FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE
MULTIPLICITY

arXiv:1710.01805v1 [math.AG] 4 Oct 2017

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.
Abstract. Let X be an algebraic variety with quotient field K(X). Let s denote the highest
multiplicity at points of X, and Fs (X) the set of points of multiplicity s. Let X ← X1 be the blow
up at a regular equimultiple center Y ⊂ Fs (X). Then max mult(X1 ) ≤ s. We say that a sequence
of blow ups along regular centers Yi ⊂ Fs (Xi ), say X ← X1 ← · · · ← Xn , is a reduction of the
multiplicity if Fs (Xn ) = ∅. In characteristic zero, there is an algorithm which assigns to each X a
unique reduction of the multiplicity.
Fix K(X) ⊂ L a finite extension of fields of degree r. For any finite map β : X ′ → X so that
K(X ′ ) = L we will see that the highest multiplicity of X ′ is at most r · s. When this bound is
achieved, i.e., when Frs (X ′ ) 6= ∅, we say that the morphism β is transversal. We will see that
if β : X ′ → X is transversal, then Frs (X ′ ) is homeomorphic to its image β(Frs (X ′ )), which sits
inside Fs (X). We will show that any blow up, say X ′ ← X1′ , along a regular center Y1′ ⊂ Frs (X1′ )
induces a blow up X ← X1 along a center Y1 ⊂ Fs (X1 ) endowed with a natural finite morphism
β1 : X1′ → X1 . In particular, if Frs (X1′ ) 6= ∅, then β1 is transversal.
We say that the morphism β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal if β(Frs (X ′ )) = Fs (X), and the
equality is preserved for any sequence of blow ups along regular equimultiple centers. In such case,
a reduction of the multiplicity of X ′ induces a reduction of the multiplicity of X, and conversely.
We will show that, given a variety X and a finite extension L of K(X), one can construct a
strongly transversal morphism β : X ′ → X with K(X ′ ) = L. In characteristic zero we show that
the algorithmic reduction of the multiplicity of X and that of X ′ are naturally compatible when
β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal. Namely X ′ and X admit a simultaneous reduction of the
multiplicity.

Contents
1. Introduction
Part
2.
3.
4.

2

I. Transversality
Transversality and finite morphisms
Presentations of transversal morphisms
Transversality and blow ups

6
6
8
9

Part II. Rees algebras and elimination
5. Rees algebras and local presentations of the multiplicity
6. Elimination algebras

13
13
18

Part III. Strong transversality
7. Elimination algebras and finite morphisms.
8. On the construction of strongly transversal morphisms
References

24
24
29
35

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 14E15.
Key words and phrases. Multiplicity, finite morphisms, singularities, Rees algebras.
The authors were partially supported from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, through the
“Severo Ochoa” Programme for Centres of Excellence in R&D (SEV-2015-0554), and through MTM2015-68524-P
(MINECO/FEDER).
1

2

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

1. Introduction
Let X be an irreducible variety over a perfect field k and consider the multiplicity at each point
ξ ∈ X. This defines a function, say mult(X) : X → N, which we call the multiplicity function.
Suppose that X has maximum multiplicity s ≥ 1, i.e., that the maximum value attained by the
function is max mult(X) = s. Denote by Fs (X) the closed subset of points of multiplicity s of X.
The multiplicity function has the following nice behavior: if X1 → X is the blow up at a closed
regular center Y ⊂ Fs (X) then max mult(X1 ) ≤ s (see [20]).
Definition 1.1. Let X be a singular variety over a field k with maximum multiplicity s. A finite
sequence of blow ups over X, say
(1.1.1)

X = X0 o
Fs (X0 )

π1

X1 o

π2

... o

Fs (X1 )

...

πl

Xl
Fs (Xl )

is said to be Fs -permissible if the center of πi is a regular closed subscheme Yi−1 ⊂ Fs (Xi−1 ) for
i = 1, . . . , l. Note that, for such a sequence, we have that
s = max mult(X0 ) = max mult(X1 ) = . . . = max mult(Xl−1 ) ≥ max mult(Xl ).
The sequence in (1.1.1) is called a simplification of the highest multiplicity of X, or simply a
resolution of Fs (X), if s > max mult(Xl ). That is, if Fs (Xl ) = ∅.
When the characteristic of k is zero, then there are constructive procedures to find a resolution
of Fs (X). Such procedures ultimately lead to a resolution of singularities of X by lowering the
maximum multiplicity of X after a finite number of blow ups at regular equimultiple centers (see
[13], or [62]). In fact a variety Xl is regular if and only if max mult(Xl ) = 1.
When the characteristic of k is p > 0, we do not know if there is a simplification of the highest
multiplicity. Yet the paper is motivated by this problem as we shall indicate.
On the contents of Part I
When addressing the problem of resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety X one may
proceed in two different ways. On the one hand, it might be useful to assume that X is, at least
locally, contained in a regular (or even smooth) variety; this allows us to work with the equations
defining X. Such condition is preserved by blowing up at regular centers. Namely, the strict
transform of X after the blow up at a regular center, is contained in a regular variety again.
On the other hand, one may choose to work with finite projections. It turns out that this
alternative point of view seems to be particularly natural if we are interested in the maximum
multiplicity locus of X, Fs (X). If ξ ∈ Fs (X), then, in an (étale) neighborhood of X one can find
a regular scheme Z and a finite dominant morphism X → Z of generic rank s (see §2.1) so that
Fs (X) is mapped homeomorphically to its image. In characteristic zero, this allows us to describe
the image of Fs (X) using equations in the regular scheme Z (see [62]). Whether one can use this
approach to simplify the singularities of X depends on the persistence of this finite morphism by
blow ups at regular centers. In principle this is not clear at all because, in general, if β : X → Z
is a finite morphism and if Y ⊂ X is a regular center, then (1) β(Y ) ⊂ Z may not be regular,
and (2), there is no guarantee that there is a commutative diagram of blow ups with vertical finite
morphisms:
Xo


Zo

X1


Z1 .

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

3

The previous question is affirmatively answered in [62] for any characteristic, and it is used there
to prove resolution of singularities when the characteristc is zero. This feature of the blow ups at
regular equimultiple centers is a first motivation for the contents of Part I.
In the previous discussion we have only considered finite morphisms of X on a regular variety.
In this manuscript we will also study finite morphisms between singular varieties. We will explore
a form of compatibility of finite morphism between varieties and permissible sequences in the
following sense: consider a finite and dominant morphism of irreducible varieties over perfect field
k, say β : X ′ → X. Let K and K ′ denote the quotient fields of X and X ′ respectively, and set
r = [K ′ : K]. Then, if s denotes the highest multiplicity at points of X, namely if max mult(X) = s,
we will see that max mult(X ′ ) ≤ s · r. When the equality holds in the previous expression (i.e.,
when Fsr (X ′ ) 6= ∅) we will say that the finite morphism β is transversal (see Definition 2.5). So
a transversal morphism is a particular kind of finite morphism. As we will see in Corollary 2.6, if
β : X ′ → X is transversal, then Fsr (X ′ ) is homeomorphic to its image β(Fsr (X ′ )), which sits inside
Fs (X).
As opposed to arbitrary finite morphisms, in Theorem 4.3 we show that transversal morphisms
have a natural compatibility with blow ups: it can be checked that if Y ′ ⊂ Fsr (X ′ ) is a regular
closed subscheme, then Y = β(Y ′ ) ⊂ Fs (X) is also regular, and the blow ups at Y ′ and Y induce
a commutative diagram
X′ o

(1.1.2)

X1′
β1

β



Xo



X1

where β1 : X1′ → X1 is again a finite dominant morphism of varieties, with quotient fields K ′ and
K respectively. In particular Fsr (X1′ ) is homeomorphic to its image, β1 (Fsr (X1′ )), which again is
contained in Fs (X1 ). Thus, transversality is preserved if Fsr (X1′ ) is not empty (see Theorem 4.3),
and therefore any Fsr -permissible sequence over X ′ , say
(1.1.3)

X′ o

X1′ o

′
o
XN
−1

′ ,
XN

··· o

XN −1 o

XN ,

··· o

′
o
XN
−1

′
XN

··· o

induces an Fs -permissible sequence over X, say
Xo

X1 o

together with a commutative diagram
X′ o

X1′ o

Xo

βN−1

β1

β





X1 o



··· o

XN −1 o

where all vertical morphisms are finite, and
(1.1.4)
Frs (X ′ ) ∼
= βi (Frs (X ′ )) ⊂ Fs (Xi )
i

βN



XN ,

i

for i = 1, . . . , N .
This discussion leads to the following question related to the reduction of the multiplicity: under
which conditions does the resolution of Fsr (X ′ ) induce the resolution of Fs (X) and vice versa? For
instance when inclusions are equalities in (1.1.4) for any sequence (1.1.3). The purpose of this note
is to explore such an equivalence, and to establish a criterion for this to hold.
With the same assumptions as before, we will say that β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal
if Fsr (X ′ ) is homeomorphic to Fs (X) and the homeomorphism is preserved by sequences of Fsr permissible blow ups and other additional morphisms, called smooth extensions. In such case
we will also say that Fsr (X ′ ) is homeomorphic to Fs (X) in a strong sense (see Definition 4.6 for

4

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

the precise formulation). We will show that the situation in which this strong equality holds can
be characterized algebraically (see Theorem 7.2). As a consequence, when the characteristic is
zero, the constructive simplification of the maximum multiplicity locus has the following natural
property: when a finite dominant morphism X ′ → X is strongly transversal, then the constructive
resolution of Fs (X) induces the constructive resolution of Fsr (X ′ ) and vice versa (see Corollary 7.9).
In other words, the constructive, or algorithmic approach for resolution of singularities provides a
simultaneous simplification of the highest multiplicity for X and X ′ .
On the contents of Part II
Let X be a variety defined over a perfect field k, with maximum multiplicity s ≥ 2. One way
to approach the problem of finding a resolution of singularities of X would be by trying to find a
resolution of Fs (X), as stated in Definition 1.1. Namely trying to find a sequence of blow ups
X0 = X ← X1 ← . . . ← XN

at regular centers Yi ⊂ Fs (Xi ) 6= ∅, i = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1, so that Fs (XN ) = ∅. At this point, it would
be helpful to refine the multiplicity function in order to construct the regular centers Yi ⊂ Fs (Xi )
(as it will be clarified along the following lines). To this end, we will use Rees algebras.
Consider a regular scheme
V . A Rees algebra
over V will an N-graded finitely generated algebra


over OV , say G = OV f1 W N1 , . . . , ft W Nt ⊂ OV [W ], where W denotes a variable. As we will see,
G will enable us to regard f1 , . . . , ft as weighted equations on V . There is a natural closed subset
of V attached to G, called its singular locus, and which we shall denote by Sing(G). More precisely,
Sing(G) is defined a the sets of points of V where each fj has order bigger or equal to Nj . In this
setting, the blow up of V along a closed regular center Y ⊂ Sing(G) will be called a G-permissible
transformation (a smooth morphism will also be called a permissible transformation, but this is a
ϕ1
rather technical issue). In addition, for a G-permissible transformation V ←− V1 we define a Rees
algebra G1 over V1 known as the transform of G through ϕ1 . A sequence
(1.1.5)

(V0 = V, G0 = G) o

ϕ1

(V1 , G1 ) o

ϕ2

... o

ϕN

(VN , GN )

will be said to be G-permissible if each ϕi is a Gi−1 -permissible transformation, where Gi represents
the transform of Gi−1 for i = 1, . . . , N . Such a sequence will be called a resolution of G if all the
maps ϕ1 , . . . , ϕN are permissible blow-ups and Sing(GN ) = ∅.
Let X be an equidimensional variety over a perfect field k with maximum multiplicity s > 0.
Along Section 5 we shall indicate how one can construct an embedding of X in a regular ambient
space V , say X ֒→ V , together with an OV -Rees algebra G that represents Fs (X) in the following
sense. First, we require that Fs (X) = Sing(G). Moreover, this equality should be preserved by
permissible transformations. Namely, we require that any G-permissible sequence over V like (1.1.5)
induces an Fs -permissible sequence over X and a commutative diagram as follows,
(V0 = V, G0 = G) o
O

(V1 , G1 ) o

X0 = X o

X1 o

?

O

?

... o

(VN , GN )

... o

XN

O

?

where the vertical arrows represent closed immersions Xi ֒→ Vi , and Fs (Xi ) = Sing(Gi ) for i =
1, . . . , N . In particular, it is required Fs (XN ) = ∅ if and only if Sing(GN ) = ∅. Thus we see that,
if the Rees algebra G represents Fs (X), then any resolution of G induces a process of simplification
of Fs (X). Part II, and specially Section 5, are dedicated to present the language and the use of
Rees algebras as tools to represent Fs (X) in different settings.
However, as indicated above, we have chosen to work with finite projections to smooth schemes
rather than with local embeddings in smooth ambient spaces. When X is a variety over a field
of characteristic zero it turns out that one can find a finite projection to some smooth Z in an

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

5

(étale) neighborhood of a point ξ ∈ Fs (X), say β : X → Z, and an OZ -Rees algebra, say H,
whose resolution induces a lowering of the maximum multiplicity of X. In other words, when the
characteristic is zero the Rees algebra H represents β(Fs (X)) in Z. Therefore, somehow the pair
(V, G) from above (defined in terms of X ⊂ V ) codifies the same information as the pair (Z, H)
(defined in terms of X → Z), the latter being less complex since it is defined on a smooth scheme
of lower dimension. The notion of elimination, given in Section 6, will show why the information
given by a pair (V, G) can be replaced by another pair over a smooth scheme of smaller dimension.
The notions and results in this section play a key role in the proofs of the main theorems in Part
III.
On the contents of Part III
Let X be a singular variety over a perfect field k endowed with an embedding, X ֒→ V , in a
regular ambient space V . Set s = max mult(X). Consider a Rees algebra G over V that represents
Fs (X). There is a process of saturation of G by differential operators which produces another
algebra over V , say Diff (G), which also represents Fs (X) (see 5.19). The integral closure of Diff (G),
say Diff (G), also represents Fs (X). Moreover, it can be shown that Diff (G) is the biggest Rees
algebra over V with this property (see Theorem 5.21). Thus, if G1 and G2 are two algebras over V
representing Fs (X), then Diff (G1 ) = Diff (G2 ).
From the previous discussion it follows that Diff (G) is a canonical representative of the family
of OV -Rees algebra the represent Fs (X). Similarly, if we restrict Diff (G) to X, we obtain a Rees
algebra over X which canonically attached to Fs (X). Namely, we define the OX -Rees algebra GX
by
GX := Diff (G)|X .

