Flat maps and Zariski tangent spacesUniversal definition of tangent spaces (for schemes and manifolds)Generalizing miracle flatness (Matsumura 23.1) via finite Tor-dimensiona question about flatnessFlatness on the fiberStructure theorem for etale mapsNormality and fiber productDescent of regularity under a faithfully flat morphism: Where does my proof fail?Formally smooth map from a regular ringFlatness and Cohen-Macaulay ringsWhen does completion preserve injectivity?

Flat maps and Zariski tangent spaces


Universal definition of tangent spaces (for schemes and manifolds)Generalizing miracle flatness (Matsumura 23.1) via finite Tor-dimensiona question about flatnessFlatness on the fiberStructure theorem for etale mapsNormality and fiber productDescent of regularity under a faithfully flat morphism: Where does my proof fail?Formally smooth map from a regular ringFlatness and Cohen-Macaulay ringsWhen does completion preserve injectivity?













6














$begingroup$


Let $f:A to B$ be a finite flat local homomorphism of noetherian local rings.




Are there some nice conditions on $A$ and $B$ which guarantee that the dimension
of the Zariski tangent space of $A$ (at its maximal ideal) is smaller or
equal to the dimension of the Zariski tangent space of $B$ (at its maximal ideal)?




For example, if $B$ is regular then $A$ is regular, so the above would hold, but I don't want to assume something so strong.



I know no example where it fails, but I am particularly interested in the case that $A$ and $B$ are both lci and Artin.










share|cite|improve this question










$endgroup$



















    6














    $begingroup$


    Let $f:A to B$ be a finite flat local homomorphism of noetherian local rings.




    Are there some nice conditions on $A$ and $B$ which guarantee that the dimension
    of the Zariski tangent space of $A$ (at its maximal ideal) is smaller or
    equal to the dimension of the Zariski tangent space of $B$ (at its maximal ideal)?




    For example, if $B$ is regular then $A$ is regular, so the above would hold, but I don't want to assume something so strong.



    I know no example where it fails, but I am particularly interested in the case that $A$ and $B$ are both lci and Artin.










    share|cite|improve this question










    $endgroup$

















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$


      Let $f:A to B$ be a finite flat local homomorphism of noetherian local rings.




      Are there some nice conditions on $A$ and $B$ which guarantee that the dimension
      of the Zariski tangent space of $A$ (at its maximal ideal) is smaller or
      equal to the dimension of the Zariski tangent space of $B$ (at its maximal ideal)?




      For example, if $B$ is regular then $A$ is regular, so the above would hold, but I don't want to assume something so strong.



      I know no example where it fails, but I am particularly interested in the case that $A$ and $B$ are both lci and Artin.










      share|cite|improve this question










      $endgroup$




      Let $f:A to B$ be a finite flat local homomorphism of noetherian local rings.




      Are there some nice conditions on $A$ and $B$ which guarantee that the dimension
      of the Zariski tangent space of $A$ (at its maximal ideal) is smaller or
      equal to the dimension of the Zariski tangent space of $B$ (at its maximal ideal)?




      For example, if $B$ is regular then $A$ is regular, so the above would hold, but I don't want to assume something so strong.



      I know no example where it fails, but I am particularly interested in the case that $A$ and $B$ are both lci and Artin.







      ag.algebraic-geometry ac.commutative-algebra






      share|cite|improve this question














      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Aug 3 at 8:32









      ulrichulrich

      8,6451 gold badge33 silver badges47 bronze badges




      8,6451 gold badge33 silver badges47 bronze badges























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          10
















          $begingroup$

          Lemma. Let $A to B$ be a flat local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings with the same residue field $k$ such that $A$ and $B$ are both (local) complete intersections. Then
          $$
          dim(B) - dim(A) + dim_k mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 leq dim_k mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2
          $$

          provided $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$.



