A Note On Valuations, P-Primes and The Holomorphy Subring of A Commutative Ring
A Note On Valuations, P-Primes and The Holomorphy Subring of A Commutative Ring
A Note On Valuations, P-Primes and The Holomorphy Subring of A Commutative Ring
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS
Volume 20, Number 1, Winter 1990
K.G. VALENTE
251
252 K.G. VALENTE
Let R possess a large Jacobson radical, J(R). That is, for every
r ∈ R, there exists an s ∈ R with r + s ∈ U (R) and rs ∈ J(R). In [2],
J. Grater proved
Further, in [6] the author points out that the M-valuation guaranteed
us by this proposition is nothing more than a slight modification of the
original (possibly non-Manis) valuation. Specifically, we have
is an M-valuation of R.
Clearly the construction described in this proposition gives A(v ) =
A(v) and p(v ) = p(v).
C k(C) = qf(R/I(v))
φ(I)
R
(R
∩ A, R ∩ m(A)) = (A, m(A)),
PROOF. For (A, m(A)) ∈ Val(F ), let v (A) be the valuation which is
determined by A. Setting v = v (A)|R , we have v is a valuation of R
and, by Proposition 1.4, B(v) = R ∩ A and q(v) = R ∩ m(A) form an
M-valuation pair of R. Thus our mapping is well-defined.
Continuing with the notation above, we employ a bit of abuse and
let v denote the M-valuation determined by (R ∩ A, R ∩ m(A)). Recall
we know that
v (A)(r), for r ∈
/ (R : m(A)),
v(r) =
∞, for r ∈ (R : m(A)).
A NOTE ON VALUATIONS 255
ρ0 (A, P ) = (R ∩ A, R ∩ P ).
256 K.G. VALENTE
R ∩ P = {x/u | x ∈ R ∩ P, u ∈ (R ∩ P )\(R ∩ m(A))}.
Now, with our identifications, R ∩ P = P.
Let (B, T ) be a 0-prime of R with B = (B, q) and let (A, m(A)) be
the unique valuation of F with B = R ∩ A as well as q = R ∩ m(A). By
definition we may think of T as an ordering of A having Supp(T ) :=
T ∩ (−T ) = q. Thus T induces an ordering, T , of qf(B/q). Now, via
the natural isomorphism from qf(B/q) to k(A), the set
P := {a ∈ A | a + m(A) ∈ T }
R
F
πL
RL
k(RL ) ∼
= F (R, B, q)
(A, m(A))
π π
L Ā
ρ
(B, q) (A, m(A)) k(A) ∼
= k(A)
(I, P )
π π
L
Ā
ρ
(J, Q) (I, P ) πĀ (πA (I), πA (P ))
LEMMA 2.4. Q̃ = P .
for any prime number n (see [5, Proposition 1.5]). Further |REL(Q̃, n)| =
|REL(Q, n)| (see [5, Claim 3 of Theorem 2.3]), and, since (A, P ) is a
p-prime of F , we may conclude that |REL(Q, n)| = n for any prime
number n. Thus we have proved
PROOF. Fix (B, Q) ∈ Pp (R) with B = (B, q). By Lemma 2.2, there
exists a valuation subring A of F with B = R ∩ A and q = R ∩ m(A).
Also, J = I(B, Q), together with Q, is an M-valuation pair of B, and
(B : Q) = q. As above, F (B, J, Q) ∼
= k(A) so that we may view (J,ˆ Q̂)
as a valuation of k(A). Hence, there exists a unique valuation subring
C of F with C ⊆ A, Jˆ = πA (C) and Q̂ = πA (m(C)).
Now (R ∩ C, R ∩ m(C)) is an M-valuation pair of B. Let j ∈ J. Then
j + m(A) ∈ Jˆ = πA (C). So j ∈ C and J ⊆ R ∩ C. Similarly we have
Q = J ∩ m(C), and, by maximality, (J, Q) = (R ∩ C, R ∩ m(C)).
We consider (A, m(C)). It follows that I(A, m(C)) = C, Ĉ = πA (C)
= πA (m(C)). So dim(Ĉ/pĈ) = dim(J/p
and m(C) ˆ J)
ˆ < ∞ over Z/pZ.
Also, following the proof above, |REL(Q, n)| = |REL(m(C), n)| = n for
any prime number, n. Thus (A, m(C)) is a p-prime of F which restricts
to (B, Q) in R. By construction we see that (A, m(C)) satisfies (∗ ) and
our map is surjective.
To see that ρp is injective we let (A(i), P (i)) be in Pp∗ (F ), for i = 1, 2,
such that ρp (A(1), P (2)) = ρp (A(2), P (2)). We know immediately
that A(1) = A(2) = A and, letting J = I(R ∩ A, R ∩ P (1)) and
I(i) = I(A, P (i)), for i = 1, 2, R ∩ I(1) = J = R ∩ I(2). Also, via
our past work, πA (I(1)) = Jˆ = πA (I(2)) (as valuation subrings of
k(A)), and, consequently, P (1) = P (2). This completes the proof.
REFERENCES