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.

I am working on the problems in Atiyah and MacDonald's famous Introduction to Commutative Algebra. On p. 11, problem 5 part iv reads:

[Show that] the contraction of a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $A[[x]]$ is a maximal ideal of $A$, and $\mathfrak{m}$ is generated by $\mathfrak{m}^c$ and $x$.

Here $A$ is an arbitrary commutative ring with unity, and $A[[x]]$ (as usual) the ring of formal power series over $A$. By the contraction $\mathfrak{m}^c$, Atiyah and MacDonald mean the pullback of an ideal of $A[[x]]$ under the inclusion $A\hookrightarrow A[[x]]$; thus, if I am understanding correctly, $\mathfrak{m}^c=\mathfrak{m}\cap A$.

What's bugging me is that I am having trouble believing the claimed result, due to the following example:

Let $A=k[t]$, the polynomial ring over a field; so then $A[[x]]$ is $k[t][[x]]$, the ring of formal power series in $x$ with coefficients that are polynomial in $t$. Consider the ideal $(tx-1)$. Then $A[[x]]/(tx-1)$ is the field of finite-tailed Laurent series in $x$ with coefficients in $k$, right? In which case, $(tx-1)$ is a maximal ideal of $A[[x]]$, right? But, $(tx-1)\cap A=(tx-1)\cap k[t]=(0)$, since no element of $k[t]$ is a multiple of $tx-1$. But $(0)$ is not a maximal ideal of $A=k[t]$, and $(tx-1)$ is certainly not generated by $x$ and $(0)$. So doesn't this example violate the conclusion?

In a less legendarily tight book, I would assume there was a typo or an omitted assumption somewhere, but this is Atiyah and MacDonald, and they are never wrong. Conclusion: I must be missing something.

What am I missing? Is $A[[x]]/(tx-1)$ not actually a field? Is $(tx-1)\cap A$ not actually $(0)$? Did I misunderstand the definition of contraction? Or is it something else?

share|improve this question
1  
Is it clear that $k[t][[x]] \simeq k[[x]][t]$? –  Dylan Moreland Jun 14 '12 at 23:08
1  
@DylanMoreland hmmm... I think they are not isomorphic. In $k[t][[x]]$, arbitrarily high powers of $t$ could occur. Is this the problem? Perhaps $k[t][[x]]/(tx-1)$ isn't a field after all? –  Ben Blum-Smith Jun 14 '12 at 23:16
    
...of finite-tailed Laurent series in x with coefficients in k...Why? –  H. Kabayakawa Jun 14 '12 at 23:18
    
@H.Kabayakawa I was thinking that the elements were only polynomial in $t$, so in the quotient the powers of $x^{-1}$ in a given element are bounded, but in light of Dylan's comment this isn't true, so I'm now thinking $k[t][[x]]/(tx-1)$ isn't a field... –  Ben Blum-Smith Jun 14 '12 at 23:22
    
@BenBlum-Smith One can see easily that a polynomial $f \in A[[x]]$ is a unit iff its constant term is a unit. In fact this is exercise 5(i) of AM on page 11. In your case, -1 is a unit so that $tx - 1$ is a unit in $k[t][[x]]$, so your example does not hold. –  user38268 Jun 15 '12 at 4:08

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Maybe it's helpful to write your element as $-1 + tx$. Part (i) of the same exercise has you show that the units of $A[[x]]$ are the power series whose constant terms are units in $A$, so your ideal is the whole ring and the authors remain faultless.

The issue seems to be that $k[t][[x]]$ and $k[[x]][t]$ are not the same. My initial justification for this was that, as you noted, elements of the former ring can involve infinitely many powers of $t$. I'd be interested in seeing other reasons.

For the exercise proper, I think things clear up if you first prove that $x \in \mathfrak m$. If this is not the case, then there exists an $f \in A[[x]]$ such that $xf \equiv 1 \bmod\mathfrak m$, i.e., $1 - xf \in \mathfrak m$. Why is that impossible?

Added later: There's a nice discussion of $k[t][[x]]$ in Example 1.2 of Brian Conrad's handout. I'll try to incorporate some of the details here later on.

share|improve this answer
    
Seems like it's because of your same point about $tx-1$. $xf\in (x)$, so $1-xf$ has unit constant term, thus is a unit, and $1-xf\in \mathfrak{m}$ implies $\mathfrak{m}=(1)$, a contradiction. Thanks! –  Ben Blum-Smith Jun 15 '12 at 4:04
    
@BenBlum-Smith Looks good. Do things work out from there? –  Dylan Moreland Jun 15 '12 at 4:07
    
@DylanMoreland Ben is looking at exercise 5(iv) of AM on page 11. The exercie you mention is 5(i) on the same page. –  user38268 Jun 15 '12 at 4:10
1  
@BenjaminLim Ah, thanks. I'll add that (I'm away from my office for a few weeks, otherwise I'd check it myself!) –  Dylan Moreland Jun 16 '12 at 8:02
    
@DylanMoreland - yes, it's all worked out now. –  Ben Blum-Smith Jun 19 '12 at 12:54

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.