Bézout matrix: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
en>Headbomb
m Various citation cleanup + AWB fixes using AWB (8062)
 
en>AnomieBOT
m Dating maintenance tags: {{Dn}}
Line 1: Line 1:
<br><br>[http://mondediplo.com/spip.php?page=recherche&recherche=Yesterday+I Yesterday I] woke up and realized - I've been single for some time at the moment and after much intimidation from pals I now locate myself signed-up for online dating. They assured me that there are plenty of standard, pleasant and interesting people to meet up, so here goes the message!<br>My household and   [http://lukebryantickets.lazintechnologies.com luke bryan tickets indiana] friends are wonderful and spending some time together at bar gigabytes or dishes is always a must. As I come to realize that one may do not get a significant dialogue using the sound I have never been into clubs. I also have two really cunning and definitely [http://Thesaurus.com/browse/cheeky+puppies cheeky puppies] that are always keen to meet up new individuals.<br>I endeavor to keep as physically fit as possible staying at the fitness center several-times a week. I appreciate my sports and endeavor  about luke bryan ([http://lukebryantickets.pyhgy.com lukebryantickets.pyhgy.com]  tickets to see luke bryan - [http://www.museodecarruajes.org Full Article] - ) to play or view as many a possible. Being winter I am going to regularly at Hawthorn suits. Notice: In case that you would contemplated purchasing an activity I don't mind, I've noticed the carnage of wrestling suits at stocktake revenue.<br><br>[http://minioasis.com photos luke bryan] Have a look at my site: is the luke bryan concert sold out; [http://lukebryantickets.neodga.com Full Article],
In [[commutative algebra]], a branch of [[mathematics]], '''going up''' and '''going down''' are terms which refer to certain properties of [[chain (mathematics)|chain]]s of [[prime ideal]]s in [[integral extension]]s.
 
The phrase '''going up''' refers to the case when a chain can be extended by "upward [[subset|inclusion]]", while '''going down''' refers to the case when a chain can be extended by "downward inclusion".
 
The major results are the '''Cohen–Seidenberg theorems''', which were proved by [[Irvin Cohen|Irvin S. Cohen]] and [[Abraham Seidenberg]]. These are [[colloquialism|colloquially]] known as the '''going-up''' and '''going-down theorems'''.
 
== Going up and going down ==
Let ''A''⊆''B'' be an extension of commutative rings.
 
The going-up and going-down theorems give sufficient conditions for a chain of prime ideals in ''B'', each member of which lies over members of a longer chain of prime ideals in ''A'', can be extended to the length of the chain of prime ideals in ''A''.
 
===Lying over and incomparability===
 
First, we fix some terminology. If <math>\mathfrak{p}</math> and <math>\mathfrak{q}</math> are [[prime ideal]]s of ''A'' and ''B'', respectively, such that
 
:<math>\mathfrak{q} \cap A = \mathfrak{p}</math>
 
(note that <math>\mathfrak{q} \cap A</math> is automatically a prime ideal of ''A'') then we say that <math>\mathfrak{p}</math> ''lies under'' <math>\mathfrak{q}</math> and that <math>\mathfrak{q}</math> ''lies over'' <math>\mathfrak{p}</math>. In general, a ring extension ''A''⊆''B'' of commutative rings is said to satisfy the '''lying over property''' if every prime ideal ''P'' of ''A'' lies under some prime ideal ''Q'' of ''B''.
 
The extension ''A''⊆''B'' is said to satisfy the '''incomparability property''' if whenever ''Q'' and ''Q' '' are distinct primes of ''B'' lying over prime ''P'' in ''A'', then ''Q''⊈''Q' ''  and ''Q' ''⊈''Q''.
 
=== Going-up ===
 
The ring extension ''A''⊆''B'' is said to satisfy the '''going-up property''' if whenever
 
:<math>\mathfrak{p}_1 \subseteq \mathfrak{p}_2 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq \mathfrak{p}_n</math>
 
is a chain of [[prime ideal]]s of ''A'' and
 
:<math>\mathfrak{q}_1 \subseteq \mathfrak{q}_2 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq \mathfrak{q}_m</math>
 
(''m'' < ''n'') is a chain of prime ideals of ''B'' such that for each 1 ≤ ''i'' ≤ ''m'', <math>\mathfrak{q}_i</math> lies over <math>\mathfrak{p}_i</math>, then the latter chain can be extended to a chain
 
:<math>\mathfrak{q}_1 \subseteq \mathfrak{q}_2 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq \mathfrak{q}_n</math>
 
such that for each 1 ≤ ''i'' ≤ ''n'', <math>\mathfrak{q}_i</math> lies over <math>\mathfrak{p}_i</math>.
 
In {{harv|Kaplansky|1970}} it is shown that if an extension ''A''⊆''B'' satisfies the going-up property, then it also satisfies the lying-over property.
 