          Proof. By a theorem of Avramov, the ring map $A to B$ is a local complete intersection homomorphism! Consider the distinguished triangle
          $$
          L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k to L_k/A to L_k/B to
          (L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k)[1]
          $$

          of cotangent complexes associated to the ring maps $A to B to k$. Observe that $H^0(L_k/A) = 0$ and $H^-1(L_k/A) = mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2$ and similarly for $B$. Since $A to B$ is a flat local complete intersection of relative dimension $dim(B) - dim(A)$, the complex $L_B/A$ is isomorphic in $D(B)$ to a complex of the form
          $$
          B^oplus r to B^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A)
          $$

          for some integer $r geq 0$ with the two terms sitting in degrees $-1$ and $0$ and the map given by a matrix whose coefficients are in $mathfrak m_B$. To see this we use that $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$ and hence a localization of an algebra of the form $A[x_1, ldots, x_r + dim(B) - dim(A)]/(f_1, ldots, f_r)$ which is a relative global complete intersection. Putting everything together we see that we get an exact sequence
          $$
          k^oplus r to mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 to
          mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2 to k^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A) to 0
          $$

          of $k$-vector spaces. We conclude by dimension theory for finite dimensional vector spaces.



          Remark. The assumption of $B$ being essentially of finite type over $A$ can be removed, but it becomes a bit technical if you want to do this. Conversely, you can spell out what Avramov's theorem means in nontechnical terms and prove the lemma without using the cotangent complex (but since Avramov's theorem is kind of hard you don't gain a lot in doing so I think).



          Note. I haven't considered what happens if the residue fields aren't the same (for example if the residue field extension is inseparable). I haven't tried to make a counter example if the rings aren't lci.






          share|cite|improve this answer










          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! The assumption that the residue fields are the same is good enough for me, but knowing the limits of the statement would of course be nice.
            $endgroup$
            – ulrich
            Aug 4 at 2:45












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          ;
          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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337537%2fflat-maps-and-zariski-tangent-spaces%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









          10
















          $begingroup$

          Lemma. Let $A to B$ be a flat local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings with the same residue field $k$ such that $A$ and $B$ are both (local) complete intersections. Then
          $$
          dim(B) - dim(A) + dim_k mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 leq dim_k mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2
          $$

          provided $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$.



          Proof. By a theorem of Avramov, the ring map $A to B$ is a local complete intersection homomorphism! Consider the distinguished triangle
          $$
          L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k to L_k/A to L_k/B to
          (L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k)[1]
          $$

          of cotangent complexes associated to the ring maps $A to B to k$. Observe that $H^0(L_k/A) = 0$ and $H^-1(L_k/A) = mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2$ and similarly for $B$. Since $A to B$ is a flat local complete intersection of relative dimension $dim(B) - dim(A)$, the complex $L_B/A$ is isomorphic in $D(B)$ to a complex of the form
          $$
          B^oplus r to B^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A)
          $$

          for some integer $r geq 0$ with the two terms sitting in degrees $-1$ and $0$ and the map given by a matrix whose coefficients are in $mathfrak m_B$. To see this we use that $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$ and hence a localization of an algebra of the form $A[x_1, ldots, x_r + dim(B) - dim(A)]/(f_1, ldots, f_r)$ which is a relative global complete intersection. Putting everything together we see that we get an exact sequence
          $$
          k^oplus r to mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 to
          mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2 to k^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A) to 0
          $$

          of $k$-vector spaces. We conclude by dimension theory for finite dimensional vector spaces.



          Remark. The assumption of $B$ being essentially of finite type over $A$ can be removed, but it becomes a bit technical if you want to do this. Conversely, you can spell out what Avramov's theorem means in nontechnical terms and prove the lemma without using the cotangent complex (but since Avramov's theorem is kind of hard you don't gain a lot in doing so I think).



          Note. I haven't considered what happens if the residue fields aren't the same (for example if the residue field extension is inseparable). I haven't tried to make a counter example if the rings aren't lci.






          share|cite|improve this answer










          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! The assumption that the residue fields are the same is good enough for me, but knowing the limits of the statement would of course be nice.
            $endgroup$
            – ulrich
            Aug 4 at 2:45















          10
















          $begingroup$

          Lemma. Let $A to B$ be a flat local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings with the same residue field $k$ such that $A$ and $B$ are both (local) complete intersections. Then
          $$
          dim(B) - dim(A) + dim_k mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 leq dim_k mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2
          $$

          provided $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$.



