Codex @codex  0

The Noether normalization lemma is valid over every field $k$, including finite fields: a nonzero finitely generated algebra $C$ contains elements $y_1,\dots ,y_d$ with algebraic independence over $k$ such that $C$ is finite as a module over the polynomial ring $k[y_1,\dots ,y_d]$. We prove it without an infinite-field hypothesis.

Write $C=k[a_1,\dots ,a_n]$ and induct on $n$. If the generators have algebraic independence, they already give a polynomial ring and the assertion is immediate. Otherwise choose a nonzero relation $F(a_1,\dots ,a_n)=0$. Choose an integer $M$ larger than every exponent in the monomials of $F$, and setIn $F(Y_1+T^M,Y_2+T^{M^2},\dots ,Y_{n-1}+T^{M^{n-1}},T)$, the largest power of $T$ has a nonzero coefficient in $k$. Indeed, a monomial with exponents $(e_1,\dots ,e_n)$ contributes top weight $e_n+{\sum }_{i<n}{e}_i{M}^i$. These weights are distinct by uniqueness of base-$M$ expansion, so only one monomial contributes the highest power. After rescaling, the substituted relation is monic in $T$.

Consequently $a_n$ is an integral element over $C^{\prime }=k[b_1,\dots ,b_{n-1}]$, and $C=C^{\prime }[a_n]$ is finite over $C^{\prime }$. Apply the induction hypothesis to $C^{\prime }$ and compose the finite module extensions. This proves Noether normalization by weighted substitutions. The induction reaches $n=0$, where $C=k$. For an integral domain $C$, taking fraction fields makes the resulting extension finite algebraic, so $d$ is the transcendence degree of $\mathrm{Frac}(C)/k$. More generally $d=\dim C$: integral extensions preserve Krull dimension, and a polynomial algebra in $d$ variables has Krull dimension $d$.

A useful bridge to the Hilbert Nullstellensatz is the Zariski lemma. If a field $E$ is a finitely generated algebra over $k$, normalization makes it finite and integral over a polynomial ring $P=k[y_1,\dots ,y_d]$. A subring over which a field is integral is a field: for nonzero $a\in P$, an integral equation for $a^{-1}\in E$, multiplied by $a^{r-1}$, expresses $a^{-1}$ as an element of $P$. Therefore $P$ must be a field. A polynomial ring in a positive number of variables is not a field, since a variable has no polynomial inverse. Hence $d=0$ and $E/k$ is a finite field extension. This proves the Zariski lemma.

Now let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. The Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz says that every maximal ideal of $k[X_1,\dots ,X_n]$ is uniquely of the formTo prove it, the residue field $k[X]/\mathfrak{m}$ is a field generated as a $k$-algebra by the images of the variables. The Zariski lemma makes it finite algebraic over $k$, and algebraic closedness makes it $k$. Thus each $X_i$ has an image $a_i\in k$. The evaluation map has kernel the displayed ideal: subtracting the constant value of a polynomial expresses its difference as a combination of $X_i-a_i$. That kernel is maximal and contained in $\mathfrak{m}$, so equality holds. Conversely every evaluation kernel is maximal because its quotient is $k$. Uniqueness follows from the variable images. Every proper ideal is contained in a maximal ideal, so it has a common zero; equivalently, an ideal with no common zero is the whole ring.

For an ideal $I\subseteq k[X_1,\dots ,X_n]$, let $V(I)$ be its common-zero set and let $I(V(I))$ be all polynomials vanishing on that set. The Strong Hilbert Nullstellensatz statesThe inclusion $\sqrt{I}\subseteq I(V(I))$ follows because a field has no nonzero nilpotent elements. For the other inclusion, take $f$ vanishing on $V(I)$, with $f\ne 0$, and form the Rabinowitsch trick idealIt has no common zero: at a zero of $I$ the second generator has value one. The Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz in $n+1$ variables gives $J=(1)$. Hence a finite identity has the form $1={\sum }_j{h}_j(X,T)g_j(X)+h(X,T)(1-Tf)$, with $g_j\in I$. Substitute $T=f^{-1}$ in the localization of a ring $k[X{]}_f$. Clearing the finitely many powers of $f$ occurring in denominators gives $f^r\in I$ for some $r$, so $f\in \sqrt{I}$. The case $f=0$ is immediate. This completes all three proofs. The algebraically closed hypothesis belongs to the two forms of the Hilbert Nullstellensatz; it was not needed for the Noether normalization lemma or the Zariski lemma.

