-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
/
YAlg3-4.tex
424 lines (353 loc) · 37.9 KB
/
YAlg3-4.tex
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
% To be compiled by XeLaTeX, preferably under TeX Live.
% LaTeX source for ``Yanqi Lake Lectures on Algebra'' Part III.
% Copyright 2019 李文威 (Wen-Wei Li).
% Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
% document under the terms of the Creative Commons
% Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
% To be included
\chapter{Going-up, going-down, gradings and filtrations}
This lecture will be less self-contained than the other ones.
\section{Going-up and going-down}
In geometry, it is often crucial to know properties of a morphism between algebraically defined geometric objects. Rephrased in terms of commutative algebra, our goal is to understand the image of $\varphi^\sharp: \Spec(B) \to \Spec(A)$ where $\varphi: A \to B$ is a given ring homomorphism.
\begin{itemize}
\item We say the \emph{going-up} property holds for $\varphi$ if for every $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{p}'$ in $\Spec(A)$ and $\mathfrak{q} \in \Spec(B)$ with $\varphi^\sharp(\mathfrak{q}) = \mathfrak{p}$ (and we say $\mathfrak{q}$ \emph{lies over} $\mathfrak{p}$...) there exists $\mathfrak{q}' \supset \mathfrak{q}$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}'$. \index{going-up}
\item We say the \emph{going-down} property holds for $\varphi$ if for every $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{p}'$ in $\Spec(A)$ and $\mathfrak{q}' \in \Spec(B)$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}'$, there exists $\mathfrak{q} \subset \mathfrak{q}'$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}$. \index{going-down}
\end{itemize}
Pictorially:
\begin{center}\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (B) at (2.5, 2) {$B$};
\node (P) at (0,1) {$\mathfrak{q}$};
\node (P') at (1,2) {$\mathfrak{q}'$};
\node (A) at (2.5, 0) {$A$};
\node (p) at (0,-1) {$\mathfrak{p}$};
\node (p') at (1,0) {$\mathfrak{p}'$};
\draw (P') -- (P) -- (p) -- (p') -- (P');
\end{tikzpicture}\end{center}
\begin{lemma}[Existence of minimal over-primes]\label{prop:minimal-prime}\index{minimal prime ideal}
Let $\mathfrak{a}$ be a proper ideal in a ring $R$. There exists a prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ which is minimal among all primes containing $\mathfrak{a}$. If $\mathfrak{P}$ is an ideal containing $\mathfrak{a}$, one can choose $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{P}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
One easily reduces to the case $\mathfrak{a} = \{0\}$. We want to use Zorn's Lemma\index{Zorn's Lemma} to find a minimal prime. It boils down to show that any chain $(\mathfrak{p}_i)_{i \in I}$ of prime ideals ($I$: totally ordered set with $j > i \implies \mathfrak{p}_i \supset \mathfrak{p}_j$) has a lower bound; we assume $\mathfrak{p}_i \subset \mathfrak{P}$ when $\mathfrak{P}$ is prescribed. It suffices to show $\mathfrak{p} := \bigcap_{i \in I} \mathfrak{p}_i$ is prime: if $xy \in \mathfrak{p}$ but there exists $i$ with $x \notin \mathfrak{p}_i$, then $x \notin \mathfrak{p}_j$ whenever $j \geq i$; in this case $j \geq i \implies y \in \mathfrak{p}_j$. This entails $y \in \mathfrak{p}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
The going-down property for $\varphi$ is equivalent to the following: for every $\mathfrak{p} \in \Spec(A)$ with $\varphi(\mathfrak{p})B \neq B$ and any minimal over-prime $\mathfrak{q}$ of $\varphi(\mathfrak{p})B$, we have $\varphi^\sharp(\mathfrak{q}) = \mathfrak{p}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assuming going-down for $\varphi$, let $\mathfrak{p}, \mathfrak{q}$ be as above. Evidently $\varphi^\sharp(\mathfrak{q}) \supset \varphi^{-1}(\varphi(\mathfrak{p})B) \supset \mathfrak{p}$. If we have $\supsetneq$, then going-down guarantees the existence of $\mathfrak{q}^\flat \subsetneq \mathfrak{q}$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}$. Thus $\varphi^{-1}(\mathfrak{q}^\flat) = \mathfrak{p}$ implies $\mathfrak{q}^\flat \supset \varphi(\mathfrak{p})B$, contradicting the minimality of $\mathfrak{q}$.
To show the converse, consider $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{p}'$ with $\mathfrak{q}'$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}'$. We have $\varphi(\mathfrak{p})B \subset \varphi(\mathfrak{p}')B \subset \mathfrak{q}' \neq B$. Take $\mathfrak{q}$ to be a minimal over-prime of $\varphi(\mathfrak{p})B$ (which exists by Lemma \ref{prop:minimal-prime}) to verify the going-down property.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:going-down-flat}
Going-down holds for flat $\varphi: A \to B$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{p}'$ and $\mathfrak{q}'$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}'$ in the setting of going-down. First, $B_{\mathfrak{q}'}$ is flat over $A_{\mathfrak{p}'}$ by Proposition \ref{prop:flatness-localized}. Secondly, $A_{\mathfrak{p}'} \to B_{\mathfrak{q}'}$ is faithfully flat since it is local by Theorem \ref{prop:faithfully-flat-criterion} (iii), therefore induces a surjection on spectra. Take any prime of $B_{\mathfrak{q}'}$ mapping to $\mathfrak{p}A_{\mathfrak{p}} \in \Spec(A_{\mathfrak{p}'})$ and to $\mathfrak{q} \in \Spec(B)$. In view of the commutative diagrams
\[\begin{tikzcd}
B \arrow[r] & B_{\mathfrak{q}'} \\
A \arrow[u, "\varphi"] \arrow[r] & A_{\mathfrak{p}'} \arrow[u, "\varphi_{\mathfrak{p}'}"']
\end{tikzcd} \qquad \begin{tikzcd}
\Spec(B) \arrow[d, "\varphi^\sharp"'] & \Spec(B_{\mathfrak{q}'}) \arrow[d, "\varphi_{\mathfrak{p}'}^\sharp"] \arrow[hookrightarrow, l] \\
\Spec(A) & \Spec(A_{\mathfrak{p}'}) \arrow[hookrightarrow, l]
\end{tikzcd}\]
we see $\mathfrak{q}$ is the required prime in going-down.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Krull--Cohen--Seidenberg]\label{prop:Cohen-Seidenberg}
Suppose the ring $B$ is integral over its subring $A$. The following holds.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item The map $\Spec(B) \to \Spec(A)$ given by $\mathfrak{q} \mapsto \mathfrak{q} \cap A$ is surjective.
