Integral element

Last updated

In commutative algebra, an element b of a commutative ring B is said to be integral over a subring A of B if b is a root of some monic polynomial over A. [1]

Contents

If A, B are fields, then the notions of "integral over" and of an "integral extension" are precisely "algebraic over" and "algebraic extensions" in field theory (since the root of any polynomial is the root of a monic polynomial).

The case of greatest interest in number theory is that of complex numbers integral over Z (e.g., or ); in this context, the integral elements are usually called algebraic integers. The algebraic integers in a finite extension field k of the rationals Q form a subring of k, called the ring of integers of k, a central object of study in algebraic number theory.

In this article, the term ring will be understood to mean commutative ring with a multiplicative identity.

Definition

Let be a ring and let be a subring of An element of is said to be integral over if for some there exists in such that

The set of elements of that are integral over is called the integral closure of in The integral closure of any subring in is, itself, a subring of and contains If every element of is integral over then we say that is integral over, or equivalently is an integral extension of

Examples

Integral closure in algebraic number theory

There are many examples of integral closure which can be found in algebraic number theory since it is fundamental for defining the ring of integers for an algebraic field extension (or ).

Integral closure of integers in rationals

Integers are the only elements of Q that are integral over Z. In other words, Z is the integral closure of Z in Q.

Quadratic extensions

The Gaussian integers are the complex numbers of the form , and are integral over Z. is then the integral closure of Z in . Typically this ring is denoted .

The integral closure of Z in is the ring

This example and the previous one are examples of quadratic integers. The integral closure of a quadratic extension can be found by constructing the minimal polynomial of an arbitrary element and finding number-theoretic criterion for the polynomial to have integral coefficients. This analysis can be found in the quadratic extensions article.

Roots of unity

Let ζ be a root of unity. Then the integral closure of Z in the cyclotomic field Q(ζ) is Z[ζ]. [2] This can be found by using the minimal polynomial and using Eisenstein's criterion.

Ring of algebraic integers

The integral closure of Z in the field of complex numbers C, or the algebraic closure is called the ring of algebraic integers .

Other

The roots of unity, nilpotent elements and idempotent elements in any ring are integral over Z.

Integral closure in algebraic geometry

In geometry, integral closure is closely related with normalization and normal schemes. It is the first step in resolution of singularities since it gives a process for resolving singularities of codimension 1.

  1. u−1 is integral over R if and only if u−1R[u].
  2. is integral over R.
  3. The integral closure of the homogeneous coordinate ring of a normal projective variety X is the ring of sections [4]

Integrality in algebra

Equivalent definitions

Let B be a ring, and let A be a subring of B. Given an element b in B, the following conditions are equivalent:

(i) b is integral over A;
(ii) the subring A[b] of B generated by A and b is a finitely generated A-module;
(iii) there exists a subring C of B containing A[b] and which is a finitely generated A-module;
(iv) there exists a faithful A[b]-module M such that M is finitely generated as an A-module.

The usual proof of this uses the following variant of the Cayley–Hamilton theorem on determinants:

Theorem Let u be an endomorphism of an A-module M generated by n elements and I an ideal of A such that . Then there is a relation:

This theorem (with I = A and u multiplication by b) gives (iv) ⇒ (i) and the rest is easy. Coincidentally, Nakayama's lemma is also an immediate consequence of this theorem.

Elementary properties

Integral closure forms a ring

It follows from the above four equivalent statements that the set of elements of that are integral over forms a subring of containing . (Proof: If x, y are elements of that are integral over , then are integral over since they stabilize , which is a finitely generated module over and is annihilated only by zero.) [5] This ring is called the integral closure of in .

Transitivity of integrality

Another consequence of the above equivalence is that "integrality" is transitive, in the following sense. Let be a ring containing and . If is integral over and integral over , then is integral over . In particular, if is itself integral over and is integral over , then is also integral over .

Integral closed in fraction field

If happens to be the integral closure of in , then A is said to be integrally closed in . If is the total ring of fractions of , (e.g., the field of fractions when is an integral domain), then one sometimes drops the qualification "in " and simply says "integral closure of " and " is integrally closed." [6] For example, the ring of integers is integrally closed in the field .

Transitivity of integral closure with integrally closed domains

Let A be an integral domain with the field of fractions K and A' the integral closure of A in an algebraic field extension L of K. Then the field of fractions of A' is L. In particular, A' is an integrally closed domain.

