8
$\begingroup$

More generally, let $(R,m)$ be a Noetherian local domain with fraction field $K$. The $m$-adic topology turns $R$ into a topological ring. When $R$ is a discrete valuation ring, this topology extends to a field topology on $K$, in such a way that $R$ is open in $K$. I wonder how much of this can be done for more general $R$. The first natural question is:

Is there a field topology on $K$ inducing the $m$-adic topology on $R$?

On the negative side, if $\dim(R)≥2$, there is not even a ring topology on $K$ such that $R$ is an open subring. Indeed, for any nonzero $f\in R$, multiplication by $f$ in $K$ must be a homeomorphism, so $fR$ would have to be open in $R$, which it is not unless $f\in R^\times$.

On the other hand, there is a ring topology on $K$ making $R$ closed: view $K$ as the union of all principal fractional ideals $f^{-1}R$ ($f\in R\smallsetminus\{0\}$), each endowed with its $m$-adic topology (as a free $R$-module). The transition maps are closed embeddings, and it is easy to see that the colimit topology on $K$ works. If we choose this topology on $K$, the question becomes:

Is this a field topology? In other words, is the inversion map on $K^\times$ continuous?

For instance, take $R=k[[x,y]]$ where $k$ is a field, and consider the sequence $n\mapsto \frac{x}{x+y^n}$. Does this sequence converge to $1$ for the above topology? Equivalently, does the sequence $n\mapsto \frac{y^n}{x+y^n}$ converge to $0$?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No $x/(x+y^n)$ does not seem to converge, since otherwise there would exist $f\in k[[x,y]]$ such that $1/(x+y^n)$ it belongs to $(1/f)k[[x,y]]$ for all $n$. Writing this as an equation, removing maximal factors that are powers of $x$, and evaluating at $x=0$ yields a contradiction. $\endgroup$ – YCor Dec 21 '15 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor: for the topology just defined, $(1/f)k[[x,y]]$ is closed, not open. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Dec 21 '15 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I know, but in a colimit topology of an increasing sequence $(M_n)$, if a sequence converges, then it belongs to a single $M_n$. $\endgroup$ – YCor Dec 21 '15 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, right. Simple, now you say it ;-). So this answers the second question. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Dec 21 '15 at 20:52
1
$\begingroup$

If I am correct, your Noetherian local domain $(R,m(R))$ admits a place $D$ (maximal local domain) such that $R\subset D\subset K$ and $m(D)\cap R=m(R)$ (for a local ring $L$, we note $m(L)$ its maximal ideal). The fraction field $K$ is common to $R$ and $D$. As $D$ is a place there is a valuation $$ v\ :\ K\to \Gamma_{\infty} $$
such that $$ D=\{x\in K\,|\, 0\leq v(x)<\infty\}\ ;\ m(D)=\{x\in K\,|\, 0< v(x)<\infty\} $$ this valuation defines the same quotient topology ($R$ is endowed with the $m$-adic topology and $R'=R\setminus \{0\}$ with the induced topology) $$ R\times R'\to K\mbox{ and } D\times D'\to K $$ which automatically is that of a topological field, see the construction here. This topology induces the given ($m$-adic) topology on $R$.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ [Sorry for the late comment, I had somehow overlooked your answer.] Is it clear that the valuation topology on $D$ induces the $m$-adic topology on $R$? $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Mar 10 '18 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ At least, it WAS when I wrote it. Let me a couple of days to elaborate. $\endgroup$ – Duchamp Gérard H. E. Mar 11 '18 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ At least, it works in the special case $R=k[[x,y]]$ since you can do it explicitly: you can inject $R$ into $D:=k(t)[[x]]$ by sending $y$ to $tx$, and one checks immediately that the $m(R)$-adic topology is induced by the $x$-adic topology on $D$. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Mar 13 '18 at 16:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, because $D$ is a DVR. In fact, the only ideals of $D$ are the powers of $m(D)$. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Mar 14 '18 at 20:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the special case, yes, but in general I don't see why $m(D)^{k+s}\cap R\subset m(R)^k$ (for all $k$ and $s$ large enough depending on $k$). $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Mar 15 '18 at 8:06

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.