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.

Could any one help me to solve this one? If $R$ be a Noetherian Local ring then $\operatorname{depth} (R)-\dim(R/I)\le \textrm{grade} (I)$ for any ideal $I$ of $R$?

share|improve this question
    
How is $grade(I)$ defined? –  Giovanni De Gaetano May 14 '12 at 14:50
    
Let R be a Noetherian, M is f.g R-module,let $I\subseteq R$ be an ideal such that $IM\neq M$, then all maximal $M$ regular sequences in $I$ have the equal length and is denoted by grade(I,M). –  Une Femme Douce May 14 '12 at 15:09
    
So, by $grade(I)$ you mean $grade(I,I)$? Is it clear $I^2\neq I$? –  Giovanni De Gaetano May 14 '12 at 15:14

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Let $(R,m)$ be our Noetherian local ring, by definition $\text{depth}(R)=gr(m).$ In general, for any proper ideal $J$ of a Noetherian ring ( as I noted, in your recent question) $gr(J)\leq ht(J).$ It is now, enough to show that $gr(m) \leq gr(m/I)+gr(I),$ which you need nothing more that the definition of a regular sequence and the fact that for an $R$-module ($R$ is not necessarily local) $M$, giving an $M$-sequence $x_1,\cdots ,x_n$ is equivalent to giving an $M$-sequence $x_1,\cdots, x_i$ (for a fixed $1 \leq i \leq n$) and an $M/(x_1,\cdots, x_i)M$-sequence $x_{i+1}, \cdots, x_n.$ I hope, it will be helpful.

share|improve this answer
    
I think there is something wrong. The equality between the depth and the height holds only when $R$ is Cohen-Macaulay. –  user18119 May 14 '12 at 19:36
    
@Qil: Am I using the equality? –  Ehsan M. Kermani May 14 '12 at 19:38
    
you said depth(R)=ht(m) in the first line, unless I misunderstood. –  user18119 May 14 '12 at 19:42
    
dear @Qil: oh, yes, you're right! I meant $gr(m),$ thanks! –  Ehsan M. Kermani May 14 '12 at 19:49

This is exercise 1.2.23 from Bruns & Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay Rings. Use induction on $\textrm{grade}(I)$ and reduce the problem to the case $\textrm{grade}(I)=0$. Then choose a prime $p\in\text{Ass}(R)$ such that $I\subset p$ and apply Proposition 1.2.13 from the same book.

Remark. ehsanmo "proved" that $\operatorname{depth} (R)-\operatorname{depth}(R/I)\le \textrm{grade} (I)$ which is obviously wrong: consider the case $\textrm{grade}(I)=0$ and find a counterexample or look at http://mathoverflow.net/questions/21484/two-questions-about-cohen-macaulay-rings, question #2.

share|improve this answer

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.