2
$\begingroup$

Is the integral closure of a local domain in a finite extension of its field of fractions semi-local?

If the answer is negative, I wonder under what conditions it would be semi-local.

EDIT Here's an example of a local domain which is not necessarily a Japanese ring. Let $A$ be a valuation ring, $K$ its field of fractions. Let $P$ be the maximal ideal of $A$. Let $L$ be a finite extension of $K$. Let $B$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $L$. It is well-known that there exist only finitely many valuation rings of $L$ dominating $A$. Let $M$ be a maximal ideal of $B$. It is well-known that $M$ lies over $P$. Hence $B_M$ dominates $A$. There exists a valuation ring $R$ of $L$ dominating $B_M$. Since $M$ is determined by $R$ and $R$ dominates $A$, there exist only finitely many maximal ideals of $B$. Hence $B$ is a semilocal ring.

Note that $B$ is not necessarily a finite $A$-module(even if $A$ is a discrete valuation ring). Hence $A$ is not necessarily a Japanese ring.

| cite | improve this question | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Semilocal here meaning that it has a finite number of maximal ideals? $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jun 8 '12 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it means exactly so. $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Jun 8 '12 at 1:34
5
$\begingroup$

Here are some sufficient conditions:

Let $A$ be a local domain, $K$ its fraction field, $L$ a finite extension of $K$, and $B$ the integral closure of $A$ in $L$. If $A$ is Noetherian and integrally closed, and $L$ is separable over $K$, then $B$ is necessarily finite over $A$, and so is semi-local (by going-up/down-type theorems).

If $A$ is not integrally closed, but its integral closure in $K$ is finite over itself, then again $B$ will be finite over $A$.

The condition that the integral closure of $A$ in $K$ be finite over $A$ is (at least by some people) called N-1. More generally, the condition that $B$ be finite over $A$ is called N-2, or Japanese. (The letter N here stands for Nagata, and I believe Grothendieck coined the adjecive Japanese for these rings because these properties were studied by Nagata and the commutative algebra school around him in Japan.)

So if $A$ is a Japanese ring, then $B$ will be finite over $A$, and hence semilocal. Of course, this is rather tautological: its utility follows from the fact that many rings (indeed, in some sense, most rings --- i.e. most of the rings that come up in algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry) are Japanese. E.g. all finitely generated algebras over a field, or over $\mathbb Z$, or over a complete local ring, are Japanese.

Here are some useful wikipedia entries related to this topic: Nagata rings and Excellent rings.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$

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.