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.

Here's a problem from Matsumura's book "Commutative ring theory" page $69$.

Let $A$ be a ring and let $A \subset B$ be an integral extension, and $\mathfrak{p}$ a prime ideal of $A$. Suppose that $B$ has just one prime ideal $P$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}$. Then $B_{P}=B_{\mathfrak{p}}$.

Solution (page $290$):

$B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is integral over $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$, so that any maximal ideal of $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ lies over $\mathfrak{p}A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ and therefore coincides with $PB_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Hence $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a local ring and the elements of $B \setminus P$ are units of $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$.

I don't understand the proof at all. Lot of questions:

1) Where it says "any maximal ideal of $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ lies over $\mathfrak{p}A_{p}$ , why is this? And isn't $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ a local ring? so why the expression any maximal ideal of $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$?

2) Then it says hence $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a local ring. Isn't the localization always a local ring?

3) Is it possible that you can please give another proof of the exercise (or explain it in detail)? I'm really confused about this proof.

Thanks

share|improve this question
1  
What happened to Arturo's answer? I was just going to accept it! –  user6495 Jul 25 '11 at 19:36
    
@Theo Buehler: is that OK? –  user6495 Jul 25 '11 at 20:04
    
@user6495: I deleted it because I was glossing over the issue of module localization vs. ring localization. –  Arturo Magidin Jul 25 '11 at 20:11
    
@user6495: Yes, much better! Thank you. –  t.b. Jul 25 '11 at 20:11
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

First of all, it should be pointed out that $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is the localization of the $A$ module $B$ at $\mathfrak{p}$. It is isomorphic to the ring $A_{\mathfrak{p}} \otimes_A\ B$ as an $A$ module. It need not be the case that $\mathfrak{p}$ is a prime ideal of $B$, thus to localize $B$ at $\mathfrak{p}$ as a ring doesn't make sense (for $B -\mathfrak{p}$ would not be a multiplicatively closed set). This should clear up your confusion about $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ not a priori being a local ring.

That any maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ lies over $\mathfrak{p}A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a standard result used to prove the going up theorem. For since $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is integral over $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$, we then have that $B_{\mathfrak{p}} /\mathfrak{m}$ is integral over $A_{\mathfrak{p}}/(\mathfrak{m}\cap A_{\mathfrak{p}})$. But $B_{\mathfrak{p}} /\mathfrak{m}$ is a field, so $A_{\mathfrak{p}}/(\mathfrak{m}\cap A_{\mathfrak{p}})$ must be one as well, whence $\mathfrak{m}$ lies over $\mathfrak{p}A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ since this is the unique maximal ideal of $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$.

share|improve this answer
1  
Why does it not make sense to localize $B$ at $p$, $S=A-p$ is a multiplicatively closed set of $A$ and hence of $B$, as $A\subset B$. The point is that $S^{-1}B=B_p$ is not a local ring. –  messi Jun 8 '12 at 19:32
add comment

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.