Charudatta Hajarnavis
Notes by Florian Bouyer
Copyright (C) Bouyer 2011.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no FrontCover Texts, and no BackCover Texts.
A copy of the license can be found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
Contents
1 Chapter 1: Rings
1.1
Rings
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Direct Sums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.7
Division Rings
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.8
Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.13 A construction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
10
11
2.1
Quasiregularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
2.2
12
13
3.1
13
3.2
Finiteness Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.3
14
3.4
16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary Decomposition
4.2
Decomposition of
17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
4.3
20
4.4
22
4.5
Symbolic Powers
4.6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
4.7
24
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
5 Projective Modules
25
5.1
Free Modules
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2
Exact Sequences
5.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
5.4
34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
25
35
6.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
6.2
37
7 Unique Factorization
39
7.1
39
7.2
40
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Any reference to Commutative Algebra refer to the 20112012 Commutative Algebra Lecture notes.
Rings studied will be mostly commutative. We aim to prove:
Denition.
Let R be a commutative Noetherian local ring with 1 and unique maximal ideal M . Let
M = a1 R + + an R (ai M ) be chosen such that n is as minimal as possible. Construct a chain
of prime ideals M ) P1 ) ) Pr (Pi prime) such that r is greatest possible. Then R is regular if
r = n (note that r n always in a Noetherian ring)
Local rings arise naturally in geometry. In algebraic geometry points correspond to local rings.
Existence of an identity is not part of our denition of a ring. For us a right, left or (two sided)
ideal is a subring (Note that in a noncommutative ring, by ideal we will mean a two sided ideal). So
for a right
Rmodule M , m 1 = m m M
Chapter 1: Rings
1.1
Rings
Denition 1.1.
Let
be a nonempty set which has tow law of composition dened on it. (we call
these law addition and multiplication respectively and use the familiar notation). We say that
a+bR
2.
a + b = b + a a, b R
3.
a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c a, b, c R
and
ab R a, b R
(Commutativity of addition)
aR
0R
(Associativity of addition)
such that
a R
6.
a(bc) = (ab)c
7.
a(b + c) = ab + ac
a, b, c R
for all
and
a+0=a
for all
such that
aR
a + (a) = 0
(Associativity of multiplication)
(a + b)c = ac + bc
(Distributive Laws)
Thus a ring is an additive Abelian group on which an operation of multiplication is dened; this
operation being associative and distributive with respect to the addition.
ab = ba
for all
a, b R
The term
1.2
is unique
a R, a
3.
(a) = a
4.
a+b=a+c
5. Given
is uniquely
for all
aR
if and only if
a, b R,
b=c
the equation
Notation. We write
ab
for
x+a=b
to mean
6.
(a + b) = a b
for all
a, b R
7.
(a b) = a + b
for all
a, b R
8.
a0=0a=0
for all
aR
9.
a(b) = (a)b = ab
for all
10.
(a)(b) = ab
a, b R
11.
a(b c) = sb ac
Notation.
Mn (R),
Z,
for all
for all
the integers.
the ring of
nn
Q,
a, b, c R
has a unique solution
x = b + (a)
a + (b)
a, b R
a, b, c R
the rational numbers.
R,
R.
C,
1.3
Denition 1.2.
Proposition 1.3.
ab S
whenever
Proof. If
A subset
of a ring
is called a subring of
if
laws of composition of
A nonempty subset
of a ring
is a subring of
if and only if
ab S
and
a, b S
is a subring then obviously the given condition is satised. Conversely, suppose that the
0x S
a + b S.
so
Denition 1.4.
1.
is an ideal of
ra I
of a ring
a I, r R ar I
Proposition 1.5.
and
and
ra I
A nonempty subset
a, b I
whenever
is called an ideal if
is a subring of
2. For all
If
A subset
and
I C R.
of a ring
is an ideal of
if and only if
a b I, ar I
rR
Proof. Exercise
1.4
Denition 1.6.
Let
in
xR
be an ideal of a ring
It is denoted by
with respect to
I.
and
{x + i : i I}
is
x+I
When dealing with cosets, it is more important to realise that, in general, a given coset can be
represented in more than one way. The next lemma shows how the coset representatives are related.
Lemma 1.7.
Let
and
x, y R.
Then
x + I = y + I x y I
Proof. Exercise
independent of the coset representatives chosen. Check this and make sure that you understand why
the fact that
Denition 1.8.
R/I
R/I is 0 + I = i + I
{s + I : s S} of R/I .
S/I
the subset
Proposition 1.9.
Let
for any
be an ideal of a ring
R/I
K C R, K I K/I C R/I
R.
is of the form
iI
with respect to
. If
is a subset of
with
SI
we denote
Then
K/I
where
KCR
and
R/I
K I.
Also conversely,
R containing
I
Proof.
1. If
K C R/I ,
dene
K]{x R : x + I K }
K K/I
where
. Then
K C R, K I
K C R, K I
and
K/I = K
R, S
Let
be rings and
1.
(0R ) = 0S
2.
(r) = q(r)
3.
K = {x R : q(x) = 0S }
4.
R = {(r) : r R}
for all
:RS
a homomorphism. Then :
rR
is an ideal of
is subring of
Proof. Exercise
Denition 1.12.
if
Let
and
R.
The ideal
is
ker .
sometimes denoted by
1.5
R,
The importance of the rst isomorphism theorem lies in the fact that it shows the answer to lie
R itself. It tells us that if we know all the ideals of R then we know all
R.Only the rst isomorphism theorem contains new information. The
with
of
application.
Theorem 1.13.
Let
be a homomorphism of a ring
S.
into a ring
Then
R
= R/I
where
I = ker
: R/I R by (x + I) = (x) for all x R. The map is well dened since for
x, y R, x + I = y + I x y I = ker (x y) = 0 (x) = (y). is easily seen to be the
Proof. Dened
required isomorphism.
Theorem 1.14.
Let
be an ideal and
Proof. Let
(L + I)/I .
The kernel of
for all
a subring of a ring
Theorem 1.15.
Proof.
Let
K/I C R/I
x R. The
I, K
and so
map
restricted to
is
be ideals of a ring
(R/I)/(K/I)
ker = K/I .
Then
L/(L I)
= (L + I)/I
such that
I K.
Then
We have
: R/I R/K
x+K =K
xK
x + I K/I
L =
(R/I)/(K/I)
= R/K
by
(x + I) = x + K
R/K . Further,
(x + I) = K
Therefore
R.
1.6
Direct Sums
Denition 1.16.
{I }
I = {x R : x = x1 + +
sum is the collection of nite sums of elements of the I 's.
I 's
x1 + + xk
with
xi Ii .
Proposition 1.17.
xk , xi Ii , k = 1, 2, 3, . . . }.
The sum
R.
We
That is the
I is uniquely expressible as
I or I1 In if is nite.
P
I ( ,6= I ) = 0
for all
Proof. Exercise
Denition 1.18.
1.7
Division Rings
Denition 1.19.
element
Example.
a0 + a1 i + a2 j + a3 k where ai R.
ai = bi for i = 0, 1, 2, 3. We make the
i2 = j 2 = k 2 = 1
ai
ij = jk = k, jk = kj = i, ki = ik = j .
identity. Let a0 + a1 i + a2 j + a3 k be a nonzero
and
Then
is a
element of
D.
. So letting
the element
of
Rational quaternions can be dened similarly where the coecients are from
1.8
Let
be a ring. A set
Rmodule
is called a right
if:
2. A law of composition
M RM
3.
4.
5.
A left
Q.
Modules
Denition 1.20.
1.
is the inverse
Rmodule
Example.
2. Let
1.
and
{0}
are left
Rmodules.
F.
mM
Then
is a left
x, y M
and
rR
and
r1 , r2 R
is denoted by
rm.
Rmodules.
F module.
g A
and
k Z.
