The Stacks project

Lemma 42.4.4. Let $(A, \mathfrak m)$ be a Noetherian local ring of dimension $1$. Let $r \geq 2$ and let $a_1, \ldots , a_ r \in A$ be nonzerodivisors not all units. Then there exist

  1. a finite ring extension $A \subset B$ with $B/A$ annihilated by a power of $\mathfrak m$,

  2. for each maximal ideal $\mathfrak m_ j \subset B$ a nonzerodivisor $\pi _ j \in B_ j = B_{\mathfrak m_ j}$, and

  3. factorizations $a_ i = u_{i, j} \pi _ j^{e_{i, j}}$ in $B_ j$ with $u_{i, j} \in B_ j$ units and $e_{i, j} \geq 0$.

Proof. Since at least one $a_ i$ is not a unit we find that $\mathfrak m$ is not an associated prime of $A$. Moreover, for any $A \subset B$ as in the statement $\mathfrak m$ is not an associated prime of $B$ and $\mathfrak m_ j$ is not an associate prime of $B_ j$. Keeping this in mind will help check the arguments below.

First, we claim that it suffices to prove the lemma for $r = 2$. We will argue this by induction on $r$; we suggest the reader skip the proof. Suppose we are given $A \subset B$ and $\pi _ j$ in $B_ j = B_{\mathfrak m_ j}$ and factorizations $a_ i = u_{i, j} \pi _ j^{e_{i, j}}$ for $i = 1, \ldots , r - 1$ in $B_ j$ with $u_{i, j} \in B_ j$ units and $e_{i, j} \geq 0$. Then by the case $r = 2$ for $\pi _ j$ and $a_ r$ in $B_ j$ we can find extensions $B_ j \subset C_ j$ and for every maximal ideal $\mathfrak m_{j, k}$ of $C_ j$ a nonzerodivisor $\pi _{j, k} \in C_{j, k} = (C_ j)_{\mathfrak m_{j, k}}$ and factorizations

\[ \pi _ j = v_{j, k} \pi _{j, k}^{f_{j, k}} \quad \text{and}\quad a_ r = w_{j, k} \pi _{j, k}^{g_{j, k}} \]

as in the lemma. There exists a unique finite extension $B \subset C$ with $C/B$ annihilated by a power of $\mathfrak m$ such that $C_ j \cong C_{\mathfrak m_ j}$ for all $j$, see Lemma 42.4.1. The maximal ideals of $C$ correspond $1$-to-$1$ to the maximal ideals $\mathfrak m_{j, k}$ in the localizations and in these localizations we have

\[ a_ i = u_{i, j} \pi _ j^{e_{i, j}} = u_{i, j} v_{j, k}^{e_{i, j}} \pi _{j, k}^{e_{i, j}f_{j, k}} \]

for $i \leq r - 1$. Since $a_ r$ factors correctly too the proof of the induction step is complete.

Proof of the case $r = 2$. We will use induction on

\[ \ell = \min (\text{length}_ A(A/a_1A),\ \text{length}_ A(A/a_2A)). \]

If $\ell = 0$, then either $a_1$ or $a_2$ is a unit and the lemma holds with $A = B$. Thus we may and do assume $\ell > 0$.

Suppose we have a finite extension of rings $A \subset A'$ such that $A'/A$ is annihilated by a power of $\mathfrak m$ and such that $\mathfrak m$ is not an associated prime of $A'$. Let $\mathfrak m_1, \ldots , \mathfrak m_ r \subset A'$ be the maximal ideals and set $A'_ i = A'_{\mathfrak m_ i}$. If we can solve the problem for $a_1, a_2$ in each $A'_ i$, then we can apply Lemma 42.4.1 to produce a solution for $a_1, a_2$ in $A$. Choose $x \in \{ a_1, a_2\} $ such that $\ell = \text{length}_ A(A/xA)$. By Lemma 42.2.5 and ( we have $\text{length}_ A(A/xA) = \text{length}_ A(A'/xA')$. On the other hand, we have

\[ \text{length}_ A(A'/xA') = \sum [\kappa (\mathfrak m_ i) : \kappa (\mathfrak m)] \text{length}_{A'_ i}(A'_ i/xA'_ i) \]

by Algebra, Lemma 10.52.12. Since $x \in \mathfrak m$ we see that each term on the right hand side is positive. We conclude that the induction hypothesis applies to $a_1, a_2$ in each $A'_ i$ if $r > 1$ or if $r = 1$ and $[\kappa (\mathfrak m_1) : \kappa (\mathfrak m)] > 1$. We conclude that we may assume each $A'$ as above is local with the same residue field as $A$.

Applying the discussion of the previous paragraph, we may replace $A$ by the ring constructed in Lemma 42.4.2 for $a_1, a_2 \in A$. Then since $A$ is local we find, after possibly switching $a_1$ and $a_2$, that $a_2 \in (a_1)$. Write $a_2 = a_1^ m c$ with $m > 0$ maximal. In fact, by Lemma 42.4.3 we may assume $m$ is maximal even after replacing $A$ by any finite extension $A \subset A'$ as in the previous paragraph. If $c$ is a unit, then we are done. If not, then we replace $A$ by the ring constructed in Lemma 42.4.2 for $a_1, c \in A$. Then either (1) $c = a_1 c'$ or (2) $a_1 = c a'_1$. The first case cannot happen since it would give $a_2 = a_1^{m + 1} c'$ contradicting the maximality of $m$. In the second case we get $a_1 = c a'_1$ and $a_2 = c^{m + 1} (a'_1)^ m$. Then it suffices to prove the lemma for $A$ and $c, a'_1$. If $a'_1$ is a unit we're done and if not, then $\text{length}_ A(A/cA) < \ell $ because $cA$ is a strictly bigger ideal than $a_1A$. Thus we win by induction hypothesis. $\square$

Comments (2)

Comment #6810 by Laurent Moret-Bailly on

Typos: in (2) of statement, delete "of". In first line of proof, delete "and".

There are also:

  • 2 comment(s) on Section 42.4: Preparation for tame symbols

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 0EAG. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.