32
$\begingroup$

Question. Let $R$ be a ring, $\mathfrak{p}$ a prime, $M$ a finitely-generated $R$-module, and $N$ any $R$-module. Is the natural map $$\textrm{Hom}_R(M, N)_\mathfrak{p} \to \textrm{Hom}_{R_\mathfrak{p}}(M_\mathfrak{p}, N_\mathfrak{p})$$ an isomorphism (of $R_\mathfrak{p}$-modules)?

I can prove this in the case when $M$ is finitely presented: indeed, let $S$ be any flat $R$-algebra, and let $$R^m \to R^n \to M \to 0$$ be a right-exact sequence; tensoring with $S$ gives another right-exact sequence $$S^m \to S^n \to M \mathbin{\otimes_R} S \to 0$$ and applying hom functors, we get left-exact sequences $$0 \to \textrm{Hom}_R(M, N) \to N^n \to N^m$$ $$0 \to \textrm{Hom}_S(M \mathbin{\otimes_R} S, N \mathbin{\otimes_R} S) \to (N \mathbin{\otimes_R} S)^n \to (N \mathbin{\otimes_R} S)^m$$ and $S$ is flat, so tensoring the first sequence yields $$0 \to \textrm{Hom}_R(M, N) \mathbin{\otimes_R} S \to (N \mathbin{\otimes_R} S)^n \to (N \mathbin{\otimes_R} S)^m$$ but extending the sequences by $0$ to the left, and putting in vertical maps between the last two, we conclude that $\textrm{Hom}_R(M, N) \mathbin{\otimes_R} S \cong \textrm{Hom}_S(M \mathbin{\otimes_R} S, N \mathbin{\otimes_R} S)$ by the five lemma (modulo checking commutativity of diagrams). This is essentially the proof Eisenbud gives [Commutative Algebra, Prop. 2.10].

The trouble with extending it to a proof for finitely-generated modules is that we have to replace $R^m$ with a potentially arbitrary submodule $K$ of $R^n$, and that may not be free or even finitely-generated without some additional assumptions on $R$. I can't see an abstract nonsense proof of the claim, but I admit I haven't tried a bare-hands proof. However, is the claim even true?

$\endgroup$
0
14
$\begingroup$

Let me try a counterexample. I will take $N=R$. Consider $\phi : R^2\to R$ the linear map $(x,y)\mapsto x+y$, $\rho : R\to R_P$ the localization map at some prime ideal $P$, $K=\phi^{-1}(\ker(\rho))$ and $M=R^2/K$. Then, as in the first part of your question, one can see that $$\mathrm{Hom}(M, R)_P\to \mathrm{Hom}(M_P, R_P)$$ is surjective if and only if $$ \mathrm{Hom}(K, R)_P\to \mathrm{Hom}(K_P, R_P)$$ is injective when restricted to the image of $\mathrm{Hom}(R^2, R)_P\to \mathrm{Hom}(K, R)_P$. Let $\psi=\phi|_K$. Then the image of $\psi_P$ in $\mathrm{Hom}(K_P, R_P)$ is zero by the construction of $K$. Now let us see under which condition $\psi_P=0$. This is equivalent to $\exists s\in R\setminus P$ such that $s\psi=0$. Or $s\mathrm{Im}(\psi)=0$. As $\phi$ is surjective, $\mathrm{Im}(\psi)=\ker\rho$. So $$ \psi_P=0 \Longleftrightarrow \exists s\in R\setminus P, \ s\ker\rho=0.$$ So to have a counterexample, it is enough to find $R, P$ such that the kernel of $R\to R_P$ is not killed by any $s\notin P$.

Consider $R$ the product of infinitely many copies of $\mathbb F_2$ (say indexed by $\mathbb N$). All prime ideals are maximal and correspond to ultrafilters (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafilter) of $\mathbb N$. Some of them are obivous: those with $0$ in a fixed component. They correspond to principal ultrafilters. Let $P$ be a maximal ideal corresponding to a non-principal ultrafilter (it is known that such ultrafilters exist). The kernel of $R\to R_P=\mathbb F_2$ is $P$. If $P$ was killed by a single $s\notin P$, $s=(a_0, a_1,....)$, then $P$ is killed by some $t=(0,...,a_r,0,..)$ with $a_r\ne 0$. So $P\subseteq \mathrm{Ann}(t)$. But the latter is a maximal ideal corresponding to a principal ultrafilter. Contradiction.

$\endgroup$

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.