When is a map of local rings finite?












0














Let $A,B$ be Noetherian local rings, and let $A to B$ be a ring homomorphism such that the induced map $operatorname{Spec} B to operatorname{Spec} A$ is surjective and quasifinite (of finite type and has finite fibers). Is it necessarily true that $B$ is finite over $A$?



What I know so far:




  • The usual counterexample to finiteness of quasifinite morphisms is given by taking $A = k[[x]]$, $B = k((x))$, and $A to B$ to be the obvious inclusion map, but this counterexample fails to satisfy the surjectivity requirement.

  • One approach is to try to show that the map $operatorname{Spec} B to operatorname{Spec} A$ is universally closed, because universally closed affine maps are integral. By https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0205, it suffices to show that the pulled-back map $mathbb{A}_B^n to mathbb{A}_A^n$ is closed for every $n$. The surjectivity assumption implies that this is true for $n = 0$, but I'm not sure how to prove closedness for $n > 0$.






algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra affine-schemes local-rings







share|cite|improve this question



























    0














    Let $A,B$ be Noetherian local rings, and let $A to B$ be a ring homomorphism such that the induced map $operatorname{Spec} B to operatorname{Spec} A$ is surjective and quasifinite (of finite type and has finite fibers). Is it necessarily true that $B$ is finite over $A$?



    What I know so far:




    • The usual counterexample to finiteness of quasifinite morphisms is given by taking $A = k[[x]]$, $B = k((x))$, and $A to B$ to be the obvious inclusion map, but this counterexample fails to satisfy the surjectivity requirement.

    • One approach is to try to show that the map $operatorname{Spec} B to operatorname{Spec} A$ is universally closed, because universally closed affine maps are integral. By https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0205, it suffices to show that the pulled-back map $mathbb{A}_B^n to mathbb{A}_A^n$ is closed for every $n$. The surjectivity assumption implies that this is true for $n = 0$, but I'm not sure how to prove closedness for $n > 0$.






    algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra affine-schemes local-rings







    share|cite|improve this question

























      0












      0








      0


      1





      Let $A,B$ be Noetherian local rings, and let $A to B$ be a ring homomorphism such that the induced map $operatorname{Spec} B to operatorname{Spec} A$ is surjective and quasifinite (of finite type and has finite fibers). Is it necessarily true that $B$ is finite over $A$?



      What I know so far:




      • The usual counterexample to finiteness of quasifinite morphisms is given by taking $A = k[[x]]$, $B = k((x))$, and $A to B$ to be the obvious inclusion map, but this counterexample fails to satisfy the surjectivity requirement.

      • One approach is to try to show that the map $operatorname{Spec} B to operatorname{Spec} A$ is universally closed, because universally closed affine maps are integral. By https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0205, it suffices to show that the pulled-back map $mathbb{A}_B^n to mathbb{A}_A^n$ is closed for every $n$. The surjectivity assumption implies that this is true for $n = 0$, but I'm not sure how to prove closedness for $n > 0$.






      algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra affine-schemes local-rings







      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $A,B$ be Noetherian local rings, and let $A to B$ be a ring homomorphism such that the induced map $operatorname{Spec} B to operatorname{Spec} A$ is surjective and quasifinite (of finite type and has finite fibers). Is it necessarily true that $B$ is finite over $A$?



      What I know so far:




      • The usual counterexample to finiteness of quasifinite morphisms is given by taking $A = k[[x]]$, $B = k((x))$, and $A to B$ to be the obvious inclusion map, but this counterexample fails to satisfy the surjectivity requirement.

