A few facts on integrality *BRIEF VERSION*

Darij Grinberg
Version 6 (30 November 2010)
The purpose of this note is to collect some theorems and proofs related to integrality
in commutative algebra. The note is subdivided into four parts.
Part 1 (Integrality over rings) consists of known facts (Theorems 1, 4, 5) and a
generalized exercise from [1] (Corollary 3) with a few minor variations (Theorem 2 and
Corollary 6).
Part 2 (Integrality over ideal semiltrations) merges integrality over rings (as con-
sidered in Part 1) and integrality over ideals (a less-known but still very useful notion;
the book [2] is devoted to it) into one general notion - that of integrality over ideal
semiltrations (Denition 9). This notion is very general, yet it can be reduced to the
basic notion of integrality over rings by a suitable change of base ring (Theorem 7).
This reduction allows to extend some standard properties of integrality over rings to
the general case (Theorems 8 and 9).
Part 3 (Generalizing to two ideal semiltrations) continues Part 2, adding one more
layer of generality. Its main result is a relative version of Theorem 7 (Theorem 11)
and a known fact generalized one more time (Theorem 13).
Part 4 (Accelerating ideal semiltrations) generalizes Theorem 11 (and thus also
Theorem 7) a bit further by considering a generalization of powers of an ideal.
Part 5 (Generalizing a lemma by Lombardi) is about an auxiliary result Lombardi
used in [3] to prove Kroneckers Theorem
1
. We extend this auxiliary result here.
This note is supposed to be self-contained (only linear algebra and basic knowledge
about rings, ideals and polynomials is assumed).
This is an attempt to make the proofs as short as possible while keeping them easy to
read. If you are stuck following one of the proofs, you can nd a more detailed version
in [4]. However, normally the proofs in [4] are over-detailed, making them harder to
read than the ones below.
Preludium
Denitions and notations:
Denition 1. In the following, ring will always mean commutative ring with
unity. We denote the set 0, 1, 2, ... by N, and the set 1, 2, 3, ... by N
+
.
Denition 2. Let A be a ring. Let M be an A-module. If n N, and if m
1
, m
2
,
..., m
n
are n elements of M, then we dene an A-submodule m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
)
A
of M by
m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
)
A
=
_
n

i=1
a
i
m
i
[ (a
1
, a
2
, ..., a
n
) A
n
_
.
1
Kroneckers Theorem. Let B be a ring (ring always means commutative ring with unity
in this paper). Let g and h be two elements of the polynomial ring B [X]. Let g

be any coecient
of the polynomial g. Let h

be any coecient of the polynomial h. Let A be a subring of B which

contains all coecients of the polynomial gh. Then, the element g

of B is integral over the subring

A.
1
Also, if S is a nite set, and m
s
is an element of M for every s S, then we dene an
A-submodule m
s
[ s S)
A
of M by
m
s
[ s S)
A
=
_

sS
a
s
m
s
[ (a
s
)
sS
A
S
_
.
Of course, if m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
are n elements of M, then m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
)
A
= m
s
[ s 1, 2, ..., n)
A
.
We notice something almost trivial:
Module inclusion lemma. Let A be a ring. Let M be an A-module. Let
N be an A-submodule of M. If S is a nite set, and m
s
is an element of N
for every s S, then m
s
[ s S)
A
N.
Denition 3. Let A be a ring, and let n N. Let M be an A-module. We say
that the A-module M is n-generated if there exist n elements m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
of M
such that M = m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
)
A
. In other words, the A-module M is n-generated if
and only if there exists a set S and an element m
s
of M for every s S such that
[S[ = n and M = m
s
[ s S)
A
.
Denition 4. Let A and B be two rings. We say that A B if and only if
(the set A is a subset of the set B) and (the inclusion map A B is a ring homomorphism) .
Now assume that A B. Then, obviously, B is canonically an A-algebra. If u
1
,
u
2
, ..., u
n
are n elements of B, then we dene an A-subalgebra A[u
1
, u
2
, ..., u
n
] of B by
A[u
1
, u
2
, ..., u
n
] = P (u
1
, u
2
, ..., u
n
) [ P A[X
1
, X
2
, ..., X
n
] .
In particular, if u is an element of B, then the A-subalgebra A[u] of B is dened
by
A[u] = P (u) [ P A[X] .
Since A[X] =
_
m

i=0
a
i
X
i
[ m N and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
m
) A
m+1
_
, this becomes
A[u] =
__
m

i=0
a
i
X
i
_
(u) [ m N and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
m
) A
m+1
_
_
where
_
m

i=0
a
i
X
i
_
(u) means the polynomial
m

i=0
a
i
X
i
evaluated at X = u
_
=
_
m

i=0
a
i
u
i
[ m N and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
m
) A
m+1
_ _
because
_
m

i=0
a
i
X
i
_
(u) =
m

i=0
a
i
u
i
_
.
Obviously, uA[u] A[u].
1. Integrality over rings
2
Theorem 1. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Obviously, B is
canonically an A-module (since A B). Let n N. Let u B. Then, the
following four assertions /, B, ( and T are pairwise equivalent:
Assertion /: There exists a monic polynomial P A[X] with deg P = n
and P (u) = 0.
Assertion B: There exist a B-module C and an n-generated A-submodule
U of C such that uU U and such that every v B satisfying vU = 0
satises v = 0. (Here, C is an A-module, since C is a B-module and
A B.)
Assertion (: There exists an n-generated A-submodule U of B such that
1 U and uU U.
Assertion T: We have A[u] = u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
.
Denition 5. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let n N. Let u B.
We say that the element u of B is n-integral over A if it satises the four equivalent
assertions /, B, ( and T of Theorem 1.
Hence, in particular, the element u of B is n-integral over A if and only if there
exists a monic polynomial P A[X] with deg P = n and P (u) = 0.
Proof of Theorem 1. We will prove the implications / = (, ( = B, B = /,
/ = T and T = (.
Proof of the implication / = (. Assume that Assertion / holds. Then, there
exists a monic polynomial P A[X] with deg P = n and P (u) = 0. Since P A[X]
is a monic polynomial with deg P = n, there exist elements a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n1
of A such
that P (X) = X
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
X
k
. Thus, P (u) = u
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
u
k
, so that P (u) = 0 becomes
u
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0. Hence, u
n
=
n1

k=0
a
k
u
k
.
Let U be the A-submodule u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
of B. Then, U is an n-generated
A-module (since u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
are n elements of U). Besides, 1 = u
0
U.
Now, u u
k
U for any k 0, 1, ..., n 1 (this is clear for all k < n 1, and for
k = n it follows from u u
k
= u u
n1
= u
n
=
n1

k=0
a
k
u
k
u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
= U).
Hence,
uU = u

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A
=

u u
0
, u u
1
, ..., u u
n1
_
A
U
(since u u
k
U for any k 0, 1, ..., n 1).
Thus, Assertion ( holds. Hence, we have proved that / = (.
Proof of the implication ( = B. Assume that Assertion ( holds. Then, there
exists an n-generated A-submodule U of B such that 1 U and uU U. Every v B
satisfying vU = 0 satises v = 0 (since 1 U and vU = 0 yield v 1
..
U
vU = 0
and thus v 1 = 0, so that v = 0). Set C = B. Then, C is a B-module, and U is
an n-generated A-submodule of C (since U is an n-generated A-submodule of B, and
C = B). Thus, Assertion B holds. Hence, we have proved that ( = B.
Proof of the implication B = /. Assume that Assertion B holds. Then, there
exist a B-module C and an n-generated A-submodule U of C such that uU U (where
3
C is an A-module, since C is a B-module and A B), and such that every v B
satisfying vU = 0 satises v = 0.
Since the A-module U is n-generated, there exist n elements m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
of U
such that U = m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
)
A
. For any k 1, 2, ..., n, we have
um
k
uU (since m
k
U)
U = m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
)
A
,
so that there exist n elements a
k,1
, a
k,2
, ..., a
k,n
of A such that um
k
=
n

i=1
a
k,i
m
i
.
We are now going to work with matrices over U (that is, matrices whose entries lie
in U). This might sound somewhat strange, because U is not a ring; however, we can
still dene matrices over U just as one denes matrices over any ring. While we cannot
multiply two matrices over U (because U is not a ring), we can dene the product of
a matrix over A with a matrix over U as follows: If P A

is a matrix over A, and

Q U

is a matrix over U, then we dene the product PQ U

by
(PQ)
x,y
=

z=1
P
x,z
Q
z,y
for all x 1, 2, ..., and y 1, 2, ..., .
(Here, for any matrix T and any integers x and y, we denote by T
x,y
the entry of the
matrix T in the x-th row and the y-th column.)
It is easy to see that whenever P A