We dened
Zmodule:
kg = g + + g
 {z }
if
k > 0, 0Z g = 0A
and
kg = [(k)g]
if
k times
k < 0.
4. Let
be a ring. Then
Mn (R)
r
0
rX = 0
..
.
0
Clearly, we can also make
The symbol
Rmodule.
MR
will denote
Mn (R)
M
Rmodule
becomes a left
a right
is a right
0
r
0
0
0
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
if we dene for
rR
and
X Mn (R)
0
0
0
X
Rmodule.
Rmodule,
M is a left
Rmodules while dealing with
We say simply say that M is a
Proposition 1.21.
Let
Rmodule.
be a right
1.
0M r = 0M
for all
rR
2.
m0R = 0M
for all
m M.
3.
(m)r = m(r) = mr
for all
mM
Then:
and
rR
Proof. Exercise
Denition 1.22.
Let
Proposition 1.23.
and
xr K
for all
is a submodule of
M xy K
Proof. Exercise
Denition 1.24.
ideals of
1.9
Submodules of
RR
R.
be a submodule of a right
Proposition 1.25.
Let
1. every submodule of
MR .
Then
A/K
where
be a submodule of
M/K
is a submodule of
M/K
and
A K.
Denition 1.26.
Let
M0
be right
for all
x, y M
and
Rmodules.
homomorphism if:
1.
(x + y) = (x) + (y)
2.
(xr) = (x)r
for all
xM
and
rR
A mapping
: M M0
is called an
R
If
is an
K is a submodule
Rhomomorphism
Proposition 1.27.
of
of
Let
: MR MR0
1.
(0M ) = 0M 0
2.
K = {x M : (x) = 0M 0 }
3.
M = {(m) : m M }
be an
Rhomomorphism.
is a submodule of
is a submodule of
for all
mM
Then:
M0
Proof. Exercise
if and only if
and
ker = 0
Denition 1.28.
Let
: MR MR0
be an
Rhomomorphism.
Then
1.10
Risomorphism
M
= M0
is called an
it is in addition a one to one correspondence and onto map. In this case we write
if
Theorem 1.29.
M
= M/K
where
Theorem 1.30.
M and M 0
K = ker
Let
Let
L, K
Theorem 1.31. If K, L
(M/K)/(L/K)
= M/L.
be right
Rmodules
be submodules of
are submodules of
MR .
MR
and
Then
and
: M M0
and
Rhomomorphism.
Then
(L + K)/K
= L/(L K)
K L
then
L/K
is a submodule of
M/K
and
1.11
set of all nite sums of elements of the M 's. It is easy to see that this is a submodule of M .
P
P
m1 + + mk for
M is said to be direct if each
P
,6= M } = {0}
P
for all . If
M
is
direct,
we
denote
it
by
M
or
M
M
if is a nite set.
1
n
Let
As explained for rings in 1.6, there is no real dierence between (nite) external and internal direct
sums of modules.
Denition 1.32.
Let
MR
is said to be unital if
1.12
for all
mM
Products of subsets
Rmodule.
Let K, S be nonempty subsets of M and R respectively. We dened their
Pn
{ i=1 ki si ki K, si S; i = 1, 2, . . . }. Thus KS consists of all possible nite
sums of elements of the type ks with k K and s S . If K is a nonempty subset of M and S is a
right ideal of R then KS is a submodule of M . (Check that we require nite sums in our denition to
Let
m1 = m
be a right
products
KS
to be
then
1.13
A construction
and M a right Rmodule. In general, M need not be a right R/I M a right R/I module structure if M I = 0. In this case we dene
mr = m[r + I] for all m R and r R. It can be checked that this is welldened right R/I module
action. Further, under this action the R and R/I submodules of M coincide.
2
In particular, I/I is naturally a right (and left) Rmodule. This fact will be used repeatedly. In
n
n+1
general same for I /I
.
Let
module.
1.14
Denition 1.33.
relation
in
1. A nonempty set
(a)
aa
(b)
a b, b c a c
(c)
a b, b a a = b
2. Let
pair
S be a partially
a, b we have
ab
or
in
cS
such that
xc
for all
A nonempty set
of
S,
and satises:
ba
3. Let
4. Let
then
S.
We say that
xy
with
x .
S
10
2.1
Quasiregularity
Denition 2.1.
M0 ) M
with
of
R. M
M 6= R
and
Similar denition is applied for a maximal twosided ideal, and maximal left ideal.
Proposition 2.2.
of
I 6= R
Let
R.
M I.
such that
Corollary 2.3.
Proof. Take
I=0
Denition 2.4.
It is usually denoted by
J(R)
(or simply
J)
Remark. Strictly speaking the above denition was for the right Jacobson radical. However we shall
show that this is the same as the left Jacobson radical.
Theorem 2.5
(Crucial Lemma)
K = {r R : ar M }.
Then
1. if
aM
then
K=R
2. if
a
/M
then
Let
K Cr R
and let
a R.
Dene
and:
Theorem 2.6.
J CR
a right ideal
Denition 2.7.
Let
A subset
of
R. We say
(1 x)y = 1
be an element of a ring
y R
such that
that
1x
is rqr
Lemma 2.8.
Let
R.
Then
Proof. Let
and
A
IJ
11
Lemma 2.9.
Proof. Let
Let
j J.
be a ring,
J(R)
Suppose that
1 j has
M such
1 = 1 j + j M,
So J is a rqr.
Lemma 2.10.
hence
Let
M = R.
(1 j)R M .
be an ideal of a ring
R.
Then
But
lqr.
Proof. Suppose that I is rqr. Let x I , then there exists a R such that (1 x)(1 a) = 1. So
a = xa x I since I Cr R. Hence there exists t R such that (1 a)(1 t) = 1, so 1 x = (1 x)1 =
(1 x)(1 a)(1 t) = 1(1 t) = 1 t. Hence (1 a)(1 x) = 1, thus x is lqr. By symmetry we can
run the converse argument.
Theorem 2.11.
The (right) Jacobson radical is a qr ideal and contains all the rqr right ideals.
Corollary 2.12.
Jl
Jl
Jr = Jl .
Proof.
Theorem 2.13.
Let
Jr
R/J
J.
Then
Jl Jr .
Similarly
Jr Jl ,
hence
M/J
where
J(R/J) = 0
Remark. The theory can be adjusted to deal with rings without an identity.
2.2
Denition 2.14.
Let
ring if
ideal
1.
2.
R/M
R,
then:
is a eld
x R, x
/ M then x is a unit of R.
Example. Let R = ab a, b Z, bodd
Check that R is a local ring. Find its unique
localised at the prime ideal 2Z
3. If
maximal ideal.
In fact
R = Z(2) ,
Remark. There exists a noncommutative ring with unique maximal ideal (in fact the only proper
nonzero ideal) which is not its Jacobson radical.
12
3.1
in this chapter
Denition 3.1.
submodule of
Let
T be
a subset of
the
generated by
By convention we take
is
Denition 3.2.
3.2
Finiteness Assumption
Denition 3.3.
1. An element
Let
K S is
said to be maximal in
if
@K 0 S
such that
K0 ) K.
submodules
3.
Rmodule M .
A1 A2 . . .
with
Ai S
submodules in
if every chain of
The descending chain condition (DCC) and minimum condition are dened analogously.
Proposition 3.4.
Let
MR
equivalent:
1.
2.
Proof. Exercise
Particularly important is the case when
M has ACC will mean that
M.
MR .
The abbreviation
conditions.
Proposition 3.5.
1.
has ACC
2.
3. Every submodule of
Rmodule M .
is nitely generated.
Example.
ZZ
Remark.
has ACC since every ideal is principle (this follows from the Euclidean Algorithm)
13
MR
3. However if
has both ACC and DCC then such an integer does exists. This follows from the
Lemma 3.6
Let
A, B, C
be submodules of
MR
such that
A B.
Then
A (B + C) = B + (A C).
