The Stacks project

Lemma 10.161.8. Let $R$ be a Noetherian normal domain with fraction field $K$. Let $L/K$ be a finite separable field extension. Then the integral closure of $R$ in $L$ is finite over $R$.

Proof. Consider the trace pairing (Fields, Definition 9.20.6)

\[ L \times L \longrightarrow K, \quad (x, y) \longmapsto \langle x, y\rangle := \text{Trace}_{L/K}(xy). \]

Since $L/K$ is separable this is nondegenerate (Fields, Lemma 9.20.7). Moreover, if $x \in L$ is integral over $R$, then $\text{Trace}_{L/K}(x)$ is in $R$. This is true because the minimal polynomial of $x$ over $K$ has coefficients in $R$ (Lemma 10.38.6) and because $\text{Trace}_{L/K}(x)$ is an integer multiple of one of these coefficients (Fields, Lemma 9.20.3). Pick $x_1, \ldots , x_ n \in L$ which are integral over $R$ and which form a $K$-basis of $L$. Then the integral closure $S \subset L$ is contained in the $R$-module

\[ M = \{ y \in L \mid \langle x_ i, y\rangle \in R, \ i = 1, \ldots , n\} \]

By linear algebra we see that $M \cong R^{\oplus n}$ as an $R$-module. Hence $S \subset R^{\oplus n}$ is a finitely generated $R$-module as $R$ is Noetherian. $\square$

Comments (6)

Comment #5007 by Laurent Moret-Bailly on

If is not noetherian, the integral closure is still contained in a finite -submodule of . This can be useful, and moreover it is the key point in the proof, so it could be worth stating.

Comment #5246 by on

@#5007: OK, I am going to leave it for now. Maybe this is a lack of imagination but I can't think of a way in which this could be useful (and if it becomes useful for somebody, they would almost immediately figure it out if they look at this lemma... and your comment). Thanks for the comment!

Comment #5253 by Laurent Moret-Bailly on

You are welcome. My view on this is that (regardless of the existence of applications) you get a better statement if you stick to what is actually proved, especially if you can save an assumption.

Comment #7426 by Jianing Li on

The proof seems also work when R is not normal.

Comment #7439 by Zhiyu Z on

@7426 If the proposition is true for a domain , then take we see the integral closure of is finite over , i.e. the normalization map for R is finite. However, the normalization map for R is not always a finite morphism: this property is called N-1 in Definition 10.161.1. See Remark 28.13.2 for an one dimensional Noetherian domain counterexample.

Comment #7445 by Jianing Li on

@7439 Thanks for pointing out this. I now realize my mistake. The normality is necessary for the assertion that, if is integral over , then .

There are also:

  • 7 comment(s) on Section 10.161: Japanese rings

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 032L. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.