Talk:Nakayama lemma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Matsumura (Commutative Ring Theory, Cambridge, 1996) mentions that Nakayama believed that this lemma be attributed to Azumaya and Krull; Matsumura uses NAK to denote this lemma. I think this should be mentioned. Kummini 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Does a proof of the remark on coherent sheaves require NAK to prove? Take the case of an affine scheme X = SpecR for some commutative ring R, F = \tilde{M} for some finitely generated R-module M and x corresponds to a prime ideal \mathfrak p \in \mathrm{Spec} R. Then the remark can be translated into the following: M_\mathfrak p = 0 if and only if there exists an ideal I \not \subseteq \mathfrak p such that \forall \mathfrak q \not \supseteq I, M_\mathfrak q = 0. One direction is clear. Conversely, if M_\mathfrak p = 0, then there exists f \not \in \mathfrak p, fM = 0 (since M is finitely generated). Now set I = (f). Where did we use NAK? Kummini 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/k/Talk%7ENakayama_lemma_b7a5.html"