Proof. Elementary
Proposition 3.7
and
M/K
Suppose that
is a submodule of
MR .
Then
has
: Straightforward
: Let M1 M2 . . . be an ascending chain of submodules of M . Consider the chains M1
K M2 K . . . and M1 + K M2 + K . . . . The rst chain stops since it consists of
submodules of K . So there exists k 1 such that Mk K = Mk+i K for all i 1. The second
chain stops since it consists of submodules of M which are in 1 to 1 correspondence with those of
M/K . So there exists an l such that Ml + K = Ml+i + K for all i 1. Let n = max{k, l}. Then
Mn+i = Mn+i (Mn+i + K) = Mn+i (Mn + K) = Mn + (Mn+i K) by the Modular Law (since
Mn+i Mn ). And Mn + (Mn+i + K) = Mn + Mn K = Mn , and this is true i 1. So MR has
Proof.
ACC
Similarly for DCC
This important proposition has many consequences
If each
Let
M1 , . . . , Mn be submodules
M 1 + + Mn = K .
of a right
Rmodules M .
M1 +M2
K1
2
Proof. Take K1 = M1 + M2 . We have K1 /M1 =
. So
= M1MM
M1
M1 has ACC [DCC] since
2
M2
M1 M2 is a factor modules of M2 and M2 has ACC. Also M1 has by assumption ACC [DCC]. So by
the proposition 3.7, K1 has ACC [DCC].
This can easily be extended by induction.
Corollary 3.9.
Let
1. Suppose that R
Rmodule. Then MR has
be a ring with
MR
be
Remark. If
This is because
Denition 3.10.
A modules
and DCC on right ideals is called a right Artinian ring. A ring with
and DCC on
3.3
Denition 3.11.
exists an integer
an integer
If
k1
Let
k1
(which depends on
such that
s)
such that
Sk = 0
consists of a single element, there is no dierence between nil and nilpotent and we normally
Proposition 3.12.
Let
be a ring with
1.
14
is inside
J(R).
Proof. Let
k1
+ x
Lemma 3.13.
I
1. If
and
Let
k 1.
for some
We have
(1 x)(1 + x +
1.
be a ring:
I +K
and
RI
Denition 3.14.
Note.
N (R) J(R)
always.
N (R)
N (R).
N (R) =
Example
I}
. Dene a multiplication on F by extending the following product of basis
i
(
xi+j if i + j < 1
elements xi xj =
. Thus every element of R can be written uniquely in the form
0
if i + j 1
P
iI ai xi where ai F and ai = 0 for all except a nite number of i. Check that N (R) = R but R is
over
(Zassenhaus's Example)
with basis
not nilpotent.
Proposition 3.15.
of
Let
N (R)
R.
Proof. Let
is nilpotent.
(Prove!)
Example.
Q.
Then
Denition 3.16.
AP
or
An ideal
B P.
We exclude
and
R.
of a ring
So
N (R) = 0
we have
Proof. Trivial if
has
1.
P C R.
and
but
0
0
ring of
22
matrices over
AB P , A, B C R
implies
Proposition 3.17.
(a, b R)
R be the
2
1
= 0.
0
Let
Then
1.
is a nil ideal.
proposition.
Corollary 3.19.
In a commutative ring
N (R)
15
R.
Proof. This follows from Theorem 3.15 and the previous theorem.
Corollary 3.20.
when
Proof. Let
N (R)
is Noetherian
is nilpotent.
R.
Let
K = k1 R + + ks R with ki K . Each ki is
R is Noetherian N (R) is nitely
3.4
Denition 3.21.
1.
a1 , . . . , an
Let
I Cr R.
generate
We say that
{a1 , . . . , an }
Nakayama's Lemma.
J(R)
Let R be a
M I = M M = 0.
Then
if:
2. No proper subset of
of
a1 , . . . , an
generates
ring with
I.
and
MR
be a subset
Proof. Let
Let
J/J 2 is
x + J 2.
R/J module,
2
So x R/J .
an
Lemma 3.22
(as an
J/J 2
R/J .
If
maximal ideal of
i.e.,
1.
1
R.
Suppose that
Rmodule)
) x1 , . . . , xk
generate
Corollary 3.23.
J x1 , . . . , xk
is a
Theorem 3.24.
R.
Let
1.
Let
R/J .
16
V (R).
Thus
as a vector space
4.1
1.
Primary Decomposition
Denition 4.1.
for some integer
An ideal
is said to be primary if
ab Q (a, b R)
implies that
aQ
or
bn Q
n.
Denition 4.2.
Clearly an ideal
Denition 4.3.
We say that
is a primary ideal.
R/Q
is a primary ring.
is expressible as a nite
Denition 4.4.
I =AB
is meetirreducible if
Lemma 4.5
I = A B , A, B C R implies I = A or I = B .
MR is irreducible if {0}
I = A or I = B
and
I CR
implies
Let
be a Noetherian ring.
is
Notation. Let
MR . The annihilator
ann(S) Cr R. If S is a submodule
be a subset of
is noncommutative
of
in
is
For
then typically
Proof. By the previous lemma it is enough to show that a meetirreducible ideal is primary. Without
ab = 0, a, b R.
n 1 such that bn R ann(bn ) = 0.
2
n
2n
Since the chain ann(b) ann(b ) . . . stops there is an integer n 1 such that ann(b ) = ann(b ).
n
n
n
z
2n
n
Now z b R ann(b ) x = b t for some t R and b = 0. So b t = 0 b t = 0 z = 0. Since 0
n
n
n
is meetirreducible either b R = 0 or ann(b ) = 0. Thus b = 0 or a = 0 and 0 is a primary ideal
loss of generality assume
Denition 4.7.
Q be
Q and
Let
P/Q be
Q is P primary.
Q by Q.
Proposition 4.8.
1.
R/Q. P
is
R, N (R) =set
P =
Q.
R.
Then:
is a prime ideal
2. If further
Proof.
Let
we say that
1. Let
/Q
a
so
is Noetherian, then
Pk Q
for some
k 1.
ideal/
2.
P/Q
is a nil ideal of
R/Q.
where
Let
J = J(R).
17
Then
n=1 J =
n
X =
n=1 J . Let XJ = Q1 Qn be a primary decomposition for X . Fix i and let
Pi = Qi , if X * Qi then J Pi . So J ki Qi for some ki 1 by the previous proposition. Thus
X Qi or J ki Qi . So X Qi for all i = 1 . . . , n in any case. Hence X XJ . So X = XJ hence
by Nakayama's lemma X = 0.
Proof. Let
Remark. For a right Noetherian ring this is false (Proven by Herstein in 1965). While for left and right
Noetherian rings the result is still an open problem.
Denition 4.10.
A ring is called an integral domain if the product of any two nonzero elements of
Theorem 4.11.
Let
is a power of
J.
In particular,
J = J(R)
is a principle
n
0 6= I C R, I 6= R. Then I J . Since
n=1 J = 0 there exists an integer k 1 such that
k+1
m
I J but I * J
. Let J = aR (a J ), then J
= am R m 1. Now there exists an element x
k+1
k
such that x I but x
/a
R (). Since x a R we have x = ak t for some t R. Now t
/ J = aR
k
1
by (). So t must be a unit of R. So a = xt
I . Hence J k = ak R I . It follows that I = J k
Proof. Let
k
Corollary 4.12.
Let
1. If
2. If
is nilpotent then
is Artinian and
4.2
Decomposition of
Denition 4.13.
are
Pi primary.
1. No
2.
Qi
Let
and
R.
R.
I = Q1 Qn
I.
Suppose that
Qi
is superuous
Pi 6= Pj
for all
Given that
i 6= j
by:
Lemma 4.14.
