Localization of A Module - Definition

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:

    “One definition of man is “an intelligence served by organs.””
    —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    “Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
    Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
    Is the eternal truth man’s fighting soul
    Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
    —Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)

    “According to our social pyramid, all men who feel displaced racially, culturally, and/or because of economic hardships will turn on those whom they feel they can order and humiliate, usually women, children, and animals—just as they have been ordered and humiliated by those privileged few who are in power. However, this definition does not explain why there are privileged men who behave this way toward women.”
    —Ana Castillo (b. 1953)