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.

Here is the excerpt of the book where I suspect a mistake (page 66):

enter image description here

Where they say "The restriction to $A$ of the natural homomorphism $A^\prime \to k^\prime$" I think we don't want a restriction. We start with the quotient map $\pi: A[x^{-1}] \to A[x^{-1}] /m$ where $m$ is a maximal ideal containing $x^{-1}$. We take an algebraic closure $\Omega$ of the field $A[x^{-1}] /m$ and consider the map $i \circ \pi: A[x^{-1}] \to \Omega$. Then by the previous theorem, (5.21), we can extend $i \circ \pi$ to some valuation ring $B$ of $K$ containing $A[x^{-1}]$: $g: B \to \Omega$ such that $g|_{A[x^{-1}]} = i \circ \pi$. Then $g(x^{-1}) = 0$. Hence $x^{-1} \in ker(g)$ and since the kernel is a proper ideal of $B$, $x^{-1}$ is not a unit in $B$ and hence $x$ is not in $B$.

Do you agree with my version and that what is written in Atiyah-Macdonald is not correct? Thank you.

share|improve this question
2  
You may want to check out mathoverflow.net/questions/42241/errata-for-atiyah-macdonald –  Asaf Karagila Jul 18 '12 at 8:11
    
@AsafKaragila Thank you, I was aware of the list but this doesn't seem to be mentioned there. –  Matt N. Jul 18 '12 at 8:31
1  
You might have a new one for the list. I'm pretty tired and doubting authors of such intelligence is always dangerous, but I don't see how restricting to $A$ helps them here. –  Dylan Moreland Jul 18 '12 at 8:34
    
@DylanMoreland Thank you for your comment. I agree with you. So I will wait for more feedback. –  Matt N. Jul 18 '12 at 9:10
2  
I have the following correction for this penciled in: strike out "the restriction to $A$ of", and change a coup of $A$s to $A'$s. This wasn't in the errata on MO. I checked it in some other book, probably Lang. –  Bruce Evans Jul 18 '12 at 10:02

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Congratulations for spotting the difficulty and correcting it, Clark: you are absolutely right and I completely agree with your version!

As a slightly different formulation for the proof that $x\notin B$, I would just remark that if we had $x\in B$, we would deduce the absurd conclusion $$1=g(1)=g(x\cdot x^{-1})=g(x)\cdot g(x^{-1})=g(x)\cdot 0=0$$

share|improve this answer
    
Dear Georges, thank you very much! –  Matt N. Jul 18 '12 at 11:08
1  
Dear Clark, you are very welcome: there is nothing more satisfying for a teacher than seeing a student (I'm guessing here!) very critically reading a book, to the point of spotting an, err..., inaccuracy in a famous book by famous authors. By the way, I strongly encourage you to add this erratum to the list on MathOverflow mentioned by Asaf: you would do our community a great favour. –  Georges Elencwajg Jul 18 '12 at 11:36
    
Dear Georges, thank you. Yes, your guess is correct, I am a student. The erratum has already been added: I requested MattN to do it (in the comments to this question). –  Matt N. Jul 18 '12 at 12:51
    
Thanks to you and @MattN, then. –  Georges Elencwajg Jul 18 '12 at 13:13

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.