I was studying rings of fractions, and I was wondering about the problem of restricting the canonical bijection (induced by retraction and extension of ideals) $\{p\in \text{Spec}(A) \mid p\cap S=\emptyset \} \to \text{Spec}(S^{-1}A)$ to a map $\{\mathfrak{M} \in \text{M-Spec}(A) \mid \mathfrak{M}\cap S=\emptyset \} \to \text{M-Spec}(S^{-1}A)$. I proved that the extension map can be restricted to a map between these sets (which is therefore injective), but the problem is that there is no reason why the retraction of a maximal ideal in the ring of fraction should be maximal (I was trying to argue by contradiction, using the bijectivity of the map between the prime spectra, but I think the problem is that taking by Zorn's lemma a maximal element in the set of ideals disjoint from a multiplicative subset yields only a prime ideal, not a maximal one).

What do you know or think about this? Are there counterexamples? Are there interesting cases in which the restricted map gives actually a bijection between these two sets?

Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I found a counterexample. If we take $A=\mathbb{Z}, S=A\setminus\{0\}$ then $S^{-1}A=\mathbb{Q}$ and $(0)$ is a maximal ideal in $\mathbb{Q}$ whose restriction is $(0)$ which is a prime ideal but not a maximal ideal in $\mathbb{Z}$. So in general the restricted map is not surjective... but are there cases in which this holds? $\endgroup$ – Diogenes Feb 15 '14 at 19:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Georges Elencwajg: Ok thanks, so what I wrote is right. But are there cases in which the restricted map is also surjective? $\endgroup$ – Diogenes Feb 15 '14 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ I have added an Edit addressing your question. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Feb 15 '14 at 23:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GeorgesElencwajg: Thanks a lot for your answer! I think I have understood what you're saying: you are taking that multiplicative subset because we know that in that case we have $A_f \cong A[Y]/(Yf-1)$ so if $A$ is finitely generated over $k$ also $A_f$ is (with $k$-algebra structure inherited by making the canonical homomorphism $A \to A_f$ a $k$-algebra homomorphism), and so we can use the fact that the retraction of a maximal ideal through a homomorphism of finitely generated $k$-algebras is not only prime, but actually maximal. Is it right or was there an easier way to see this? $\endgroup$ – Diogenes Feb 16 '14 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Diogenes, your reasoning is quite right. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Feb 16 '14 at 14:15

a) Maximal ideals of $S^{-1}A$ needn't restrict to maximal ideals of $A$:

Take $A=\mathbb Z, S=\mathbb Z\setminus \{0\}, S^{-1}A=\mathbb Q$.
The maximal ideal $(0)\subset \mathbb Q$ restricts to $(0)\subset \mathbb Z$ which is not maximal.

The explanation is that every maximal ideal $(0)\subsetneq (p)\subset \mathbb Z$ containing $(0)$ in $\mathbb Z$ will intersect $S$ and thus disappear from the correspondence.
Hence that small guy $(0)$ in $\mathbb Z$ will see all his competitors killed in $\mathbb Q$ and he will become the big boss there...

b) However the correspondence you mention between prime ideals in $A$ disjoint from $S$ and primes of $S^{-1}A$ immediately implies that a maximal ideal $\mathfrak m\subset A$ disjoint from $S$ extends to a maximal ideal $\mathfrak m^e= \mathfrak m.S^{-1}A\subset S^{-1}A$ of $S^{-1}A$.

Diogenes asks about cases where all maximal ideals of $S^{-1}A$ are extended from maximal ideals of $A$.
Here algebraic geometry comes to the rescue since maximal ideals in a ring $A$ exactly correspond to closed points in the corresponding affine scheme $\text{Spec} (A)$.
The simplest example is obtained by taking for $A$ a finitely generated algebra over a field $k$ and for $S$ the multiplicative set $S=\{1,f,f^2,\cdots \}$ generated by a non nilpotent element $f\in A$.
Every maximal ideal of $S^{-1}A=A_f$ is then extended from a maximal ideal of $A$.
The geometric interpretation is that a point $P\in D(f)\subset \text{Spec} (A)$ is closed in $D(f)$ if and only if it is closed in $\text{Spec} (A)$.
[As remarked by Diogenes this is due to $A_f$ being finitely generated over $A$, hence over $k$ too; see also here.]

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.