Quote:
Originally Posted by robeuler 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

is not integral over

you don't need to use such a strong result! just see that

is not integral over

: the reason is that if

was integral over

then there would
exist

and an integer

such that

but then

for some

which is obviously nonsense.
so the integral closure of

in

is not

in fact

is integrally closed in

i.e. the integral closure of

in

is

itself: clearly for every

there exist
![g \in K[y] g \in K[y]](http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/latex2/img/0ad0aea8d76e5eaadc198aa06ce65315-1.gif)
and

such that

if

is integral over

then

is also integral over

so there exist

and an integer

such that
that would give us

for some

which is possible only if

because, since
![g \in K[y], g \in K[y],](http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/latex2/img/5e7005018368dff186c57878d965b76a-1.gif)
there is no

in

therefore

which gives us

thus

and the proof is complete.