Map to localization is injective on spectra: Difference between revisions

From Commalg
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:


Further, it is also true that the topology on <math>Spec(S)</math> is such that if we give the subspace topology to its image in <math>Spec(R)</math>, the map is a homeomorphism.
Further, it is also true that the topology on <math>Spec(S)</math> is such that if we give the subspace topology to its image in <math>Spec(R)</math>, the map is a homeomorphism.
==Proof==
===Some preliminary observations===
* The extension of an ideal <math>I</math> of <math>R</math>, to the ring <math>S = U^{-1}R</math>, is the ideal <math>U^{-1}I</math> of <math>S</math>
* If any ideal of <math>R</math> intersects the multiplicatively closed subset <math>U</math>, then its [[extension of an ideal|extension]] to <math>S = U^{-1}R</math> is the whole ring <math>U^{-1}R</math>. Hence, it does ''not'' occur as the contraction of any ideal of <math>S</math>
''Proof'': If <math>I</math> is an ideal of <math>R</math> such that <math>I \cap U</math> is nonempty, then pick <math>u \in I \cap U</math>. Clearly, we have:
<math>1 = \frac{u}{u} \in U^{-1}I = I^{e}</math>
Thus, <math>1</math> is in the extension of <math>I</math> to <math>S</math>.
* The converse is not true for arbitrary ideals; however, it ''is'' true for [[prime ideal]]s (it is true for all ideals if <math>U</math> is a [[saturated subset]]). Formally, if <math>P</math> is a prime ideal of <math>R</math> such that <math>U \cap P</math> is empty, then the extension of <math>P</math> to <math>S</math> is ''not'' the whole ring. Moreover, <math>P</math> equals the contraction of its extension to <math>S</math>.
''Proof'': Consider the ideal <math>U^{-1}P</math>. We need to show that it contracts back to precisely <math>P</math> (that'll also show that it is proper). Suppose <math>a/1 \in U^{-1}P</math>. We want to show that <math>a \in P</math>.
There exists <math>b \in P, c \in U</math> such that <math>a/1 = b/c</math>, which in turn means there exists <math>s \in U</math> such that <math>acs = bs</math>. The right side is in <math>P</math>, so the left side must also be in <math>P</math>. Since <math>c,s \in U</math>, we get <math>cs \in U</math>. Further, since <math>U \cap P</math> is empty, we get <math>cs \notin P</math>, so by primeness of <math>P</math>, we have <math>a \in P</math>, as desired.
===Proof of set-theoretic statement===

Revision as of 22:07, 15 March 2008

This article gives the statement, and possibly proof, of a fact about how a property of a homomorphism of commutative unital rings, forces a property for the induced map on spectra
View other facts about induced maps on spectra

Statement

Set-theoretic statement

Suppose R is a commutative unital ring, U is a multiplicatively closed subset of R and S=U1R is the localization of R at the multiplicatively closed subset U. Then the induced map on spectra:

Spec(S)Spec(R)

is injective. In fact:

  • The image of this map is those primes P that are disjoint from U
  • The inverse image of a prime ideal P is precisely the prime ideal U1P i.e. the extension of P to S

Topological statement

Further, it is also true that the topology on Spec(S) is such that if we give the subspace topology to its image in Spec(R), the map is a homeomorphism.

Proof

Some preliminary observations

  • The extension of an ideal I of R, to the ring S=U1R, is the ideal U1I of S
  • If any ideal of R intersects the multiplicatively closed subset U, then its extension to S=U1R is the whole ring U1R. Hence, it does not occur as the contraction of any ideal of S

Proof: If I is an ideal of R such that IU is nonempty, then pick uIU. Clearly, we have:

1=uuU1I=Ie

Thus, 1 is in the extension of I to S.

  • The converse is not true for arbitrary ideals; however, it is true for prime ideals (it is true for all ideals if U is a saturated subset). Formally, if P is a prime ideal of R such that UP is empty, then the extension of P to S is not the whole ring. Moreover, P equals the contraction of its extension to S.

Proof: Consider the ideal U1P. We need to show that it contracts back to precisely P (that'll also show that it is proper). Suppose a/1U1P. We want to show that aP.

There exists bP,cU such that a/1=b/c, which in turn means there exists sU such that acs=bs. The right side is in P, so the left side must also be in P. Since c,sU, we get csU. Further, since UP is empty, we get csP, so by primeness of P, we have aP, as desired.

Proof of set-theoretic statement