If
Q1
and
Q2
are
P primary
ideals then so is
Q1 Q2
ab Q1 Q2 , a, b R. If a
/ Q1 Q2 then a
/ Q1 say. Then bn Q1 for some n 1. So
s
b P . Hence b Q2 for some s 1 since Q2 is P primary. Let k =
max(n, s) then bk Q1 Q2 .
t
Q1 Q2 . But Q1 Q2 Q1
Now p P implies p Q1 Q2 for suciently large t 1. Hence P
so
Q1 Q2 Q1 = P , thus P = Q1 Q2 .
Proof. Let
Thus whenever necessary we shall assume that the primary decomposition being considered is normal.
Qi )
Qj
Denition 4.15.
QP
with
Lemma 4.16.
Let
be a ring.
prime implies
if
R be a commutative
Noetherian ring. Suppose that 0 = Q1 Qn be a primary
decomposition of
in the set
Q = P.
18
is a prime ideal of
Denition 4.17.
Let
c R,
we say that
is regular if
cx = 0, x R x = 0
Notation. Let
I C R.
Write
C (I) = {x Rx + I
Proposition
4.18.
Let
Qi
Pi =
Let
R}.
If
R/I }
1.
N (R) = P1 Pk .
2.
C (0) = R \ ni=1 Pi
3.
C (N ) = R \ ki=1 Pi
Proof.
elements of
1. Clearly
N P1 Pk .
Q1 Qn = 0.
Thus
c R \ ni=1 Pi . Then cx = 0, x R x Qi
Hence x Q1 Qn = 0, so c C (0).
2. Let
for all
i 1 i n,
since
Pi .
belong to no
3. Exercise
Lemma 4.19.
prime. Let
Let
be a subring of
R.
Suppose that
1,
are
Proposition 4.20.
R be a commutative
ann I = 0.
Let
I C R,
then
contains a regular
: Trivial
: Suppose that every element of I is a zero divisor. Then by the Proposition 4.18 part 2)
I ni=1 Pi (where the Pi are as in Proposition 4.18. So I Pj , for some j , 1 j n. We have
ann I ann Pj 6= 0. This completes the proof.
Proof.
Proposition 4.21.
R be a commutative Noetherian
I = c1 R + + cn R where each ci
Let
19
ring and
I C R.
is regular.
Suppose that
contains a
I . So I \ K is either empty or
P1 , . . . , Pn be the primes associated with a primary decomposition of 0
(as in Proposition 4.18). So I \ K P1 Pn by Proposition 4.18 part 2, so I K P1 Pn .
Hence I K or I Pi for some i (by Lemma 4.19). But I * Pi for any i since I contains a regular
element but all Pi contains zerodivisors. Hence I K and so I = K . Since R is Noetherian it follows
Proof. Let
4.3
Denition 4.22.
if
Let S
s1 , s2 S s1 s2 S .
R.
We say that
is multiplicatively closed
assume
0
/S
and
Denition 4.23.
Bo
Let
A, B
AS
S a multiplicatively closed subset of A. Suppose that : A B is a ring homo(s) is a unit in B for all s S . Then there exists a unique ring homomorphism
that =
be rings and
: AS B
such
sS
2. Given
implies
(s)
is a unit in
a R, (a) = 0
3. Every element of
: R RS
RS
Let
A, B
RS
if and only if
as = 0
is expressible as
Theorem 4.24.
RS
for some
(a)[(s)]1
sS
for some
a R, s S .
to within isomorphism.
be rings and
A.
Suppose that
:AB
sS
2.
(a) = 0
implies
(s)
implies
3. Every element of
is a unit of
as = 0
B
for some
sS
is expressible as
(a)[(s)]1
: AS B
for some
such that
A AS .
A
Bo
20
AS
a A, s S .
= ,
where
: AS B
= ,
where
check that
(as
is given by
) = (a)[(s)]
such that
is an isomorphism.
R RS
and
RS , we write r instead of
S = R \ {0} then RS is just the
Lemma 4.25.
1. if
2.
is a monomorphism. We identity
subring of
Let
be a ring and
I C R IRS C RS
K C RS K R C R
and
IRS
is expressible as
xd1
S C (0).
for some
xI
Then:
and
d S.
(K R)RS = K .
1
Proof. We are assuming that R is a subring of RS . So a typical element of IRS is x1 r1 c1 + +
1
xn rn cn for some xi I, ri R and ci S . Let d = c1 c2 . . . cn and di = c1 c2 . . . ci1 ci+1 . . . cn then
1
1
x1 r1 c1
= xd1 where x = x1 r1 d1 + + xn rn dn I .
1 + + xn rn cn = (x1 r1 d1 + + xn rn dn )d
The rest is an exercise.
Remark. If
ICR
we have
IRS R I
E.g.
R = Z
and
R S = Q.
However, see Lemma 4.27 part 2 below.
Corollary 4.26.
If
RS .
Lemma 4.27.
Let
be a ring and
is a prime ideal of
RS
2. If
is a prime ideal of
Proof.
then
and
is a prime ideal of
P S =
then
P RS
is a prime ideal of
RS
and
P RS R = P
1. Easy
Theorem 4.28.
Let
R, S
RS
P P RS .
Remark. Theorems analogous to the above hold even when the elements of
regular.
Proposition 4.29.
regular. Then
P RP
Let
RP
instead of
RC (P )
or
RR\P .
RP
S = R \ P = C (P ).
and thus
RP
In this
C (P )
are
is a local ring.
So
Example.
R = Z, P = 2Z,
then
Z(2) =
a
b a, b
Z, b odd
21
4.4
Let
be an
equivalence relation on
0.
Check
ms0 + m0 s m r
mr
m m0
,
+
=
=
, m, m0 M, s, s0 , t S, r R
s
s
ss0
s t
st
MS into an RS module. Uniqueness corresponding to Theorem 4.24 can also be
MS the localization of M at S .
Note that if A is an RS module then A can be considered an Rmodule via the action a r =
a 1r a A, r R. In this case A
= AS as RS module [Check that ac a 1c is an isomorphism
AS S ]
Check that this turns
proved. We call
4.5
Symbolic Powers
Let
need not be
after 6.3]
P (n) = {x Rxc P n
Denition 4.30.
Clearly
P (n)
P (1) = P
Lemma 4.31.
P (n)
is called the
and
is
for some
P (n) P
c C (P }.
nnt
Check that
symbolic power of
for all
P (n) C R.
P
n.
P primary
Lemma 4.32.
Let
C (P )
n 1:
1.
(P RP )n = P n RP
2.
P n RP R = P (n)
3.
P (n) RP = P n RP
Proof.
2.
1.
n
= P n RP
(P RP )n = P n RP
So
xcRP P n RP xRP P n RP
Conversely:
qP
(n)
since
Hence
is a unit of
qc = p P n ,
so
3. Exercise
4.6
Denition 4.33.
A prime ideal P is said to have rank r (or height r ) if there exists a chain of prime
P1 ( P2 ( ( Pr ( P but none longer. If there does not exists a maximal nite chain of
primes then we say rk P = . If P contains no other primes, we dene rk P = 0
ideals
Note that
rk P = 0
Denition 4.34.
+ an R)
Let
if and only if
a1 , . . . , a n R ,
is a minimal prime.
P is minimal
R/(a1 R + + an R).
22
over
a1 , . . . , an
if
P/(a1 R +
Lemma 4.35.
R be a
n 1.
Let
Noetherian ring,
A C R.
Suppose that
R/A
R/An
R/A2
2
A/A2 (by the third isomorphism theorem). Note A/A is nitely generated as an R/A2
2
module, so by Corollary 3.9 A/A is Artinian. Since R/A and A/A are Artinian, it follows from
2
Proposition 3.7 that R/A is Artinian. The proof then extends by induction.
R/A
=
Proof.
Let
a.
Then
P.
be a nonunit, suppose
R,
Suppose we have
Q1 Q ( P .
i.e., when
Factoring out by
Q1
is a
we may
aR
rk P 1.
unique maximal ideal and a minimal prime. Hence by Proposition 4.18 we have
Q(k)
= 0 by Nakayama's Lemma since aR J(R), so Q(k) = Q(k+1) . Now localize at Q.
