Let $R$ be a ring, $P\subset R$ a prime ideal, and $M$ a finitely generated $R$-module. Suppose that $M_P$ (the localization of the module $M$ at the prime $P$) is the zero module over the ring $R_P$ (the localization of $R$ at $P$). Is it true that

  1. for any prime ideal $Q$ in $R$ such that $P\subset Q$, $M_Q=0$;
  2. $M/PM$ is the zero $R/P$-module, i.e., $M=PM$?

My thoughts about the first question.

Let $S=R\setminus P$. The module $M_P$ consists of all fractions of the form $m/s$ (by fraction I mean the corresponding equivalence class). If $M_P$ is the zero module, then it consists of all fractions of the form $0/s$ with $s\in S$. Another way of saying this is the following: given any element $m/s'$ in $M_P$, there exists an element $\widetilde s\in S$ such that $\widetilde s ms=0$.

Let's try to show that $M_Q$ is the zero module (which consists of all elements of the form $0/t$) whenever $P\subset Q$. To this end we need to show that given any $\overline m /t'$ in $M_Q$ (with $\overline m \in M $ and $t' \in \bar S:=R\setminus Q$) there is a $\widetilde t\in \bar S$ such that $\widetilde t \overline m t=0$. But since $P\subset Q$, it follows that $\bar S \subset S$. So we can't take $\widetilde t=\widetilde s$ (it might be the case that $\widetilde s\in S\setminus \bar S$.

So in general the statement fails? If yes, what if we require that $M/PM$ be the zero module instead of requiring that $M_P$ be zero? (This would certainly imply $M_P=0$.)

Now for the second question. I know that for any $R$-module $M$, TFAE:

  • $M=0$
  • $M_P=0$ for all primes $P$
  • $M_m=0$ for all maximals $m$

So if $M_P=0$ then $M=0$ and hence $M/PM=0$ and $M=PM$. So this statement is true. Is it correct?

Also, what I don't understand is where it is used (in my "proofs" of both the first and the second statements) that $M/PM$ is an $R/P$-module (we may consider it as an $R$-module) and that $M_P$ is an $R_P$-module (again we may consider it as an $R$-module)?


Both are false:

  1. Take any local integral domain $R$ (a discrete valuation domain, for instance), and $M$ a non-zero torsion $R$-module. Let $K$ be the fraction field of $R$, $\mathfrak m$ the maximal ideal of $R$. Then $M_{\mathfrak m}=M\ne 0$, but tje localisation of $M$ at the $(0)$ prime ideal, i.e. $\;M\otimes_R K=0$.
  2. The same example shows we do not have $M=(0)M$.

For this second assertion, you misunderstood the equivalence: it asserts that $$\color{red}(\forall\mathfrak p\in\operatorname{Spec}R,\;M_{\mathfrak p}= 0\color{red})\implies M=0,$$ and not that$$\forall\mathfrak p\in\operatorname{Spec}R,\;\color{red}(M_{\mathfrak p}= 0\implies M=0\color{red}).$$


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.