Zariski lemma

Proposition 1.

Let $R\\subseteq S\\subseteq T$ be commutative rings. If $R$ is noetherian, and T finitely generated as an $R$ -algebra and as an $S$ -module, then $S$ is finitely generated as an $R$ -algebra.

Lemma 1 (Zariski’s lemma).

Let $(L:K)$ be a field extension and $a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}\\in L$ be such that $K(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n})=K[a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}]$ . Then the elements $a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}$ are algebraic over $K$ .

Proof.

The case $n=1$ is clear. Now suppose $n>1$ and not all $a_{i},1\\leq i\\leq n$ are algebraic over $K$ .
Wlog we may assume $a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}$ are algebraically independent and each element $a_{r+1},\\ldots,a_{n}$ is algebraic over $D:=K(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{r})$ . Hence $K[a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}]$ is a finite algebraic extension of $D$ and therefore is a finitely generated $D$ -module.
The above proposition applied to $K\\subseteq D\\subseteq K[a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}]$ shows that $D$ is finitely generated as a $K$ -algebra, i.e $D=K[d_{1},\\ldots,d_{n}]$ .

Let $d_{i}=\\frac{p_{i}(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n})}{q_{i}(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n})}$ , where $p_{i},q_{i}\\in K[x_{1},\\ldots,x_{n}]$ .
Now $a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}$ are algebraically independent so that $K[a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}]\\cong K[x_{1},\\ldots,x_{n}]$ , which is a UFD (http://planetmath.org/UFD).
Let $h$ be a prime divisor of $q_{1}\\cdots q_{r}+1$ . Since $q$ is relatively prime to each of $q_{i}$ , the element ${q(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n})}^{-1}\\in D$ cannot be in $K[d_{1},\\ldots,d_{n}]$ . We obtain a contradiction.∎

单词	ZariskiLemma
释义	Zariski lemma Proposition 1. Let $R\\subseteq S\\subseteq T$ be commutative rings. If $R$ is noetherian, and T finitely generated as an $R$ -algebra and as an $S$ -module, then $S$ is finitely generated as an $R$ -algebra. Lemma 1 (Zariski’s lemma). Let $(L:K)$ be a field extension and $a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}\\in L$ be such that $K(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n})=K[a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}]$ . Then the elements $a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}$ are algebraic over $K$ . Proof. The case $n=1$ is clear. Now suppose $n>1$ and not all $a_{i},1\\leq i\\leq n$ are algebraic over $K$ . Wlog we may assume $a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}$ are algebraically independent and each element $a_{r+1},\\ldots,a_{n}$ is algebraic over $D:=K(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{r})$ . Hence $K[a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}]$ is a finite algebraic extension of $D$ and therefore is a finitely generated $D$ -module. The above proposition applied to $K\\subseteq D\\subseteq K[a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}]$ shows that $D$ is finitely generated as a $K$ -algebra, i.e $D=K[d_{1},\\ldots,d_{n}]$ . Let $d_{i}=\\frac{p_{i}(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n})}{q_{i}(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n})}$ , where $p_{i},q_{i}\\in K[x_{1},\\ldots,x_{n}]$ . Now $a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}$ are algebraically independent so that $K[a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n}]\\cong K[x_{1},\\ldots,x_{n}]$ , which is a UFD (http://planetmath.org/UFD). Let $h$ be a prime divisor of $q_{1}\\cdots q_{r}+1$ . Since $q$ is relatively prime to each of $q_{i}$ , the element ${q(a_{1},\\ldots,a_{n})}^{-1}\\in D$ cannot be in $K[d_{1},\\ldots,d_{n}]$ . We obtain a contradiction.∎
随便看	density function DependenceOnInitialConditionsOfSolutionsOfOrdinaryDifferentialEquations dependence on initial conditions of solutions of ordinary differential equations DependenceRelation dependence relation Dependent function types Dependent pair types DePolignacsFormula de Polignac’s formula Derangement derangement DeRhamCohomology de Rham cohomology Derivation derivation DerivationLanguage derivation language DerivationOf2DReflectionMatrix derivation of 2D reflection matrix DerivationOfADefiniteIntegralFormulaUsingTheMethodOfExhaustion derivation of a definite integral formula using the method of exhaustion DerivationOfBinetFormula derivation of Binet formula DerivationOfBlackScholesFormulaInMartingaleForm derivation of Black-Scholes formula in martingale form