3
$\begingroup$

In the middle of page 34 in Bruns and Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay Rings, the authors present the following situation: Let $k$ be a field and let $R=k[X,Y]$ be a graded ring with grading induced by $\operatorname{deg}X=0, \operatorname{deg} Y=1$. Then define the quotient ring $S=R/(XY)$, which is also graded. Then the authors claim that the ideal $(x,y)$, where i suppose lowercase $x,y$ mean the residue classes of $X,Y$ mod $(XY)$, has grade $1$, i.e. according to my understanding the maximal length of an $S$-regular sequence in $(x,y)$ is $1$. Indeed, i can see that $x+y \in (x,y)$ is $S$-regular and so the grade of $(x,y)$ on $S$ is at least $1$.

However by the definition of the grade of an ideal $\operatorname{grade}((x,y),S)= \inf \left\{i: \operatorname{Ext}^i_S(S/(x,y),S) \neq 0 \right\}$. But $S/(x,y) = (k[X,Y]/(XY)) / ((X,Y)/(XY)) \cong k[X,Y]/(X,Y) \cong k$ and certainly $\operatorname{Hom}(k,k[X,Y]/(XY)) \neq 0$, which shows that the grade of $(x,y)$ on $S$ is 0. What am i missing?

Remark: The "unusual" grading of $R$ seems to be irrelevant to my actual question. I am just giving it here for completeness of the context.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Are you sure that $\operatorname{Hom}_{\color{red} S}(k,k[X,Y]/(XY)) \neq 0$? $\endgroup$ – user119598 Jan 10 '14 at 22:42
0
$\begingroup$

The $Hom$ is $0$:
Let $g$∈ $Hom$ and be nonzero so $g(r+m)≠0$ for some $r∈R$. Let $u∈m:=(x,y)$ and $u$ be $S-regular$. We have
$u.g(r+m)≠0$ so $g(u.r+m)≠0$. contradicts $ur∈m$.

$\endgroup$

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.