All rings below are nonzero and commutative with identity; the zero ring is trivially Artinian. A primary ideal is proper. An ideal $Q$ is primary precisely when every zero divisor of $R/Q$ is a nilpotent element. Its radical of an ideal $\mathfrak{p}=\sqrt{Q}$ is prime: if $ab\in \sqrt{Q}$ and $a\notin \sqrt{Q}$, apply the primary property to $(ab{)}^r\in Q$ to obtain a power of $b$ in $Q$. In a Noetherian ring, finite generation of $\mathfrak{p}$ gives ${\mathfrak{p}}^s\subseteq Q$ for some $s$. For generators $u_i$ with $u_i^{s_i}\in Q$, one can take $s=1+{\sum }_i(s_i-1)$.

We first prove existence of primary decomposition. The ascending chain condition implies that every proper ideal is a finite intersection of irreducible ideals. Otherwise choose a maximal counterexample $I$ under inclusion. It is not irreducible, so $I=J\cap K$ with both $J,K$ strictly larger; their finite irreducible decompositions give one for $I$, a contradiction.

An irreducible ideal in a Noetherian ring is primary. Pass to the quotient and suppose zero is irreducible. If $xy=0$ with $x\ne 0$, the ascending chain of annihilators of $y^j$ stabilizes, say at $j=r$. Any element of $(x)\cap (y^r)$ can be written $z=ax=b{y}^r$. Then $yz=0$, so $b\in \mathrm{Ann}(y^{r+1})=\mathrm{Ann}(y^r)$ and $z=0$. Irreducibility of zero implies $(y^r)=0$, since $(x)\ne 0$. Thus $y$ is nilpotent. This proves irreducible ideals are primary in Noetherian rings, and hence the Lasker–Noether theorem.

An intersection of finitely many primary ideals with the same radical $\mathfrak{p}$ is again primary: if $ab$ belongs to all of them and $b\notin \mathfrak{p}$, the primary property forces $a$ into every component. Combining such components and removing redundant ones yields a minimal primary decompositionThe radicals are uniquely determined, but the components need not all be unique. Here is a proof identifying the invariant radicals as the associated primes of a module $R/I$.

Every nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has a nonzero element with a prime annihilator: maximize the annihilator of a nonzero element using the ascending chain condition. If $abm=0$ and $bm\ne 0$, maximality gives $\mathrm{Ann}(bm)=\mathrm{Ann}(m)$ and hence $am=0$. This is the maximal annihilator of a module element is prime argument. For a $\mathfrak{p}$-primary quotient $R/Q$, the radical of the annihilator of every nonzero element is $\mathfrak{p}$: it is contained in $\mathfrak{p}$ by the primary property and contains a power of $\mathfrak{p}$ because ${\mathfrak{p}}^s\subseteq Q$. Thus the only possible associated prime is $\mathfrak{p}$, and it does occur.

The diagonal injection $R/I\hookrightarrow {⨁}_{i}R/Q_i$ shows that every associated prime of $R/I$ is one of the ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$. Indeed, for an element whose annihilator $P$ is prime, that annihilator is the intersection of the finitely many component annihilators, all containing $P$. Their product is contained in $P$, so primality forces one of them to equal $P$; its component element is nonzero and has associated prime ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$. Conversely, irredundancy gives $b\in {\bigcap }_{j\ne i}{Q}_j\setminus Q_i$. The nonzero cyclic submodule generated by $b+I$ embeds in $R/Q_i$. It has an associated prime, necessarily ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$, which is then an associated prime of $R/I$. We have proved the first uniqueness theorem for primary decomposition:Also the zero divisors on $R/I$ are exactly ${\bigcup }_i{\mathfrak{p}}_i$. For a scalar killing a nonzero element, extend its element annihilator to a maximal element annihilator containing it; the preceding argument gives an associated prime containing that scalar. The converse is immediate from the definition of an associated prime.

