The Stacks project

Compatibility henselization of pairs and of local rings.

Lemma 15.12.3. The functor of Lemma 15.12.1 associates to a local ring $(A, \mathfrak m)$ its henselization.

Proof. Let $(A^ h, \mathfrak m^ h)$ be the henselization of the pair $(A, \mathfrak m)$ constructed in Lemma 15.12.1. Then $\mathfrak m^ h = \mathfrak m A^ h$ is a maximal ideal by Lemma 15.12.2 and since it is contained in the Jacobson radical, we conclude $A^ h$ is local with maximal ideal $\mathfrak m^ h$. Having said this there are two ways to finish the proof.

First proof: observe that the construction in the proof of Algebra, Lemma 10.155.1 as a colimit is the same as the colimit used to construct $A^ h$ in Lemma 15.12.1. Second proof: Both the henselization $A \to S$ and $A \to A^ h$ of Lemma 15.12.1 are local ring homomorphisms, both $S$ and $A^ h$ are filtered colimits of ├ętale $A$-algebras, both $S$ and $A^ h$ are henselian local rings, and both $S$ and $A^ h$ have residue fields equal to $\kappa (\mathfrak m)$ (by Lemma 15.12.2 for the second case). Hence they are canonically isomorphic by Algebra, Lemma 10.154.7. $\square$

Comments (3)

Comment #988 by on

Suggested slogan: Henselization is left adjoint to the inclusion of Henselian rings in rings.

Comment #3643 by Brian Conrad on

In the second proof, which at the end invokes a lemma that has locality hypotheses, you need to first indicate why is local. One way based on general principles beyond the local setting is to recall that for any pair the ideal of is contained in the Jacobson radical (by the henselian property for the pair ) and by construction yet always (so when is local with maximal ideal , the ideal is maximal and so is the unique maximal ideal of , moreover with the same residue field as ).

Note that in this argument, we are using two facts currently recorded in Lemma 0AGU, which currently appears just after the present Lemma in section 0EM7 (no circularity, since Lemma 0AGU doesn't use the present lemma, so their order should be swapped).

Also, this shows that before swapping the order of the two lemmas, the "first proof" isn't entirely satisfactory since it isn't giving that is also the maximal ideal (which would however be "known" if Lemma 0AGU were put before the present lemma, as recommended above).

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published.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.

In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 0A03. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.