          Proof. By a theorem of Avramov, the ring map $A to B$ is a local complete intersection homomorphism! Consider the distinguished triangle
          $$
          L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k to L_k/A to L_k/B to
          (L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k)[1]
          $$

          of cotangent complexes associated to the ring maps $A to B to k$. Observe that $H^0(L_k/A) = 0$ and $H^-1(L_k/A) = mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2$ and similarly for $B$. Since $A to B$ is a flat local complete intersection of relative dimension $dim(B) - dim(A)$, the complex $L_B/A$ is isomorphic in $D(B)$ to a complex of the form
          $$
          B^oplus r to B^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A)
          $$

          for some integer $r geq 0$ with the two terms sitting in degrees $-1$ and $0$ and the map given by a matrix whose coefficients are in $mathfrak m_B$. To see this we use that $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$ and hence a localization of an algebra of the form $A[x_1, ldots, x_r + dim(B) - dim(A)]/(f_1, ldots, f_r)$ which is a relative global complete intersection. Putting everything together we see that we get an exact sequence
          $$
          k^oplus r to mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 to
          mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2 to k^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A) to 0
          $$

          of $k$-vector spaces. We conclude by dimension theory for finite dimensional vector spaces.



          Remark. The assumption of $B$ being essentially of finite type over $A$ can be removed, but it becomes a bit technical if you want to do this. Conversely, you can spell out what Avramov's theorem means in nontechnical terms and prove the lemma without using the cotangent complex (but since Avramov's theorem is kind of hard you don't gain a lot in doing so I think).



          Note. I haven't considered what happens if the residue fields aren't the same (for example if the residue field extension is inseparable). I haven't tried to make a counter example if the rings aren't lci.






          share|cite|improve this answer










          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! The assumption that the residue fields are the same is good enough for me, but knowing the limits of the statement would of course be nice.
            $endgroup$
            – ulrich
            Aug 4 at 2:45













          10














          10










          10







          $begingroup$

          Lemma. Let $A to B$ be a flat local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings with the same residue field $k$ such that $A$ and $B$ are both (local) complete intersections. Then
          $$
          dim(B) - dim(A) + dim_k mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 leq dim_k mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2
          $$

          provided $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$.



          Proof. By a theorem of Avramov, the ring map $A to B$ is a local complete intersection homomorphism! Consider the distinguished triangle
          $$
          L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k to L_k/A to L_k/B to
          (L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k)[1]
          $$

          of cotangent complexes associated to the ring maps $A to B to k$. Observe that $H^0(L_k/A) = 0$ and $H^-1(L_k/A) = mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2$ and similarly for $B$. Since $A to B$ is a flat local complete intersection of relative dimension $dim(B) - dim(A)$, the complex $L_B/A$ is isomorphic in $D(B)$ to a complex of the form
          $$
          B^oplus r to B^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A)
          $$

          for some integer $r geq 0$ with the two terms sitting in degrees $-1$ and $0$ and the map given by a matrix whose coefficients are in $mathfrak m_B$. To see this we use that $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$ and hence a localization of an algebra of the form $A[x_1, ldots, x_r + dim(B) - dim(A)]/(f_1, ldots, f_r)$ which is a relative global complete intersection. Putting everything together we see that we get an exact sequence
          $$
          k^oplus r to mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 to
          mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2 to k^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A) to 0
          $$

          of $k$-vector spaces. We conclude by dimension theory for finite dimensional vector spaces.



          Remark. The assumption of $B$ being essentially of finite type over $A$ can be removed, but it becomes a bit technical if you want to do this. Conversely, you can spell out what Avramov's theorem means in nontechnical terms and prove the lemma without using the cotangent complex (but since Avramov's theorem is kind of hard you don't gain a lot in doing so I think).