It can be shown that GX is a well-defined algebra. That is, it does not depend on the choice of
G or the immersion X ֒→ V (see Theorem 5.22). Note that, as opposed to the algebras that we
have considered so far, GX is defined over a singular scheme. As we will see, this algebra has some
interesting properties that we will use along sections 7 and 8. More precisely the following results
are proven:
Theorem 7.2. Let β : X ′ → X be a finite morphism of varieties over a perfect field k. Assume
that β is transversal, of generic rank r (see §2.1), and let s be the highest multiplicity at points of
X. Then OX ⊂ OX ′ , GX ⊂ GX ′ , and:
(1) If β is strongly transversal then the inclusion GX ⊂ GX ′ is finite;
(2) The converse holds when k is of characteristic zero.

Corollary 7.9. Let β : X ′ → X be a finite dominant morphism of algebraic varieties of generic
rank r, and let s be the highest multiplicity at points of X. If β is strongly transversal and the
characteristic is zero then the constructive resolution of Fs (X) induces the constructive resolution
of Fsr (X ′ ) and vice versa.
Finally we show that given X with maximum multiplicity s, then strongly transversal morphisms
can always be constructed.
Theorem 8.1. Let X be an algebraic variety over a perfect field with maximum multiplicity
s > 1. Let K(X) denote the quotient field and let L be an algebraic field extension of degree
r of K(X). Then there is an algebraic variety X ′ with quotient field L, together with a strongly
transversal morphism, X ′ → X, i.e, X ′ → X is a finite dominant morphism and Fsr (X ′ ) is strongly
homeomorphic to Fs (X).
The paper is organized as follows. Part I is devoted to the study of transversality and of its
persistence by blow ups at regular centers. The definition of transversality is formulated in Section

6

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

2, while Section 4 is devoted to establish and prove Theorem 4.3, previously mentioned in (1.1.2).
The notion of strong trasnversality is given in Definition 4.6.
Part II is rather technical. We start by introducing Rees algebras from scratch and state some
of their properties in Section 5. In particular, Definition 5.7 and paragraph 5.12 play a key role in
the way that a Rees algebra can be associated to the maximum multiplicity locus of a variety. In
Section 6 we study elimination algebras. These are essential for the proofs of Theorems 7.2 and
8.1, developed in Part III.
Part I. Transversality
2. Transversality and finite morphisms
Let (R, M ) be a local noetherian ring, and let a ⊂ R be an M -primary ideal. Observe that, for
n > 0, the quotient ring R/an has finite length when regarded as an R-module. Let us denote this
length by λ(R/an ). It can be shown that, for n ≫ 0, the value of λ(R/an ) is given by a polynomial
in n with rational coefficients, say
λ(R/an ) = cd · nd + cd−1 · nd−1 + · · · + c0 ∈ Q[n],

where d = dim(R), which is known as the Hilbert-Samuel polynomial of R with respect to a. In
addition, it can be shown that cd = d!e for some e ∈ N. The integer e is called the multiplicity of R
with respect to a, and we shall denote it by ea (R).
2.1. General setting and notation. Let X and X ′ be algebraic varieties with quotient fields
K(X) and K(X ′ ) respectively, and suppose that β : X ′ → X is a finite dominant morphism of
generic rank r := [K(X ′ ) : K(X)]. We will be assuming that the maximum multiplicity of X is
s ≥ 1, and will denote by Fs (X) the (closed) set of points of maximum multiplicity s of X. As
we will see, under these conditions the maximum multiplicity at points of X ′ is at most rs, and
we denote by Fsr (X ′ ) the closed set (possibly empty) of points of multiplicity sr of X ′ . Since our
arguments will be of local nature, in several parts of this paper we may assume that both, X and
X ′ are affine, say X = Spec(B) and X ′ = Spec(B ′ ), with quotient fields K and L respectively, and
that there is a finite extension B ⊂ B ′ . In this case we will use Fs (B) (resp. Fsr (B ′ )) to denote
Fs (X) (resp. Fsr (X ′ )).
Under the assumptions in 2.1, Zariski’s multiplicity formula for finite projections can be applied:
Theorem 2.2 (Zariski’s formula [64, Theorem 24, p. 297]). Let (B, M ) be a local domain, and let
B ′ be a finite extension of B. Let K denote the quotient field of B, and let L = K ⊗B B ′ . Let
′ = dim B,
Q1 , . . . , Qr denote the maximal ideals of the semi-local ring B ′ , and assume that dim BQ
i
i = 1, . . . , r. Then
X
eB (M )[L : K] =
eBQ′ (M BQi )[ki : k],
1≤i≤r

i

′ , k is the residue field of (B, M ), and [L : K] = dim L.
where ki is the residue field of BQ
K
i

Then, as a consequence, if P is a prime ideal in B ′ and p = P ∩ B, one has that

(2.2.1)

eBP′ (P BP′ ) ≤ eBP′ (pBP′ ) ≤ eBp (pBp )[L : K].

That is, the maximum of the multiplicity at points of Spec(B ′ ) is bounded by the generic rank of
the projection times the maximum of the multiplicity at points of Spec(B), namely
(2.2.2)

max mult(X ′ ) ≤ [L : K] · (max mult(X)).

2.3. The (*) condition. With the same notation and hypotheses as in Theorem 2.2 we will say
that condition (*) holds at P ∈ Spec(B ′ ) if:
(∗) eBP′ (P BP′ ) = eBp (pBp )[L : K].

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

7

Note that, in particular, eBP′ (P BP′ ) ≤ eBP′ (pBP′ ). Furthermore, suppose that B and B ′ are formally
equidimensional locally at any prime. Then condition (*) is satisfied at P if and only the following
three conditions hold simultaneously:
(i) P is the only prime in B ′ dominating p (i.e., BP′ = B ′ ⊗B Bp );
(ii) Bp /pBp = BP′ /P BP′ ;
(iii) eBP′ (pBP′ ) = eBP′ (P BP′ ).
Remark 2.4. As we will see in Theorem 3.2, condition (iii) is equivalent to saying that pBP′ is a
reduction of P BP′ , i.e., that the ideal P BP′ is integral over pBP′ (see the discussion at the beginning
of Section 3 below).
In particular it follows that condition (*) necessarily holds for all primes P ⊂ B ′ where the
multiplicity is sr, where s is the maximum multiplicity in Spec(B), and r = [L : K].
Definition 2.5. Let β : X ′ → X be a finite dominant morphism and let m be the maximum
multiplicity of X ′ . We will say that β is transversal if the equality holds in (2.2.2), namely when
max mult(X ′ ) = [L : K] · (max mult(X)).

In such case the condition (*) in 2.3 holds at all points of Fm (X ′ ), where m = max mult(X ′ ). If
β is transversal and X = Spec(B) and X ′ = Spec(B ′ ) we will say that the extension B ⊂ B ′ is
transversal.
Corollary 2.6. Let β : X ′ → X be a finite (dominant) morphism of generic rank r, that is,
[K(X ′ ) : K(X)] = r, where K(X) and K(X ′ ) represent the quotient fields of X and X ′ respectively.
Let s be the maximum multiplicity of X. Suppose that β is transversal. Then:
(1) β(Fsr (X ′ )) ⊂ Fs (X);
(2) Fsr (X ′ ) is homeomorphic to β(Fsr (X ′ )) ⊂ Fs (X).

Proof. It suffices to argue locally, so we may assume that X = Spec(B) and X ′ = Spec(B ′ ). Now
it follows from the discussion in 2.3 that the maximum multiplicity at points of Spec(B ′ ) is rs,
and that condition (*) necessarily holds for all primes in Fsr (B ′ ). Furthermore, if Q ∈ Fsr (B ′ ) and
q = Q ∩ B then necessarily eBq (qBq ) = s, so β(Fsr (X ′ )) ⊂ Fs (X). Therefore β induces an injective
morphism, say β : Fsr (X ′ ) → Fs (X), which is proper and hence it induces an homeomorphism
β : Fsr (X ′ ) → β(Fsr (X))(⊂ Fs (X)).
Corollary 2.7. With the notation and conventions of 2.1, suppose that B ⊂ B ′ is transversal. Let
Q ⊂ Fsr (B ′ ) and let q := B ∩ Q. Then:
(1) The extension B/q → B ′ /Q is finite;
(2) The field of fractions of B/q, say K(q), equals the field of fractions of B ′ /Q, say K(Q);
(3) If P ⊂ B ′ is a prime ideal containing Q, p := P ∩ B, P = P/Q, and p = p/q, then
eB/q (p) = eB/q (p)[K(Q) : K(q)] = eB ′ /Q (P ).

In other words, the finite extension B/q → B ′ /Q is birational and bijective, and the multiplicity at
corresponding points is the same. In particular, B ′ /Q is regular if and only if B/q is regular, and
in that case necessarily B/q = B ′ /Q.
Proof. The statement in (1) is clear and (2) follows from condition (ii) of 2.3. As for (3) note
here that Spec(B ′ /Q) ⊂ Frs (B ′ ), and the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) of 2.3, which hold for all P
containing Q, are inherited by P (⊂ B ′ /Q).
2.8. Summarizing. With the same notation and conventions as in 2.1, if β : X ′ → X is
transversal, then from Corollaries 2.6 and 2.7 it follows that:
(1) β(Fsr (X ′ )) ⊂ Fs (X);
(2) Fsr (X ′ ) is homeomorphic to β(Fsr (X ′ ));

8

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

(3) If Y ⊂ Fsr (X ′ ) is an irreducible regular subscheme, then β(Y ) ⊂ Fs (X) is an irreducible
regular subscheme;
(4) If Z ⊂ Fs (X) is an irreducible closed regular subscheme, and if β −1 (Z) ⊂ Fsr (X ′ ) then
β −1 (Z)red is regular.
3. Presentations of transversal morphisms
The notion of multiplicity is closely related to that of integral closure of ideals. Given ideals
I ⊂ J in a noetherian ring B, there are several (equivalent) formulations for J to be integral over
I, or say for I to be a reduction of J. Northcott and Rees introduce the notion of reduction. Given
ideals I ⊂ J in a noetherian ring B, I is said to be a reduction of J if IJ n = J n+1 for some integer
n. Equivalently, if the inclusion of Rees rings B[IW ] ⊂ B[JW ] is a finite extension of subrings in
B[W ].
In this case, if BlI (B) → Spec(B) denotes the blow up at I and BlJ (B) → Spec(B) is the blow
up at J, there is a factorization BlJ (B) → BlI (B) which is induced by this finite extension, and
hence it is also a finite morphism.
The notion of reduction of an ideal J in B will appear naturally when studying the fibers of the
blow up, which is a notion that relates to that of the integral closure of J.
3.1. A local ring (A, M ) is said to be formally equidimensional (quasi-unmixed in Nagata’s terminology) if dim(Â/p) = dim(Â) at each minimal prime ideal p in the completion Â.
A first connection of integral closure with the notion of multiplicity is given by the following
Theorem of Rees.
Theorem 3.2 (Rees Theorem, [53]). If I ⊂ J are primary ideals for the maximal ideal in a
formally equidimensional local ring (A, M ), then both ideals have the same integral closure if and
only if eA (I) = eA (J).
3.3. A generalization of Rees Theorem. Let I denote an ideal in a local ring (A, M ). Let f : X →
Spec(A) be the blow-up at I, and let f0 : X0 → Spec(A/I) be the proper morphism induced by
restriction. Northcott and Rees defined the analytic spread as:
l(I) = dim(A/M ⊗A grA (I)) = δ + 1,

where δ is the dimension of the fiber of f over the closed point of Spec(A), or equivalently, the
dimension of the fiber of f0 over the closed point. Note that l(I) = dim(A) when I is M -primary.
The height of I, say h(I), is min(dim Aq ) as q runs through all primes containing I, and we claim
that
l(I) ≥ h(I),
with equality if and only if all fibers of f0 have the same dimension (see [43, §2]). The inequality
holds because the dimension of the fibers of f0 : X0 → Spec(A/I) is an upper semicontinuous
function on primes of A/I (this result is due to Chevalley, cf. [24, Theorem 13.1.3]). In addition,
if q is minimal containing I, the dimension of the fiber over q is dim Aq .
Let I ⊂ J is a reduction in a noetherian ring B, and let BlI (X) → Spec(B) and BlJ (X) →
Spec(B) denote the blow ups at J and I. Since there is a factorization BlJ (X) → BlI (X) which is
finite, l(IBP ) = l(JBP ) at any prime P in B.
We refer to Theorems 2 and 3 in [43] for the following result of Böger.
Theorem 3.4. Let (A, M ) be a formally equidimensional local
√ ring. Fix an ideal I ⊂ A so that
h(I) = l(I). Consider another ideal J ⊂ A so that I ⊂ J ⊂ I. Then I is a reduction of J if and
only if
eAq (IAq ) = eAq (JAq )
for each minimal prime q of I.