      • One approach is to try to show that the map $operatorname{Spec} B to operatorname{Spec} A$ is universally closed, because universally closed affine maps are integral. By https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0205, it suffices to show that the pulled-back map $mathbb{A}_B^n to mathbb{A}_A^n$ is closed for every $n$. The surjectivity assumption implies that this is true for $n = 0$, but I'm not sure how to prove closedness for $n > 0$.






      algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra affine-schemes local-rings




      algebraic-geometry commutative-algebra affine-schemes local-rings






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 4 at 10:28









      Ashvin SwaminathanAshvin Swaminathan

      1,576520




      1,576520






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          Consider $k[t]subset k[u]$, $tmapsto u^2$. Then, $t-1mapsto u^2-1=(u-1)(u+1)$. Let $A$ be the localization of $k[t]$ at the maximal ideal $(t-1)$ and $B$ be the localization of $k[u]$ at the maximal ideal $(u-1)$. Then, $Ato B$ satisfies all your requirements, but not finite.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for the helpful response, but I did your example and got that it was finite. Your claim seems to be that, for example, the projection of a parabola $x=y^2-y$ onto the $x$-axis fails to be finite if one localizes the parabola at the origin $x=y=0$. But clearly $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is finite over $k[[x]]$ with basis $(1,y)$.
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 15:39












          • No, it is not finite. The integral closure of $A$ in the fraction field of $B$ is semilocal and not local, since there are two points above $t=1$.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:04










          • Thanks, just to confirm, are you saying that in my comment, $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is not finite over $k[[x]]$, or are you saying my comment is actually different from your counterexample?
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 17:53






          • 1




            No, your case is different from mine. First, an application of Weirstrass preparation theorem will tell you that if $A$ is complete (for example $A=k[[x]]$), then quasifinite is finite. If you took your example over $k[x]$ localized at say $(x-1)$ (not powerseries) and localize $k[x,y]/(x-y^2+y)$ at one of the roots of $y^2-y-1$, you will have a quasifinite non-finite extension as you want.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:59











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061498%2fwhen-is-a-map-of-local-rings-finite%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          Consider $k[t]subset k[u]$, $tmapsto u^2$. Then, $t-1mapsto u^2-1=(u-1)(u+1)$. Let $A$ be the localization of $k[t]$ at the maximal ideal $(t-1)$ and $B$ be the localization of $k[u]$ at the maximal ideal $(u-1)$. Then, $Ato B$ satisfies all your requirements, but not finite.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for the helpful response, but I did your example and got that it was finite. Your claim seems to be that, for example, the projection of a parabola $x=y^2-y$ onto the $x$-axis fails to be finite if one localizes the parabola at the origin $x=y=0$. But clearly $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is finite over $k[[x]]$ with basis $(1,y)$.
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 15:39












          • No, it is not finite. The integral closure of $A$ in the fraction field of $B$ is semilocal and not local, since there are two points above $t=1$.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:04










          • Thanks, just to confirm, are you saying that in my comment, $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is not finite over $k[[x]]$, or are you saying my comment is actually different from your counterexample?
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 17:53






          • 1




            No, your case is different from mine. First, an application of Weirstrass preparation theorem will tell you that if $A$ is complete (for example $A=k[[x]]$), then quasifinite is finite. If you took your example over $k[x]$ localized at say $(x-1)$ (not powerseries) and localize $k[x,y]/(x-y^2+y)$ at one of the roots of $y^2-y-1$, you will have a quasifinite non-finite extension as you want.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:59
















          1














          Consider $k[t]subset k[u]$, $tmapsto u^2$. Then, $t-1mapsto u^2-1=(u-1)(u+1)$. Let $A$ be the localization of $k[t]$ at the maximal ideal $(t-1)$ and $B$ be the localization of $k[u]$ at the maximal ideal $(u-1)$. Then, $Ato B$ satisfies all your requirements, but not finite.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for the helpful response, but I did your example and got that it was finite. Your claim seems to be that, for example, the projection of a parabola $x=y^2-y$ onto the $x$-axis fails to be finite if one localizes the parabola at the origin $x=y=0$. But clearly $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is finite over $k[[x]]$ with basis $(1,y)$.
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 15:39












          • No, it is not finite. The integral closure of $A$ in the fraction field of $B$ is semilocal and not local, since there are two points above $t=1$.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:04