, Q A

and R U

are three
matrices, then (PQ) R = P (QR). The proof of this fact is exactly the same as the
standard proof that the multiplication of matrices over a ring is associative.
Now dene a matrix V U
n1
by V
i,1
= m
i
for all i 1, 2, ..., n.
Dene another matrix S A
nn
by S
k,i
= a
k,i
for all k 1, 2, ..., n and i
1, 2, ..., n.
Then, for any k 1, 2, ..., n, we have u m
k
..
=V
k,1
= uV
k,1
= (uV )
k,1
and
n

i=1
a
k,i
..
=S
k,i
m
i
..
=V
i,1
=
n

i=1
S
k,i
V
i,1
= (SV )
k,1
, so that um
k
=
n

i=1
a
k,i
m
i
becomes (uV )
k,1
= (SV )
k,1
. Since this
holds for every k 1, 2, ..., n, we conclude that uV = SV . Thus,
0 = uV SV = uI
n
V SV = (uI
n
S) V.
Now, let P A[X] be the characteristic polynomial of the matrix S A
nn
.
Then, P is monic, and deg P = n. Besides, P (X) = det (XI
n
S), so that P (u) =
det (uI
n
S). Thus,
P (u) V = det (uI
n
S) V = det (uI
n
S) I
n
. .
=adj(uInS)(uInS)
V = (adj (uI
n
S) (uI
n
S)) V
= adj (uI
n
S)
_
_
(uI
n
S) V
. .
=0
_
_
_
since (PQ) R = P (QR) for any P A

, Q A

and R U

_
= 0.
4
Since the entries of the matrix V are m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
, this yields P (u) m
k
= 0 for
every k 1, 2, ..., n, and thus
P (u) U = P (u) m
1
, m
2
, ..., m
n
)
A
= P (u) m
1
, P (u) m
2
, ..., P (u) m
n
)
A
= 0, 0, ..., 0)
A
(since P (u) m
k
= 0 for any k 1, 2, ..., n)
= 0.
This implies P (u) = 0 (since v = 0 for every v B satisfying vU = 0). Thus, Assertion
/ holds. Hence, we have proved that B = /.
Proof of the implication / = T. Assume that Assertion / holds. Then, there
exists a monic polynomial P A[X] with deg P = n and P (u) = 0. Since P A[X]
is a monic polynomial with deg P = n, there exist elements a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n1
of A such
that P (X) = X
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
X
k
. Thus, P (u) = u
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
u
k
, so that P (u) = 0 becomes
u
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0. Hence, u
n
=
n1

k=0
a
k
u
k
.
Let U be the A-submodule u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
of B. As in the Proof of the implication
/ = (, we can show that U is an n-generated A-module, and that 1 U and uU U.
Thus, induction over i shows that
u
i
U for any i N, (1)
and consequently
A[u] =
_
m

i=0
a
i
u
i
[ m N and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
m
) A
m+1
_
U =

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A
.
On the other hand, u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
A[u]. Hence, u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
= A[u]. Thus,
Assertion T holds. Hence, we have proved that / = T.
Proof of the implication T = (. Assume that Assertion T holds. Then, A[u] =
u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
.
Let U be the A-submodule u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
of B. Then, U is an n-generated A-
module. Besides, 1 = u
0
U. Finally, U = u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A
= A[u] yields uU U.
Thus, Assertion ( holds. Hence, we have proved that T = (.
Now, we have proved the implications / = T, T = (, ( = B and B = /
above. Thus, all four assertions /, B, ( and T are pairwise equivalent, and Theorem
1 is proven.
Theorem 2. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let n N. Let
v B. Let a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
be n + 1 elements of A such that
n

i=0
a
i
v
i
= 0. Let
k 0, 1, ..., n. Then,
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
is n-integral over A.
Proof of Theorem 2. Let U be the A-submodule v
0
, v
1
, ..., v
n1
)
A
of B. Then, U
is an n-generated A-module, and 1 = v
0
U.
5
Let u =
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
. Then,
0 =
n

i=0
a
i
v
i
=
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i
+
n

i=k
a
i
v
i
=
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i
+
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i+k
..
=v
i
v
k
(here, we substituted i +k for i in the second sum)
=
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i
+v
k
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
. .
=u
=
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i
+v
k
u,
so that v
k
u =
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i
.
Now, we are going to show that
uv
t
U for any t 0, 1, ..., n 1 . (2)
Proof of (3). In fact, we have either t < k or t k. In the case t < k, the relation
(3) follows from
uv
t
=
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
v
t
. .
=v
i+t
=
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i+t
U
(since every i 0, 1, ..., n k satises i +t 0, 1, ..., n 1, and thus
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i+t

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v
n1
)
A
= U). In the case t k, the relation (3) follows from
uv
t
= uv
k+(tk)
. .
=v
k
v
tk
= v
k
u v
tk
=
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i
v
tk
. .
=v
i+(tk)
_
since v
k
u =
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i
_
=
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i+(tk)
U
(since every i 0, 1, ..., k 1 satises i+(t k) 0, 1, ..., n 1, and thus
k1

i=0
a
i
v
i+(tk)

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v
n1
)
A
= U). Hence, (3) is proven in both possible cases, and thus the proof
of (3) is complete.
Now,
uU = u

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v
n1
_
A
=

uv
0
, uv
1
, ..., uv
n1
_
A
U (due to (3)) .
Altogether, U is an n-generated A-submodule of B such that 1 U and uU U.
Thus, u B satises Assertion ( of Theorem 1. Hence, u B satises the four
equivalent assertions /, B, ( and T of Theorem 1. Consequently, u is n-integral over
A. Since u =
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
, this means that
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
is n-integral over A. This proves
Theorem 2.
6
Corollary 3. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let N and
N. Let u B and v B. Let s
0
, s
1
, ..., s

be + 1 elements of A
such that

i=0
s
i
v
i
= u. Let t
0
, t
1
, ..., t

be + 1 elements of A such that

i=0
t
i
v
i
= uv

. Then, u is ( +)-integral over A.

(This Corollary 3 generalizes Exercise 2-5 in [1].)
First proof of Corollary 3. Let k = and n = +. Then, k 0, 1, ..., n. Dene
n + 1 elements a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
of A by
a
i
=
_
_
_
t
i
, if i < ;
t
0
s
0
, if i = ;
s
i
, if i > ;
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
Then,
n

i=0
a
i
v
i
=
+

i=0
a
i
v
i
=
1

i=0
a
i
..
=t
i
v
i
+ a

..
=t
0
s
0
v

+
+

i=+1
a
i
..
=s
i
v
i
=
1

i=0
t
i
v
i
+ (t
0
s
0
) v

. .
=t
0
v

s
0
v

+
+

i=+1
(s
i
) v
i
. .
=
+
P
i=+1
s
i
v
i
=
1

i=0
t
i
v
i
+t
0
v

s
0
v

i=+1
s
i
v
i
=
1

i=0
t
i
v
i
+t
0
v

_
s
0
v

+
+

i=+1
s
i
v
i
_
=
1

i=0
t
i
v
i
+t
0
v

. .
=

P
i=0
t
i
v
i
=

P
i=0
t
i
v
i
=uv

_
s
0
v

i=1
s
i
v
i+
_
. .
=

P
i=0
s
i
v
i+
=

P
i=0
s
i
v
i
v

=uv

(since

P
i=0
s
i
v
i
=u)
= 0.
7
Thus, Theorem 2 yields that
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
is n-integral over A. But
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
=
n

i=0
a
i+
v
i
= a
0+
..
=a
0
=t
0
s
0
v
0
..
=1
+
n

i=1
a
i+
..
=s
(i+)
(by the
denition of a
i+
)
v
i
= (t
0
s
0
) 1
. .
=t
0
s
0
+
n

i=1
_
_
s
(i+)
. .
=s
i
_
_
v
i
= t
0
s
0
+
n

i=1
(s
i
) v
i
= t
0

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
s
0
+
n

i=1
s
i
v
i
. .
=
n
P
i=0
s
i
v
i
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
= t
0