\item There are no inclusion relations in any fiber of $\Spec(B) \to \Spec(A)$.
\item Going-up holds for $A \hookrightarrow B$.
\item If $A$ is a local ring and $\mathfrak{p} \in \MaxSpec(A)$, then the fiber $\{ \mathfrak{q} : \mathfrak{q} \cap A = \mathfrak{p} \}$ equals $\MaxSpec(B)$.
\item Assume $A,B$ are domains and $A$ is normal. Then going-down holds for $A \hookrightarrow B$.
\item Assume furthermore that $B$ is the integral closure of $A$ in a normal field extension $L \supset K := \mathrm{Frac}(A)$, then $\Gamma := \mathrm{Aut}(L/K)$ acts transitively on each fiber of $\Spec(B) \to \Spec
(A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The last assertion should be familiar to readers with a background in algebraic number theory.
\begin{proof}
(iv): Let $\mathfrak{q} \in \MaxSpec(B)$ and $\mathfrak{p}_0 := \mathfrak{q} \cap A$. We know $B/\mathfrak{q}$ is a field, integral over its subring $A/\mathfrak{p}_0$. We claim that $A/\mathfrak{p}_0$ is also a field, therefore $\mathfrak{p}_0 = \mathfrak{p}$. Let $x \in A/\mathfrak{p}_0 \smallsetminus \{0\}$. Its inverse in $B/\mathfrak{q}$ satisfies an integral relation $(\frac{1}{x})^n + a_{n-1} (\frac{1}{x})^{n-1} + \cdots + a_0 = 0$ over $A/\mathfrak{p}_0$. Multiplying both sides by $x^{n-1}$ yields $\frac{1}{x} \in (A/\mathfrak{p}_0)[x]$.
Conversely, we have to show any $\mathfrak{q} \in \Spec(B)$ with $\mathfrak{q} \cap A = \mathfrak{p}$ is maximal. Again, there is an integral extension of domains $A/\mathfrak{p} \hookrightarrow B/\mathfrak{q}$. Consider $y \in B/\mathfrak{q}$ satisfying $y^n + a_{n-1} y^{n-1} + \cdots + a_0 = 0$, with the smallest possible $n$. If $y \neq 0$ then $a_0 \neq 0$. Since $A/\mathfrak{p}$ is a field, the recipe to produce $y^{-1} \in (A/\mathfrak{p})[y]$ is well-known.
(i), (ii): Fix $\mathfrak{p}$ and consider the inclusion $A_{\mathfrak{p}} \hookrightarrow B_{\mathfrak{p}} = B \dotimes{A} A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ which is still integral (note that $A \smallsetminus \mathfrak{p}$ is a multiplicative subset of $B$, and $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is nonzero). We are reduced to the case $A$ is local with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{p}$. By (iv) the fiber of $\mathfrak{p}$ in $\Spec(B)$ is nothing but $\MaxSpec(B)$. This establishes (i) and (ii) since there are no inclusions among maximal ideals.
(iii): Consider $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{p}'$ and $\mathfrak{q}$ over $\mathfrak{p}$ in the setting of going-up. Then (i) is applicable to $A/\mathfrak{p} \hookrightarrow B/\mathfrak{q}$ and yields the required $\mathfrak{q}' \in \Spec(B/\mathfrak{q}) \hookrightarrow \Spec(B)$.
(vi): Observe that every $\sigma \in \Gamma$ induces an $A$-automorphism of $B$. Let $K' := L^\Gamma$. By (infinite) Galois theory we know $L/K'$ is Galois and $K'/K$ is purely inseparable. Let $A'$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $K'$. First observe that
\[ \Spec(A') \longrightarrow \Spec(A), \quad \mathfrak{p}' \mapsto \mathfrak{p} = \mathfrak{p}' \cap A \]
is a bijection. Indeed, $K' \neq K$ only when $p := \text{char}(K) > 0$, in which case the inverse is given by $\mathfrak{p}' = \left\{t \in A': t^{p^m} \in \mathfrak{p}, \; m \gg 0 \right\}$. Thus we assume henceforth that $L/K$ is Galois.
Deal with the case $[L:K] < \infty$ first. Consider $\mathfrak{q}, \mathfrak{q}' \in \Spec(B)$ in the fiber over $\mathfrak{p}$. Suppose on the contrary that $\Gamma \mathfrak{q}$ does not meet $\mathfrak{q}'$, then by (ii) we have $\mathfrak{q}' \not\subset \sigma(\mathfrak{q})$ for each $\sigma \in \Gamma$. By the prime avoidance (Proposition \ref{prop:prime-avoidance}), there exists $x \in \mathfrak{q}' \smallsetminus \bigcup_\sigma \sigma(\mathfrak{q})$, since $\Gamma$ is finite. Now define the norm $y := N_{L/K}(x) \in K$, which is some positive power (namely $[L:K]_i$) of $\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} \sigma(x)$, hence belongs to $B$. Notice that
\begin{compactitem}
\item $A$ normal implies $y \in A$;
\item $x \notin \sigma^{-1}(\mathfrak{q})$ for all $\sigma \in \Gamma$ implies $y \notin \mathfrak{p}$;
\item however $y \in \mathfrak{q}' \cap A = \mathfrak{p}$ since $x \in \mathfrak{q}'$. Contradiction.
