The Stacks project

\begin{equation*} \DeclareMathOperator\Coim{Coim} \DeclareMathOperator\Coker{Coker} \DeclareMathOperator\Ext{Ext} \DeclareMathOperator\Hom{Hom} \DeclareMathOperator\Im{Im} \DeclareMathOperator\Ker{Ker} \DeclareMathOperator\Mor{Mor} \DeclareMathOperator\Ob{Ob} \DeclareMathOperator\Sh{Sh} \DeclareMathOperator\SheafExt{\mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}} \DeclareMathOperator\SheafHom{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}} \DeclareMathOperator\Spec{Spec} \newcommand\colim{\mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits} \newcommand\lim{\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits} \newcommand\Qcoh{\mathit{Qcoh}} \newcommand\Sch{\mathit{Sch}} \newcommand\QCohstack{\mathcal{QC}\!\mathit{oh}} \newcommand\Cohstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{oh}} \newcommand\Spacesstack{\mathcal{S}\!\mathit{paces}} \newcommand\Quotfunctor{\mathrm{Quot}} \newcommand\Hilbfunctor{\mathrm{Hilb}} \newcommand\Curvesstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{urves}} \newcommand\Polarizedstack{\mathcal{P}\!\mathit{olarized}} \newcommand\Complexesstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{omplexes}} \newcommand\Pic{\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits} \newcommand\Picardstack{\mathcal{P}\!\mathit{ic}} \newcommand\Picardfunctor{\mathrm{Pic}} \newcommand\Deformationcategory{\mathcal{D}\!\mathit{ef}} \end{equation*}

Lemma 10.119.17. Let $R$ be a ring. The following are equivalent

  1. $R$ is a Dedekind domain,

  2. $R$ is a Noetherian domain, and for every maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$ the local ring $R_{\mathfrak m}$ is a discrete valuation ring, and

  3. $R$ is a Noetherian, normal domain, and $\dim (R) \leq 1$.

Proof. Assume (1). The argument is nontrivial because we did not assume that $R$ was Noetherian in our definition of a Dedekind domain. Let $\mathfrak p \subset R$ be a prime ideal. Observe that $\mathfrak p \not= \mathfrak p^2$ by uniqueness of the factorizations in the definition. Pick $x \in \mathfrak p$ with $x \not\in \mathfrak p^2$. Let $y \in \mathfrak p$ be a second element (for example $y = 0$). Write $(x, y) = \mathfrak p_1 \ldots \mathfrak p_ r$. Since $(x, y) \subset \mathfrak p$ at least one of the primes $\mathfrak p_ i$ is contained in $\mathfrak p$. But as $x \not\in \mathfrak p^2$ there is at most one. Thus exactly one of $\mathfrak p_1, \ldots , \mathfrak p_ r$ is contained in $\mathfrak p$, say $\mathfrak p_1 \subset \mathfrak p$. We conclude that $(x, y)R_\mathfrak p = \mathfrak p_1R_\mathfrak p$ is prime for every choice of $y$. We claim that $(x)R_\mathfrak p = \mathfrak pR_\mathfrak p$. Namely, pick $y \in \mathfrak p$. By the above applied with $y^2$ we see that $(x, y^2)R_\mathfrak p$ is prime. Hence $y \in (x, y^2)R_\mathfrak p$, i.e., $y = ax + by^2$ in $R_\mathfrak p$. Thus $(1 - by)y = ax \in (x)R_\mathfrak p$, i.e., $y \in (x)R_\mathfrak p$ as desired.

Writing $(x) = \mathfrak p_1 \ldots \mathfrak p_ r$ anew with $\mathfrak p_1 \subset \mathfrak p$ we conclude that $\mathfrak p_1 R_\mathfrak p = \mathfrak p R_\mathfrak p$, i.e., $\mathfrak p_1 = \mathfrak p$. Moreover, $\mathfrak p_1 = \mathfrak p$ is a finitely generated ideal of $R$ by Lemma 10.119.16. We conclude that $R$ is Noetherian by Lemma 10.27.9. Moreover, it follows that $R_\mathfrak m$ is a discrete valuation ring for every prime ideal $\mathfrak p$, see Lemma 10.118.7.

The equivalence of (2) and (3) follows from Lemmas 10.36.10 and 10.118.7. Assume (2) and (3) are satisfied. Let $I \subset R$ be an ideal. We will construct a factorization of $I$. If $I$ is prime, then there is nothing to prove. If not, pick $I \subset \mathfrak p$ with $\mathfrak p \subset R$ maximal. Let $J = \{ x \in R \mid x \mathfrak p \subset I\} $. We claim $J \mathfrak p = I$. It suffices to check this after localization at the maximal ideals $\mathfrak m$ of $R$ (the formation of $J$ commutes with localization and we use Lemma 10.22.1). Then either $\mathfrak p R_\mathfrak m = R_\mathfrak m$ and the result is clear, or $\mathfrak p R_\mathfrak m = \mathfrak m R_\mathfrak m$. In the last case $\mathfrak p R_\mathfrak m = (\pi )$ and the case where $\mathfrak p$ is principal is immediate. By Noetherian induction the ideal $J$ has a factorization and we obtain the desired factorization of $I$. We omit the proof of uniqueness of the factorization. $\square$


Comments (0)

There are also:

  • 7 comment(s) on Section 10.119: Factorization

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 034X. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.