2
$\begingroup$

I am reading a proof on the coincidence of the functional field of a variety (defined by equivalence classes of regular functions) and the field of quotients of its coordinate ring. It turns out I have gaps in my understanding of introductory commutative algebra.

Lemma: All maximal ideals in the ring of polynomials $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ of $n$ variables over an algebraically closed field $k$ are of the kind $N_p=\langle x_i-p_i:i=\overline {1,n}\rangle$ for some point $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ in the affine space $k^n$.

Proof: If $N\trianglelefteq k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ is a maximal ideal then the factor ring $$ k[x_1,\dots,x_n]/N = ( k+N)/N[x_1+N,\dots,x_n+N] \approx ( k/( k \cap N)) [x_1+N,\dots,x_n+N] = k[x_1+N,\dots,x_n+N]$$ is a finitely generated $ k$-algebra.

(I am not convinced any of these equalities hold. I only found a lemma according to which the rings $( k+N)/N$ and $ k/( k \cap N)$ are isomorphic but it is left as a preliminary remark and without proof.)

Then by a previous lemma the elements $x_i+N,i=\overline {1,n}$ are algebraic over $k$ so $x_i+N\in k\approx k+N/N$, since $k$ is algebraically closed. Therefore, for each $0\leq i\leq n$ exists $p_i\in k$ such that $x_i+N=p_i+N$.

(It is true that $p_i$ may be the image of $x_i$ under the said isomorphism, but how can we justify $x_i+N=p_i+N$?)

p.s. After carefully reading the proof, I resolved all further issues. Thank you for helping.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't this the (weak) Nullstellensatz? $\endgroup$ – egreg Dec 31 '13 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ Very well then. Yet I'd like you to point out where I mixed up $k$ and $\overline k$, @YACP. $\endgroup$ – superAnnoyingUser Jan 1 '14 at 9:48
  • $\begingroup$ I see which instances you mean. I did mix up. $\endgroup$ – superAnnoyingUser Jan 1 '14 at 10:01
1
$\begingroup$

In order to understand why $$k[x_1,\dots,x_n]/N=((k+N)/N)[x_1+N,\dots,x_n+N] \simeq (k/(k \cap N)) [x_1+N,\dots,x_n+N] = k[x_1+N,\dots,x_n+N]$$ just take a polynomial in $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ and see what happens with this modulo $N$: it is a "polynomial" in the residue classes $x_i+N$ of the variables $x_i$ and its coefficients are residue classes of elements in $k$, so they are in $(k+N)/N$. Now use the isomorphism theorem you've mentioned and note that $k\cap N$ is an ideal of $k$, so $k\cap N=(0)$ or $k\cap N=k$, but the last case is not possible, otherwise $N$ would contain an invertible element and thus $N=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, a contradiction.

Now you said that by Zariski's Lemma get $x_i+N\in k$. If you look back at the way the elements in $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]/N$ look like, you found that $x_i+N$ is in fact the residue class of a constant modulo $N$, so there exists $p_i\in k$ such that $x_i+N=p_i+N$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, user, your answer is helpful and convincing. I am still not entirely convinced the first equality is true, however, for your argument may be too close to restating the result. How can I see that the residues of polynomials are polynomials in the residues $x_i+N$ with coefficients residues of constants? $\endgroup$ – superAnnoyingUser Jan 1 '14 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Ivan, taking the residue class modulo $N$ of a polynomial $f$ means to apply a homomorphism (the canonical projection) $\pi:k[x_1,\dots,x_n]\to k[x_1,\dots,x_n]/N$ to $f$. The homomorphism commutes with the sums and products, so $\pi$ applies on each $x_i$ that appears in $f$ and on each coefficient of $f$. But $\pi(x_i)=x_i+N$ and $\pi(a)=a+N$, for $a\in k$. (Actually you replace in $f$ every $x_i$ by $x_i+N$ and every coefficient $a$ by $a+N$.) I hope this time I was more convincing. $\endgroup$ – user89712 Jan 1 '14 at 10:54

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.