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

9

Along these notes we will consider and study the blow ups along regular centers. The following
theorem relates the notion of equimultiplicity with that of the fiber dimension at the blow up
(analytic spread), studied by Dade, Hironaka, and Schickhoff.
Theorem 3.5 (Hironaka-Schickhoff, [43, Corollary 3, p. 121]). Let (A, M ) be a formally equidimensional local ring, and let p ⊂ A be a prime ideal so that A/p is regular. Then h(p) = l(p) in A
if and only if the local rings A and Ap have the same multiplicity.
Lemma 3.6 (Presentation of transversal extensions). With the same notation and assumptions
as in 2.1, suppose that B ⊂ B ′ is a transversal extension, let P ∈ Fsr (B ′ ) be a prime, and let
p = B ∩ P . Then:
(1) The extension of local rings Bp → BP′ is finite. Moreover, there are elements θ1 , . . . , θm ∈
BP′ integral over pBP′ such that BP′ = Bp [θ1 , . . . , θm ];
(2) If in addition B ′ /P is a regular ring, then the θ1 , . . . , θm can be chosen in P , and P is the
integral closure of pB ′ in B ′ .
Proof. (1) The extension Bp → BP′ is finite, thus there are elements ω1 , . . . , ωm ∈ BP′ so that
BP′ = Bp [ω1 , . . . , ωm ]. The quotient field of Bp , say K(p), is equal to the quotient field of BP′ ,
say K(P ), hence there are elements α1 , . . . , αm ∈ Bq such that αi = ωi ∈ K(p) = K(P ); setting
θi := ωi − αi one has that θi ∈ P and BP′ = Bq [θ1 , . . . , θm ]. Since P BP′ is integral over pBP′ each
θi is integral over pBP′ .
(2) Set B ′ = B[θ1 , . . . , θm ]. According to condition (3) in Corollary 2.7, B ′ /P = B/p so clearly
θ1 , . . . , θm can be modified, by taking θ1 − α1 , . . . , θm − αm , αi ∈ B, and we may assume that they
are in P .
The discussion in 2.3, more precisely in condition (iii), applies for the local rings Bp ⊂ BP′ , and
therefore pBP′ is a reduction of P BP′ or say that P BP′ is the integral closure of pBP′ . Our claim
now is that P is the integral closure of pB ′ at the ring B ′ . It suffices to check that this claim holds
′ to prove
locally at every maximal ideal M ⊂ B ′ containing P . We will apply Theorem 3.4 at BM
′
this latter claim: Let m = M ∩ B, as B /P is regular and equal to B/pB, it follows that Bm /pBm is
a regular local ring. Under these conditions, as B is a domain and the multiplicity of Bm coincides
with that of Bp , Theorem 3.5 asserts that l(p) = h(p) in Bm .
′ is finite, we have that h(pB ′ ) = h(p), and Bl ′ (B ′ ) is
Now, since the extension Bm → BM
pBM
M
M
finite over Blp (Bm ). This implies that the fibers over the closed points have the same dimension.
′ ) = l(p), and therefore l(pB ′ ) = h(pB ′ ) in B ′ . Recall that e ′ (P B ′ ) = e ′ (pB ′ )
Thus l(pBM
BP
BP
P
P
M
M
M
′ is the only minimal prime of pB ′ , the
by condition (iii) of 2.3 and Theorem 3.2. Now, since P BM
M
′ , I = pB ′ , and J = P B ′ ).
claim follows from Theorem 3.4 (taking A = BM
M
M
4. Transversality and blow ups
Let X be an integral noetherian scheme with maximum multiplicity s. As we will see, there are
some types of transformations that play an important role in the study of the multiplicity. We will
say that a morphism X ← X1 is an Fs -local transformation of X if it is of one of the following
types:
i) The blow up of X along a regular center contained in Fs (X), say X1 = BlY (X). This
will be called an Fs -permissible blow up, or simply a permissible blow up when there is no
confusion with s. In this case we will also say that Y is an Fs -permissible center.
ii) An open restriction, i.e., X1 is an open subscheme of X. In order to avoid trivial transformations, we will always require X1 ∩ Fs (X) 6= ∅.
iii) The multiplication of X by an affine line, say X1 = X × A1k .
Note that, in either case, max mult(X) ≥ max mult(X1 ) (see [20]). We will say that a sequence of
transformations, say
X = X0 o

ϕ1

X1 o

ϕ2

... o

ϕn

Xn ,

10

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

is an Fs -local sequence on X if ϕi is an Fs -local transformation of Xi−1 for i = 1, . . . , n, and
s = max mult(X0 ) = . . . = max mult(Xn−1 ) ≥ max mult(Xn ).
In the following lines we will study the behavior of transversality under local sequences. The main
result is Theorem 4.3.
Consider a finite morphism of schemes, say β : X ′ → X, a closed center Y ′ ⊂ X ′ , and its image
in X, say Y = β(Y ′ ). In general, there is no natural map from BlY ′ (X ′ ) to BlY (X). The next
lemma provides a condition under which such map exists, and moreover it is finite.
Lemma 4.1. Let γ : B → B ′ be a homomorphism of noetherian rings. Consider two ideals, say
I ⊂ B, and J ⊂ B ′ , such that γ(I)B ′ is a reduction of J. Then there exists a unique morphism
β1 : BlJ (B ′ ) → BlI (B) which makes the following diagram commutative:
(4.1.1)

Spec(B ′ ) o

BlJ (B ′ )





β1

Spec(B) o

BlI (B).

In addition, if B ′ is finite over B, then β1 is also finite.
Proof. Set Z = BlJ (B ′ ). Since J is integral over γ(I)B ′ , we have γ(I)J n = J n+1 for some n ≥ 0
(see [49, p. 156], and [42, Lemma 1.1, p. 792]). Therefore ϕ(I)J n OZ = J n+1 OZ . Observe that,
by definition, JOZ is an invertible sheaf of ideals over Z. Hence J n OZ is also invertible, and, in
this way, γ(I)J n OZ = J n+1 OZ implies γ(I)OZ = JOZ . In particular, this means that γ(I)OZ
is invertible over Z = BlJ (B ′ ). Thus, by the universal property of BlI (B), there exists a unique
morphism of schemes, say β1 : BlJ (B ′ ) → BlI (B), making (4.1.1) commutative.
For the second part of the lemma, fix a set of generators of I over B, say I = hf1 , . . . , fr i. Recall
that BlI (B) = Proj(B[IW ]), and BlJ (B ′ ) = Proj(B ′ [JW ]). From the existence of β1 , we deduce
that BlJ (B ′ ) is covered by the
 affine charts associated to γ(f1 ), . . . , γ(fr ),′ i.e., those charts given′
′
by the rings (B [JW ])γ(fi )W 0 (the homogeneous part of degree 0 of (B [JW ])γ(fi )W ). Since B
is finite over B, and γ(I)B′ is a reduction of J, the graded algebra B ′ [JW ] is finite over B[IW ].
Thus it follows easily that (B ′ [JW ])γ(fi )W 0 is finite over [(B[IW ])fi W ]0 for each i = 1, . . . , r, and
therefore β1 is finite.
Remark 4.2. Let B ⊂ B ′ be a finite extension of noetherian domains, and consider two ideals
I ⊂ B and J ⊂ B ′ so that J is integral over IB ′ . Fix generators of I and J, say I = hx1 , . . . , xr i,
and J = hx1 , . . . , xr , θ1 , . . . , θs i, where θ1 , . . . , θs are integral over IB ′ . Under these hypotheses, the
Lemma says there is a natural finite map BlJ (B ′ ) → BlI (B). Note that BlI (B) can be covered by
r affine charts of the form Spec(B1 ), . . . , Spec(Br ), where


xr
x1
,...,
.
Bi = B
xi
xi
Moreover, from the second part of the proof it follows that BlJ (B ′ ) can be covered by r affine charts
of the form Spec(B1′ ), . . . , Spec(Br′ ), where


xr θ 1
θs
x1
,..., , ,...,
,
Bi′ = B ′
xi
xi xi
xi
and the map BlJ (B ′ ) → BlI (B) is locally given by the extension Bi ⊂ Bi′ , which is finite.
Theorem 4.3. Let β : X ′ → X be a finite dominant morphism of integral schemes of generic rank
r. Assume that X has maximum multiplicity s, and that β is transversal (i.e., Frs (X ′ ) 6= ∅). Then:

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

11

i ) An Frs -permissible center on X ′ , say Y ′ ⊂ Frs (X ′ ), induces an Fs -permissible center on
X, say Y = β(Y ′ ) ⊂ Fs (X), and a commutative diagram as follows,
X′ o

X1′ = BlY ′ (X ′ )
β1

β



Xo



X1 = BlY (X),

where β1 is finite of generic rank r. In addition, if Frs (X1′ ) 6= ∅, then Fs (X1 ) 6= ∅, and the
morphism β1 is transversal.
ii ) Any sequence of Frs -permissible blow ups on X ′ , say
X′ o

X1′ o

··· o

′
o
XN
−1

′ ,
XN

induces a sequence of Fs -permissible blow ups on X, and a commutative diagram as follows,
X′ o

X1′ o

Xo

′
o
XN
−1



X1 o

′
XN

βN−1

β1

β



··· o
··· o



XN −1 o

βN



XN ,

′ ) 6= ∅, then F (X ) 6= ∅, and
where each βi is finite of generic rank r. Moreover, if Frs (XN
s
N
the morphism βN is transversal.

Proof. Property ii) follows from i) by induction on the number of transformations. Thus we just
need to prove i).
Note that the center Y = β(Y ′ ) is Fs -permissible by 2.8. The varieties X and X ′ can be locally
covered by affine charts of the form Spec(B) and Spec(B ′ ), with the morphism β being given by
a finite extension B ⊂ B ′ . Let P ⊂ B and P ′ ⊂ B ′ denote the ideals of definition of Y and
Y ′ respectively. By Lemma 3.6, P ′ is integral over the extended ideal P B ′ . Then, under these
hypotheses, Lemma 4.1 says that there is natural finite morphism β1 : X1′ → X1 which makes
the diagram in i) commutative. Since the blow up of an integral scheme along a proper center
is birational, the generic rank of β1 coincides with that of β. That is, β1 is a finite morphism of
generic rank r, which proves the first part of i).
For the second part of the claim, recall first that the multiplicity does not increase when blowing
up along permissible centers, and hence max mult(X1 ) ≤ s, and max mult(X1′ ) ≤ rs. In addition,
the map β : X1′ → X1 has generic rank r. Thus Frs (X1′ ) 6= ∅ implies Fs (X1 ) 6= ∅. In particular, if
Frs (X1′ ) 6= ∅, then the morphism β : X1′ → X1 is transversal.
Remark 4.4. Consider a finite morphism β : X ′ → X as in the Theorem. As pointed out at the
beginning of the section, we are interested in studying the behavior of Frs (X ′ ), and Fs (X). Since
the set Frs (X ′ ) is homeomorphic to its image in Fs (X) via β, for any open subset U ′ ⊂ X ′ , one
can find an open subset U ⊂ X satisfying
U ′ ∩ Frs (X ′ ) = β −1 (U ) ∩ Frs (X ′ ).
In this setting we will say that U ′ ⊂ X ′ is an Frs -permissible restriction if there is an open subset
U ⊂ X so that U ′ = β −1 (U ). Thus, as a consequence of Theorem 4.3, one readily checks that every
Frs -local sequence on X ′ , say
X′ o

X1′ o

··· o

′
o
XN
−1

′ ,
XN

12

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

induces an Fs -local sequence on X, and a commutative diagram as follows,
X′ o

X1′ o

Xo

′
o
XN
−1



X1 o

′
XN

βN−1

β1

β



··· o
··· o



XN −1 o

βN



XN ,

′ ) 6= ∅, the morphism β is transversal.
where each βi is finite of generic rank r. In addition, if Frs (XN
N

Normalization and transversal morphisms. Let X be a singular variety over a field k with
maximum multiplicity s ≥ 2. The normalization of X, say X, is endowed with a natural finite
morphism β : X → X. This morphism is dominant and birational. Hence, by Zariski’s formula
(Theorem 2.2),
max mult(X) ≤ max mult(X).
In addition, if the equality holds, then β : X → X is transversal, and Fs (X) is mapped homeomorphically to its image in Fs (X) (see Corollary 2.6 and 2.8).
Assume that the morphism β : X → X is transversal, i.e., that max mult(X) = max mult(X).
In this case, Theorem 4.3 says that any sequence of blow ups along regular equimultiple centers on
X induces a sequence of blow ups on X. As a consequence of this result, one can also establish
a relation between sequences of normalized blow ups on X and sequences of blow ups on X, as
long as transversality is preserved. Recall that the normalized blow up of X along a closed center
Y ⊂ X is the normalization of the blow up of X along Y .
Corollary 4.5. Let X0 be a variety over a field k, and let X 0 denote the normalization of X0 .
Assume that max mult(X0 ) = max mult(X 0 ). Let
X0 o

X1 o

··· o

X l−1 o

Xl

be a sequence of normalized blow ups along closed regular centers Y i ⊂ Max mult(X i−1 ), so that
max mult(X 0 ) = · · · = max mult(X l−1 ) ≥ max mult(X l ).
Then this sequence induces another sequence of blow ups on X0 , say
X0 o

X1 o

··· o

Xl−1 o

Xl ,

along closed regular centers Yi ⊂ Max mult(Xi ), so that
max mult(X0 ) = · · · = max mult(Xl−1 ) ≥ max mult(Xl ),
and X i is the normalization of Xi for i = 1, . . . , l.
Proof. Since max mult(X0 ) = max mult(X 0 ), the natural morphism β0 : X 0 → X0 is transversal,
and hence Y0 = β0 (Y 0 ) ⊂ Max mult(X0 ) defines a regular center in X0 . By Theorem 4.3, there is
a birational map, say
BlY 0 (X 0 ) → X1 = BlY0 (X0 ),
which is finite. Thus it follows that X 1 is the normalization of X1 . Moreover, if max mult(X 1 ) =
max mult(X 0 ), then max mult(X1 ) = max mult(X0 ), and the morphism β1 : X 1 → X1 is again
transversal.
The previous argument proves the corollary for the case l = 1. The general case follows by
induction on l.