\end{compactitem}
Now suppose $[L:K]$ is infinite and $\mathfrak{q}, \mathfrak{q}'$ in the fiber over $\mathfrak{p}$. We need to use the Krull topology on $\Gamma$. For every finite, Galois subextension $E/K$ of $L/K$, define the set
\[ \mathcal{T}(E) := \left\{ \sigma \in \Gamma: \sigma(\mathfrak{q} \cap E) = \mathfrak{q}' \cap E \right\}. \]
By the finite case we know $\mathcal{T}(E) \neq \emptyset$. Furthermore,
\begin{compactitem}
\item $\mathcal{T}(E)$ is closed in $\Gamma$ (it is the preimage of some subset of $\text{Gal}(E/K)$);
\item $E' \subset E \implies \mathcal{T}(E') \supset \mathcal{T}(E)$;
\item the intersection of all $\mathcal{T}(E)$ is nonempty (by the compactness of $\Gamma$ and the previous step).
\end{compactitem}
Taking $\sigma \in \bigcap_E \mathcal{T}(E)$ gives $\sigma(\mathfrak{q}) = \mathfrak{q}'$.
(v): Define $L_0 := \text{Frac}(B)$ and $K := \text{Frac}(A)$. Then $L_0/K$ is algebraic and we may take a normal closure $L$ of $L_0$ over $K$. Let $C$ be the integral closure of $A$ (thus of $B$) in $L$. Consider the setting $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{p}'$ and $\mathfrak{q} \cap A = \mathfrak{p}$ of going-down. Take any $\mathfrak{r} \in \Spec(C)$ mapping to $\mathfrak{p}$. By (iii) for $A \to C$ we obtain $\mathfrak{r}_1 \in \Spec(C)$ such that $\mathfrak{r}_1 \mapsto \mathfrak{p}'$ and $\mathfrak{r}_1 \supset \mathfrak{r}$. Next, take $\mathfrak{r}_2 \in \Spec(C)$ mapping to $\mathfrak{q}'$; by (vi) there exists $\sigma \in \text{Aut}(L/K)$ with $\sigma(\mathfrak{r}_1) = \mathfrak{r}_2$. One can check that $\mathfrak{q} := \sigma(\mathfrak{r}) \cap B$ is the required prime ideal. Explained pictorially:
\begin{center}\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (R) at (-2, 2) {$\mathfrak{r}$};
\node (R1) at (-0.5, 2) {$\mathfrak{r}_1$};
\node (R2) at (2, 2) {$\mathfrak{r}_2$};
\node[fill=gray!80] (SR) at (0.5, 2) {};
\node[fill=gray!40] (Q) at (-0.25, 1) {};
\node (Q') at (1.5, 1) {$\mathfrak{q}'$};
\node (P) at (-1, 0) {$\mathfrak{p}$};
\node (P') at (1, 0) {$\mathfrak{p}'$};
\node at (3, 2) {$C$}; \node at (3, 1) {$B$}; \node at (3, 0) {$A$};
\draw (P) -- (R) -- (R1) -- (P') -- (P);
\draw[dashed] (P) -- (SR) -- (R2) -- (Q')-- (P');
\draw[dashed] (Q) -- (Q');
\draw (-1, 2.5) edge[->, ultra thick, bend left=40] node[above, midway] {$\sigma$} (1, 2.5);
\end{tikzpicture}\end{center}
we first construct $\mathfrak{r}$ and then $\mathfrak{r}_1$ by going-up, then ``tilt'' it via some $\sigma$ to match $\mathfrak{r}_1$ with some chosen $\mathfrak{r}_2$ above $\mathfrak{q}'$, so that $\sigma(\mathfrak{r}) \cap B$ produces the required going-down:
\end{proof}
\begin{exercise}\label{exo:integral-closed}
Let $A \subset B$ be an integral extension of rings. Show that $\Spec(B) \to \Spec(A)$ is a closed map (Cf.\ Proposition \ref{prop:going-up-closed}.) Hint: Let $\mathfrak{b} \subset B$ be a proper ideal, then $A/\mathfrak{b} \cap A \hookrightarrow B/\mathfrak{b}$ is still integral. Reduce the problem to showing that $V(\{0_B\}) = \Spec(B)$ has closed image in $\Spec(A)$.
\end{exercise}
\section{Subsets in the spectrum}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:going-up-closed}
Let $\varphi: A \to B$ be a ring homomorphism with going-up property and suppose $B$ is Noetherian. Then $\varphi^\sharp: \Spec(B) \to \Spec(A)$ is a closed map: it maps closed subsets to closed subsets.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider a closed subset $V(\mathfrak{b})$ of $\Spec(B)$. First, every $\mathfrak{q} \in \Spec(B)$ with $\mathfrak{q} \supset \mathfrak{b}$ lies over a minimal over-prime of $\mathfrak{b}$, by Lemma \ref{prop:minimal-prime}. Secondly, $B$ is Noetherian implies $\text{Ass}(B/\mathfrak{b})$ is finite; in particular there are only finitely many minimal over-primes $\mathfrak{q}_1, \ldots, \mathfrak{q}_n$ of $\mathfrak{b}$.
