8

Suppose $A \subset B$ are integral domains, and $f = b_0 + b_1 x + \ldots + b_m x^m$, where $b_k \in B$. Is it true that if $f$ is integral over $A[x]$ then all the coefficients $b_k$ are integral over $A$?

Note that the other way is obvious, i.e. if all the coefficients $b_k$ are integral over $A$, then $f$ is integral over $A$ (e.g. see the proof here).

Below are some observations that I made.

Since $f$ is integral we have $f^n + f_{n-1} f^{n-1} + \dots + f_0 = 0$, $f_k \in A[x]$.

  1. Plugging in $0$ we immediately obtain that $b_0$ is integral over $A$. Hence $f - b_0$ is integral over $A[x]$.
  2. Similarly plugging in $1$ we obtain that $b_0 + \dots + b_m$ is integral over $A$.
  3. Expanding $f^n$, it's clear that coefficient in front of $x^{kn}$ has the form $b_k ^ n + $ (terms of lower degree in $b_k$). The coefficient in front of $x^{kn}$ coming from $f_l f^l$ will be homogenous polynomial in $\{b_k\}$ of degree $l$. Thus equating the coefficient to zero from our original expression will give us a monic polynomial in all the other coefficients which vanishes at $b_k$.

Edit: see here for the definition of integral element. In particular, a polynomial $f \in B[x]$ is integral over $A[x]$ if there exist polynomials $f_0, \ldots, f_{n-1} \in A[x]$ such that $f^n + f_{n-1} f^{n-1} + \dots + f_0 = 0$

user26857
  • 53,190
  • 1
    Perhaps I don't understand the question, but I feel that there are simple counterexamples already in the case $A=\Bbb Z$: take $f(x) = \frac12x(x+1)$. (The proof you linked to doesn't resolve my doubt, because it talks about an extension being integral, not a polynomial being integral.) – Greg Martin May 05 '23 at 15:16
  • @GregMartin, could you expand please why $\frac{1}{2}x(x+1)$ is integral over $\mathbb{Z}[x]$? – Rodion Zaytsev May 05 '23 at 15:18
  • Think binomial coefficients. – Kolja May 05 '23 at 15:19
  • Can you please include the definition of a polynomial being integral over a ring? – Greg Martin May 05 '23 at 15:20
  • 2
    @GregMartin An element $b$ of some extension ring of $A$ is integral over $A$ if it is a root of a monic polynomial with coef's in $A$, see integral element. This is a generalization of an algebraic integer (= integral over $\Bbb Z)\ \ $ – Bill Dubuque May 05 '23 at 16:02
  • 1
    @GregMartin, since there seems to be misunderstanding, I included a link for the definition, and also stated what it means for polynomial in particular. – Rodion Zaytsev May 05 '23 at 16:03
  • 2
    If $A\subseteq B$ are rings and $b \in B$ satisfies a monic polynomial $f(x) = x^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\ldots+a_1x+a_0 \in A[x]$, then we say $b$ is integral over $A$. Here the question is considering the case where they have $f\in B[x]$ is integral over $A[x]$, so that $f$ satisfies a polynomial in $B[x_1,x_2]$, that is, there is a polynomial in two variables $g(x_1,x_2)$ (monic in $x_2$) such that $g(x_1,f(x_1))=0$. – krm2233 May 05 '23 at 16:06
  • 2
    I took the liberty of revising the question-title to more directly explain your question (so far as I understand)... – paul garrett May 05 '23 at 20:58
  • 1
    You don't need to assume that anything is an integral domain. The claim (in the general case) appears (for multivariate polynomials in fact) as Proposition 12 in §V.1.3 of Bourbaki's Commutative Algebra. It also can be derived fairly easily from Theorem 2.3.2 in Irena Swanson and Craig Huneke, Integral Closure of Ideals, Rings, and Modules. Both texts give rather surprising proofs. – darij grinberg May 05 '23 at 23:03
  • @paulgarrett, omg, I just realized why so many people misunderstood the question - my original title was so misleading. Thank you very much! – Rodion Zaytsev May 06 '23 at 04:06
  • Ok! Good! :) -pg – paul garrett May 06 '23 at 04:07

4 Answers4

2

To add to @Rodion Zaytsev's answer, the statement for an arbitrary ring $A$ can readily be reduced to the Noetherian case, so the Noetherian case is really the essential one. If $S$ is a ring and $R$ is a subring, we will write $\mathrm{int}_R(S)$ for the integral closure of $R$ in $S$.