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

13

Strongly transversal morphisms. Let β : X ′ → X be a finite morphism of generic rank r.
Put s = max mult(X), and recall that, in virtue of (2.2.2), max mult(X ′ ) ≤ rs. Suppose that β is
transversal, that is, Frs (X ′ ) 6= ∅. Under these hypotheses, Theorem 4.3 says that any sequence of
Frs -permissible blow ups on X ′ induces a sequence of Fs -permissible blow ups on X. In general,
the converse to this Theorem, by blowing up centers over X, fails because β does not map Frs (X ′ )
surjectively to Fs (X). Hence not every center contained in Fs (X) induces a center in Frs (X ′ ). This
observation motivates the following definition.
Definition 4.6. Under the previous hypotheses, we will say that β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal
if Frs (X ′ ) is homeomorphic to Fs (X) via β, and every Frs -local sequence in the sense if Remark 4.4,
say
′
′ ,
o
··· o
XN
XN
X′ o
X1′ o
−1
induces an Fs -local sequence on X, and a commutative diagram, say
(4.6.1)

X′ o

X1′ o

Xo

′
o
XN
−1



X1 o

′
XN

βN−1

β1

β



··· o
··· o



XN −1 o

,

βN



XN

where each βi is finite of generic rank r (see Remark 4.4 above), and induces a homeomorphism
between Frs (Xi′ ) and Fs (Xi ). In this case we will also say that Frs (X ′ ) is strongly homeomorphic
′ ) = ∅ if and only if F (X ) = ∅.
to Fs (X). Note in particular that this definition yields Frs (XN
s
N
Remark 4.7. This definition is equivalent to saying that any Fs -local sequence on X induces an
Frs -local sequence on X ′ , and a commutative diagram like (4.6.1). In particular, note that the
homeomorphism between Frs (X ′ ) and Fs (X) is preserved by transformations.
From the point of view of resolution of singularities, β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal if and
only if the processes of lowering the maximum multiplicity of X ′ and X are equivalent. In the
case of varieties over a field of characteristic zero, it is possible to give a characterization of strong
transversality in terms of Rees algebras (see Theorem 7.2). In the next two sections we introduce
the theory of Rees algebras and elimination. This algebraic characterization is studied in Section 7.
Part II. Rees algebras and elimination
5. Rees algebras and local presentations of the multiplicity
Let X be a d-dimensional algebraic variety defined over a perfect field k. When seeking a
resolution of singularities of X we may start by constructing a sequence of blow ups along closed
regular equimultiple centers, say
(5.0.1)
so that

X ← X1 ← . . . ← Xm−1 ← Xm ,

max mult(X) = max mult(X1 ) = · · · = max mult(Xm−1 ) > max mult(Xm ).
In general, the maximum multiplicity locus of a variety does not define a regular center. Thus
the multiplicity function has to be refined in order to obtain regular centers at each stage of the
process. It is in this setting that the machinery provided by Rees algebras comes in handy. For a
more detailed introduction to Rees algebras we refer to [13] or [21].
Definition 5.1. Let B be a Noetherian ring, and let {In }n∈N be a sequence of ideals in B satisfying
the
conditions: I0 = B; and Ik · Il ⊂ Ik+l for all l, k ∈ N. The graded subring G =
L following
n
n≥0 In W of the polynomial ring B[W ] is said to be a B-Rees algebra, or a Rees algebra over
B, if it is a finitely generated B-algebra. A Rees algebra can be described by giving a finite set

14

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

of generators, say {f1 W n1 , . . . , fs W ns }, with fi ∈ B for i = 1 . . . , s, in which case we will write
G = B[f1 W n1 , . . . , fs W ns ] ⊂ B[W ].
The notion of Rees algebra extends naturally to schemes. Consider a non-necessarily affine
scheme V . We will say that a quasi-coherent subsheaf G ⊂ OV [W ] is a Rees algebra over V , or
simply an OV -Rees algebra, if V can be covered by affine charts of the form U = Spec(B), where
Γ(U, G) is a Rees algebra over B. Note that, in this way, there is a natural one-to-one correspondence
between the Rees algebras defined over a ring S, and those defined over the affine scheme Spec(S).
Thus sometimes we will abuse our notation, and we will make no distinction between them.
L
5.2. The singular locus of a Rees algebra. [60, 1.2] Let G = n∈N In W n be a Rees algebra
over a regular scheme V . The singular locus of G is defined by
\
Sing(G) :=
{ξ ∈ V | νξ (In ) ≥ n} ,
n≥1

where νξ (In ) denotes the order of the ideal sheaf In at ξ. When V is excellent, Sing(G) turns out
to be a closed subset of V . In addition, when V is affine, put V = Spec(S), and G is generated by
elements f1 W N1 , . . . , fs W Ns , one has that
s
\
{ξ ∈ V | νξ (fi ) ≥ Ni }
Sing(G) =
i=1

(see [21, Proposition 1.4]).
5.3. If X is a variety over a perfect field k, then, locally in an (étale) neighborhood U of a point
of maximum multiplicity, there is an embedding in a smooth variety V over k and an OV -Rees
algebra G such that
Max mult(X) ∩ U = Sing G,
where Max mult(X) denotes the (closed) set of points of maximum multiplicity of X. In fact, this
equality holds in a very strong sense, to be defined in 5.7. This issue will be treated along this
section (see Theorem 5.10, and the discussion in 5.12 for more precise details). We shall indicate in
5.11 that a similar statement can be made for the maximum value of the Hilbert-Samuel function
on X (see [36]).
5.4. Transforms of Rees algebras by local sequences. Transforms by permissible blow ups.
Let V be a regular scheme, and let
LG be a Rees algebra on V . A regular closed subscheme Y ⊂ V
is said to be permissible for G = n Jn W n ⊂ OV [W ] if Y ⊂ Sing G. A permissible blow up is the
blow up at a permissible center, V ← V1 . If H1 ⊂ V1 denotes the exceptional divisor, then for each
n ∈ N, one has that Jn OV1 = L
I(H1 )n Jn,1 for some sheaf of ideals Jn,1 ⊂ OV1 . The transform of G
in V1 is then defined as G1 := n Jn,1 W n (see [21, Proposition 1.6]).
Transforms by smooth morphisms. Let V ← V1 be either the restriction to some open subset V1
of V or the multiplication by an affine space, say V1 = V ×k Ank . Then we define the transform G1
of G in V1 as the pull-back of G in V1 .
A G-local sequence over V is a local sequence over V ,
(5.4.1)

(V = V0 , G = G0 ) o

π0

(V1 , G1 ) o

π1

··· o

πm−1

(Vm , Gm ),

where for i = 0, 1, . . . , m−1 each πi is either a permissible monoidal transformation for Gi ⊂ OVi [W ]
(and then Gi+1 is the transform of Gi in the sense of 5.4), or a smooth morphism (and then Gi+1 is
the pull-back of Gi in Vi+1 ).
Definition 5.5. Let V be a regular scheme, and G an OV -Rees algebra. A resolution of G consists
on a sequence of permissible blow ups, say
(V = V0 , G = G0 ) o

π0

(V1 , G1 ) o

π1

··· o

πm−1

(Vm , Gm ),

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

15

so that Sing(Gm ) = ∅.
Local presentations of the multiplicity
In 5.4 and Definition 5.5 we discussed about local sequences of transformations of a Rees algebra
G over a regular scheme V . In the next definition we will fix a singular variety X and will consider
local transformations on X.
Definition 5.6. We will say that a sequence of transformations
X = X0 ← X1 ← . . . ← Xm

is a mult(X)-local sequence if for i = 0, . . . , m − 1, Xi ← Xi+1 is either blow at a smooth center
Y ⊂ Max mult(Xi ), or else Xi+1 = Xi × A1k and Xi ← Xi+1 is the smooth morphism defined by
the natural projection.
Definition 5.7. We will say that mult(X) is globally representable for a scheme X, if X admits
an embedding in some regular scheme, say X ⊂ V , and there is an OV -Rees algebra G so that the
following conditions hold:
(1) There is an equality, Max mult(X) = Sing(G), of closed sets;
(2) Every mult(X)-local sequence as in Definition 5.6, X = X0 ← X1 ← . . . ← Xm ,
with
max mult(X) = max mult(X0 ) = · · · = max mult(Xm−1 ) ≥ max mult(Xm )

induces a G-local sequence

V0 = V
G0 = G

(5.7.1)

← V1 ← . . . ← Vm
G1
...
Gm

and: Max mult(Xi ) = Sing(Gi ) for i = 1, . . . , m − 1; if max mult(Xm−1 ) = max mult(Xm ),
then Max mult(Xm ) = Sing(Gm ); if max mult(Xm−1 ) > max mult(Xm ), then Sing(Gm ) = ∅.
(3) Conversely, any G-local sequence as (5.7.1) with Sing(Gi ) 6= ∅ for i = 0, . . . , m − 1, induces
an mult(X)-local sequence
with

X = X0 ← X1 ← . . . ← Xm
max mult(X) = max mult(X0 ) · · · = max mult(Xm−1 ) ≥ max mult(Xm ),

and: Max mult(Xi ) = Sing(Gi ) for i = 1, . . . , m − 1; max mult(Xm−1 ) = max mult(Xm ) if
Max mult(Xm ) = Sing(Gm ) 6= ∅, max mult(Xm−1 ) > max mult(Xm ) if Sing(Gm ) = ∅.
5.8. It can be proved that the previous condition is fulfilled for varieties defined over a prefect
field, at least locally in the sense of étale topology. Namely, given a variety X over a perfect field
k, and a point ξ ∈ X, there exists an étale neighborhood of X at ξ, say U , a closed immersion of
U into a regular variety V , and an OV -Rees algebra G satisfying conditions (1), (2) and (3) (see
[62, Section 7]). This local embedding, together with the Rees algebra G, will be called a local
presentation of Max mult(X). We do not know whether it is possible to find local presentations for
a more general class of schemes, and along this paper we will only consider varieties over a perfect
field.
Remark 5.9. Hereafter, when we refer to a local presentation, we shall omit the fact that it is
defined on an étale neighborhood, and simply write X ֒→ V . Moreover, we will usually say that
the pair (V, G) is a local presentation of X, assuming that a closed immersion X ֒→ V has already
been fixed.
Theorem 5.10. [62, Section 5] Let X be an equidimensional scheme of finite type over a perfect
field k, and let s = max mult(X). Then, mult(X) is locally representable.

16

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

5.11. Hilbert-Samuel vs. Multiplicity. In [36] Hironaka proves that the Hilbert-Samuel
function of an algebraic variety X, or more precisely the stratum of points having the same HilbertSamuel function, is locally representable. There, instead of mult(X)-local sequences, one has to
consider HSX -local sequences. To be precise, set Max HSX as the closed set of points with maximum
Hilbert-Samuel function on X. We will say that
X = X0 ← X1 ← . . . ← Xm
is an HSX -local sequence if for i = 0, 1, . . . , m − 1, the morphism Xi ← Xi+1 is either a blow up at
a smooth center Y ⊂ Max HSXi (this is normal flatness), or else Xi ← Xi+1 is a smooth morphism
with Xi+1 = Xi × A1k .
By considering the Hilbert-Samuel function, or the multiplicity function, we ultimately seek to
produce a resolution of singularities of X. In the first case, we seek for a resolution by blowing up at
normally flat centers; in the second case, one uses equimultiple centers. Over fields of characteristic
zero, in either of these two approaches, Rees algebras can be used in order to produce such centers
(as was done in 5.8 for the case of the multiplicity).
5.12. Some ideas behind the proof of Theorem 5.10. Here we seek for local representations
of the multiplicity on X in the sense of Definition 5.7. Suppose that X is affine, say X = Spec(B),
where B is an equidimensional algebra of finite type over a perfect field k. Fix a closed point
ξ ∈ Fs (X). After replacing X by a suitable étale neighborhood of ξ, we may assume that there
exists a regular domain S ⊂ B so that B is a finite extension of S of generic rank s, which necessarily
satisfies property (*) from 2.3 at ξ. Then, choose θ1 , . . . , θm ∈ B so that B = S[θ1 , . . . , θm ]. These
elements induce a surjective morphism
S[Z1 , . . . , Zm ]

/ B = S[θ1 , . . . , θm ],

where Z1 , . . . , Zm denote variables, and we can take V = Spec(S[Z1 , . . . , Zm ]). Observe that this
morphism induces a natural embedding of X into V . Moreover, since θi is integral over S, it has
a minimal polynomial over K, the field of fractions of S. Denote it by fi (Zi ) ∈ K[Zi ], and set
di = deg(fi ). It can be shown that the coefficients of these polynomials actually belong to S, i.e.,
that fi (Zi ) ∈ S[Zi ]. Finally, a local presentation of Fs (X) is given by the Rees algebra
GV = OV [f1 (Z1 )W d1 , . . . , fm (Zm )W dm ] ⊂ OV [W ].
See [62, §7.1] for details.
Comparing different presentations: weak equivalence and canonical representatives
Consider an equidimensional scheme X where mult(X) is representable via local embeddings, and
fix a point ξ ∈ Max mult(X). In principle, there may be many presentations of Max mult(X) (locally
at ξ) coming from different immersions and Rees algebras. As we want to use local presentations
to find a resolution of singularities of X in the case of characteristic zero, one would like to show
that two different presentations lead to the same process of resolution.
Assume that a closed immersion X ֒→ V has been fixed, and that we have two presentations of
Max mult(X) given by two OV -Rees algebra G and G ′ . As we want to use local presentations to
find a resolution of singularities of X in the case of characteristic zero, one would like to show that
G and G ′ lead to the same process of resolution. As both of them represent Max mult(X), we have
that Sing(G) = Max mult(X) = Sing(G ′ ), and this equality is preserved by local sequences. This
observation motivates the following definition.
Definition 5.13. We will say that two Rees algebras over a regular scheme V , say G and G ′ , are
weakly equivalent if:
(1) Sing(G) = Sing(G ′ ).