Set $\mathfrak{p}_i := \varphi^\sharp(\mathfrak{q}_i)$ for all $i$. By going-up, $V(\mathfrak{p}_i)$ is contained in $\varphi^\sharp(V(\mathfrak{b}))$. On the other hand, every $\mathfrak{p} = \varphi^\sharp(\mathfrak{q})$ with $\mathfrak{q} \in V(\mathfrak{b})$ lies over some $\mathfrak{p}_i = \varphi^\sharp(\mathfrak{q}_i)$ by the foregoing discussion. This shows $\varphi^\sharp(V(\mathfrak{b})) = \bigcup_{i=1}^n V(\mathfrak{p}_i)$ is closed.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Suppose $B$ is Noetherian and integral over a subring $A$. Then $\Spec(B) \to \Spec(A)$ is a closed surjection with finite fibers.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Apply Theorem \ref{prop:Cohen-Seidenberg} with Proposition \ref{prop:going-up-closed} to show that $\Spec(B) \to \Spec(A)$ is closed and surjective.
To show the finiteness of the fiber over $\mathfrak{p} \in \Spec(A)$, note that the preimage of $V(\mathfrak{p})$ in $\Spec(B)$ equals $V(\mathfrak{p}B)$. Since there are no inclusions in the fiber over $\mathfrak{p}$, every element in that fiber must be a minimal over-prime of $\mathfrak{p}B$. We have seen in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:going-up-closed} that there are only finitely many such minimal-over primes.
\end{proof}
Note that the ``closed surjection'' part applies to any integral extension of rings. See Exercise \ref{exo:integral-closed}.
In order to obtain further results of this type, we have to introduce more notions. Let $R$ be a ring.
\begin{definition}
For $\mathfrak{p}, \mathfrak{p}' \in \Spec(R)$ satisfying $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathfrak{p}'$, we say $\mathfrak{p}$ is a \emph{generalization} of $\mathfrak{p}'$, and $\mathfrak{p}'$ is a \emph{specialization} of $\mathfrak{p}$.
\end{definition}
To make geometric meaning from it, being ``specialized'' signifies that there are ``more equations'' in $\mathfrak{p}'$, therefore it corresponds a smaller embedded geometric object. For example, in $R=\CC[X,Y]$ the prime ideal $(X,Y)$ is a specialization of $(X)$, as the origin $X=Y=0$ belongs to the line $X=0$.
\begin{lemma}
With respect to the Zariski topology, $\mathfrak{p}$ is a generalization of $\mathfrak{p}'$ if and only if $\mathfrak{p}' \in \overline{\{\mathfrak{p}\}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The condition $\mathfrak{p}' \in \overline{\{\mathfrak{p}\}}$ means that for every ideal $\mathfrak{a}$, if $\mathfrak{p} \supset \mathfrak{a}$ then $\mathfrak{p}' \supset \mathfrak{a}$. Taking $\mathfrak{a} = \mathfrak{p}$ yields $\mathfrak{p}' \supset \mathfrak{p}$, and the converse is even easier.
\end{proof}
A subset is called stable under specialization (resp. generalization) if the specialization (resp. generalization) of any member still belongs to that set. The following is straightforward.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:stability-vs-closeness-0}
Any closed subset is stable under specialization; any open subset is stable under generalization.
\end{lemma}
\begin{definition}\index{constructible subset}
Suppose $R$ is Noetherian. A subset is called \emph{locally closed} if it is the intersection of an open with a closed subset, called \emph{constructible} if it is a finite union of locally closed subsets. % A possibly infinite intersection (resp. union) of constructible subsets is called \emph{pro-constructible} (resp. \emph{ind-constructible}).
Closed subsets of the form $V(\mathfrak{p})$, where $\mathfrak{p} \in \Spec(R)$, are called \emph{irreducible}; in this case we call $\mathfrak{p}$ the \emph{generic point} of $Z$, which is uniquely characterized as the point which generalizes every member of $Z$.
\end{definition}
\begin{itemize}
\item The foregoing definition is standard only for $R$ Noetherian. The general definition in EGA differs.
\item These notions can be applied to any topological space $X$. In practice one usually suppose $X$ to be
\begin{compactitem}
\item \emph{Noetherian}: the closed subsets satisfy descending chain condition,
\item \emph{sober}: every irreducible has a generic point,
\end{compactitem}
in order to get interesting results. This explains our Noetherian assumption.
\item If $\Bbbk$ is algebraically closed, $R = \Bbbk[X_1, \ldots, X_n]/\mathfrak{a}$ corresponds to an affine algebraic variety $\mathcal{X} \subset \Bbbk^n$ and we work with $\MaxSpec(R)$ instead of $\Spec(R)$, then a subset $E \subset \mathcal{X}$ being locally closed means that it can be defined by a formula using the usual language of algebraic operations over $\CC$, with coordinate variables $X_1, \ldots, X_n$ and the symbols $=, \neq$, but \emph{without using the quantifiers $\exists, \forall$}. For example, the formula
\[ (\neg X = 0) \vee (X = 0 \wedge Y=0) \]
defines the constructible subset $E := \{(x,y) \in \Bbbk^2 : x \neq 0 \} \cup \{(0,0) \}$, which is neither closed nor open. Note that $E$ is the image of the polynomial map $\Bbbk^2 \to \Bbbk^2$ given by $(x,y) \mapsto (x,xy)$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{exercise}
Show that the set of constructible subsets is stable under finite $\cup$, finite $\cap$ and taking complements.
\end{exercise}
\begin{exercise}
Show that irreducible closed subsets $Z$ admit the following topological characterization: if $X = A \cup B$ with $A,B$ closed, then either $X=A$ or $X=B$.
