Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

Lemma 10.118.7. Let R \to S be a ring map. Let M be an S-module. Assume

  1. R \to S is of finite type,

  2. M is a finite S-module, and

  3. R is reduced.

Then there exists a subset U \subset \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R) such that

  1. U is open and dense in \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R),

  2. for every u \in U there exists an f \in R such that u \in D(f) \subset U and such that we have

    1. M_ f and S_ f are free over R_ f,

    2. S_ f is a finitely presented R_ f-algebra, and

    3. M_ f is a finitely presented S_ f-module.

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

There's a typo in the last line, the second term should be


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.