The Stacks project

An element of an algebra over a ring is integral over the ring if and only if it is locally integral at every prime ideal of the ring.

Lemma 10.36.12. Let $\varphi : R \to S$ be a ring map. Let $x \in S$. The following are equivalent:

  1. $x$ is integral over $R$, and

  2. for every prime ideal $\mathfrak p \subset R$ the element $x \in S_{\mathfrak p}$ is integral over $R_{\mathfrak p}$.

Proof. It is clear that (1) implies (2). Assume (2). Consider the $R$-algebra $S' \subset S$ generated by $\varphi (R)$ and $x$. Let $\mathfrak p$ be a prime ideal of $R$. Then we know that $x^ d + \sum _{i = 1, \ldots , d} \varphi (a_ i) x^{d - i} = 0$ in $S_{\mathfrak p}$ for some $a_ i \in R_{\mathfrak p}$. Hence we see, by looking at which denominators occur, that for some $f \in R$, $f \not\in \mathfrak p$ we have $a_ i \in R_ f$ and $x^ d + \sum _{i = 1, \ldots , d} \varphi (a_ i) x^{d - i} = 0$ in $S_ f$. This implies that $S'_ f$ is finite over $R_ f$. Since $\mathfrak p$ was arbitrary and $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R)$ is quasi-compact (Lemma 10.17.10) we can find finitely many elements $f_1, \ldots , f_ n \in R$ which generate the unit ideal of $R$ such that $S'_{f_ i}$ is finite over $R_{f_ i}$. Hence we conclude from Lemma 10.23.2 that $S'$ is finite over $R$. Hence $x$ is integral over $R$ by Lemma 10.36.4. $\square$


Comments (4)

Comment #886 by on

In the statement, instead of it should say prime ideal. In the proof, instead of Assume (1) it should say Assume (2).

Proposed slogan: An element of an algebra over a ring is integral over the ring if and only if it is locally integral at every prime ideal of the ring.

Comment #8446 by on

I think instead of "we have and in " it would be more informative to write "there are such that in ." At least in the calculation I derived I end up with different 's (this doesn't affect the rest of the proof).

Comment #9068 by on

Well, to the extent that is not a subring of I agree that the in the first instance are different from the in the second instance. But if is a domain, say, then may be viewed as a subring of and in that case you can take those to be the same. Anyway, since the sentence is not claiming these are the same, I think I am going to leave this as is until others complain.

There are also:

  • 2 comment(s) on Section 10.36: Finite and integral ring extensions

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Your email address will not be published.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 034K. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.