Proof.
Note that the lemma is equivalent to the statement that the open U(R \to S, M), see Equation (10.118.3.2), is dense in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R). We first prove the lemma for S = R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n], and then we deduce the result in general.
Proof of the case S = R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n] and M any finite module over S. Note that in this case S_ f = R_ f[x_1, \ldots , x_ n] is free and of finite presentation over R_ f, so we do not have to worry about the conditions regarding S, only those that concern M. We will use induction on n.
There exists a finite filtration
0 \subset M_1 \subset M_2 \subset \ldots \subset M_ t = M
such that M_ i/M_{i - 1} \cong S/J_ i for some ideal J_ i \subset S, see Lemma 10.5.4. Since a finite intersection of dense opens is dense open, we see from Lemma 10.118.4 that it suffices to prove the lemma for each of the modules R/J_ i. Hence we may assume that M = S/J for some ideal J of S = R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n].
Let I \subset R be the ideal generated by the coefficients of elements of J. Let U_1 = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) \setminus V(I) and let
U_2 = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) \setminus \overline{U_1}.
Then it is clear that U = U_1 \cup U_2 is dense in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R). Let f \in R be an element such that either (a) D(f) \subset U_1 or (b) D(f) \subset U_2. If for any such f the lemma holds for the pair (R_ f \to R_ f[x_1, \ldots , x_ n], M_ f) then by Lemma 10.118.6 we see that U(R \to S, M) is dense in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R). Hence we may assume either (a) I = R, or (b) V(I) = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R).
In case (b) we actually have I = 0 as R is reduced! Hence J = 0 and M = S and the lemma holds in this case.
In case (a) we have to do a little bit more work. Note that every element of I is actually the coefficient of a monomial of an element of J, because the set of coefficients of elements of J forms an ideal (details omitted). Hence we find an element
g = \sum \nolimits _{K \in E} a_ K x^ K \in J
where E is a finite set of multi-indices K = (k_1, \ldots , k_ n) with at least one coefficient a_{K_0} a unit in R. Actually we can find one which has a coefficient equal to 1 as 1 \in I in case (a). Let m = \# \{ K \in E \mid a_ K \text{ is not a unit}\} . Note that 0 \leq m \leq \# E - 1. We will argue by induction on m.
The case m = 0. In this case all the coefficients a_ K, K \in E of g are units and E \not= \emptyset . If E = \{ K_0\} is a singleton and K_0 = (0, \ldots , 0), then g is a unit and J = S so the result holds for sure. (This happens in particular when n = 0 and it provides the base case of the induction on n.) If not E = \{ (0, \ldots , 0)\} , then at least one K is not equal to (0, \ldots , 0), i.e., g \not\in R. At this point we employ the usual trick of Noether normalization. Namely, we consider
G(y_1, \ldots , y_ n) = g(y_1 + y_ n^{e_1}, y_2 + y_ n^{e_2}, \ldots , y_{n - 1} + y_ n^{e_{n - 1}}, y_ n)
with 0 \ll e_{n -1} \ll e_{n - 2} \ll \ldots \ll e_1. By Lemma 10.115.2 it follows that G(y_1, \ldots , y_ n) as a polynomial in y_ n looks like
a_ K y_ n^{k_ n + \sum _{i = 1, \ldots , n - 1} e_ i k_ i} + \text{lower order terms in }y_ n
As a_ K is a unit we conclude that M = R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]/J is finite over R[y_1, \ldots , y_{n - 1}]. Hence U(R \to R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n], M) = U(R \to R[y_1, \ldots , y_{n - 1}], M) and we win by induction on n.
The case m > 0. Pick a multi-index K \in E such that a_ K is not a unit. As before set U_1 = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R_{a_ K}) = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) \setminus V(a_ K) and set
U_2 = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) \setminus \overline{U_1}.
Then it is clear that U = U_1 \cup U_2 is dense in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R). Let f \in R be an element such that either (a) D(f) \subset U_1 or (b) D(f) \subset U_2. If for any such f the lemma holds for the pair (R_ f \to R_ f[x_1, \ldots , x_ n], M_ f) then by Lemma 10.118.6 we see that U(R \to S, M) is dense in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R). Hence we may assume either (a) a_ KR = R, or (b) V(a_ K) = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R). In case (a) the number m drops, as a_ K has turned into a unit. In case (b), since R is reduced, we conclude that a_ K = 0. Hence the set E decreases so the number m drops as well. In both cases we win by induction on m.
At this point we have proven the lemma in case S = R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]. Assume that (R \to S, M) is an arbitrary pair satisfying the conditions of the lemma. Choose a surjection R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n] \to S. Observe that, with the notation introduced in (10.118.3.2), we have
U(R \to S, M) = U(R \to R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n], S) \cap U(R \to R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n], M)
Hence as we've just finished proving the right two opens are dense also the open on the left is dense.
\square
Comments (2)
Comment #4642 by Andy on
Comment #4791 by Johan on