The Stacks project

Lemma 10.137.12. Let $R \to S$ be of finite presentation. Let $\mathfrak q$ be a prime of $S$. The following are equivalent

  1. $R \to S$ is smooth at $\mathfrak q$,

  2. $H_1(L_{S/R})_\mathfrak q = 0$ and $\Omega _{S/R, \mathfrak q}$ is a finite free $S_\mathfrak q$-module,

  3. $H_1(L_{S/R})_\mathfrak q = 0$ and $\Omega _{S/R, \mathfrak q}$ is a projective $S_\mathfrak q$-module, and

  4. $H_1(L_{S/R})_\mathfrak q = 0$ and $\Omega _{S/R, \mathfrak q}$ is a flat $S_\mathfrak q$-module.

Proof. We will use without further mention that formation of the naive cotangent complex commutes with localization, see Section 10.134, especially Lemma 10.134.13. Note that $\Omega _{S/R}$ is a finitely presented $S$-module, see Lemma 10.131.15. Hence (2), (3), and (4) are equivalent by Lemma 10.78.2. It is clear that (1) implies the equivalent conditions (2), (3), and (4). Assume (2) holds. Writing $S_\mathfrak q$ as the colimit of principal localizations we see from Lemma 10.127.6 that we can find a $g \in S$, $g \not\in \mathfrak q$ such that $(\Omega _{S/R})_ g$ is finite free. Choose a presentation $\alpha : R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n] \to S$ with kernel $I$. We may work with $\mathop{N\! L}\nolimits (\alpha )$ instead of $\mathop{N\! L}\nolimits _{S/R}$, see Lemma 10.134.2. The surjection

\[ \Omega _{R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]/R} \otimes _ R S \to \Omega _{S/R} \to 0 \]

has a right inverse after inverting $g$ because $(\Omega _{S/R})_ g$ is projective. Hence the image of $\text{d} : (I/I^2)_ g \to \Omega _{R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]/R} \otimes _ R S_ g$ is a direct summand and this map has a right inverse too. We conclude that $H_1(L_{S/R})_ g$ is a quotient of $(I/I^2)_ g$. In particular $H_1(L_{S/R})_ g$ is a finite $S_ g$-module. Thus the vanishing of $H_1(L_{S/R})_{\mathfrak q}$ implies the vanishing of $H_1(L_{S/R})_{gg'}$ for some $g' \in S$, $g' \not\in \mathfrak q$. Then $R \to S_{gg'}$ is smooth by definition. $\square$


Comments (2)

Comment #8495 by Et on

why does the zariski freeness of the module follow from Lemma 10.127.6? I feel like a more delicate argument is needed here (albeit a standard one)

Comment #8612 by amnon yekutieli on

In the lemma, presumably the whole discussion is about the naive contangent complex NL_{S/R}. But the text goes back and forth between that and the full cot cmplx L_{S/R}.

Granted, these complexes have the same H_1 (or H^1, as later, in \ref{https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/08R6/cite}), but it might be better to clarify.


Post a comment

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 toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

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 input field. As a reminder, this is tag 07BU. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.