Recall we have to show that if $S = \mathrm{int}_B(A)$ is the integral closure of $A$ in $B$ and $S_1 = \mathrm{int}_{B[x]}(A[x])$,then $S_1 = S[x]$. The containment $S[x]\subseteq S_1$ is easy, so the main point is to show $S_1\subseteq S[x]$. This statement is "local" in that it can be checked at each element of $S_1$, i.e., we just need to show that any $f\in B[x]$ which is integral over $A[x]$ must have its coefficients integral over $A$. For convenience, we will write $\mathrm{co}(f)\subset B$ for the set of coefficients of a polynomial $f \in B[x]$. Thus if $f = \sum_{k=0}^N b_kx^k$ where $b_N \neq 0$ so that $\deg(f)=N$, then $\mathrm{co}(f) = \{b_0,b_1,\ldots,b_N\}$.

Now fix such an $f$, then we may choose a $g\in A[x][t]$, monic as a polynomial in $t$, with $g(f)=0$. Suppose $g = t^d+ \sum_{k=0}^{d-1} c_k(x).t^k$. Then each $c_k \in A[x]$ and so $C=\bigcup_{k=0}^{d-1} \mathrm{co}(c_k)$ is a finite subset of $A$. Let $A_g = \mathbb Z[x:x \in C]$. This is a Noetherian ring because if $N=|C|$ then we may write $A_g$ as a quotient of $\mathbb Z[x_1,\ldots,x_N]$ (and Hilbert's basis theorem shows that a polynomial ring over $\mathbb Z$ is Noetherian).

Now $A_g \subseteq A \subseteq B$ and hence the integral closure of $A_g$ in $B$ is contained in $S$. But $g \in A_g[x][t]$ by defintion, hence $f\in B[x]$ is integral over $A_g[x]$. Using the Noetherian case Rodion established in his answer, it follows that $\mathrm{co}(f) \subseteq \mathrm{int}_B(A_g)\subseteq \mathrm{int}_B(A) = S$ as required.

Finally, it might be worth noting that the argument above is in the same spirit as the proof that if one has rings $R_1\subseteq R_2 \subseteq R_3$, then if $R_2$ is integral over $R_1$ and $R_3$ is integral over $R_2$ then $R_3$ is integral over $R_1$.

krm2233
  • 7,230
1

Here is a proof in case $A$ is Noetherian.

Note that the equivalent definition of an integral element consists in the following: $b\in B$ is integral over $A$ iff the subring $A[b]$ is finitely generated as an $A$ module (this is the second definition in the section "equivalent definitions" in the wikipedia page I linked).

Now if $f = b_0 + b_1 x + \ldots + b_m x^m \in B[x]$ is integral, then $f^n + f_{n-1} f^{n-1} + \ldots + f_0 = 0$ and thus $1, f, \ldots, f^{n-1}$ generate $A[x, f]$ as $A[x]$ module. Consider now an $A$ module $M$ which consists of all the coefficients of elements of $A[x, f]$. Indeed, this is an $A$ module, because if $b, c \in H$, then there exist polynomials in $A[x,f]$, $$g = \ldots + b x^{m} + \ldots, h = \ldots + c x^k + \ldots$$ so $$x^k g +x^m h =\ldots + (b + c)x^{m+k} + \ldots \in A[x,f]$$ i.e. $b+c \in M$. For any $a \in A$ we have $ag \in A[x,f]$ hence $ab \in M$.

$M$ is generated by the coefficients of $1, f, \ldots, f^{n-1}$ since any $g\in A[x, f]$ has the form $$f_0 + f_1 f + \ldots f_{n-1} f^{n-1}, f_k \in A[x]$$

Since $A\subset M$ and $f^N \in A[x,f]\ \forall N$, we have $b_m^N \in M$, so $A[b_m]\subset M$.

Since $A$ is noetherian and $M$ is finitely generated over $A$, so is the submodule $A[b_m]$, hence $b_m$ is integral.

We have thus proved that if $f\in B[x]$ is integral over $A[x]$ then its leading coefficient is integral over $A$. But then $f - b_m x^m$ is integral over $A[x]$ and we can reason by induction, proving that all coefficients are integral.

Note 1 I'd like to thank Darij Grinberg for spotting a mistake in my original argument and suggesting the way to correct it. He also pointed out in the comments, that there are proofs of this statement with minimal assumptions in

  1. Proposition 12 in §V.1.3 of Bourbaki's Commutative Algebra
  2. Theorem 2.3.2 in Irena Swanson and Craig Huneke, Integral Closure of Ideals, Rings, and Modules.

Note 2 Thanks to krm2233, I simplified my previous argument by using a more appropriate equivalent definition of integral element.