i=0
s
i
v
i
= t
0

i=0
s
i
v
i
. .
=u
(since n = + yields n = )
= t
0
u.
Thus, t
0
u is n-integral over A. On the other hand, t
0
is 1-integral over A (clearly,
since t
0
A). Thus, (t
0
)+(t
0
u) is n 1-integral over A (by Theorem 5 (b) below,
applied to x = t
0
, y = t
0
u and m = 1). In other words, u is n-integral over A.
On the other hand, 1 is 1-integral over A (trivially). Thus, (1) (u) is n 1-integral
over A (by Theorem 5 (c) below, applied to x = 1, y = u and m = 1). In other
words, u is ( +)-integral over A (since (1) (u) = u and n 1 = n = +). This
proves Corollary 3.
We will provide a second proof of Corollary 3 in Part 5.
Theorem 4. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let v B and
u B. Let m N and n N. Assume that v is m-integral over A, and
that u is n-integral over A[v]. Then, u is nm-integral over A.
Proof of Theorem 4. Since v is m-integral over A, we have A[v] = v
0
, v
1
, ..., v
m1
)
A
(this is the Assertion T of Theorem 1, stated for v and m in lieu of u and n).
Since u is n-integral over A[v], we have (A[v]) [u] = u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A[v]
(this is the
Assertion T of Theorem 1, stated for A[v] in lieu of A).
Let S = 0, 1, ..., n 1 0, 1, ..., m1.
Let x (A[v]) [u]. Then, there exist n elements b
0
, b
1
, ..., b
n1
of A[v] such that x =
n1

i=0
b
i
u
i
(since x (A[v]) [u] = u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
)
A[v]
). But for each i 0, 1, ..., n 1,
there exist m elements a
i,0
, a
i,1
, ..., a
i,m1
of A such that b
i
=
m1

j=0
a
i,j
v
j
(because
8
b
i
A[v] = v
0
, v
1
, ..., v
m1
)
A
). Thus,
x =
n1

i=0
b
i
..
=
m1
P
j=0
a
i,j
v
j
u
i
=
n1

i=0
m1

j=0
a
i,j
v
j
u
i
=

(i,j){0,1,...,n1}{0,1,...,m1}
a
i,j
v
j
u
i
=

(i,j)S
a
i,j
v
j
u
i

v
j
u
i
[ (i, j) S
_
A
(since a
i,j
A for every (i, j) S)
So we have proved that x v
j
u
i
[ (i, j) S)
A
for every x (A[v]) [u]. Thus,
(A[v]) [u] v
j
u
i
[ (i, j) S)
A
. Conversely, v
j
u
i
[ (i, j) S)
A
(A[v]) [u] (this
is trivial). Hence, (A[v]) [u] = v
j
u
i
[ (i, j) S)
A
. Thus, the A-module (A[v]) [u] is
nm-generated (since [S[ = nm).
Let U = (A[v]) [u]. Then, the A-module U is nm-generated. Besides, U is an
A-submodule of B, and we have 1 U and uU U. Thus, the element u of B satises
the Assertion ( of Theorem 1 with n replaced by nm. Hence, u B satises the four
equivalent assertions /, B, ( and T of Theorem 1, all with n replaced by nm. Thus,
u is nm-integral over A. This proves Theorem 4.
Theorem 5. Let A and B be two rings such that A B.
(a) Let a A. Then, a is 1-integral over A.
(b) Let x B and y B. Let m N and n N. Assume that x is m-
integral over A, and that y is n-integral over A. Then, x +y is nm-integral
over A.
(c) Let x B and y B. Let m N and n N. Assume that x is
m-integral over A, and that y is n-integral over A. Then, xy is nm-integral
over A.
Proof of Theorem 5. (a) There exists a monic polynomial P A[X] with deg P = 1
and P (a) = 0 (namely, the polynomial P A[X] dened by P (X) = X a). Thus,
a is 1-integral over A. This proves Theorem 5 (a).
(b) Since y is n-integral over A, there exists a monic polynomial P A[X] with
deg P = n and P (y) = 0. Since P A[X] is a monic polynomial with deg P = n,
there exists a polynomial

P A[X] with deg

P < n and P (X) = X
n
+

P (X).
Now, dene a polynomial Q (A[x]) [X] by Q(X) = P (X x). Then,
deg Q = deg P (since shifting the polynomial P by the constant x does not change its degree)
= n
and Q(x +y) = P ((x +y) x) = P (y) = 0. Also, the polynomial Q is monic (since
it is a translate of the monic polynomial P).
Hence, there exists a monic polynomial Q (A[x]) [X] with deg Q = n and
Q(x +y) = 0. Thus, x + y is n-integral over A[x]. Thus, Theorem 4 (applied to
v = x and u = x + y) yields that x + y is nm-integral over A. This proves Theorem 5
(b).
(c) Since y is n-integral over A, there exists a monic polynomial P A[X] with
deg P = n and P (y) = 0. Since P A[X] is a monic polynomial with deg P = n,
9
there exist elements a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n1
of A such that P (X) = X
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
X
k
. Thus,
P (y) = y
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
y
k
.
Now, dene a polynomial Q (A[x]) [X] by Q(X) = X
n
+
n1

k=0
x
nk
a
k
X
k
. Then,
Q(xy) = (xy)
n
. .
=x
n
y
n
+
n1

k=0
x
nk
a
k
(xy)
k
. .
=a
k
x
k
y
k
=x
k
a
k
y
k
= x
n
y
n
+
n1

k=0
x
nk
x
k
. .
=x
n
a
k
y
k
= x
n
y
n
+
n1

k=0
x
n
a
k
y
k
= x
n
_
_
_
_
_
_
y
n
+
n1

k=0
a
k
y
k
. .
=P(y)=0
_
_
_
_
_
_
= 0.
Also, the polynomial Q (A[x]) [X] is monic and deg Q = n (since Q(X) = X
n
+
n1

k=0
x
nk
a
k
X
k
). Thus, there exists a monic polynomial Q (A[x]) [X] with deg Q = n
and Q(xy) = 0. Thus, xy is n-integral over A[x]. Hence, Theorem 4 (applied to v = x
and u = xy) yields that xy is nm-integral over A. This proves Theorem 5 (c).
Corollary 6. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let n N
+
and m N. Let v B. Let b
0
, b
1
, ..., b
n1
be n elements of A, and let
u =
n1

i=0
b
i
v
i
. Assume that vu is m-integral over A. Then, u is nm-integral
over A.
Proof of Corollary 6. Dene n + 1 elements a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
of A[vu] by
a
i
=
_
vu, if i = 0;
b
i1
, if i > 0
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
Then, a
0
= vu. Let k = 1. Then,
n

i=0
a
i
v
i
= a
0
..
=vu
v
0
..
=1
+
n

i=1
a
i
..
=b
i1
,
since
i>0
v
i
..
=v
i1
v
= vu +
n

i=1
b
i1
v
i1
v = vu +
n1

i=0
b
i
v
i
. .
=u
v
(here, we substituted i for i 1 in the sum)
= vu +uv = 0.
Now, A[vu] and B are two rings such that A[vu] B. The n + 1 elements a
0
, a
1
,
..., a
n
of A[vu] satisfy
n

i=0
a
i
v
i
= 0. We have k = 1 0, 1, ..., n .
10
Hence, Theorem 2 (applied to the ring A[vu] in lieu of A) yields that
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
is
n-integral over A[vu]. But
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
=
n1

i=0
a
i+1
..
=b
(i+1)1
,
since i+1>0
v
i
=
n1

i=0
b
(i+1)1
v
i
=
n1

i=0
b
i
v
i
= u.
Hence, u is n-integral over A[vu]. But vu is m-integral over A. Thus, Theorem 4
(applied to vu in lieu of v) yields that u is nm-integral over A. This proves Corollary
6.
2. Integrality over ideal semiltrations
Denitions:
Denition 6. Let A be a ring, and let (I

)
N
be a sequence of ideals of A. Then,
(I

)
N
is called an ideal semiltration of A if and only if it satises the two conditions
I
0
= A;
I
a
I
b
I
a+b
for every a N and b N.
Denition 7. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Then, we identify
the polynomial ring A[Y ] with a subring of the polynomial ring B[Y ] (in fact, every
element of A[Y ] has the form
m

i=0
a
i
Y
i
for some m N and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
m
) A
m+1
, and
thus can be seen as an element of B[Y ] by regarding a
i
as an element of B for every
i 0, 1, ..., m).
Denition 8. Let A be a ring, and let (I

