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.

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

I was trying to get a counterexample of this fact: given a ring $A$, $f\in A$ and $S=\{1,f,f^2,...\}$, is $S^{-1}A$ always a local ring? Could you help me please? Thank you.

share|cite|improve this question
A counterexample is $A=0$. – Martin Brandenburg Jan 4 '13 at 22:36
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Try inverting $n$ in $\mathbb{Z}$. Then the primes of this are literally the primes of $\mathbb{Z}$ coprime to $n$.

share|cite|improve this answer

If $A$ is an arbitrary (commutative) ring and $f=1$, then $S=\lbrace 1\rbrace$and the canonical morphism $A\to S^{-1}A:a\mapsto \frac {a}{1}$ is an isomorphism of rings.
So your question is equivalent to "Is every ring $A$ local ?" What do you think?

share|cite|improve this answer
+1 This answer is hilarious!! – user38268 Jan 17 '13 at 0:26

Just elaborating a little on uncookedfalcon's answer, it is a standard result that if $S \subset A$ is a multiplicative subset, then the prime ideals of $S^{-1}A$ are precisely those of the form $pS^{-1}A$, where $p$ is a prime ideal of $A$ such that $p \cap S = \emptyset$. Now try to deduce the example that uncookedalcon gave from this fact.

Also note that since your $f$ is not required to be non-zero or non-nilpotent, you can just localize at $0$ (or a nilpotent element), giving you the zero ring which has no prime ideals, hence is not local.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much, you have been very kind, clear and useful. – Corra Jan 4 '13 at 20:10

In fact, in general if $S$ is a multiplicative set, then $S^{-1}A$ is local if and only if the saturation of $S$ is the complement of a prime ideal. In general, a saturated multiplicatively closed set will always be the complement of a union of prime ideals -- but any such complement is a saturated multiplicatively closed set. So, for a multiplicative set to give you a local ring when you invert it is a kind of maximality condition. Multiplicative sets of the form you mention are in a sense minimal (since for any multiplicative set $S$ and any $f \in S$, all the powers of $f$ also have to be in $S$). So one expects that such a multiplicative set will fail, in general, to yield a local ring.

share|cite|improve this answer
Welcome to Math.SE! This is a nice way to contrast the assumption and purported conclusion in the question. – user53153 Jan 5 '13 at 8:14

For $F$ a field, if you localize at $\{1,x,x^2,\dots\}$ for the ring $F[x]$, you get the domain of Laurent polynomials inside of the field $F(x)$.

This new ring isn't local because its units look like $fx^i$ for integers $i$ and $f\in F$, and so the nonunits are not closed under addition. (For example, $(x+2)-(x+1)$ is a unit.)

share|cite|improve this answer

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.