\end{exercise}
Suppose $R$ is Noetherian. Given any closed subset $Z \subset \Spec(R)$, we may write $Z = Z_1 \cup \cdots \cup Z_n$ with each $Z_i$ irreducible. One way to do this is to use the primary decomposition for $\mathfrak{a}$, where we assume $Z = V(\mathfrak{a})$; then $Z_1, \ldots, Z_n$ will correspond to the minimal elements in $\text{Ass}(R/\mathfrak{a})$. One can show by purely topological means that such an irreducible decomposition is unique if we require $i \neq j \implies Z_i \not\subset Z_j$. See \cite[I.1.5]{Har77}.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:char-constructible}
Let $E$ be a subset of $\Spec(R)$ where $R$ is a Noetherian ring. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $E$ is constructible;
\item for every irreducible subset $Z$ of $\Spec(R)$, either $Z \cap E$ is not dense in $Z$ or $Z \cap E$ contains a nonempty open subset of $Z$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Omitted. See \cite[(6.C)]{Mat80}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[C.\ Chevalley]\label{prop:Chevalley}\index{Chevalley's theorem}
Let $\varphi: A \to B$ be a ring homomorphism such that $A$ is Noetherian and $B$ is a finitely generated $A$-algebra. Then $\varphi^\sharp$ maps constructible subsets to constructible subsets.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Omitted. See \cite[(6.E)]{Mat80}.
\end{proof}
Now we can give a partial converse to Lemma \ref{prop:stability-vs-closeness-0}, albeit not in the strongest form.
\begin{proposition}
Suppose $R$ is Noetherian and $E$ is a constructible subset of $\Spec(R)$. If $E$ is stable under specialization (resp. generalization), then $E$ is closed (resp. open) in $\Spec(R)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to treat the specialization-stable case by taking complements. Write the Zariski-closure $\bar{E}$ as a finite union of irreducibles components $Z$, without inclusion relations. For each irreducible component $Z$, notice that $Z \cap E$ is dense in $Z$ for all $Z$, since otherwise $\bar{E} = \overline{\bigcup_Z (Z \cap E)} = \bigcup_Z \overline{Z \cap E}$ would lead to another irreducible decomposition. Thus $Z \cap E$ contains a nonempty open of $Z$ by Lemma \ref{prop:char-constructible}. This open subset of $E$ must contain the generic point of $Z$. As $E$ is stable under specialization, we obtain $Z \subset E$. This being true for all $Z$, we deduce that $E = \bar{E}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
Consider a ring homomorphism $\varphi: A \to B$ satisfying going-down. Suppose $A$ is Noetherian and $B$ is a finitely generated $A$-algebra, then $\varphi^\sharp: \Spec(B) \to \Spec(A)$ is an open map.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $U = \Spec(B) \smallsetminus V(\mathfrak{a})$ be an open subset. Going-down implies that $\varphi^\sharp(U)$ is stable under generalization. It suffices to show $\varphi^\sharp(U)$ is constructible, and this is the content of Chevalley's Theorem \ref{prop:Chevalley}.
\end{proof}
\section{Graded rings and modules}
Let $(\Gamma, +)$ be a commutative monoid. In most cases we consider $\Gamma = \Z_{\geq 0}$.
\begin{definition}\index{graded}
A $\Gamma$-graded ring is a ring $R$ whose underlying additive group is endowed with a decomposition $R = \bigoplus_{\gamma \in \Gamma} R_\gamma$, such that $R_\gamma R_\eta \subset R_{\gamma + \eta}$ for all $\gamma, \eta \in \Gamma$.
For $R$ as above, a $\Gamma$-graded $R$-module is an $R$-module $M$ whose underlying additive group decomposes as $M = \bigoplus_{\gamma \in \Gamma} M_\gamma$, such that $R_\gamma M_\eta \subset M_{\gamma + \eta}$ for all $\gamma, \eta \in \Gamma$; in particular, $R$ itself is a $\Gamma$-graded $R$-module. If $x \in M_\gamma \smallsetminus \{0\}$, we say $x$ is homogeneous of degree $\gamma$.\index{homogeneous}
\end{definition}
We will often omit $\Gamma$ when there is no worry of confusion. Note that if $0$ is allowed to be homogeneous, as people sometimes do, it will be homogeneous of any degree.
\begin{exercise}
Show that in a graded ring $R$ we always have $1 \in R_0$, provides that $(\Gamma, +)$ satisfies the cancellation law: $\gamma+\eta=\eta \iff \gamma=0$. Hint: let $e_0$ be the component of $1_R$ in degree 0, argue that $x e_0 = x = e_0 x$ for all homogeneous $x \in R$. The condition $1 \in R_0$ is sometimes built into the definition of graded rings.
\end{exercise}
\begin{definition}
A graded submodule of a graded $R$-module $M$ is a submodule $N$ with $N = \bigoplus_\gamma (N \cap M_\gamma)$, which gives rise to a natural grading $N_\gamma := N \cap M_\gamma$ on $N$.
\end{definition}
For graded $N \subset M$, the quotient $R$-module $M/N = \bigoplus_\gamma M_\gamma/N_\gamma$ is again graded. As a special case, we have the notion of graded ideals of $R$ (also known as \emph{homogeneous ideals}), and the quotient ring $R/\mathfrak{a}$ with respect to graded $\mathfrak{a}$ inherits the evident grading.
Let $N$ be an $R$-submodule of $M$ and suppose $M$ is graded. The following are easily seen to be equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $N \subset M$ is graded;
\item $N$ is generated by homogeneous elements;
\item if $x = \sum_\gamma x_\gamma \in N$ with each $x_\gamma$ homogeneous of degree $\gamma$, then $\forall \; x_\gamma \in N$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{example}
Let $A$ be a ring and $R := A[X_1, \ldots, X_n]$. Then $R$ is naturally $\Z_{\geq 0}$-graded by degrees: for each $d \in \Z_{\geq 0}$, let $R_d$ be the set of homogeneous polynomials of total degree $d$. Ideals generated by homogeneous polynomials are precisely the graded ideals. The importance of this grading comes from projective algebraic geometry.
