The Stacks project

Lemma 10.50.4. Let $A$ be a valuation ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$ and fraction field $K$. Let $x \in K$. Then either $x \in A$ or $x^{-1} \in A$ or both.

Proof. Assume that $x$ is not in $A$. Let $A'$ denote the subring of $K$ generated by $A$ and $x$. Since $A$ is a valuation ring we see that there is no prime of $A'$ lying over $\mathfrak m$. Since $\mathfrak m$ is maximal we see that $V(\mathfrak m A') = \emptyset $. Then $\mathfrak m A' = A'$ by Lemma 10.17.2. Hence we can write $1 = \sum _{i = 0}^ d t_ i x^ i$ with $t_ i \in \mathfrak m$. This implies that $(1 - t_0) (x^{-1})^ d - \sum t_ i (x^{-1})^{d - i} = 0$. In particular we see that $x^{-1}$ is integral over $A$, and hence $x^{-1} \in A$ by Lemma 10.50.3. $\square$

Comments (7)

Comment #42 by Rankeya on

Let be a subring of should be let be a subring of .

Comment #2365 by Dominic Wynter on

Is it accurate to assume that in the expression , for all , or do we just know that ? I have only succeeded in proving that second statement (and in fact that second statement is all that is necessary).

Comment #2428 by on

Thanks for your question. I have clarified the argument. See here.

Comment #7895 by Mingchen on

This is not a big deal, but strictly speaking, one should say for any non-zero , blabla as you talk about . The same issue persists in the next lemma.

Comment #8159 by on

OK, I am going to leave this alone, but I would like to defend it. First of all, it is not an issue in the proof. But even in the statement, I think it is OK. Namely the statement says that either or or both. So the question is whether in the English language the following makes sense: either the sky is blue or I will eat a blue whale or both. I think this does make sense even though I couldn't possibly eat a blue whale! I mean you just stop reading the sentence after the first occurence of blue, right?

Comment #8162 by Laurent Moret-Bailly on

Johan, actually the analogy is disputable: "I will eat a blue whale" is a false sentence, but arguably makes sense. On the other hand, "" does not make sense, strictly speaking, without the provision that .

There are also:

  • 4 comment(s) on Section 10.50: Valuation rings

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Your email address will not be published.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 00IB. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.



View Lemma 10.50.4 as pdf