Proposition 4
Tag 04Q4, permanent. Cite it as [Bourbaki, Tag 04Q4].
Commutative Algebra, chapter V, § 2. The lift of prime ideals
*Let be a ring, a finite group operating on , a subgroup of , and the rings of invariants of and respectively and a prime ideal of ; let us write and .
(i) For to be contained in the decomposition group , it is necessary and sufficient that be the only prime ideal of lying above .
(ii) If contains , the following conditions are satisfied: (a) The rings and have the same field of fractions. (b) The maximal ideal of the local ring is equal to .
(iii) Suppose further that is an integral domain and that ; then conditions (a) and (b) & (ii) imply that leaves invariant the elements of .
(i) It follows from Theorem 2 (i) that the prime ideals of lying above are the ideals of the form , where ; whence immediately (i).
(ii) We write ; we know that the rings of invariants of and in are respectively and (§ 1, no. 9, Proposition 23) and (Lemma 3); finally (Chapter II, § 2, no. 4), the local ring of the prime ideal of the ring is canonically isomorphic to and its residue field is isomorphic to the field of fractions of (Chapter II, § 2, no. 5, Proposition 11). We can therefore show (ii) restricting our attention to the case where is maximal. To establish (a) it will be sufficient to prove that
for this will show that the fields and are canonically isomorphic. By Theorem 2 there is only a finite number of prime ideals of lying above and by Theorem 1 of no. 1 there is at least one prime ideal of lying above every prime ideal of ; this implies that there is only a finite number of prime ideals of lying above ; let () denote those of these ideals which are . Let be an element of ; as the ideals and are maximal (no. 1, Proposition 1), there exists such that (mod. ) and for (Chapter 11, § 1, no. 2, Proposition 5). Let be distinct elements of the orbit of under ; clearly
and to establish (3) it will be sufficient to show that for , for then we shall deduce that , whence since (mod. ). Then let and such that ; we show that does not lie above . For otherwise there would exist such that (Theorem 2 (i)), whence , in other words by hypothesis, whence ; but as and , this is absurd. We conclude that lies above one of the ideals and, as by construction, certainly or .
To prove (b) it will suffice to establish that is contained in the saturation of the ideal with respect to (Chapter II, § 2, no. 4, Proposition 10); as is contained in none of the (), it will suffice even to prove that
by Chapter II, § 1, no. 1, Proposition 2. For this, we consider an element belonging to none of the () (Chapter 11, § 1, no. 1, Proposition 2); let be the distinct elements of the orbit of under ; we write ; clearly ; on the other hand, if , and hence necessarily for , which shows that and hence . It can be shown as in the proof of (a) that, if is such that where , lies above one of the and, as , also , in other words . We conclude that and therefore . On the other hand clearly and the relation shows that is in the saturation of with respect to and hence establishes (4).
(iii) Suppose that is an integral domain, that and that conditions (a) and (b) of (ii) hold. With the same notation as in (ii), clearly is an integral domain and ; it is therefore possible to replace and by and , in other words, suppose also that the ideal is maximal. The hypotheses (a) and (b) then imply that
By induction on we deduce that for all . Then let be an element of and be an element of . For all , there exists such that ; as , and , we deduce that . Since this relation holds for all , we conclude from the hypothesis that .
h a r k s
(3) If is an integral domain and Noetherian, the condition always holds (Chapter III, § 3, no. 2, Corollary to Proposition 5). It can be shown that this condition is also satisfied if is assumed to be an integral domain and to be Noetherian.
(4) If is not a maximal ideal of relation (3) does not necessarily hold under the hypotheses of (ii) and therefore and are not necessarily isomorphic even if we take , whence (Exercise 10).
Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Cited by
- Exercise 11, § 2
- Corollary 2, § 2
- Proposition 5, § 2
- Corollary 4, § 2
- Proposition 7, § 2
- Exercise 8, § 8
Cites
- Chapter II, § 1, no. 1, Proposition 2
- Chapter II, § 2, no. 4
- Chapter II, § 2, no. 4, Proposition 10
- Chapter II, § 2, no. 5, Proposition 11
- Chapter III, § 3, no. 2, Corollary to Proposition 5
- § 1, no. 1, Proposition 2
- § 1, no. 9, Proposition 23
- § 1, no. 2, Proposition 5
- Exercise 10
- Lemma 3
- no. 1, Proposition 1
- Theorem 1
- Theorem 2