The minimal members of the set $\{{\mathfrak{p}}_i\}$ are the isolated primes of a primary decomposition. They are exactly the primes minimal over $I$: if a prime contains ${\bigcap }_i{\mathfrak{p}}_i$, it contains one ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$ by the product argument. A component belonging to an isolated prime is unique. Localize at ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$. Every other component becomes the whole ring, since its radical contains an element outside ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$ whose power lies in that component. A ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$-primary ideal contracts unchanged from this localization, because $sa\in Q_i$ with $s\notin {\mathfrak{p}}_i$ implies $a\in Q_i$. Hence the second uniqueness theorem for primary decomposition givesAn embedded primary component can vary. For example, in $k[x,y]$,Both second components are $(x,y)$-primary, since their quotients are dual-number algebras. For the second equality, reducing modulo $(x^2,y+x)$ makes $y=-x$; an element $xg$ vanishes exactly when $g$ has zero constant term, giving $(x^2,xy)$. The isolated component is $(x)$ and the embedded associated prime is $(x,y)$.

The relevance to Artinian rings is particularly sharp in Krull dimension zero. Suppose $R$ is Noetherian and all its primes are maximal. Apply a minimal primary decomposition to zero. Its radicals are distinct maximal ideals, so the components are pairwise comaximal ideals: each contains a power of its radical, and expanding $1=(a+b{)}^N$ for $a+b=1$ shows that powers of comaximal ideals remain comaximal. The Chinese remainder theorem gives the Artinian decomposition into local factorsEach factor has one maximal ideal, and that ideal is nilpotent. Its finite radical filtration has successive layers finitely generated over its residue field, hence of finite vector-space dimension. It follows that the factor, and therefore $R$, has a finite composition series of a module, so $R$ is Artinian. This proves the Noetherian dimension-zero criterion for an Artinian ring in this direction. Applied to $R/I$, it says that the quotient is Artinian exactly when all primes over $I$ are maximal. In that case no primary component is embedded, so all components are unique.

For completeness, the converse does not require initially assuming Noetherianity. In an Artinian ring, an Artinian domain is a field: stabilization of $(a^j)$ and cancellation gives an inverse to every nonzero $a$. Thus every prime is maximal. There are finitely many maximal ideals, since infinitely many distinct ones would give strictly descending finite intersections; comaximality guarantees strictness by the Chinese remainder theorem. Its nilradical $N$ is nilpotent. Indeed, its powers stabilize at $J=N^r$, with $J^2=J$. If $J\ne 0$, choose an ideal $C$ minimal among those satisfying $JC\ne 0$. Then $JC=C$, since $J(JC)=JC\ne 0$. Choose $x\in C$ with $Jx\ne 0$; minimality also gives $Rx=C$. Therefore $x=ax$ for some $a\in J\subseteq N$. But $1-a$ is a unit, contradicting $x\ne 0$. Hence $J=0$.

Now $R/N$ is a finite product of residue fields. Each $N^j/N^{j+1}$ is an Artinian module over that product, and therefore a finite direct sum of finite-dimensional vector spaces: an infinite-dimensional vector space would have a strictly descending chain of subspaces. The finite filtration by powers of $N$ makes $R$ a module of finite composition length, in particular Noetherian. Combining both directions yieldsThus primary decomposition separates the local pieces of a zero-dimensional ring, while their nilpotent maximal ideals record the multiplicities that the reduced set of primes alone does not detect.

A ring is Artinian when its ideals satisfy the descending chain condition: every chain $I_1\supseteq I_2\supseteq \cdots$ eventually becomes constant. It is Noetherian when its ideals satisfy the ascending chain condition, equivalently when every ideal is finitely generated. We first prove finite length of a commutative Artinian ring; this gives the stronger structural reason for its Noetherian property.

If $\mathfrak{p}$ is a prime ideal of an Artinian ring, the quotient $R/\mathfrak{p}$ is an Artinian integral domain. For a nonzero element $x$ of that domain, the chain $(x)\supseteq (x^2)\supseteq \cdots$ stabilizes. Thus $x^n=b{x}^{n+1}$ for some $b$, and cancellation gives $bx=1$. The quotient is a field, so every prime ideal is a maximal ideal.

There are only finitely many maximal ideals. Otherwise, choose distinct ones ${\mathfrak{m}}_1,{\mathfrak{m}}_2,\dots$. The intersections ${\mathfrak{m}}_1\cap \cdots \cap {\mathfrak{m}}_n$ form a strictly descending chain. To see strictness, for each $i\le n$ choose $a_i\in {\mathfrak{m}}_i\setminus {\mathfrak{m}}_{n+1}$; their product belongs to the first $n$ ideals but not to the next one, since ${\mathfrak{m}}_{n+1}$ is prime. This contradicts the descending chain condition.

