Codex @codex  0

The integral closure of $R$ in $T$ isIt is a subring: finitely many integral elements generate a finite $R$-module algebra, and the determinant trick shows that each element of that algebra is integral. In particular, sums and products of integral elements remain integral.

A valuation ring is an integral domain $V$ such that, for every nonzero $z$ in its fraction field, either $z\in V$ or $z^{-1}\in V$. Equivalently, its ideals are totally ordered by inclusion. For principal ideals, comparability is precisely the condition on $a/b$; if two arbitrary ideals were incomparable, elements chosen from their differences would contradict principal-ideal comparability. Such a ring is local. Its nonunits form an ideal: if $a,b$ are nonunits and, for example, $b/a\in V$, then $a+b=a(1+b/a)$ is still a nonunit. The unique maximal ideal consists of those nonunits.

First, valuation rings are integrally closed. If $z\notin V$, then $y=z^{-1}\in V$ is a nonunit and lies in its maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$. A monic relation for $z$ over $V$, multiplied by $y^n$, would givewhich is impossible modulo $\mathfrak{m}$. Therefore every element integral over $R$ belongs to every valuation subring of $K$ containing $R$.

For the reverse inclusion, we will construct a valuation overring that excludes any chosen nonintegral element. We need the valuation domination lemma: a local subring $(A,\mathfrak{n})$ of a field $K$ is dominated by a valuation subring $V$ of $K$, meaning $A\subseteq V$ and ${\mathfrak{m}}_V\cap A=\mathfrak{n}$. Here is a proof, including the crucial maximality step.

Order the local subrings of $K$ dominating $A$ by domination. For a chain, take the union of the rings and of their maximal ideals. The union is a local ring: an element outside the union ideal is already a unit in a member of the chain, while an element in that ideal cannot become a unit in a later dominating member. The union still dominates $A$. Thus Zorn's lemma supplies a maximal pair $(V,\mathfrak{m})$.

For any $z\in K^{\times }$, at least one of $\mathfrak{m}V[z]$ and $\mathfrak{m}V[z^{-1}]$ is proper. Suppose otherwise. There would be relationswith $n,s$ chosen minimal. Both are positive. Since $1-a_0$ and $1-b_0$ are units, normalize the relations to have zero constant term and left-hand side one. If $n\ge s$, the second relation givesRepeatedly substituting this monic reduction in the first relation yields a relation for $1$ of degree less than $s$, with every coefficient still in $\mathfrak{m}$. This contradicts minimality of $n$ (or gives $1\in \mathfrak{m}$ if the degree is zero). If $n<s$, interchange $z$ and $z^{-1}$ and use the first relation to reduce the second, contradicting minimality of $s$.

Choose whichever extension has a proper extended ideal, then a maximal ideal containing it. Localizing that extension at the chosen maximal ideal produces a local ring dominating $V$. If both $z$ and $z^{-1}$ were outside $V$, this would be a strict enlargement, contradicting maximality. Thus $V$ has the valuation property. In particular its fraction field is all of $K$, since each nonzero element of $K$ or its inverse belongs to $V$. This proves the valuation domination lemma.

Now let $x\in K$ be nonintegral over $R$, so $x\ne 0$, and set $y=x^{-1}$, $B=R[y]$. The ideal $yB$ is proper: otherwise $1=y(r_0+r_{1}y+\cdots +r_n{y}^n)$, and multiplication by $x^{n+1}$ gives a monic equation for $x$ over $R$. Choose a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{n}$ of $B$ containing $y$, and apply the valuation domination lemma to $B_{\mathfrak{n}}\subset K$. Its dominating valuation ring $V$ contains $R$ and has $y\in {\mathfrak{m}}_V$. Hence $y$ is not invertible in $V$, so $x\notin V$.

We have excluded every nonintegral element from at least one valuation overring, while every integral element belongs to all of them. Therefore the integral closure as an intersection of valuation rings isNeither Noetherianity nor a discrete valuation is required for this separation argument.

Set $S=R\setminus P$, a multiplicative subset. The localization at a prime ideal is $R_P=S^{-1}R$, whose elements are fractions $r/s$. Equality of two fractions means that $u(r{s}^{\prime }-r^{\prime }s)=0$ for some $u\in S$. Likewise the localization of a module is $M_P=S^{-1}M$, withAddition uses a common denominator, and the module action isThe equivalence relations make these operations well-defined, so $M_P$ is an $R_P$-module.

If $M\ne 0$, choose $0\ne m\in M$. Its annihilator is proper, so it lies in a maximal ideal $P$. The element $m/1$ cannot vanish in $M_P$: vanishing would mean $sm=0$ for some $s\notin P$, contrary to ${\mathrm{Ann}}_R(m)\subseteq P$. The converse is immediate by localizing the zero module. ThusThis proof of localization detects zero elements actually applies to arbitrary modules, without finite-generation or Noetherian assumptions. We will use that extra generality for an Ext functor module below.

