6
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field and let $k[x]=k[x_1,\ldots,k_m]$ and $k[y]=k[y_1,\ldots,y_n]$ be $k$-algebras. Let $\varphi:k[x]\to k[y]$ be a $k$-algebra homomorphism. It can be shown (pretty readily) that $\varphi$ is determined by polynomials $f_1,\ldots,f_m\in k[y]$ which tell us where to send the $x_i$.

In the case where $k$ is algebraically closed, as Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and the associated algebraic geometry thereabouts, the pullback of every maximal ideal in $k[y]$ is maximal in $k[x]$. However, if $k$ is not algebraically closed, then there should be a counterexample, i.e. some maximal ideal in $k[y]$ that does not pull back maximally along $\varphi$.

It's pretty clear that the case of $k[x]=k[t]=k[y]$ for one variable $t$ is not very fruitful, so I've been trying to come up with an example in $\mathbb R[x,y]\to\mathbb R[x,y]$ using $(x^2+1,y)$ or some other ideal. Also suggested online (in weird contexts) was the ideal $(x^2+y^2+1)$, but I can't see how that's going to help.

In theory I'd like $\mathbb R[x,y]/\mathfrak m\cong\mathbb C$ to pull back to $\mathbb R[x,y]/\varphi^{-1}(\mathfrak m)\cong\mathbb R[t]$, but I've been unable to succeed. Thanks for the read.

PS: this is a homework question, and in theory the answer could be 'the pullback is always maximal', but I don't think so.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ In general, if $\varphi:A\to B$ is a $k$-algebra homomorphism, $A$ and $B$ f.g. $k$-algebras, then maximals pull back to maximal. So $A/\varphi^{-1}(\mathfrak{m})\hookrightarrow B/\mathfrak{m}$. But, by Zariski's lemma $B/\mathfrak{m}$ is a finite dimensional $k$-space, and so $A/\varphi^{-1}(\mathfrak{m})$ is f.g. over $k$, but since it's an integral domain this implies it's a field. I hope I've understood your question correctly. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Oct 8 '13 at 7:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I meant "and so $A/\varphi^{-1}(\mathfrak{m})$ is a finite $k$-space". @JeskoHüttenhain $t^2+1\mapsto 1-y$, right? $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Oct 8 '13 at 8:09
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexYoucis: Thanks ;) $\endgroup$ – Jesko Hüttenhain Oct 8 '13 at 8:10
10
$\begingroup$

You're in for a big surprise:

The pull back of any maximal ideal $\mathfrak n\subset k[y_1,\ldots,y_n]$ under a $k$-algebra morphism $\phi: k[x]\to k[y]$ is a maximal ideal $\mathfrak m=\phi^{-1}(\mathfrak n)\subset k[x]$ for $k$ a completely arbitrary field, possibly not algebraically closed.
This is a non trivial theorem (using Zariski's version of the Nullstellensatz) , best seen in the following context:

A ring $A$ is said to be a Jacobson ring if every prime ideal of $A$ is the intersection of the maximal ideals which contain it.
For example a field $k$ or $\mathbb Z$ are trivially Jacobson rings and, much less trivially, a finitely generated algebra over a Jacobson ring is Jacobson: this implies that your rings of polynomials $k[x],k[y] $ are Jacobson.
The property you need to conclude is the following theorem:
Given a morphism of finite type $\phi:A\to B$ between Jacobson rings, the inverse image of any maximal ideal $\mathfrak n\subset B$ is a maximal ideal $\phi ^{-1} (\mathfrak n)=\mathfrak m\subset A$

Bibliography
Jacobson rings are not very present in the standard textbooks.
You can find all of the above and more in Bourbaki's Commutative Algebra, chapter V, $\S$3.4 or in the Stacks Project Chapter 9, §32.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (+1) They are also in Pete L Clark's notes, I believe. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Oct 8 '13 at 8:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In particular, check on page 187 here: math.uga.edu/~pete/integral.pdf $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Oct 8 '13 at 9:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex: Yes; thanks for the plug. I looked last night to see whether this particular application is in my notes, and it seems to me that it isn't. It would make a good exercise. $\endgroup$ – Pete L. Clark Oct 8 '13 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ Jacobson rings and the generalised Nullstellensatz are also discussed in Eisenbud's textbook. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Oct 8 '13 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ I'll be damned. Thanks a lot. $\endgroup$ – Ian Coley Oct 8 '13 at 19:25

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.