The Stacks project

10.18 Local rings

Local rings are the bread and butter of algebraic geometry.

Definition 10.18.1. A local ring is a ring with exactly one maximal ideal. The maximal ideal is often denoted $\mathfrak m_ R$ in this case. We often say “let $(R, \mathfrak m, \kappa )$ be a local ring” to indicate that $R$ is local, $\mathfrak m$ is its unique maximal ideal and $\kappa = R/\mathfrak m$ is its residue field. A local homomorphism of local rings is a ring map $\varphi : R \to S$ such that $R$ and $S$ are local rings and such that $\varphi (\mathfrak m_ R) \subset \mathfrak m_ S$. If it is given that $R$ and $S$ are local rings, then the phrase “local ring map $\varphi : R \to S$” means that $\varphi $ is a local homomorphism of local rings.

A field is a local ring. Any ring map between fields is a local homomorphism of local rings.

Lemma 10.18.2. Let $R$ be a ring. The following are equivalent:

  1. $R$ is a local ring,

  2. $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(R)$ has exactly one closed point,

  3. $R$ has a maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$ and every element of $R \setminus \mathfrak m$ is a unit, and

  4. $R$ is not the zero ring and for every $x \in R$ either $x$ or $1 - x$ is invertible or both.

Proof. Let $R$ be a ring, and $\mathfrak m$ a maximal ideal. If $x \in R \setminus \mathfrak m$, and $x$ is not a unit then there is a maximal ideal $\mathfrak m'$ containing $x$. Hence $R$ has at least two maximal ideals. Conversely, if $\mathfrak m'$ is another maximal ideal, then choose $x \in \mathfrak m'$, $x \not\in \mathfrak m$. Clearly $x$ is not a unit. This proves the equivalence of (1) and (3). The equivalence (1) and (2) is tautological. If $R$ is local then (4) holds since $x$ is either in $\mathfrak m$ or not. If (4) holds, and $\mathfrak m$, $\mathfrak m'$ are distinct maximal ideals then we may choose $x \in R$ such that $x \bmod \mathfrak m' = 0$ and $x \bmod \mathfrak m = 1$ by the Chinese remainder theorem (Lemma 10.15.4). This element $x$ is not invertible and neither is $1 - x$ which is a contradiction. Thus (4) and (1) are equivalent. $\square$

The localization $R_\mathfrak p$ of a ring $R$ at a prime $\mathfrak p$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak p R_\mathfrak p$. Namely, the quotient $R_\mathfrak p/\mathfrak pR_\mathfrak p$ is the fraction field of the domain $R/\mathfrak p$ and every element of $R_\mathfrak p$ which is not contained in $\mathfrak pR_\mathfrak p$ is invertible.

Lemma 10.18.3. Let $\varphi : R \to S$ be a ring map. Assume $R$ and $S$ are local rings. The following are equivalent:

  1. $\varphi $ is a local ring map,

  2. $\varphi (\mathfrak m_ R) \subset \mathfrak m_ S$, and

  3. $\varphi ^{-1}(\mathfrak m_ S) = \mathfrak m_ R$.

  4. For any $x \in R$, if $\varphi (x)$ is invertible in $S$, then $x$ is invertible in $R$.

Proof. Conditions (1) and (2) are equivalent by definition. If (3) holds then (2) holds. Conversely, if (2) holds, then $\varphi ^{-1}(\mathfrak m_ S)$ is a prime ideal containing the maximal ideal $\mathfrak m_ R$, hence $\varphi ^{-1}(\mathfrak m_ S) = \mathfrak m_ R$. Finally, (4) is the contrapositive of (2) by Lemma 10.18.2. $\square$

Let $\varphi : R \to S$ be a ring map. Let $\mathfrak q \subset S$ be a prime and set $\mathfrak p = \varphi ^{-1}(\mathfrak q)$. Then the induced ring map $R_\mathfrak p \to S_\mathfrak q$ is a local ring map.

Comments (7)

Comment #865 by on

I think there is missing a definition of the terminology "fraction field". This is the first tag to use the terminology, but I can't find an actual definition of it. There should be one, right? Or am I missing it?

Comment #872 by on

Actually, it is in Example 9.3.4. To find it you have to look for "field of fractions" in the search feature. I have added the term "fraction field" to the example, see this commit. Yes, maybe we should make a formal definition... but somebody else can do this sometime.

Comment #6033 by Lars Hesselholt on

Maybe you already had this discussion, but "fraction field" is really not good terminology; "field of fractions" or "quotient field" are both good.

Comment #8512 by Daniel Apsley on

Example suggestion: Let be a local ring and a prime ideal which is not maximal. Then, the localization map is not a local ring map.

Comment #8554 by Elizabeth Henning on

+1 for the example suggestion #8512 above

Comment #8709 by Cesar Massri on

Another item in Lema 10.18.3 (or 07BJ) that can be useful is: (2 bis) for some . This item gives the equivalence between being local and being continuos (in the adic topology). The proof of (2bis) => (2) is straightforward: Let be such that is invertible, then is invertible, but

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 07BH. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.