Definition
In this article, let R be a commutative ring and M an R-module.
Let S a multiplicatively closed subset of R, i.e. for any s and t ∈ S, the product st is also in S. Then the localization of M with respect to S, denoted S−1M, is defined to be the following module: as a set, it consists of equivalence classes of pairs (m, s), where m ∈ M and s ∈ S. Two such pairs (m, s) and (n, t) are considered equivalent if there is a third element u of S such that
- u(sn-tm) = 0
It is common to denote these equivalence classes
- .
To make this set a R-module, define
and
(a ∈ R). It is straightforward to check that the definition is well-defined, i.e. yields the same result for different choices of representatives of fractions. One interesting characterization of the equivalence relation is that it is the smallest relation (considered as a set) such that cancellation laws hold for elements in S. That is, it is the smallest relation such that rs/us = r/u for all s in S.
One case is particularly important: if S equals the complement of a prime ideal p ⊂ R (which is multiplicatively closed by definition of prime ideals) then the localization is denoted Mp instead of (R\p)−1M. The support of the module M is the set of prime ideals p such that Mp ≠ 0. Viewing M as a function from the spectrum of R to R-modules, mapping
this corresponds to the support of a function. Localization of a module at primes also reflects the "local properties" of the module. In particular, there are many cases where the more general situation can be reduced to a statement about localized modules. The reduction is because a R-module M is trivial if and only if all its localizations at primes or maximal ideals are trivial.
Read more about this topic: Localization Of A Module
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
—William James (1842–1910)
“Mothers often are too easily intimidated by their children’s negative reactions...When the child cries or is unhappy, the mother reads this as meaning that she is a failure. This is why it is so important for a mother to know...that the process of growing up involves by definition things that her child is not going to like. Her job is not to create a bed of roses, but to help him learn how to pick his way through the thorns.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)
“It’s a rare parent who can see his or her child clearly and objectively. At a school board meeting I attended . . . the only definition of a gifted child on which everyone in the audience could agree was “mine.””
—Jane Adams (20th century)