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

17

(2) Any G-local sequence on V , say
V o

V1 o

··· o

Vm ,

is also a G ′ -local sequence, and vice-versa.
(3) For any local sequence as that in (2), if Gi and Gi′ denote the transforms of G and G ′ on Vi
respectively, we have that Sing(Gi ) = Sing(Gi′ ).
It is easy to see that weak equivalence defines an equivalence relation on the family of OV -Rees
algebras, and thus each OV -Rees algebra G has a class of equivalence. By definition, if an OV -Rees
algebra represents Max mult(X) (via a fixed immersion X ֒→ V ), any other element of its class also
do so. It can be proved that two weakly equivalent OV -Rees algebras induce the same invariants,
and hence they share the same process of resolution of Rees algebras (over fields of characteristic
zero). In this way one can see that the process of simplification of the maximum multiplicity of a
singular variety X is independent of the local presentations chosen (see [13, §27] or [21]).
Remark 5.14. Consider a Rees algebra G defined over a smooth variety V . One can consider a
tree with V as its root and consisting on all the G-local sequences as in (5.4.1). This tree will be
called the tree of permissible transformations of G, and we shall denote it by FV (G). Given another
Rees algebra G ′ over V , if every G-local sequence induces a G ′ -local sequence, then we shall say
that FV (G) ⊂ FV (G ′ ). Note that, with this notation, G is weakly equivalent to G ′ if and only if
FV (G) ⊂ FV (G ′ ) and FV (G ′ ) ⊂ FV (G) and, in such case, we shall write FV (G) = FV (G ′ ).
Remark 5.15. On the previous discussion we fixed an immersion of X into V , and then we defined
an equivalence relation between OV -Rees algebras. This notion can also be extended to the case
in which we have two different immersions, say X ֒→ V1 and X ֒→ V2 , with two different Rees
algebras, G1 and G2 respectively, in which case we talk about identifiable pairs (see [13, Part III],
and [48]).
5.16. Integral closure. Consider a regular domain S, and a S-Rees algebra G ⊂ S[W ]. We
define the integral closure of G, which we shall denote by G, as that of G regarded as a ring, inside
its field of fractions. Since S is normal, S[W ] is normal, and hence G ⊂ S[W ]. In addition, if S
excellent, G is finitely generated over S (see [24, 7.8.3 ii) and vi)]). Thus G is again a Rees algebra
over S. As integral closure is a concept of local nature, this notion extends naturally to non-affine
schemes. In this way, given a regular excellent scheme V , and an OV -Rees algebra G, we may talk
unambiguously about the integral closure of G, say G, which is again an OV -Rees algebra.
Remark 5.17. Observe that the regularity of S (resp. V ) does not play an essential role on the
previous discussion. Thus the concept of integral closure extends to any Rees algebra defined over
a normal excellent domain (resp. normal excellent scheme). For instance, a Rees algebra over
a normal (possibly singular) variety X, say G, has an integral closure, say G, which is again an
OX -Rees algebra.
Lemma 5.18 (cf. [21, Proposition 5.4]). Let V be a regular excellent scheme, and G an OV -Rees
algebra. Then the integral closure of G, say G, is weakly equivalent to G.
5.19. Differential Rees algebras. Let S be a smooth algebra over a perfect field k. For any
non-negative integer n, denote by Diff nS|k the module of differential operators of order at most
L
i
n of S over k. A Rees algebra over S, say G =
i∈N Ii W , is said to be differentially saturated
(with respect to k) if the following condition holds: for any homogeneous element f W N ∈ G, and
any differential operator ∆ ∈ Diff nS|k , with n < N , we have that ∆(f )W N −n ∈ G. In particular,
Ii+1 ⊂ Ii , since Diff 0S|k ⊂ Diff 1S|k . Note that this notion extends naturally to Rees algebras defined
on a smooth variety over k, say V : in this case, we denote by Diff nV |k the sheaf of differential
operators of V over k, and the condition of being differentially saturated is defined locally.

18

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

Given a smooth variety over a perfect field k, and an arbitrary OV -Rees algebra G, there is a
natural way to construct the smallest differentially saturated algebra containing G (see [61, Theorem 3.4]), which we will denote by Diff (G). It can be checked that Diff (G) is again finitely
generated over OV (cf. [61, Proof of Theorem 3.4]), and hence it is a Rees algebra. Moreover
Diff (G) is weakly equivalent to G (see Giraud’s Lemma [21, Theorem 4.1]).
Remark 5.20. In the preceding discussion we just considered the differential operators of a variety
relative to the ground field k. By contrast, if one considers the absolute differential operators of
V (i.e., those defined over the prime field of k), the previous results can be extended to varieties
defined over arbitrary fields, non-necessarily perfect.
Theorem 5.21 ([37], [11, Theorem 3.10]). Let V be a regular variety over a perfect field k. Then
two OV -Rees algebra G and G ′ are weakly equivalent if and only if Diff (G) = Diff (G ′ ).
In particular, this Theorem says that Diff (G) is the canonical representative of the class of G.
An extension of this theorem to the case of varieties over non-perfect fields can be found in [2,
Theorem 6.6.8, p. 117]
The Rees algebra associated to Max mult(X).
Theorem 5.22. [1, Theorem 5.3] Let X be an algebraic variety defined over a perfect field k, and
let (V1 , GV1 ) and (V2 , GV2 ) denote two local presentations of Max mult(X) as in Remark 5.15. Then,
the OX -algebras Diff (GV1 )|X and Diff (GV2 )|X are equal up to integral closure.
Definition 5.23. Let X be a singular variety over a perfect field k with maximum multiplicity
s > 1. Given a local presentation of Max mult(X) as in Definition 5.7, say (V, GV ), we define the
Rees algebra attached to Max mult(X) to be GX := Diff (GV )|X .
Remark 5.24. Recall that, given a variety X as in the previous definition, a presentation of
Max mult(X) consists of an embedding X ֒→ V , together with an OV -Rees algebra G satisfying
Max mult(X) = Sing(G), and such that this equality is preserved by permissible transformations
as long as the maximum multiplicity of X does not decrease (see Definition 5.7 and 5.8). When
X is a variety over a perfect field k, local presentations of Max mult(X) in this previous sense
can be constructed in étale topology (see Theorem 5.10 and 5.12). Thus GX is defined locally in
étale topology. However, for simplicity, we shall usually omit this fact. Finally note that GX is
well-defined by Theorem 5.22.
6. Elimination algebras
In the previous section we discussed about local presentations of the multiplicity for a given
variety X via some pair (V, G). This has been useful to prove algorithmic resolution of singularities
in characteristic zero using the multiplicity as main invariant.
In this context, one advantage of using the multiplicity instead of the Hilbert-Samuel function
(the invariant used by Hironaka in [30]) is that, at least, when the characteristic is zero, it can
be shown that the lowering of the maximum multiplicity of X is equivalent to resolving a Rees
algebra defined in some d-dimensional regular scheme, where d is the dimension of X. This follows
from the fact that the local presentation of the multiplicity is found by considering a suitable finite
projection from X to some regular scheme Z (see 5.12 and Example 6.16 below).
The previous discussion leads us to the following natural question. Once a pair (V, G) is given, one
may wonder whether there is another (V ′ , G ′ ) with dim V ′ < dim V somehow equivalent to (V, G).
That is, we would like, (1) that Sing G be homeomorphic to Sing G ′ in some sense, and (2), that this
homeomorphism be preserved by local sequences. This would mean that finding a resolution of G
is equivalent to finding a resolution of G ′ , the latter being less complex since the problem concerns
an ambient space of lower dimension. This would allow us to resolve Rees algebras by using an
inductive argument. In fact this is the motivation behind the theory of elimination algebras that

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

19

will be treated in this section. Further details about elimination algebras can be found in [12], [13],
[60], and [59].
6.1. On the compatibility of permissible blow ups with smooth projections. Let V and
V ′ be smooth schemes over a perfect field k with dim V ≥ dim V ′ and let β : V → V ′ be a smooth
morphism. Let G ⊂ OV [W ] and G ′ ⊂ OV ′ [W ] be (sheaves) of Rees algebras. Suppose that Sing G is
homeomorphic to Sing G ′ via β, and let Y ⊂ Sing G be a permissible center. Then if β(Y ) ⊂ Sing G ′
is a permissible center we can consider the blows up of V and V ′ at Y and β(Y ) (respectively), say
V1

V o
β



V′ o

V1′ .

Let G1′ be the transform of G ′ in V1′ and let G1 be the transform of G in V1 . In general, β cannot be
lifted to a morphism β1 : V1 → V1′ so as to complete the square, but suppose that there is a suitable
open subset U1 ⊂ V1 with Sing G1 ⊂ U1 where this can be done, so that the following diagram
commutes:
(6.1.1)

U1

V o

β1

β





V′ o

V1′ .

Then β1 (Sing G1 ) can be defined and we may wonder whether it is homeomorphic to Sing G1′ or not.
The situation is quite similar if instead we consider a permissible center Z ⊂ Sing G ′ and consider
the blow ups of V ′ at Z and of V at β −1 (Z). Thus, in the following discussion whenever we define
local sequences over V ′ and V as above we will be assuming that the blow ups at permissible centers
will be restricted to suitable open subsets of the transforms of V that contain the singular locus of
the transforms of G so that commutative diagrams as (6.1.1) can be considered.
Intuitively, we may think that G ′ represents the singular locus of G in a lower dimensional scheme
if dim V > dim V ′ . As we will see, when the characteristic is zero, the role of G ′ is played by an
elimination algebra of G on V (see Definition 6.7 and Remark 6.11 (2)). In positive characteristic,
elimination algebras can also be defined, but their link with the original Rees algebra is weaker (see
Remark 6.11 (3)).
Definition 6.2. Let k be a perfect field, V (n) an n-dimensional smooth variety over k, and let G (n)
be a Rees algebra over V (n) . We will say that a smooth morphism from V (n) to a smooth k-variety
V (n−e) of dimension (n − e), say β : V (n) → V (n−e) , is a G (n) -admissible projection if the following
conditions hold:
(1) β maps Sing G (n) homeomorphically to its image in V (n−e) . Moreover, it is required that,
for any closed subscheme Y ⊂ Sing G (n) , Y is regular if and only if β(Y ) ⊂ V (n−e) is so;
(2) Any G (n) -permissible sequence of transformations on V (n) , say
(n)

G (n)

G1

V (n) o

V1

(n)

(n)

Gl
··· o
o

(n)

Vl

,

induces a sequence of transformations on V (n−e) , say
V (n−e) o

(n−e)

V1

o

··· o

(n−e)

Vl

,

20

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

and a commutative diagram
V (n) o

(n)

V1

β



V (n−e) o

(n)

··· o
o

Vl

β1

βl





(n−e)

V1

o

··· o

(n−e)

Vl

,

(n)

where each βi is a smooth morphism1 which maps Sing Gi homeomorphically to its image in
(n−e)
Vi
. Moreover, it is required that, for any i and for any closed subscheme Yi ⊂ Sing G (n) ,
(n−e)
Yi is regular if and only if βi (Yi ) ⊂ Vi
is so.
Given V (n) and G (n) , the question of whether there exists a G (n) -admissible projection to some
smooth space of dimension n − e arises. The existence of such admissible projections can be
characterized in terms of the τ -invariant, an invariant attached to each point ξ ∈ Sing G (n) .
Definition 6.3. Let V (n) be a regular variety over a perfect field k and let G (n) be a Rees algebra
over V (n) . Fix a closed point ξ ∈ Sing G (n) , and let Grmξ (OV (n) ,ξ ) denote the graded ring of OV (n) ,ξ .
Consider the tangent ideal of G (n) at ξ, say Inξ G (n) ⊂ Grmξ (OV (n) ,ξ ), defined as the homogeneous
ideal generated by
In + mn+1
ξ
Inξ (In ) :=
n+1
mξ

for all n ≥ 1. Note that Grmξ (OV (n) ,ξ ) ≃ k′ [Z1 , . . . , Zn ], where Z1 , . . . , Zn is a basis of the subspace
of linear forms of Grmξ (OV (n) ,ξ ), say Gr1mξ (OV (n) ,ξ ). The τ -invariant is the minimum integer so
that there exists a basis of Gr 1mξ (OV (n) ,ξ ), say Y1 , . . . , Yn , satisfying that Inξ G (n) can be generated
by polynomials in k′ [Y1 , . . . , Yτ ] (see [5]). That is, so that


Inξ G (n) = Inξ G (n) ∩ k′ [Y1 , . . . , Yτ ] · Grmξ (OV (n) ,ξ ).
Lemma 6.4 (cf. [12, §8]). Let V (n) be a smooth variety of dimension n over a perfect field k, and
let G (n) be a Rees algebra over V (n) . Fix a point ξ ∈ Sing G (n) . Then, for e ≤ τG (n) ,ξ , it is possible
to construct a G (n) -admissible projection (locally in étale topology) to some smooth k-variety of
dimension n − e, say β : V (n) → V (n−e) .

