Let $k$ be a ring, let $A$ be a $k$-algebra. The universal derivation $\Omega_{A/k}$ is the (unique) $k$-module representing the functor of the $k$-derivations of $A$; suppose that $\Omega_{A/k}=0$. If $k$ is an algebraically closed field, we can deduce that, for every maximal ideal $m$, holds $m/m^2=0$. In what settings this is this true? I would say yes for $k$ a generic field, but I don't understand if the arguments we used in the course to get this result are valid when $k$ is just a ring. Thanks in advance for any clarify; also, any reference that could help is welcome
-
1There are some silly examples such as $A$ being a field, where the conclusion holds in any case (although the hypotheses do not have to be true always) – Aitor Iribar Lopez Jan 12 '22 at 21:39
-
2Saying "let $k$ be a ring" is almost as bad as saying "let $1$ be a variable". If you're looking for a letter for an arbitrary ring, $R$ is a good choice. – KReiser Jan 12 '22 at 22:00
-
1@KReiser I believe this insane practice is sometimes promoted by homotopy theorists, although OP doesn't appear to fall under that heading. – Tabes Bridges Jan 13 '22 at 00:02
-
1hi Dr. Scotti! do you have any assumptions on $k$ or $A$? (in particular, is $k$ characteristic $0$, and is $A$ an integral domain?) – Atticus Stonestrom Jan 13 '22 at 00:22
-
1Yes @AtticusStonestrom I know that $k\subseteq A$ and that both $A,k$ are integral domains. I cannot make assumptions over the characteristic though. – Dr. Scotti Jan 13 '22 at 09:42
1 Answers
If $k$ is not a field, this may be false. The classic example is the localization $\mathbb{Z}_2$ as a $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra, which has many maximal ideals distinct from their squares ($(p)$ for any odd prime), but $\Omega_{\mathbb{Z}_2/\mathbb{Z}}=0$ by the quotient rule. (See Vakil, The Rising Sea, example 21.2.8.)
For the field case, characteristic zero or $A$ finite-dimensional is sufficient, but probably not quite necessary. If this reminds you of separability, it should: the key obstruction is precisely an inseparable extension. The argument below is inspired by the only-vaguely-related answer to Kähler differentials and ordinary differentials. Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra, proves the local ring case (via the conormal exact sequence) in Corollary 16.13.
Suppose $\dim_k{(A)}<\infty$. Then $A$ is Artinian, and in particular $A$ is a product of field extensions of $k$; say $A=\prod_a{K_a}$. Maximal ideals of $A$ are precisely $0\times\prod_{a\neq b}{K_a}$ for varying $b$, which are their own square, and so $m/m^2$ always vanishes.
Now suppose $\mathrm{char}{(k)}=0$, but $A$ is not a product of fields extending $k$. Consider a "transcendence basis" $S$ of $A$ over $k$: a minimal $S\subseteq A$ that is algebraically independent over $k$ and such that $\dim_{k(S)}(A)<\infty$. For each $s\in S$, there exists a $k$-derivation $\delta$ on $k(S)$ such that $\delta(s)=1$. Since $A$ is algebraic over $k(S)$, $\delta$ extends to $A$. (See Derivations and algebraic extensions in characteristic zero; neither existence nor uniqueness holds in characteristic $p$.) Thus $\Omega_{A/k}\neq0$.
A counterexample for the positive-characteristic scenario is $A=\mathbb{F}_2[\{x_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}]/(\{x_j-x_{j+1}^4\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}})$. To compute $\Omega_{A/\mathbb{F}_2}$, apply Vakil's "Key Fact" 21.2.3, which says that $$\Omega_{A/\mathbb{F}_2}=\left(\bigoplus_{j\in\mathbb{N}}{A\,dx_j}\right)/(\{dx_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}})=0$$ Yet $(\{x_j\}_{\in\mathbb{N}})$ is a maximal ideal differing from its square.
- 10,173
-
1I think you should write "if $k$ is not a field, this may be false" – Aitor Iribar Lopez Jan 13 '22 at 03:24
-
-
1@JacobManaker how is your last 'counterexample' a counterexample? That ring is $ S = A/f $ where $ A $ is a polynomial ring, so isn't $ \Omega_{S/k} = (S dx + S dy) / df $ and $ df = 0 $ so it's just $ S dx + S dy $ which is not the zero module.. – Cranium Clamp Jan 13 '22 at 21:07
-
-
-
1@JacobManaker nope, unfortunately I think you're still not correct. This time your polynomials are $ f,g $ with derivatives $ df = x^2 dx, dg = y^2 dy $. So in the quotient $ (Sdx + Sdy)/(df, dg) $, elements like $ xdx + ydy $ remain non-zero, right? – Cranium Clamp Jan 14 '22 at 20:00
-
@CraniumClamp: Hmm. I thought that $x^2$ and $y^2$ were units in $A$, so that $dx\in(df)$ and $dy\in(dg)$. But I'm no longer convinced that such is the case. – Jacob Manaker Jan 14 '22 at 20:04
-
@JacobManaker To say that $ x^2 $ is a unit in $ A $ (your $ A $, which I called $ S $, just to avoid confusion) is to say that the ideal $ (r = x^3 - y^2, s = x^2 - y^3, t = x^2) $ is the unit ideal in $ F_2[x,y] $. That's impossible, simply either by (I) degree reasons or (II) $ ur + vs + wt = 1 $ implies $ 0=1 $ by evaluating at $ x =y =0 $. – Cranium Clamp Jan 14 '22 at 20:12
-
Just for the record, I am largely ignorant about positive characteristic as well, so I'm interested to know what can actually happen. I upvoted your answer for the first half. – Cranium Clamp Jan 14 '22 at 20:14
-
-
For the sake of future readers, I'm marking here that I changed the counterexample again. – Jacob Manaker Jan 14 '22 at 22:56