)
N
be an ideal semiltration of A. Con-
sider the polynomial ring A[Y ]. Let A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
denote the A-submodule

iN
I
i
Y
i
of the A-algebra A[Y ]. Then,
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
=

iN
I
i
Y
i
=
_

iN
a
i
Y
i
[ (a
i
I
i
for all i N) , and (only nitely many i N satisfy a
i
,= 0)
_
= P A[Y ] [ the i-th coecient of the polynomial P lies in I
i
for every i N .
It is very easy to see that 1 A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(due to 1 A = I
0
) and that the
A-submodule A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
of A[Y ] is closed under multiplication (here we need to
use I
i
I
j
I
i+j
). Hence, A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
is an A-subalgebra of the A-algebra A[Y ].
This A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
is called the Rees algebra of the ideal semiltration
(I

)
N
.
Note that A = I
0
yields A A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
.
11
Denition 9. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
be an ideal
semiltration of A. Let n N. Let u B.
We say that the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
if there exists some
(a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
) A
n+1
such that
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0, a
n
= 1, and a
i
I
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
We start with a theorem which reduces the question of n-integrality over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
to that of n-integrality over a ring
2
:
Theorem 7. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
be
an ideal semiltration of A. Let n N. Let u B.
Consider the polynomial ring A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
dened in Denition 8.
Then, the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
if and only if
the element uY of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over the ring
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. (Here, A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
B[Y ] because A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_

A[Y ] and we consider A[Y ] as a subring of B[Y ] as explained in Denition

7).
Proof of Theorem 7. =: Assume that u is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. Then, by
Denition 9, there exists some (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
) A
n+1
such that
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0, a
n
= 1, and a
i
I
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
Then, there exists a monic polynomial P
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[X] with deg P = n
and P (uY ) = 0 (viz., the polynomial P (X) =
n

k=0
a
k
Y
nk
X
k
). Hence, uY is n-integral
over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. This proves the = direction of Theorem 7.
=: Assume that uY is n-integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. Then, there exists a
monic polynomial P
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[X] with deg P = n and P (uY ) = 0.
Since P
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[X] satises deg P = n, there exists (p
0
, p
1
, ..., p
n
)
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
n+1
such that P (X) =
n

k=0
p
k
X
k
. Besides, p
n
= 1, since P is monic
and deg P = n.
For every k 0, 1, ..., n, we have p
k
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
=

iN
I
i
Y
i
, and thus, there
exists a sequence (p
k,i
)
iN
A
N
such that p
k
=

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
, such that p
k,i
I
i
for every
2
Theorem 7 is inspired by Proposition 5.2.1 in [2].
12
i N, and such that only nitely many i N satisfy p
k,i
,= 0. Thus, P (X) =
n

k=0
p
k
X
k
becomes P (X) =
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
X
k
(since p
k
=

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
). Hence,
P (uY ) =
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
(uY )
k
=
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i+k
u
k
.
Therefore, P (uY ) = 0 becomes
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i+k
u
k
= 0. In other words, the polynomial
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i+k
u
k
B[Y ] equals 0. Hence, its coecient before Y
n
equals 0 as well.
But its coecient before Y
n
is
n

k=0
p
k,nk
u
k
, so we get
n

k=0
p
k,nk
u
k
= 0.
Note that

iN
p
n,i
Y
i
= p
n
_
since

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
= p
k
for every k 0, 1, ..., n
_
= 1
in A[Y ] , and thus p
n,0
= 1.
Dene an (n + 1)-tuple (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
) A
n+1
by a
k
= p
k,nk
for every k 0, 1, ..., n .
Then, a
n
= p
n,0
= 1. Besides,
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
=
n

k=0
p
k,nk
u
k
= 0. Finally, a
k
= p
k,nk
I
nk
(since p
k,i
I
i
for every i N) for every k 0, 1, ..., n. In other words, a
i
I
ni
for
every i 0, 1, ..., n.
Altogether, we now know that
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0, a
n
= 1, and a
i
I
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
Thus, by Denition 9, the element u is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. This proves the
= direction of Theorem 7.
The next theorem is an analogue of Theorem 5 for integrality over ideal semiltra-
tions:
Theorem 8. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
be
an ideal semiltration of A.
(a) Let u A. Then, u is 1-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
if and only if u I
1
.
(b) Let x B and y B. Let m N and n N. Assume that x is
m-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
, and that y is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
.
Then, x +y is nm-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
.
(c) Let x B and y B. Let m N and n N. Assume that x is
m-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
, and that y is n-integral over A. Then, xy is
nm-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
.
13
Proof of Theorem 8. (a) Very obvious.
(b) Consider the polynomial ring A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. The-
orem 7 (applied to x and m instead of u and n) yields that xY is m-integral over
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(since x is m-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
). Also, Theorem 7 (applied to
y instead of u) yields that yY is n-integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(since y is n-integral
over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
). Hence, Theorem 5 (b) (applied to A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, B[Y ] , xY and
yY instead of A, B, x and y, respectively) yields that xY + yY is nm-integral over
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. Since xY +yY = (x +y) Y , this means that (x +y) Y is nm-integral
over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. Hence, Theorem 7 (applied to x +y and nm instead of u and n)
yields that x +y is nm-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. This proves Theorem 8 (b).
(c) First, a trivial observation:
Lemma 1: Let A, A

and B

be three rings such that A A

. Let v B

.
Let n N. If v is n-integral over A, then v is n-integral over A

.
Now let us prove Theorem 8 (c).
Consider the polynomial ring A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. The-
orem 7 (applied to x and m instead of u and n) yields that xY is m-integral over
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(since x is m-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
). On the other hand, Lemma
1 (applied to A

= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, B

= B[Y ] and v = y) yields that y is n-integral

over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(since y is n-integral over A, and A A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
B[Y ]).
Hence, Theorem 5 (c) (applied to A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, B[Y ] and xY instead of A, B and x,
respectively) yields that xY y is nm-integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. Since xY y = xyY ,
this means that xyY is nm-integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. Hence, Theorem 7 (applied
to xy and nm instead of u and n) yields that xy is nm-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. This
proves Theorem 8 (c).
The next theorem imitates Theorem 4 for integrality over ideal semiltrations:
Theorem 9. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
be
an ideal semiltration of A.
Let v B and u B. Let m N and n N.
(a) Then, (I

A[v])
N
is an ideal semiltration of A[v].
3
(b) Assume that v is m-integral over A, and that u is n-integral over
_
A[v] , (I

A[v])
N
_
. Then, u is nm-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
.
Proof of Theorem 9. (a) This is evident. More generally (and still evidently):
3
Here and in the following, whenever A and B are two rings such that A B, whenever v is
an element of B, and whenever I is an ideal of A, you should read the term IA[v] as I (A[v]), not
as (IA) [v]. For instance, you should read the term I

A[v] (in Theorem 9 (a)) as I

(A[v]), not as
(I

A) [v].
14
Lemma : Let A and A

be two rings such that A A

. Let (I

)
N
be an ideal
semiltration of A. Then, (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A

.
(b) Again, we are going to use a rather trivial fact (for a proof, see [4]):
Lemma /: Let A, A

and B

be three rings such that A A

. Let v B

.
Then, A

A[v] = A

[v].
Now let us prove Theorem 9 (b). In fact, consider the polynomial ring A[Y ]
and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. We have A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
A[Y ], and (as ex-
plained in Denition 7) we can identify the polynomial ring A[Y ] with a subring of
(A[v]) [Y ] (since A A[v]). Hence, A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(A[v]) [Y ]. On the other hand,
(A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
(A[v]) [Y ].
Now, we will show that (A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
=
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v].
In fact, Denition 8 yields
(A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
=

iN
I
i
A[v] Y
i
=

iN
I
i
Y
i
A[v] = A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
A[v]
_
since

iN
I
i
Y
i
= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
_
=
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v]
(by Lemma / (applied to A

= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
and B

= (A[v]) [Y ])).
Note that (as explained in Denition 7) we can identify the polynomial ring (A[v]) [Y ]
with a subring of B[Y ] (since A[v] B). Thus, A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(A[v]) [Y ] yields
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
B[Y ].
Besides, Lemma 1 (applied to A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, B[Y ] and m instead of A

, B

and
n) yields that v is m-integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(since v is m-integral over A, and
A A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
B[Y ]).
Now, Theorem 7 (applied to A[v] and (I

A[v])
N
instead of A and (I

)
N
) yields
that uY is n-integral over (A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
(since u is n-integral over
_
A[v] , (I

