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

Let $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ and $(B,\mathfrak{n})$ be local Noetherian rings. Suppose that $\phi : A\rightarrow B$ is a map such that $\phi(\mathfrak{m}) \subset \mathfrak{n}$ and suppose

  1. $A/\mathfrak{m} \cong B/\mathfrak{n}$;
  2. $\mathfrak{m} \rightarrow \mathfrak{n/n^2}$ is surjective;
  3. $B$ is a finitely generated $A$ module.

Show that $\phi$ is surjective.

Here is my approach so far: Consider $0\rightarrow \mathfrak{m} \rightarrow A \rightarrow A/\mathfrak{m}\rightarrow 0$ and the exact sequence for $B$. Then we can establish an commutative diagram of the two exact sequences. (Sorry i do not know how to type that.) Then apply the snake's lemma, the isomorphism in condition 1 yields an isomophism $\mathfrak{n}/\phi(\mathfrak{m})\cong B/\phi(A)$. To see $\phi$ is surjective, it suffices to show $\phi(\mathfrak{m})=\mathfrak n$. Since $\mathfrak{n}$ is the maximal ideal of $B$, if $\phi(\mathfrak{m})+\mathfrak{n}^2 = \mathfrak{n}$, Nakayama will give the desired result. Now somehow I want to conclude $\phi(\mathfrak{m})+\mathfrak{n}^2 = \mathfrak{n}$ from conditions 2) and 3), which seems to be true but cannot really proceed.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

It is clear that $\phi(\mathfrak{m}) + \mathfrak{n}^2 \subset \mathfrak{n}$. Take an element $a \in \mathfrak{n}$. Since $\mathfrak{m} \rightarrow \mathfrak{n}/\mathfrak{n}^2$ is surjective, there exists $x \in \mathfrak{m}$ such that $a - \phi(x) \in \mathfrak{n}^2$. Thus, $a = \phi(x) + b$ for some $b \in \mathfrak{n}^2$. This shows that $\mathfrak{n} \subset \phi(\mathfrak{m}) + \mathfrak{n}^2$, and we are done.

I hope I am not misunderstanding what the map $\mathfrak{m} \rightarrow \mathfrak{n}/\mathfrak{n}^2$ is. I also want to say that you did all the difficult parts already.

Also take a look at Exercise 10 from Atiyah-Macdonald Chapter 2. While your proof using Snake Lemma is very nice, one can prove this statement by using Nakayama twice. The first time you use Nakayama is to deduce from $\phi(\mathfrak{m}) + \mathfrak{n}^2 = \mathfrak{n}$ that $\phi(\mathfrak{m}) = \mathfrak{n}$. This gives you that $\mathfrak{n} = \mathfrak{m}B$, i.e., the extension of $\mathfrak{m}$ in $B$ is $\mathfrak{n}$. Now, we know that the map $A\mathfrak{m} \rightarrow B/\mathfrak{m}B$ is surjective. Hence, by an argument similar to the one I gave above, you can show that $im(\phi) + \mathfrak{m}B = B$. Since $B$ is a finitely generated $A$-module, you use Nakayama again to deduce that $im(\phi) = B$.

This also shows you that you do not need $A$ Noetherian, and it suffices to only assume that the maximal ideal of $B$ is finitely generated.

share|cite|improve this answer
Where is the hypothesis $B$ is finitely generated $A$ module used in the proof indicated by Honghao? It is used in your proof, but i dont see it being used in Honghao's approach. Thanks – messi Apr 19 '13 at 6:46

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.