Q(k+1)
(k)
So Q
RQ = Q(k+1) RQ and Qk RQ = Qk+1 RQ by Lemma 4.32 part 3. So (QRQ )k = (QRQ )k+1 by
k
k
Lemma 4.32 part 1. So (QRQ ) = 0 by Nakayama's Lemma since QRQ = J(RQ ). Hence Q = 0 and
So
hence
Q=0
since
is a domain.
P.
Factor out
is an
Now
P , by Theorem 4.28, there exists an inclusion preserving one to one correspondence between
primes of R lying inside P and primes of the ring RP . Use this and the rst part of the proof applied
to the ring RP to nish the proof.
localise at
R be a commutative Noetherian
x1 , . . . , xr R. Then rk P r.
Let
ring. Suppose
r=1
over
Denition 4.36.
Let
by
K dim(R) =
supP prime rk P .
Note.
K dim
can be innite in a Noetherian ring even thought the rank of each prime ideal is nite.
Proposition 4.37.
Let
J.
Then
K dim(R) = rk J < .
Proof. Since
is local,
K dim(R) = rk J ,
and
rk J <
Lemma 4.38.
n 1.
Let
Further, if
23
Then
K dim(R/cR)
Proof. Let
4.7
R be a Noetherian local ring with Jacobson radical J . We have V (R) = dim J/J 2 as a vector space
over the eld R/J . So V (R) =the number of elements in a minimal generator set for J by Corollary
3.23. By The Generalised Principal Ideal Theorem we have rk J V (R)
Let
Denition 4.39.
rk(J) = V (R).
Lemma 4.40.
x J \ J 2,
let
J (R
J = J/xR. Let y1 , . . . , yk
be a minimal generating set for J . Choose y1 , . . . , yk J such that yi 7 yi under the natural
homomorphism R R/xR. Claim x, y1 , . . . , yk is a minimal generating set for J . We shall now
2
show that the homomorphic images of x, y1 , . . . , yk in the vector space J/J are linearly independent.
2
2
Suppose that xr+y1 r1 + +yk rk J (). So y1 r1 + +yk rk (J ) where ri are the homomorphic
images of ri under R R/xR. It follows that ri J since y1 , . . . , yk is a minimal generating set for
J and dim J /(J )2 = k . So ri J for all i. It follows from () that xr J 2 since ri , yi J . So
r J since x
/ J 2 . (Note that J 2 is J primary check!) This completes the proof.
Proof. Note that
radical
Theorem 4.41.
the ring
Let
R = R/xR
J.
Suppose that
x J \ J 2.
Then
Proof.
V (R) 1 = V (R )
rk J
where
J = J/xR
rk J 1
by Theorem 4.38
= V (R) 1
So
V (R ) = rk J .
Thus
Lemma 4.42.
Let
rk J = rk J 1.
P = pR (p P )
rk P = 0.
n
n
Q P n for all n 1, so Q (
n=1 P n=1 J where J = J(R). But by Theorem 4.9 n=1 J = 0,
so Q = 0 which is a contradiction since R is not a domain. Hence rk P = 0
Proof. Suppose that
some
Theorem 4.43.
integral domain.
24
Projective Modules
5.1
RP ?
Free Modules
Denition 5.1.
1.
2.
M
P
S
Rmodule M
is generated by a subset
ai ri = 0
finite
Then
A right
1.
RR
SM
if and only if
ri = 0ri R, ai S .
M.
Remark.
1
2 2 matrices
2. In a free module not every minimal generating set is a free basis. e.g: in the ring of
over
Q,
0
0
1
0
3. By convention,
Lemma 5.2.
Let
0
0
and
0
1
is a minimal generating set but not a free basis.
Rmodule
cardinality.
contains a maximal ideal, M say. Then R/M is a eld. Let A be a free
R R
{x } . We claim: xxM
= M (as R and hence as R/M modules). To see
x R
this, dene : R
by (r) = x r + x M . Then is an Rhomomorphism and ker M . But
x M
M is maximal, so ker() = M , proving our claim.
x R
Write B =
= R/M each B is a 1dimensional vector space over the eld R/M .
x M , since BP
From the external direct sum
B . Now A/AM is an R/M module. (see Section 1.11). We
P
have A/AM
=
B (as Rmodules and hence also as R/M modules). Hence dimension of
A/AM as a vector space is . The dimension of A/AM is invariant by vector space theory, hence
Rmodule
the result.
R
=RR
as right
Rmodules.
a r
with
Proposition 5.3.
Every right
Rmodule
Rmodule
Proof. Let
5.2
Exact Sequences
Mi
Let
Rmodules
be right
nite or innite)
for all
fi+2
and
/ Mi+1
fi Rhomomorphism
fi+1
/ Mi
fi
/ Mi1
of
Mi
fi1
into
Mi1 .
is said to be exact if
im fi+1 = ker fi
i.
i.e.,
/M
00
/ M0
/0
/M
is exact we have
ker(f ) = 0, i.e., f
/ M0
/M
25
/ M 00
/0
is a monomorphism. Similarly
is exact so
is isomorphic to a submodule
00
have
M0
= f (M 0 ),
Given modules
where
is the
/B
/A
/ A/B
/Ao
/0
Bo
im
is a direct summand of
:CB
such that
= 1C
:BA
such that
= 1A
Denition 5.5.
We say that the short exact sequence split if any (and hence all) of the above condition
holds.
Note that if the above short exact sequence split then we have
B = im B1
= AC
(external
direct sum)
Denition 5.6.
A right
Rmodule P
/B
/0
exact
A
in such a way that
Lemma 5.7.
Proof. Let
= .
/B
/0
{e }.
Consider
/B
/0
exact
Lemma 5.8.
Let
P ( )
be right
Rmodules.
Then
are projective
26
/0,
and let
P
f
/B
/0
A
such
that
f
=
f
.
Dene
f
=
f p . Then f =
f p =
P
P
f
p
=
f
i
p
=
f
.
So
P
is
projective.
Restrict
maps
For any
consider
P
f
/B
/0
A
f :
p A.
So there exists
f i
maps
Proposition 5.9.
P A
is a projective right
2.
such that
/0
f = f p .
Hence
f i = f p i = f
and
Rmodule
32
f p
/B
1.
Proof.
/ M0
/M
FP P .
/P
/0
/ KP
21
13
Consider
splits.
/ Fp
/P
FP
= P KP
/0
where
KP
is the
0
Since
/ M0
/M
:P M
/P
1P
such that
/0
g = 1P .
sequence splits.
Example.
Projective does not imply Free. Let R = Z/6Z, A = 2Z/6Z and B = 3Z/6Z, then A, B C R
R = AB . A being a direct summand of R is projective, but is not free since it has fewer elements
than R
and
Theorem 5.10.
Over a commutative local ring, nitely generated projective modules are free.
27
R be a commutative local ring with unique maximal ideal J . Let M be a nitely genRmodule. Let {a1 , . . . , an } be a minimal set of generators for M . Then there exists a free
onto
module with a free basis {x1 , . . . , xn } and an Rhomomorphism : F M such that (xi ) = ai
Proof. Let
erated
/K
Thus we have
/F
/M
/ 0 where K = ker().
K F J . If not there exists an element k = x1 r1 + + xn rn (ri R) of F such that
k K but ri
/ J for some i. Say r1
/ J . Since R is local, r1 must be a unit. Since k ker ,
a1 r1 + + an rn = 0. So a1 = r11 (a2 r2 + + an rn ) contradiction the fact that {a1 , . . . , an } was a
minimal generating set. Thus K F J .
0
0
Now since M is projective, the above short exact sequence split. So F = K M where M
= M.