A[v])
N
_
).
Since (A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
=
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v], this means that uY is n-integral
over
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v]. Now, Theorem 4 (applied to A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, B[Y ] and uY
instead of A, B and u) yields that uY is nm-integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(since v is m-
integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, and uY is n-integral over
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v]). Thus,
Theorem 7 (applied to nm instead of n) yields that u is nm-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
.
This proves Theorem 9 (b).
3. Generalizing to two ideal semiltrations
15
Theorem 10. Let A be a ring.
(a) Then, (A)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A.
(b) Let (I

)
N
and (J

)
N
be two ideal semiltrations of A. Then, (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A.
The proof of this is just basic axiom checking (see [4] for details).
Now let us generalize Theorem 7:
Theorem 11. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
and (J

)
N
be two ideal semiltrations of A. Let n N. Let u B.
We know that (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A (according to Theo-
rem 10 (b)).
Consider the polynomial ring A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
.
We will abbreviate the ring A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
by A
[I]
.
By Lemma (applied to A
[I]
and (J

)
N
instead of A

and (I

)
N
), the
sequence
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
is an ideal semiltration of A
[I]
(since A A
[I]
and
since (J

)
N
= (J

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A).
Then, the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
if and only if the
element uY of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
.
(Here, A
[I]
B[Y ] because A
[I]
= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
A[Y ] and we consider
A[Y ] as a subring of B[Y ] as explained in Denition 7.)
Proof of Theorem 11. In order to verify Theorem 11, we have to prove the = and
= statements.
=: Assume that u is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. Then, by Denition 9 (ap-
plied to (I

)
N
instead of (I

)
N
), there exists some (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
) A
n+1
such
that
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0, a
n
= 1, and a
i
I
ni
J
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
Note that a
k
Y
nk
A
[I]
for every k 0, 1, ..., n (because a
k
I
nk
J
nk
I
nk
(since I
nk
is an ideal of A)). Thus, we can dene an (n + 1)-tuple (b
0
, b
1
, ..., b
n
)
_
A
[I]
_
n+1
by b
k
= a
k
Y
nk
for every k 0, 1, ..., n. This (n + 1)-tuple satises
n

k=0
b
k
(uY )
k
= 0, b
n
= 1, and b
i
J
ni
A
[I]
for every i 0, 1, ..., n
(as can be easily checked). Hence, by Denition 9 (applied to A
[I]
, B[Y ] ,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
,
uY and (b
0
, b
1
, ..., b
n
) instead of A, B, (I

)
N
, u and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
)), the element uY
is n-integral over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
. This proves the = direction of Theorem 11.
16
=: Assume that uY is n-integral over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
. Then, by Denition 9
(applied to A
[I]
, B[Y ] ,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
, uY and (p
0
, p
1
, ..., p
n
) instead of A, B, (I

)
N
, u
and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
)), there exists some (p
0
, p
1
, ..., p
n
)
_
A
[I]
_
n+1
such that
n

k=0
p
k
(uY )
k
= 0, p
n
= 1, and p
i
J
ni
A
[I]
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
For every k 0, 1, ..., n, we have
p
k
J
nk
A
[I]
= J
nk

iN
I
i
Y
i
_
since A
[I]
= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
=

iN
I
i
Y
i
_
=

iN
J
nk
I
i
Y
i
=

iN
I
i
J
nk
Y
i
,
and thus, there exists a sequence (p
k,i
)
iN
A
N
such that p
k
=

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
, such that
p
k,i
I
i
J
nk
for every i N, and such that only nitely many i N satisfy p
k,i
,= 0.
Thus,
n

k=0
p
k
(uY )
k
=
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
(uY )
k
. .
=u
k
Y
k
=Y
k
u
k
_
since p
k
=

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
_
=
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i+k
u
k
.
Hence,
n

k=0
p
k
(uY )
k
= 0 becomes
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i+k
u
k
= 0. In other words, the polynomial
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i+k
u
k
B[Y ] equals 0. Hence, its coecient before Y
n
equals 0 as well.
But its coecient before Y
n
is
n

k=0
p
k,nk
u
k
. Hence, we obtain
n

k=0
p
k,nk
u
k
= 0.
Note that

iN
p
n,i
Y
i
= p
n
_
since

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
= p
k
for every k 0, 1, ..., n
_
= 1
in A[Y ] , and thus p
n,0
= 1.
Dene an (n + 1)-tuple (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
) A
n+1
by a
k
= p
k,nk
for every k 0, 1, ..., n .
Then, a
n
= p
n,0
= 1. Besides,
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
=
n

k=0
p
k,nk
u
k
= 0.
Finally, a
k
= p
k,nk
I
nk
J
nk
(since p
k,i
I
i
J
nk
for every i N) for every k
0, 1, ..., n. In other words, a
i
I
ni
J
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n.
17
Altogether, we now know that
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0, a
n
= 1, and a
i
I
ni
J
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
Thus, by Denition 9 (applied to (I

)
N
instead of (I

)
N
), the element u is n-
integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. This proves the = direction of Theorem 11, and thus
Theorem 11 is shown.
The reason why Theorem 11 generalizes Theorem 7 is the following triviality, men-
tioned here for the pure sake of completeness:
Theorem 12. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let n N.
Let u B.
We know that (A)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A (according to Theorem
10 (a)).
Then, the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A, (A)
N
_
if and only if u is
n-integral over A.
Finally, let us generalize Theorem 8 (c):
Theorem 13. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
and (J

)
N
be two ideal semiltrations of A.
Let x B and y B. Let m N and n N. Assume that x is m-integral
over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
, and that y is n-integral over
_
A, (J

)
N
_
. Then, xy is
nm-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
.
Proof of Theorem 13. First, a trivial observation:
Lemma 1

: Let A, A

and B

be three rings such that A A

. Let (I

)
N
be
an ideal semiltration of A. Let v B

. Let n N. If v is n-integral over

_
A, (I

)
N
_
,
then v is n-integral over
_
A

, (I

)
N
_
. (Note that (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration
of A

, according to Lemma .)
This is obvious upon unraveling the denitions of n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_

and of n-integral over

_
A

, (I

)
N
_
.
Now let us prove Theorem 13.
We have (J

)
N
= (J

)
N
. Hence, y is n-integral over
_
A, (J

)
N
_
(since y is
n-integral over
_
A, (J

)
N
_
).
Consider the polynomial ring A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. We will
abbreviate the ring A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
by A
[I]
. We have A
[I]
B[Y ], because A
[I]
=
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
A[Y ] and we consider A[Y ] as a subring of B[Y ] as explained in
Denition 7.
18
Theorem 7 (applied to x and m instead of u and n) yields that xY is m-integral
over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(since x is m-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
). In other words, xY is
m-integral over A
[I]
(since A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
= A
[I]
).
On the other hand, Lemma 1

(applied to A
[I]
, B[Y ], (J

)
N
and y instead of
A

, B

, (I

)
N
and v) yields that y is n-integral over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
(since y is
n-integral over
_
A, (J

)
N
_
, and A A
[I]
B[Y ]).
Hence, Theorem 8 (c) (applied to A
[I]
, B[Y ],
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
, y, xY , m and n instead
of A, B, (I

)
N
, x, y, n and m respectively) yields that y xY is mn-integral over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
(since y is n-integral over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
, and xY is m-integral
over A
[I]
). Since y xY = xyY and mn = nm, this means that xyY is nm-integral
over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
. Hence, Theorem 11 (applied to xy and nm instead of u and
n) yields that xy is nm-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. This proves Theorem 13.
4. Accelerating ideal semiltrations
We start this section with an obvious observation:
Theorem 14. Let A be a ring. Let (I

)
N
be an ideal semiltration of A.
Let N. Then, (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A.
I refer to (I

)
N
as the -acceleration of the ideal semiltration (I

)
N
.
Now, Theorem 11, itself a generalization of Theorem 7, is going to be generalized
once more:
Theorem 15. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
and (J

)
N
be two ideal semiltrations of A. Let n N. Let u B. Let
N.
We know that (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A (according to Theorem
14).
Hence, (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A (according to Theorem 10
(b), applied to (I

)
N
instead of (I

)
N
).
Consider the polynomial ring A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
.
We will abbreviate the ring A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
by A
[I]
.
By Lemma (applied to A
[I]
and (J

)
N
instead of A

and (I

)
N
), the
sequence
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
is an ideal semiltration of A
[I]
(since A A
[I]
and
since (J

)
N
= (J

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A).
Then, the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
if and only if the
element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over

_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
.
(Here, A
[I]
B[Y ] because A
[I]
= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
A[Y ] and we consider
A[Y ] as a subring of B[Y ] as explained in Denition 7.)
19
Proof of Theorem 15. First, note that

