Invertibility is Local
In this article, we again let A be an integral domain and K its field of fractions. We continue our discussion of invertible fractional ideals of A.
Proposition 1.
A fractional ideal M of A is invertible if and only if the following hold.
- M is a finitely generated A-module.
- For any maximal ideal
,
is an invertible fractional ideal of
.
Proof
(⇒) This was proven earlier (propositions 2 and 5).
(⇐) It suffices to show . By definition
. Let
be any maximal ideal. Since M is finitely generated and
is invertible, we have (by proposition 3 here):
If the A-module is contained in any maximal
then
, a contradiction. Hence
. ♦
Complementing the above result, we have:
Proposition 2.
Let
be a local domain. A fractional ideal M of A is invertible if and only if it is principal and non-zero. Thus
.
Proof
Suppose M is invertible; write MN = A. Then for
and
. Since all
and sum to 1, not all
lie in
. Thus
is invertible for some i. Multiplying
by a unit we may assume
.
It remains to show . Clearly since
, we have
. Conversely if
then
since
. ♦
Thus we have:
Corollary 1.
A non-zero fractional ideal M of A is invertible if and only if:
- it is finitely generated, and
- for each maximal
,
is a principal fractional ideal of
.
Example
Let with maximal ideal
. We claim that
is not invertible; it suffices to show that
is not a principal ideal of
For that we apply Nakayama’s lemma to compute . Let
; we can check that
so
since
. Since
has 4 elements, we see that
. Hence
is not principal.
Exercise
Let with
. Is
an invertible ideal?
Dedekind Domains
Definition.
A Dedekind domain A is an integral domain in which every fractional ideal is invertible (or equivalently, every ideal is invertible).
We obtain some immediate facts about Dedekind domains.
- Since invertible ideals are finitely generated, a Dedekind domain is noetherian.
- If A is a Dedekind domain so is its localization
if
; this follows from proposition 3 here: every ideal of
is of the form
for some ideal
.
Proposition 3.
In a Dedekind domain A, every non-zero prime ideal is maximal. Thus its Krull dimension is at most 1.
Hence Spec A is as follows:
Proof
If A is a field we are done. Otherwise, we will show that every maximal ideal has height 1. Since
is invertible,
is principal by proposition 2. By exercise A.2 here,
is a minimal non-zero prime so
. ♦
Proposition 4.
A Dedekind domain A is normal.
Proof
Since normality is a local property, we may assume is local. And since
is invertible, it is principal by proposition 2. Thus it suffices to prove the following.
- If
is a noetherian local domain such that
is principal, then A is normal.
The whole of the next section is devoted to such rings.
Discrete Valuation Rings
Definition.
A discrete valuation ring (dvr) is a noetherian local domain
such that
is principal. If
, we call
a uniformizer of the dvr.
Note
As we saw earlier, has height 1, so the spectrum of A is easy to describe:
Here is an easy way to construct such rings.
Lemma.
Let A be a noetherian integral domain with a prime element
. If
, then
is a dvr.
Proof
Trivial. ♦
In particular, we can take any irreducible element π of a noetherian UFD A; then π is a prime element so is a dvr. Common examples include:
where k is a field.
Proposition 5.
Let A be a dvr with uniformizer
. Then every non-zero ideal of A is uniquely of the form
for some
.
Proof
We have .
First we show that . Indeed if
then we can write
for
. Then
for each n so
which is impossible since A is noetherian.
Now for each , let
, where
.
We leave the remaining as an exercise.
- Prove that
where
.
- Hence show that any non-zero ideal of A is of the form
for some k. ♦
Thus a dvr is a special type of UFD with exactly one prime element (its uniformizer). This makes prime factoring in the ring rather trivial: every non-zero element is a unit times a power of the uniformizer.
Corollary 2.
A dvr is a PID, hence a UFD so it is a normal domain.
To recap, we have shown that Dedekind domains are noetherian, of Krull dimension at most 1, and normal. Next we will see that the converse is true.
Conditions for DVR
We have already seen:
dvr ⟹ PID ⟹ UFD ⟹ normal.
The following is a converse statement.
Proposition 6.
Let
be a noetherian 1-dimensional local domain (i.e. A has exactly two prime ideals: 0 and
).
If A is normal then it is a dvr.
Proof
Pick so that
is a noetherian ring with exactly one prime, i.e. it is a local artinian ring, so
is nilpotent. Thus
for some n > 0. We may assume
.
Let , an ideal of A. Fix an
and set
. Then
is an ideal of A. If
, then
is principal.
Otherwise . We claim that
is integral over A. To prove this, pick a finite generating set
for the ideal
; each
can be written as an A-linear combination of
so
where M is an matrix with entries in A. Hence
where equality holds in
. Multiplying by the adjugate matrix, we get
.
Since , we get
; expanding gives a monic polynomial relation in
with coefficients in A.
Hence is integral over A; since A is normal,
. Thus
for all
so
. Since
we have
. But this means
, a contradiction. ♦
Corollary 3.
Let A be a noetherian 1-dimensional domain. If A is normal, then it is a Dedekind domain.
Proof
Let be any ideal; it is finitely generated since A is noetherian. To prove it is invertible by proposition 1, it suffices to show
is principal for each maximal ideal
. But
is a local 1-dimensional noetherian domain; since it is normal, by proposition 6 it is a dvr. Hence
is principal. ♦
Summary.
Let A be an integral domain. Every non-zero ideal of A is invertible if and only if it is noetherian, normal and of Krull dimension at most 1.
If is the coordinate ring of a variety V, geometrically the above conditions translate as follows:
- Krull dimension = 1 ⟺ V is a curve;
- A is a domain ⟺ V is irreducible;
- A is normal ⟺ V is “smooth”.
Hence philosophically, a Dedekind domain is “like a smooth curve”.
We put the term “smooth” in quotes because we based the concept on geometric intuition rather than rigour. E.g. in our example above, the curve is not smooth at the origin.
Where was Nakayama’s lemma used in the example after Corollary 1?
Nakayama’s lemma says: if
is local and
is its unique maximal ideal, then the minimum number of generators of
is the dimension
.
Then you also need the fact that
. This was covered earlier (I think).
Read two paragraphs after exercise B in https://mathstrek.blog/2020/04/22/commutative-algebra-34/
In the exercise after Example, I obtained
so that only $Y$ is the basis of the vector space
over
. How does one conclude from this that
is principal? Thank you.
Actually
is not principal here. Use the logic in the example to conclude.
In the first lemma in the section “discrete valuation rings”, should A be noetherian too in addition to being a domain, or does it follow that
is noetherian?
I think you’re right. Noetherian needs to be specified.
Thanks – corrected.