0
0
0
Hence F J = KJ M J . So K = F J K = K (KJ M J) = KJ (K M J) by the modular law.
0
0
But K M J K M = 0, so K = KJ . Now K is nitely generated (check this!). By Nakayama's
0
Lemma K = 0, thus M and hence M is free.
0
Claim:
Remark. Kaplansky has shown that the result is true even without the nitely generated assumption.
Lemma 5.11.
q A
of fraction
Let
such that
be an
K.
Let
0 6= A C R
Rhomomorphism.
and dene
1
extended to a K homomorphism, : K K by (ac
) = (a)c1 . Check that is well dened
and K homomorphism. Let (1) = q K . Then for x A, (x) = (x) = (1x) = (1)x = qx.
Clearly q A .
Proof.
Proposition 5.12
Let
1 = x1 q 1 + + xn q n
for some
Rhomomorphism : F A.
Rhomomorphism : A F such that = 1A
there exists an
F o
Let
(Or equivalently A A
xi A, qi A .
Since
AR is
= R)
is projective,
A.
{f } be a free basis for F . Then for each y A, we have (y) = f1 r1 + +fn rn uniquely
fi {f } and ri R. So for each i, y ri is an Rhomomorphism A R. So by
for some
the
y = (y)
= (f1 q1 y + + fn qn y)
= (f1 )q1 y + + (fn )qn y since qi y R
So
Dene
: A R R

{z
}
by
where
(x) = (q1 x, . . . , qn x)
xi = (fi ) A.
for all
x A.
ntimes
Ao
Note that
qi x R
since
+ xn rn , ri RThen
qi A .
R R
Dene
: R R A

{z
}
ntimes
is an Rhomomorphism and for any
(y)
= (q1 y, . . . , qn y)
= x1 q1 y + + xn qn y
= y
28
by
(r1 , . . . , rn ) = x1 r1 +
yA
So
= 1A ,
AR
hence
is projective.
Proposition 5.13.
is a projective
Proof.
I=0
IRM
I 6= 0.
is trivial so assume
Suppose that
M.
Since
M.
maximal ideal
then
AR
5.3
AM
is a projective
RM module
for all
See:
Denition 5.14.
If
is a right
/ Pn
...
Pi
where each
Rmodule,
/ Pn1 n1 / . . .
/ P0
/A
A.
/0
innite)
be a right
Rmodule.
F0 A
and we have
/ K1
/ F1 / K0
ker = K0 = im = im .
0
Here
F1
/ F0
/A
F0
(by Proposition
/0,
and
Even if
F1 F0
/ K0
and
F0
/ K1
/0
/ F1
where
K1 = ker .
Let
i = .
Thus
maps
/ F0
K1
/A
/0
It may happen that after a nite number of steps we get an exact sequence
/ Kn
0
where the
Kn
/ Fn
Denition 5.15.
A right
Rmodule A
exact sequence
0
where each
Pi
/ Fn1
is projective.
/ Pk
k
Fi
/ ...
/ F1
/ F0
/A
/0
are free.
/ Pk1
/ ...
/ P1
/ P0
29
/A
/0
if
projective resolution
/ Pn1
/ Pn
/ ...
/ P1
/ P0
/A
/0
pd A = 0
It is clear that
Schanuel's Lemma.
0
if and only if
Let
/K
is projective.
Rmodule
be a right
/A
/M
and
L = {(x, y)x X, y Y
have nite
and let
/0
/ K0
such that
/Y
/M
/0
X K0
= Y K.
f (x) = g(y)}.
Then
is a submodule of
X Y.
/M
/0
Corollary 5.16.
K0
is projective.
Remark. For free modules the result corresponding to Schanuel's Lemma does not work.
with
Pj , Pj0
is a right
Rmodule
/ Kn
/ Pn
/ Pn1
/ ...
/ P1
/ P0
/ Kn0
/ Pn0
0
/ Pn1
/ ...
/ P10
/ P00
projective for
(
0
Pn1
Suppose that
Rmodules
P00
P0
n
n
j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
odd
even
/0
/ A0
(
P0
Kn Pn0 Pn1
P00
/0
n
n
Pt Pt1
and
even
= Kn0 Pn
If
odd
Proof. By induction on
n.
Then
/A
/ Kj
/ Pj
/ Kj1
/0
/ K0
j
/ P0
j
/ K0
/0
j1
where
we obtain
/ Kj
/ Pj P 0 Pj2 . . .
j1
30
/ Kj1 P 0
j1
Pj2 . . .
/0
Kt = ker
of
/ K0
/ K0
/ P 0 Pj1 P 0 . . .
j2
j
j1
/0
0
...
Pj1 Pj2
In both these sequences the middle terms are projective and the right hand side terms are isomorphic
0
Kj Pj0 Pj1 . . .
....
= Kj0 Pj Pj1
This
Corollary 5.17.
Corollary 5.18.
If
pd AR = m
/K
Example.
Kn0
is projective.
and
/ Pm
Kn
/ Pm1
Pj 's
/ ...
projective. Then
/ P1
/ P0
/A
/0
is projective.
Consider
Z/2Z
dened by
Z/4Z
Look at
/ Z/4Z
...
/ Z/4Z
9
d2
%
2Z/4Z
8
2Z/4Z
8
0
where
/ Z/4Z
9
d1
&
: [a + 4Z] [a + 2Z]
and
/ Z/2Z
/0
2Z/4Z
Proposition 5.19.
Let
{A }
be a family of right
Rmodules.
Then
pd
A = sup pd A
Proof. We shall do this for the direct sum of two modules, the general case just involves more notation.
Let
/ Qn
...
be projective resolution for
...
/ Pn1 n1 / . . .
/ P1
/ P0
/ Qn1 n1 / . . .
/ Q1
/ Q0
/ Pn
...
/ Pn Qn
and
B.
/A
/0
/B
/0
Consider
/ Pn1 Qn1
/ ...
/ P1 Q1
n (pn , qn ) = (n pn , n qn ), pn Pn , qn Qn .
pd(A B) sup(pd A, pd B)
Suppose that pd(A B) = m < . Consider
where
/ P0 Q0
/ AB
/0
Pi Qi
is
projective. It follows
/ Tm
m1
/ Pm1 Qm1
/ ...
/ P0 Q0
/ A / B
where
Lemma 5.20.
Suppose that
0
is an exact sequence with
and we have in this case
/K
P projective and A
1 + pd K = pd A.
/P
/A
/0
pd K <
if and only if
Proof. Follows from denition of projective dimension and generalised Schanuel's Lemma.
31
pd A <
Mk
=0
0
!
/ Pn
/ ...
= K1
!
/ P1
/ P2
=
< K2
0
Theorem 5.21.
Let
/ P0
=
/0
= K0
!
0BAC0
/M
any two module is the short exact sequence is nite then so is the third. Furthermore we have
1. if
pd A > pd B
then
pd C = pd A
2. if
pd A < pd B
then
pd C = pd B + 1
3. if
pd A = pd B
then
pd C pd A + 1.
If
n = 0
Now
()
and
()
give
/E
/P
/C
/0
()
/D
/E
/B
/0
()
pd D = pd A 1
Now assume that all the projective dimension are nite. We prove the second part by induction
on the sum of all three projective dimension. If
n = 0,
n > 0.
If either
A or C
()
gives:
i If
pd E > pd D
then
pd B = pd E
ii if
pd E < pd D
then
pd B = pd D + 1
iii if
pd E = pd D
then
pd B pd D + 1
In terms of
A, B
and
these gives
a If
pd C > pd A
then
pd B = pd C 1
b If
pd C < pd A
then
pd B = pd A
c If
pd C = pd A
then
pd B A.
It can be seen (check!) that a. b. and c. are logically equivalent to 1. 2. and 3. of the theorem.
Let
be a right
Rmodule, I
32
{Mi }iI
1.
Mi M j
2.
