5
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be a commutative ring with identity. Let $S \subseteq A$ be a multiplicatively closed set. Then the localization of $A$ by $S$ is defined as $S^{-1}A = \frac{A \times S}{\sim}$ where $(a,s) \sim (b,t) \iff \exists u \in S,$ such that $u(at-bs)=0$.

My question is, why do we have a condition $\exists u\in S$ and not $\forall u \in S$?

Since in case of construction of $\mathbb{Q}$ from $\mathbb{Z}$, my intuitions says , if we want $\frac{a}{s}=\frac{b}{t}$ then we better make sure $\frac{a}{s}=\frac{b}{t}=\frac{ua}{us} $ for all $u\in S:= \mathbb{Z}-\{0\}$ and hence $u(at-bs)=0$ for every $u \in S$. Why don't we translate this to general rings?

I can see that this has something to do with $\mathbb{Z}$ not allowing any zero divisors. But I am unable to see clearly.

$\endgroup$
1

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

Localization is much easier conceptually when $R$ is a domain, as in that case we can work with the simpler equivalence relation $\frac{r_1}{s_1} \sim \frac{r_2}{s_2}$ if and only if $s_2 r_1 = s_1 r_2$.

Indeed, you can check that this is an equivalence relation provided $S$ doesn't contain any zero divisors.

The question, then, is what goes wrong in the case that $S$ does have a zero divisor. Well, everything works fine except for transitivity. If we say $\frac{r_1}{s_1} \sim \frac{r_2}{s_2} \sim \frac{r_3}{s_3}$, then we compute $r_1 s_3 s_2 = r_3 s_1 s_2$. Again, if $s_2$ is not a zero divisor then we can cancel it and see $\frac{r_1}{s_1} \sim \frac{r_3}{s_3}$, but if $s_2$ is a zero divisor then we have an issue.

Thankfully, this issue is easily repaired! If $s_2$ is a zero divisor then we can derive $s_2 (r_1 s_3 - r_3 s_1) = 0$ by rearranging the last equality. From here it's an easy check that we get an equivalence relation if we make move the goalposts a little bit to account for this.

Then, like all good mathematicians, we cover our tracks. We can't let people know that we wanted a simple equivalence relation and failed. So instead we say that all along we wanted our equivalence relation to be $\frac{r_1}{s_1} \sim \frac{r_2}{s_2}$ if and only if, for some $s'$, we have $s' (r_1 s_2 - r_2 s_1) = 0$. And would you look at that, everything works out nicely!


More conceptually, we now know that the issue comes when $S$ contains a zero divisor. So let's just... kill all of the witnesses to zero-divisor-ness in $S$. That is, let $I$ be the ideal of elements $r$ so that $rs = 0$ for some $s \in S$.

Then it's easy to see that in $R/I$, the subset $S/I$ is still multiplicative, so we can use the easier definition in $R/I$. It's not hard to check that the composite

$$R \to R/I \to R/I[(S/I)^{-1}]$$

satisfies the desired universal property of localizations.

From here it's not hard to check (using the definition of $I$) that the easier definition in $R/I$ lifts to the more complicated definition in $R$.


I hope this helps ^_^

$\endgroup$
0
3
$\begingroup$

Since $1\in S$ by definition of a multiplicatively closed set, the condition $u(at-bs)=0$ for all $u\in S$ is simply equivalent to $at-bs=0$. That indeed looks like a more intuitive definition to $\frac{a}{s}=\frac{b}{t}$. However, in general that might not be an equivalence relation. (it is an equivalence relation when $A$ is an integral domain, but in general it might not be transitive). So we have to replace it with something else, close as possible.

Note that the equality $\frac{a}{s}=\frac{ua}{us}$ still holds in $S^{-1}A$, actually for all $u\in A$. Because we have $1\cdot (aus-sua)=0$.

$\endgroup$

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.