Then the transcendence degree of $R$ over $k$ is $r$.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Let $X$ be affine $r$-space over $k$ and let $Y$ be affine $t$-space over $k$, and let $f:X \rightarrow Y$ be the $k$-map defined by $x \mapsto (p_1(x),\dots,p_t(x))$. The hypothesis is that $f^{-1}(0) = 0$ at the level of geometric points, so by openness on the source for the locus of points isolated in their fibers (semi-continuity of fiber dimension on the source) there is a dense open $U$ in $X$ so that $f|_U$ is quasi-finite. Its schematic image is Spec($R$), so $U \rightarrow {\rm{Spec}}(R)$ is quasi-finite and dominant. Thus, trdeg$_k$(Frac($R$)) is ${\rm{dim}}(R) = {\rm{dim}}(U) = r$. $\endgroup$ – user27056 Oct 19 '12 at 2:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't your hypothesis imply at once that the fraction field of the normalization of your ring is $k(x_1,\dots,x_r)$? $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Oct 19 '12 at 6:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Mariano: What's your argument? I think you're mixing up "ideal generated" in a bigger ring with "algebra generated" over $k$. The assertion that you claim follows "at once" seems to be false. Try $p_i = x_i^2$ with $1 \le i \le t = r$. $\endgroup$ – user27056 Oct 19 '12 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ @xbnv: You can find arguments there: mathoverflow.net/questions/110250/…. So, Mariano's comment gives an alternative (affirmative) answer to the question. $\endgroup$ – Jeff Oct 22 '12 at 21:45
1
$\begingroup$

Set $R=k[p_1,\dots,p_t]$, $S=k[x_1,\dots,x_r]$ and $\mathfrak{m}=(x_1,\dots,x_r)$ (the maximal irrelevant ideal of $S$). We know that the ideal $(p_1,\dots,p_t)S$ is $\mathfrak{m}$-primary. A graded version of the dimension inequality formula for local rings gives $\dim S\le \dim R+\dim S/(p_1,\dots,p_t)S$ and thus we obtain that $r\le \dim R$. On the other hand, by using Noether normalization we get that $\dim R\le r$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe it's worthy to mention that any subring of $k[x_1,\dots,x_r]$ which contains $k$ has the Krull dimension at most $r$. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Oct 19 '12 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ @navigetor23: Why is that true for $k$-subalgebras that aren't finitely generated (as arise in Nagata's counterexamples to Hilbert's $N$th problem for suitable $N$)? $\endgroup$ – user27056 Oct 20 '12 at 6:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.