A local ring is a (say, associative, commutative and unitary) ring $R$ with a unique maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$, which in turn determine a uniquely a field $k = R/\mathfrak{m}$. And then my book (and i've seen this in other places as well) says that $(R, \mathfrak{m}, k)$ will denote the local ring.

Silly question, but why do you need to denote a local ring by a triple, isn't all information encompassed in $R$?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's useful. That's it. $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Jul 31 '17 at 2:28
  • $\begingroup$ ^ that and they're usually setting up notation concisely without having to describe what each of those three symbols stand for. $\endgroup$ – Ravi Jul 31 '17 at 2:30

If you only write "let $R$ be a local ring" then when you need to talk about the maximal ideal of $R$ you need to also say "let $\mathfrak m$ be the maximal ideal of $R$" because otherwise $\mathfrak m$ isn't defined. Saying "let $(R, \mathfrak m, k)$ be a local ring" lets one introduce three symbols at once and because one often wants to talk about $\mathfrak m$ and $k$ it is useful to have an effective means of introducing them rather than the long winded "let $R$ be a local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$ and residue field $k = R/\mathfrak m$".

It's the same reason as one might say at the top of their paper "in this paper $U, V, W$ will denote vector spaces over a fixed field $\mathbf{F}$" rather than having to say "let $V$ be a vector space over a field $\mathbf{F}$" everywhere.


Another point of view which might be of interest is to look at local rings as a mathematical structure itself.

This notation is then compatible with Bourbaki's notation (Elements of Mathematics vol. 1) and further emphasises the importance of a that a morphism between local rings should preserve their maximal ideals (local homomorphism of rings) and by simple ring theory pass to the quotient to a morphism on their residue field.

In other words a morphism between $(A, \mathfrak m, k)$ and $(B, \mathfrak n, l)$ is a triple of morphisms (one of non unital rings and two unitary) $f,\phi, \overline\phi$ such that the natural diagram

commutative diagram



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.