The Stacks project

10.104 Cohen-Macaulay rings

Most of the results of this section are special cases of the results in Section 10.103.

Definition 10.104.1. A Noetherian local ring $R$ is called Cohen-Macaulay if it is Cohen-Macaulay as a module over itself.

Note that this is equivalent to requiring the existence of a $R$-regular sequence $x_1, \ldots , x_ d$ of the maximal ideal such that $R/(x_1, \ldots , x_ d)$ has dimension $0$. We will usually just say “regular sequence” and not “$R$-regular sequence”.


Lemma 10.104.2. Let $R$ be a Noetherian local Cohen-Macaulay ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak m $. Let $x_1, \ldots , x_ c \in \mathfrak m$ be elements. Then

\[ x_1, \ldots , x_ c \text{ is a regular sequence } \Leftrightarrow \dim (R/(x_1, \ldots , x_ c)) = \dim (R) - c \]

If so $x_1, \ldots , x_ c$ can be extended to a regular sequence of length $\dim (R)$ and each quotient $R/(x_1, \ldots , x_ i)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring of dimension $\dim (R) - i$.

Proof. Special case of Proposition 10.103.4. $\square$

Lemma 10.104.3. Let $R$ be Noetherian local. Suppose $R$ is Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $d$. Any maximal chain of ideals $\mathfrak p_0 \subset \mathfrak p_1 \subset \ldots \subset \mathfrak p_ n$ has length $n = d$.

Proof. Special case of Lemma 10.103.9. $\square$

Lemma 10.104.4. Suppose $R$ is a Noetherian local Cohen-Macaulay ring of dimension $d$. For any prime $\mathfrak p \subset R$ we have

\[ \dim (R) = \dim (R_{\mathfrak p}) + \dim (R/\mathfrak p). \]

Proof. Follows immediately from Lemma 10.104.3. (Also, this is a special case of Lemma 10.103.10.) $\square$

Lemma 10.104.5. Suppose $R$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring. For any prime $\mathfrak p \subset R$ the ring $R_{\mathfrak p}$ is Cohen-Macaulay as well.

Proof. Special case of Lemma 10.103.11. $\square$

Definition 10.104.6. A Noetherian ring $R$ is called Cohen-Macaulay if all its local rings are Cohen-Macaulay.

Lemma 10.104.7. Suppose $R$ is a Noetherian Cohen-Macaulay ring. Any polynomial algebra over $R$ is Cohen-Macaulay.

Proof. Special case of Lemma 10.103.13. $\square$

Lemma 10.104.8. Let $R$ be a Noetherian local Cohen-Macaulay ring of dimension $d$. Let $0 \to K \to R^{\oplus n} \to M \to 0$ be an exact sequence of $R$-modules. Then either $M = 0$, or $\text{depth}(K) > \text{depth}(M)$, or $\text{depth}(K) = \text{depth}(M) = d$.

Proof. This is a special case of Lemma 10.72.6. $\square$

Lemma 10.104.9. Let $R$ be a local Noetherian Cohen-Macaulay ring of dimension $d$. Let $M$ be a finite $R$ module of depth $e$. There exists an exact complex

\[ 0 \to K \to F_{d-e-1} \to \ldots \to F_0 \to M \to 0 \]

with each $F_ i$ finite free and $K$ maximal Cohen-Macaulay.

Proof. Immediate from the definition and Lemma 10.104.8. $\square$

Lemma 10.104.10. Let $\varphi : A \to B$ be a map of local rings. Assume that $B$ is Noetherian and Cohen-Macaulay and that $\mathfrak m_ B = \sqrt{\varphi (\mathfrak m_ A) B}$. Then there exists a sequence of elements $f_1, \ldots , f_{\dim (B)}$ in $A$ such that $\varphi (f_1), \ldots , \varphi (f_{\dim (B)})$ is a regular sequence in $B$.

Proof. By induction on $\dim (B)$ it suffices to prove: If $\dim (B) \geq 1$, then we can find an element $f$ of $A$ which maps to a nonzerodivisor in $B$. By Lemma 10.104.2 it suffices to find $f \in A$ whose image in $B$ is not contained in any of the finitely many minimal primes $\mathfrak q_1, \ldots , \mathfrak q_ r$ of $B$. By the assumption that $\mathfrak m_ B = \sqrt{\varphi (\mathfrak m_ A) B}$ we see that $\mathfrak m_ A \not\subset \varphi ^{-1}(\mathfrak q_ i)$. Hence we can find $f$ by Lemma 10.15.2. $\square$

Comments (7)

Comment #244 by Olaf Schnuerer on

In Lemma 9.101.8 M (or K) might be the zero module. Then , and if My suggestion:

If , then If , then

Comment #246 by on

BY Definition 10.72.1 depth as the supremum of the lengths of regular sequences. By Definition 10.68.1 there are no regular sequences for a zero module (not even one of length zero). So the supremum is and not . Right?

However, I do agree the statement of the lemma is misleading if either or is zero. Perhaps the best solution is to explicitly make a list of cases in the statement.

Comment #247 by Olaf Schnuerer on

You are right, I thought depth of M was defined as infimum of i's such that Ext^i(k,M) is nonzero.

Comment #2217 by David Savitt on

BTW, what happened to the statement of [00NE]? From the above comments it sounds like it used to say that depth(K) = depth(M) + 1 in the first alternative [ rather than just depth(K) > depth(M) ], and I think that was used in [00NG] to see that the complex has length exactly d-e rather than at most d-e. Maybe one doesn't care, though, since the one tag referencing this result doesn't use that.

Comment #2224 by on

@#2217: No, Lemma 10.104.8 never used to say . You can check by looking at the history of the lemma here: history. It would be easy to add this...

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 00N7. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.