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 $A$ be a Noetherian local ring and $M$ a finitely generated $A$-module such that $$\operatorname{depth}M= \dim M=\dim A.$$ I can prove that $$\operatorname{depth}M_{\mathfrak{p}}= \dim M_{\mathfrak{p}}\leq\dim A_{\mathfrak{p}}\quad\forall\mathfrak{p}\in\operatorname{Supp}M.$$ I guess the inequality is in fact an equality, but can't seem to be able to prove it. Does anyone have any idea?

P.S. If $A$ is Cohen-Macaulay and pd$(M)<\infty$ (i.e., if $M$ is perfect), then it can be shown using $$\operatorname{pd}M=\operatorname{depth}A-\operatorname{depth}M.$$

share|cite|improve this question
I cleaned up the TeX in this posting. Notice that writing \operatorname{depth} not only prevents italicization, but also provides proper spacing that was lacking. And \dim is an operatorname in its own right. And using \mbox in this context is an abomination:… (What it says on the linked page does not apply only to Wikipedia. I do think this will mislead people about the proper use of \mbox when TeX is used normally as opposed to the way it's used on websites.) – Michael Hardy Sep 29 '11 at 20:49
If the suppport of $M$ is not equal to $\mathrm{Spec}(A)$, then the equality is not true: just take a prime $\mathfrak p$ not in the support, then $M_{\mathfrak p}=0$ but $A_{\mathfrak p}$ has no reason to has zero dimension. Example: let $A$ be $\mathbb C[x,y]/(x,y)$ localized at $(x,y)$ and let $M=A/xA$. – user18119 Apr 24 '13 at 6:00
up vote 6 down vote accepted

It is true if $A$ is CM. I'm not sure if $A$ is not CM. Here is a proof:

Let $\mathfrak{p}\in\operatorname{Supp} M$, and $\operatorname{ht}\mathfrak{p}=n$. Since $A$ is CM, there is an $A$-sequence $a_1,\ldots,a_n\in\mathfrak{p}$ (see Matsumura, Commutative Ring Theory, Theorem 17.4). Since $M$ is maximal, it is also an $M$-sequence (see Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra, Proposition 21.9). Then $a_1/1,\ldots,a_n/1\in\mathfrak{p}A_{\mathfrak{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is an $M_{\mathfrak{\mathfrak{p}}}$-sequence, so $\operatorname{depth} M_{\mathfrak{\mathfrak{p}}}\geq n$. On the other hand, $$n=\dim A_{\mathfrak{\mathfrak{p}}}\geq\dim M_{\mathfrak{\mathfrak{p}}}\geq\operatorname{depth} M_{\mathfrak{\mathfrak{p}}},$$ so they are all equal.

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.