Lemma 15.117.3. Let $R$ be a UFD. Then $\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits (R)$ is trivial.
Proof. Let $L$ be an invertible $R$-module. By Lemma 15.117.2 we see that $L$ is a finite locally free $R$-module. In particular $L$ is torsion free and finite over $R$. Pick a nonzero element $\varphi \in \mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits _ R(L, R)$ of the dual invertible module. Then $I = \varphi (L) \subset R$ is an ideal which is an invertible module. Pick a nonzero $f \in I$ and let
be the factorization into prime elements with $p_ i$ pairwise distinct. Since $L$ is finite locally free there exist $a_ i \in R$, $a_ i \not\in (p_ i)$ such that $I_{a_ i} = (g_ i)$ for some $g_ i \in R_{a_ i}$. Then $p_ i$ is still a prime element of the UFD $R_{a_ i}$ and we can write $g_ i = p_ i^{c_ i} g'_ i$ for some $g'_ i \in R_{a_ i}$ not divisible by $p_ i$. Since $f \in I_{a_ i}$ we see that $e_ i \geq c_ i$. We claim that $I$ is generated by $h = p_1^{c_1} \ldots p_ r^{c_ r}$ which finishes the proof.
To prove the claim it suffices to show that $I_ a$ is generated by $h$ for any $a \in R$ such that $I_ a$ is a principal ideal (Algebra, Lemma 10.23.2). Say $I_ a = (g)$. Let $J \subset \{ 1, \ldots , r\} $ be the set of $i$ such that $p_ i$ is a nonunit (and hence a prime element) in $R_ a$. Because $f \in I_ a = (g)$ we find the prime factorization $g = v \prod _{i \in J} p_ j^{b_ j}$ with $v$ a unit and $b_ j \leq e_ j$. For each $j \in J$ we have $I_{aa_ j} = g R_{aa_ j} = g_ j R_{aa_ j}$, in other words $g$ and $g_ j$ map to associates in $R_{aa_ j}$. By uniqueness of factorization this implies that $b_ j = c_ j$ and the proof is complete. $\square$
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Your email address will not be published.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).
All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Comments (2)
Comment #3239 by Dario Weißmann on
Comment #3338 by Johan on