          Note. I haven't considered what happens if the residue fields aren't the same (for example if the residue field extension is inseparable). I haven't tried to make a counter example if the rings aren't lci.






          share|cite|improve this answer










          $endgroup$



          Lemma. Let $A to B$ be a flat local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings with the same residue field $k$ such that $A$ and $B$ are both (local) complete intersections. Then
          $$
          dim(B) - dim(A) + dim_k mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 leq dim_k mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2
          $$

          provided $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$.



          Proof. By a theorem of Avramov, the ring map $A to B$ is a local complete intersection homomorphism! Consider the distinguished triangle
          $$
          L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k to L_k/A to L_k/B to
          (L_B/A otimes_B^mathbfL k)[1]
          $$

          of cotangent complexes associated to the ring maps $A to B to k$. Observe that $H^0(L_k/A) = 0$ and $H^-1(L_k/A) = mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2$ and similarly for $B$. Since $A to B$ is a flat local complete intersection of relative dimension $dim(B) - dim(A)$, the complex $L_B/A$ is isomorphic in $D(B)$ to a complex of the form
          $$
          B^oplus r to B^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A)
          $$

          for some integer $r geq 0$ with the two terms sitting in degrees $-1$ and $0$ and the map given by a matrix whose coefficients are in $mathfrak m_B$. To see this we use that $B$ is essentially of finite type over $A$ and hence a localization of an algebra of the form $A[x_1, ldots, x_r + dim(B) - dim(A)]/(f_1, ldots, f_r)$ which is a relative global complete intersection. Putting everything together we see that we get an exact sequence
          $$
          k^oplus r to mathfrak m_A/mathfrak m_A^2 to
          mathfrak m_B/mathfrak m_B^2 to k^oplus r + dim(B) - dim(A) to 0
          $$

          of $k$-vector spaces. We conclude by dimension theory for finite dimensional vector spaces.



          Remark. The assumption of $B$ being essentially of finite type over $A$ can be removed, but it becomes a bit technical if you want to do this. Conversely, you can spell out what Avramov's theorem means in nontechnical terms and prove the lemma without using the cotangent complex (but since Avramov's theorem is kind of hard you don't gain a lot in doing so I think).



          Note. I haven't considered what happens if the residue fields aren't the same (for example if the residue field extension is inseparable). I haven't tried to make a counter example if the rings aren't lci.







          share|cite|improve this answer













          share|cite|improve this answer




          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 3 at 11:59









          darxdarx

          1161 silver badge2 bronze badges




          1161 silver badge2 bronze badges














          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! The assumption that the residue fields are the same is good enough for me, but knowing the limits of the statement would of course be nice.
            $endgroup$
            – ulrich
            Aug 4 at 2:45
















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! The assumption that the residue fields are the same is good enough for me, but knowing the limits of the statement would of course be nice.
            $endgroup$
            – ulrich
            Aug 4 at 2:45















          $begingroup$
          Thanks a lot! The assumption that the residue fields are the same is good enough for me, but knowing the limits of the statement would of course be nice.
          $endgroup$
          – ulrich
          Aug 4 at 2:45




          $begingroup$
          Thanks a lot! The assumption that the residue fields are the same is good enough for me, but knowing the limits of the statement would of course be nice.
          $endgroup$
          – ulrich
          Aug 4 at 2:45


















          draft saved

          draft discarded















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • 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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337537%2fflat-maps-and-zariski-tangent-spaces%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

          Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

          Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

          Where does the image of a data connector as a sharp metal spike originate from?Where does the concept of infected people turning into zombies only after death originate from?Where does the motif of a reanimated human head originate?Where did the notion that Dragons could speak originate?Where does the archetypal image of the 'Grey' alien come from?Where did the suffix '-Man' originate?Where does the notion of being injured or killed by an illusion originate?Where did the term “sophont” originate?Where does the trope of magic spells being driven by advanced technology originate from?Where did the term “the living impaired” originate?