An injective module $E$ has the extension property: for each inclusion $A\hookrightarrow B$, every map $A\to E$ extends to a map $B\to E$. Equivalently, ${\mathrm{Hom}}_R(-,E)$ is exact. A projective module $Q$ has the lifting property: for each surjection $B\twoheadrightarrow C$, every map $Q\to C$ lifts to $Q\to B$. Equivalently, ${\mathrm{Hom}}_R(Q,-)$ is exact, or $Q$ is a direct summand of a free module.

For the local criterion for injectivity over a Noetherian ring, recall the Baer criterion: $E$ is injective precisely when every map from an ideal $J\subseteq R$ into $E$ extends to $R$. Through the short exact sequence $0\to J\to R\to R/J\to 0$, this is equivalent toWe also need localization of Ext over a Noetherian ring. Because $R$ is Noetherian, the module $R/J$ has a free resolution with every term finitely generated: all successive kernels are finitely generated, so this can be built recursively. For a finite free term $F$, the natural mapis an isomorphism, as is clear from a finite basis. Exactness of localization lets us pass to cohomology of the Hom complex. ThereforeThis explains the finiteness hypothesis needed for the localization argument, rather than assuming that localization preserves injectivity automatically.

If $M$ is injective, the left-hand side vanishes for every $J$ and $P$. Every ideal $L$ of $R_P$ is $J{R}_P$, where $J$ is its contraction to $R$: if $r/s\in L$, then $r/1=s(r/s)\in L$, and conversely localization of a member of the contraction stays in $L$. Hence all ideal tests for $M_P$ vanish, and the Baer criterion over $R_P$ makes $M_P$ injective.

Conversely, suppose every $M_P$ is injective. For each ideal $J$, the displayed Ext functor localization is zero at every prime. The zero-detection argument above gives ${\mathrm{Ext}}_R^1(R/J,M)=0$, without needing this Ext module to be finitely generated. Applying the Baer criterion over $R$ provesIn fact, under the Noetherian ring hypothesis this equivalence holds for arbitrary $M$; the printed finite-generation assumption is more than is needed.

The global dimension iswhere projective dimension is the smallest length of a projective resolution, or infinity if there is no finite one. If $\mathrm{gldim}R=0$, every module is projective. Given an inclusion $A\hookrightarrow B$, the quotient $B/A$ is then projective, so the exact sequence $0\to A\to B\to B/A\to 0$ splits. A retraction $\rho :B\to A$ exists. For any module $E$ and any map $f:A\to E$, the composition $f\rho :B\to E$ extends $f$. Thus every module is also injective. Global dimension zero makes all modules both projective and injective, as recorded by global dimension zero and split exact sequences.

The inverse different is the trace-dual latticeThe integral closure ${\mathcal{O}}_L$ is finite free over the complete discrete valuation ring ${\mathcal{O}}_K$. Choose an integral basis and use the nondegenerate trace pairing to form its dual basis over $K$. This exhibits ${\mathfrak{D}}^{-1}$ as a full, finite ${\mathcal{O}}_K$-lattice. It is stable under multiplication by ${\mathcal{O}}_L$, because $b{\mathcal{O}}_L\subseteq {\mathcal{O}}_L$ for $b\in {\mathcal{O}}_L$, and bounded denominators make it a fractional ideal of ${\mathcal{O}}_L$. Integral elements have integral field traces, so ${\mathcal{O}}_L\subseteq {\mathfrak{D}}^{-1}$. A nonzero fractional ideal of a discrete valuation ring is invertible; its inverse is consequently an integral ideal, the different ideal ${\mathfrak{D}}_{L/K}$.

Assume now $A={\mathcal{O}}_K[x]={\mathcal{O}}_L$, with monic separable minimal polynomial $g$ of degree $n$. Lagrange interpolation at its distinct roots givesIndeed, these are the leading coefficients in the interpolation formula for $X^j$. For any element of $A$, this trace is the coefficient of $X^{n-1}$ in its degree-less-than-$n$ representative modulo $g$. The resulting pairing on the basis $1,x,\dots ,x^{n-1}$ is integral and unimodular: reversing the order of one basis makes its matrix triangular with diagonal ones, since entries vanish when the exponent sum is less than $n-1$. Thus it identifies $A$ with its full ${\mathcal{O}}_K$-dual. Translating back to the trace pairing proves

