The Stacks project

Lemma 10.99.15 (Critère de platitude par fibres; Noetherian case). Let $R$, $S$, $S'$ be Noetherian local rings and let $R \to S \to S'$ be local ring homomorphisms. Let $\mathfrak m \subset R$ be the maximal ideal. Let $M$ be an $S'$-module. Assume

  1. The module $M$ is finite over $S'$.

  2. The module $M$ is not zero.

  3. The module $M/\mathfrak m M$ is a flat $S/\mathfrak m S$-module.

  4. The module $M$ is a flat $R$-module.

Then $S$ is flat over $R$ and $M$ is a flat $S$-module.

Proof. Set $I = \mathfrak mS \subset S$. Then we see that $M/IM$ is a flat $S/I$-module because of (3). Since $\mathfrak m \otimes _ R S' \to I \otimes _ S S'$ is surjective we see that also $\mathfrak m \otimes _ R M \to I \otimes _ S M$ is surjective. Consider

\[ \mathfrak m \otimes _ R M \to I \otimes _ S M \to M. \]

As $M$ is flat over $R$ the composition is injective and so both arrows are injective. In particular $\text{Tor}_1^ S(S/I, M) = 0$ see Remark 10.75.9. By Lemma 10.99.10 we conclude that $M$ is flat over $S$. Note that since $M/\mathfrak m_{S'}M$ is not zero by Nakayama's Lemma 10.20.1 we see that actually $M$ is faithfully flat over $S$ by Lemma 10.39.15 (since it forces $M/\mathfrak m_ SM \not= 0$).

Consider the exact sequence $0 \to \mathfrak m \to R \to \kappa \to 0$. This gives an exact sequence $0 \to \text{Tor}_1^ R(\kappa , S) \to \mathfrak m \otimes _ R S \to I \to 0$. Since $M$ is flat over $S$ this gives an exact sequence $0 \to \text{Tor}_1^ R(\kappa , S)\otimes _ S M \to \mathfrak m \otimes _ R M \to I \otimes _ S M \to 0$. By the above this implies that $\text{Tor}_1^ R(\kappa , S)\otimes _ S M = 0$. Since $M$ is faithfully flat over $S$ this implies that $\text{Tor}_1^ R(\kappa , S) = 0$ and we conclude that $S$ is flat over $R$ by Lemma 10.99.7. $\square$

Comments (2)

Comment #475 by Bas Edixhoven on

The reference to Lemma 10.93.9 is not appropriate because that lemma assumes that M is a finite S-module.

A similar problem occurs at the end of the proof. There one concludes that S is flat over R but the argument uses that S is finite over R.

Comment #488 by on

Actually, it is appropriate because is finite over . In other words, you apply Lemma 10.99.10 to the ring map and the module viewed as a finite module over . This makes sense because here is an ideal of and is a finite module over the bigger ring .

Similarly, the application of 10.99.7 is OK too I think. Namely, here we apply that lemma with and with module (what I mean is that the module called in Lemma 10.99.7 should be taken to be in the current situation). This is OK because we just showed that .


Anyway, it is very confusing. But I am not sure how to write the proof in such a way that it is less confusing. Do you have a suggestion?

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 00MP. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.