5
$\begingroup$

I've managed [with help from the wonderful people lurking on this site :)] to prove that for an integral domain $A$, if $A$ is integrally closed, then $S^{-1}A$ is integrally closed for all multiplicatively closed subsets $S$ of $A$.

The problem that I want to apply this to is:

$A$ is integrally closed if and only if $A_{P}$ is integrally closed for all maximal ideals $P$ of $A$.

So far:

$(\Rightarrow)$ If $P$ is a maximal ideal of $A$, then $A\setminus P$ is multiplicatively closed, because maximal ideals are prime. So by the result mentioned above, $A_{P} = (A \setminus P)^{-1}A$ is integrally closed.

Update: Attempting to prove the contrapositive.

Assume there is some $\frac{r}{s}$ in $F$ (the field of fractions of $A$) such that $\frac{r}{s}$ is integral over $A$ but not in $A$. I feel like I haven't done hardly anything at all with your hint, but I suppose that I would want to somehow get a maximal ideal of $A$ from this $\frac{r}{s}$ such that $A_{P}$ is not maximal, thus proving the converse.

  • 0
    The answer by Rankeya just solves your problem!!2013-01-05

3 Answers 3

2

Hint: (I am assuming from your previous question that you mean $A$ is a domain). In this case, $A=\cap_{P\text{ maximal}} A_P$. Use this and the fact that integral closure commutes with localization.

  • 1
    Pete L. Clark gives a reference below.2012-03-13
6

You will need the fact that for any domain $A$, $\bigcap_{\mathfrak{m} \in \operatorname{MaxSpec} A} A_{\mathfrak{m}} = A$. If you are not familiar with this, see e.g. $\S 7.7$ of my commmutative algebra notes.

Armed with this fact, the proof is virtually immediate: let $K$ be the fraction field of $A$, and suppose that an element $x \in K$ is integral over $A$. It must then be integral over the larger ring $A_{\mathfrak{m}}$ for each $\mathfrak{m} \in \operatorname{MaxSpec} A$, so...?

(Note that this approach does not involve proving the contrapositive, although presumably one can make that work as well...)

  • 1
    @borninthe80s: no, that result is not needed for this direction of the argument. (Or maybe "Yes, that result is not needed..." :-).)2012-03-13
4

There is also another nice proof that if each $A_m$ is integrally closed, then so is $A$. It goes as follows:

Suppose $\exists t \in Frac(A)-A$ such that $t$ is integral over $A$. Define the set $I = \{a \in A: at \in A \}$. Then $I$ is clearly an ideal of $A$. Since $t \notin A$, it follows that $1 \notin A$. So, $I$ is a proper ideal of $A$, hence contained in some maximal ideal $m$. Then one can easily see that $t \notin A_m$, but $t$ is integral over $A_m$ (remember $A$ can be identified with a subring of $A_m$). This contradicts the fact that $A_m$ is integrally closed.

  • 0
    The ideal I in your answer is nothing but the "set of denominators of $t$", hence it says that $t$ is not in $A_m$, but is integral over $A_m$. More explicitly, the key in the above proof is that every $t$ not in $A$ is not in some $A_m$; an equivalent formulation is thus $\bigcap_{\mathfrak{m} \in \operatorname{MaxSpec} A} A_{\mathfrak{m}} = A$. So the two proofs actually coincide.2013-01-05