=== Going down ===
 
The ring extension ''A''⊆''B'' is said to satisfy the '''going-down property''' if whenever
 
:<math>\mathfrak{p}_1 \supseteq \mathfrak{p}_2 \supseteq \cdots \supseteq \mathfrak{p}_n</math>
 
is a chain of prime ideals of ''A'' and
 
:<math>\mathfrak{q}_1 \supseteq \mathfrak{q}_2 \supseteq \cdots \supseteq \mathfrak{q}_m</math>
 
(''m'' < ''n'') is a chain of prime ideals of ''B'' such that for each 1 ≤ ''i'' ≤ ''m'', <math>\mathfrak{q}_i</math> lies over <math>\mathfrak{p}_i</math>, then the latter chain can be extended to a chain
 
:<math>\mathfrak{q}_1 \supseteq \mathfrak{q}_2 \supseteq \cdots \supseteq \mathfrak{q}_n</math>
 
such that for each 1 ≤ ''i'' ≤ ''n'', <math>\mathfrak{q}_i</math> lies over <math>\mathfrak{p}_i</math>.
 
There is a generalization of the ring extension case with ring morphisms. Let ''f'' : ''A'' → ''B'' be a (unital) [[ring homomorphism]] so that ''B'' is a ring extension of ''f''(''A''). Then ''f'' is said to satisfy the '''going-up property''' if the going-up property holds for ''f''(''A'') in ''B''.
 
Similarly, if ''f''(''A'') is a ring extension, then ''f'' is said to satisfy the '''going-down property''' if the going-down property holds for ''f''(''A'') in ''B''.
 
In the case of ordinary ring extensions such as ''A''⊆''B'', the [[inclusion map]] is the pertinent map.
 
==Going-up and going-down theorems==
 
The usual statements of going-up and going-down theorems refer to a ring extension ''A''⊆''B'':
#(Going up) If ''B'' is an [[integral extension]] of ''A'', then the extension satisfies the going-up property (and hence the lying over property), and the incomparability property.
#(Going down) If ''B'' is an integral extension of ''A'', and ''B'' is a domain, and ''A'' is integrally closed in its field of fractions, then the extension (in addition to going-up, lying-over and incomparability) satisfies the going-down property.
 
There is another sufficient condition for the going-down property:
* If ''A''⊆''B'' is a [[flat extension]] of commutative rings, then the going-down property holds.<ref>This follows from a much more general lemma in Bruns-Herzog, Lemma A.9 on page 415.</ref>
 
''Proof'':<ref>Matsumura, page 33, (5.D), Theorem 4</ref> Let ''p''<sub>1</sub>⊆''p''<sub>2</sub> be prime ideals of ''A'' and let ''q''<sub>2</sub> be a prime ideal of ''B'' such that ''q''<sub>2</sub> ∩ ''A'' = ''p''<sub>2</sub>. We wish to prove that there is a prime ideal ''q''<sub>1</sub> of ''B'' contained in ''q''<sub>2</sub> such that ''q''<sub>1</sub> ∩ ''A'' = ''p''<sub>1</sub>. Since ''A''⊆''B'' is a flat extension of rings, it follows that ''A''<sub>''p''<sub>2</sub></sub>⊆''B''<sub>''q''<sub>2</sub></sub> is a flat extension of rings. In fact, ''A''<sub>''p''<sub>2</sub></sub>⊆''B''<sub>''q''<sub>2</sub></sub> is a faithfully flat extension of rings since the inclusion map ''A''<sub>''p''<sub>2</sub></sub> → ''B''<sub>''q''<sub>2</sub></sub> is a local homomorphism. Therefore, the induced map on spectra Spec(''B''<sub>''q''<sub>2</sub></sub>) → Spec(''A''<sub>''p''<sub>2</sub></sub>) is surjective and there exists a prime ideal of ''B''<sub>''q''<sub>2</sub></sub> that contracts to the prime ideal ''p''<sub>1</sub>''A''<sub>''p''<sub>2</sub></sub> of ''A''<sub>''p''<sub>2</sub></sub>. The contraction of this prime ideal of ''B''<sub>''q''<sub>2</sub></sub> to ''B'' is a prime ideal ''q''<sub>1</sub> of ''B'' contained in ''q''<sub>2</sub> that contracts to ''p''<sub>1</sub>. The proof is complete. '''Q.E.D.'''
 