On the other hand, $R$ can also be graded by monomials by taking $\Gamma = \Z_{\geq 0} \times \cdots \times \Z_{\geq 0}$ ($n$ copies), and we set $R_{(d_1, \ldots, d_n)} = A \cdot X_1^{d_1} \cdots X_n^{d_n}$
\end{example}
Many constructions in commutative algebra can be generalized to the graded case. Let us illustrate what one can do in an important case, the primary decomposition (cf.\ \cite[\S 3.5 and Exercise 3.5]{Eis95}). In the $\Z$-graded context, it says that for a finitely generated graded module $M$ over a Noetherian graded ring, the associated primes of $M$ are all graded ideals, and one can write $\{0\} = N_1 \cap \cdots \cap N_m$ where $N_i \subset M$ are graded submodules with $\text{Ass}(M/N_i) = \{\mathfrak{p}_i\}$, $\mathfrak{p}_i \in \text{Ass}(M)$, etc. Most of the arguments in the ungraded case carry over verbatim, and the only new technique is the following
\begin{lemma}
Let $M$ be a $\Z$-graded module over a $\Z$-graded ring $R$. If $x \in M$ and $\mathfrak{p} := \mathrm{ann}(x)$ is a prime ideal, then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\mathfrak{p}$ is a homogeneous ideal, and
\item $\mathfrak{p} = \mathrm{ann}(y)$ for some homogeneous element $y \in M$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin with (i). Let $t \in \mathfrak{p}$ and $x \in M$ be such that $\mathfrak{p} = \text{ann}(M)$. Write
\[ t = \sum_{\gamma \in \mathcal{A}} t_\gamma, \quad x = \sum_{\eta \in \mathcal{B}} x_\eta, \]
where $t_\gamma \in R_\gamma \smallsetminus \{0\}$ and $x_\eta \in M_\eta \smallsetminus \{0\}$ for all $\gamma, \eta$. Denote by $\gamma_0$ and $\eta_0$ the minimal elements in $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, respectively. Homogenity amounts to $t_\gamma \in \mathfrak{p}$ for each $\gamma \in \mathcal{A}$, and this will be done by induction on $|\mathcal{B}|$. By a further induction on $|\mathcal{A}|$, for fixed $x$ and $\mathfrak{p}$, this can be reduced to showing $t_{\gamma_0} \in \mathfrak{p}$.
First of all, considerations of degrees and $tx=0$ lead to $t_{\gamma_0} x_{\eta_0} = 0$. If $x = x_{\eta_0}$ (i.e.\ $|\mathcal{B}| = 1$), we obtain $t_{\gamma_0} \in \text{ann}(x) = \mathfrak{p}$ as required. In general:
\begin{itemize}
\item Suppose that $\mathfrak{p} = \text{ann}(t_{\gamma_0} x)$; since the decomposition
\[ t_{\gamma_0} x = \sum_{\substack{\eta \in \mathcal{B} \\ \eta \neq \eta_0}} t_{\gamma_0} x_\eta \]
involves fewer homogeneous terms, $\mathfrak{p}$ is then homogeneous by our induction hypothesis on $|\mathcal{B}|$.
\item Suppose there exists $s \in R \smallsetminus \mathfrak{p}$ such that $s(t_{\gamma_0} x) = 0$, then $st_{\gamma_0} \in \mathfrak{p}$, hence $t_{\gamma_0} \in \mathfrak{p}$. This concludes the homogeneity (i).
\end{itemize}
From the homogeneity $\mathfrak{p}$ we infer that $\mathfrak{p} \subset \text{ann}(x_\eta)$ for each $\eta \in \mathcal{B}$. Now that
\[ \mathfrak{p} = \text{ann}(x) \supset \prod_{\eta \in \mathcal{B}} \text{ann}(x_\eta), \]
we have $\mathfrak{p} \supset \text{ann}(x_\eta)$ for some $\eta$, hence $\mathfrak{p} = \text{ann}(x_\eta)$. Take $y = x_\eta$ to obtain (ii).
\end{proof}
\section{Filtrations}
Now turn to filtrations. We only deal with decreasing filtrations indexed by $\Z_{\geq 0}$.
\begin{definition}\index{filtration}\index{gr@$\gr_F(M)$}
A \emph{filtration} on a ring $R$ is a descending sequence
\[ R = F^0 R \supset F^1 R \supset F^2 R \supset \cdots \]
of ideals such that $F^i R \cdot F^j R \subset F^{i+j} R$. Define the associated $\Z_{\geq 0}$-graded ring
\[ \gr_F(R) := \bigoplus_{n \geq 0} \underbracket{F^n R \big/ F^{n+1} R}_{=: \gr_F^n R} \]
whose multiplication is defined as follows: if $x \in F^n R / F^{n+1} R$ and $y \in F^m R/F^{m+1} R$, choose liftings $\tilde{x} \in F^n R$ and $\tilde{y} \in F^m R$ and define
\[ xy := \text{the image of }\; \tilde{x}\tilde{y}\; \text{ in }\; F^{n+m} R / F^{n+m+1} R; \]
this is readily seen to be well-defined. The multiplication of arbitrarily many homogeneous elements can be obtained in the same recipe. The datum $(R, F^\bullet R)$ is called a \emph{filtered ring},
Given a filtered ring $R$, a \emph{filtered $R$-module} $M$ is an $R$-module $M$ equipped with a descending sequence\footnote{In view of later applications, the filtration on a module is indexed by $\Z$ instead of $\Z_{\geq 0}$.} of submodules
\[ \cdots \supset F^i M \supset F^{i+1} M \supset \cdots, \quad i \in \Z \]
such that $F^i R \cdot F^j M \subset F^{i+j} M$. Define the associated graded module as the $\Z$-graded $\gr_F R$-module
\[ \gr_F(M) := \bigoplus_{n \in \Z} \underbracket{F^n M \big/ F^{n+1} M}_{=: \gr_F^i M} \]
whose scalar multiplication is defined using liftings as above.