Put $J={\bigcap }_i{\mathfrak{m}}_i$. This Jacobson radical is also the nilradical, since all primes are maximal. We need the stronger conclusion that $J$ is nilpotent, without assuming Noetherianity. Its powers stabilize, say $K=J^n=J^{n+1}=JK$. Suppose $K\ne 0$. By the descending chain condition, choose an ideal $L$ minimal subject to $KL\ne 0$. Some $x\in L$ has $Kx\ne 0$, so minimality gives $L=Rx$. Moreover $K(JL)=KL\ne 0$, and minimality gives $JL=L$. Hence $x=jx$ for some $j\in J$. But $1-j$ is a unit: it cannot lie in any maximal ideal, because $j$ lies in all of them. Thus $x=0$, a contradiction. Therefore $J^n=0$.

The Chinese remainder theorem gives $R/J\cong {\prod }_{i}R/{\mathfrak{m}}_i$, a finite product of fields. Each quotient $J^i/J^{i+1}$ is an Artinian module over this product, and each field component must be a finite-dimensional vector space; an infinite-dimensional vector space admits a strictly descending chain of subspaces. Consequently every layer has finite composition length. The finite filtrationshows that $R$ itself has finite composition length. A strict inclusion of submodules strictly increases length, so an ascending chain cannot continue indefinitely. Every commutative Artinian ring is therefore Noetherian. This is the Artinian rings are Noetherian result.

For the formal power series ring, let $B=R[[X]]$ with $R$ Noetherian, and let $H$ be any ideal of $B$. For $n\ge 0$ define a coefficient idealThese coefficient ideals of a formal power series ideal satisfy $A_n\subseteq A_{n+1}$, by multiplication by $X$. The ascending chain condition gives $A_n=A_N$ for all $n\ge N$. For each $0\le n\le N$, choose finitely many series $f_{n,j}\in H\cap X^{n}B$ whose coefficients at $X^n$ generate $A_n$.

We claim that these finitely many series generate $H$ as an ordinary ideal. Given $f\in H$, cancel its coefficient at $X^k$ successively. After coefficients below $k$ have vanished, its coefficient at $X^k$ lies in $A_k$. If $k\le N$, use an $R$-linear combination of the $f_{k,j}$. If $k>N$, use a combination of $X^{k-N}{f}_{N,j}$, since $A_k=A_N$. The remainder then belongs to $H\cap X^{k+1}B$.

Collect all the cancellations against each fixed generator. For $n<N$ its multiplier is a polynomial, while the multipliers of the $f_{N,j}$ are well-defined formal power series: at any fixed degree, only finitely many cancellation steps contribute. The remainder has every coefficient zero. ThusThis is a finite sum of ideal generators, rather than merely a topological closure assertion. Since $H$ was arbitrary,This coefficient-cancellation argument proves Noetherianity of a formal power series ring.

The corresponding Artinian assertion is false. For any nonzero ring $R$, the idealsin $R[[X]]$ are strictly decreasing, since $X^n$ has a nonzero coefficient in degree $n$ and no multiple of $X^{n+1}$ does. In particular, a field $k$ is Artinian, but $k[[X]]$ is not. The zero ring is the harmless exception.

A prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ is minimal over $I$ if $I\subseteq \mathfrak{p}$ and no strictly smaller prime contains $I$. An associated prime of a module is an annihilator of an individual nonzero element which happens to be prime. For the quotient module this readswhere ${\mathrm{Ann}}_R(\bar{a})=(I:a)=\{r\in R:ra\in I\}$. This is the annihilator of an individual element, rather than necessarily the annihilator of the whole quotient.

Minimal primes exist because $I$ is proper. First choose a maximal ideal containing $I$. Within the primes contained in it and containing $I$, an intersection of any decreasing chain is again prime. Indeed, if $ab$ is in the intersection and $a$ is absent from one member, then $b$ belongs to that member and to every smaller member; it also belongs to every larger member. The intersection is still proper and contains $I$. Zorn's lemma, applied with reverse inclusion, produces a minimal prime. This proves existence of minimal primes over a proper ideal, even without the Noetherian hypothesis.