Transitivity in algebraic number theory

This situation is applicable in algebraic number theory when relating the ring of integers and a field extension. In particular, given a field extension the integral closure of in is the ring of integers .

Remarks

Note that transitivity of integrality above implies that if is integral over , then is a union (equivalently an inductive limit) of subrings that are finitely generated -modules.

If is noetherian, transitivity of integrality can be weakened to the statement:

There exists a finitely generated -submodule of that contains .

Relation with finiteness conditions

Finally, the assumption that be a subring of can be modified a bit. If is a ring homomorphism, then one says is integral if is integral over . In the same way one says is finite ( finitely generated -module) or of finite type ( finitely generated -algebra). In this viewpoint, one has that

is finite if and only if is integral and of finite type.

Or more explicitly,

is a finitely generated -module if and only if is generated as an -algebra by a finite number of elements integral over .

Integral extensions

Cohen-Seidenberg theorems

An integral extension A  B has the going-up property, the lying over property, and the incomparability property (Cohen–Seidenberg theorems). Explicitly, given a chain of prime ideals in A there exists a in B with (going-up and lying over) and two distinct prime ideals with inclusion relation cannot contract to the same prime ideal (incomparability). In particular, the Krull dimensions of A and B are the same. Furthermore, if A is an integrally closed domain, then the going-down holds (see below).

In general, the going-up implies the lying-over. [7] Thus, in the below, we simply say the "going-up" to mean "going-up" and "lying-over".

When A, B are domains such that B is integral over A, A is a field if and only if B is a field. As a corollary, one has: given a prime ideal of B, is a maximal ideal of B if and only if is a maximal ideal of A. Another corollary: if L/K is an algebraic extension, then any subring of L containing K is a field.

Applications

Let B be a ring that is integral over a subring A and k an algebraically closed field. If is a homomorphism, then f extends to a homomorphism Bk. [8] This follows from the going-up.

Geometric interpretation of going-up

Let be an integral extension of rings. Then the induced map

is a closed map; in fact, for any ideal I and is surjective if f is injective. This is a geometric interpretation of the going-up.

Geometric interpretation of integral extensions

Let B be a ring and A a subring that is a noetherian integrally closed domain (i.e., is a normal scheme). If B is integral over A, then is submersive; i.e., the topology of is the quotient topology. [9] The proof uses the notion of constructible sets. (See also: Torsor (algebraic geometry).)

Integrality, base-change, universally-closed, and geometry

If is integral over , then is integral over R for any A-algebra R. [10] In particular, is closed; i.e., the integral extension induces a "universally closed" map. This leads to a geometric characterization of integral extension. Namely, let B be a ring with only finitely many minimal prime ideals (e.g., integral domain or noetherian ring). Then B is integral over a (subring) A if and only if is closed for any A-algebra R. [11] In particular, every proper map is universally closed. [12]

Galois actions on integral extensions of integrally closed domains

Proposition. Let A be an integrally closed domain with the field of fractions K, L a finite normal extension of K, B the integral closure of A in L. Then the group acts transitively on each fiber of .

Proof. Suppose for any in G. Then, by prime avoidance, there is an element x in such that for any . G fixes the element and thus y is purely inseparable over K. Then some power belongs to K; since A is integrally closed we have: Thus, we found is in but not in ; i.e., .

Application to algebraic number theory

The Galois group then acts on all of the prime ideals lying over a fixed prime ideal . [13] That is, if

then there is a Galois action on the set . This is called the Splitting of prime ideals in Galois extensions.

Remarks

The same idea in the proof shows that if is a purely inseparable extension (need not be normal), then is bijective.

Let A, K, etc. as before but assume L is only a finite field extension of K. Then

(i) has finite fibers.
(ii) the going-down holds between A and B: given , there exists that contracts to it.

Indeed, in both statements, by enlarging L, we can assume L is a normal extension. Then (i) is immediate. As for (ii), by the going-up, we can find a chain that contracts to . By transitivity, there is such that and then are the desired chain.

Integral closure

Let AB be rings and A' the integral closure of A in B. (See above for the definition.)

Integral closures behave nicely under various constructions. Specifically, for a multiplicatively closed subset S of A, the localization S−1A' is the integral closure of S−1A in S−1B, and is the integral closure of in . [14] If are subrings of rings , then the integral closure of in is where are the integral closures of in . [15]

The integral closure of a local ring A in, say, B, need not be local. (If this is the case, the ring is called unibranch.) This is the case for example when A is Henselian and B is a field extension of the field of fractions of A.

