The Stacks project

Lemma 10.159.1. Let $(R, \mathfrak m, k)$ be a local ring. Let $K/k$ be a field extension. There exists a local ring $(R', \mathfrak m', k')$, a flat local ring map $R \to R'$ such that $\mathfrak m' = \mathfrak mR'$ and such that $k'$ is isomorphic to $K$ as an extension of $k$.

Proof. Suppose that $k' = k(\alpha )$ is a monogenic extension of $k$. Then $k'$ is the residue field of a flat local extension $R \subset R'$ as in the lemma. Namely, if $\alpha $ is transcendental over $k$, then we let $R'$ be the localization of $R[x]$ at the prime $\mathfrak mR[x]$. If $\alpha $ is algebraic with minimal polynomial $T^ d + \sum \overline{\lambda }_ iT^{d - i}$, then we let $R' = R[T]/(T^ d + \sum \lambda _ i T^{d - i})$.

Consider the collection of triples $(k', R \to R', \phi )$, where $k \subset k' \subset K$ is a subfield, $R \to R'$ is a local ring map as in the lemma, and $\phi : R' \to k'$ induces an isomorphism $R'/\mathfrak mR' \cong k'$ of $k$-extensions. These form a “big” category $\mathcal{C}$ with morphisms $(k_1, R_1, \phi _1) \to (k_2, R_2, \phi _2)$ given by ring maps $\psi : R_1 \to R_2$ such that

\[ \xymatrix{ R_1 \ar[d]_\psi \ar[r]_{\phi _1} & k_1 \ar[r] & K \ar@{=}[d] \\ R_2 \ar[r]^{\phi _2} & k_2 \ar[r] & K } \]

commutes. This implies that $k_1 \subset k_2$.

Suppose that $I$ is a directed set, and $((R_ i, k_ i, \phi _ i), \psi _{ii'})$ is a system over $I$, see Categories, Section 4.21. In this case we can consider

\[ R' = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{i \in I} R_ i \]

This is a local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak mR'$, and residue field $k' = \bigcup _{i \in I} k_ i$. Moreover, the ring map $R \to R'$ is flat as it is a colimit of flat maps (and tensor products commute with directed colimits). Hence we see that $(R', k', \phi ')$ is an “upper bound” for the system.

An almost trivial application of Zorn's Lemma would finish the proof if $\mathcal{C}$ was a set, but it isn't. (Actually, you can make this work by finding a reasonable bound on the cardinals of the local rings occurring.) To get around this problem we choose a well ordering on $K$. For $x \in K$ we let $K(x)$ be the subfield of $K$ generated by all elements of $K$ which are $\leq x$. By transfinite recursion on $x \in K$ we will produce ring maps $R \subset R(x)$ as in the lemma with residue field extension $K(x)/k$. Moreover, by construction we will have that $R(x)$ will contain $R(y)$ for all $y \leq x$. Namely, if $x$ has a predecessor $x'$, then $K(x) = K(x')[x]$ and hence we can let $R(x') \subset R(x)$ be the local ring extension constructed in the first paragraph of the proof. If $x$ does not have a predecessor, then we first set $R'(x) = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits _{x' < x} R(x')$ as in the third paragraph of the proof. The residue field of $R'(x)$ is $K'(x) = \bigcup _{x' < x} K(x')$. Since $K(x) = K'(x)[x]$ we see that we can use the construction of the first paragraph of the proof to produce $R'(x) \subset R(x)$. This finishes the proof of the lemma. $\square$

Comments (8)

Comment #6048 by Mark on

In the statement of the lemma: what does it mean for a field extension to be isomorphic to another field extension ?

Comment #6050 by on

What is meant is that there is an isomorphism of fields which induces the indentity on . More precisely, if and are the inclusion maps, then . I will improve the text the next time I go through all the comments.

Comment #6185 by on

OK, I only changed the language slightly. See this commit. The category of field extensions of a given field is discussed in Fields, Section 9.6 and most everybody would be familiar with this if they are interested in this particular lemma.

Comment #6714 by Yining Lin on

Why the ring construct in the algebraic extension case is flat over R?

Comment #6715 by Yining Lin on

The ring is a global complete intersection over , right?

Comment #6913 by on

@#6714 and #6715. Going to leave as is.

Comment #7831 by Juhani on

Could add the following remark after this lemma 03C3: if A is Noetherian then can assume B to be both Noetherian and complete, and if A is DVR then B can be assumed to be a (complete) DVR [EGA I 2nd ed., (.6.8.3)]. The proof is a quick lemma ((, loc.cit.). (This applies in the proof of Lemma 0328.)

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 03C3. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.