Loading web-font TeX/Math/Italic

The Stacks project

[Lemma 12.2, swan] or [Lemma 2, popescu-GND]

Lemma 16.9.3. Let R \to A \to \Lambda \supset \mathfrak q be as in Situation 16.9.1. Let \mathfrak p = R \cap \mathfrak q. Assume that \mathfrak q is minimal over \mathfrak h_ A and that R_\mathfrak p \to A_\mathfrak p \to \Lambda _\mathfrak q \supset \mathfrak q\Lambda _\mathfrak q can be resolved. Then there exists a factorization A \to C \to \Lambda with C of finite presentation such that H_{C/R} \Lambda \not\subset \mathfrak q.

Proof. Let A_\mathfrak p \to C \to \Lambda _\mathfrak q be a resolution of R_\mathfrak p \to A_\mathfrak p \to \Lambda _\mathfrak q \supset \mathfrak q\Lambda _\mathfrak q. By our assumption that \mathfrak q is minimal over \mathfrak h_ A this means that H_{C/R_\mathfrak p} \Lambda _\mathfrak q = \Lambda _\mathfrak q. By Lemma 16.2.8 we may assume that C is smooth over R_\mathfrak p. By Lemma 16.3.4 we may assume that C is standard smooth over R_\mathfrak p. Write A = R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n]/(g_1, \ldots , g_ t) and say A \to \Lambda is given by x_ i \mapsto \lambda _ i. Write C = R_\mathfrak p[x_1, \ldots , x_{n + m}]/(f_1, \ldots , f_ c) for some c \geq n such that A \to C maps x_ i to x_ i and such that \det (\partial f_ j/\partial x_ i)_{i, j = 1, \ldots , c} is invertible in C, see Lemma 16.3.6. After clearing denominators we may assume f_1, \ldots , f_ c are elements of R[x_1, \ldots , x_{n + m}]. Of course \det (\partial f_ j/\partial x_ i)_{i, j = 1, \ldots , c} is not invertible in R[x_1, \ldots , x_{n + m}]/(f_1, \ldots , f_ c) but it becomes invertible after inverting some element s_0 \in R, s_0 \not\in \mathfrak p. As g_ j maps to zero under R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n] \to A \to C we can find s_ j \in R, s_ j \not\in \mathfrak p such that s_ j g_ j is zero in R[x_1, \ldots , x_{n + m}]/(f_1, \ldots , f_ c). Write f_ j = F_ j(x_1, \ldots , x_{n + m}, 1) for some polynomial F_ j \in R[x_1, \ldots , x_ n, X_{n + 1}, \ldots , X_{n + m + 1}] homogeneous in X_{n + 1}, \ldots , X_{n + m + 1}. Pick \lambda _{n + i} \in \Lambda , i = 1, \ldots , m + 1 with \lambda _{n + m + 1} \not\in \mathfrak q such that x_{n + i} maps to \lambda _{n + i}/\lambda _{n + m + 1} in \Lambda _\mathfrak q. Then

\begin{align*} F_ j(\lambda _1, \ldots , \lambda _{n + m + 1}) & = (\lambda _{n + m + 1})^{\deg (F_ j)} F_ j(\lambda _1, \ldots , \lambda _ n, \frac{\lambda _{n + 1}}{\lambda _{n + m + 1}}, \ldots , \frac{\lambda _{n + m}}{\lambda _{n + m + 1}}, 1) \\ & = (\lambda _{n + m + 1})^{\deg (F_ j)} f_ j(\lambda _1, \ldots , \lambda _ n, \frac{\lambda _{n + 1}}{\lambda _{n + m + 1}}, \ldots , \frac{\lambda _{n + m}}{\lambda _{n + m + 1}}) \\ & = 0 \end{align*}

in \Lambda _\mathfrak q. Thus we can find \lambda _0 \in \Lambda , \lambda _0 \not\in \mathfrak q such that \lambda _0 F_ j(\lambda _1, \ldots , \lambda _{n + m + 1}) = 0 in \Lambda . Now we set B equal to

R[x_0, \ldots , x_{n + m + 1}]/ (g_1, \ldots , g_ t, x_0F_1(x_1, \ldots , x_{n + m + 1}), \ldots , x_0F_ c(x_1, \ldots , x_{n + m + 1}))

which we map to \Lambda by mapping x_ i to \lambda _ i. Let b be the image of x_0 x_{n + m + 1} s_0 s_1 \ldots s_ t in B. Then B_ b is isomorphic to

R_{s_0s_1 \ldots s_ t}[x_0, x_1, \ldots , x_{n + m + 1}, 1/x_0x_{n + m + 1}]/ (f_1, \ldots , f_ c)

which is smooth over R by construction. Since b does not map to an element of \mathfrak q, we win. \square


Comments (4)

Comment #3986 by Kestutis Cesnavicius on

In the third sentence of the proof it should be " is smooth over ".

Comment #3987 by Kestutis Cesnavicius on

I think the definition of should instead be . Also, in the description of one should have instead of .

In the statement, perhaps it would make sense to rename to in the view of the notation used in the proof? Also, in the statement it would be nice to mention that (or ) is of finite presentation over .

Sorry for a double comment.

Comment #4064 by Kestutis Cesnavicius on

One could insert references to this lemma: Lemma 12.2 in Swan "Néron-Popescu desingularization" or Lemma 2 in Popescu "General Néron desingularization."

Also, I think it would be better to write instead of .

Comment #4111 by on

Thanks for these comments. I fixed the typos in this commit. I didn't change into because this is used all the time: we can view as an -module and then we can localize it at , so the notation makes sense.


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.