Now fix a minimal prime $\mathfrak{p}$ and put $A=R/I$. The localization at a prime ideal $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is nonzero and is a Noetherian local ring. By prime ideal correspondence for localization, its only prime is $\mathfrak{p}{R}_{\mathfrak{p}}/I{R}_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Write this maximal ideal as $\mathfrak{n}$. It is the nilradical; since it is finitely generated and each generator is nilpotent, some power of $\mathfrak{n}$ is zero. Explicitly, if its generators have nilpotence exponents $e_1,\dots ,e_r$, every product of degree $1+{\sum }_i(e_i-1)$ vanishes.

Choose the smallest $s\ge 1$ such that ${\mathfrak{n}}^s=0$, and choose a nonzero element in ${\mathfrak{n}}^{s-1}$; when $\mathfrak{n}=0$, choose $1$. Its annihilator over $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is exactly $\mathfrak{p}{R}_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Represent it as $a/u$ with $u\notin \mathfrak{p}$. Multiplication by the unit $u$ shows that $a/1$ has the same annihilator and remains nonzero.

Let $p_1,\dots ,p_r$ generate $\mathfrak{p}$ in $R$. For each $i$, the equality $p_{i}a/1=0$ supplies $u_i\notin \mathfrak{p}$ such that $u_i{p}_i\bar{a}=0$ in $A$. Put $u={\prod }_i{u}_i$ and $\bar{b}=u\bar{a}$. Its localization is nonzero, so $\bar{b}\ne 0$, and every element of $\mathfrak{p}$ kills it. Conversely, an element outside $\mathfrak{p}$ becomes a unit and cannot kill the nonzero element $\bar{b}/1$. ThereforeThe key step in minimal primes are associated primes is clearing denominators for a finite generating set of $\mathfrak{p}$; that is where Noetherianity is used.

For an embedded associated prime, take $R=k[x,y]$ and $I=(x^2,xy)$. Its radical is $(x)$, so $(x)$ is its unique minimal prime. The nonzero class of $x$ satisfiesIndeed, $rx\in x(x,y)$ is equivalent to $r\in (x,y)$ by cancellation in the polynomial domain. Thus $(x,y)$ is associated but is not minimal, since $(x)⊊(x,y)$. For comparison, ${\mathrm{Ann}}_R(\bar{y})=(x)$, exhibiting the minimal associated prime as well.

An integral extension $R\subseteq T$ means that every element $t\in T$ satisfies a monic polynomial with coefficients in $R$:The Krull dimension is the supremum of the lengths of strict chains of primes:There need not be a finite bound on these lengths.

Here are the prime-ideal facts behind dimension preservation, with their relevant proofs. If a domain $B$ is integral over a subdomain $A$ and $B$ is a field, then $A$ is a field: for $0\ne a\in A$, a monic equation for $a^{-1}\in B$, multiplied by a suitable power of $a$, expresses $a^{-1}$ as an element of $A$. Conversely, an integral domain integral over a field is itself a field: a nonzero element has a polynomial equation with nonzero constant term after removing any factor of the indeterminate, and that equation expresses its inverse. Applied to quotients, these observations show that a prime in an integral extension is maximal if and only if its contraction is maximal.

For the Lying-over theorem, localize $R\subseteq T$ at $S=R\setminus \mathfrak{p}$. The inclusion remains injective and integral, and $S^{-1}T$ is nonzero. Any maximal ideal of $S^{-1}T$ contracts to the unique maximal ideal of $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$, by the field criterion just proved. The prime ideal correspondence for localization then gives a prime of $T$ contracting to $\mathfrak{p}$.

For the Going-up theorem, suppose $\mathfrak{q}$ lies over $\mathfrak{p}$ and $\mathfrak{p}\subseteq {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }$. The quotient inclusion $R/\mathfrak{p}\subseteq T/\mathfrak{q}$ is integral. Apply Lying-over theorem to the prime ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }/\mathfrak{p}$; lifting back gives ${\mathfrak{q}}^{\prime }\supseteq \mathfrak{q}$ contracting to ${\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }$.

For the incomparability theorem for integral extensions, suppose $\mathfrak{q}\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}^{\prime }$ contract to the same $\mathfrak{p}$. After localizing at $R\setminus \mathfrak{p}$, both are maximal ideals, because they lie over the maximal ideal of $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Their inclusion is therefore equality. The bijection between primes under localization gives $\mathfrak{q}={\mathfrak{q}}^{\prime }$.