          • Thanks, just to confirm, are you saying that in my comment, $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is not finite over $k[[x]]$, or are you saying my comment is actually different from your counterexample?
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 17:53






          • 1




            No, your case is different from mine. First, an application of Weirstrass preparation theorem will tell you that if $A$ is complete (for example $A=k[[x]]$), then quasifinite is finite. If you took your example over $k[x]$ localized at say $(x-1)$ (not powerseries) and localize $k[x,y]/(x-y^2+y)$ at one of the roots of $y^2-y-1$, you will have a quasifinite non-finite extension as you want.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:59














          1












          1








          1






          Consider $k[t]subset k[u]$, $tmapsto u^2$. Then, $t-1mapsto u^2-1=(u-1)(u+1)$. Let $A$ be the localization of $k[t]$ at the maximal ideal $(t-1)$ and $B$ be the localization of $k[u]$ at the maximal ideal $(u-1)$. Then, $Ato B$ satisfies all your requirements, but not finite.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Consider $k[t]subset k[u]$, $tmapsto u^2$. Then, $t-1mapsto u^2-1=(u-1)(u+1)$. Let $A$ be the localization of $k[t]$ at the maximal ideal $(t-1)$ and $B$ be the localization of $k[u]$ at the maximal ideal $(u-1)$. Then, $Ato B$ satisfies all your requirements, but not finite.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 4 at 14:57









          MohanMohan

          11.6k1817




          11.6k1817












          • Thanks for the helpful response, but I did your example and got that it was finite. Your claim seems to be that, for example, the projection of a parabola $x=y^2-y$ onto the $x$-axis fails to be finite if one localizes the parabola at the origin $x=y=0$. But clearly $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is finite over $k[[x]]$ with basis $(1,y)$.
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 15:39












          • No, it is not finite. The integral closure of $A$ in the fraction field of $B$ is semilocal and not local, since there are two points above $t=1$.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:04










          • Thanks, just to confirm, are you saying that in my comment, $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is not finite over $k[[x]]$, or are you saying my comment is actually different from your counterexample?
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 17:53






          • 1




            No, your case is different from mine. First, an application of Weirstrass preparation theorem will tell you that if $A$ is complete (for example $A=k[[x]]$), then quasifinite is finite. If you took your example over $k[x]$ localized at say $(x-1)$ (not powerseries) and localize $k[x,y]/(x-y^2+y)$ at one of the roots of $y^2-y-1$, you will have a quasifinite non-finite extension as you want.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:59


















          • Thanks for the helpful response, but I did your example and got that it was finite. Your claim seems to be that, for example, the projection of a parabola $x=y^2-y$ onto the $x$-axis fails to be finite if one localizes the parabola at the origin $x=y=0$. But clearly $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is finite over $k[[x]]$ with basis $(1,y)$.
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 15:39












          • No, it is not finite. The integral closure of $A$ in the fraction field of $B$ is semilocal and not local, since there are two points above $t=1$.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:04










          • Thanks, just to confirm, are you saying that in my comment, $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is not finite over $k[[x]]$, or are you saying my comment is actually different from your counterexample?
            – Ashvin Swaminathan
            Jan 4 at 17:53






          • 1




            No, your case is different from mine. First, an application of Weirstrass preparation theorem will tell you that if $A$ is complete (for example $A=k[[x]]$), then quasifinite is finite. If you took your example over $k[x]$ localized at say $(x-1)$ (not powerseries) and localize $k[x,y]/(x-y^2+y)$ at one of the roots of $y^2-y-1$, you will have a quasifinite non-finite extension as you want.
            – Mohan
            Jan 4 at 17:59
















          Thanks for the helpful response, but I did your example and got that it was finite. Your claim seems to be that, for example, the projection of a parabola $x=y^2-y$ onto the $x$-axis fails to be finite if one localizes the parabola at the origin $x=y=0$. But clearly $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is finite over $k[[x]]$ with basis $(1,y)$.
          – Ashvin Swaminathan
          Jan 4 at 15:39