If A is a subring of a field K, then the integral closure of A in K is the intersection of all valuation rings of K containing A.

Let A be an -graded subring of an -graded ring B. Then the integral closure of A in B is an -graded subring of B. [16]

There is also a concept of the integral closure of an ideal. The integral closure of an ideal , usually denoted by , is the set of all elements such that there exists a monic polynomial

with with as a root. [17] [18] The radical of an ideal is integrally closed. [19] [20]

For noetherian rings, there are alternate definitions as well.

The notion of integral closure of an ideal is used in some proofs of the going-down theorem.

Conductor

Let B be a ring and A a subring of B such that B is integral over A. Then the annihilator of the A-module B/A is called the conductor of A in B. Because the notion has origin in algebraic number theory, the conductor is denoted by . Explicitly, consists of elements a in A such that . (cf. idealizer in abstract algebra.) It is the largest ideal of A that is also an ideal of B. [21] If S is a multiplicatively closed subset of A, then

.

If B is a subring of the total ring of fractions of A, then we may identify

.

Example: Let k be a field and let (i.e., A is the coordinate ring of the affine curve ). B is the integral closure of A in . The conductor of A in B is the ideal . More generally, the conductor of , a, b relatively prime, is with . [22]

Suppose B is the integral closure of an integral domain A in the field of fractions of A such that the A-module is finitely generated. Then the conductor of A is an ideal defining the support of ; thus, A coincides with B in the complement of in . In particular, the set , the complement of , is an open set.

Finiteness of integral closure

An important but difficult question is on the finiteness of the integral closure of a finitely generated algebra. There are several known results.

The integral closure of a Dedekind domain in a finite extension of the field of fractions is a Dedekind domain; in particular, a noetherian ring. This is a consequence of the Krull–Akizuki theorem. In general, the integral closure of a noetherian domain of dimension at most 2 is noetherian; Nagata gave an example of dimension 3 noetherian domain whose integral closure is not noetherian. [23] A nicer statement is this: the integral closure of a noetherian domain is a Krull domain (Mori–Nagata theorem). Nagata also gave an example of dimension 1 noetherian local domain such that the integral closure is not finite over that domain.[ citation needed ]

Let A be a noetherian integrally closed domain with field of fractions K. If L/K is a finite separable extension, then the integral closure of A in L is a finitely generated A-module. [24] This is easy and standard (uses the fact that the trace defines a non-degenerate bilinear form).

Let A be a finitely generated algebra over a field k that is an integral domain with field of fractions K. If L is a finite extension of K, then the integral closure of A in L is a finitely generated A-module and is also a finitely generated k-algebra. [25] The result is due to Noether and can be shown using the Noether normalization lemma as follows. It is clear that it is enough to show the assertion when L/K is either separable or purely inseparable. The separable case is noted above, so assume L/K is purely inseparable. By the normalization lemma, A is integral over the polynomial ring . Since L/K is a finite purely inseparable extension, there is a power q of a prime number such that every element of L is a q-th root of an element in K. Let be a finite extension of k containing all q-th roots of coefficients of finitely many rational functions that generate L. Then we have: The ring on the right is the field of fractions of , which is the integral closure of S; thus, contains . Hence, is finite over S; a fortiori, over A. The result remains true if we replace k by Z.

The integral closure of a complete local noetherian domain A in a finite extension of the field of fractions of A is finite over A. [26] More precisely, for a local noetherian ring R, we have the following chains of implications: [27]

(i) A complete A is a Nagata ring
(ii) A is a Nagata domain A analytically unramified the integral closure of the completion is finite over the integral closure of A is finite over A.

Noether's normalization lemma

Noether's normalisation lemma is a theorem in commutative algebra. Given a field K and a finitely generated K-algebra A, the theorem says it is possible to find elements y1, y2, ..., ym in A that are algebraically independent over K such that A is finite (and hence integral) over B = K[y1,..., ym]. Thus the extension KA can be written as a composite KBA where KB is a purely transcendental extension and BA is finite. [28]

Integral morphisms

In algebraic geometry, a morphism of schemes is integral if it is affine and if for some (equivalently, every) affine open cover of Y, every map is of the form where A is an integral B-algebra. The class of integral morphisms is more general than the class of finite morphisms because there are integral extensions that are not finite, such as, in many cases, the algebraic closure of a field over the field.

