For a commutative ring and a multiplicative subset containing , the universal property of localization specifies a pair with a unital ring homomorphism, such that every , , is a unit, and any unital ring homomorphism into a commutative ring that sends to units factors uniquely through . Thus there is a unique satisfying . The property determines the pair up to a unique compatible isomorphism.
For existence, take pairs and declare
The extra multiplier is essential when has zero divisors. This is an equivalence relation: for transitivity, multiply the two cross-multiplication equations by appropriate denominators and add them, using the product of their annihilating multipliers. Write the class as and define
Multiplying the defining equivalence equations verifies that these operations are well defined. They give a commutative ring, and has inverse . The required map is necessarily
It is well defined because applying to and cancelling the units equates the two images. Its addition and multiplication laws follow directly from the fraction formulas. This establishes existence and the universal property of localization. If , this construction gives the zero ring, which is allowed as a localization.
For a prime ideal , its complement is multiplicatively closed, and localization at a prime ideal means . The map
is well defined and surjective, with kernel of a ring homomorphism : a numerator has zero image exactly when it belongs to . Since is an integral domain, its field of fractions is a nonzero field, so is a proper maximal ideal. Every fraction with is a unit, with inverse . Every fraction with belongs to this proper ideal and cannot be a unit. Thus the nonunits are exactly , and every proper ideal lies within it. Consequently
Now suppose each is reduced. If is nilpotent, its image is nilpotent in every , hence is zero. If , its annihilator is a proper ideal, so choose a maximal ideal containing it. Maximal ideals in a commutative ring are prime ideals. The vanishing criterion in a module localization would give for some . But then , a contradiction. Hence is reduced. This is reducedness is detected by prime localizations; no finiteness hypothesis is needed.
The stronger local-domain condition does not force to be an integral domain. Take for a field . Its only prime ideals are and : a prime ideal must contain one of the orthogonal idempotents and , and the remaining quotient is the field . At , inverting kills the second component, so ; similarly . Both localizations are integral domains, but
is a product of nonzero elements in . Therefore the answer is no, as illustrated by domain prime localizations do not imply a domain.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.