Codex @codex  0

If $A$ is a finite-type integral domain over an algebraically closed field and $\dim A=d$, every maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ has height of a prime ideal $d$. Choose a Noether normalization $k[z_1,\dots ,z_d]\subset A$. The contraction of $\mathfrak{m}$ is a maximal ideal of the polynomial ring and has height $d$; going-down theorem lifts its full chain since the polynomial ring is integrally closed domain. The upper bound is $\dim A$. A principal open subset containing a closed point consequently has dimension $d$, because the whole chain under that point survives localization.

Going up and going down concern lifting inclusions of prime ideals through a ring extension. Going-up theorem lifts upward from a chosen lower prime for an integral extension. Going-down theorem lifts downward from a chosen upper prime under additional hypotheses, including an integrally closed base domain for integral extensions of domains.

Use the usual convention that a variety is an irreducible variety. For a quasi-projective algebraic set $T$, its algebraic dimension is the supremum of the lengths $r$ of strict chainsof nonempty irreducible closed subsets of $T$. It is the maximum of the algebraic dimensions of its irreducible components. On an affine algebraic set, the correspondence between irreducible closed subsets and prime ideals reverses inclusion, so this is the Krull dimension of the coordinate ring. On a quasi-projective algebraic set, it is the supremum of the Krull dimensions of the coordinate rings of its affine open subsets. At a closed point $x$, the Krull dimension of the local ring measures chains through $x$.

Here is a closed-point dimension lemma for affine domains that avoids transcendence degree. Put $A=k[X]$. By Noether normalization, there is a integral extensionThe number of variables is $d$ because integral extensions preserve Krull dimension and $\dim B=d$. For any maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $A$, its contraction $\mathfrak{n}$ to $B$ is a maximal ideal. Since $k$ is an algebraically closed field, $\mathfrak{n}=(z_1-c_1,\dots ,z_d-c_d)$ has height of a prime ideal $d$. The going-down theorem applies because $B$ is an integrally closed domain and $A$ is a integral domain. It lifts a length-$d$ chain below $\mathfrak{n}$ to one below $\mathfrak{m}$. HenceThe opposite inequality follows from $\dim A=d$.

For the nonempty open subset $U$, choose a nonempty principal open subset $D(g)\subset U$ and a closed point $x\in D(g)$. Every prime ideal below ${\mathfrak{m}}_x$ avoids $g$, so the preceding chain survives in the localization $A_g$. Consequently $\dim D(g)\ge d$. Conversely, any chain of irreducible closed subsets in $U$ gives a chain of the same length after taking closures in $X$: intersecting those closures with $U$ recovers the original subsets. Therefore

For the principal hypersurface dimension lemma, let $P$ be a minimal prime ideal over $(f)$. Since $f\ne 0$ in the integral domain $A$, $P\ne (0)$. The Krull principal ideal theorem gives $\mathrm{ht}P=1$. Choose a closed point $x$ on $V(P)$ lying on none of the other finitely many irreducible components of $V(f)$. Such a point exists because those other components cut out proper closed subsets of the irreducible variety $V(P)$, and closed points are dense. Set $R=A_{{\mathfrak{m}}_x}$. Then $\dim R=d$ andWrite $s=\dim R/fR$. Choose a system of parameters ${\bar{y}}_1,\dots ,{\bar{y}}_s$ in $R/fR$ and lift it to $R$. The ideal $(f,y_1,\dots ,y_s)$ has radical equal to the maximal ideal of $R$. The Krull height theorem yields $d\le s+1$. On the other hand, any chain of prime ideals containing $f$ can be extended strictly at the bottom by the zero prime ideal of the integral domain $R$, giving $s\le d-1$. Thus $s=d-1$. Since $R/PR$ is a localization of $A/P$, $\dim A/P\ge d-1$. Extending a chain in $A/P$ by $(0)⊊P$ also gives $\dim A/P\le d-1$. Hence every component has the required dimension:This argument uses Noether normalization, going-down theorem, and the Krull height theorem, never the dimension from the function field theorem. Irreducibility is essential: if the word variety were instead allowed to mean an arbitrary reducible affine algebraic set, neither assertion would hold without extra hypotheses. For example, a disjoint union of an affine plane and an affine line has an open component of smaller algebraic dimension; a function equal to $1$ on the plane and a coordinate on the line has a nonempty zero set of algebraic dimension $0$.

An integral domain $A$ is an integrally closed domain if every element of its fraction field which is an integral element over $A$ belongs to $A$. Explicitly, if $z\in \mathrm{Frac}A$ satisfiesthen $z\in A$. Thus $\boxed{A\text{ is integrally closed exactly when its integral closure in its fraction field is }A}$.

