Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

Lemma 10.123.11. Let R be a ring. Let S = R[x]/I. Let \mathfrak q \subset S be a prime. Assume R \to S is quasi-finite at \mathfrak q. Let S' \subset S be the integral closure of R in S. Then there exists an element g \in S', g \not\in \mathfrak q such that S'_ g \cong S_ g.

Proof. Let \mathfrak p be the image of \mathfrak q in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R). There exists an f \in I, f = a_ nx^ n + \ldots + a_0 such that a_ i \not\in \mathfrak p for some i. Namely, otherwise the fibre ring S \otimes _ R \kappa (\mathfrak p) would be \kappa (\mathfrak p)[x] and the map would not be quasi-finite at any prime lying over \mathfrak p. We conclude there exists a relation b_ m x^ m + \ldots + b_0 = 0 with b_ j \in S', j = 0, \ldots , m and b_ j \not\in \mathfrak q \cap S' for some j. We prove the lemma by induction on m. The base case is m = 0 is vacuous (because the statements b_0 = 0 and b_0 \not\in \mathfrak q are contradictory).

The case b_ m \not\in \mathfrak q. In this case x is integral over S'_{b_ m}, in fact b_ mx \in S' by Lemma 10.123.1. Hence the injective map S'_{b_ m} \to S_{b_ m} is also surjective, i.e., an isomorphism as desired.

The case b_ m \in \mathfrak q. In this case we have b_ mx \in S' by Lemma 10.123.1. Set b'_{m - 1} = b_ mx + b_{m - 1}. Then

b'_{m - 1}x^{m - 1} + b_{m - 2}x^{m - 2} + \ldots + b_0 = 0

Since b'_{m - 1} is congruent to b_{m - 1} modulo S' \cap \mathfrak q we see that it is still the case that one of b'_{m - 1}, b_{m - 2}, \ldots , b_0 is not in S' \cap \mathfrak q. Thus we win by induction on m. \square


Comments (2)

Comment #3632 by Brian Conrad on

The treatment of the "base" of the induction in this argument should be handled more clearly: in the case necessarily because otherwise we have which lies in , so the case is vacuous and hence tautologically true. Of course, from the expository viewpoint that is bad writing and instead what is really being shown after noting that necessarily is that we can eventually put ourselves into the case with a possibly smaller . So the final case in the proof should be done first for clearer exposition.

Comment #3731 by on

Well, I tried to improve it following your suggestions, but I think it is essentially the same as before. Here are the changes.

There are also:

  • 3 comment(s) on Section 10.123: Zariski's Main Theorem

Your email address will not be published.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.