          Thanks for the helpful response, but I did your example and got that it was finite. Your claim seems to be that, for example, the projection of a parabola $x=y^2-y$ onto the $x$-axis fails to be finite if one localizes the parabola at the origin $x=y=0$. But clearly $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is finite over $k[[x]]$ with basis $(1,y)$.
          – Ashvin Swaminathan
          Jan 4 at 15:39














          No, it is not finite. The integral closure of $A$ in the fraction field of $B$ is semilocal and not local, since there are two points above $t=1$.
          – Mohan
          Jan 4 at 17:04




          No, it is not finite. The integral closure of $A$ in the fraction field of $B$ is semilocal and not local, since there are two points above $t=1$.
          – Mohan
          Jan 4 at 17:04












          Thanks, just to confirm, are you saying that in my comment, $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is not finite over $k[[x]]$, or are you saying my comment is actually different from your counterexample?
          – Ashvin Swaminathan
          Jan 4 at 17:53




          Thanks, just to confirm, are you saying that in my comment, $k[[x,y]]/(x-y^2+y)$ is not finite over $k[[x]]$, or are you saying my comment is actually different from your counterexample?
          – Ashvin Swaminathan
          Jan 4 at 17:53




          1




          1




          No, your case is different from mine. First, an application of Weirstrass preparation theorem will tell you that if $A$ is complete (for example $A=k[[x]]$), then quasifinite is finite. If you took your example over $k[x]$ localized at say $(x-1)$ (not powerseries) and localize $k[x,y]/(x-y^2+y)$ at one of the roots of $y^2-y-1$, you will have a quasifinite non-finite extension as you want.
          – Mohan
          Jan 4 at 17:59




          No, your case is different from mine. First, an application of Weirstrass preparation theorem will tell you that if $A$ is complete (for example $A=k[[x]]$), then quasifinite is finite. If you took your example over $k[x]$ localized at say $(x-1)$ (not powerseries) and localize $k[x,y]/(x-y^2+y)$ at one of the roots of $y^2-y-1$, you will have a quasifinite non-finite extension as you want.
          – Mohan
          Jan 4 at 17:59


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061498%2fwhen-is-a-map-of-local-rings-finite%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          An IMO inspired problem

          Image
          14 4 This problem from IMO 1988 is said to be one of the most elegant ones in functional equations. Problem : The function $f$ is defined on the set of all positive integers as follows: begin{align} f(1) = 1, f(3) &= 3, f(2n) = f(n), \ f(4n+1) &= 2f(2n+1) - f(n), \ f(4n+3) &= 3 f(2n+1) - 2f(n) end{align} Find the number of $n$ with $f(n) = n, 1 leq n leq 1988$. The main idea towards the solution is realizing that these conditions stand for the fact that $f(n)$ just reverses the digits in the binary representation of the number $n$. So, essentially the solution is finding the number of binary pallindromes $leq 1988_{10}$. My question is the following : How to reformulate the problem so that $f(n)$ reverses the digits of $n$ in its ternary representation. Or even better, can we reformulate it for a
          Read more

          Management

          Image
          Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Manager" redirects here. For other uses, see Management (disambiguation) and Manager (disambiguation). An organization chart for the United States Coast Guard shows the hierarchy of managerial roles in that organization. Business administration Management of a business Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit Business entities Cooperative Corporation Limited liability company Partnership Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions Economics Commodity Pu
          Read more

          Investment

          Image
          Investment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search This article is about investment in finance. For investment in macroeconomics, see Investment (macroeconomics). For other uses, see Investment (disambiguation). "Invest" redirects here. For the term in meteorology, see Invest (meteorology). This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( February 2017 ) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In general, to invest is to distribute money in the expectation of some benefit in the future – for example, investment in durable goods, in real estate by the service industry, in factories for manufacturing, in product development, and in research and development. However, this article focuses specifically on investment in financial
          Read more