Absolute integral closure

Let A be an integral domain and L (some) algebraic closure of the field of fractions of A. Then the integral closure of A in L is called the absolute integral closure of A. [29] It is unique up to a non-canonical isomorphism. The ring of all algebraic integers is an example (and thus is typically not noetherian).

See also

Notes

  1. The above equation is sometimes called an integral equation and b is said to be integrally dependent on A (as opposed to algebraic dependent).
  2. Milne 2020 , Theorem 6.4
  3. Kaplansky 1974 , 1.2. Exercise 4.
  4. Hartshorne 1977 , Ch. II, Exercise 5.14
  5. This proof is due to Dedekind (Milne, ANT). Alternatively, one can use symmetric polynomials to show integral elements form a ring. (loc cit.)
  6. Chapter 2 of Huneke & Swanson 2006
  7. Kaplansky 1974 , Theorem 42
  8. Bourbaki 2006 , Ch 5, §2, Corollary 4 to Theorem 1.
  9. Matsumura 1970 , Ch 2. Theorem 7
  10. Bourbaki 2006 , Ch 5, §1, Proposition 5
  11. Atiyah & Macdonald 1994 , Ch 5. Exercise 35
  12. "Section 32.14 (05JW): Universally closed morphisms—The Stacks project". stacks.math.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2020-05-11.
  13. Stein. Computational Introduction to Algebraic Number Theory (PDF). p. 101.
  14. An exercise in Atiyah & Macdonald 1994
  15. Bourbaki 2006 , Ch 5, §1, Proposition 9
  16. Proof: Let be a ring homomorphism such that if is homogeneous of degree n. The integral closure of in is , where is the integral closure of A in B. If b in B is integral over A, then is integral over ; i.e., it is in . That is, each coefficient in the polynomial is in A.
  17. Exercise 4.14 in Eisenbud 1995
  18. Definition 1.1.1 in Huneke & Swanson 2006
  19. Exercise 4.15 in Eisenbud 1995
  20. Remark 1.1.3 in Huneke & Swanson 2006
  21. Chapter 12 of Huneke & Swanson 2006
  22. Huneke & Swanson 2006 , Example 12.2.1
  23. Huneke & Swanson 2006 , Exercise 4.9
  24. Atiyah & Macdonald 1994 , Ch 5. Proposition 5.17
  25. Hartshorne 1977 , Ch I. Theorem 3.9 A
  26. Huneke & Swanson 2006 , Theorem 4.3.4
  27. Matsumura 1970 , Ch 12
  28. Chapter 4 of Reid.
  29. Melvin Hochster, Math 711: Lecture of September 7, 2007

Related Research Articles

In mathematics, and more specifically in ring theory, an ideal of a ring is a special subset of its elements. Ideals generalize certain subsets of the integers, such as the even numbers or the multiples of 3. Addition and subtraction of even numbers preserves evenness, and multiplying an even number by any integer results in an even number; these closure and absorption properties are the defining properties of an ideal. An ideal can be used to construct a quotient ring in a way similar to how, in group theory, a normal subgroup can be used to construct a quotient group.

In mathematics, rings are algebraic structures that generalize fields: multiplication need not be commutative and multiplicative inverses need not exist. Informally, a ring is a set equipped with two binary operations satisfying properties analogous to those of addition and multiplication of integers. Ring elements may be numbers such as integers or complex numbers, but they may also be non-numerical objects such as polynomials, square matrices, functions, and power series.

In commutative algebra, the Krull dimension of a commutative ring R, named after Wolfgang Krull, is the supremum of the lengths of all chains of prime ideals. The Krull dimension need not be finite even for a Noetherian ring. More generally the Krull dimension can be defined for modules over possibly non-commutative rings as the deviation of the poset of submodules.

In mathematics, a Noetherian ring is a ring that satisfies the ascending chain condition on left and right ideals; if the chain condition is satisfied only for left ideals or for right ideals, then the ring is said left-Noetherian or right-Noetherian respectively. That is, every increasing sequence of left ideals has a largest element; that is, there exists an n such that:

In mathematics, particularly in algebra, the class of projective modules enlarges the class of free modules over a ring, keeping some of the main properties of free modules. Various equivalent characterizations of these modules appear below.

