Local Criterion For Flatness
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

In algebra, the local criterion for flatness gives conditions one can check to show flatness of a module.


Statement

Given a commutative ring ''A'', an ideal ''I'' and an ''A''-module ''M'', suppose either *''A'' is a
Noetherian ring 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-Noether ...
and ''M'' is idealwise separated for ''I'': for every ideal \mathfrak, \bigcap_ I^n(\mathfrak \otimes M) = 0 (for example, this is the case when ''A'' is a Noetherian
local ring In abstract algebra, more specifically ring theory, local rings are certain rings that are comparatively simple, and serve to describe what is called "local behaviour", in the sense of functions defined on varieties or manifolds, or of algebraic num ...
, ''I'' its
maximal ideal In mathematics, more specifically in ring theory, a maximal ideal is an ideal that is maximal (with respect to set inclusion) amongst all ''proper'' ideals. In other words, ''I'' is a maximal ideal of a ring ''R'' if there are no other ideals cont ...
and ''M'' finitely generated), or *''I'' is
nilpotent In mathematics, an element x of a ring R is called nilpotent if there exists some positive integer n, called the index (or sometimes the degree), such that x^n=0. The term was introduced by Benjamin Peirce in the context of his work on the class ...
. Then the following are equivalent: The assumption that “''A'' is a Noetherian ring” is used to invoke the
Artin–Rees lemma In mathematics, the Artin–Rees lemma is a basic result about modules over a Noetherian ring, along with results such as the Hilbert basis theorem. It was proved in the 1950s in independent works by the mathematicians Emil Artin and David Re ...
and can be weakened; see


Proof

Following SGA 1, Exposé IV, we first prove a few lemmas, which are interesting themselves. (See also thi
blog post
by Akhil Mathew for a proof of a special case.) ''Proof'': The equivalence of the first two can be seen by studying the
Tor spectral sequence Tor, TOR or ToR may refer to: Places * Tor, Pallars, a village in Spain * Tor, former name of Sloviansk, Ukraine, a city * Mount Tor, Tasmania, Australia, an extinct volcano * Tor Bay, Devon, England * Tor River, Western New Guinea, Indonesia Sc ...
. Here is a direct proof: if 1. is valid and N \hookrightarrow N' is an injection of B-modules with cokernel ''C'', then, as ''A''-modules, :\operatorname^A_1(C, M) = 0 \to N \otimes_A M \to N' \otimes_A M. Since N \otimes_A M \simeq N \otimes_B (B \otimes_A N) and the same for N', this proves 2. Conversely, considering 0 \to R \to F \to X \to 0 where ''F'' is ''B''-free, we get: :\operatorname^A_1(F, M) = 0 \to \operatorname^A_1(X, M) \to R \otimes_A M \to F \otimes_A M. Here, the last map is injective by flatness and that gives us 1. To see the "Moreover" part, if 1. is valid, then \operatorname_1^A(I^n X/I^X, M) = 0 and so :\operatorname_1^A(I^ X, M) \to \operatorname_1^A(I^n X, M) \to 0. By descending induction, this implies 3. The converse is trivial. \square ''Proof'': The assumption implies that I^n \otimes M = I^n M and so, since tensor product commutes with base extension, :\operatorname_I(A) \otimes_ M_0 = \oplus_0^ (I^n)_0 \otimes_ M_0 = \oplus_0^ (I^n \otimes_A M)_0 = \oplus_0^ (I^n M)_0 = \operatorname_I M. For the second part, let \alpha_i denote the exact sequence 0 \to \operatorname_1^A(A/I^i, M) \to I^i \otimes M \to I^i M \to 0 and \gamma_i: 0 \to 0 \to I^i/I^ \otimes M \overset \to I^i M/I^ M \to 0. Consider the exact sequence of complexes: :\alpha_ \to \alpha_i \to \gamma_i. Then \operatorname_1^A(A/I^i, M) = 0, i > 0 (it is so for large i and then use descending induction). 3. of Lemma 1 then implies that M is flat. \square ''Proof of the main statement''. 2. \Rightarrow 1.: If I is nilpotent, then, by Lemma 1, \operatorname_1^A(-, M) = 0 and M is flat over A. Thus, assume that the first assumption is valid. Let \mathfrak \subset A be an ideal and we shall show \mathfrak \otimes M \to M is injective. For an integer k > 0, consider the exact sequence :0 \to \mathfrak/(I^k \cap \mathfrak) \to A/I^k \to A/(\mathfrak + I^k) \to 0. Since \operatorname_1^A(A/(\mathfrak + I^k), M) = 0 by Lemma 1 (note I^k kills A/(\mathfrak + I^k)), tensoring the above with M, we get: :0 \to \mathfrak/(I^k \cap \mathfrak) \otimes M \to A/I^k \otimes M = M/I^k M. Tensoring M with 0 \to I^k \cap \mathfrak \to \mathfrak \to \mathfrak/(I^k \cap \mathfrak) \to 0, we also have: :(I^k \cap \mathfrak) \otimes M \overset\to \mathfrak \otimes M \overset\to \mathfrak/(I^k \cap \mathfrak) \otimes M \to 0. We combine the two to get the exact sequence: :(I^k \cap \mathfrak) \otimes M \overset\to \mathfrak \otimes M \overset\to M/I^k M. Now, if x is in the kernel of \mathfrak \otimes M \to M, then, a fortiori, x is in \operatorname(g') = \operatorname(f) = (I^k \cap \mathfrak) \otimes M. By the
Artin–Rees lemma In mathematics, the Artin–Rees lemma is a basic result about modules over a Noetherian ring, along with results such as the Hilbert basis theorem. It was proved in the 1950s in independent works by the mathematicians Emil Artin and David Re ...
, given n > 0, we can find k > 0 such that I^k \cap \mathfrak \subset I^n \mathfrak. Since \cap_ I^n(\mathfrak \otimes M) = 0, we conclude x = 0. 1. \Rightarrow 4. follows from Lemma 2. 4. \Rightarrow 3.: Since (A_n)_0 = A_0, the condition 4. is still valid with M, A replaced by M_n, A_n. Then Lemma 2 says that M_n is flat over A_n. 3. \Rightarrow 2. Tensoring 0 \to I \to A \to A/I \to 0 with ''M'', we see \operatorname_1^A(A/I, M) is the kernel of I \otimes M \to M. Thus, the implication is established by an argument similar to that of 2. \Rightarrow 1.\square