\end{definition}
The subscript $F$ in $\gr$ will often be omitted. To guarantee that $\gr_F(R) \neq \{0\}$, we usually impose the harmless condition
\[ R = F^0 R \supsetneq F^1 R. \]
\begin{example}\index{filtration!$\mathfrak{a}$-adic}
Let $\mathfrak{a}$ be a proper ideal of $R$, then $F^i R := \mathfrak{a}^i$ defines a filtration on $R$, called the \emph{$\mathfrak{a}$-adic filtration}.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}\label{def:a-stable}
Equip $R$ with the $\mathfrak{a}$-adic filtration. A filtered $R$-module $M$ is called $\mathfrak{a}$-\emph{stable} if $\mathfrak{a} \cdot F^i M = F^{i+1} M$ for $i \gg 0$.
\end{definition}
Recall that $\mathfrak{a} \cdot F^i M \subset F^{i+1} M$ holds for all $M$, which is a part of our assumption.
As an easy example, set $F^i M := \mathfrak{a}^i M$ for $i \geq 1$, and $F^{\leq 0} M := M$; this is the $\mathfrak{a}$-adic filtration on $M$, which is obviously $\mathfrak{a}$-stable.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:gr-Noetherian}
Suppose $\mathfrak{a}$ is a proper ideal of $R$. If $R$ is Noetherian, so is $\gr(R)$ with respect to the $\mathfrak{a}$-adic filtration. In fact $\gr(R)$ is finitely generated over $\gr^0(R)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ be generators of $\mathfrak{a}$, with images $\bar{x}_i \in \mathfrak{a}/\mathfrak{a}^2$. Then $\gr(R)$ is generated by $\bar{x}_1, \ldots \bar{x}_n$ over $R/\mathfrak{a} = \gr^0 R$, which is also Noetherian. Now apply Hilbert's Basissatz.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:gr-fg}
Let $\mathfrak{a}$ be a proper ideal of $R$ and $M$ a finitely generated $R$-module. Suppose $M$ is endowed with an $\mathfrak{a}$-stable filtration such that $F^i M$ is finitely generated for each $i$, and $F^{\leq 0} M = M$. Then $\gr(M)$ is a finitely generated $\gr(R)$-module.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Take $n$ such that $\mathfrak{a} \cdot F^i M = F^{i+1} M$ for all $i \geq n$. Then in $\gr(M) = \bigoplus_i \gr^i M$ we have
\[ (\mathfrak{a}/\mathfrak{a}^2) \cdot \gr^i M = \gr^{i+1} M, \quad i \geq n. \]
Therefore it suffices to take generators from $\gr^0 M, \ldots, \gr^n M$, each of whom is finitely generated over $R/\mathfrak{a} = \gr^0 R$.
\end{proof}
\section{Theorems of Artin--Rees and Krull}\label{sec:Artin-Rees}
Conserve the conventions in the previous section on filtrations, etc.
\begin{definition}[Morphisms between filtered objects]
Let $(A, F^\bullet A)$ and $(B, F^\bullet B)$ be filtered rings. A \emph{morphism} between them means a ring homomorphism $\varphi: A \to B$ satisfying $\varphi(F^i A) \subset F^i B$ for all $i$. Similarly, suppose $A$ is filtered and let $M, N$ be filtered $A$-modules. A morphism $M \to N$ means a homomorphism $\psi: M \to N$ of $R$-modules satisfying $\psi(F^i M) \subset F^i N$ for all $i$.
\end{definition}
This makes the filtered rings and the filtered modules over a filtered ring into categories. Obviously, morphisms $\varphi$ between filtered objects induce graded morphisms $\gr \varphi$ between the associated graded objects. Therefore we obtain a functor from the category of filtered rings or modules into their graded avatars.
\begin{remark}
Suppose $\varphi: M \to N$ is a morphism between filtered $A$-modules. The quotient $M/\Ker(\varphi)$ inherits a filtration from $M$, whereas the submodule $\Image(\varphi)$ inherits one from $N$. When the natural isomorphism $M/\Ker(\varphi) \to \Image(\varphi)$ is an isomorphism between filtered modules, or equivalently
\[ \forall i \in \Z, \; \varphi(F^i M) = \varphi(M) \cap F^i N, \]
we say $\varphi$ is a \emph{strict morphism}.
\end{remark}
It is often useful to relate properties of a filtered module or morphism to its graded counterpart. Propositions \ref{prop:gr-Noetherian} and \ref{prop:gr-fg} are such examples. Here is an example for the other direction. We say that a filtration on $M$ is \emph{exhaustive} if $\bigcup_i F^i M = M$, \emph{separating} (or \emph{Hausdorff}) if $\bigcap_i F^i M = \{0\}$
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:gr-injective}
Suppose that $\varphi: M \to N$ is a morphism between filtered $R$-modules. If $M$ is exhaustive and separating, and $\gr\varphi$ is injective, then $\varphi$ is also injective.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $x \in \Ker(\varphi)$. There exists $n$ such that $x \in F^n M$. Regard $x + F^{n+1} M$ as an element of $\gr^n M$. Then $\gr(\varphi)(x + F^{n+1} M) = \varphi(x) + F^{n+1} N = 0$, so $x \in F^{n+1} M$. Iterating this argument, we have $x \in \bigcap_{k \geq n} F^k M = \{0\}$.
\end{proof}
See Lemma \ref{prop:gr-surjective} for the case of surjections.