M = iI Mi
3.
pd(Mi /Mi0 ) n
then
ij
if
where
Mi0 = j<i Mj
pd M n
/ Ki /K 0
i
/ Fi /F 0
i
/ Mi /M 0
i
/0
(Ki + Fi )/Fi0
= Ki /(Ki Fi0 ) by the third isomorphism theorem. But this is
0
0
Ki /(Ki Fi Fi ) = Ki /Ki . ] Each Fi /Fi0 is free since Fi has a set of generators, a subset of which
0
0
0
generates Fi . Hence Fi /Fi is projective so by Lemma 5.20 pd Ki /Ki n 1. It can be checked that:
i < j , i, j I
ii
K = iI Ki
implies
and
Ki Kj
Ki0 = j<i Kj .
Denition 5.23.
modules of
Let
R. D(R)
Lemma 5.24.
Let
pd M 1 + pd K n.
be a ring. We dene
D(R) = sup{M } pd M
R.
where
R.
Then
M
= R/I
where
is a right ideal of
R.
Theorem 5.25.
Let
be a ring. We have
1.
D(R) = sup{B} pd B
2.
3. Further if
D(R) 6= 0
where
where
then
Rmodules
D(R) = 1 + sup{I} pd I
where
R.
Proof. The equivalence of 1 and 2 follows from the previous lemma. The equivalence of 2 and 3 is
0 I R R/I 0. So we prove 1.
Rmodule. Well order the elements xi of M (i I ) and denote by Mi [respectively
0
0
by Mi ] the submodule of M generated by all xj , j i [respectively j < i]. Then Mi /Mi is either 0
0
or generated by a single element xi . So pd(Mi /Mi ) n where n = sup{B} pd B where B ranges over
all cyclic right Rmodules. Since the family {Mi }iI satises the hypothesis of Theorem 5.22, we have
pd M n, hence D(R) n. But by denition D(R) n, hence D(R) = n = sup{B} pd B .
clear from Lemma 5.20 using the short exact sequence
Let
be a right
Remark. Auslander has shown that for a (left and right) Noetherian ring
33
R,
5.4
R, 0
/ S, 1 S.
multiplicative subset of
(m)
with
s
m M, s S .
Lemma 5.26.
0
/ AS
/A
If
/ BS
/ CS
/B
/0
/C
/0
is an exact sequence of
is an exact sequence of
Rmodules
then
R modules.
Lemma 5.27.
If
is a projective
Rmodule,
then
PS
is a projective
RS module.
Lemma 5.28.
Proof. If
D(RS ) D(R)
D(R) =
So assumeD(R)
< .
Let
Example.
be an
34
(see
6.1
Theorem 6.1.
the ring
R/xR
Let
by
n.
n = 0, i.e., M is R projective, so there exists a free module F such that F = M M 0
0
pdR F 1 ()
So
pdR M 1.
Now
that
MR
cannot be
of a projective
n > 0 and assume the result for integers less than n. Now there exists a free R module
G such that 0 K G M 0 is exact. Since M is not R projective, pdR (K) = n 1. Hence
pdR (K) = n by induction hypothesis. Also pdR (G) 1 as in (). So by Theorem5.21pdR M = n + 1
if n 6= 1, and pdR M 2 if n = 1.
In the rst case we are done, so now we deal with the case n = 1 and we must rule out the possibility
that pdR M 1 when pdR M = 1. So assume that pdR M 1 and pdR M = 1. So there exists a
free Rmodule H such that
0 T H M 0 ()
So now let
is exact. So
is projective since
pdR M 1.
exact sequence
Also
/ T /Hx
Hx T
/ H/Hx
since
M x = 0.
/M
/0
Therefore
()
induces the
isomorphism theorem
Hx/T x = T /Hx as R modules. Hence Hx/T x is a direct summand of T /T x.
H/Hx
is
Rprojective,
R free
Corollary 6.2.
Theorem 6.3.
Let
R be
R such
pdR (M/M x) pdR M .
regular element of
D(R ) = n < ,
a commutative ring.
that
pdR M = 1
Let
then
implies
pdR M = 2
D(R) n + 1
be a right
module, then M/M x is a direct summand of R free module. (This argument was used before). Thus
M/M x is R projective, as required.
Now suppose that n > 0 and the result holds for integers smaller than n. There exists a Rmodule
F such that
/K
/F
/M
/ 0 ()
0
Proof. If
induction on
is exact, so
pdR (K) = n 1.
Hence
pdR (K/Kx) n 1
0
so we have
/
/
K+F x
Fx
/ F/F x
/ M/M x
/0
F
KF x
/ F/F x
/ M/M x
/0
35
()
we get
is exact. We claim
f F.
But
Since
pdR (K/Kx) n 1,
We get equality if
/ F/F x
/ K/Kx
it follows that
pdR (M/M x) n.
is Noetherian and
/ M/M x
/0
R.
Lemma 6.4.
of M . Write R = R/xR.
suppose that
elements
Then
Hence ri xR for all i since v1 , . . . , vk is part of a free basis of an R module. Say ri = xsi for si R.
We claim rk R ( sk R. Clearly rk R sk R and rk R = sk R would imply sk = rk tk for some tk R, i.e.,
sk = xsk tk and so sk (1 xtk ) = 0. Hence xk = 0 since 1 xtk is a unit since x J(R). But is sk = 0
then rk = 0 contrary to our assumption. Now cancelling out x, () gives u1 s1 + + uk sk = 0 with
sk 6= 0 since rk 6= 0. We can write this symbolically as u1 rx1 + . . . un rxk = 0. Repeating the above
Proof. First suppose that
rk R (
This is a contradiction since
So
is
r
k
R(
r
k
x2
R ( ...
u1 , . . . , un
as claimed.
Rfree.
M/M x
is
R projective.
0
/K
/F
/ K/Kx
/ F/F x
/M
such that
/0
R modules
/ M/M x
/0
()
Therefore B/Bx is R free and by earlier part of the proof B is Rfree. Hence from ( ) we have
that M is Rprojective.
Now write
Theorem 6.5.
that
x R
pdR (M/M x) = n.
pdR (M/M x) = then pdR (M ) = by Theorem 6.3
So assume that n < . We induct on n. For n = 0 the result
Assume that n > 0 and the result for values smaller than n.
Proof. Let
If
/K
/F
/M
/0
/ K/Kx
/ F/F x
36
/ M/M x
/0
()
such
F/F x
is
Corollary 6.6.
Let
Proof. We have
D(R) n + 1
R be a commutative
D(R ) = n < then D(R) = n + 1.
x J(R)
R /xR.
If
pdR M = k .
Rprojective.
k n + 1. This is
Rmodule F such that
/K
/F
be a nitely generated
k = 0
clear if
/M
Rmodule.
M is
, so assume that
Let
not
/0
We have
6.2
Lemma 6.7.
Let
n.
Proof. By induction on
Let
n.
R.
Then
If
D(R) = n.
n=0
we have
J = 0,
i.e.,
is a
n > 0 and assume the result holds for regular local ring of K dim n 1. Since n > 0, J 6= 0
J 6= J 2 by Nakayama's lemma. Let x1 , . . . , xn be a minimal generating set for J . Then there
exists xi such that xi
/ J 2 . Write xi = x. Since R is an integral domain, x is regular. Let R = R/xR.
By Lemma 4.38 K dim R = n 1. Clearly the images of x1 , x2 , . . . , xi1 , xi+1 , . . . , xn are a minimal
generating set for J/xR. Thus R is a regular local ring, hence D(R ) = n1 by induction hypothesis.
Therefore D(R) = n by Corollary 6.6. This completes the proof.
Let
and so
Lemma 6.8.
J(R)).
Then
Let R be a Noetherian
pd M = 0 or .
pd M 6= 0
Proof. If
or
0
where
is free and
K FJ
/K
/F
(as in Theorem5.10). So
such that
/B
pd B = 1.
