2
$\begingroup$

There are two theorems in Matsumura (p. 78-9)

Theorem 11.1 Let $R$ be a valuation ring. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

(1) $R$ is a DVR

(2) $R$ is a PID

(3) $R$ is Noetherian

and

Theorem 11.2 Let $R$ be a ring; then the following conditions are equivalent:

(1) $R$ is a DVR

(2) $R$ is a local PID, and not a field

(3) $R$ is a Noetherian local ring, dim $R >0$ and the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_R$ is principal

(4) $R$ is a one-dimensional normal Noetherian local ring.

Question

Suppose we have a field $K$. Then $K$ is trivially a valuation ring. It is also (of course) a PID, then according to Thereorem 11.1 it must be a DVR.

Since $K$ is a DVR, $K$ is not a field according to 11.2. Am I misunderstanding something?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ @user26857 Matsumura himself says that fields are valuation rings. On page 71, he says "The case R=K is the trivial valuation ring". $\endgroup$ – Artus Dec 30 '14 at 19:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you're referring to me, not user26857. I made a mistake and misinterpreted his definition as I admitted in the next comment. My apologies. $\endgroup$ – Weaam Dec 30 '14 at 19:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Weaam I was actually writing to both of you but I can only refer to one. user26857 said he didn't want to argue with Matsumura about whether or not fields were valuation rings...so I just wanted to state Matsumura's opinion. $\endgroup$ – Artus Dec 30 '14 at 19:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the author some how assume (without saying clearly) that from now on we will only talk about non-trivial valuation rings. I'm saying this because just before Theorem 11.1 the following definition was given: a valuation ring whose value group is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$ is called a discrete valuation ring (DVR). so the Theorem 11.1 doesn't make sense unless you discard the trivial case (i.e. field). $\endgroup$ – Krish Dec 30 '14 at 19:10
6
$\begingroup$

The definition of DVRs in Matsumura, as valuation rings whose value group is isomorphic to $\mathbb Z$, doesn't allow you to consider the fields as DVRs.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Following the definitions of the book:

A field is a valuation ring, yet not a DVR, since its valuation group is not ismorphic to the integers, as pointed out in another answer already.

Thus, there is in fact a contradiction there. Indeed, there is a glitch in Theorem 11.1. In the proof, part (2) implies (1), it is assumed (implictly) that the PID is not a field.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.