The Stacks project

Lemma 10.121.6. Let

\[ \xymatrix{ S \ar[r] & S' & & \mathfrak q \ar@{-}[r] & \mathfrak q' \\ R \ar[u] \ar[r] & R' \ar[u] & & \mathfrak p \ar@{-}[r] \ar@{-}[u] & \mathfrak p' \ar@{-}[u] } \]

be a commutative diagram of rings with primes as indicated. Assume $R \to S$ of finite type, and $S \otimes _ R R' \to S'$ surjective. If $R \to S$ is quasi-finite at $\mathfrak q$, then $R' \to S'$ is quasi-finite at $\mathfrak q'$.

Proof. Write $S \otimes _ R \kappa (\mathfrak p) = S_1 \times S_2$ with $S_1$ finite over $\kappa (\mathfrak p)$ and such that $\mathfrak q$ corresponds to a point of $S_1$ as in Lemma 10.121.1. This product decomposition induces a corresponding product decomposition for any $S \otimes _ R \kappa (\mathfrak p)$-algebra. In particular, we obtain $S' \otimes _{R'} \kappa (\mathfrak p') = S'_1 \times S'_2$. Because $S \otimes _ R R' \to S'$ is surjective the canonical map $(S \otimes _ R \kappa (\mathfrak p)) \otimes _{\kappa (\mathfrak p)} \kappa (\mathfrak p') \to S' \otimes _{R'} \kappa (\mathfrak p')$ is surjective and hence $S_ i \otimes _{\kappa (\mathfrak p)} \kappa (\mathfrak p') \to S'_ i$ is surjective. It follows that $S'_1$ is finite over $\kappa (\mathfrak p')$. The map $S' \otimes _{R'} \kappa (\mathfrak p') \to \kappa (\mathfrak q')$ factors through $S_1'$ (i.e. it annihilates the factor $S_2'$) because the map $S \otimes _ R \kappa (\mathfrak p) \to \kappa (\mathfrak q)$ factors through $S_1$ (i.e. it annihilates the factor $S_2$). Thus $\mathfrak q'$ corresponds to a point of $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(S_1')$ in the disjoint union decomposition of the fibre: $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(S' \otimes _{R'} \kappa (\mathfrak p')) = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(S_1') \amalg \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(S_2')$, see Lemma 10.20.2. Since $S_1'$ is finite over a field, it is Artinian ring, and hence $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(S_1')$ is a finite discrete set. (See Proposition 10.59.6.) We conclude $\mathfrak q'$ is isolated in its fibre as desired. $\square$


Comments (3)

Comment #3960 by Manuel Hoff on

Typo: In the disjoint union decomposition in the proof, it says two times .

Comment #3964 by Manuel Hoff on

One more thing, that confuses me about the proof: The aren't subrings of ,  so it doesn't really make sense for me to consider their images in (however, they can be considered as sub-vectorspaces of, which loses their structure of being rings).

The main point of the argument is (or so I think) that the decomposition induces a decomposition with ring maps that fit into a commutative diagram.

Comment #4098 by on

OK, if is a product of rings over a field k, then is a non-unital-sub-k-algebra of . Thinking of it that way, I think the original proof works fine. But the way you say it is clearer, so I've made the changes you suggested. I've left the "induced decomposition" to the reader to figure out... we could add this earlier in the chapter. See this commit.


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