Roughly speaking, the previous lemma says that the tree of closed sets defined by G (n) can be
represented in lower dimension. The next question is whether one can find a Rees algebra over
V (n−e) which represents this tree of closed sets.

Definition 6.5. Let G (n) be a Rees algebra over a smooth variety V (n) , and let β : V (n) → V (n−e)
be a G (n) -admissible projection. We will say that a Rees algebra G (n−e) over V (n−e) is strongly
linked to G (n) via β if the following conditions hold:

(1) Sing G (n−e) = β Sing G (n) (note that, since β is required to be G (n) -admissible, this implies that a closed center Y ⊂ Sing G (n) is regular if and only if the corresponding closed
subscheme, say β(Y ) ⊂ Sing G (n−e) , is so);
(2) Any G (n) -permissible sequence on V (n) , say
(6.5.1)

(n)

G (n)

G1

V (n) o

V1

(n)

(n)

o

Gl
··· o

(n)

Vl

,

1Recall that, as it was discussed in 6.1, each β is just defined locally in an open subscheme of V (n)
i
i

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

21

induces a G (n−e) -permissible sequence on V (n−e) , say
(6.5.2)

(n−e)

G (n−e)

G1

V (n−e) o

V1

(n−e)

(n−e)

Gl

(n−e)

··· o
o

Vl

,

and a commutative diagram
V (n) o

(6.5.3)

(n)

β



V (n−e) o

(n)

··· o

V1

o

Vl

β1

βl





(n−e)

(n−e)

··· o

V1

o

Vl

,

(n)

where each βi is a Gi -permissible projection, and
(n−e)

Sing Gi

for all i = 1, . . . , l.

(n) 

= βi Sing Gi

Remark 6.6. Let G (n−e) be a Rees algebra which is strongly linked to G (n) as in the previous
definition via the morphism β : V (n) → V (n−e) . Then any closed regular center Z ⊂ Sing G (n−e)
induces a closed regular center Y ⊂ Sing G (n) . Thus, any G (n−e) -permissible sequence of transformations like (6.5.2) induces a G (n) -permissible sequence like (6.5.1) and a commutative diagram
(n)
(n−e)
= ∅ if and only if Sing Gl = ∅. Thus it turns
like (6.5.3). In particular, it follows that Sing Gl
out that, if G (n−e) is strongly linked to G (n) , then a resolution of G (n) induces a resolution G (n−e) ,
and vice versa.
Elimination algebras. In general, given a Rees algebra G (n) over a smooth variety V (n) and a
G (n) -admissible projection β : V (n) → V (n−e) , it may occur that one cannot find algebras over
V (n−e) which are strongly linked to G (n) . This leads us to introduce a weaker notion.

Definition 6.7. Let V (n) be an n-dimensional smooth variety over a perfect field k, and let G (n)
be a Rees algebra over V (n) . Consider a G (n) -admissible projection to a smooth variety V (n−e) of
dimension n − e, say β : V (n) → V (n−e) . Then the algebra

G (n−e) := Diff G (n) ∩ OV (n−e) [W ],
or any other Rees algebra over V (n−e) which is weakly equivalent to it, is called an elimination
algebra of G (n) via β.

Remark 6.8. Note that, using the notation of Remark 5.14, the elimination algebra defined above
satisfies that


(6.8.1)
FV (n) G (n) ⊂ FV (n) β ∗ (G (n−e) ) .

Since β is G (n) -admissible, this implies that any G (n) -permissible sequence on V (n) induces a G (n−e) permissible sequence on V (n−e) and a commutative diagram
(6.8.2)

(n)

G (n)

G1

V (n) o

V1

(n)

β



(n)

Gl
··· o
o

(n)

Vl

β1



(n−e)

V (n−e) o

V1

G (n−e)

G1

(n−e)

o



··· o

βl

(n−e)

Vl

,

(n−e)

Gl

22

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

(n)
(n) 
(n−e)
where each βi is Gi -admissible and βi Sing Gi
. Moreover, it can be shown that
⊂ Sing Gi
(n−e)
(n−e)
G
is the greatest algebra over V
satisfying (6.8.1) (see Theorem 5.21). Thus, an elimination
algebra of G (n) can also be regarded as a maximal algebra over V (n−e) with the previous property.

Remark 6.9. In general, given G (n−e) an elimination algebra of G (n) and a diagram as (6.8.2), the
(n−e)
(n)
algebra Gi
is not an elimination algebra of Gi for i ≥ 1, and it may occur that
(n) 
(n−e) 
$ Sing Gi
βi Sing Gi
.
Lemma 6.10 (cf. [13, §16.7 (1), p. 138]). Let G (n) be a Rees algebra over a regular variety V (n)
defined over a perfect field k. Consider G (n) -admissible projection, say β : V (n) → V (n−e) , and let
G (n−e) be an elimination algebra of G (n) . Then


β Sing G (n) = Sing G (n−e) .

Remark 6.11. Let G (n) be a Rees algebra over a regular variety V (n) defined over a perfect field
k, and consider a G (n) -admissible projection, say β : V (n) → V (n−e) .
(1) Suppose that G (n−e) is a Rees algebra over V (n−e) which is strongly linked to G (n) . In
such case, G (n−e) is an elimination algebra of G (n) (this follows from the definition and
Theorem 5.21).
(2) In the case of characteristic zero, an elimination algebra of G (n) is strongly linked to G (n)
(see [13, §16.8, p. 139]). In other words, when char k = 0, this ensures the existence of an
algebra G (n−e) over V (n−e) which is strongly linked to G (n) .
(3) In the case of positive characteristic, an elimination algebra might not be strongly linked
to G (n) . Moreover, given G (n) and β : V (n) → V (n−e) as above, it may occur that there is
no Rees algebra over V (n−e) which is strongly linked to G (n) (see Example 6.15 below).
Remark 6.12. Assume characteristic zero, and let G (n−e) be an elimination algebra of G (n) as in
Remark 6.11 (2). Then any resolution of G (n) induces a resolution of G (n−e) , and vice versa.
Consider an algebra G (n) over V (n) , and a G (n) -admissible projection β : V (n) → V (n−e) . According to Definition 6.7, an elimination algebra of G (n) can be constructed by computing the differential
saturation of G and then its integral closure. While the differential saturation of an algebra can
be easily computed (see [61, Theorem 2.9]), the process of calculating the integral closure is much
more involved. The next results provide an alternative method for constructing an elimination
algebra of G (n) which avoids the use integral closure.

Theorem 6.13 (cf. [59, Theorem 4.11]). Let V (n) be a regular variety over a perfect field k, and let
G (n) be a Rees algebra over V (n) . Assume that G (n) is differential, and consider a G (n) -admissible
projection β : V (n) → V (n−e) , and let K(n) be another Rees algebra over V (n) which is finite over
G (n) . Then the algebra
K(n) ∩ OV (n−e) [W ]
is finite over
G (n) ∩ OV (n−e) [W ].
Corollary 6.14. Let V (n) be a regular variety over a perfect field k, and let G (n) be a Rees algebra
over V (n) . Consider a G (n) -admissible projection β : V (n) → V (n−e) . Then
G (n−e) = Diff (G (n) ) ∩ OV (n−e) [W ].

is an elimination algebra of G (n) . Moreover, G (n−e) is differential.

The following example illustrates that, in positive characteristic, an elimination might not be
strongly linked to the original Rees algebra.

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

23

Example 6.15. Suppose that k is a perfect field of characteristic 2. Consider the curve X =
Spec(k[x, y]/hy 2 − x3 i), endowed with its natural immersion in V (2) = Spec(k[x, y]). It can be
checked that


G (2) = OV (2) x2 W, (y 2 − x3 )W 2
is a differential algebra over V (2) which represents F2 (X). Moreover, the inclusion k[x] ⊂ k[x, y]
induces a G (2) -admissible projection of V (2) to V (1) = Spec(k[x]), say β : V (2) → V (1) . Thus, by
Corollary 6.14,


G (1) = OV (1) x2 W
is an elimination algebra of G (2) . However, by blowing up V (2) and V (1) at the origin, one readily
checks that G (1) is not strongly linked to G (2) .

Example 6.16 (Representation and elimination in characteristic zero). Consider a d-dimensional
variety X with maximum multiplicity s over a perfect field k. Following the procedure of 5.12, one
can construct an embedding X ֒→ V (n) and a Rees algebra over V (n) , say G (n) , which represents
the stratum of maximum multiplicity of X. When the characteristic is zero, a G (n) -admissible
projection to a d-dimensional smooth variety can be constructed, say β : V (n) → V (d) , and we will
show how to construct an elimination algebra of G (n) in this setting. In other words, we show that
the stratum of maximum multiplicity of a d-dimensional variety can be represented in dimension
d, at least in characteristic zero.
Let X = Spec(B) be an affine variety with maximum multiplicity s > 0 over a field k of
characteristic zero. Fix a closed point ξ ∈ Fs (X). Recall that, after replacing B by a suitable étale
extension, there is a commutative diagram, say
/ B = S[θ1 , . . . , θm ],
5
❦❦❦
❦❦❦❦
❦
❦
❦
❦❦❦❦
❦❦❦

S[Z1 , . . . , Zm ]
O

S

where S is a regular k-algebra, Z1 , . . . , Zm denote variables, and θ1 , . . . , θm are integral over S. Let
K denote the field of fractions of S and, for i = 1, . . . , m, let fi (Zi ) be the minimal polynomial
of θi over K. Recall that, under these hypotheses, fi (Zi ) ∈ S[Zi ]. Then, setting V (d+m) =
Spec(S[Z1 , . . . , Zm ]) and di = deg(fi (Zi )) for i = 1, . . . , m, one has that the Rees algebra
G (d+m) = OV (d+m) [f1 (Z1 )W d1 , . . . , fm (Zm )W dm ] ⊂ OV (d+m) [W ]

represents Fs (X). Observe that this means that Fs (X) is represented by
m
\

Fdi (fi (Zi )),

i=1

i.e., Fs (X) is the intersection of the maximum multiplicity loci of the hypersurfaces defined by
f1 (Z1 ), . . . , fm (Zm ) (at least in an étale neighborhood of ξ).
In this setting, it can be proved that the natural projection β : V (d+m) → V (d) = Spec(S)
is G (d+m) -admissible. Moreover, an elimination algebra of G (d+m) can be obtained by considering suitable functions on the coefficients of the polynomials f1 (Z1 ), . . . , fm (Zm ). Namely, when
char(k) = 0, one can find elements a1 , . . . , am ∈ S so that, after taking the change of variables
Zi′ = Zi + ai ,
fi (Zi ) = (Zi′ )di + bi,2 (Zi′ )di −2 + · · · + bi,di ,
with bi,j ∈ S for all i, j. In this case, the S-algebra generated by the elements bi,j W j , with 1 ≤ i ≤ m
and 2 ≤ j ≤ di , say
G (d) = S[bi,j W j ] ⊂ S[W ]

is an elimination algebra of G (d+m) (see [59] and [13, Remark 16.10] for further details).

24

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

Part III. Strong transversality
7. Elimination algebras and finite morphisms.
Let k be a perfect field, and let β : X ′ → X be a finite transversal morphism of singular varieties
over k. Recall that this is a finite and dominant morphism such that
max mult(X ′ ) = r · max mult(X),

where r is the generic rank of X ′ → X (see Definition 2.5). According to Theorem 5.22 and
Definition 5.23, one can attach an intrinsic Rees algebra to the stratum of maximum multiplicity
of X, say GX . Recall that this algebra is defined in étale topology. Similarly, one can attach an
intrinsic algebra to the stratum of maximum multiplicity of X ′ , say GX ′ . As Proposition 7.1 shows,
there a relation between GX and GX ′ . Along this section we will study the connection between the
transversal morphism β and the algebras GX and GX ′ . The main result is Theorem 7.2.
Proposition 7.1 ([1, Proposition 6.3]). Let β : X ′ → X be a finite morphism of singular varieties
over a perfect field k. Let GX ⊂ OX [W ] and GX ′ ⊂ OX ′ [W ] denote the intrinsic Rees algebras
attached to the strata of maximum multiplicity of X and X ′ respectively. If β is transversal, then
there is an inclusion GX ⊂ GX ′ .
Theorem 7.2. Let β : X ′ → X be a finite and dominant morphism of varieties over a perfect field
k. Assume that β is transversal, of generic rank r, and let s be the highest multiplicity at points of
X, so that GX ⊂ GX ′ . Then:
(1) If β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal then the inclusion GX ⊂ GX ′ is finite;
(2) If k is a field of characteristic zero, then the converse holds. Namely, if GX ⊂ GX ′ is finite,
then β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal.

