Sunday, 27 April 2008

ac.commutative algebra - Is every integral epimorphism of commutative rings surjective?

If I'm not mistaken, there is a counter-example. Have a look at Lazard's second counter-example in:
"Deux mechants contre-exemples" in Séminaire Samuel, Algèbre commutative, 2, 1967-1968.



For any field k, Lazard provides a non-surjective epimorphism of local k-algebras CtoD, both of Krull dimension zero, and both of residue field equal to k. It is then easy to show that D is also integral over C, which is what we need here. Indeed, every dinD can be written as d=a+b with aink and b in the maximal ideal (and unique prime) of D, which is therefore nilpotent bn=0, hence trivially integral. Since aink is also in C, our d is the sum of two integral elements. (Or simply, D is a k-algebra, hence a C-algebra, generated by nilpotent, hence integral, elements.)



In cash, for those who don't want to click, the rings are constructed as follows:
Consider the local ring in countably many pairs of variables S=(k[Xi,Yi]igeq0)M localized at M=langleXi,Yirangleigeq0.
For every igeq0 choose an integer p(i)>2i1. Define J=langleYiXi+1Y2i+1,Xp(i)irangleigeq0subsetS and define D=S/J. Note immediately that D is a local k-algebra, say with maximal ideal m and with residue field D/mcongS/Mcongk. Finally, he defines C to be the localization (at C0capm) of the subalgebra C0:=k[xi,xiyi]igeq0subsetD where the xi are the classes of the Xi in D and I let you guess what the yi are. By construction, the residue field of C is an extension of k which is also a subfield of D/m=k, so the residue field of C must be k and we are in the announced situation.

No comments:

Post a Comment