N
I

iN
I
i
Y
i
(here we renamed as i in the sum)
= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
= A
[I]
.
In order to verify Theorem 15, we have to prove the = and = statements.
=: Assume that u is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. Then, by Denition 9 (ap-
plied to (I

)
N
instead of (I

)
N
), there exists some (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
) A
n+1
such
that
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0, a
n
= 1, and a
i
I
(ni)
J
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
Note that a
k
Y
(nk)
A
[I]
for every k 0, 1, ..., n (because a
k
I
(nk)
J
nk

I
(nk)
(since I
(nk)
is an ideal of A) and thus a
k
Y
(nk)
I
(nk)
Y
(nk)

iN
I
i
Y
i
=
A
[I]
). Thus, we can nd an (n + 1)-tuple (b
0
, b
1
, ..., b
n
)
_
A
[I]
_
n+1
satisfying
n

k=0
b
k

_
uY

_
k
= 0, b
n
= 1, and b
i
J
ni
A
[I]
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
4
Hence, by Denition 9 (applied to A
[I]
, B[Y ] ,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
, uY

and (b
0
, b
1
, ..., b
n
)
instead of A, B, (I

)
N
, u and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
)), the element uY

is n-integral over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
. This proves the = direction of Theorem 15.
=: Assume that uY

is n-integral over
_
A
[I]
,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
_
. Then, by Denition 9
(applied to A
[I]
, B[Y ] ,
_
J

A
[I]
_
N
, uY

and (p
0
, p
1
, ..., p
n
) instead of A, B, (I

)
N
,
u and (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
)), there exists some (p
0
, p
1
, ..., p
n
)
_
A
[I]
_
n+1
such that
n

k=0
p
k

_
uY

_
k
= 0, p
n
= 1, and p
i
J
ni
A
[I]
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
For every k 0, 1, ..., n, we have
p
k
J
nk
A
[I]
= J
nk

iN
I
i
Y
i
_
since A
[I]
=

iN
I
i
Y
i
_
=

iN
J
nk
I
i
Y
i
=

iN
I
i
J
nk
Y
i
,
and thus, there exists a sequence (p
k,i
)
iN
A
N
such that p
k
=

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
, such that
p
k,i
I
i
J
nk
for every i N, and such that only nitely many i N satisfy p
k,i
,= 0.
4
Namely, the (n + 1)-tuple (b
0
, b
1
, ..., b
n
)
_
A
[I]
_
n+1
dened by
_
b
k
= a
k
Y
(nk)
for every k 0, 1, ..., n
_
satises this. The proof is very easy (see [4] for
details).
20
Thus,
n

k=0
p
k

_
uY

_
k
=
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
Y
i

_
uY

_
k
. .
=u
k
Y
i+k
_
since p
k
=

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
_
=
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
u
k
Y
i+k
.
Hence,
n

k=0
p
k

_
uY

_
k
= 0 becomes
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
u
k
Y
i+k
= 0. In other words, the poly-
nomial
n

k=0

iN
p
k,i
u
k
. .
B
Y
i+k
B[Y ] equals 0. Hence, its coecient before Y
n
equals 0
as well. But its coecient before Y
n
is
n

k=0
p
k,(nk)
u
k
. Hence,
n

k=0
p
k,(nk)
u
k
equals 0.
Note that

iN
p
n,i
Y
i
= p
n
_
since

iN
p
k,i
Y
i
= p
k
for every k 0, 1, ..., n
_
= 1
in A[Y ] , and thus the coecient of the polynomial

iN
p
n,i
Y
i
A[Y ] before Y
0
is 1;
but the coecient of the polynomial

iN
p
n,i
Y
i
A[Y ] before Y
0
is p
n,0
; hence, p
n,0
= 1.
Dene an (n + 1)-tuple (a
0
, a
1
, ..., a
n
) A
n+1
by a
k
= p
k,(nk)
for every k
0, 1, ..., n . Then, a
n
= p
n,0
= 1. Besides,
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
=
n

k=0
p
k,(nk)
u
k
= 0.
Finally, a
k
= p
k,(nk)
I
(nk)
J
nk
(since p
k,i
I
i
J
nk
for every i N) for every
k 0, 1, ..., n. In other words, a
i
I
(ni)
J
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n.
Altogether, we now know that
n

k=0
a
k
u
k
= 0, a
n
= 1, and a
i
I
(ni)
J
ni
for every i 0, 1, ..., n .
Thus, by Denition 9 (applied to (I

)
N
instead of (I

)
N
), the element u is n-
integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
. This proves the = direction of Theorem 15, and thus
completes the proof.
A particular case of Theorem 15:
Theorem 16. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
be
an ideal semiltration of A. Let n N. Let u B. Let N.
We know that (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A (according to Theorem
14).
21
Consider the polynomial ring A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
dened in Denition 8.
Then, the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
if and only if
the element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over the ring

A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. (Here, A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
B[Y ] because A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_

A[Y ] and we consider A[Y ] as a subring of B[Y ] as explained in Denition

7).
Proof of Theorem 16. Theorem 10 (a) states that (A)
N
is an ideal semiltration
of A.
We will abbreviate the ring A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
by A
[I]
.
We have the following ve equivalences:
The element u of B is n-integral over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
if and only if the element u
of B is n-integral over
_
A, (I

A)
N
_
(since I

= I

A).
The element u of B is n-integral over
_
A, (I

A)
N
_
if and only if the element
uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over

_
A
[I]
,
_
AA
[I]
_
N
_
(according
to Theorem 15, applied to (A)
N
instead of (J

)
N
).
The element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over

_
A
[I]
,
_
AA
[I]
_
N
_
if and only if the element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over

_
A
[I]
,
_
A
[I]
_
N
_
(since
_
_
_
AA
[I]
. .
=A
[I]
_
_
_
N
=
_
A
[I]
_
N
=
_
A
[I]
_
N
).
The element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over

_
A
[I]
,
_
A
[I]
_
N
_
if and only if the element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over A

[I]
(by Theorem 12, applied to A
[I]
, B[Y ] and uY

instead of A, B and u).

The element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over A

[I]
if and only
if the element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over A

_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(since A
[I]
= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
).
Combining these ve equivalences, we obtain that the element u of B is n-integral
over
_
A, (I

)
N
_
if and only if the element uY

of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-

integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. This proves Theorem 16.
Finally we can generalize even Theorem 2:
Theorem 17. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
be an ideal semiltration of A. Let n N. Let v B. Let a
0
, a
1
, ...,
22
a
n
be n + 1 elements of A such that
n

i=0
a
i
v
i
= 0 and a
i
I
ni
for every
i 0, 1, ..., n.
Let k 0, 1, ..., n. We know that
_
I
(nk)
_
N
is an ideal semiltration of
A (according to Theorem 14, applied to = n k).
Then,
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
is n-integral over
_
A,
_
I
(nk)
_
N
_
.
Proof of Theorem 17. Consider the polynomial ring A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
dened in Denition 8. We have A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
B[Y ], because
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
A[Y ] and we consider A[Y ] as a subring of B[Y ] as explained in
Denition 7.
As usual, note that

N
I

iN
I
i
Y
i
(here we renamed as i in the sum)
= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
.
In the ring B[Y ], we have
n

i=0
a
i
Y
ni
(vY )
i
. .
=v
i
Y
i
=Y
i
v
i
=
n

i=0
a
i
Y
ni
Y
i
. .
=Y
n
v
i
= Y
n
n

i=0
a
i
v
i
. .
=0
= 0.
Besides, a
i
Y
ni
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
for every i 0, 1, ..., n (since a
i
..
I
ni
Y
ni
I
ni
Y
ni

N
I

= A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
). Hence, Theorem 2 (applied to A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, B[Y ] , vY
and a
i
Y
ni
instead of A, B, v and a
i
) yields that
nk

i=0
a
i+k
Y
n(i+k)
(vY )
i
is n-integral
over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. Since
nk

i=0
a
i+k
Y
n(i+k)
(vY )
i
. .
=v
i
Y
i
=Y
i
v
i
=
nk

i=0
a
i+k
Y
n(i+k)
Y
i
. .
=Y
(n(i+k))+i
=Y
nk
v
i
=
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
Y
nk
,
this means that
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
Y
nk
is n-integral over A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
.
But Theorem 16 (applied to u =
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
and = n k) yields that
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
is
n-integral over
_
A,
_
I
(nk)
_
N
_
if and only if
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
Y
nk
is n-integral over the
ring A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. Since we know that
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
Y
nk
is n-integral over the ring
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, this yields that
nk

i=0
a
i+k
v
i
is n-integral over
_
A,
_
I
(nk)
_
N
_
. This
proves Theorem 17.
23
5. Generalizing a lemma by Lombardi
Now, we are going to generalize Theorem 2 from [3] (which is the main result of
[3])
5
. First, a very technical lemma:
Lemma 18. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let x B. Let
m N and n N. Let u B. Let N and N. Assume that
u
n