Ann J 6= 0
(where
J =
Now consider
/0
Ann K 6= 0.
But since
pd B = 1, K
is projective
and hence free. This is a contradiction since a free module cannot have a nonzero annihilator.
Lemma 6.9.
xJ
but
Let
x
/ J 2.
Then
J/xR
J.
Let x R
J/xJ .
x
/ J2
Proof. Since
Proposition 6.10.
R
Let
Proof. If
J =0
then
5.10). So
is a eld,
J.
If
pd J = m <
then
m+1
result is true.
is projective it is free (Theorem
k,
37
R.
rk J = K dim R = 1
J is the unique minimal prime of R. Hence ann J 6= 0 (see Proposition 4.18). Then
pd J = 0 and this is dealt with above (we get J = 0)
So suppose that k > 0 and that the result holds for rings of smaller Krull dimension. Clearly we
may also assume m > 0. We have 0 < m < . So by 6.8 ann J = 0. So by Proposition 4.20, J
contains a regular element, say x. By Proposition 4.21, we may choose x such that x
/ J 2 . Write
Claim: pdR J = m 1. We have pdR (J/xJ) pdR J by Theorem 6.3, but by Lemma 6.9 J is
k=0
then
by Lemma 6.8
0
we have
pdR J = pdR J = m,
So by induction hypothesis
R is regular
rk J = m + 1)
local. (J
and
/ xR
/J
so by Theorem 6.1
/ J
/0
pdR J r = m 1.
is generating by
elements so
m.
K dim R = m+1
m + 1 elements. But
Hence
is generated by
Theorem 6.11
(Serre)
of Krull dimension of
Corollary 6.12.
Proof.
RP
If
Let
In fact, if
R
S
RP
D(R) < .
Hence
D(R) = n.
Lemma 5.28.
if and only if
D(RP ) <
38
and
D(R) <
then
by
Unique Factorization
7.1
Denition 7.1.
Note. If
0 6= p R
An element
Denition 7.2.
The ring
up
where
pR
is a prime ideal.
is a unit.
aR
is expressible as
a = up1 . . . pn
where
is an integral domain
pi
are
prime elements.
Proposition 7.3.
pi 's
Proof. Algebra II course. (Or Hartley and Hawkes: Rings, Modules and Linear Algebra; Theorem
4.10)
Denition 7.4.
there exists
Let
cR
Proposition 7.5.
if every rank
Proof.
such that
Let
a, b R.
We say that
divides
and write
prime ideal of
Let
pi
if
is principal.
ab
b = ac.
a nonunit, so
some
up1 . . . pn
and so
with
is prime.
a
/ S then aR S = . Suppose not. Let b R such that
ab = up1 . . . pn and n is the least possible, where u is a unit and the pj are primes. (Note:
ab cannot be a unit since a is not a unit). Now pi  b for any i since if pi b b = pi ti for
some ti R. Hence ati pi = up1 . . . pn ati = up1 . . . pi1 pi+1 . . . pn which contradicts the
choice of n. Now p1 ab so p1 a. Let a = p1 a1 where a1 R. Then p1 a1 b = up1 . . . pn and so
a1 b = up2 . . . pn . Again p2 a1 since p2  b. Proceeding this way we obtain that b is a unit of
R. Therefore a = b1 up1 . . . pn , a contradiction since a
/ S.
Lemma 7.6.
ideal with
Let
s
/ A.
Let
n
ARS = bRS . We may assume that b A (why?). By Lemma 4.9
n=1 s R = 0. So there
k
k+1
k
exists k 0 such that b s R but b
/ s
R. Let b = s a where a R. Then a
/ sR. We have
ARS = bRS = ask RS = aRS . Also ask A gives a A since s
/ A and A is prime
Claim: A = aR
m
m
Let x A. Then x aRS . So x = ars
for some m, suppose m 1. Hence xs
= ar.
m
Since a
/ sR, r sR since sR is prime. So r = sr1 for some r1 R. Hence xs = asr1 and so
xsm1 = ar1 sR if m 1 > 0. Proceeding as above we nally obtain x aR. Thus A = aR as
Proof. Let
required.
39
7.2
Let
A, B
be
nn
a (nonzero) ideal of
where
Notation. Let
be a ring. We write
Rn
R(n) )
(or sometimes
for
R R
{z
}

n times
Theorem 7.7
such that
(Kaplansky )
A Rn1
= Rn
as
Let R be a
Rmodules.
Then
is a principal ideal of
R.
11 12 . . . 1n
21 22
2n
= .
.
..
..
n1 n2
nn
Then
Mn (R),
is an
ntuple,
so let
 A.
note that
Now consider
I
R
X =.
..
R
X Cr MN (R).
Then
a1j A
and
a12
b22
sij R
since
a11
b21
..
.
bn1
Thus
..
I
R
a1n
b2n
bnn
...
..
bn2
a1j
11
12
1n
bij 21
22
2n
with
...
Let
a11
b21
..
.
bn1
where
I
R
1 , . . . , n
a12
b22
...
..
bn2
=2
=n
AR
a1n
11
21
b2n
= ..
.
bnn
n1
12
22
...
..
n2
1n
s11
s21
2n
..
.
nn
sn1
s12
s22
B Mn (R)
such that
1
1
..
0
40
= B
...
..
sn2
1
0
..
.
0
1
as columns we have
Now let
s1n
s2n
snn
x A and consider
x =  B.
Thus
A R,
but
R A
since
A C R.
Thus
A = R
is principal.
Denition 7.8.
0 Fn
Clearly, over a regular local ring each nitely generated module has a nite free resolution
Lemma 7.9.
Let
R.
If
MR
RS module MS
Proof. Exercise
Denition 7.10.
F
and
Rmodule M
GM
= F.
An
such that
Clearly a stably free module is projective. A stably free module is a nitely generated projective
module with a nitely generated free complement
Lemma 7.11.
Let
Rmodule
free
Proof. We prove this by induction on the length of the nite free resolution. Let
resolution module.
For
n=1
we have
0 F1 F0 M 0. M
be a nite free
F0
= F1 M
and
is stably free.
Now suppose we have
/ Fn
/ ...
/ F1
/
; F0
/M
/0
: K0
$
0
We have
F0
= K0 M
since
is projective.
F0 G
and
K0 G
free.
If
case
such that
A Rm
= Rn .
In this
R be a regular local ring of dimension n. We prove the theorem by induction on the (Krull)
n.
If n = 0 then R is a eld and there is nothing to prove.
2
Assume result for regular local rings of dimension less than n. Let J = J(R), choose p J \ J . By
Theorem 4.41 R/pR is regular local. By Theorem 4.43 pR is a prime ideal and p is a prime element.
n
Let S = {p }, then clearly K dim RS < K dim R.
Now let T be a rank 1 prime of RS . Let M be a maximal ideal of RS . Then either T (RS )M = T RS
or T (RS )M is a rank 1 prime ideal of (RS )M . By induction hypothesis (RS )M is a UFD. So by
Proposition 7.5 T (RS ) is principal and hence a projective (free) (RS )M module. So by Proposition
5.13 T is a projective RS module. Now let A be a rank 1 prime of R. By above ARS is a projective
RS module. Since every nitely generated module over RS has nite free resolution by the previous
lemma, ARS is stably free. So by Theorem 7.7 ARS is free. Thus ARS is a principal ideal. So by
Lemma 7.6 A is a principal ideal if p
/ A. However if p A then pR = A since rank A is 1. So by
Proposition 7.5 R is a UFD
Proof. Let
dimension
Key point.
RS
is not local.
41
Let
1. Every ideal of
2.
RM
3.
K dim R = 1
(There are various other characterisation) Such a ring is called Dedekind Domain.
Then I I R, I I C R.
Recall that if
F qI R} .
I is said
is invertible
is projective.
Proof. 5)
42
with
D(R) = 1.