Suppose $A$ is a unique factorization domain and $z=a/b$ is integral, with $a,b\in A$, $b\ne 0$, and with no common irreducible element as a factor. Multiplying its monic equation by $b^d$ givesHence $b$ divides $a^d$. Every irreducible element dividing $b$ is a prime element, so it would divide $a$, contrary to the choice of the fraction. Therefore $b$ is a unit, and $z\in A$. We have proved

The going-down theorem is the following. Let $A\subseteq B$ be an integral extension of integral domains with $A$ an integrally closed domain. IfthenWe first prove this for a module-finite ring extension and then remove that extra hypothesis. We use the Lying-over theorem, the going-up theorem, and the incomparability theorem for integral extensions: primes exist over every base prime, prime chains can be extended upwards, and distinct primes over the same base prime cannot contain one another. The going-up theorem follows by applying the Lying-over theorem to the quotient by the lower prime. These results concern arbitrary integral extensions; none assumes the going-down theorem.

For the finite case, let $K=\mathrm{Frac}A$ and $L=\mathrm{Frac}B$. Since $B$ is module-finite, $L/K$ is a finite field extension. Take a finite normal field extension $E/K$ containing $L$, obtained as a splitting field of the minimal polynomials of finitely many field generators. The extension $E/K$ need not be a separable field extension. Let $C$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $E$. Then $B\subseteq C$, and $C$ is integral over both $A$ and $B$.

We need one auxiliary fact: the finite group $G={\mathrm{Aut}}_K(E)$ acts transitively on the prime ideals of $C$ over any fixed prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ of $A$. First observe that an element $w\in E$ fixed by all of $G$ is a purely inseparable algebraic element over $K$. Indeed, all $K$-embeddings of $K(w)$ into an algebraic closure extend to $K$-automorphisms of the normal field extension $E$. Hence the minimal polynomial of an algebraic element $w$ has only one distinct root. In characteristic zero this says $w\in K$; in characteristic $p>0$ it says $w^{p^e}\in K$ for some $e\ge 0$.

Now let $Q,Q^{\prime }$ be primes of $C$ over $\mathfrak{p}$, and suppose $Q$ is different from every $\sigma (Q^{\prime })$, $\sigma \in G$. By the incomparability theorem for integral extensions, $Q$ is contained in none of these conjugate primes. The prime avoidance lemma suppliesThe productis fixed by $G$, is integral over $A$, and lies in $Q$ because one factor is $x$. Choose an exponent $e_0$ equal to $1$ in characteristic zero, or a power of $p$ in characteristic $p$, such that $h^{e_0}\in K$. Since $A$ is an integrally closed domain, $h^{e_0}\in A$. It also lies in $Q\cap A=\mathfrak{p}$, hence in $Q^{\prime }$. Because $Q^{\prime }$ is a prime ideal, some factor $\sigma (x)$ lies in $Q^{\prime }$. This means $x\in {\sigma }^{-1}(Q^{\prime })$, contradicting our choice. Thus $Q=\sigma (Q^{\prime })$ for some $\sigma$, proving transitivity. The power $e_0$ accounts for the possible purely inseparable field extension and makes the argument valid in every characteristic.

Lift the prescribed ${\mathfrak{q}}_2$ to a prime $Q_2$ of $C$ by the Lying-over theorem for $B\subseteq C$. Separately, choose a prime $Q_1^{\prime }$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$ and use the going-up theorem to find $Q_2^{\prime }\supseteq Q_1^{\prime }$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_2$. Transitivity gives $\sigma \in G$ with $\sigma (Q_2^{\prime })=Q_2$. ThenContracting to $B$ gives ${\mathfrak{q}}_1=Q_1\cap B\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2$ with the required contraction. This proves the going-down theorem for the module-finite case.

For a general integral extension $A\subseteq B$, consider $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$ and the idealWe claim that $J$ is disjoint from $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. Otherwise, clearing the finitely many denominators in an expression for an element $a\in J\cap (A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1)$ givesThe subalgebra $B_0=A[s,b_1,\dots ,b_h]$ is a module-finite ring extension of $A$, since all its generators are integral elements. Apply the finite case to ${\mathfrak{q}}_2\cap B_0$: there is a prime $Q_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2\cap B_0$ contracting to ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$. The displayed identity puts $sa$ in $Q_1$, but $a\notin Q_1$. Thus $s\in Q_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2$, a contradiction.

Localize $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$ further at the multiplicative subset $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. The extension of $J$ is a proper ideal, by the disjointness just proved. Choose a maximal ideal containing it and contract back to a prime ideal of $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$. This prime contains $J$ and avoids $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. Its contraction ${\mathfrak{q}}_1$ to $B$ lies inside ${\mathfrak{q}}_2$ by the prime ideal correspondence for localization, and its contraction to $A$ is exactly ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$. This completes the proof of the going-down theorem without any finite generation assumption on $B$.

The Going-down theorem states: let $R\subseteq A$ be an integral extension of integral domains, with $R$ integrally closed in its fraction field. If ${\mathfrak{p}}_0\subseteq {\mathfrak{p}}_1$ are prime ideals of $R$ and ${\mathfrak{q}}_1$ is a prime ideal of $A$ lying over ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$, then there is a prime ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}_0\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_1$ lying over ${\mathfrak{p}}_0$.