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
(3)
and that
u
m
x

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
1
_
A
.
(4)
Then, u is (n +m)-integral over A.
The proof of this lemma is not dicult but rather elaborate. For a completely
detailed writeup of this proof, see [4]. Here let me give the skeleton of the proof of
Lemma 18. Let
S = (0, 1, ..., n 1 0, 1, ..., 1)(0, 1, ..., m1 , + 1, ..., + 1) .
Clearly, (0, 0) S, [S[ = n +m and
j < + for every (i, j) S. (5)
Let U be the A-submodule u
i
x
j
[ (i, j) S)
A
of B. Then, U is an (n +m)-
generated A-module (since [S[ = n +m). Besides, clearly,
u
i
x
j
U for every (i, j) S. (6)
In particular, this yields 1 U (since (0, 0) S).
Now, we will show that
every i N and j N satisfying j < + satisfy u
i
x
j
U. (7)
The proof of (7) can be done either by double induction (over i and over j) or by
the minimal principle. The induction proof has the advantage that it is completely
constructive, but it is clumsy (I give this induction proof in [4]). So, for the sake of
brevity, the proof I am going to give here is by the minimal principle:
For the sake of contradiction, we assume that (7) is not true. Then, let (I, J) be
the lexicographically smallest pair (i, j) N
2
satisfying j < + but not satisfying
u
i
x
j
U. Then, J < + but u
I
x
J
/ U, and since (I, J) is the lexicographically
smallest such pair, we have
u
I
x
j
U for every j N such that j < J (8)
and
u
i
x
j
U for every i N and j N such that i < I and j < +. (9)
5
Caveat: The notion integral over (A, J) dened in [3] has nothing to do with our notion
n-integral over
_
A, (I
n
)
nN
_
.
24
Now, (8) rewrites as

u
I
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
J1
_
A
U, (10)
and (9) rewrites as

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
I1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
+1
_
A
U. (11)
Also note that J < + yields J + 1 (since J and + are integers).
We distinguish between the following four cases (it is clear that at least one of them
must hold):
Case 1: We have I m J .
Case 2: We have I < m J .
Case 3: We have I n J < .
Case 4: We have I < n J < .
In Case 1, we have I m 0 (since I m) and J 0 (since J ), thus
u
I
..
=u
Im
u
m
x
J
..
=x

x
J
= u
Im
u
m
x

. .
u
0
,u
1
,...,u
m1
)
A
x
0
,x
1
,...,x

)
A
+u
0
,u
1
,...,u
m
)
A
x
0
,x
1
,...,x
1
)
A
(by (4))
x
J
u
Im
_
u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
1
_
A
_
x
J
= u
Im

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A
. .
u
0
,u
1
,...,u
I1

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
x
J
. .
x
0
,x
1
,...,x
+1

A
(since J+1)
+u
Im

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A
. .
u
0
,u
1
,...,u
I
)
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
1
_
A
x
J
. .
x
0
,x
1
,...,x
J1
)
A

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
I1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
+1
_
A
. .
U by (11)
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
I
_
A
. .
=u
0
,u
1
,...,u
I1

A
+u
I

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
J1
_
A
U +
_
u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
I1
_
A
+

u
I
_
A
_

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
J1
_
A
. .
=u
0
,u
1
,...,u
I1

A
x
0
,x
1
,...,x
J1

A
+u
I

A
x
0
,x
1
,...,x
J1

A
= U +

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
I1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
J1
_
A
. .
x
0
,x
1
,...,x
+1
)
A
(since
J1J+1)
+

u
I
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
J1
_
A
U +

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
I1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
+1
_
A
. .
U by (11)
+

u
I
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
J1
_
A
. .
U by (10)
U +U +U U (since U is an A-module) .
Thus, we have proved that u
I
x
J
U holds in Case 1.
In Case 2, we have (I, J) S and thus u
I
x
J
U (by (6), applied to I and J instead
of i and j). Thus, we have proved that u
I
x
J
U holds in Case 2.
In Case 3, we have I n 0 (since I n) and J + + 1 (since J <
25
yields J + < +, and since J + and + are integers), thus
u
I
..
=u
In
u
n
x
J
= u
In
u
n
..
u
0
,u
1
,...,u
n1
)
A
x
0
,x
1
,...,x

)
A
(by (3))
x
J
u
In

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A
. .
u
0
,u
1
,...,u
I1
)
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
x
J
. .
x
0
,x
1
,...,x
+1
)
A
(since
J++1)

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
I1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
+1
_
A
U (by (11)) .
Thus, we have proved that u
I
x
J
U holds in Case 3.
In Case 4, we have (I, J) S and thus u
I
x
J
U (by (6), applied to I and J instead
of i and j). Thus, we have proved that u
I
x
J
U holds in Case 4.
Therefore, we have proved that u
I
x
J
U holds in each of the four cases 1, 2, 3
and 4. Hence, u
I
x
J
U always holds, contradicting u
I
x
J
/ U. This contradiction
completes the proof of (7).
Now that (7) is proven, we can easily conclude that uU U. Altogether, U is an
(n +m)-generated A-submodule of B such that 1 U and uU U. Thus, u B
satises Assertion ( of Theorem 1 with n replaced by n+m. Hence, u B satises
the four equivalent assertions /, B, ( and T of Theorem 1 with n replaced by n+m.
Consequently, u is (n +m)-integral over A. This proves Lemma 18.
We record a weaker variant of Lemma 18:
Lemma 19. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let x B and
y B be such that xy A. Let m N and n N. Let u B. Let N
and N. Assume that
u
n

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
(12)
and that
u
m

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

y
0
, y
1
, ..., y

_
A
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A

y
1
, y
2
, ..., y

_
A
.
(13)
Then, u is (n +m)-integral over A.
Proof of Lemma 19. (Again, the same proof with more details can be found in [4].)
We have

y
0
, y
1
, ..., y

_
A
x

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
, (14)
since every i 0, 1, ..., satises
y
i
x

..
=x
i
x
i
= y
i
x
i
x
i
= x
i
y
i
..
=(xy)
i
A,
since xyA
x
i

x
i
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
.
Besides,

y
1
, y
2
, ..., y

_
A
x

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
1
_
A
, (15)
since every i 1, 2, ..., satises
y
i
x

x
i
_
A
(by (??))

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
1
_
A
.
26
Now, (13) yields
u
m
x

_
u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

y
0
, y
1
, ..., y

_
A
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A

y
1
, y
2
, ..., y

_
A
_
x

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

y
0
, y
1
, ..., y

_
A
x

. .
x
0
,x
1
,...,x

)
A
(by (14))
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A

y
1
, y
2
, ..., y

_
A
x

. .
x
0
,x
1
,...,x
1
)
A
(by (15))

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x
1
_
A
.
In other words, (4) holds. Also, (3) holds (because (12) holds, and because (3) is the
same as (12)). Thus, Lemma 18 yields that u is (n +m)-integral over A. This proves
Lemma 19.
Something trivial now:
Lemma 20. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let x B. Let
n N. Let u B. Assume that u is n-integral over A[x]. Then, there
exists some N such that
u
n

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
.
The proof of Lemma 20 (again, axiomatized in [4]) goes as follows: Since u is n-
integral over A[x], there exists a monic polynomial P (A[x]) [X] with deg P = n and
P (u) = 0. Denoting the coecients of this polynomial P by
0
,
1
, ...,
n
(where
n
=
1), the equation P (u) = 0 becomes u
n
=
n1

i=0

i
u
i
. Note that
i
A[x] for all i. Now,
there exists some N such that
i
x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

)
A
for every i 0, 1, ..., n 1
(because for each i 0, 1, ..., n 1, we have
i
A[x] =

