The Stacks project

Lemma 10.103.3. Let $R$ be a Noetherian local ring. Let $M$ be a Cohen-Macaulay module over $R$. Suppose $g \in \mathfrak m$ is such that $\dim (\text{Supp}(M) \cap V(g)) = \dim (\text{Supp}(M)) - 1$. Then (a) $g$ is a nonzerodivisor on $M$, and (b) $M/gM$ is Cohen-Macaulay of depth one less.

Proof. Choose a $M$-regular sequence $f_1, \ldots , f_ d$ with $d = \dim (\text{Supp}(M))$. If $g$ is good with respect to $(M, f_1, \ldots , f_ d)$ we win by Lemma 10.103.2. In particular the lemma holds if $d = 1$. (The case $d = 0$ does not occur.) Assume $d > 1$. Choose an element $h \in R$ such that (i) $h$ is good with respect to $(M, f_1, \ldots , f_ d)$, and (ii) $\dim (\text{Supp}(M) \cap V(h, g)) = d - 2$. To see $h$ exists, let $\{ \mathfrak q_ j\} $ be the (finite) set of minimal primes of the closed sets $\text{Supp}(M)$, $\text{Supp}(M)\cap V(f_1, \ldots , f_ i)$, $i = 1, \ldots , d - 1$, and $\text{Supp}(M) \cap V(g)$. None of these $\mathfrak q_ j$ is equal to $\mathfrak m$ and hence we may find $h \in \mathfrak m$, $h \not\in \mathfrak q_ j$ by Lemma 10.15.2. It is clear that $h$ satisfies (i) and (ii). From Lemma 10.103.2 we conclude that $M/hM$ is Cohen-Macaulay. By (ii) we see that the pair $(M/hM, g)$ satisfies the induction hypothesis. Hence $M/(h, g)M$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $g : M/hM \to M/hM$ is injective. By Lemma 10.68.4 we see that $g : M \to M$ and $h : M/gM \to M/gM$ are injective. Combined with the fact that $M/(g, h)M$ is Cohen-Macaulay this finishes the proof. $\square$

Comments (3)

Comment #2957 by Dario Weißmann on

I think there is a shorter proof: By assumption is not contained in any of the minimal primes of the support of . Thus not contained in any of the minimal associated primes, Lemma 10.62.6. By Lemma 10.102.7 there are no embedded associated primes. Applying Lemma 10.62.9 we see that is a nonzerodivisor on . Lemma 10.102.5 finishes the proof.

Of course the results in this chapter would need to be rearranged, but Lemmas 10.102.5 and 10.102.7 only use results from earlier sections anyway.

Comment #2958 by Dario Weißmann on

I think this would also make Lemma 10.102.2 and its notation obsolete.

Comment #3084 by on

Dear Dario, yes this lemma is left over from the attempt I made to write about Cohen-Macaulay modules with very little general theory about depth and regular sequences. The steps are in 10.103.2, 10.103.3, and 10.103.4 using the notion of a good element. I do still think it is somewhat fun that this can be done, so I am going to leave it as is for now.

There are also:

  • 6 comment(s) on Section 10.103: Cohen-Macaulay modules

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 00N5. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.