3
$\begingroup$

Theorem 20.8 in "Commutative ring theory" states that if $A$ is a regular UFD then so is $A[[X]]$.

Here is the proof. He has to prove that the intersection of principal ideals $\mathfrak{b}=uB\cap vB$ where $B=A[[X]]$ is principal and considers WLOG the case $\mathfrak{b}\nsubseteq XB$.

I don't understand why $\mathfrak{b}:XB=\mathfrak{b}$.

The containment $\supseteq$ is obvious. If I consider $h\in \mathfrak{b}:XB$ then $hX\in \mathfrak{b}$ so if $P$ is a minimal prime divisor of $\mathfrak{b}$ I get $h\in P$ because $X\notin P$. So $h$ is in the radical of $\mathfrak{b}$ but from this point I can't prove that in fact $h\in \mathfrak{b}$.

Update: i understood this point but now i don't know why $I$ doesn't have embedded primes.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

$\mathfrak b$ is projective, hence locally principal. Since $B$ is regular all the associated primes of $\mathfrak b$ are of height one. (If $P$ is associated to $B/\mathfrak b$ then $PB_P$ is associated to $B_P/\mathfrak bB_P$. But $B_P$ is a Cohen-Macaulay integral domain (since it is regular and local), and $\mathfrak bB_P$ is principal, so $B_P/\mathfrak bB_P$ is also Cohen-Macaulay. Now use Matsumura, Theorem 17.3(i).)

Now let $\mathfrak b=\bigcap_{i=1}^n\mathfrak q_i$ be a reduced primary decomposition, and set $\mathfrak p_i=\sqrt{\mathfrak q_i}$. Since $\mathfrak b\nsubseteq XB$ we have $\mathfrak p_i\ne XB$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$. Furthermore $(\mathfrak b:XB)=\bigcap_{i=1}^n(\mathfrak q_i:XB)$. But it's easily seen that $(\mathfrak q_i:XB)=\mathfrak q_i$: if $bX\in\mathfrak q_i$ then $b\in\mathfrak q_i$ (since $X\notin\mathfrak p_i$, otherwise $XB\subseteq\mathfrak p_i$ and both are prime ideals of height one, hence they are equal, a contradiction). Thus we get $(\mathfrak b:XB)=\mathfrak b$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ ok, thanks. But now i can't understand why all associated primes are of height 1. If $P$ is minimal i can localize in $P$ and since $I_P$ is principal $P_P$ has height 1 and then $P$ has height 1 using the principal ideal theorem. The question is: why aren't there embedded primes? $\endgroup$ – karmalu Aug 15 '15 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ Since $B$ is regular all associated primes of $I$ have the same height. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Aug 15 '15 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ Well, i simply didn't know it. And how can it be proven? $\endgroup$ – karmalu Aug 15 '15 at 17:23
  • $\begingroup$ If $P$ is associated to $R/I$ then $PR_P$ is associated to $R_P/IR_P$. But $R_P$ is a Cohen-Macaulay integral domain (since it is regular and local), and $IR_P$ is principal, so $R_P/IR_P$ is also Cohen-Macaulay. Now use Matsumura, Theorem 17.3(i). $\endgroup$ – user26857 Aug 15 '15 at 17:32

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.