0
$\begingroup$

Let $R\subset S$ be two local PIDs that have the same fields of fractions. How to prove that they are equal?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Arguably R=k[[T]] and S=Frac(R) gives you a counterexample. Perhaps you have different definition of local and/or PID than I do though. $\endgroup$ Mar 28, 2010 at 12:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Probably means to assume that the inclusion of R into S is a local homomorphism. In that case it is valid more generally for $R$ a valuation ring and $S$ merely a local domain, and as such it is at the level of a homework exercise. It should not be posted here as a question. $\endgroup$
    – BCnrd
    Mar 28, 2010 at 12:35
  • $\begingroup$ Why hasn't this question been closed already? $\endgroup$
    – user4324
    Mar 28, 2010 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ Let me also leave a hint for a direct proof: show that every ring in between a PID and its fraction field is a localization. Then think about what the possibilities are for localizing a PID with only one prime element. $\endgroup$ Mar 28, 2010 at 17:52

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I believe that the OP meant to include the condition that each of the local PIDs is not a field. In this case the result is true, and as several people have said, is a rather standard exercise.

At this moment it seems to me that if we get asked a rather standard question that has not been asked on MO before, it would be nice to use it as an opportunity to explain something a little deeper / slightly less standard related to the question. In this regard, let me mention a generalization:

A local PID $R$ (which is not a field!) with fraction field $K$ is precisely a discrete valuation ring, i.e., is the valuation ring $R = \{x \in K \ | \ |x| \leq 1 \}$ of a norm $| \ |: K \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\geq 0}$ such that $|K^{\times}|$ is a discrete subgroup of $\mathbb{R}^{\times}$. Now for nontrivial norms $| \ |_1$, $| \ |_2$ (Archimedean or not) on a field $K$, there is the following result:

Theorem: The following are equivalent:
(i) There exists $\alpha > 0$ such that $| \ |_2 = | \ |_1^{\alpha}$.
(ii) For all $x \in K$, $|x|_1 < 1 \implies |x|_2 < 1$.
(iii) For all $x \in K$, $|x|_1 \leq 1 \implies |x|_2 \leq 1$.

(See e.g. http://alpha.math.uga.edu/~pete/8410Chapter1.pdf, p. 4, for a proof.)

Now the implication (iii) $\implies$ (i) shows that there can be no proper containments among DVRs with the same fraction field. The same holds for all rank one valuation ring because, by definition, a rank one valuation ring is one whose value group is a subgroup of $\mathbb{R}$; therefore the data of a rank one valuation is equivalent to that of a non-Archimedean norm. (Note that if $| \ |$ is a non-Archimedean norm, then $v = - \log | \ |$ is a valuation, and conversely if $v$ is a rank one valuation, then $| \ | = e^{-v}$ is a non-Archimedean norm.) It is not true for valuation rings of higher rank.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I like the answer, and I especially like your second paragraph. Given the choice between an explanation of why a question is interesting and explanation of why it isn't, in situations like this when both are available, I think we all get more out of the former. $\endgroup$
    – Cap Khoury
    Mar 28, 2010 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ typical for mathoverflow. the answers are voted up which deal with a lot of known and fancy material, no matter if it actually answers the question ... $\endgroup$ Mar 29, 2010 at 8:44
  • $\begingroup$ Martin, ultimately votes are absolutely irrelevant... $\endgroup$ Mar 29, 2010 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ ok, you're right. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2010 at 2:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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