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

In Hartshorne, page 32 Theorem 5.1, the theorem says "Let $Y\subset\mathbb{A}^n$" be an affine variety. Let $P\in Y$ be a point. Then $Y$ is nonsingular at $P$ if and only if the local ring $\mathscr{O}_{P,Y}$ is a regular local ring.

Now in the proof, Hartshorne puts $P=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$, $a_P=(x_1-a_1,\ldots,x_n-a_n)$ the maximal ideal corresponding to $P$ in $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, and $b$ the ideal of $Y$ in $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. Also, $m$ is the maximal ideal in the local ring $\mathscr{O}_{P,Y}$ corresponding to the point $P$.

Now, he says that $\mathscr{O}_{P,Y}$ is obtained by dividing $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ by $b$ and then localizing at the maximal ideal $a_P$. This is ok (even though it really should be the localization at $(a_P+b)/b$, not at $a_P$, but I guess we can identify $a_P$ with its maximal ideal in $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/b$).

Now comes my question, he says that because of this, $m/m^2\cong a_P/(a_P^2+b)$, and thus their dimensions are the same. However, I see that since $m$ is the localization of $(a_p+b)/b$, then this would really be $m/m^2\cong S^{-1}((a_P+b)/b)/S^{-1}((a_P^2+b)/b)$ (where $S$ is the multiplicative set with which one localizes), and I don't see how $S^{-1}((a_P+b)/b)/S^{-1}((a_P^2+b)/b)\cong a_P/(a_P^2+b)$.

Am I not seeing something? Is there some abuse of notation maybe?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

With regard to the point in your third para., $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/b$ is a $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$-module, and so it makes perfect sense to localize it at $a_P$. (Of course this gives the same answer as localizing at $a_P/b$.)

With regard to your main question: since $a_P$ is maximal (or, alternatively, and perhaps more to the point: since $a_P$ contains $b$), $a_P + b = a_P$; this simplifies some points. In particular, your description of $m/m^2$ in your 2nd last paragraph simplifies to $S^{-1}(a_P/b)/S^{-1}\bigl((a_P^2+b)/b\bigr)$. Since localization is exact, this is the same as $S^{-1}\Bigl((a_P/b)/\bigl((a_P^2 + b)/b\bigr)\Bigr),$ which in turn equals $S^{-1}\bigl(a_P/(a_P^2+b)\bigr).$ Now the quotient $a_P/(a_P^2+b)$ is a $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$-module on which the $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$-action factors through the quotient $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/a_P$. Since this quotient is a field, the elements of $S$ automatically act invertibly on $a_P/(a_P^2+b)$, and hence localization at $S$ doesn't change anything. The conclusion is that $m/m^2 = a_P/(a_P^2+b)$, as claimed.

share|cite|improve this answer
Ohhhhh ok, you're absolutely right.... the detail I was missing was that S is actually invertible when seen as a subset of the regular functions on Y.... then of course localization doesn't change anything. Thanks a lot! – Robert Auffarth Aug 27 '11 at 17:17
@Robert: Dear Robert, $S$ is not invertible on $Y$ (unless it happens that $Y = P$); it is rather that it is invertible on $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/a_p^n$ for any $n \geq 0$, and so also on $a_P/a_P^2 + b$. Regards, – Matt E Aug 27 '11 at 19:09
Sorry that's what I meant; modulo $a_P$ all elements not zero at $P$ are invertible. Thanks!! – rfauffar Sep 26 '11 at 21:20

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.