=0
x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

)
A
, so that

i
x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

i
)
A
for some
i
N; now take = max
0
,
1
, ...,
n1
). This then
satises
u
n
=
n1

i=0

i
u
i
=
n1

i=0
u
i
..
u
0
,u
1
,...,u
n1

i
..
x
0
,x
1
,...,x

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
,
and Lemma 20 is proven.
A consequence of Lemmata 19 and 20 is the following theorem:
Theorem 21. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let x B and
y B be such that xy A. Let m N and n N. Let u B. Assume
that u is n-integral over A[x], and that u is m-integral over A[y]. Then,
there exists some N such that u is -integral over A.
Proof of Theorem 21. Since u is n-integral over A[x], Lemma 20 yields that there
exists some N such that
u
n

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A

x
0
, x
1
, ..., x

_
A
.
In other words, (12) holds.
27
Since u is m-integral over A[y], Lemma 20 (with x, n and replaced by y, m and
) yields that there exists some N such that
u
m

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

y
0
, y
1
, ..., y

_
A
. (16)
Hence, (13) holds as well (because (16) is even stronger than (13)).
Since both (12) and (13) hold, Lemma 19 yields that u is (n +m)-integral over A.
Thus, there exists some N such that u is -integral over A (namely, = n+m).
This proves Theorem 21.
We record a generalization of Theorem 21 (which will turn out to be easily seen
equivalent to Theorem 21):
Theorem 22. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let x B and
y B. Let m N and n N. Let u B. Assume that u is n-integral over
A[x], and that u is m-integral over A[y]. Then, there exists some N
such that u is -integral over A[xy].
Proof of Theorem 22. Obviously, A A[xy] yields A[x] (A[xy]) [x] and A[y]
(A[xy]) [y].
Since u is n-integral over A[x], Lemma 1 (applied to B, (A[xy]) [x], A[x] and u
instead of B

, A

, A and v) yields that u is n-integral over (A[xy]) [x].

Since u is m-integral over A[y], Lemma 1 (applied to B, (A[xy]) [y], A[y], m and
u instead of B

, A

, A, n and v) yields that u is m-integral over (A[xy]) [y].

Now, Theorem 21 (applied to A[xy] instead of A) yields that there exists some
N such that u is -integral over A[xy] (because xy A[xy], because u is n-
integral over (A[xy]) [x], and because u is m-integral over (A[xy]) [y]). This proves
Theorem 22.
Theorem 22 has a relative version:
Theorem 23. Let A and B be two rings such that A B. Let (I

)
N
be
an ideal semiltration of A. Let x B and y B.
(a) Then, (I

A[x])
N
is an ideal semiltration of A[x]. Besides, (I

A[y])
N
is an ideal semiltration of A[y]. Besides, (I

A[xy])
N
is an ideal semil-
tration of A[xy].
(b) Let m N and n N. Let u B. Assume that u is n-integral over
_
A[x] , (I

A[x])
N
_
, and that u is m-integral over
_
A[y] , (I

A[y])
N
_
.
Then, there exists some N such that u is -integral over
_
A[xy] , (I

A[xy])
N
_
.
Proof of Theorem 23. (a) Since (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A, Lemma
(applied to A[x] instead of A

) yields that (I

A[x])
N
is an ideal semiltration of A[x].
Since (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A, Lemma (applied to A[y] instead of
A

) yields that (I

A[y])
N
is an ideal semiltration of A[y].
Since (I

)
N
is an ideal semiltration of A, Lemma (applied to A[xy] instead of
A

) yields that (I

A[xy])
N
is an ideal semiltration of A[xy].
Thus, Theorem 23 (a) is proven.
(b) We formulate a lemma:
28
Lemma ^: Let A, A

and B be three rings such that A A

B. Let
v B. Let (I

)
N
be an ideal semiltration of A. Consider the polynomial ring
A[Y ] and its A-subalgebra A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
. We have A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
A[Y ], and (as
explained in Denition 7) we can identify the polynomial ring A[Y ] with a subring of
(A[v]) [Y ] (since A A[v]). Hence, A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
(A[v]) [Y ]. On the other hand,
(A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
(A[v]) [Y ].
(a) We have
(A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
=
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v] .
(b) Let u B. Let n N. Then, the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A[v] , (I

A[v])
N
_
if and only if the element uY of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is
n-integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v].
Proof of Lemma ^: (a) We have proven Lemma ^ (a) during the proof of Theorem
9 (b).
(b) Theorem 7 (applied to A[v] and (I

A[v])
N
instead of A and (I

)
N
) yields
that the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A[v] , (I

A[v])
N
_
if and only if the element
uY of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over the ring (A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
. In
other words, the element u of B is n-integral over
_
A[v] , (I

A[v])
N
_
if and only if the
element uY of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is n-integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v]
(because Lemma ^ (a) yields (A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
=
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[v]). This
proves Lemma ^ (b).
Now, let us prove Theorem 23 (b). In fact, for every v B, we can consider
the polynomial ring (A[v]) [Y ] and its A[v]-subalgebra (A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
. We
have (A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
(A[v]) [Y ], and (as explained in Denition 7) we can
identify the polynomial ring (A[v]) [Y ] with a subring of B[Y ] (since A[v] B).
Hence, (A[v])
_
(I

A[v])
N
Y
_
B[Y ].
Lemma ^ (b) (applied to x instead of v) yields that the element u of B is n-
integral over
_
A[x] , (I

A[x])
N
_
if and only if the element uY of the polynomial ring
B[Y ] is n-integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[x]. But since the element u of B is
n-integral over
_
A[x] , (I

A[x])
N
_
, this yields that the element uY of the polynomial
ring B[Y ] is n-integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[x].
Lemma ^ (b) (applied to y and m instead of v and n) yields that the element
u of B is m-integral over
_
A[y] , (I

A[y])
N
_
if and only if the element uY of the
polynomial ring B[Y ] is m-integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[y]. But since the
element u of B is m-integral over
_
A[y] , (I

A[y])
N
_
, this yields that the element uY
29
of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is m-integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[y].
Since uY is n-integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[x], and since uY is m-integral
over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[y], Theorem 22 (applied to A
_
(I

)
N
Y
_
, B[Y ] and
uY instead of A, B and u) yields that there exists some N such that uY is -integral
over
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[xy].
Lemma ^ (b) (applied to xy and instead of v and n) yields that the element u of B
is -integral over
_
A[xy] , (I

A[xy])
N
_
if and only if the element uY of the polynomial
ring B[Y ] is -integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[xy]. But since the element
uY of the polynomial ring B[Y ] is -integral over the ring
_
A
_
(I

)
N
Y
__
[xy],
this yields that the element u of B is -integral over
_
A[xy] , (I

A[xy])
N
_
. Thus,
Theorem 23 (b) is proven.
We notice that Corollary 3 can be derived from Lemma 18:
Second proof of Corollary 3. Let n = 1. Let m = 1. We have
u
n

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
6
and
u
m
v

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v
1
_
A
7
. Thus, Lemma 18 (applied to v, and instead of x, and ) yields that u is
(n +m)-integral over A. This means that u is ( +)-integral over A (because
n +m = 1 + 1 = + = +). This proves Corollary 3 once again.
6
because
u
n
= u
1
= u =

i=0
s
i
..
A
v
i

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
= A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
=

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
(since A = 1)
A
=

u
0
_
A
=

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
n1
_
A
, as n = 1)
7
because
u
m
..
=u
1
=u
v

= uv

i=0
t
i
v
i
=

i=0
t
i
v
(i)
(here we substituted i for i in the sum)
=

i=0
t
i
..
A
v
i

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
= A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
=

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
(since A = 1)
A
=

u
0
_
A
=

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A
, as m = 1) and

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m1
_
A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v

_
A
+

u
0
, u
1
, ..., u
m
_
A

v
0
, v
1
, ..., v
1
_
A
30
In how far does this all generalize Theorem 2 from [3]? Actually, Theorem 2 from
[3] can be easily reduced to the case when J = 0 (by passing from the ring A to its
localization A
1+J
), and in this case it easily follows from Lemma 18.
References
[1] J. S. Milne, Algebraic Number Theory, version 3.02.
http://www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/ant.html
[2] Craig Huneke and Irena Swanson, Integral Closure of Ideals, Rings, and Modules,
London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 336. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2006.
http://people.reed.edu/~iswanson/book/index.html
[3] Henri Lombardi, Hidden constructions in abstract algebra (1) Integral depen-
dance relations, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 167 (2002), pp. 259-267.
http://hlombardi.free.fr/publis/IntegralDependance.ps
[4] Darij Grinberg, A few facts on integrality *DETAILED VERSION*.
http://www.cip.ifi.lmu.de/~grinberg/Integrality.pdf
31