Let $k$ be a field, and $A$ a $k$-domain, so that the fraction field of $A$ has transcendence degree $n$ over $k$.

If $A$ is finitely-generated over $k$, then $A$ has Krull dimension $n$ (Theorem A in Eisenbud).

However, if $A$ is infinitely-generated, then it is possible for the dimension of $A$ to be less than the transcendence degree of its fraction field. Take, for example, rational functions in one variable $A=k(x)$. Dimension 0, transcendence degree 1.

Is it always true that the dimension of $A$ is less than or equal to $n$?

  • $\begingroup$ The phrase "$k$-domain" means "integral domain that's also a $k$-algebra, right?" $\endgroup$ Oct 18, 2018 at 4:57

3 Answers 3


It looks to me like the answer is yes.

Fix any strictly increasing chain of primes $P_0 \subsetneq P_1 \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq P_m$ in $A$ of length $m$; we'll prove that $m \leq n$. Choose elements $x_i \in P_i \setminus P_{i-1}$ for $i = 1,\dots,m$.

Let $B \subseteq A$ be the $k$-subalgebra generated by $\{x_1,\dots,x_m\}$. The primes $Q_i = P_i \cap B$ form a strictly increasing chain of length $m$ in $B$, because $x_i \in Q_i \setminus Q_{i-1}$.

The fraction field $Q(B)$ of $B$ lives inside of $Q(A)$ and therefore has $k$-transcendence degree at most $n$. Because $B$ is finitely generated, this means that it has Krull dimension at most $n$. It now follows that $m \leq n$.

  • $\begingroup$ Nice answer! Much simpler than that I wrote at the same time. $\endgroup$
    – Qing Liu
    Nov 3, 2011 at 20:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you! (I guess there was no error...) That certainly is a very annoying feature of answering. It's happened to me, too! $\endgroup$ Nov 3, 2011 at 20:40
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This is a real gem, Manny: crisp, elegant, implacable. $\endgroup$ Nov 3, 2011 at 21:39

There is already a perfect, accepted answer, but I thought I add this to point out that there is a geometric reason for the dimension to possibly drop versus the transcendence degree.

For simplicity assume that the fraction field of $A$ is a finitely generated field extension of $k$ and that $A$ is integrally closed. If we are doing geometry these assumptions seem reasonable (and there is already a complete answer in the general case). I think with a little more work one can follow a similar argument without these assumptions, but this post's goal is mainly to explain the geometry behind this phenomenon, so I am not striving for completeness especially that (as I already mentioned twice) since there is already a complete solution there is no need to do that.

So, first, $A$ contains a transcendence base for its fraction field over $k$, in other words we have $$ k\subseteq k[x_1,\dots,x_n]\subseteq A \subseteq \mathrm{Frac} (A) $$ where $\mathrm{Frac} (A)$ is a finite algebraic extension of $k(x_1,\dots,x_n)$. Now let $B$ be the integral closure of $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ in $\mathrm{Frac} (A)$. Since $A$ is assumed to be integrally closed, $B\subseteq A$ and since $\mathrm{Frac} (A)$ is a finite algebraic extension of $k(x_1,\dots,x_n)$, $B$ is a finitely generated $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$-module and a finitely genrated $k$-algebra and $\mathrm{Frac} (B)=\mathrm{Frac} (A)$.

The integral $k$-algebra extension $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]\subseteq B$ corresponds to a finite surjective morphism $X\to \mathbb A^n_k$ of $k$-varieties, so for $X$ we have the quoted result: $\dim X$ equals the transcendence degree of the fraction field of $A$.

Now we have that $B\subseteq A \subseteq \mathrm{Frac} (B)=\mathrm{Frac} (A)$. In geometric situations this typically happens if $A$ is a localization of $B$. In that case we get that the Krull dimension of $A$ is at most the Krull dimension of $B$ because the dimension of $A$ is just the maximum height of the points of $\mathrm{Spec}B$ contained in $\mathrm{Spec} A$.

This is really why I wrote this whole answer: the way the Krull dimension drops versus the transcendence degree is if we localize at non-closed points: In your original example $k(x)$ corresponds to the generic point of the line $\mathbb A^1$, so its geometric dimension = transcendence degree is $1$, but its algebraic dimension is $0$ because it is a field (or more generally the local ring of a non-closed point).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YACP: you're right. I managed to confuse myself by adding some conditions that I didn't assume. However, that was not the point of my post. I edited it accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the error. $\endgroup$ Jan 5, 2013 at 0:30

[Edit] My answer is unnecessarily complicated regarding that of Manny.

The answer is yes. First suppose $A$ is noetherian. You can find $t_1,\dots, t_n\in A$ algebraically independent over $k$. Then you get a dominant morphism $\operatorname{Spec}A\to \mathbb A^n_k$ of integral noetherian schemes which is generically finite. This then implies that $\dim A\le \dim \mathbb A^n_k$ (see this answer to related question).

If $A$ is not noetherian, write $A$ as an inductive limit of noetherian subdomains $A_i$ with $\mathrm{Frac}(A_i)=\mathrm{Frac}(A)$. Let $\mathfrak p_0\subset \cdots \subset \mathfrak p_r$ be a chain of prime ideals in $A$. Then for some $A_i$, the $\mathfrak p_j\cap A_i$ is a chain of prime ideals (take $A_i$ big enough to contain an element of $\mathfrak p_j\setminus \mathfrak p_{j-1}$ for all $j\le r$). Then by the above $r\le \dim A_i\le n$. Hence $\dim A\le n$.


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.