2
$\begingroup$

Question seems simple, but I just can't find the solution. Let A/B be an integral ring extension and let P be a prime ideal of B. By going-up theorem, there is Q, a prime ideal of A, lying over P. Then the ring of fractions of A localised on Q is still integral on that of B localised on P?

Thank Karl and Matt, the two exemples from you are brilliants. But in the special case for the field of fractions, I think this proposition is true. I don't know if my proof is exact or not.

Let $A/B$ be an integral ring extension, $K=FracA$ the field of fractions for $A$, $k=FracB$ the field of fractions for $B$. Then $K$ is algebraic on $k$.

I have a proof: Let $S=A- \lbrace 0\rbrace, s=B- \lbrace 0\rbrace$ then $S^{-1}A=K, s^{-1}B=k,\mbox{then } k \subseteq{s^{-1}A} \subseteq K.$ $\forall \mbox{ } a/S_0\in K, a\in A, \mbox{ }S_0\in S,$ there is $S_0/s_0X-a/s_0 \in k(S_0/s_0, a/s_0)[X]$ where $s_0 \in s \subseteq B$ so that $a/S_0$ is its root. So $a/S_0$ is algebraic on the field $k(S_0/s_0,a/s_0)$ (In fact, it just lies in this field). Besides, $a/s_0$ and $S_0/s_0$ are algebraic on $k$, since $s^{-1}A$ is integral on $k$. So $k(S_0/s_0,a/s_0)/k$ is finite, then $a/S_0$ is algebraic on $k$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This isn't true if I recall correctly. Certainly if $W = B \setminus P$ then $B_P = W^{-1} B \subseteq W^{-1} A$ is integral. But of course $W^{-1} A \subseteq A_P$ is generally not integral. I'd try messing around with the following example to make it explicit. Let $A = k[t]$ and $B = k[t^2]$. Choose $P = \langle t^2 - 1 \rangle$ and $Q = \langle t - 1 \rangle$ say. Then we have $$A_Q = k[t]_{\langle t - 1 \rangle } \supseteq k[t^2]_{\langle t^2 - 1 \rangle} = B_P.$$ $\endgroup$ – Karl Schwede Dec 19 '13 at 4:15
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. Could you examine the proof I give above? $\endgroup$ – user83008 Dec 20 '13 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ It's definitely true for domains localized at the origin, but that's just because only one prime of $A$ lies above $\langle 0_B \rangle$. $\endgroup$ – Karl Schwede Dec 20 '13 at 2:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question appears to be off-topic. It is answered in the first comment. As for the edit, Math Overflow is not for asking people to check your proofs, especially when we already know the proof is wrong. $\endgroup$ – David White Dec 20 '13 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I didn't know that here we can't ask for the verification for the proof. By the way, this proof I think is right, and it proves a proposition is true in a special case while it is wrong generally according to other experts' opinions. Anyhow, thanks for your reminding about the principles in mathoverflow. $\endgroup$ – user83008 Dec 20 '13 at 16:12
2
$\begingroup$

Let me explain my comment in a bit more detail.

Proposition: Suppose $B \subseteq A$ is an integral extension of domains and $P$ is a prime of $B$ with $Q \subseteq A$ a prime of $A$ lying over $B$. Then $B_P \subseteq A_Q$ is integral if and only if $Q$ is the unique prime of $A$ lying over $B$.

Proof: Suppose first that $Q$ is the unique prime lying over $P$ and let $W = B \setminus P$. Then $B_P = W^{-1} B \subseteq W^{-1} A$ is an integral extension (via an easy computation -- clear denominators as appropriate, find the integral relation, and then put the denominators back).

Claim: $W^{-1} A \cong A_Q$.

Proof of claim: Obviously $W \subset A \setminus Q$ and equality won't help, but we can still have the claim. Indeed, suppose that $Q_1$ is a prime of $A$ corresponding to a prime of $W^{-1} A$. We will show that $Q_1$ is contained in $Q$. Let $P_1 = B \cap Q_1$. If $P_1 \subseteq P$, then by the going up theorem, there exists $Q'$ over $P$ with $Q_1 \subseteq Q'$. But $Q' = Q$ by the uniqueness hypothesis which proves that $Q_1$ is contained in $Q$ as desired. This shows that $W^{-1} A$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $W^{-1} P$. But then by the universal property of localization, $W^{-1} A \cong A_P$ which proves the claim.

The claim obviously shows that $B_P \subseteq A_Q$ is integral. The above direction doesn't need the domain hypothesis.

For the converse direction, suppose that $Q_1, Q_2$ are distinct primes of $A$ lying over $P$. If $W = B \setminus P$ and $B_P = W^{-1} B \subseteq A_{Q_1}$ is integral, then certainly $W^{-1} A \subseteq A_{Q_1}$ is also integral (we are just enlarging our ring of coefficients). Note that if $A$ is not a domain, it doesn't necessarily follow that $W^{-1} A \subseteq A_{Q_1}$ (this is where the domain hypothesis is used). But now obviously we have $(W^{-1} Q_2) A_{Q_1} = Q_2 A_{Q_1} = A_{Q_1}$ and so there is no prime of $A_{Q_1}$ lying over $W^{-1} Q_2$, a contradiction. This proves the proposition.

Remark: In the non-domain case, the proposition can fail. Consider $k \subseteq k \oplus k$ via the diagonal inclusion. There are two primes of the overring lying over $\langle 0_k\rangle$, and localizing $k \oplus k$ at either just yields $k$ again. However, as noted in the proof above, generalizations of this phenomonon are essentially the only way it can fail for non-domains.

$\endgroup$

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.