2
$\begingroup$

My question refers to a step of in the proof of Corollary 8.5.17 in Bosch's "Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry"; see page 395

See the red tagged line below:

enter image description here

We consider the exact sequence

$$0 \to I/J \to R[t_1, ..., t_n]/J \to R[t_1, ..., t_n]/I \to 0$$

and we tensor it with $k(s) = \mathcal{O}_{S,s}/m_s$.

Why does it stay exact? Indeed, by assumption $\mathcal{O}_{S,s}$ is flat so it's ok to tensor it with $\mathcal{O}_{S,s}$ but what about $k(s)$? Why does it conserve the exactness?

In addition: Lemma 5.2.9:

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't the assumption $R[t_1,\ldots, t_n]/I$ flat over $R$? Then, tensoring over $R$ with $k(s)=R/M$, $M$ a maximal ideal, stays exact. Easiest way is to say that the kernel on the left is $Tor^1_R(k(s), R[t_1,\ldots.t_n]/I)=0$ by flatness. $\endgroup$
    – Mohan
    Jan 10, 2019 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohan: I'm not sure why $R$ should be flat over $R[t_1,\ldots, t_n]/I$. Well, firstly we can indeed assume $S= Spec(R)$ and $X= Spec(R[t_1,\ldots, t_n]/I)$ since problem is local. The assumption (ii) says that $f$ is only flat in $x$ not everywhere, so we know that $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ is flat over $\mathcal{O}_{S,s}$, right? I don't see why flatness is inherited for $R[t_1,\ldots, t_n]/I$ over $R$. Please, correct me if I have overseen some argument. $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Jan 10, 2019 at 1:21
  • $\begingroup$ What does 5.2/9 say? $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Jan 10, 2019 at 1:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Ben: I added it above. So the the core problem stays to see why $R[t_1,\ldots, t_n]/I$ is flat over $R$ althought we only know that $f$ is flat in $x$. $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Jan 10, 2019 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ Localize the sequence at $m_x$, which is still exact (localization is exact). Then by assumption the third term is flat over $R_s$, so apply 5.2/9 to the module $k(s) = R_s/m_s$. Does that do it? $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Jan 10, 2019 at 2:40

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Set $T = R[t_1,\ldots, t_n]$. Our assumption that $f$ is flat at $x$ means that $(T/I)_x$ is flat over $R_s$.

We have an exact sequence: $$ 0 \to I/J \to T/J \to T/I \to 0$$ Localization is exact so we again have the localized exact sequence: $$0 \to (I/J)_x \to (T/J)_x \to (T/I)_x \to 0$$ Now in 5.2/9, we take $M''$ to be $(T/I)_x$ since it is flat over $R_s$, and take $N$ to be $k(s) = R_s/m_s$. We get the exact sequence we wanted: $$0 \to (I/J)_x\otimes k(s) \to (T/J)_x\otimes k(s) \to (T/I)_x\otimes k(s) \to 0$$ This justifies the statement "[the sequence] remains exact at $x$ when tensoring over $R$ it with $k(s)$".

(Sweeping it under the rug, but we just used that Localization commutes with tensor products to identify $M\otimes_{R_s} k(s) = M\otimes_{R}k(s)$ for an $R_s$-module $M$ by the way.)

Watch out for the typo in the next line though, $J/I$ should be $I/J$.


Per the title of this question: The residue field $k(s)$ is not going to be a flat module, see e.g. is residue field ever flat over its local ring? on MathOverflow, so it's important that $N$ in 5.2/9 can be any module.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .