Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

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


Comments (4)

Comment #787 by Keenan Kidwell on

I see how the snake lemma gives that is regular on , but not how it gives, e.g., regularity of on , 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.


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.