Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

Lemma 10.68.10. Let R be a ring. Let f_1, \ldots , f_ r \in R which do not generate the unit ideal. The following are equivalent:

  1. any permutation of f_1, \ldots , f_ r is a regular sequence,

  2. any subsequence of f_1, \ldots , f_ r (in the given order) is a regular sequence, and

  3. f_1x_1, \ldots , f_ rx_ r is a regular sequence in the polynomial ring R[x_1, \ldots , x_ r].

Proof. It is clear that (1) implies (2). We prove (2) implies (1) by induction on r. The case r = 1 is trivial. The case r = 2 says that if a, b \in R are a regular sequence and b is a nonzerodivisor, then b, a is a regular sequence. This is clear because the kernel of a : R/(b) \to R/(b) is isomorphic to the kernel of b : R/(a) \to R/(a) if both a and b are nonzerodivisors. The case r > 2. Assume (2) holds and say we want to prove f_{\sigma (1)}, \ldots , f_{\sigma (r)} is a regular sequence for some permutation \sigma . We already know that f_{\sigma (1)}, \ldots , f_{\sigma (r - 1)} is a regular sequence by induction. Hence it suffices to show that f_ s where s = \sigma (r) is a nonzerodivisor modulo f_1, \ldots , \hat f_ s, \ldots , f_ r. If s = r we are done. If s < r, then note that f_ s and f_ r are both nonzerodivisors in the ring R/(f_1, \ldots , \hat f_ s, \ldots , f_{r - 1}) (by induction hypothesis again). Since we know f_ s, f_ r is a regular sequence in that ring we conclude by the case of sequence of length 2 that f_ r, f_ s is too.

Note that R[x_1, \ldots , x_ r]/(f_1x_1, \ldots , f_ ix_ i) as an R-module is a direct sum of the modules

R/I_ E \cdot x_1^{e_1} \ldots x_ r^{e_ r}

indexed by multi-indices E = (e_1, \ldots , e_ r) where I_ E is the ideal generated by f_ j for 1 \leq j \leq i with e_ j > 0. Hence f_{i + 1}x_ i is a nonzerodivisor on this if and only if f_{i + 1} is a nonzerodivisor on R/I_ E for all E. Taking E with all positive entries, we see that f_{i + 1} is a nonzerodivisor on R/(f_1, \ldots , f_ i). Thus (3) implies (2). Conversely, if (2) holds, then any subsequence of f_1, \ldots , f_ i, f_{i + 1} is a regular sequence in particular f_{i + 1} is a nonzerodivisor on all R/I_ E. In this way we see that (2) implies (3). \square


Comments (6)

Comment #918 by JuanPablo on

In the last paragraph of the proof the ideal of should be generated by (not ) where and . The equivalence between (2) and (3) is then immediate.

Comment #922 by on

Hi! I do not understand your comment. For example if and then what you say would imply that the degree 2 part of is annihilated by and it is not.

Comment #925 by JuanPablo on

In the last paragraph of the proof the ideal of should be generated by (not ) where and . The equivalence between (2) and (3) is then immediate.

Hi. In the example it seems that anihilates the degree part because (it is the ideal generated by not the algebra).

Comment #928 by on

Ah, yes, of course. Don't know what I was thinking, sorry! The fix is here.

Comment #4944 by yogesh on

In the second to last sentence of the proof, there is no need to appeal to Lemma 07DV (looks like this was necessary before you fixed to in 2014)


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.