Lemma 10.36.17. Suppose that R \to S is an integral ring extension with R \subset S. Then \varphi : \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(S) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) is surjective.
Proof. Let \mathfrak p \subset R be a prime ideal. We have to show \mathfrak pS_{\mathfrak p} \not= S_{\mathfrak p}, see Lemma 10.18.6. The localization R_{\mathfrak p} \to S_{\mathfrak p} is injective (as localization is exact) and integral by Lemma 10.36.11 or 10.36.13. Hence we may replace R, S by R_{\mathfrak p}, S_{\mathfrak p} and we may assume R is local with maximal ideal \mathfrak m and it suffices to show that \mathfrak mS \not= S. Suppose 1 = \sum f_ i s_ i with f_ i \in \mathfrak m and s_ i \in S in order to get a contradiction. Let R \subset S' \subset S be such that R \to S' is finite and s_ i \in S', see Lemma 10.36.4. The equation 1 = \sum f_ i s_ i implies that the finite R-module S' satisfies S' = \mathfrak m S'. Hence by Nakayama's Lemma 10.20.1 we see S' = 0. Contradiction. \square
Comments (0)
There are also: