3
$\begingroup$

I’m proving the following rings are not isomorphic $$ \mathbb{K}[x,y]\not\cong\mathbb{K}[x,y,z]/(xy-z^2) $$ $\mathbb{K}$ is just an algebraic closed field

I can see they are not isomorphic since there is some polynomials in the latter with $z$, since the higher degrees in $z$ are replaced by $xy$

I think there is a isomorphism:

$$ \mathbb{K}[x,y]\oplus\mathbb{K}[x,y]\cong\mathbb{K}[x,y,z]/(xy-z^2) $$

But how to prove it in formal, thanks in advance for any help!

$\endgroup$
4
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ I think of $K[x,y,z]/(xy-z^2)$ simply as an extension ring of $K[x,y]$, where we have introduced a new special element $\sqrt{xy}$, and decided to denote it by $z$. After all, $z^2=xy$ in the quotient ring. It follows that $$K[x,y,z]/(xy-z^2)\simeq K[x,y]\oplus \sqrt{xy} K[x,y],$$ where on the right hand side we have a direct sum of $K[x,y]$-modules. This is totally analogous to the rings like $$\Bbb{Z}[\sqrt2]=\{a+b\sqrt2\mid a,b\in\Bbb{Z}\}\simeq \Bbb{Z}[z]/(z^2-2)$$ that you have surely seen on earlier courses. $\endgroup$ Apr 21, 2021 at 8:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Proving that the rings are not isomorphic is tricky. Proving that they are not isomorphic as $K$-algebras is already non-trivial. This is because there are no guarantees that an eventual isomorphism would need to map $x$ and $y$ to themselves. For example $K[x]$ and $K[x,y]/(y^2-x)$ are isomorphic as $K$-algebras. I might bail out and say that $K[x,y]$ has unique factorization, but $K[x,y,z]/(xy-z^2)$ does not, because (with obvious abuse of notation) $xy=z^2$ yields two different factorizations of the same element. $\endgroup$ Apr 21, 2021 at 8:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is not clear how helpful the above argument is to you, because your background is in the dark. That's why hm2020 had to make educated guesses about where you might have seen examples like this, and adapt their (+1) answer to one such "context". $\endgroup$ Apr 21, 2021 at 8:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $\mathbb{K}[x,y]$ is a UFD, and I think one can show that $\mathbb{K}[x,y,z]/(xy-z^2)$ is not, essentially because $xy= z^2$ gives two different factorizations of an element in the quotient. It still remains to check that $x,y,z$ are non-associate irreducibles to prove this rigorously. $\endgroup$ Apr 21, 2021 at 17:26

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Question: "But how to prove it in formal, thanks in advance for any help!"

Answer: In fact, much can be said about this question - about the algebra and geometry. Let $K$ be the field of real numbers (or any algebraically closed field) and let $f:=xy-z^2$. We may look at the "algebraic variety" $Z(f)$ defined by $f$ in real 3-space: $V:=\mathbb{R}^3$: $Z(f)$ is the set of points $(a,b,c)\in V$ such that $f(a,b,c)=0$. Geometrically you may view $Z(f)$ as a surface in 3-space, and this surface may be "smooth" or "singular". The singular points of the surface are the points defined by the "Jacobian ideal" $J(f)$ of the the polynomial $f$: The ideal $J(f)$ is the ideal generated by the partial derivatives of $f$:

$$\partial f/\partial x:=y, \partial f/\partial y=x, \partial f/\partial z=-2z,$$

and it follows the Jacobian ideal of $f$ is the ideal $J(f)=(x,y,-2z)\cong (x,y,z)$. Hence the ring $A:=K[x,y,z]/(f)$ has a non-regular point at the origin $0:=(0,0,0)$. The corresponding algebraic variety $Z(f)$ is singular. The ring $K[x,y]$ is regular - the corresponding algebraic variety is real 2-space $\mathbb{R}^2$, and this variety is non-singular. For this reason the rings cannot be isomorphic since regularity/non-singularity is preserved under isomorphism. A similar result holds for $\mathbb{K}$. You must look up a book on algebraic varieties. There is a close connection between the ring $B:=K[x,y,z]/(f)$ and the corresponding variety $Z(f)\subseteq \mathbb{R}^3$.

As mentioned by Lahtonen in the comments: If you write down explicit formulas for two commutative rings and ask "Is there an isomorphism of $k$-algebras between these rings?", this question is usually solved using "invariants". In this case the invariant was "non-singularity/non-regularity". You may find this invariant studied in a book on commutative algebra - maybe Eisenbud/Harris book?

Remark: "I think there is a isomorphism

$$K[x,y]\oplus K[x,y]\cong B."$$

Note: Here is an "elementary proof" along the lines suggested in the comments. If $A:=K[x,y]$ we may consider $A[t]$ and $f(t):=t^2-xy \in A[t]$. $f(t)$ is a monic polynomial in $A[t]$ and your ring $B$ satisfies

$$B \cong A[t]/(f(t)).$$

The ring $B$ has a basis consisting of the elements $1, \overline{t}$ where $\overline{t}$ is the equivalence class of $t$ in the quotient. Hence $B$ is a non-trivial integral extension of $A \cong K[x,y]$. Hence there cannot be an isomorphism $B \cong A$. Note moreover that $f$ is an irreducible polynomial hence $B$ is an integral domain and there cannot be an isomorphism

$$\psi:B \cong K[x,y]\oplus K[x,y]$$

of rings: The right side is not an integral domain. But the map $\psi$ is an isomorphism of $A$-modules: $B$ is a free $A$-module of rank $2$ on the elements $1, \overline{t}$. Hence you are correct when you suspect there is such an "isomophism", but it is an isomorphism of modules and not rings.

For interested readers:

Let $S:=Spec(B)$ and $\mathbb{A}^2_K:=Spec(A)$. The canonical map

$$\phi: S \rightarrow \mathbb{A}^2_K$$

is a finite map - it has finite fibers. If $\mathfrak{m}:=(x-a,y-b)$ with $a,b\in K$ is a maximal ideal in $A$ it follows the "fiber ring" $B\otimes_A \kappa(\mathfrak{m})$ satisfies the following:

$$B\otimes_A \kappa(\mathfrak{m})\cong K[t]/(t-u)\oplus K[t]/(t+u) \cong K \oplus K$$

if $u^2=ab\neq 0$. Here $\kappa(\mathfrak{m}):=A/\mathfrak{m}$ is the residue field. This is beacuse $K$ is algebraically closed and there is an $u\in K$ with $u^2=ab$, hence $t^2-ab=t^2-u^2=(t-u)(t+u)$. The isomorphism is an application of the chinese remainder theorem. If $ab=0$ it follows

$$B\otimes_A \kappa(\mathfrak{m}) \cong K[t]/(t^2):=K[\epsilon]$$

if $ab=0$. If $Z:=V(xy) \subseteq Spec(A)$ and $U:=Spec(A)-Z$, it follows for any closed point $p\in Z$ the fiber $\phi^{-1}(p)$ is one non-reduced point. For a closed point $p\in U$ it follows the fiber $\phi^{-1}(p)$ consists of two points. Generically the morphism $\phi$ has two points in the fiber, but above the closed subscheme $Z$ there is one non-reduced point of "multiplicity two": $dim_K(K[\epsilon])=2$.

Note: If there was an isomorphism $A \cong B$ this would imply that for any maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}:=(x-a,y-b) \subseteq A$ there was an isomorphism

$$A/\mathfrak{m} \cong B/\mathfrak{m}$$

but

$$A/\mathfrak{m} \cong K\text{ and }B/\mathfrak{m} \cong K[t]/(t^2-ab) \neq K.$$

Hence the calculation above gives an "elementary" proof that $A \neq B$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks to your solution! But I think I’m not familiar with the conceptions you used, could you please solve this in a more “friendly” way? $\endgroup$
    – user867836
    Apr 21, 2021 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice of you! I will refer to some books for more about regularity/singularity $\endgroup$
    – user867836
    Apr 21, 2021 at 8:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Recall that $K$ is algebraically closed, so it won't be $\Bbb R$. $\endgroup$ Apr 21, 2021 at 8:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In too many words this answer says that the polynomial ring K[x,y] is regular, while the factor ring is not. It is irrelevant that K is algebraically closed or not. Moreover, the answer should mention the characteristic case 2, too. The conclusion is the same, but some details are not! $\endgroup$
    – user26857
    Apr 21, 2021 at 8:33
  • $\begingroup$ @user26857 "In too many words"--this does not seem helpful, e.g. OP explicitly asked for "a[n even] more 'friendly' way". $\endgroup$ Apr 21, 2021 at 10:33

You must log in to answer this question.