The localization $K[X]_{X}$ is a ring extension of $K[X].$ I want to show that $K[X]_X$ is not integral over $K[X]$ using lying above.

I tried to find a maximal ideal in $K[X]_X$ whose contraction in $K[X]$ is not maximal ideal, or maybe we can produce two prime ideals above one containing another whose contraction is the same prime ideal. I need some help to construct such prime ideals. Thanks.

  • $\begingroup$ Rings of fractions are almost never integral over the original ring. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Mar 6 '19 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean if $S$ contains a non unit then $S^{-1}A$ is not integral over $A$ $\endgroup$ – user371231 Mar 6 '19 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ When $A$ is an integral domain, yes. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Mar 6 '19 at 16:15
  • $\begingroup$ See my answer for details on the fundamental property mentioned by @user26857 $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Mar 6 '19 at 17:13

Your second approach cannot work because this does not imply that the lying over property fails. For example, the extension $\Bbb{Z}\subset\Bbb{Z}[i]$ is integral and hence has the lying over property. But the two prime ideals $(2+i),(2-i)\subset\Bbb{Z}[i]$ satisfy $$(2+i)\cap\Bbb{Z}=(2-i)\cap\Bbb{Z}=5\Bbb{Z},$$ so their contraction is the same prime ideal.

Instead, consider the prime ideal $(X)\subset K[X]$. If there is a prime ideal $\mathfrak{q}\subset K[X]_X$ such that $\mathfrak{q}\cap K[X]=(X)$ then in particular $X\in\mathfrak{q}$. But $X$ is a unit in $K[X]_X$ and so $\mathfrak{q}=K[X]_X$, a contradiction. So there is no prime ideal lying over $(X)$.

For some more perspective; in general when localizing a (commutative unital) ring $R$ with respect to a multiplicative subset $S$, the set of prime ideals of $R_S$ corresponds bijectively to the set of prime ideals of $R$ that are disjoint from $S$. The bijection is given by taking contractions/extensions w.r.t. the localization map $R\ \longrightarrow\ R_S$.

In this particular case, the set of prime ideals of $K[X]_X$ corresponds bijectively to the set of prime ideals of $K[X]$ that do not contain any power of $X$. These are all prime ideals except $(X)$, and every prime ideal of $K[X]$ except $(X)$ is the contraction of a prime ideal of $K[X]_X$.

[Original answer, where I mistook $K[X]_X$ for $K[X]_{(X)}$.]

As you say, the ring $K[X]_X$ is local, so there is only one maximal ideal, which is the ideal generated by $X$. Its contraction in $K[X]$ is the ideal generated by $X$ there, which is also maximal, so this approach won't work.

The only other prime ideal of $K[X]_X$ is the zero ideal, which contracts to the zero ideal in $K[X]$, which is also prime. So this approach won't work either.

However, this does show that the extension does not have the lying over property; the ring $K[X]_X$ has only two prime ideals whereas $K[X]$ has infinitely many. So there must be some prime ideal of $K[X]$ that is not the contraction of a prime ideal of $K[X]_X$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $K[X]_X$ is localization wrt the multiplicative closed set $\{1,X,X^2,\ldots\}$ $\endgroup$ – user371231 Mar 6 '19 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I read it as the localization w.r.t. to (the complement of) the prime ideal $(X)$. See my new answer. $\endgroup$ – Servaes Mar 6 '19 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ Anyone care to explain the downvote? $\endgroup$ – Servaes May 5 '19 at 20:54

A crucial property of integral ring extensions is that they don't alter unit properties in the base ring, i.e. a nonunit $\,r\in R\,$ remains a nonunit in any integral extension ring $S.\,$ For example, this may allow us to deduce that Diophantine equations in $\Bbb Z$ are unsolvable by deducing a parity contradiction $\,2\mid 1\,$ in some convenient extension ring of algebraic integers. Thus in the OP the $ $ nonunit $X\in R[X]$ remains a nonunit in any integral extension.

The proof is quite simple: specialize $\,u \in R\,$ below to conclude $\,u^{-1}\in R[u] = R$

Lemma $ $ Suppose that $\,R\subset S\,$ is an integral extensions of commutative rings and $\,u\,$ is a init in $S$. Then $u^{-1}$ is integral over $R\iff u^{-1}\in R[u]$

$\begin{align}{\bf Proof}\ \ \ u^{-1}\ \text{is integral over } R&\iff u^{-n}-\, r_{1} u^{-(n-1)}-\cdots - r_n = 0,\ \ {\rm for\ some}\ \ r_i\in R\\ &\!\!\overset{\ \ \times\ u^{\large n-1}}\iff u^{-1} =\, r_{1}\, u\,\ +\,\ \cdots\,\ +\,\ r_n\, u^{n-1},\ \ {\rm for\ some}\ \ r_i\in R \end{align}$

Remark $\ $ More generally it is easy to prove that $R[u]\cap R[u^{-1}]\,$ is integral over $R$.

We can view this property ideal theoretically as: $ $ principal ideals $(r)$ survive in integral extensions, i.e. $\, (r)\neq 1\,\Rightarrow\, (r)S\neq 1.\,$ In fact integral extensions can be characterized by various universal forms of such ideal survivability, e.g. see the paper of Coykendall and Dobbs cited here.


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.