Lemma 10.68.9. Let $R$ be a ring. Let $M$ be an $R$-module. Let $f_1, \ldots , f_ r \in R$ and $e_1, \ldots , e_ r > 0$ integers. Then $f_1, \ldots , f_ r$ is an $M$-regular sequence if and only if $f_1^{e_1}, \ldots , f_ r^{e_ r}$ is an $M$-regular sequence.

Proof. We will prove this by induction on $r$. If $r = 1$ this follows from the following two easy facts: (a) a power of a nonzerodivisor on $M$ is a nonzerodivisor on $M$ and (b) a divisor of a nonzerodivisor on $M$ is a nonzerodivisor on $M$. If $r > 1$, then by induction applied to $M/f_1M$ we have that $f_1, f_2, \ldots , f_ r$ is an $M$-regular sequence if and only if $f_1, f_2^{e_2}, \ldots , f_ r^{e_ r}$ is an $M$-regular sequence. Thus it suffices to show, given $e > 0$, that $f_1^ e, f_2, \ldots , f_ r$ is an $M$-regular sequence if and only if $f_1, \ldots , f_ r$ is an $M$-regular sequence. We will prove this by induction on $e$. The case $e = 1$ is trivial. Since $f_1$ is a nonzerodivisor under both assumptions (by the case $r = 1$) we have a short exact sequence

$0 \to M/f_1M \xrightarrow {f_1^{e - 1}} M/f_1^ eM \to M/f_1^{e - 1}M \to 0$

Suppose that $f_1, f_2, \ldots , f_ r$ is an $M$-regular sequence. Then by induction the elements $f_2, \ldots , f_ r$ are $M/f_1M$ and $M/f_1^{e - 1}M$-regular sequences. By Lemma 10.68.8 $f_2, \ldots , f_ r$ is $M/f_1^ eM$-regular. Hence $f_1^ e, f_2, \ldots , f_ r$ is $M$-regular. Conversely, suppose that $f_1^ e, f_2, \ldots , f_ r$ is an $M$-regular sequence. Then $f_2 : M/f_1^ eM \to M/f_1^ eM$ is injective, hence $f_2 : M/f_1M \to M/f_1M$ is injective, hence by induction(!) $f_2 : M/f_1^{e - 1}M \to M/f_1^{e - 1}M$ is injective, hence

$0 \to M/(f_1, f_2)M \xrightarrow {f_1^{e - 1}} M/(f_1^ e, f_2)M \to M/(f_1^{e - 1}, f_2)M \to 0$

is a short exact sequence by Lemma 10.4.1. This proves the converse for $r = 2$. If $r > 2$, then we have $f_3 : M/(f_1^ e, f_2)M \to M/(f_1^ e, f_2)M$ is injective, hence $f_3 : M/(f_1, f_2)M \to M/(f_1, f_2)M$ is injective, and so on. Some details omitted. $\square$

Comment #787 by Keenan Kidwell on

I see how the snake lemma gives that $f_2$ is regular on $M/f_1^eM$, but not how it gives, e.g., regularity of $f_3$ on $M/(f_1^e,f_2)M$, etc..

Comment #3793 by Kestutis Cesnavicius on

The statement can be strengthened to an 'if and only if,' see Gabber--Ramero, "Foundations for almost ring theory," Lemma 7.8.8 (ii) in v13 of https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0409584

Comment #3915 by on

One remark on changing lemmas from "if" to "if and only if" is to ask: does one ever really need the "noninteresting variant". Anyway, I changed the argument slightly to prove if and only if in this case. Thanks! Changes are here.

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).