Lemma 10.122.2. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $\varphi : R[x] \to S$ be a ring map. Let $t \in S$. Assume that (a) $t$ is integral over $R[x]$, and (b) there exists a monic $p \in R[x]$ such that $t \varphi (p) \in \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\varphi )$. Then there exists a $q \in R[x]$ such that $t - \varphi (q)$ is integral over $R$.

**Proof.**
Write $t \varphi (p) = \varphi (r)$ for some $r \in R[x]$. Using euclidean division, write $r = qp + r'$ with $q, r' \in R[x]$ and $\deg (r') < \deg (p)$. We may replace $t$ by $t - \varphi (q)$ which is still integral over $R[x]$, so that we obtain $t \varphi (p) = \varphi (r')$. In the ring $S_ t$ we may write this as $\varphi (p) - (1/t) \varphi (r') = 0$. This implies that $\varphi (x)$ gives an element of the localization $S_ t$ which is integral over $\varphi (R)[1/t] \subset S_ t$. On the other hand, $t$ is integral over the subring $\varphi (R)[\varphi (x)] \subset S$. Combined we conclude that $t$ is integral over the subring $\varphi (R)[1/t] \subset S_ t$, see Lemma 10.35.6. In other words there exists an equation of the form $t^ d + \sum _{i < d} (\varphi (r_ i)/t^{n_ i}) t^ i = 0$ in $S_ t$ with $r_ i \in R$. This means that $t^{d + N} + \sum _{i < d} \varphi (r_ i) t^{i + N - n_ i} = 0$ in $S$ for some $N$ large enough. In other words $t$ is integral over $R$.
$\square$

## 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Your email address will not be published.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.

## Comments (2)

Comment #3630 by Brian Conrad on

Comment #3646 by Pieter Belmans on

There are also: