2

Let $A$ be a domain with fraction field $K$ and let $B$ and $B'$ be two sub-$A$-algebras of $K$ such that $B\cap B'=A$.

Is this true that if $N$ is a finitely generated $A$-module such that $N\otimes_A B$ and $N\otimes_A B'$ are projective modules over $B$ and $B'$ respectively, then $N$ is projective?

Many thanks!

Bernard
  • 175,478
Stabilo
  • 1,528

1 Answers1

1

Let $k$ be a field, $A=k[X, Y],$ $B=k[X^{\pm 1}, Y]$ and $B'=k[X, Y^{\pm 1}]$, and take $N=k=A/(X, Y)$.

Then $N \otimes_A B =B/(x, y)B=0$, since $X$ is a unit of $B$, and similarly $N \otimes_A B'=0$. Thus, $N \otimes_A B, N \otimes_A B'$ ae projective, yet $N$ is clearly not.

If you do not like the fact that the projectives in the example are $0$, you can replace $N$ by $N \oplus A$, the argument will work the same since tensor product commutes with direct sums.


A bit more dissection:

There is something to be said about the apparent strangeness of this: Given a finitely presented module $N$ over $A$, what is true is that if $N$ is projective locally on the spectrum, i.e. $N \otimes_A B_i$ is a projective $B_i$-module where $B_i$ are principal localizations of $A$ such that $\bigcup_i \mathrm{Spec}\,B_i=\mathrm{Spec}\,A,$ then $N$ is indeed projective. The trouble is that even in the situation above, the assumption $B \cap B'=A$ does not guarantee that $\mathrm{Spec}\,B, \mathrm{Spec}\,B'$ cover $\mathrm{Spec}\,A$ in this way: the point $(X, Y)$ is not in $\mathrm{Spec}\,B \cup \mathrm{Spec}\,B'$, so $B$'s does not see that some torsion is happening over that point.


Regarding the extra assumption "$N$ is torsion-free" in comments:

Assuming that $N$ is torsion-free will not help. In the counterexample above, you can take instead $N=(X, Y),$ which is torsion-free but not projective (you can e.g. show that projective ideals over $A=k[X, Y]$ are exactly the principal ones, as in this answer of Georges Elencwajg). Then, using flatness of $B$ over $A$, one has that $(X, Y)\otimes_A B=(X, Y)B=B$, and similarly $N \otimes_A B'=B'$. So over $B, B'$, $N$ becomes free, hence projective, but $N$ itself is not.

  • Thank you very much Pavel! Do you have an idea about the $N$ being torsion-free case? – Stabilo Sep 11 '20 at 16:01
  • Do you mean assuming that assuming $N$ is torsion-free to begin with? – Pavel Čoupek Sep 11 '20 at 16:03
  • You've just edited your answer, thank you! Do you have any reference for the latter criterion? – Stabilo Sep 11 '20 at 16:06
  • I think this can be found in lots of places, for example, Theorem A3.2 of Eisenbud"s Commutative algebra with the view towards AG. He does not give the proof as it is made into several exercises in the book. If you want to look at something with proofs, you can try Stacks project. I remember reading a nice version of the criterion in Bourbaki's commutative algebra, but I don't have it at the moment so cannot find a precise reference. – Pavel Čoupek Sep 11 '20 at 16:27
  • 1
    I also added a comment regarding the torsion-free case. It does not work out either. – Pavel Čoupek Sep 11 '20 at 16:37