Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am reading Introduction to Commutative Algebra / Atiyah & Macdonald, Theorem 5.11 ("Going-up theorem").

The statement is:

Let $A \subset B$ be rings, $B$ integral over $A$; let $p_1 \subset \dotsm \subset p_n$ be a chain of prime ideals of $A$ and $q_1 \subset \dotsm \subset q_m$ (m < n) a chain of prime ideals of $B$ such that $q_i \cap A = p_i$ ($1 \leq i \leq m$). Then the chain $q_1 \subset \dotsm \subset q_m$ can be extended to a chain $q_1 \subset \dotsm \subset q_n$ such that $q_i \cap A = p_i$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$.

I read the proof and I don't think the fact that $q_1$ (and hence $p_1$) is prime is used.

My question:

Does the conclusion still hold if we omit the assumption that $q_1$ (and $p_1$) is prime?

share|cite|improve this question
A related question:… – KCd May 27 '12 at 9:10

You are right, we donot need that $\mathfrak{q}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{q}_m$ are prime. In the proof, we need $\mathfrak{p}_{i+1}$ where $i+1\geq m+1$ is prime.

For example, $m=1$, we need $\mathfrak{p}_2$ is prime, and then it follows $B/\mathfrak{q}_1$ is integral over $A/\mathfrak{p}_1$. By lying over theorem, we can find a prime ideal $\mathfrak{q}_2\subset B$ such that $\mathfrak{q}_2\supset \mathfrak{q}_1$ and lie over $\mathfrak{p}_2$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.