1
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to show the following (not sure if it's true...):

Let $K$ be a field. Let $B$ be a separable $K-$algebra, so we can write $B = \prod B_i$ as a finite product of finite separable field extensions $B_i/K$. Let $F$ be a finite separate field extension of $K$. Assume we have two $K$-linear morphisms: $$ f, g: B \to F.$$ These two morphisms induce morphisms $$f \otimes id, g \otimes id: B \otimes_K \bar{K} \to F \otimes_K \bar{K}$$ where $\bar{K}$ is an algebraic closure of $K$. Then we obtain morphisms $$ Spec(f \otimes id), Spec(g \otimes id): Spec(F \otimes_K \bar{K}) \to Spec(B \otimes_K \bar{K})$$ in the usual way. Is it true that if $Spec(f \otimes id)$ and $Spec(g \otimes id)$ agree on one element then $f$ and $g$ have to be equal?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What definition of separable algebra are you using? In the standard definition, $B_i$ need not be fields. $\endgroup$
    – Mohan
    Dec 24 '19 at 0:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Mohan I'm using the one in Lenstra's Galois theory of schemes (Def 1.2 and then Theorem 2.7). So we can just assume that the $B_i$ are fields. $\endgroup$
    – M. Wang
    Dec 24 '19 at 2:44
  • $\begingroup$ @reuns But in this case $F$ would be $K^3$, which is not a field, right? $\endgroup$
    – M. Wang
    Dec 24 '19 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ @reuns Oh yes sorry, I want it to be a $K$-linear morphism. So do you think the statement is wrong and I should look for a counterexample? $\endgroup$
    – M. Wang
    Dec 24 '19 at 4:24
2
$\begingroup$
  • $L = \overline{K}$, $B$ is a unital finite dimensional $K$-algebra, $F/K$ is a finite separable extension.

    Given a $K$-algebra homomorphism $f : B\to F$ which gives $f_2:B\otimes L\to F\otimes L$ then $\ker(f)$ is a maximal ideal and $\ker(f_2) = \ker(f)\otimes L$,

    given another homomorphism $g : B\to F$, $g_2:B\otimes L\to F\otimes L$ and a prime ideal $p$ of $F\otimes L$

    $f_2^{-1}(p)=g_2^{-1}(p)$ means that $f_2^{-1}(p)$ contains $\ker(f)\otimes L+\ker(g)\otimes L=(\ker(f),\ker(g))\otimes L$, if $\ker(f)\ne \ker(g)$ then they are comaximal so that $(\ker(f),\ker(g))\otimes L=1\otimes L$, a contradiction since $f_2^{-1}(p)$ is a prime ideal.

  • Thus $\ker(f)=\ker(g)$ and we can replace $B$ by $B/\ker(f)$ and assume $B$ is a subfield of $F$, $f$ is the inclusion $B\to F$ and $g$ is a possibly different $K$-embedding $B\to F$.

    Since $F/K$ is separable then $B=K[x]/(u(x)),F=K[x,y]/(u(x),v(x,y))$,

    $g(x) = r(x,y)$ where $r(x,y)$ is one of the roots of $u(T)$ in $F$,

    $F\otimes L=L[x,y]/(u(x),v(x,y))$,

    $f_2$ is the inclusion $L[x]/(u(x))\to L[x,y]/(u(x),v(x,y))$ and $g_2$ is the map $L[x]/(u(x))\to L[x,y]/(u(x),v(x,y))$ sending $x$ to $r(x,y)$

  • The prime ideals of $L[x,y]/(u(x),v(x,y))$ are of the form $p=(x-a,y-b)$ with $a,b\in L$ such that $u(a)=0,v(a,b)=0$.

    $f_2^{-1}(p)$ is generated by $f_2^{-1}(x-a) = (x-a)$.

    $g_2^{-1}(p)$ is generated by $g_2^{-1}(r(x,y)-r(a,b)) = (x- r(a,b))$.

    $f_2^{-1}(p)=g_2^{-1}(p)$ means that $a=r(a,b)$ ie. $r(x,y)=x$ and $f=g$

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! $\endgroup$
    – M. Wang
    Jan 3 '20 at 1:01

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.