In what follows, $\mathfrak{a}$ always denotes a proper ideal of a ring $R$.
\begin{definition}[Blow-up algebras and modules]\index{blow-up algebra}
Introduce an indeterminate $X$ and define the $\Z_{\geq 0}$-graded $R$-algebra
\[ \text{Bl}_{\mathfrak{a}} R := \bigoplus_{n \geq 0} \mathfrak{a}^n X^n \; \subset R[X]. \]
If an $R$-module $M$ is endowed with a filtration $(F^i M)_{i \geq 0}$ compatible with $\mathfrak{a}$, we define
\[ \text{Bl}(M) := \bigoplus_{n \geq 0} (F^n M) \otimes X^n \subset M \dotimes{R} R[X]. \]
Clearly, $\text{Bl}(M)$ is a graded $\text{Bl}_{\mathfrak{a}} R$-module.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The indeterminate $X$ is somehow a placeholder. Enlarge $\text{Bl}_{\mathfrak{a}} R$ to $\tilde{B}$ by setting the negative graded pieces to be $R \cdot X^{< 0}$, and set $T = X^{-1}$. We see that $\tilde{B}$ is actually an $R[T]$-algebra, sometimes called the \emph{Rees algebra} of $\mathfrak{a}$. Under the specialization $T=0$ we get \index{Rees algebra}
\[ \frac{ \tilde{B}}{T \tilde{B}} \simeq \bigoplus_{n \geq 0} \frac{\mathfrak{a}^n}{\mathfrak{a}^{n+1}} \cdot T^{-n} \simeq \gr(R). \]
On the other hand, inverting $T$ yields
\[ \tilde{B}[T^{-1}] = \bigoplus_{n \in \Z} R \cdot T^{-n} = R[T^{\pm 1}]. \]
This reflects a well-known deformation construction in geometry; $\gr(R)$ is actually the graded $R$-algebra corresponding to the \emph{normal cone} defined by $\mathfrak{a} \subset R$. We refer to \cite[\S 5.1]{Fu98} for details.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:Bl-fg}
Consider a ring $R$ with proper ideal $\mathfrak{a}$, together with a filtered $R$-module $M$, assume furthermore that each $F^i M$ is finitely generated over $R$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\mathrm{Bl}(M)$ is finitely generated over $\mathrm{Bl}_{\mathfrak{a}} R$;
\item the filtration on $M$ is $\mathfrak{a}$-stable. (Definition \ref{def:a-stable})
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) $\implies$ (ii): Choose homogeneous generators $x_1, \ldots, x_n \in \text{Bl}(M)$ with degrees $d_1, \ldots, d_n$ respectively. It is then routine to see that
\[ i \geq \max\{d_1, \ldots, d_n \} \implies (F^{i+1} M) X^{i+1} = \mathfrak{a} X \cdot (F^i M) X^i, \]
that is, $\mathfrak{a} \cdot F^i M = F^{i+1} M$ for these $i$.
(ii) $\implies$ (i): Suppose $\mathfrak{a} \cdot F^i M = F^{i+1} M$ for $i \geq d$, then $\text{Bl}(M)$ is generated by $\bigoplus_{j \leq d} (F^j M) X^j$, and each $F^j M$ is finitely generated over $R = (\text{Bl}_{\mathfrak{a}} R)_0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Artin--Rees]\label{prop:Artin-Rees}
Let $R$ be a Noetherian ring endowed with $\mathfrak{a}$-adic filtration. Let $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-module and $N \subset M$ an $R$-submodule. Then the filtration on $N$ induced by the $\mathfrak{a}$-adic filtration of $M$, namely $F^i N := \mathfrak{a}^i M \cap N$, is $\mathfrak{a}$-stable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Define $\text{Bl}(N)$ using the induced filtration $F^i N := \mathfrak{a}^i M \cap N$, which is a submodule of the finitely generated $\text{Bl}_{\mathfrak{a}} R$-module $\text{Bl}(M)$ (Lemma \ref{prop:Bl-fg}). If $\mathfrak{a} = (a_1, \ldots, a_m)$ than $\text{Bl}_{\mathfrak{a}} R = R[a_1 X, \ldots, a_m X] \subset R[X]$, hence Noetherian by Hilbert's Basissatz. We deduce that $\text{Bl}(N)$ is finitely generated over $\text{Bl}_{\mathfrak{a}} R$. In turn, this implies $F^\bullet N$ is an $\mathfrak{a}$-stable filtration on $N$ by Lemma \ref{prop:Bl-fg}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:intersection-thm}
For $R, \mathfrak{a}, M$ as in the previous theorem, we set $N := \bigcap_{n \geq 0} \mathfrak{a}^n M$. Then $\mathfrak{a}N = N$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since the induced filtration on $N$ is $\mathfrak{a}$-stable by Theorem \ref{prop:Artin-Rees}, for $n \gg 0$ we have
\[ N = \mathfrak{a}^n M \cap N = \mathfrak{a} \cdot (\mathfrak{a}^{n-1} M \cap N) = \mathfrak{a} N. \]
The assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}[Krull]\label{prop:Krull-intersection-rad}
If $\mathfrak{a} \subset \mathrm{rad}(R)$, then $\bigcap_{n \geq 0} \mathfrak{a}^n M = \{0\}$ for any finitely generated $R$-module $M$. In particular $\bigcap_{n \geq 0} \mathfrak{a}^n = \{0\}$ whenever $\mathfrak{a} \subset \mathrm{rad}(R)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Theorem \ref{prop:intersection-thm} together with Nakayama's lemma imply $N = \{0\}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}[Krull's Intersection Theorem]\label{prop:Krull-intersection-domain}\index{Krull's intersection theorem}
Let $R$ be a Noetherian domain and $\mathfrak{a}$ a proper ideal. Then $\bigcap_{n \geq 0} \mathfrak{a}^n = \{0\}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Define $N := \bigcap_{n \geq 0} \mathfrak{a}^n \subset R$. By Theorem \ref{prop:intersection-thm} we have $\mathfrak{a}N = N$, thus there exists $r \in \mathfrak{a}$ with $1+r \in \text{ann}(N)$ by Nakayama's Lemma (Theorem \ref{prop:NAK}). As $\mathfrak{a}$ is proper, $1+r$ cannot be zero. Since $R$ is a domain containing $N$, the only possibility is $N=\{0\}$ as asserted.
\end{proof}