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

Some questions:

1) This is proposition $3.5$ , page $39$ of Atiyah's and Macdonald's book.

Let $M$ be an $A$-module. Then $S^{-1}A \otimes_{A} M \cong S^{-1}M$ as $S^{-1}A$-modules.

So the idea is to use the universal property of the tensor product. The mapping $S^{-1}A \times M \rightarrow S^{-1}M$ given by $(a/s,m) \mapsto am/s$ is $A$-bilinear so we get an $A$-linear map $f: S^{-1}A \otimes_{A} M \rightarrow S^{-1}M$ given by $f((a/s) \times m) = am/s$.

Then the rest of the proof shows the map is injective and surjective. My question is, can't we simply give the inverse? let $g: S^{-1}M \rightarrow S^{-1}A \otimes_{A} M$ given by $g(m/s) = 1/s \otimes m$.

Then we have:

$(g \circ f)((a/s) \otimes m)=g(f(a/s))=g(am/s)=1/s \otimes am = a/s \otimes m$.

Similarly for $f \circ g$.

2) This is exercise $4$ (same book) page $44$: let $f: A \rightarrow B$ be a ring homomorphism and let $S$ be a multiplicatively closed subset of $A$. Let $T=f(S)$. Show that $S^{-1}B \cong T^{-1}B$ as $S^{-1}A$-modules.

My question here: why $S^{-1}B$ makes sense? I thought that we always needed that the multiplicatively closed set is a subset of the ring $B$, here $S \subseteq A$, why we can take the localization then?

3) Let $M$ be an $A$-module let $\textrm{Supp}(M)=\{P \in Spec(A) : M_{P} \neq 0\}$, the support of $M$.

I want to compute $\textrm{Supp}(\mathbb{Z} \otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ (viewed as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module).

I know that in general $\textrm{Supp}(M_{1} \oplus M_{2}) = \textrm{Supp}(M_{1}) \cup \textrm{Supp}(M_{2})$.

So two doubts here:

$\textrm{Supp}(\mathbb{Z}) = \{0\} \cup \{(p) : \textrm{p is prime}\}$ right? because if we localize at such prime ideals we don't get the trivial module.

On the other hand I think $\textrm{Spec}(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}) = \{(0)\}$ and if we localize $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ at $(0)$ we get again $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ because $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ is a field right?

So in conclusion $\textrm{Supp}(\mathbb{Z} \otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}) = \{(0)\} \cup \{(p): \textrm{ p is prime}\}=\textrm{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$.

Is this OK?

Thanks in advance

\textbf{EDIT}: Sorry I meant $\textrm{Supp} (\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$.

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

$\DeclareMathOperator{\supp}{supp}$For (1), I think that this is a fine way to do it, although you should be careful when defining maps out of something like $S^{-1}M$. Unfortunately, most books omit the universal property of a localised module, but it's a good exercise to figure out what it is. Less elegantly, you could define a map of sets $S \times M \to S^{-1}A \otimes M$ and check that it respects the equivalence relation used in the construction.

I think you have mixed up the direct sum and the tensor product in your attempt to solve (3). I agree with your computation of $\supp(\mathbf{Z})$, but as Bruno says that turns out to be unnecessary for this problem. Also note that you are not trying to find the support of $\mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z}$ as a module over itself; if you were, then I would agree with your answer.

A fact that you might like, which would be overkill for this problem: if $M, N$ are finitely generated modules over $A$, then it is true that $\supp(M \otimes N) = \supp(M) \cap \supp(N)$. See Ex. 3.19(iv) in Atiyah-Macdonald.

share|cite|improve this answer
thanks, just corrected it, can you please have a look? – user6495 Jul 18 '11 at 3:23
That certainly changes things, since by your remark you can calculate $\operatorname{supp}(\mathbf{Z} \oplus M)$ without knowing which $\mathbf{Z}$-module $M$ is. – Dylan Moreland Jul 18 '11 at 3:44
supp(Z) is just spec(Z) right? – user6495 Jul 18 '11 at 16:06
@user6495 Yes. I don't think it's too hard to show that the support of any ring $A$ as a module over itself is all of $\operatorname{Spec} A$. – Dylan Moreland Jul 18 '11 at 16:24

(1) You can certainly do that as well. You just have to check that your map $g$ is well-defined, and that it's a morphism of $S^{-1}A$-modules (remember that the expression $m/s$ is not unique).

(2) Here $B$ is given the canonical structure of an $A$-module, $a\cdot x = f(a)x$.

(3) Since $\mathbb{Z} \otimes_\mathbb{Z} \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \simeq \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ as $\mathbb{Z}$-modules, you have $\text{Supp}(\mathbb{Z} \otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}) = \text{Supp}(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$. For a prime $P \in \mbox{Spec }\mathbb{Z}$, the localization $(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})_P$ is $0$ if and only if $P\neq (2)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
thanks , I'm aware $B$ is an $A$-module via restriction of scalars, but why $S$ is a subset of $B$? don't we need that the multiplicative subset is a subset of the ring? – user6495 Jul 18 '11 at 3:31
Here we're talking about the localization of $B$ as an $A$-module, with the $A$-module structure that I pointed out. – Bruno Joyal Jul 18 '11 at 4:30

For 3), ${\bf Z} \otimes {\bf Z}/2$ is the same thing as ${\bf Z}/2$, so it support is all of $Spec({\bf Z}/2)$, which is the 0 ideal as you say. But you also seem to be mixing up the 0 ideal in ${\bf Z}/2$ and the one in ${\bf Z}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
But the support of $\mathbb{Z}/2$, as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module, is not the same thing as the support of $\mathbb{Z}/2$ as a $\mathbb{Z}/2$-module... – Bruno Joyal Jul 17 '11 at 21:25
It is the same if you identify $Spec({\bf Z}/2)$ as a subset of $Spec({\bf Z})$. – Steven Sam Jul 18 '11 at 3:29
Better to mix up the zero ideal of $\mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z}$ and the prime $(2)$ of $\mathbf{Z}$. – Dylan Moreland Jul 18 '11 at 3:40

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.