I will appreciate any enlightenment on the following which must be an exercise in a certain textbook. (I don't recognize where it comes from.) I understand that the going down property does not hold since $R$ is not integrally closed (in fact, it is not a UFD), but I have no idea how to show that $q$ is such a counterexample.

Let $k$ be a field, $A = k[X, Y]$ be a polynomial ring, $R = \lbrace f \in A \colon f(0, 0) = f (1, 1) \rbrace \subset A$ be a subring. Define $q = (X)\cap R$, $p = (X - 1, Y - 1) \cap R$, $P = (X - 1, Y - 1)$. Show that there is no $Q \in \operatorname{Spec} A$, $Q\subset P$ that goes down to $q$.


We show that there is not a prime $Q\subset P$ such that $Q\cap R=q$.

Let us compute $p,q$. The prime $q=(X)\cap R=\{Xh\mid h(1,1)=0,h(X,Y)\in k[X,Y]\}$, the prime $p=P\cap R=\{g(X,Y)\mid g(0,0)=g(1,1)=0, g\in k[X,Y]\}$. Now it is clear $q\subset p$ and not equal $p$, since $X-Y\in p\setminus q$.

We are ready to show our statement. Suppose there is a prime ideal $Q\subset P$ such that $Q\cap R=q$, then $Q\neq P,0$. Thus $Q$ must be a principal ideal $(f)$ with an irreducible polynomial $f$ such that $f(1,1)=0$. But in this case, $(f)\cap R=\{fh\mid f(0,0)h(0,0)=0,h\in k[X,Y]\}$. We may find an irreducible polynomial $g\in k[X,Y]$ such that $g(1,1)=0$ but $(g)\neq (f)$, then $Xg(X,Y)\in q$ but $Xg(X,Y)\notin (f)$. We are done.


I'll show that the existence of $Q\in Spec(A)$ satisfying $Q\subsetneq P$ and $q= Q\cap R$ leads to a contradiction.

We have $X\cdot (X-1)\in q $ , so $X\cdot (X-1)\in Q$.
Hence we have $(X-1)\in Q$ (since $X\notin Q$ because $X\notin P$).
But this forces $Q=(X-1)A$, since $(X-1)A\subset Q\subsetneq P=(X-1,Y)$.
But then $(X-1)Y\in Q\cap R \setminus q$ : contradiction .

As wxu remarks in his comment, $q$ as defined by eltonjohn is not included in $p$. The above answer remains correct (I am sure of that, because else wxu would have noticed!), but it is not a counterexample to Going Down.
I advise users to read wxu's post: he modified eltonjohn's question precisely in order to give such a counterexample.

  • $\begingroup$ I just want to say $q$ is not contained in $p$ in the setting of the op. Since $x(y-1)\in q$ but $x(y-1)\notin p=(x-1,y)\cap R$.. :) $\endgroup$ – wxu May 27 '12 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ Dear wxu, you are absolutely right! Obviously you were too polite to mention that in your own answer. The least I can do to thank you for this observation is upvote you: done! $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg May 27 '12 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ However, I think your proof is more direct, and more succinct, only for one word "Going downing" may be a little not appropriate. :) $\endgroup$ – wxu May 27 '12 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ Dear wxu, exactly for that reason I was modifying my answer while you posted your comment and in the edit I urged users to read your post, which does give a counterexample to Going Down. By the way, an interesting consequence of your result is that $A$ is not flat over $R$, since going down holds for flat algebras: Matsumura, Commutative ring theory, Theorem 9.5. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg May 27 '12 at 12:27

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.