Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $A\subseteq B\subseteq C$ be commutative unital rings. Recall that the extension $A \subseteq B$ is finite / of finite type / integral, when $B$ is a finitely generated $R$-module / when $B$ is a finitely generated $A$-algebra / when $\forall b \in B$ $\exists$ monic polynomial $f \in A[x]$ with $f(b)=0$. Notation $_AB$ means "$A$-module $B$".

We know that $A\subseteq C$ is integral iff $A\subseteq B$ and $B\subseteq C$ are integral (Grillet, Abstract Algebra, 7.3.3).

Do we also have the following:

  1. $A\subseteq C$ is finite $\Leftrightarrow$ $A\subseteq B$ and $B\subseteq C$ are finite.
  2. $A\subseteq C$ is of finite type $\Leftrightarrow$ $A\subseteq B$ and $B\subseteq C$ are of finite type.

I'm having problems with ($A\subseteq C$ finite $\Rightarrow$ $A\subseteq B$ finite) and with ($A\subseteq C$ of finite type $\Rightarrow$ $A\subseteq B$ of finite type). If $_AB$ is a direct summand of $_AC$ (for example when $A$ is a field), i.e. $_AC= _A B\oplus _A B'$ for some submodule $B'$ of $C$, then $C=Ac_1+\cdots+Ac_n$ implies $c_i=b_i+b'_i$ for some $b_i\in B$ and $b'_i \in B$, hence $B = Ab_1 + \cdots + Ab_n$. But what if $_AB$ is not a direct summand of $_AC$? And what about the 'finite type' case?

share|improve this question
9  
There is very little reason to insist in fighting the spacing rules of TeX, really... –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Apr 1 '12 at 18:01

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

Neither of the implications that you are having trouble with hold in general. As an example, consider $A=k[X_1,X_2,\ldots]$, $C=A[Y]/(Y^2)$ and $B\subseteq C$ be the (unital) algebra over $A$ generated by terms of the form $X_iY$. You should be able to show that $C$ is finitely generated both as a module and as an algebra over $A$, but $B$ is not finitely generated over $A$ in either sense.

share|improve this answer
1  
For a proof assuming $A$ is Noetherian, see this (open access) paper of Artin-Tate: projecteuclid.org/… –  B R Apr 1 '12 at 18:24
1  
Careful with Noetherian assumptions, BR! See the warning in my answer. And thanks for the link. –  Georges Elencwajg Apr 1 '12 at 19:21
    
Serves me right for not thinking about what I'm writing! :) –  B R Apr 1 '12 at 19:24
    
No wonder I didn't find this in the literature, since it isn't true. Regarding the counterexample: we see that $A\leq C=A[y]/\langle y^2\rangle$ is finite, since $C=A+Ay$, but $A\leq B$ is not of finite type, because for any finite subset $\{f_1,\ldots,f_k\}\subseteq B$, we have $x_ny\notin A[f_1,\ldots,f_k]$ for sufficiently large $n$ (because $f_1,\ldots,f_k$ contain only finitely many $x_n$). Thank you George Lowther & @GeorgesElencwajg & B R for your help. –  Leon Apr 1 '12 at 21:21
    
Dear George, is my understanding that $B$ is is a hyperplane in $C$ with complement the line $k\cdot Y$ correct? –  Georges Elencwajg Apr 1 '12 at 21:45

You are right to have problems because the implications you cannot prove are false!

1) Let $A$ be a ring and $M$ be an $A$-module.
Define an $A$-algebra structure $A*M$ on $A\oplus M$ by decreeing that that $m\cdot m'=0$ for all $m,m'\in M$.
Now if $A$ is non-noetherian and if $M$ is a finite $A$-module with a non finitely generated sub-module $N\subset M$, you can take $B=A*N\subset C=A*M$ as an example of a non-finite subalgebra of a finite algebra .

2) Take $A = k$, a field, $C=k[x,y]$, the polynomial ring .
Then $B=k[x,xy, xy^2,...,xy^n,...] $ is a subalgebra of the finitely generated $k$-algebra $C$ which is not finitely generated over $k$.

Noetherian alert
If $A$ is noetherian, then a subalgebra of a module-finite $A$-algebra is module-finite so that no counterexample like 1) is possible.
However, since a field $k$ is a highly noetherian ring, counterexample 2) above proves that a subalgebra $B$ of a finitely generated $A$-algebra need not be finitely generated even if the base ring $A$ is noetherian.
If however you add to noetherianity of $A$ the hypothesis that $C$ is module-finite over $B$, then indeed $B$ will be finitely generated over $A$: this is the Artin-Tate theorem that BR links to in a comment to George (Lowther!) 's answer.

share|improve this answer
    
thank you for the clarification of the Noetherian case, and for interesting examples –  Leon Apr 1 '12 at 21:25

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.