The Stacks project

10.25 Zerodivisors and total rings of fractions

The local ring at a minimal prime has the following properties.

Lemma 10.25.1. Let $\mathfrak p$ be a minimal prime of a ring $R$. Every element of the maximal ideal of $R_{\mathfrak p}$ is nilpotent. If $R$ is reduced then $R_{\mathfrak p}$ is a field.

Proof. If some element $x$ of ${\mathfrak p}R_{\mathfrak p}$ is not nilpotent, then $D(x) \not= \emptyset $, see Lemma 10.17.2. This contradicts the minimality of $\mathfrak p$. If $R$ is reduced, then ${\mathfrak p}R_{\mathfrak p} = 0$ and hence it is a field. $\square$

Lemma 10.25.2. Let $R$ be a reduced ring. Then

  1. $R$ is a subring of a product of fields,

  2. $R \to \prod _{\mathfrak p\text{ minimal}} R_{\mathfrak p}$ is an embedding into a product of fields,

  3. $\bigcup _{\mathfrak p\text{ minimal}} \mathfrak p$ is the set of zerodivisors of $R$.

Proof. By Lemma 10.25.1 each of the rings $R_\mathfrak p$ is a field. In particular, the kernel of the ring map $R \to R_\mathfrak p$ is $\mathfrak p$. By Lemma 10.17.2 we have $\bigcap _{\mathfrak p} \mathfrak p = (0)$. Hence (2) and (1) are true. If $x y = 0$ and $y \not= 0$, then $y \not\in \mathfrak p$ for some minimal prime $\mathfrak p$. Hence $x \in \mathfrak p$. Thus every zerodivisor of $R$ is contained in $\bigcup _{\mathfrak p\text{ minimal}} \mathfrak p$. Conversely, suppose that $x \in \mathfrak p$ for some minimal prime $\mathfrak p$. Then $x$ maps to zero in $R_\mathfrak p$, hence there exists $y \in R$, $y \not\in \mathfrak p$ such that $xy = 0$. In other words, $x$ is a zerodivisor. This finishes the proof of (3) and the lemma. $\square$

The total ring of fractions $Q(R)$ of a ring $R$ was introduced in Example 10.9.8.

Lemma 10.25.3. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $S \subset R$ be a multiplicative subset consisting of nonzerodivisors. Then $Q(R) \cong Q(S^{-1}R)$. In particular $Q(R) \cong Q(Q(R))$.

Proof. If $x \in S^{-1}R$ is a nonzerodivisor, and $x = r/f$ for some $r \in R$, $f \in S$, then $r$ is a nonzerodivisor in $R$. Whence the lemma. $\square$

We can apply glueing results to prove something about total rings of fractions $Q(R)$ which we introduced in Example 10.9.8.

Lemma 10.25.4. Let $R$ be a ring. Assume that $R$ has finitely many minimal primes $\mathfrak q_1, \ldots , \mathfrak q_ t$, and that $\mathfrak q_1 \cup \ldots \cup \mathfrak q_ t$ is the set of zerodivisors of $R$. Then the total ring of fractions $Q(R)$ is equal to $R_{\mathfrak q_1} \times \ldots \times R_{\mathfrak q_ t}$.

Proof. There are natural maps $Q(R) \to R_{\mathfrak q_ i}$ since any nonzerodivisor is contained in $R \setminus \mathfrak q_ i$. Hence a natural map $Q(R) \to R_{\mathfrak q_1} \times \ldots \times R_{\mathfrak q_ t}$. For any nonminimal prime $\mathfrak p \subset R$ we see that $\mathfrak p \not\subset \mathfrak q_1 \cup \ldots \cup \mathfrak q_ t$ by Lemma 10.15.2. Hence $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(Q(R)) = \{ \mathfrak q_1, \ldots , \mathfrak q_ t\} $ (as subsets of $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R)$, see Lemma 10.17.5). Therefore $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(Q(R))$ is a finite discrete set and it follows that $Q(R) = A_1 \times \ldots \times A_ t$ with $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A_ i) = \{ q_ i\} $, see Lemma 10.24.3. Moreover $A_ i$ is a local ring, which is a localization of $R$. Hence $A_ i \cong R_{\mathfrak q_ i}$. $\square$

Comments (4)

Comment #6046 by Shurui Liu on

Lemma 00EW (3) doesn't need R to be reduced and hence lemma 02LX needn't require to be the set of zerodivisors of R (since it is automatically true).

Comment #6047 by on

@#6046. No. I suggest trying to make a counterexample.

Comment #8084 by on

I find your Lemma 02LX fishy. Suppose R = k[x,y]/(x*y). The zero divisors of R are the two minimal prime ideals (x) and (y). The multiplicative set S consists of anything not in (x) or (y) -- so anything with a constant term, or anything like x^n + y^m. The total ring of fractions is certainly a subring of the Cartesian product of two fields k(x) x k(y). I believe that it consists of pairs f(x), g(y) such that both are regular functions at x=0 and y=0, and take the same value f(0)=g(0). In particular the elements (1,0) and (0,1) of the Cartesian product are not in S^-1R.

Matsumura's 2 books and the Wikipedia page on total ring of fractions just say the obvious definition without discussing what it means or any serious examples. In your treatment, I think Q(R) should be a subring of the Cartesian product

A slightly more complicated example would be k[x,y]/(x^n,y^m), where the total ring of fractions is a subring of k(x)[y]/y^m x k(y)[x]/x^n with the first and second factors equal modulo smaller powers of x,y. Tricky to state correctly, although the idea is clear.

I'm trying to read Mumford, Curves on a surface, Lecture 9: Cartier divisors.

Best, Miles

Comment #8090 by on

Dear Miles, what about ? This corresponds to the function which is when and when , so it corresponds to in . OK?

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 02LV. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.