Lemma 10.79.2. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $\varphi : M \to N$ be a map of $R$-modules with $M$ finite and $N$ finitely presented. Then

$U = \{ \mathfrak p \subset R \mid \varphi _{\mathfrak p} : M_{\mathfrak p} \to N_{\mathfrak p} \text{ is an isomorphism}\}$

is an open subset of $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R)$.

Proof. Let $\mathfrak p \in U$. Pick a presentation $N = R^{\oplus n}/\sum _{j = 1, \ldots , m} R k_ j$. Denote $e_ i$ the image in $N$ of the $i$th basis vector of $R^{\oplus n}$. For each $i \in \{ 1, \ldots , n\}$ choose an element $m_ i \in M_{\mathfrak p}$ such that $\varphi (m_ i) = f_ i e_ i$ for some $f_ i \in R$, $f_ i \not\in \mathfrak p$. This is possible as $\varphi _{\mathfrak p}$ is an isomorphism. Set $f = f_1 \ldots f_ n$ and let $\psi : R_ f^{\oplus n} \to M_ f$ be the map which maps the $i$th basis vector to $m_ i/f_ i$. Note that $\varphi _ f \circ \psi$ is the localization at $f$ of the given map $R^{\oplus n} \to N$. As $\varphi _{\mathfrak p}$ is an isomorphism we see that $\psi (k_ j)$ is an element of $M$ which maps to zero in $M_{\mathfrak p}$. Hence we see that there exist $g_ j \in R$, $g_ j \not\in \mathfrak p$ such that $g_ j \psi (k_ j) = 0$. Setting $g = g_1 \ldots g_ m$, we see that $\psi _ g$ factors through $N_{fg}$ to give a map $\chi : N_{fg} \to M_{fg}$. By construction $\chi$ is a right inverse to $\varphi _{fg}$. It follows that $\chi _\mathfrak p$ is an isomorphism. By Lemma 10.79.1 there is an $h \in R$, $h \not\in \mathfrak p$ such that $\chi _ h : N_{fgh} \to M_{fgh}$ is surjective. Hence $\varphi _{fgh}$ and $\chi _ h$ are mutually inverse maps, which implies that $D(fgh) \subset U$ as desired. $\square$

## Comments (2)

Comment #2909 by Dario Weißmann on

The target of the morphism $\psi$ should be $M_f$ instead of $M$.

Also I don't think we are quite finished with the proof. The $m_i$ don't necessarily generate $M_{fg}$. But as $M$ is finite and the $m_i$ generate $M_{\mathfrak{p}}$ we can find an $h\notin \mathfrak{p}$ such that the $m_i$ generate $M_{fgh}$. Then we have found an inverse to $\varphi_{fgh}$.

Seems like we don't need the assumption that $M$ is finitely generated, $M$ finite suffices.

Comment #2941 by on

Thanks for catching the oversight! The lemma is indeed more general than currently stated. If you look at Section 10.127 you'll find a lot more statements like this. I've fixed the argument here and I've weakened the hypotheses here.

## 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Your email address will not be published.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 05GF. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.