The proof of this theorem requires some preliminary technical results. The main ideas of the
proof can be found in Remark 7.5 below. The proof will be addressed in 7.8.
Remark 7.3. In case that char k = 0, the theorem says that β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal if
and only if the inclusion GX ⊂ GX ′ is finite. That is, we can characterize the strong transversality
of β by means of the intrinsic algebras GX and GX ′ . On the other hand, when char k > 0, property
(1) holds as well, but (2) fails in general, as the following example shows.
Example 7.4. Here we exhibit a transversal morphism β : X ′ → X where GX ′ is finite over GX ,
but X ′ is not strongly transversal to X.
Let k be a field of characteristic 2. Consider the varieties X = Spec(B) and X ′ = Spec(B ′ ),
where
B = k[t, x, y]/hy 4 − x13 i and B ′ = k[t, x, y, z]/hz 2 − x5 , y 4 − x13 i.
Note that there is a natural finite and dominant morphism β : X ′ → X given by the inclusion
B ⊂ B ′ . This inclusion has generic rank 2. Moreover, one can check that max mult(X) = 4 and
max mult(X ′ ) = 8 (both values are attained at the origin), and thus β : X ′ → X is transversal (see
Definition 2.5). Next we shall show that GX ′ is finite over GX , but X ′ is not strongly transversal
to X.
Set S = k[t, x], V = Spec(k[t, x, y]), and V ′ = Spec(k[t, x, y, z]). Since S ⊂ B is a finite extension
of domains of generic rank 4 = max mult(X), then the differential Rees algebra
G = k[t, x, y][x12 W 3 , (y 4 − x13 )W 4 ] ⊂ k[t, x, y][W ]
represents the closed set F4 (X) in V (see 5.12), and GX = G|X (see Definition 5.23). Similarly, the
differential algebra
G ′ = k[t, x, y, z][x4 W, (z 2 − x5 )W 2 , (y 4 − x13 )W 4 ] ⊂ k[t, x, y, z][W ]

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

25

represents F8 (X ′ ) in V ′ , and GX ′ = G ′ |X ′ . Note that the map G → G|X sends the element (t4 −
x7 )W 4 to zero. Hence G|X is generated by the class of x12 W 3 in B[W ]. Similarly, one readily
checks that G ′ |X ′ is generated by the class of x4 W in B ′ [W ]. Since (x4 W )3 = x12 W 3 , it follows
that G ′ |X ′ is integral over G|X . Thus we see that GX ′ = G ′ |X ′ is finite over GX = G|X .
Despite this fact, we will show that β : X ′ → X is not strongly transversal. Consider the blow
ups of X ′ ⊂ V ′ and X ⊂ V at the origin, i.e., at the closed points defined by ht, x, yi and ht, x, y, zi
respectively. These blow ups induce a commutative diagram of inclusions and finite morphisms as
follows:
X1′ ⊂ V1′

X′ ⊂ V ′ o





X⊂V o

X1 ⊂ V1 .

One can check, on the t-chart of these blow ups, the strict transforms of X and X ′ are given by

X1 = Spec k[t1 , x1 , y1 ]/hy14 − t91 x13
1 i ,

and


X1′ = Spec k[t1 , x1 , y1 , z1 ]/hz12 − t31 x51 , y14 − t91 x13
1 i

(see [63, Remark 5.3]). Next, consider the centers Y1 ⊂ F4 (X1 ) and Y1′ ⊂ F8 (X1′ ) defined by ht1 , y1 i
and ht1 , y1 , z1 i respectively. Note that Y1′ sits on Y1 via the finite morphism X1′ → X. The blow
ups of X1 ⊂ V1 and X1′ ⊂ V1′ along these centers induce a commutative diagram
X′ ⊂ V ′ o


X⊂V o

X1′ ⊂ V1′ o


X1 ⊂ V1 o

X2′ ⊂ V2′


X2 ⊂ V2 .

Moreover, on the t1 -chart, X2 and X2′ are given by

and


Spec k[t2 , x2 , y2 ]/hy24 − t52 x13
2 i

Spec k[t2 , x2 , y2 , z2 ]/hz22 − t2 x52 , y24 − t52 x13
2 i

respectively. Next observe that the (non-closed) point ξ2 ∈ X2 defined by the ideal ht2 , y2 i belongs
to F4 (X2 ). However, the (non-closed) point ξ2′ ∈ X2′ defined by ht2 , y2 , z2 i, which sits on ξ2 , does
not belong to F8 (X2′ ), since x2 is unit in k[t2 , x2 , y2 , z2 ]ht2 ,y2 ,z2 i . This shows that F8 (X2′ ) is not
homeomorphic to F4 (X2 ), and therefore X ′ is not strongly transversal to X.
Remark 7.5. Here we outline the main ideas of the proof of Theorem 7.2. The proof itself is
addressed in 7.8.
Suppose that X and X ′ were affine, say X = Spec(B) and X ′ = Spec(B ′ ), with the morphism
β : X ′ → X given by a finite inclusion B ⊂ B ′ . After replacing B and B ′ by a suitable étale
neighborhood, we may assume that there is a regular k-algebra contained in B, say S, so that
S ⊂ B is a finite inclusion of generic rank s = max mult(X), and S ⊂ B ′ is a finite inclusion of
generic rank rs = max mult(X ′ ) (see the discussion in 5.12). In other words, the finite morphisms
X → Spec(S) and X ′ → Spec(S) are transversal.
Next we proceed as in 5.12. Set d = dim B = dim B ′ . One can construct a closed immersion of
X in a regular ambient space V (d+n) = Spec(S[Z1 , . . . , Zn ]), say X ֒→ V (d+n) , and a differential
Rees algebra over V (d+n) , say G (d+n) , which represents Fs (X). In this way, we obtain the following

26

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

commutative diagram:
G (d+n)

V (d+n) o


? _X
✉
✉
✉
✉✉
✉✉
✉
z✉
✉

Spec(S).

′

Moreover, there is an integer n′ ≥ n so that one can construct an embedding of X ′ in V (d+n ) =
′
′
Spec(S[Z1 , . . . , Zn , . . . , Zn′ ]), and a differential Rees algebra over V (d+n ) , say G (d+n ) , which represents Frs (X ′ ). Thus we get a commutative diagram
′
′
G (d+n ) V (d+n ) o

? _X′
β



G (d+n)



V (d+n) o


? _X
t
t
t
tt
tt
t
z t
t

Spec(S).
Recall that, in this setting,


(d+n)
⊂ B[W ],
GX = G|X

and



(d+n′ )
⊂ B ′ [W ].
GX ′ = G| ′
X

In addition, since X → Spec(S) is transversal, one readily checks that V (d+n) → Spec(S) is G (d+n) admissible, and the Rees algebra
H = G (d+n) ∩ S[W ] ⊂ S[W ]
′

is an elimination algebra of G (d+n) over S by Corollary 6.14. Similarly, V (d+n ) → Spec(S) is
′
G (d+n ) -admissible, and
′

H′ = G (d+n ) ∩ S[W ] ⊂ S[W ]

′

is an elimination algebra of G (d+n ) over S.
Observe that H ⊂ S[W ] and GX ⊂ B[W ], and that S[W ] ⊂ B[W ] is a finite extension of Rees
algebras because B is finite over S. In the previous setting, we will also show that there is a
commutative diagram of inclusions of Rees algebras, say

GX
O
?

H





/ GX ′
O
?
/ H′ ,

where both vertical arrows are finite (see Theorem 7.6 and Corollary 7.7 below). Thus GX ⊂ GX ′ is
finite if and only if H ⊂ H′ is so. These ideas will also be used in Section 8 to prove Theorem 8.1.
Note that, so far, all arguments are characteristic free. In addition, when the characteristic
′
is zero, it turns out that H and H′ are strongly linked to G (d+n) and G (d+n ) respectively (see
Remark 6.11 (2)). Therefore, in the case of characteristic zero, since G (d+n) represents Fs (X) and
′
G (d+n ) represents Frs (X ′ ), it follows that β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal if and only if H and
H′ are weakly equivalent over Spec(S). Moreover, since H and H′ are differential and H ⊂ H′ ,
to prove this latter statement it suffices to check that H′ is integral over H or, equivalently, that

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

27

H = H′ (see Theorem 5.21). In summary, when the characteristic is zero we have that
GX ⊂ GX ′ is integral ⇐⇒ H ⊂ H′ is integral

⇐⇒ H and H′ are weakly equivalent

⇐⇒ Fs (X) and Frs (X ′ ) are strongly homeomorphic
⇐⇒ β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal.

In order to prove Theorem 7.2 we need two preliminary results. The next theorem concerns the
elimination of one variable, whereas the Corollary concerns the elimination of several variables.
Finally, the proof of Theorem 7.2 will be given in 7.8.
Theorem 7.6 (cf. [59, Theorem 4.11]). Let k be a perfect field, let S be a d-dimensional smooth
k-algebra, and let G (d+1) ⊂ S[Z][W ] be a differential Rees algebra over S[Z]. Suppose that there is a
monic polynomial of degree n, say f (Z) ∈ S[Z], such that f (Z)W n ∈ G (d+1) . Set B = S[Z]/hf (Z)i.
Then the smooth morphism β : Spec(S[Z]) → Spec(S) is G (d+1) -admissible, and
G (d) = G (d+1) ∩ S[W ]

is an elimination algebra of G (d+1) . Moreover, there is an inclusion of Rees algebras, say
(d+1)

G (d) ⊂ G|B

,

which is a finite extension of graded algebras.
Corollary 7.7. Let k be a perfect field, let S be a smooth k-algebra of dimension d. Let Z1 , . . . , Zh
denote variables and, for i = 1, . . . , h, let fi (Zi ) ∈ S[Zi ] be a monic polynomial of degree li , and set
B := S[Z1 , · · · , Zh ]/hf1 (Z1 ), · · · , fh (Zh )i.

Let G (d+h) be a differential Rees algebra over S[Z1 , . . . , Zh ] containing f1 (Z1 )W l1 , . . . , fh (Zh )W lh .
Then the natural morphism Spec(S[Z1 . . . , , Zh ]) → Spec(S) is G (d+h) -admissible and
G (d) := G (d+h) ∩ S[W ].

is an elimination algebra of G (d+h) . Furthermore, there is an inclusion of Rees algebras, say
(d+h)

G (d) ⊂ G|B

(7.7.1)

,

that is finite. Moreover, as a consequence, there is another inclusion of Rees algebras over S, say


(d+h)
∩ S[W ] ,
(7.7.2)
G (d) ⊂ G|B

which is also finite.

Proof. The corollary follows from the following observation and an inductive argument. Suppose
that h = 2. Recall that G (d+2) is a differential algebra containing f1 (Z1 )W l1 and f2 (Z2 )W l2 . Then
it can be checked that τG (d+2) ≥ 2 at all ξ ∈ Sing G (d+2) and that the morphism Spec(S[Z1 , Z2 ]) →
Spec(S[Z1 ]) is G (d+2) -admissible (see [12, §8]). Define G (d+1) = G (d+2) ∩ S[Z1 ][W ], and consider the
diagram
G (d+2)
G (d+1)
G (d)

/ B = S[Z1 , Z2 ]/hf1 (Z1 ), f2 (Z2 )i
/ B2 = S[Z1 ][Z2 ]/hf2 (Z2 )i
❧5
❤❤3
❧
❧
❤❤❤❤❤
❧❧
❤
❧
❤
❤
❧
❤
❧❧❧
❤❤❤❤❤
❧❧❧
❤❤❤❤❤
❧❧❧
/ B1 = S[Z1 ]/hf1 (Z1 )i
S[Z1 ]
O
5
❦❦❦
❦❦❦
❦
❦
❦
❦❦❦
❦❦❦
❦
❦
❦

S[Z1 , Z2 ]
O

S

28

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

Recall that, by Corollary 6.14, G (d+1) is differential, and it is an elimination algebra of G (d+2) over
S[Z1 ]. Similarly, G (d) = G (d+1) ∩ S is also an elimination algebra of G (d+1) over S (again, it can be
checked that Spec(S[Z1 ]) → Spec(S) is G (d+1) -admissible and Corollary 6.14 applies). Now (7.7.1)
follows from Theorem 7.6, as we have that:
(d+1)

(d+2)

that is finite, and therefore G|B
• There is an inclusion G (d+1) ⊂ G|B
1
2
finite;
(d+1)
that is finite.
• There is an inclusion, G (d) ⊂ G|B

(d+2)

⊂ G| B

is also

1

To conclude, observe that, since the extension S ⊂ B is finite, all the following extensions are finite:

 
 

(d+2)
(d+1)
(d)
∩ S[W ] .
∩ S[W ] ⊂ G|B
G (d) ⊂ G|B ∩ S[W ] ⊂ G|B

This proves (7.7.2).
7.8. Proof of Theorem 7.2. It suffices to prove the theorem in the affine case. Hence we may
assume that X = Spec(B), X ′ = Spec(B ′ ), and that β : X ′ → X is the morphism induced by a
finite inclusion B ⊂ B ′ . Set d = dim B = dim B ′ .
After replacing B by some étale extension we may assume that there is a finite inclusion S ⊂ B
with S smooth as in 5.12. This étale extension of B induces an étale extension of B ′ which we will
denote by B ′ again, and the induced finite inclusion S ⊂ B ′ is in the same setting as that of 5.12.
Observe, that, by the hypotheses, Frs (B ′ ) is homeomorphic to its image by β, which necessarily
sits inside Fs (B). Then there is a commutative diagram of inclusions and finite morphisms,
′

G (d+n )

C ′ = S[Z1 , . . . , Zn , Zn+1 , . . . , Zn′ ]

G (d+n)

C = S[Z1 , . . . , Zn ]

O

O

S

/ B ′ = S[θ1 , . . . , θn , θn+1 , . . . , θn′ ]
O

/ B = S[θ1 , . . . , θn ]
3
❢
❢
❢
❢❢❢
❢❢❢❢❢
❢
❢
❢
❢
❢❢❢❢
❢❢❢❢❢
❢❢❢❢❢

where each monic polynomial fi (Zi ) ∈ S[Zi ] of degree li is the minimum polynomial of θi over S,
for i = 1, . . . , n, . . . , n′ , as in 5.12. Let G (d+n) be the differential C-Rees algebra generated by
f1 (Z1 )W l1 , . . . , fn (Zn )W ln ,
′

and G (d+n ) the differential C ′ -Rees algebra generated by
f1 (Z1 )W l1 , . . . , fn (Zn )W ln , fn+1 (Zn+1 )W ln+1 . . . , fn′ (Zn′ )W ln′ .
′

Then G (d+n) represents Fs (B) in Spec(C), and G (d+n ) represents Frs (B ′ ) in Spec(C ′ ). By definition,
(d+n)
GB is the integral closure in B[W ] of the restriction of G (d+n) to B, say G|B , while GB ′ is the
′

(d+n′ )

integral closure in B ′ of the restriction of G (d+n ) to B ′ , say G|

B′

(see Definition 5.23).
′

Next we prove (1). Suppose that β is strongly transversal. In such case G (d+n ) is strongly linked
′
to G (d+n) , and hence G (d+n) is an elimination algebra of G (d+n ) (see Remark 6.11 (1)). Set
D = S[Z1 , . . . , Zn , Zn+1 , . . . , Zn′ ]/hfn+1 (Zn+1 ), . . . , fn′ (Zn′ )i.

