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 would like to know how big is the set of invertible elements in the ring $$R=K[x,y,z,t]/(xy+zt-1),$$ where $K$ is any field. In particular whether any invertible element is a (edit: scalar) multiple of $1$, or there is something else. Any help is greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question
In any ring, every element is a multiple of 1. What did you mean to ask? –  Hurkyl Aug 4 '12 at 3:45
@Hurkyl: I assume "multiple of $1$" in this context means scalar multiple of $1$ (that is, element of $K$). –  Qiaochu Yuan Aug 4 '12 at 3:47
@Hurkyl: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, I meant to say scalar multiple of 1, that is any element of the form a*1 with a in K\{0}. I will edit the question accordingly. –  user26565 Aug 4 '12 at 3:55
In math.stackexchange.com/questions/173021/… it is shown your ring is a UFD. I doubt this helps to find units, but if you continue working with the ring, it could be quite helpful. –  Jack Schmidt Aug 4 '12 at 14:42
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Here is a geometric proof that $R^*=K^*$ (I am more satisfied with :)). Embedd $U=\mathrm{Spec}R$ as an open subvariety into the projective variety $$P:= \mathrm{Proj} K[x,y,z,t, w]/(xy+zt-w^2).$$ Note that $xy+zt-w^2$ is irreducible over an algebraic closure of $K$, so $P$ is geometrically integral, hence ${\mathcal O}_P(P)=K$. Using Jacobian criterion, we see that $P$ is smooth, hence normal.

Let $f\in R^*$ that we consider as a rational function on $P$. As $E:=P\setminus U$ is the zero set of $w$ which is an integral hypersurface in $P$, the divisor of $f$ is $\mathrm{div}(f)=nE$ for some integer $n$. If $n\ge 0$, then $f$ has no pole on $P$, so $f\in {\mathcal O}_P(P)=K$ (because $P$ is normal). If $n<0$, then the same reasonning applied to $1/f$ shows that $1/f\in K$. In both cases, $f\in K$.

EDIT 2 Please forget the wrong answer below.

Edit Simply the former proof thanks to the comments of the OP.

The only invertible elements are in $K^*$. I don't really like the proof below, but for the moment I dn't have an alternative one.

In $R$, the relation $tz=1-xy$ implies that any element $f(x,y,z,t)\in R$ can be written as $$f(x,y,z,t)=g(x,y,z)+th(x,y).$$ Suppose $f$ is invertible in $R$. Let $K^a$ be an algebraic closure of $K$. Denote by $$Z=\{(a,b,c,d)\in (K^a)^4 \mid ab+cd=1\}.$$ Then $f(a,b,c,d)\ne 0$ for all $(a,b,c,d)\in Z$.

First observation: there is no common factor $h_1(x,y)$ of $g(x,y,z)$ and $h(x,y)$ because otherwise $h_1(x,y)$ would be invertible in $R$, but for any $(a,b)\in (K^a)^2$, there exists $(a,b,c,d)\in Z$, so $h_1(a,b)\ne 0$, thus $h_1(x,y)\in K^*$.

Now for any $(a,b,c)\in (K^a)^3$ such that $c\ne 0$ and $h(a,b)\ne 0$, we have $g(a,b,c)+(1-ab)h(a,b)/c \ne 0$ because otherwise $f(a,b,c,d)=0$ with $d=(1-ab)/c$ and $(a,b,c,d)\in Z$. This means that in the affine space $\mathbb A^3_K$, we have $$ V(zg(x,y,z)+(1-xy)h(x,y))\subseteq V(z).$$ Therefore $z \mid f$ and $h=0$.

We are now reduced to the situation $f=g(x,y,z)$. Similar reasonings show that $g(x,y,z)=\lambda z^n$ with $\lambda \in K^*$ and $n\ge 0$. Again we see as above that $n>0$ is impossible. So $f\in K^*$.

share|improve this answer
Could you please explain, why do you need $h(a,b)\neq 0$ in the paragraph that starts with "Now for any $(a,b,c)\in (K^a)^3$..."? It looks like you only use that $c\neq 0$ when you write d=(1-ab)/c. –  user26565 Aug 4 '12 at 16:46
You are right. So the proof is simpler. –  Cantlog Aug 5 '12 at 1:29
Your assertion "...any element $f(x,y,z,t)\in R$ can be written as $f(x,y,z,t)=g(x,y,z)+th(x,y).$" is not true. It is false for $t^2$, for example . –  Georges Elencwajg Aug 5 '12 at 6:34
@GeorgesElencwajg, thanks ! But then I don't see how to repair. :( –  Cantlog Aug 5 '12 at 6:46
I'm trying to learn this sort of approach. I believe I know such things as "the number of poles is the number of zeros" and "all the bad stuff happens on E". I believe "the divisor of f is a multiple of E" is stating that f cannot have both poles and zeros on E. Can someone describe why that is so? –  Jack Schmidt Aug 5 '12 at 16:54
show 4 more comments

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.