1

Let $B\cong k[T_1, \dots T_l]/J$ be a finitely generated $k$-algebra which is possibly integral domain. $T_1 + J , \dots T_l + J$ are finite generators for $B$.

Let $S \subseteq B$ be any multiplicative closed set. I think that in general the finite typeness of $S^{-1}B$ over $k$ is false.

My question is, then how about the case that $S$ is of the form $S= \{ 1, g' , \dots, g'^{n} , \dots \}$ for some $g'\in B$? $B_{g'}$ is also finitely generated $k$-algebra? If so, then what whould be (finite) generators for $B_{g'}$? If this is also not true in general, then when?

EDIT : My first trial is as follows.

Let's denote $g' = g+ J$ for some $g\in R:=k[T_1, \dots T_l]$. Consider multiplicative closed set $D:=\{ 1,g ,g^2 ,\dots \}$ and its image $\bar{D} $ in $B= R/J$. Then we have $D^{-1}R/D^{-1}J \cong \bar{D}^{-1}(B=R/J) = B_{g'}$ ( C.f. Localization commutes with quotient ). Since $D^{-1}R = R_g = R[X]/(gX-1) = k[T_1,\dots T_l , X]/(gX-1)$ is finitely generated over $k$ and the homomorphic image of finitely generated algebra is itself finitely generated, $B_{g'}$ is finitely generated over $k$. And I guess that one of finite generators for $B_{g'}$ is $\{ (T_1 + (gX-1))+ D^{-1}J , \dots (T_l + (gX-1))+ D^{-1}J, (X + (gX-1))+ D^{-1}J \}$

True? Or is there more simpler form of generators?

Can anyone help?

hm2020
  • 10,015
Plantation
  • 3,710
  • Yes. You are right!. Thanks for pointing out. For now, I can't calculate $B_{g}=(k[t_1, \dots t_l]/J)[x]/(gx-1)$. What theorems may we use? And how can we find concrete generators? P.s. I think this is my first time seeing this kind of pattern. – Plantation Jan 16 '24 at 03:10
  • O.K. I edited my question so that my first trial is included. True? Are my trial following your intentions well? Or is there more simpler choice of generators adapted to your intention ? – Plantation Jan 16 '24 at 04:36
  • 1
    You must define an isomorphism $B_g \cong R:=B[t]/(tg-1)$. In the ring $R$ it follows the element $t$ has the property that $tg=1$, hence the element $g$ has an inverse in $R$. Are you familiar with the "universal property" of $B_g$? Can you use this property to define an isomorphism? – hm2020 Jan 16 '24 at 15:25
  • O.K. I will try to it. Thanks for pointing out~:) – Plantation Jan 16 '24 at 23:13

2 Answers2

2

Question: "Let's denote $g' = g+ J$ for some $g\in R:=k[T_1, \dots T_l]$. Consider multiplicative closed set $D:=\{ 1,g ,g^2 ,\dots \}$ and its image $\bar{D} $ in $B= R/J$. Then we have $D^{-1}R/D^{-1}J \cong \bar{D}^{-1}(B=R/J) = B_{g'}$ ( C.f. Localization commutes with quotient ). Since $D^{-1}R = R_g = R[X]/(gX-1) = k[T_1,\dots T_l , X]/(gX-1)$ is finitely generated over $k$ and the homomorphic image of finitely generated algebra is itself finitely generated, $B_{g'}$ is finitely generated over $k$. And I guess that one of finite generators for $B_{g'}$ is $\{ (T_1 + (gX-1))+ D^{-1}J , \dots (T_l + (gX-1))+ D^{-1}J, (X + (gX-1))+ D^{-1}J \}$

True? Or is there more simpler form of generators?

Can anyone help?"

Answer: Parts of this has been proved elsewhere on this site, here is another elementary and explicit proof of this fact that does not use the universal property of localization:

Lemma: There is an isomorphism of rings $R_g \cong A:=R[t]/(tg-1)$ for any $g\in R$.

Proof define a map $\phi': R[t] \rightarrow R_g$ by $\phi'(t):=1/g$. This map satisfies $\phi'(tg-1)=0$ hence we get an induced map $\phi: R[t]/(tg-1) \rightarrow R_g$. Define a map $\rho': R \rightarrow R[t]/(tg-1)$ by $\rho'(a):=a$. Since $tg=1$ in $A$ it follows the element $g$ is a unit, hence there is (by the universal property of localization) a canonical map $\rho: R_g \rightarrow A$. Let us define this explicitly and prove it is well defined.

Define $\rho(a/g^n):=at^n$. If $a/g^n \cong b/g^m$ there is an integer $k\geq 0$ with

$$ g^{k+m}a = g^{k+n}b $$

in $R$. Using $\rho$ we get a similar equality in $A$. Since $g$ is a unit in $A$ it follows

$$ t^k g^{k+m}a= t^k g^{k+n}b $$

hence ( in $A$ )

$$ g^m a = g^n b.$$

we get

$$t^m g^m a = t^m g^n b$$

hence $a=g^nt^m b$.

