Math Help Forum

Math Help Forum Feed Site Feed

Go Back   Math Help Forum > University Math Help > Linear and Abstract Algebra
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th, 2009, 07:08 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 101
Country:
Thanks: 13
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
robeuler is on a distinguished road
Default Integral Closure and the Incompatibility Property

Let R'=K[x,y] (K is a field) and R=K+xR'

Even though (x)<(x,y) are prime ideals of R', (x) intersect R = (x,y) intersect R. So R' is not integral over R. What is the integral closure of R in R'.

First I do not see clearly why (x) intersect R equals (x,y) intersect R. I think of R as a polynomial ring over K with every nonconstant term having an x. If you mod out by the x's you are left with K[x,y], if you mod out by (x,y) you get something else.

Second I am not sure what the integral closure could be. Perhaps it is K[x,y] itself?
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old November 5th, 2009, 12:01 AM
NonCommAlg's Avatar
MHF Contributor

 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,761
Country:
Thanks: 211
Thanked 1,287 Times in 958 Posts
NonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud ofNonCommAlg has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robeuler View Post
Let R'=K[x,y] (K is a field) and R=K+xR'

Even though (x)<(x,y) are prime ideals of R', (x) intersect R = (x,y) intersect R. So R' is not integral over R. What is the integral closure of R in R'.

First I do not see clearly why (x) intersect R equals (x,y) intersect R. I think of R as a polynomial ring over K with every nonconstant term having an x. If you mod out by the x's you are left with K[x,y], if you mod out by (x,y) you get something else.

Second I am not sure what the integral closure could be. Perhaps it is K[x,y] itself? No!
first of all to see that R' is not integral over R, you don't need to use such a strong result! just see that y is not integral over R: the reason is that if y was integral over R, then there would

exist f_i \in R', \ a_i \in K and an integer n \geq 1 such that y^n + (a_1+xf_1)y^{n-1} + \cdots + a_n + xf_n=0. but then y^n + a_1y^{n-1} + \cdots + a_n = xf, for some f \in R', which is obviously nonsense.

so the integral closure of R in R' is not R'. in fact R is integrally closed in R', i.e. the integral closure of R in R' is R itself: clearly for every f \in R', there exist g \in K[y] and h \in R such that

f=yg + h. if f is integral over R, then yg=f-h is also integral over R. so there exist p_i \in R', \ b_i \in K and an integer m \geq 1 such that y^mg^m + (b_1 + xp_1)y^{m-1}g^{m-1} + \cdots + b_m + xp_m=0.

that would give us y^mg^m + b_1y^{m-1}g^{m-1} + \cdots + b_m = xp, for some p \in R', which is possible only if p=0, because, since g \in K[y], there is no x in y^mg^m + b_1y^{m-1}g^{m-1} + \cdots + b_m. therefore

y^mg^m + b_1y^{m-1}g^{m-1} + \cdots +b_m=0, which gives us g=0. thus f=yg+h=h \in R, and the proof is complete.
__________________
There's more than one of everything.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 ©2008, Crawlability, Inc.
©2005 - 2009 Math Help Forum


Math Help Forum is a community of maths forums with an emphasis on maths help in all levels of mathematics.
Register to post your math questions or just hang out and try some of our math games or visit the arcade.