  • I would be very grateful if someone can write in the comments whether the above argument is correct. I think it is easy to make some mistake in such an argument. – Rodion Zaytsev May 05 '23 at 18:54
  • "since any $g\in A[x, f]$ has the form $f_0 + f_1 f + \ldots f_{n-1} f^{n-1}, f_k \in A[x]$ its leading term has the form $a_0 + a_1 b_m + \ldots a_{n-1} b_m ^ {n-1}, a_k \in A$": I disagree. There could well be cancellation of leading terms, surfacing some lower terms to the top. But perhaps you should take the module spanned by all coefficients instead of the leading ones? – darij grinberg May 05 '23 at 23:07
  • @darijgrinberg you're right, thank you! Yes, I think your suggested way to consider the module spanned by all coefficients is indeed the best way to mend the argument. However, while editing the proof, I noticed that I could only carry out the proof in case $A$ is noetherian. The problem is, the module spanned by all coefficients doesn't seem to be $A[b_m]$ module, so in the end I still had to consider the submodule spanned by the leading coefficients. – Rodion Zaytsev May 06 '23 at 04:57
  • A couple of points: first, do you really need $H$ at all? You have shown that A the coefficients of elements of A[x,f] form a finitely generated $A$-submodule of $B$, and it is easy to see that it contains $A[b_m]$ so as $A$ is Noetherian, $A[b_m]$ is a finitely generated $A$-module. But this immediately implies $b_m$ is integral over $A$ (because $A[b_m]$ is a faithful $A[b_m]$-module as it is an integral domain). – krm2233 May 11 '23 at 23:17
  • The other point is that you can deduce the general case from the case $A$ is Noetherian, so your argument is the general case: the point is you just need to show that, if $f$ is integral over $A[x]$ its coefficients are integral over $A$, and that statement only involves a finitely generated subring of $A$: If $g = t^d+\sum_{r=0}^{d-1}a_rt^r$, $a_r \in A[x]$, then let $A_g$ be the subring of $A$ generated by the coefficients of the $a_r$, $(0\leq r\leq d-1)$. The ring $A_g$ is Noetherian, and $g\in A_g[x]$ so $f$ is integral over $A_g$. – krm2233 May 11 '23 at 23:20
  • @krm2233 Your first remark simplifies the proof substantially, thank you! As for the second remark - it seems too nice to be true:)) But I guess we can prove it by saying that $A_g \cong \mathbb{Z}[x_1, x_2,\ldots, x_d]/I$ for some ideal $I$ and then apply Hilbert basis theorem? If that's true, I think together we managed to find a beautiful proof of the statement:) I'm not sure about how to proceed though - would you like to post your idea about the general case following from Noetherian, which I will then mark as accepted answer or should I edit my own answer? – Rodion Zaytsev May 12 '23 at 18:01
  • Whichever you prefer! I don't think the idea is one I can claim much ownership of, because it is the same kind of argument you use to show that if C is integral over B and B is integral over A then C is integral over A. – krm2233 May 12 '23 at 18:33
  • @krm2233, I have simplified my previous argument using your first point. As for the second - I think it would be a nice example of collaborative effort if you write the answer! For me it's also a nice illustration of how we can solve a simpler problem (in fact I just went along with an argument and then put restrictions for it to work), and then with a clever trick obtain the general case. I think here it's nice to split the answer, because it emphasizes the ideas behind and makes the arguments clearer. As for ownership of math ideas - I don't think anyone can ever claim it:)) – Rodion Zaytsev May 13 '23 at 08:42
0

Thanks to the comments below for pointing out gaps in previous attempts to tackle this question.

Let $S$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $B$, and let $S_1$ be the integral closure of $R_1 = A[x]$ in $R_2 = B[x]$. Then $S[x]$ is certainly integral over $R_1$ so that $S[x]\subseteq S_1$. Thus replacing $A$ with $S$ it suffices to show the following:

Claim: If $A$ is integrally closed in $B$ then $R_1=A[x]$ is integrally closed in $R_2 =B[x]$.

Proof of claim:

Suppose that $f \in B[x]$ lies in $\mathrm{int}_{R_2}(R_1)$. Then there exists $g \in R_1[t]$ with

$$ g(t) = t^d -\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} c_kt^k, $$

where $c_k \in A[x]$ (and we set $c_d =1$ as this will be convenient later). Let $\mathrm{deg}_{x}(\phi)$ denote the degree of an element of $\phi \in B[x]$, and set $m = \text{max} \{ \mathrm{deg}_x(c_k): 0 \leq k \leq d-1 \}$.