In mathematics, specifically algebraic geometry, a scheme is a structure that enlarges the notion of algebraic variety in several ways, such as taking account of multiplicities and allowing "varieties" defined over any commutative ring.

In mathematics, especially in the area of abstract algebra known as module theory, an injective module is a module Q that shares certain desirable properties with the Z-module Q of all rational numbers. Specifically, if Q is a submodule of some other module, then it is already a direct summand of that module; also, given a submodule of a module Y, any module homomorphism from this submodule to Q can be extended to a homomorphism from all of Y to Q. This concept is dual to that of projective modules. Injective modules were introduced in and are discussed in some detail in the textbook.

In algebra, flat modules include free modules, projective modules, and, over a principal ideal domain, torsion-free modules. Formally, a module M over a ring R is flat if taking the tensor product over R with M preserves exact sequences. A module is faithfully flat if taking the tensor product with a sequence produces an exact sequence if and only if the original sequence is exact.

In mathematics, a Cohen–Macaulay ring is a commutative ring with some of the algebro-geometric properties of a smooth variety, such as local equidimensionality. Under mild assumptions, a local ring is Cohen–Macaulay exactly when it is a finitely generated free module over a regular local subring. Cohen–Macaulay rings play a central role in commutative algebra: they form a very broad class, and yet they are well understood in many ways.

In ring theory, a branch of mathematics, a ring is called a reduced ring if it has no non-zero nilpotent elements. Equivalently, a ring is reduced if it has no non-zero elements with square zero, that is, x2 = 0 implies x = 0. A commutative algebra over a commutative ring is called a reduced algebra if its underlying ring is reduced.

In abstract algebra, a valuation ring is an integral domain D such that for every non-zero element x of its field of fractions F, at least one of x or x−1 belongs to D.

In mathematics, the Lasker–Noether theorem states that every Noetherian ring is a Lasker ring, which means that every ideal can be decomposed as an intersection, called primary decomposition, of finitely many primary ideals. The theorem was first proven by Emanuel Lasker for the special case of polynomial rings and convergent power series rings, and was proven in its full generality by Emmy Noether.

In mathematics, the Noether normalization lemma is a result of commutative algebra, introduced by Emmy Noether in 1926. It states that for any field k, and any finitely generated commutative k-algebraA, there exist elements y1, y2, ..., yd in A that are algebraically independent over k and such that A is a finitely generated module over the polynomial ring S = k [y1, y2, ..., yd]. The integer d is equal to the Krull dimension of the ring A; and if A is an integral domain, d is also the transcendence degree of the field of fractions of A over k.

In commutative algebra, a quasi-excellent ring is a Noetherian commutative ring that behaves well with respect to the operation of completion, and is called an excellent ring if it is also universally catenary. Excellent rings are one answer to the problem of finding a natural class of "well-behaved" rings containing most of the rings that occur in number theory and algebraic geometry. At one time it seemed that the class of Noetherian rings might be an answer to this problem, but Masayoshi Nagata and others found several strange counterexamples showing that in general Noetherian rings need not be well-behaved: for example, a normal Noetherian local ring need not be analytically normal.

In mathematics, dimension theory is the study in terms of commutative algebra of the notion dimension of an algebraic variety. The need of a theory for such an apparently simple notion results from the existence of many definitions of dimension that are equivalent only in the most regular cases. A large part of dimension theory consists in studying the conditions under which several dimensions are equal, and many important classes of commutative rings may be defined as the rings such that two dimensions are equal; for example, a regular ring is a commutative ring such that the homological dimension is equal to the Krull dimension.

In commutative algebra, an integrally closed domainA is an integral domain whose integral closure in its field of fractions is A itself. Spelled out, this means that if x is an element of the field of fractions of A that is a root of a monic polynomial with coefficients in A, then x is itself an element of A. Many well-studied domains are integrally closed, as shown by the following chain of class inclusions:

In mathematics, an algebraic number field is an extension field of the field of rational numbers such that the field extension has finite degree . Thus is a field that contains and has finite dimension when considered as a vector space over .

This is a glossary of algebraic geometry.

In algebra, Zariski's lemma, proved by Oscar Zariski, states that, if a field K is finitely generated as an associative algebra over another field k, then K is a finite field extension of k.

This is a glossary of commutative algebra.

References

Further reading