I was having a hard time with this exercise. I now think I have solved it, but my solution seems simpler than the one alluded to in the hint that is given, which makes me suspicious.

Some context for the problem: We have an integral $k$-variety $X$ and a closed irreducible subset $Z \subsetneq X$ which is maximal among all irreducible closed subsets strictly contained in $X$. We want to prove that $\dim Z = \dim X - 1$. By Noether normalization, we have a morphism $\pi : X \to \mathbb{A}^d_k$ where $d = \dim X$, which corresponds to a finite extension of rings. The exercise is:

Show that it suffices to show that $\pi(Z)$ is a hypersurface. (Hint: the dimension of any hypersurface is $d − 1$ by Theorem 11.2.1 on dimension and transcendence degree. Exercise 11.1.E implies that $\dim \pi^{-1}(π(Z)) = \dim \pi(Z)$. But be careful: $Z$ is not $\pi^{-1}(\pi(Z))$ in general.)

My solution was the following. Write $X = \text{Spec} B$ and let $\mathfrak{p}_0$ be the prime ideal in $B$ corresponding to $Z$ and let $\mathfrak{q}_0$ be the prime ideal in $k[x_1, \ldots, x_d]$ corresponding to $\pi(Z)$. Since $\dim \pi(Z) = d-1$ (assuming $\pi(Z)$ is a hypersurface), we have a chain of prime ideals $\mathfrak{q}_0 \subsetneq \mathfrak{q}_1 \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq \mathfrak{q}_{d-1}$ in $k[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$. Since $k[x_1, \ldots, x_n] \subset B$ is a finite extension, and since $\mathfrak{p}_0$ lies over $\mathfrak{q}_0$, we can apply the going-up theorem to obtain a chain $\mathfrak{p}_0 \subsetneq \mathfrak{p}_1 \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq \mathfrak{p}_{d-1}$ in $B$, from which it follows that $\dim Z \geq d-1$ and therefore $\dim Z = d-1$.

Is this solution correct? If not, I would appreciate if someone could give a solution along the lines of the hint.

| cite | improve this question | | | | |

Your solution is correct (assuming you can also prove that $\pi(Z)$ really is a hypersurface). I'm not sure what's going on with the hint--Exercise 11.1.E applies just as well to directly show $\dim Z=\dim \pi(Z)$, and indeed the argument you have made is essentially just reproving Exercise 11.1.E in that particular case.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |

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.