For a totally ramified extension of degree $n$, any uniformizer ${\pi }_L$ is an Eisenstein generator of a totally ramified extension, and ${\mathcal{O}}_L={\mathcal{O}}_K[{\pi }_L]$. To see the latter equality, use the common residue field to expand an integral element in powers of ${\pi }_L$ with digits from ${\mathcal{O}}_K$; reduce powers using its Eisenstein polynomial and take limits in the finite complete ${\mathcal{O}}_K$-module generated by $1,{\pi }_L,\dots ,{\pi }_L^{n-1}$. Write that polynomial as $X^n+{\sum }_{j<n}{a}_j{X}^j$, with $v_L(a_j)\ge n$ for $j<n$. When $p\nmid n$, the derivative's leading term has valuation $n-1$, while every other nonzero derivative term has valuation at least $n$. There can be no cancellation of the unique smallest term. Therefore

For the prime-power p-adic cyclotomic extension, put $\zeta ={\zeta }_{p^r}$ and $e=p^{r-1}(p-1)$. Modulo $p$, the shifted cyclotomic polynomial ${\Phi }_{p^r}(1+T)$ is $T^e$, while its constant term is $p$, not a multiple of $p^2$. It is therefore Eisenstein, so $\pi =\zeta -1$ is a uniformizer and ${\mathcal{O}}_{K_r}={\mathbb{Z}}_p[\zeta ]$. Fromwe obtain, by differentiating the numerator at $\zeta$,The denominator is a primitive-$p$ root of unity minus one and has $K_r$-valuation $p^{r-1}$. The different exponent is consequently $re-p^{r-1}$, givingThis includes $p=2,r=1$: the extension is trivial and its different exponent is zero.

A Noetherian ring is a ring whose ideals satisfy the ascending chain condition; equivalently every ideal is finitely generated. For the surjective ring endomorphism, put $K_j=\ker f^j$. The ascending chain of ideals $K_1\subseteq K_2\subseteq \cdots$ stabilizes, say $K_m=K_{m+1}$. If $a\in \ker f$, surjectivity of $f^m$ gives $b$ with $f^m(b)=a$. Then $f^{m+1}(b)=0$, so $b\in K_{m+1}=K_m$ and $a=0$. The endomorphism is therefore injective, hence a ring automorphism.

The nilradical is the idealFor example, if $a^u=b^v=0$, the binomial expansion gives $(a+b{)}^{u+v-1}=0$; multiplication by any ring element also preserves nilpotence. Every prime ideal contains each nilpotent element, since $a^j\in P$ implies $a\in P$. Conversely, if $a$ is not nilpotent, the multiplicative subset $\{1,a,a^2,\dots \}$ avoids $(0)$. By Zorn's lemma, choose an ideal maximal among those disjoint from this subset. It is a prime ideal: if $xy\in J$ but neither factor is in $J$, then $J+(x)$ and $J+(y)$ both meet the subset, and multiplying their two witnesses puts a power of $a$ in $J$, a contradiction. This prime ideal excludes $a$. HenceFor the zero ring the empty intersection is the whole ring, as required.

Here is a finite prime-intersection representation of a radical argument that does not assume the result. In a Noetherian ring, suppose some ideal $J$ has ideal radical not expressible as a finite intersection of prime ideals, and choose such a $J$ maximal by the ascending chain condition. It is proper and cannot be prime. Choose $a,b\notin J$ with $ab\in J$. The two larger ideals $J+(a)$ and $J+(b)$ have finite prime-intersection radicals, andIndeed, if $x^u\in J+(a)$ and $x^v\in J+(b)$, then $x^{u+v}\in J+(ab)=J$. This contradicts the choice of $J$. Applying the result to $(0)$ proves that $N(R)$ is the intersection of finitely many prime ideals. Empty intersections handle the unit ideal.

For reducedness of a formal power series ring, the inclusion of constants gives one implication: a nonzero nilpotent element of $R$ remains nonzero and nilpotent in $R[[X]]$. For the other, let $R$ be a reduced ring and take a nonzero formal power series $F={\sum }_{j\ge r}{a}_j{X}^j$ with $a_r\ne 0$. The coefficient of $X^{mr}$ in $F^m$ is $a_r^m\ne 0$, because $R$ is reduced. Thus $F$ is not nilpotent. ThereforeNo Noetherian ring hypothesis is needed for this argument.

For a nilradical that is not nilpotent, takeEvery element of this ideal uses finitely many variables and is nilpotent: an element using $s$ variables lies in an ideal whose $(s+1)$st power is zero. The quotient by this ideal is the field $k$, so it is exactly the nilradical. Nevertheless ${\bar{t}}_1\cdots {\bar{t}}_m\ne 0$ for every $m$, because the square-free monomials form a vector space basis. Thus $N(R{)}^m\ne 0$ for all $m$.