The phrase going up refers to the case when a chain can be extended by "upward inclusion", while going down refers to the case when a chain can be extended by "downward inclusion".
The major results are the Cohen–Seidenberg theorems, which were provedbyIrvin S. Cohen and Abraham Seidenberg. These are known as the going-up and going-down theorems.
The going-up and going-down theorems give sufficient conditions for a chain of prime ideals in B, each member of which lies over members of a longer chain of prime ideals in A, to be able to be extended to the length of the chain of prime ideals in A.
First, we fix some terminology. If and are prime idealsofA and B, respectively, such that
(note that is automatically a prime ideal of A) then we say that lies under and that lies over. In general, a ring extension A ⊆ Bofcommutative rings is said to satisfy the lying over property if every prime ideal ofA lies under some prime ideal of B.
The extension A ⊆ B is said to satisfy the incomparability property if whenever and are distinct primes of B lying over a prime inA, then ⊈ and ⊈ .
The ring extension A ⊆ B is said to satisfy the going-down property if whenever
is a chain of prime ideals of A and
is a chain of prime ideals of B with m < n and such that lies over for 1 ≤ i ≤ m, then the latter chain can be extended to a chain
such that lies over for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
There is a generalization of the ring extension case with ring morphisms. Let f : A → B be a (unital) ring homomorphism so that B is a ring extension of f(A). Then f is said to satisfy the going-up property if the going-up property holds for f(A) in B.
Similarly, if B is a ring extension of f(A), then f is said to satisfy the going-down property if the going-down property holds for f(A) in B.
In the case of ordinary ring extensions such as A ⊆ B, the inclusion map is the pertinent map.
The usual statements of going-up and going-down theorems refer to a ring extension A ⊆ B:
(Going up) If B is an integral extensionofA, then the extension satisfies the going-up property (and hence the lying over property), and the incomparability property.
(Going down) If B is an integral extension of A, and B is a domain, and A is integrally closed in its field of fractions, then the extension (in addition to going-up, lying-over and incomparability) satisfies the going-down property.
There is another sufficient condition for the going-down property:
IfA ⊆ B is a flat extension of commutative rings, then the going-down property holds.[1]
Proof:[2] Let p1 ⊆ p2 be prime ideals of A and let q2 be a prime ideal of B such that q2 ∩ A = p2. We wish to prove that there is a prime ideal q1ofB contained in q2 such that q1 ∩ A = p1. Since A ⊆ B is a flat extension of rings, it follows that Ap2 ⊆ Bq2 is a flat extension of rings. In fact, Ap2 ⊆ Bq2 is a faithfully flat extension of rings since the inclusion map Ap2 → Bq2 is a local homomorphism. Therefore, the induced map on spectra Spec(Bq2) → Spec(Ap2) is surjective and there exists a prime ideal of Bq2 that contracts to the prime ideal p1Ap2ofAp2. The contraction of this prime ideal of Bq2toB is a prime ideal q1ofB contained in q2 that contracts to p1. The proof is complete. Q.E.D.
Winfried Bruns; Jürgen Herzog, Cohen–Macaulay rings. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. xii+403 pp. ISBN0-521-41068-1
Matsumura, Hideyuki (1970). Commutative algebra. W. A. Benjamin. ISBN978-0-8053-7025-6.
Sharp, R. Y. (2000). "13 Integral dependence on subrings (13.38 The going-up theorem, pp. 258–259; 13.41 The going down theorem, pp. 261–262)". Steps in commutative algebra. London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Vol. 51 (Second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xii+355. ISBN0-521-64623-5. MR1817605.