1
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be an $I$-adically separated and complete valuation ring, with $I$ finitely generated.

It is used a few times in Bosch, Lectures on Formal and Rigid Geometry e.g. first lines of pg. 164, Cor. 5 and Cor. 6 (their condition (V) is what I stated above) that

If an $A$ module has no $I$ torsion then it is flat over $R$.

I don't see why this is true. Any suggestions / references would be appreciated.

What I thought: We know $A$ is flat over domain $R$ iff it is $R$-torsion free.

If the statement were true: $I$-torsion free $\Rightarrow$$R$-torsion free.

This would hold if $I$ is a maximal ideal but otherwise I don't see why.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ What book by Bosch? Anyway, maybe the answer is here: mathoverflow.net/questions/51095/… $\endgroup$
    – Drew Heard
    Jul 24, 2021 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I added it, didn't know why the hyper link didn't show up. and unfortunately I can't find which part of the llink addresses this problem $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Shih
    Jul 24, 2021 at 14:29

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

In Section 7.3 it is assumed that $I$ is the ideal of definition or $R$. It follows that the $I$-adic topology is separated, so (because $R$ is a valuation ring) every nonzero ideal of $R$ contains some power of $I$, so everything that is $R$-torsion is $I$-torsion.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Now looking back: is having no $I$-torsion the same as being flat when $R$ is of type (N) in the text? (N)=Noetherian adic with ideal of defitiion $I$. (page 162). In otherwords is iii of definition 3 equivalent to being flat? $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Shih
    Jul 25, 2021 at 10:01

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.