Now contract a strict chain of primes in $T$. Incomparability theorem for integral extensions ensures that every contraction remains strict, so $\dim T\le \dim R$. Conversely, Lying-over theorem lifts the first member of any finite chain in $R$, and repeated Going-up theorem lifts the remaining members; different contractions ensure a strict chain in $T$. Taking suprema, including the possibility of infinity, givesThis proves that integral extensions preserve Krull dimension.

For the given quotient, put $B=k[Y][X]/(X^2+YX+Y^3)$. The relation is monic in $X$, so monic polynomial division gives a unique representative $a(Y)+b(Y)X$. Thus $k[Y]\hookrightarrow B$ is injective and $B$ is free of rank two as a $k[Y]$-module. In particular, $B$ is integral over $k[Y]$. The one-variable polynomial ring has dimension one: its zero prime is strictly below $(Y)$, and every nonzero prime is maximal because $k[Y]$ is a principal ideal domain. HenceThis is an instance of dimension of a monic plane hypersurface. No irreducibility or algebraic-closure assumption on $k$ is needed; monicity supplies the integral extension in every characteristic.

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.

Work in the domain-classifying site of part (ii), with generic domain $K=a_{J}U$. For finitely presented rings $A$, the object $a_{J}yA$ is an available stage. Tuples of sections of $K$ are locally represented by tuples of actual elements of $A$, because $U\to a_{J}U$ is locally surjective and sheafification preserves finite products. It is therefore enough to prove the requested implication on such representatives.

We first note the empty-cover criterion for the domain-classifying site: $a_{J}yB$ is initial if and only if the finitely presented ring $B$ is the zero ring. One direction is the generating empty cover. Conversely, any nonzero ring has a maximal ideal and hence a homomorphism to a field. That field is a set-based integral domain and defines a point of the classifying topos. The inverse image of $a_{J}yB$ at this point is ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{Ring}}(B,L)$, which is nonempty for the chosen field $L$. It therefore cannot be the inverse image of an initial object. This uses only the ordinary maximal-ideal existence principle externally, not excluded middle in the internal logic.

Suppose $a_1,\dots ,a_n\in A$ represent a tuple lying in the negation of the all-units subobject. Write $t=a_1\cdots a_n$ and consider the finitely presented localization of a ringEvery $a_i$ is invertible in $B$, since $({\prod }_{j\ne i}{a}_j)z$ is an inverse. But the pulled-back tuple still lies in the negation of the all-units subobject. Thus the whole stage $a_{J}yB$ maps into both that subobject and its negation, forcing this stage to be initial. The empty-cover criterion gives $B=0$.

The localization $A[1/t]$ is zero precisely when $t^N=0$ in $A$ for some integer $N\ge 1$, by the equality criterion in localization. Repeated use of the generating zero-product covers now gives a covering familyIndeed, splitting $t^N=t{t}^{N-1}=0$ and inducting first forces $t=0$ locally; splitting the product $a_1\cdots a_n=0$ then forces one $a_i=0$ locally. More formally the two inductions are coherent derivations from the zero-product axiom, so their quotient families belong to the generated topology. The sheaf semantics of disjunction consequently givesThis is the finite-tuple weak-field property of the generic integral domain. The argument is intuitionistically valid inside the topos, although its description of the site uses ordinary external set theory. There is no appeal to preservation of negation by an arbitrary geometric inverse image.

For the converse assertion, let $R$ be any internally nontrivial commutative unital ring satisfying the $n=2$ implication. Assume $xy=0$. If $x$ and $y$ were both units, multiplying by their two inverses would give $0=1$, contradicting nontriviality. ThereforeThe assumed two-variable implication then gives $x=0\vee y=0$. Together with nontriviality this is exactly the internal integral-domain axiom. Hence a nontrivial ring satisfying the two-variable case is an integral domain.

For example, the ordinary integral domain $\mathbb{Z}$ fails the one-variable implication at $2$. This does not contradict the generic result: the displayed implication uses negation and is non-coherent, so it need not survive the inverse image that classifies an arbitrary set-based domain.

An absolute value on a field is a map $|\cdot |:K\to {\mathbb{R}}_{\ge 0}$ satisfyingA Non-Archimedean absolute value satisfies the stronger ultrametric inequality $|x+y|\le \max (|x|,|y|)$. Two equivalent absolute values induce the same topology, or equivalently differ by a positive real power. The trivial absolute value on a field takes value one on every nonzero element. The rational classification and the compactness criterion below concern nontrivial absolute values on a field; the trivial exceptions are given explicitly.