==References==
{{Reflist}}
* [[Michael Atiyah|Atiyah, M. F.]], and [[I. G. MacDonald]], ''Introduction to Commutative Algebra'', Perseus Books, 1969, ISBN 0-201-00361-9 {{MR|242802}}
* Winfried Bruns; Jürgen Herzog, ''Cohen–Macaulay rings''. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. xii+403 pp. ISBN 0-521-41068-1
* [[Irving Kaplansky|Kaplansky, Irving]], ''Commutative rings'', Allyn and Bacon, 1970.
* {{cite book|last=Matsumura|first=Hideyuki|title=Commutative algebra|publisher=W. A. Benjamin|year=1970|isbn=978-0-8053-7025-6}}
* {{cite book|last=Sharp|first=R. Y.|chapter=13 Integral dependence on subrings (13.38 The going-up theorem, pp. 258–259; 13.41 The going down theorem, pp. 261–262)|title=Steps in commutative algebra|edition=Second|series=London Mathematical Society Student Texts|volume=51|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|year=2000|pages=xii+355|isbn=0-521-64623-5|mr=1817605}}
 
[[Category:Commutative algebra]]
[[Category:Ideals]]
[[Category:Prime ideals]]
[[Category:Theorems in algebra]]

Revision as of 15:51, 11 December 2013

In commutative algebra, a branch of mathematics, going up and going down are terms which refer to certain properties of chains of prime ideals in integral extensions.

The phrase going up refers to the case when a chain can be extended by "upward inclusion", while going down refers to the case when a chain can be extended by "downward inclusion".

The major results are the Cohen–Seidenberg theorems, which were proved by Irvin S. Cohen and Abraham Seidenberg. These are colloquially known as the going-up and going-down theorems.

Going up and going down

Let AB be an extension of commutative rings.

The going-up and going-down theorems give sufficient conditions for a chain of prime ideals in B, each member of which lies over members of a longer chain of prime ideals in A, can be extended to the length of the chain of prime ideals in A.

Lying over and incomparability

First, we fix some terminology. If and are prime ideals of A and B, respectively, such that

(note that is automatically a prime ideal of A) then we say that lies under and that lies over . In general, a ring extension AB of commutative rings is said to satisfy the lying over property if every prime ideal P of A lies under some prime ideal Q of B.

The extension AB is said to satisfy the incomparability property if whenever Q and Q' are distinct primes of B lying over prime P in A, then QQ' and Q' Q.

Going-up

The ring extension AB is said to satisfy the going-up property if whenever

is a chain of prime ideals of A and

(m < n) is a chain of prime ideals of B such that for each 1 ≤ im, lies over , then the latter chain can be extended to a chain

such that for each 1 ≤ in, lies over .

In Template:Harv it is shown that if an extension AB satisfies the going-up property, then it also satisfies the lying-over property.

Going down

The ring extension AB is said to satisfy the going-down property if whenever

is a chain of prime ideals of A and

(m < n) is a chain of prime ideals of B such that for each 1 ≤ im, lies over , then the latter chain can be extended to a chain

such that for each 1 ≤ in, lies over .

There is a generalization of the ring extension case with ring morphisms. Let f : AB be a (unital) ring homomorphism so that B is a ring extension of f(A). Then f is said to satisfy the going-up property if the going-up property holds for f(A) in B.

Similarly, if f(A) is a ring extension, then f is said to satisfy the going-down property if the going-down property holds for f(A) in B.

In the case of ordinary ring extensions such as AB, the inclusion map is the pertinent map.

Going-up and going-down theorems

The usual statements of going-up and going-down theorems refer to a ring extension AB:

  1. (Going up) If B is an integral extension of A, then the extension satisfies the going-up property (and hence the lying over property), and the incomparability property.
  2. (Going down) If B is an integral extension of A, and B is a domain, and A is integrally closed in its field of fractions, then the extension (in addition to going-up, lying-over and incomparability) satisfies the going-down property.

There is another sufficient condition for the going-down property:

  • If AB is a flat extension of commutative rings, then the going-down property holds.[1]

Proof:[2] Let p1p2 be prime ideals of A and let q2 be a prime ideal of B such that q2A = p2. We wish to prove that there is a prime ideal q1 of B contained in q2 such that q1A = p1. Since AB is a flat extension of rings, it follows that Ap2Bq2 is a flat extension of rings. In fact, Ap2Bq2 is a faithfully flat extension of rings since the inclusion map Ap2Bq2 is a local homomorphism. Therefore, the induced map on spectra Spec(Bq2) → Spec(Ap2) is surjective and there exists a prime ideal of Bq2 that contracts to the prime ideal p1Ap2 of Ap2. The contraction of this prime ideal of Bq2 to B is a prime ideal q1 of B contained in q2 that contracts to p1. The proof is complete. Q.E.D.

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

  • Atiyah, M. F., and I. G. MacDonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra, Perseus Books, 1969, ISBN 0-201-00361-9 Template:MR
  • Winfried Bruns; Jürgen Herzog, Cohen–Macaulay rings. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. xii+403 pp. ISBN 0-521-41068-1
  • Kaplansky, Irving, Commutative rings, Allyn and Bacon, 1970.
  • 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  • 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  1. This follows from a much more general lemma in Bruns-Herzog, Lemma A.9 on page 415.
  2. Matsumura, page 33, (5.D), Theorem 4