# The Stacks Project

## Tag 02IM

Lemma 27.6.4. Let $R$ be a Noetherian local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$. In this case the scheme $S = \mathop{\rm Spec}(R) \setminus \{\mathfrak m\}$ is Jacobson.

Proof. Since $\mathop{\rm Spec}(R)$ is a Noetherian scheme, $S$ is a Noetherian scheme (Lemma 27.5.6). Hence $S$ is a sober, Noetherian topological space (use Schemes, Lemma 25.11.1). Assume $S$ is not Jacobson to get a contradiction. By Topology, Lemma 5.18.3 there exists some non-closed point $\xi \in S$ such that $\{\xi\}$ is locally closed. This corresponds to a prime $\mathfrak p \subset R$ such that (1) there exists a prime $\mathfrak q$, $\mathfrak p \subset \mathfrak q \subset \mathfrak m$ with both inclusions strict, and (2) $\{\mathfrak p\}$ is open in $\mathop{\rm Spec}(R/\mathfrak p)$. This is impossible by Algebra, Lemma 10.60.1. $\square$

The code snippet corresponding to this tag is a part of the file properties.tex and is located in lines 717–722 (see updates for more information).

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma-complement-closed-point-Jacobson}
Let $R$ be a Noetherian local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$.
In this case the scheme $S = \Spec(R) \setminus \{\mathfrak m\}$
is Jacobson.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Since $\Spec(R)$ is a Noetherian scheme,
$S$ is a Noetherian scheme (Lemma \ref{lemma-locally-closed-in-Noetherian}).
Hence $S$ is a sober, Noetherian topological space (use
Schemes, Lemma \ref{schemes-lemma-scheme-sober}).
Assume $S$ is not Jacobson to
get a contradiction. By
Topology, Lemma \ref{topology-lemma-non-jacobson-Noetherian-characterize}
there exists some non-closed point $\xi \in S$
such that $\{\xi\}$ is locally closed. This corresponds
to a prime $\mathfrak p \subset R$ such that (1) there exists
a prime $\mathfrak q$, $\mathfrak p \subset \mathfrak q \subset \mathfrak m$
with both inclusions strict, and (2) $\{\mathfrak p\}$ is open in
$\Spec(R/\mathfrak p)$. This is impossible by Algebra,
Lemma \ref{algebra-lemma-Noetherian-local-domain-dim-2-infinite-opens}.
\end{proof}

## Comments (2)

Comment #2435 by Matthew Emerton on February 18, 2017 a 3:46 am UTC

A minor comment: In the first sentence of the proof, having both Since and hence is redundant.

Comment #2479 by Johan (site) on April 13, 2017 a 10:16 pm UTC

OK, thanks, fixed here.

## Add a comment on tag 02IM

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the lower-right corner).

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following box. So in case this where tag 0321 you just have to write 0321. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit 0.

This captcha seems more appropriate than the usual illegible gibberish, right?