Application: characterization of an étale morphism

The local criterion can be used to prove the following: ''Proof'': Assume that \widehat \to \widehat is an isomorphism and we show ''f'' is étale. First, since \mathcal_x \to \widehat is faithfully flat (in particular is a pure subring), we have: :\mathfrak_y \mathcal_x = \mathfrak_y \widehat \cap \mathcal_x = \widehat \widehat \cap \mathcal_x = \widehat \cap \mathcal_x = \mathfrak_x. Hence, f is unramified (separability is trivial). Now, that \mathcal_y \to \mathcal_x is flat follows from (1) the assumption that the induced map on completion is flat and (2) the fact that flatness descends under faithfully flat base change (it shouldn’t be hard to make sense of (2)). Next, we show the converse: by the local criterion, for each ''n'', the natural map \mathfrak_y^n/\mathfrak_y^ \to \mathfrak_x^n/\mathfrak_x^ is an isomorphism. By induction and the five lemma, this implies \mathcal_y/\mathfrak_y^n \to \mathcal_x/\mathfrak_x^n is an isomorphism for each ''n''. Passing to limit, we get the asserted isomorphism. \square Mumford’s Red Book gives an extrinsic proof of the above fact (Ch. III, § 5, Theorem 3).


Miracle flatness theorem

B. Conrad calls the next theorem ''the miracle flatness theorem''.Problem 10 in http://math.stanford.edu/~conrad/papers/gpschemehw1.pdf


Notes


References

* *Exposé IV of *{{cite journal , last1=Fujiwara , first1=K. , last2=Gabber , first2=O. , last3=Kato , first3=F. , title=On Hausdorff completions of commutative rings in rigid geometry. , journal= Journal of Algebra , issue=322 , year=2011 , pages=293—321


External links


blog post
by Akhil Mathew Commutative algebra