Pick $N>\max\{ m,d \}$ and consider $f_1 = f-x^N$. Now clearly $f_1$ is integral over $R_1$ if and only if $f$ is, and $f_1 \in R_1$ if and only if $f\in R_1$, hence it suffices to show that $f_1 \in A[x]$. Now $g(f) = g(f_1+x^N)=0$, and hence $$ (f_1+x^N)^d -\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} c_k (f_1+x^N)^k = 0. $$ As $f_1$ and $x^N$ both have degree $N$, all the terms in the expansion of $(f_1+x^N)^k$ have degree $kN$. It follows that if we set $r_k = c_kf_1^{-1}\left((f_1+x^N)^k-f_1^k -x^{Nk}\right)$, then the above equation can be rewritten in the form $$ \begin{split} g(x^N) &= f_1\left(f_1^{-1}(c_0- g(f_1))+ \sum_{k=1}^{d-1}r_k(f_1)\right) \\ &= f_1.h \end{split} $$

Thus we see that $f_1$ divides $g(x^N)$, a monic polynomial in $A[x]$. But then if $K\supseteq B$ is a splitting field for the roots of $g(x^n)$, the roots of $g(x^N)$ are all integral over $A$, and since $-f_1$ is also monic, with roots a subset of those of $g(x^N)$ it follows that the coefficients of $f_1$ are integral over $A[x]$. But $f_1 \in B[x]$ and $A$ is integrally closed in $B$, hence we must have $f_1\in A[x]$ as required.

The introduction of the additional term $x^N$ may seem eccentric, but it functions in a similar fashion to Nagata's proof of Noether normalization.

krm2233
  • 7,230
  • I think you meant "the highest power of x dividing the right-hand side is $\min{k+n_k:0\le k \le d−1}$". Either way, I believe that is incorrect, because there may be cancelling. For instance consider $f_1 = 1, c_0 = x, c_1 = -1$ then we have $c_0 + c_1 x f_1 = 0$, although $c_1$ is not divisible by $x$. – Rodion Zaytsev May 05 '23 at 17:19
  • Apart from that, that was the logic I tried to carry out, and it seems that the bottleneck of the problem is in fact proving that we can somehow of cancel that $x^d$ that appears in the leading term (if we try to prove the statement by induction, chopping of the lowest term) – Rodion Zaytsev May 05 '23 at 17:24
  • Argh, yes, you can't avoid the possibility of cancellation the way I thought (but totally failed to explain...) so I ended up having to resort to Nakayama's Lema or the Cayley-Hamilton theorem or whatever you like to call it, but I think that approach seems more sound. – krm2233 May 05 '23 at 20:43
  • 1
    Why is $\phi_f(T) \subseteq I.T$ ? – darij grinberg May 05 '23 at 23:05
  • @darijgrinberg I think the (wrong) reasoning was that $\psi_f(T) = (f) \subset (x) = I.T$ as ideals in $T$. The mistake is, however, that we may well have $f_1 \notin T$, so that actually $(f) \not\subset (x)$. In other words, $f$ is not actually divisible by $x$ in our ring, which is very counterintuitive. – Rodion Zaytsev May 06 '23 at 07:07
0

Exercise 5.9 in Atiyah-Macdonald has the statement as follows:

$A\subset B$ ( comm, $1$), $C$ the integral closure of $A$ in $B$, then $C[x]$ is the integral closure of $A[x]$ in $B[x]$.

The given hint is very clear and uses in an essential way the following fact


($\simeq$ Ex. 5.8) $A$ ring comm, $1$, $f$, $g$, $h$ are monic polynomials in $A[x]$, $f\cdot g = h$, then every coefficient of $f$ is integral over the ring generated by the coefficients of $h$.


Now the proof of 5.9 proceeds as follows: take $f\in B[x]$ integral over $A[x]$.

$$f^m + g_1 f^{m-1} + \cdots + g_m =0$$

From here we get

$$f( f^{m-1} + g_1 f^{m-2} + \cdots + g_{m-1} ) = - g_m $$

However, we cannot apply 5.8 since $f$ is not apriori monic, and neither is $\pm g_m$. But we can force it to become monic as follows: Write the equality as

$$(x^N + f - x^N)^m + g_1( x^N + f - x^N)^{m-1} + \cdots + g_m = 0$$ or

$$(X^N + f)^m + \bar g_1 (x^N + f)^{m-1}+ \cdots + \bar g_m$$ where $\bar g_1$, $\ldots$, $\bar g_m \in A[x]$, and moreover $\pm \bar g_m$ monic if $N$ is large enough.

Now we Can apply 5.8 and Bob's your uncle

orangeskid
  • 56,630