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
Comment #922 by Johan on
Comment #925 by JuanPablo on
Comment #928 by Johan on
Comment #4944 by yogesh on
Comment #5205 by Johan on