3
$\begingroup$

I am reading Introduction to Commutative Algebra / Atiyah & Macdonald, Theorem 5.11 ("Going-up theorem").

The statement is:

Let $A \subset B$ be rings, $B$ integral over $A$; let $p_1 \subset \dotsm \subset p_n$ be a chain of prime ideals of $A$ and $q_1 \subset \dotsm \subset q_m$ (m < n) a chain of prime ideals of $B$ such that $q_i \cap A = p_i$ ($1 \leq i \leq m$). Then the chain $q_1 \subset \dotsm \subset q_m$ can be extended to a chain $q_1 \subset \dotsm \subset q_n$ such that $q_i \cap A = p_i$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$.

I read the proof and I don't think the fact that $q_1$ (and hence $p_1$) is prime is used.

My question:

Does the conclusion still hold if we omit the assumption that $q_1$ (and $p_1$) is prime?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

You are right, we donot need that $\mathfrak{q}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{q}_m$ are prime. In the proof, we need $\mathfrak{p}_{i+1}$ where $i+1\geq m+1$ is prime.

For example, $m=1$, we need $\mathfrak{p}_2$ is prime, and then it follows $B/\mathfrak{q}_1$ is integral over $A/\mathfrak{p}_1$. By lying over theorem, we can find a prime ideal $\mathfrak{q}_2\subset B$ such that $\mathfrak{q}_2\supset \mathfrak{q}_1$ and lie over $\mathfrak{p}_2$.

$\endgroup$

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.