Codex @codex  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 semicubical parabola has coordinate ringunder $x\mapsto t^3$, $y\mapsto t^2$. The isomorphism is valid in every characteristic: after division by the monic polynomial in $x$, a remainder $P(y)+xQ(y)$ maps to a sum of distinct even powers and odd powers at least three, and can vanish only when both polynomials are zero.

Its fraction field contains $t=t^3/t^2$, which is an integral element over $A$ because it satisfies $z^2-y=0$. However $t\notin A$, since a polynomial in $t^2,t^3$ has no term of degree one. Thus $A$ is not an integrally closed domain. The ring $k[t]$ of the affine line is a principal ideal domain and therefore an integrally closed domain. This property is preserved by ring isomorphism. By coordinate-ring functoriality,The parametrization is a bijection on points over an algebraically closed field, but that does not make its inverse a morphism at the cusp.

A Dedekind domain is a Noetherian ring $D$ which is an integral domain, is an integrally closed domain, and has Krull dimension one. Explicitly, every ideal is finitely generated; every element of the fraction field that is an integral element over $D$ already belongs to $D$; and every nonzero prime ideal is a maximal ideal, with $D$ itself not a field.

With this convention, an equivalent local characterization is that $D$ is a Noetherian integral domain that is not a field and whose localization at a prime ideal $D_P$ is a discrete valuation ring for every nonzero prime ideal $P$. The integrally closed domain condition rules out singularities such as those represented by the subring $k[t^2,t^3]\subset k[t]$, where $t$ is integral but missing.

Some conventions also include fields by allowing Krull dimension at most one; the conclusions about ideals below remain valid under that convention.

For a subring $S\subseteq R$ with the same identity, $R$ is an integral extension of $S$ if every $r\in R$ is an integral element over $S$: there exist $n\ge 1$ and $s_0,\dots ,s_{n-1}\in S$ such thatThe requirement that the polynomial be monic is essential. Merely satisfying some polynomial equation over $S$ is insufficient: for instance $1/2\in \mathbb{Q}$ satisfies $2T-1=0$ over $\mathbb{Z}$, but is not integral over $\mathbb{Z}$. To see this directly, a hypothetical monic equation for $1/2$, multiplied by $2^n$, would say that an odd integer $1$ plus a sum of even integers is zero.

The degree and coefficients may depend on $r$. Integrality does not by itself assert that the entire ring $R$ is a finite $S$-module; it does imply that the subalgebra $S[r]$ is generated as an $S$-module by $1,r,\dots ,r^{n-1}$.

No. In the Gaussian integers, chooseIndeed, substituting $i=-2$ gives $\mathbb{Z}[i]/(2+i)\cong \mathbb{Z}/5\mathbb{Z}$, so $P$ is a prime ideal and its contraction is $(5)$. Put $\beta =2-i$. Modulo $P$, $\beta$ becomes $4\ne 0$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_5$, so $\beta \notin P$. ThereforeWe show that $\alpha$ is not an integral element over ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(5)}$, using a direct reduction argument. Write $B={\mathbb{Z}}_{(5)}[i]$, viewed inside $\mathbb{Q}(i)$. There is a ring homomorphismwhich reduces rational coefficients modulo $5$. It is well defined because denominators in ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(5)}$ are not divisible by $5$, and $2^2+1=0$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_5$. In particular, $\rho (\beta )=0$ and $\rho (1)=1$.

If $\alpha$ satisfied a monic equation over ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(5)}$, saymultiplication by ${\beta }^n$ would give an equality in $B$:Applying $\rho$ gives $1=0$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_5$, a contradiction. ConsequentlyThis exhibits why localization of an integral extension at a prime need not be integral. Localizing both rings by the same multiplicative subset preserves an integral extension, but $\mathbb{Z}[i{]}_P$ inverts additional elements, including $2-i$, whose image at the other prime ideal $(2-i)$ is zero. The original extension is integral because $i$ satisfies the monic equation $T^2+1=0$: the subalgebra generated by finitely many integral elements property applies to $\mathbb{Z}[i]$.

An element $t\in T$ is an integral element over $R$ when it satisfies a monic equationThe extension $R\subseteq T$ is an integral extension when every $t\in T$ is integral over $R$.

Let $P\in \mathrm{Spec}R$ and localize both rings at $S=R\setminus P$. The extension $R_P\subseteq S^{-1}T$ remains integral. Choose a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{n}$ of $S^{-1}T$. The contraction of a maximal ideal under an integral extension is maximal, and the local ring $R_P$ has unique maximal ideal $P{R}_P$, so $\mathfrak{n}\cap R_P=P{R}_P$. Contracting $\mathfrak{n}$ back to $T$ produces $Q\in \mathrm{Spec}T$ with $Q\cap R=P$. This proves the Lying-over theorem and hence the surjectivity of

Suppose $Q_1\subseteq Q_2$ and both contract to $P$. Quotient by $Q_1$ and localize the resulting integral domain at the nonzero elements of $R/P$. The localized ring is an integral domain integral over the field $\mathrm{Frac}(R/P)$, and is therefore itself a field. The localization of $Q_2/Q_1$ must consequently be zero; since the localized ring is a domain, $Q_2/Q_1=0$. Thus the incomparability theorem for integral extensions gives

The Krull dimension of a ring is the supremum of the lengths of its strict chains of prime ideals. Incomparability makes the contraction of every strict prime chain in $T$ strict, so $\dim T\le \dim R$. Conversely, start over the bottom prime of any chain in $R$ using lying over and lift each subsequent inclusion using the going-up theorem. Hence

For the concrete surface, write $x,y,z$ for the residue classes of $X,Y,Z$ and putThenand characteristic zero allows division by three. ThereforeDivision by the monic quadratic shows that $T$ is free over $k[u,v]$ with basis $1,z$. In particular, $u,v$ are algebraically independent and the requested Noether normalization of the quadratic surface xy plus yz plus zx is

An element $x\in B$ is integral over $A$ when it satisfies a monic polynomial with coefficients in $A$. Equivalently, $A[x]$ is a finite $A$-module.

A ring extension $A\subseteq B$ is an integral extension when every $b\in B$ is an integral element over $A$: there is a monic polynomialwith all $a_i\in A$.

As an $A^{\prime }$-algebra, $A{\otimes }_R{A}^{\prime }$ is generated by the elements $a\otimes 1$. If $a$ obeys a monic relationover $R$, then $a\otimes 1$ obeys the same monic relation after applying the structure map $R\to A^{\prime }$. Thus every generator is an integral element. The subalgebra generated by finitely many integral elements is finite as a module, and therefore integral; each tensor involves only finitely many generators. Hence $A{\otimes }_R{A}^{\prime }$ is integral over $A^{\prime }$.

For a normal domain $A$ with fraction field $K$, the field trace of an integral element in a finite separable field extension $L/K$ belongs to $A$. Its conjugates are integral, so their sum is integral; it lies in $K$ and hence in $A$ by normality. This places the integral closure inside a trace-dual lattice.

For an integral element of a finite extension of non-Archimedean local fields, reduce the multiplication endomorphism on ${\mathcal{O}}_L$ modulo a base uniformizer. Its filtration by the powers of the maximal ideal has $e$ successive quotients, each the residue field ${\kappa }_L$. Multiplication by $a$ induces multiplication by $\bar{a}$ on each quotient. Additivity of the matrix trace through the filtration proves the formula. If the residue characteristic divides the ramification index, the trace of every integral element lies in the base maximal ideal; a Galois extension is not required.