A commutative ring with unity is called pm-ring if every prime ideal is contained in a unique maximal ideal. In [dMO71], it is shown that pm-rings are characterized by the fact that $\operatorname{max Spec} R$ (the set of all maximal ideals under Zariski subspace topology) is a retract of $\operatorname{Spec} R$, and in this case, the unique retraction is given by $u: \operatorname{Spec} R \to \operatorname{max Spec} R$ , $u(P)$ is the unique maximal ideal containing $P\in \operatorname{Spec} R$ .

It can moreover be shown that for pm-rings, this retract is actually also a deformation retract , because $H : \operatorname{Spec} R \times [0,1] \to \operatorname{Spec} R$ given by $H(P,t)=P, \forall t \in [0,1)$ and $H(P,1)=u(P)$ is continuous, so gives a homotopy between $i\circ u$ and $Id_{\operatorname{Spec} R}$, where $i:\operatorname{max Spec} R \to \operatorname{Spec} R$ is the inclusion map.

So the questions I want to ask are the following :

(1) Can we characterize (possibly algebraic characterization) commutative rings (with unity) $R$ such that $\operatorname{max Spec} R$ is homotopy equivalent with $\operatorname{Spec} R$ ?

(2) Can we characterize commutative rings (with unity) $R$, such that $i : \operatorname {max} \operatorname {Spec} R \to \operatorname {Spec} R$ is a homotopy equivalence i.e. there exists a map $g : \operatorname {Spec} R \to \operatorname {max} \operatorname {Spec} R$ such that $i\circ g$ and $g \circ i$ are homotopic to the respective identity maps ?

As noted, pm-rings are definitely in both the class, but what are all such rings ? Even if we can't say what are all such rings, can we atleast find class of rings for each case (1) and (2) which are not necessarily pm-rings ?


[dMO71] De Marco, Giuseppe; Orsatti, Adalberto, Commutative rings in which every prime ideal is contained in a unique maximal ideal, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 30, 459-466 (1971). ZBL0207.05001.


This is not a full answer, but some examples to show that the situation is a bit tricky. (This answer was worked out together with Dmitrii Pirozhkov.)

Lemma. Let $R$ be a domain. Then $X = \operatorname{Spec} R$ is contractible.

Proof. In fact, the inclusion of the generic point $\eta$ is a deformation retract, by the map \begin{align*} [0,1] \times X &\to X \\ (t,\mathfrak p) &\mapsto \left\{\begin{array}{ll}\mathfrak p, & t = 0, \\ \eta, & t > 0.\end{array}\right. \end{align*} (One easily shows that this map is continuous.) $\square$

Thus, for a domain, the question is when $\operatorname{Specmax} R$ is contractible. Even for simple examples like $R = k[t]$, the result depends on the base field $k$:

Example. Let $R$ be a $1$-dimensional Noetherian domain. Then $X = \operatorname{Specmax} R$ is a cofinite topological space. But the homotopy type depends on the cardinality of $X$:

  • If $|X| = 1$, then $R$ is local and $X$ is evidently contractible (since it is a point).
  • If $X$ is countable but has more than $1$ element, then $X$ is not path connected (see e.g. this MO post), so in particular it is not contractible.
  • If $|X| \geq |\mathbb R|$, then we can choose a bijection $\phi \colon (0,1) \times X \to X$. Extend $\phi$ to a map $\phi \colon [0,1] \times X \to X$ by setting $\phi(0,-) = \operatorname{id}$ and $\phi(1,-) = \mathfrak m_0$ a constant map. Then each fibre of $\phi$ is closed, hence $\phi$ is continuous. Thus, $\phi$ is a homotopy from the identity to a constant map, so $X$ is contractible.
  • $\begingroup$ If $R$ has exactly one minimal prime over $0$, then $\operatorname {Spec} R$ is contractible because $\{0\}$ is a generic point of $\operatorname {Spec} R$ then. Do you have any general idea about what happens to $max \operatorname {Spec} R$ then ? ($R$ being a domain is a special case of this). And your $|max Spec R|=1$ implying it is contractible is covered by the context of the question because local rings are pm-rings. $\endgroup$ – user111524 Mar 23 '18 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ In the above comment, I meant to say that $\{\mathfrak p\}$ is a generic point for the unique minimal prime ideal $\mathfrak p$ over $0$ $\endgroup$ – user111524 Mar 23 '18 at 18:56
  • $\begingroup$ @users: Note that we may always assume $R$ is reduced, because this doesn't change $\operatorname{Spec} R$. The case of your comment is exactly the point of my post: the spectrum of a domain is always contractible, but the contractibility question for $\operatorname{Specmax} R$ is very subtle, even in the one-dimensional case. $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Mar 23 '18 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ Wait, for 1-dimensional domains , is $max Spec R$ really co-finite i.e. all proper closed subsets are finite ? i.e. every non-zero ideal is contained in only finitely many maximal ideals ? I don't think that is true ... you need some extra assumptions like Dedekind for that ... $\endgroup$ – user111524 Mar 23 '18 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @users: you might be right that it's not true in general. However, Noetherian should be enough, because then $V(I)$ is also Noetherian, hence has finitely many components, which are necessarily zero-dimensional unless $V(I) = X$. $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Mar 23 '18 at 21:10

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.