2
$\begingroup$

Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be an $n$-dimensional local Gorenstein domain. Is it true that the integral closure of $R$ in its fraction field is still an $n$-dimensional local Gorenstein domain?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Let $R=k[[x^3,x^2y,y^3]]$ which is Gorenstein and its integral closure is $R[xy^2]$ which is not Gorenstein.

I add a few more details as a commenter requested.

Let $S=R[xy^2]=k[[x^3,x^2y,xy^2,y^3]]$. Then, $R\subset S$ and $S$ is integral over $R$ is clear, since $(xy^2)^3=x^3y^6\in R$. Also, $xy^2=(x^2y)^2/x^3$ shows that $S$ is birational to $R$. Since $R$ has dimension two and embedding dimension three, it is a hypersurface. Complete intersections are Gorenstein.

So, it remains to show that $S$ is integrally closed and it is not Gorenstein.

I quote a standard theorem, even though verifying that $S$ is normal can also be done by hand.

Theorem: Let $A$ be a normal domain and let a finite group $G$ act on $A$. Then $A^G$, the subring of $G$-invariants is normal.

One easily checks that $S\subset k[[x,y]]=P$ and $G=\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$ acts on $P$ by multiplication on $x,y$ by third root of unity and $S=P^G$.

Lastly, to check $S$ is not Gorenstein, again there are several ways, let me describe one. One checks that $S/(x^3,y^3)$ is isomorphic to $k[u,v]/(u^2,uv,v^2)$ and since this ring has socle dimension two, it is not Gorenstein and thus nor is $S$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Would you mind adding some citation/justification/explanation on why these rings are/aren't Gorenstein? Perhaps it is obvious to you, but I have yet to develop the skill of looking at a ring and immediately knowing if it's Gorenstein or not. $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2022 at 5:29
  • $\begingroup$ And what if we replace the Gorenstein property with the Cohen-Macaulay property? $\endgroup$
    – Fraz
    Nov 30, 2022 at 9:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fraz There exists Gorenstein domains (of dimension at least three) such that its integral closure is not Cohen-Macaulay. Explicitly writing one down may be messy, but existence can be proven using some algebraic geometry. $\endgroup$
    – Mohan
    Nov 30, 2022 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thankyou! So you say that the integral closure of a $2$-dimensional Gorestein ring is always Cohen-Macaulay? Sorry for the specific question, but in my work I have to handle $2$-dimensional rings $\endgroup$
    – Fraz
    Dec 1, 2022 at 13:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fraz Look up Serre criterion for normality, which will imply that for dimension two, normality implies Cohen-Macaulay. $\endgroup$
    – Mohan
    Dec 1, 2022 at 15:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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