We get

$$t^n a= t^ng^n t^m b=t^mb$$

and it follows $\rho(a/g^n)=t^na=t^mb=\rho(b/g^n)$.

Hence the map is well defined. You may check $\rho$ and $\phi$ are inverses of each other and it follows $\rho$ is an isomorphism of rings.

Hence for any ring $R$ and any element $g\in R$ it follows $R_g$ is a fintely generated $R$-algebra since $R_g \cong R[t]/(tg-1)$ is generated by one element $\overline{t}$.

As mentioned in the comments: If $R:=k[t]$ and if $S:=R-\{(0)\}$ it follows $S^{-1}(R) \cong k(x)$ is not a finitely generated $R$-algebra for the following reason:

Assume there is a finite set of generators $f_i/g_i \in k(x)$ for $i=1,..,n$. Let $g:=\prod g_i, g(i):=g/g_i$. It follows $f_i/g_i=F_i/g$ with $F_i:=f_ig(i)$. Let $h$ be a polynomial that is relatively prime to $g$. A linear combination

$$ \sum_i a_i(f_i/g_i) =(\sum_i a_iF_i)/g $$

can never equal $1/h$ since $g$ and $h$ are relatively prime. Hence $k(x)$ does not have a finite set of generators over $k[x]$.

@Plantation - you should always define maps between commutative rings "constructively". This means if $A:=k[x_1,..,x_n]/I$ is the quotient of a polynomial ring in a finite set of variables $x_i$ by an ideal $I:=(h_1,..,h_l)$, a map of k-algebras $f:A \rightarrow B$ is defined by giving a set of elements $f(x_i):=b_i \in B$, such that for any element $h \in I$ it follows $h(b_i)=0$ for all $h \in I$.

By this I mean the following: A map $f$ induce a map

$$F: k[x_1,..,x_n] \rightarrow B$$

defined by $F(x_i):=b_i \in B$. Since the map $F$ sends the ideal $I$ to zero in $B$ it follows

$$(*) F(h_j(x_1,..,x_n)):=h_j(b_1,..,b_n)=0$$

for the generators $h_1,..,h_l$ of the ideal $I$. Hence you must define a map $F$ such that the equations $(*)$ are fulfilled.

Plantation
  • 3,710
hm2020
  • 10,015
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Xander Henderson Jan 21 '24 at 14:19
2

$B$ is finitely generated $k$-algebra implies $\exists b_1,…,b_n\in B$ such that $B=k[b_1,…,b_n]$. Then clearly $B_g=S^{-1}B=k[b_1,…,b_n,1/g]$, where $S=\{g^n\}_{n\geq 0}$. Let $r/s\in B_g$. Then $$r/s=\big( \sum c_\vec{k}b_1^{k_1}\cdots b_n^{k_n}\big)/g^m= \sum c_\vec{k}b_1^{k_1}\cdots b_n^{k_n} (1/g)^m\in k[b_1,…,b_n,1/g].$$ Thus $B_g$ is finitely generated $k$-algebra.

user264745
  • 4,595
  • 1
    Caveat: homomorphism $f:A\to S^{-1}A$ defined by $f(x)=x/1$ is not generally injective. – user264745 Nov 01 '24 at 01:46
  • Q.1. Why do you mention $r/s=\big( \sum c_\vec{k}b_1^{k_1}\cdots b_n^{k_n}\big)/g^m= \sum c_\vec{k}b_1^{k_1}\cdots b_n^{k_n} (1/g)^m\in k[b_1,…,b_n,1/g]$ ? Because it is to show that $B_g=k[b_1,…,b_n,1/g]$ ? Q.2. And why do you mention the Caveat? – Plantation Nov 01 '24 at 03:31
  • 1
    Answer to your first question Q.1. is yes. Answer to your second question Q.2. if $B$ is not integral domain, then we might have $x/1=y/1$ for $x\neq y$. In particular, let say $b_1/1=b_2/1$. Then $B_g=k[b_2,…,b_n,1/g]$. So $B_g$ is finitely generated $k$-algebra. Basically ${b_1,…,b_n,1/g}$ is not least generators of $B_g$. – user264745 Nov 01 '24 at 09:49
  • Thanks. And I am still not understand completely why you divide cases $B$ is integral or not. I think that your argument in answer works in general regardless of integrality of $B$ or not. What is the purpose of the comment that deals separately when B is not an integral domain? What your final sentence "Basically ~~ is not least generators of $B_g$" exactly means? Can you explain more friendly? Anyway thank you. – Plantation Nov 01 '24 at 10:48
  • 1
    My intention was not to divide cases into domain and not domain, but rather show that we only care about if there are finite number of generators. It may not be minimum number of generators that generates $B_g$. My first comment highlight that two generator $b_i/1$ and $b_j/1$ could be equal for $i\neq j$, but we don’t really care. – user264745 Nov 01 '24 at 11:08
  • 1
    Aha. O.K. Thank you. Vote +1 ! :) – Plantation Nov 01 '24 at 11:17