24
$\begingroup$

Is $\mathbb Z[[X]]\otimes \mathbb Q$ isomorphic to $\mathbb Q[[X]]$?

Here tensor product is over the ring $\mathbb Z$ and $\mathbb Z[[X]] $ denotes formal power series over $\mathbb Z$. I think this is true if we take polynomial rings instead of power series. Any help in this regards will be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
17
$\begingroup$

Consider the natural homomorphism ${\mathbb Z}[[x]]\otimes_{\mathbb Z}{\mathbb Q}\to{\mathbb Q}[[x]]$. It is injective but not an isomorphism since $1+\frac{1}{2}x+\frac{1}{4}x^2 + ...$ does not belong to the image.

What about other 'strange' isomorphisms? If there was some isomorphism ${\mathbb Z}[[x]]\otimes_{\mathbb Z} {\mathbb Q}\cong{\mathbb Q}[[x]]$, then ${\mathbb Z}[[x]]\otimes_{\mathbb Z} {\mathbb Q}$ was a discrete valuation ring, i.e. a principal ideal domain with a unique prime element $\pi$.

Consider now the elements $x$ and $x-2$ in ${\mathbb Z}[[x]]\otimes_{\mathbb Z} {\mathbb Q}$. They are both non-invertible in ${\mathbb Z}[[x]]\otimes_{\mathbb Z} {\mathbb Q}$: for $x$, it is not even invertible in ${\mathbb Q}[[x]]$, and for $2-x$, it is invertible in ${\mathbb Q}[[x]]$, but its inverse $\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}x+\frac{1}{8}x^2 + ...$ does not come from ${\mathbb Z}[[x]]\otimes_{\mathbb Z}{\mathbb Q}$. Hence $x$ and $2-x$ are of the form $\pi^k \varepsilon$ and $\pi^l\eta$ for $k,l\geq 1$ and units $\varepsilon,\eta$. This however would force $x^l$ to be associate to $(2-x)^k$, which is a contradiction since this is not even true in ${\mathbb Q}[[x]]$ as $(2-x)^k$ is a unit there but $x^l$ is not.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Nice question! First let me make the weaker claim that there is a natural map $\mathbb{Z}[[x]] \otimes \mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Q}[[x]]$ and that it is not an isomorphism. This is the one induced by the natural inclusion $\mathbb{Z}[[x]] \to \mathbb{Q}[[x]]$. In terms of this inclusion $\mathbb{Z}[[x]] \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ is the subring of $\mathbb{Q}[[x]]$ consisting of rational formal power series whose coefficients have a common denominator (because the tensor product consists of finite linear combinations). So, for example, the formal power series

$$e^x = \sum_{n \ge 0} \frac{x^n}{n!}$$

lies in $\mathbb{Q}[[x]]$ but not in $\mathbb{Z}[[x]] \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ because its denominators get arbitrarily large.

Conceptually, the problem is that power series are a limit but tensor products of commutative rings are a colimit. In general it's not formal to verify that a limit commutes with a colimit; that usually isn't true, and when it is it usually requires work to verify.

Now let's show that they aren't isomorphic at all. (Edit: There was a mistake here which is handled correctly in Hanno's answer.) $\mathbb{Q}[[x]]$ is a local ring, and in particular it has a unique maximal ideal $(x)$, and any element not in $(x)$ (a power series with nonzero constant term) is invertible. But $\mathbb{Z}[[x]] \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ is not a local ring: it has $(x)$ as a maximal ideal, but (as in Hanno's answer) the element $x - 2$ does not lie in this maximal ideal but is also not invertible.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

In fact we want to prove that $S^{-1}(\mathbb Z[[X]])\not\simeq(S^{-1}\mathbb Z)[[X]]$, where $S=\mathbb Z\setminus\{0\}$.
This is more or less obvious: the second ring (is $\mathbb Q[[X]]$ and it) is local, as it was already noticed, while the first has plenty of maximal ideals: every ideal of $\mathbb Z[[X]]$ generated by $X-p$, with $p\in\mathbb Z$ a (non-negative) prime number, gives rise to a maximal ideal in $S^{-1}(\mathbb Z[[X]])$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Dear sir, can you kindly explain why the ideal $(X-p)$ is maximal in $\mathbb{Z}[[X]]$ for $p$ prime in $\mathbb{Z}.$ I tried to give an evaluation map from $\mathbb{Z}[[X]]$ to $\mathbb{Z}$ at the point $p,$ I think for this may be some division algorithm we need by a monic polynomial e.g., $(X-p).$ $\endgroup$ – user371231 Mar 13 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ Where did I say that $(X-p)$ is maximal in $\mathbb Z[[X]]$? $\endgroup$ – user26857 Mar 13 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ Then $(x-p)$ must be a prime ideal in $\mathbb{Z}[[Z]]$. What ring will $\mathbb{Z}[[X]]/(X-p) $ is ? $\endgroup$ – user371231 Mar 14 at 3:21
  • $\begingroup$ The ring of $p$-adic integers. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Mar 14 at 12:15
3
$\begingroup$

That the morphism induced by the inclusion $\mathbb{Z}[[x]]\to\mathbb{Q}[[x]]$ is not an isomorphism can also be derived from group theoretical properties.

As abelian groups, $\mathbb{Z}[[x]]$ and $\mathbb{Q}[[x]]$ are just direct products of copies of $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$. Consider the exact sequence $$ 0\to \mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}}\to \mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{N}} \to (\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})^{\mathbb{N}} \to0 $$ Tensoring wit $\mathbb{Q}$ is flat, we get the exact sequence $$ \mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}\to \mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q} \to (\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q} \to0 $$ but the group $(\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})^{\mathbb{N}}$ is not torsion, so $(\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}\ne0$, which means $\mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}\to \mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}$ is not surjective.

(Note that the map $\mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}\to \mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}$ is injective because $\mathbb{Q}$ is flat, but it's irrelevant for the problem at hand.)

However, $\mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{N}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}$ are isomorphic (through a different map). Indeed they are both torsion free divisible groups (that is, $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces) with the same cardinality $2^{\aleph_0}$, so they have the same dimension $2^{\aleph_0}$ (assuming choice, of course). However, as shown in another answer, this group isomorphism cannot be a ring homomorphism.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I think the question deals with a ring isomorphism. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Feb 4 '15 at 21:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user26857 Of course! What I showed is that tensoring the inclusion doesn't give a group isomorphism, so no ring isomorphism either. $\endgroup$ – egreg Feb 4 '15 at 21:48

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.