1
$\begingroup$

Let $(R,m,k)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay ring of dimension $d>0$ and let $M,C$ be CM $R$-modules such that $\dim M = 0, \dim C = d$.

In the proof of Proposition 3.3.3-b(ii) in Bruns & Herzog, the authors write that it is trivial that $\dim \operatorname{Ext}_R^d(M,C)=0$.

After thinking about it for some time i came up with the following argument, which is however far from trivial.

My argument: Since $\operatorname{height} \operatorname{ann}(M) = d$, there exist elements $x_1,\dots,x_d$ in $\operatorname{ann}(M)$ such that $\operatorname{height}(x_1,\dots,x_i) = i$. Since $\dim C = d$, the $x_i$ give rise to a $C$-regular sequence, denoted $\underline{x}$, which lies in $\operatorname{ann}(M)$. Then by Lemma 1.2.4 in the same book we have that $\operatorname{Ext}_R^d(M,C) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_R(M,C/\underline{x}C)$. Then by exercise 1.2.27 in the same book we have that $\operatorname{Ass}_R \left[\operatorname{Hom}_R(M,C/\underline{x}C)\right] = \operatorname{Supp}_R M \cap \operatorname{Ass}_R C/\underline{x}C = \left\{m\right\}$. Hence $m$ is a minimal prime of $\operatorname{Ext}_R^d(M,C)$ and so this latter module must have Krull dimension equal to zero.

Question 1: Any comments on my argument?

Question 2: Any idea what Bruns&Herzog were having in mind as "trivial" argument?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

This is easily shown once you notice that $\operatorname{Supp}\operatorname{Ext}_R^i(M,N)\subseteq\operatorname{Supp} M\cap\operatorname{Supp}N$.

$\endgroup$

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.