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.

$\textbf{1.}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$ Let $(A,\mathfrak m_A)$ be a one dimensional local domain and let $B$ be its integral closure in the fraction field $L=\textrm{Frac}\,A$. Assume that $B$ is finitely generated over $A$. I would like to understand why the discrete valuations rings of $L$ dominating $A$ $are$ the localizations $B_{\mathfrak m}$ of $B$ at its maximal ideals.

I was able to show that such a localization is a DVR of $L$. But, just to conclude this first step, how does one prove that $\mathfrak m_A\subset \mathfrak mB_{\mathfrak m}$? We have \begin{equation} A\hookrightarrow B\hookrightarrow B_{\mathfrak m} \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,x\mapsto x/1 \end{equation} but how do we know that $x\in\mathfrak m_A$ goes to something in $\mathfrak m$ via the first map? And, for showing the "converse" (from DVR to localization) I have no ideas.

$\textbf{2.}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$ Afterwards, I would like to understand the following: suppose we have an integral variety $X$ with normalization $\pi:\tilde X \to X$. Let us take a (closed) codimension one subvariety $V\subset X$. The questions is: why do we have a correspondence between the DVR's of $L=K(X)$ dominating $A=\mathscr O_{X,V}$ and the (closed) subvarieties $Z\subset\tilde X$ mapping onto $V$? I feel like domination should translate $\pi(Z)=V$, but can't see it neatly.

Thank you!

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

(1).1. Let $P=\mathfrak mB_\mathfrak m\cap A$. Then $A/P\to B_\mathfrak m/\mathfrak mB_\mathfrak m$ is injective and integral. As the RHS is a field, this implies that $A/P$ is a field, hence $P=\mathfrak m_A$ and $\mathfrak m_A\subseteq \mathfrak mB_\mathfrak m$.

(1).2. Let $R$ be a DVR of $L$ dominating $A$. Any element $b\in B$ is integral over $R$ and belongs to $\mathrm{Frac}(R)$, so $b\in R$ because $R$ is integrally closed. Hence $B\subseteq R$. Let $Q=\mathfrak m_R\cap B$. Then $Q$ is a prime ideal of $B$ containing $\mathfrak m$, hence non-zero. As $\dim B=1$, $Q$ is maximal and $B_Q$ is a DVR of $L$ dominated by $R$, hence $B_Q=R$.

(2). One can apply (1) to $O_{X,V}$. The subvariety $Z$ gives rize to a DVR equal to $O_{\tilde{X}, Z}$. As $Z$ surjects to $V$, its generic point goes to the generic point of $V$, hence $O_{X,V}\to O_{\tilde{X}, Z}$ is a homomorphism of local rings. Conversely, a DVR dominating $O_{X,V}$ gives rize to a point $\xi$ of $\tilde{X}$ lying over the generic point of $V$ by 1.2. Let $Z$ be the Zariski closure of $\xi$. As $\pi$ is a finite map hence closed, $\pi(Z)$ is closed and dense in $V$, hence equals to $V$.

share|improve this answer
    
(1).2: does the assertion "$R$ is a DVR of $L$" include "$R$ dominates $A$"? (I ask this because DVR's are maximal local rings w.r.t. domination.) And to show $B\subset R$, could it be enough to say that $R\supset A$ and $R$ is integrally closed? (I ask this because I don't understand "any element $b\in B$ is integral over $R$": do we have $R\subset B$?) Afterwards, can I imitate (1).1 to see that $Q$ is maximal? ($B/Q\to R/\mathfrak m_R$ injective and integral). The rest is very clear, thank you QiL! –  Brenin Sep 14 '12 at 9:03
    
@atricolf:(1).2: non, a DVR of L doesn't necessarily dominate $A$ (example: $L=\mathbb Q$ and $A=\mathbb Z$ localized at $p$). In the proof of $B\subseteq R$, I meant $b$, viewed as an element of $L$, is integral over $R$ (because integral over $A\subseteq R$). For the proof of $Q$ maximal, non $B/Q\to R/m_R$ is not, a priori, integral. We really need the assumption on $\dim A$ here. Otherwise it is false, $Q$ can be of any positive height. –  user18119 Sep 14 '12 at 11:14

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.