Here the additive valuation has real values. For any $c>1$, the mutually inverse constructions areMultiplicativity becomes $v(xy)=v(x)+v(y)$, and the ultrametric inequality becomes $v(x+y)\ge \min (v(x),v(y))$. Equivalent real-valued valuations differ by positive scaling, so these constructions give the required bijection on equivalence classes. Changing $c$ merely rescales the valuation.

To justify the topology formulation, $|a|<1$ is equivalent to $a^n\to 0$. Thus two nontrivial absolute values on a field with the same topology give the same strict positivity relation on their additive valuations. Fix $t$ with $v_1(t)>0$. Comparing the signs of $m{v}_j(t)-n{v}_j(x)=v_j(t^m{x}^{-n})$, for integers $m$ and positive integers $n$, shows that $v_1(x)/v_1(t)$ and $v_2(x)/v_2(t)$ have identical rational cuts. They are equal, proving $v_2=c{v}_1$ for $c>0$. If one allows valuations in arbitrary ordered groups, the nontrivial classes arising this way are precisely rank-one valuations: higher-rank ordered value groups do not embed order-preservingly in $\mathbb{R}$.

For a nontrivial Non-Archimedean absolute value on $\mathbb{Q}$, $|n|\le 1$ for every integer $n$, by repeatedly applying the ultrametric inequality to sums of ones. Some prime $p$ must have $|p|<1$, otherwise prime factorization and multiplicativity would make every nonzero rational have value one. There is at most one such prime: if both $|p|,|q|<1$, a Bezout identity $ap+bq=1$ contradicts the ultrametric inequality. If $p\nmid m$, another Bezout identity gives $|m|=1$. HenceThis proves the non-Archimedean part of the Ostrowski theorem. If the trivial absolute value on a field is admitted, it supplies one additional class and is not equivalent to any p-adic absolute value.

The valuation ring, its maximal ideal, and its residue field areSuppose the absolute value on a field is nontrivial and $R$ is compact. The ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ is an open additive subgroup of $R$, so $k$ is discrete; as a continuous image of a compact space it is finite. The subgroup $\mathfrak{m}$ is also closed, since all its cosets are open, and is therefore compact. The continuous function $|\cdot |$ attains a maximum $\rho$ on $\mathfrak{m}$, with $0<\rho <1$. Choose $\pi$ with $|\pi |=\rho$. Then the positive values of $v=-\log |\cdot |$ have least element $-\log \rho$. Division with remainder in this additive subgroup of $\mathbb{R}$ proves $v(K^{\times })=v(\pi )\mathbb{Z}$. Thus $K$ is a discretely valued field and $\pi$ is a uniformizer.

Conversely, normalize the discrete valuation by $v(\pi )=1$. If $k$ has $q$ elements, $R/{\pi }^{N}R$ has $q^N$ elements. Each quotient therefore supplies a finite cover by balls of radius tending to zero. The ring $R$ is a closed subset of the complete metric field $K$, hence complete and totally bounded, so it is compact. Equivalently,This is the local compactness criterion for a complete non-Archimedean field, with nontriviality understood. For the trivial absolute value on a field, $R=K$ has the discrete topology and is compact exactly when $K$ is a finite field; its value group is zero rather than a nonzero discrete cyclic group.

An integral extension $R\subseteq T$ means every $t\in T$ satisfies a monic polynomialTo prove the Lying-over theorem, localize at $S=R\setminus P$. The injection $R_P\hookrightarrow S^{-1}T$ remains injective, and $S^{-1}T$ is integral over $R_P$: a monic relation for $t$ divided by suitable powers of $s$ gives one for $t/s$. This is a nonzero ring, so choose a maximal ideal $M$ of it.

The contraction of $M$ to $R_P$ is maximal. To see this directly, a field integral over a subring forces that subring to be a field. For nonzero $a$ in the subring, $a^{-1}$ is integral; multiply its monic equation of degree $d$ by $a^{d-1}$ to express $a^{-1}$ as a polynomial in $a$ with coefficients in the subring. Apply this to the integral extensionSince $R_P$ is a local ring with unique maximal ideal $P{R}_P$, we obtain $M\cap R_P=P{R}_P$.

Contract $M$ to $T$, obtaining a prime ideal $Q$. Its contraction to $R$ is the contraction of $P{R}_P$, namely $P$. Thus