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

29

This algebra fits in the diagram above as follows:
′

G (d+n )

CO ′

G (d+n)

CO

❤❤/4 B
❤❤❤❤
❤
❤
❤
❤
❤❤❤❤
❤❤❤❤
❤
❤
❤
❤
❤❤❤❤

S

(d+n′ )

By Corollary 7.7 there is an inclusion G (d+n) ⊂ G|D

G (d+n) ⊂

closure of

(d+n′ )
G| ′
B
(d+n)
G| B

/ B′
O

/
r9 D
r
r
rr
rrr
r
r
rrr

which is finite. Therefore, the inclusion

is finite, as B ′ is a quotient of D. Thus (1) follows because GB is the integral
(d+n′ )

in B[W ], and GB ′ is the integral closure of G|

B′

in B ′ [W ].

(d+n′ )

(d+n)

To prove (2) we will restrict to characteristic zero. Assume that G|B
extension of Rees algebras. Set
H = G (d+n) ∩ S[W ],

and

⊂ G|

B′

is a finite

′

H′ = G (d+n ) ∩ S[W ].

′

By Corollary 6.14, H and H′ are two elimination algebras of G (d+n) and G (d+n ) over S respectively.
Since we are assuming characteristic zero, Remark 6.11 (2) says that H is strongly linked to G (d+n) ,
′
and H′ is strongly linked to G (d+n ) . Thus, in order to prove that β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal,
it suffices to show that H and H′ are weakly equivalent (see Remark 7.5). To this end, observe
that we have a commutative diagram of inclusions of Rees algebras as follows:
(d+n) 

G| B
?

O

H





′

/ G (d+n )
|B ′
O
?
/ H′ .

The vertical arrows are finite by Corollary 7.7, and the top horizontal arrow is finite by hypothesis.
(d+n′ )
Hence G| ′
is finite over H, and therefore H′ is also finite over H. This latter condition shows that
B
H and H′ are weakly equivalent and, as a consequence, that β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal.
Remark 7.9. Assume that the characteristic is zero, so that one can apply an algorithm of resolution of Rees algebras (see Definition 5.5). A feature of algorithmic resolution of algebras is that
it does not distinguish between weakly equivalent algebras (see Definition 5.13). Namely, if H and
H′ are two weakly equivalent algebras over a regular variety V (d) of characteristic zero, then the
algorithm produces the same resolution for H and H′ .
Consider a strongly transversal morphism of singular varieties of characteristic zero, say β :
′
X → X, with s = max mult(X) and rs = max mult(X ′ ) (see Definition 4.6). Fix the setting as in
Remark 7.5. Since the characteristic is zero, the resolution of Fs (X) and Frs (X ′ ) can be reduced
to the resolution of two Rees algebras, say H and H′ respectively, over a regular ambient space
Spec(S). Since β : X ′ → X is strongly transversal, H and H′ turn out to be weakly equivalent.
Thus one can see that the algorithmic resolution of Fs (X) induces that of Frs (X ′ ), and vice versa.
8. On the construction of strongly transversal morphisms
Consider a finite morphism of varieties over a perfect field k, say X ′ → X. Let K and L denote
the fields of fractions of X and X ′ respectively, and set r = [L : K]. In the previous sections we
have shown that
max mult(X ′ ) ≤ r · max mult(X),

30

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

and, if the equality holds, then the morphism is transversal. Moreover, in Theorem 7.2 we have
characterized the case in which X ′ → X is strongly transversal in terms of the intrinsic algebras
GX and GX ′ attached to the strata of maximum multiplicity of X and X ′ respectively.
In this section we proceed the other way around. Let X be a singular variety over a perfect field
k with maximum multiplicity s ≥ 2, and let K be the field of fractions of X. Consider a finite field
extension L/K, and set r = [L : K]. In Theorem 8.1 we prove that it is possible to construct a
finite strongly transversal morphism X ′ → X, so that X ′ has field of fractions L. This construction
makes use of the intrinsic algebra GX attached to the stratum of maximum multiplicity of X, say
Fs (X), and it is based on the ideas of Lemma 8.5.
Theorem 8.1. Let X be an algebraic variety over a perfect field with maximum multiplicity s ≥ 2.
Let K(X) denote the quotient field of X and let L be an algebraic field extension of degree r
of K(X). Then there is an algebraic variety X ′ with quotient field L, together with a strongly
transversal morphism, X ′ → X, i.e., X ′ → X is a finite dominant morphism and Fsr (X ′ ) is
strongly homeomorphic to Fs (X).
Remark 8.2. Note that the statement of the theorem fails if max mult(X) = 1, that is, if X is
regular. Assume that X is a regular variety with field of fractions K. Observe that, in this case,
s = 1 and F1 (X) = X. Let L be a finite field extension of K of degree r ≥ 2, and let X ′ be a variety
with field of fractions L endowed with a finite transversal morphism β : X ′ → X. Let η denote
the generic point of X ′ . Since OX ′ ,η = L, the variety X ′ is regular at η. Therefore η ∈
/ Fr (X ′ ),
′
and hence Fr (X ) is not mapped surjectively onto F1 (X). Thus we see that it is not possible to
construct a strongly transversal morphism to X when max mult(X) = 1.
Proof. Assume that X is affine, say X = Spec(B), and set GB = GX ⊂ B[W ]. Let B denote the
integral closure of the domain B in the field L, and consider the integral closure of GB in B[W ],
say
M
GB = B ⊕ Je1 W ⊕ Je2 W 2 ⊕ · · · =
Jel W l ⊂ B[W ].
l

Note that the integral closure of the extended ideal Jl B must be contained in the ideal Jel ⊂ B but,
in general, this is inclusion is strict (see Remark 8.3).
As Je1 is an ideal of B and B is finite over B, the ideal Je1 can also be regarded as a finite module
over B. Fix a family of generators Je1 regarded as a B-module, say Je1 = hθ1 , . . . , θm i. Set
 
B ′ = B[θ1 , . . . , θm ] = B Je1 ⊂ L.

We claim that X ′ = Spec(B ′ ) is a singular variety with field of fractions L, and that the induced
morphism X ′ → X is strongly transversal.
To prove the claim, first note that Je1 is a non-zero ideal in B, which is contained in B ′ . Hence
B ′ has L as its field of fractions. On the other hand observe that, by construction, the elements
θ1 W, . . . , θm W ∈ B ′ [W ] are integral over GB . Then the strong transversality will follow from
Proposition 8.7 and Proposition 8.8 below.
Remark 8.3. Let B ⊂ B ′ be a finite extension of domains. Consider a Rees algebra over B, say
M
G=
Jl W l = B ⊕ J1 W ⊕ J2 W 2 ⊕ · · · ⊂ B[W ],
l∈N

and let
G=

M
l∈N

Jel W l = B ′ ⊕ Je1 W ⊕ Je2 W 2 ⊕ · · · ⊂ B ′ [W ]

denote the integral closure of G in B ′ [W ]. If G is a Rees ring, i.e., if G is generated in degree one, say
G = B[J1 W ] ⊂ B[W ], then one can check that Je1 is the integral closure of the ideal J1 B ′ in B ′ , and
that G is again a Rees ring generated in degree one. That is, Je1 = J1 B ′ , and G = B ′ [Je1 ] ⊂ B ′ [W ].

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

31

However, when G is not generated in degree one, there is an inclusion J1 B ′ ⊂ Je1 which, in general,
is strict (see Example 8.4 below).
Example 8.4. Let k be a field of characteristic zero, and consider the curve X = Spec(B) given
by
B = k[x, y]/hy 3 + x3 y + x7 i.

Let us denote by x̄ and ȳ the residue classes of x and y in B respectively. Note that X has maximum
multiplicity 3, and this value is reached at the origin. Following the notation of the proof, set
S = k[x̄] and B = S[ȳ]. The maximum multiplicity locus of X ⊂ Spec(S[T ]) is represented by the
Rees algebra
G = S[T ][(T 3 + x̄3 T + x̄7 )W 3 ] ⊂ S[T ][W ],

and a simple computation shows that

Diff (G) = · · · = S[T ][T W, x̄2 W, x̄3 W 2 ].
Therefore, the Rees algebra H = Diff (G) ∩ S[W ] is that given by
H = S[x̄2 W, x̄3 W 2 ] ⊂ S[W ].

Hence, in this case, we have that J1 = hx̄2 i ⊂ S.
Next, consider the field extension L = K[z]/hz 2 − x3 i, where K represents the field of fractions
L
of B. Let H = l J˜l W l denote the integral closure of H in L[W ]. Since
(z̄W )2 − x̄3 W 2 = (z̄ 2 − x̄3 )W 2 = 0,

with x̄3 W 2 ∈ J2 , it follows that z̄W is integral over H. That is, z̄ ∈ J˜1 . However, we claim that z̄
is not integral over J1 S.
Indeed, according to [64, Appendix 4, Theorem 1, p. 350], z̄ is integral over J1 S if and only if, for
every valuation ring R ⊂ L so that S ⊂ R, one has that z̄ ∈ J1 R. Thus, in order to prove the claim
it suffices to find a valuation ring R ⊂ L so that z̄ ∈
/ J1 R. To this end, consider the subalgebra
k[ x̄z̄ ] ⊂ L (note that k[ x̄z̄ ] is the ring obtained by blowing-up k[x̄, z̄] along hx̄, z̄i). Observe that
( x̄z̄ )2 = x̄ in L. Hence S ⊂ k[ x̄z̄ ]. Set R0 = k[ x̄z̄ ]h z̄ i , and let L0 ⊂ L denote its field of fractions. As
x̄
R0 is a regular noetherian local ring of dimension 1, it is a discrete valuation ring with parameter
z̄
z̄
z̄ 3
x̄ . In this way, since z̄ = x̄ · x̄ = ( x̄ ) , one readily checks that
D z̄ E4
(8.4.1)
z̄ ∈
/ J1 R0 = x̄2 R0 =
R0 .
x̄
By [64, Theorem VI.5, p. 12], R0 can be extended to a valuation ring in L, say R ⊂ L, with
parameter x̄z̄ . Thus (8.4.1) implies that z̄ ∈
/ J1 R, and therefore z̄ is not integral J1 S.
Lemma 8.5. Let B be a singular domain of finite type over a perfect field k with maximum multiplicity s > 1. Let GB ⊂ B[W ] denote the intrinsic algebra attached to Fs (B). Consider a regular
subalgebra of B, say S, so that the extension S ⊂ B is finite of generic rank s = max mult(B).
That is, so that the induced morphism β : Spec(B) → Spec(S) is transversal. Then the S-Rees
algebra
H := GB ∩ S[W ]
has the following properties:
(1) The extension H ⊂ GB is finite.
(2) The morphism β maps Fs (X) homeomorphically to Sing(H), i.e., β(Fs (X)) ∼
= Sing(H).

Proof. Choose elements θ1 , . . . , θn ∈ B such that B = S[θ1 , . . . , θn ]. This presentation of B induces
a surjective morphism
S[T1 , . . . , Tn ] → B = S[θ1 , . . . , θn ],

32

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

where T1 , . . . , Tn represent variables and Ti 7→ θi , and, in turn, a closed immersion
Spec(B) 



/ V (d+n) = Spec(S[T1 , . . . , Tn ]).

Let K denote the field of fractions of S, and let f1 (T1 ), . . . , fn (Tn ) be the minimal polynomials of
θ1 , . . . , θn over K respectively. As S is regular, fi (Ti ) ∈ S[Ti ] (see 5.12). Set Ni = deg(fi (Ti )), and
consider the Rees algebra


G (d+n) = OV (d+n) f1 (T1 )W N1 , . . . , fn (Tn )W Nn ⊂ OV (d+n) [W ].
Under these hypotheses, there is a commutative diagram, say
(8.5.1)

G (d+n)

V (d+n) o
ϕ



? _ Spec(B)
q
qqq
q
q
qq
x qq β
q

Spec(S),

and it can be proved that the Rees algebra G (d+n) represents Fs (X) in V (d+n) (see the discussion
in 5.12).
Next, consider the Rees algebras

K(d+n) := Diff G (d+n) ⊂ OV (d+n) [W ],
and

K(d) := K(d+n) ∩ S[W ].

Recall that, by Theorem 5.21, K(d+n) is the canonical representative of the class of G (d+n) , and, by
Definition 5.23, we have that


(d+n)
⊂ B[W ].
GB = K|B

Thus we see that there are inclusions K(d) ⊂ H ⊂ GB . Moreover, Corollary 7.7 says that GB is
finite over K(d) , and hence K(d) ⊂ H is also a finite extension of subalgebras of S[W ]. Since K(d+n)
is integrally closed, it follows that K(d) is integrally closed. Therefore H = K(d) , and (1) follows
from Corollary 7.7.
On the other hand, since K(d+n) is weakly equivalent to G (d+n) , we have that K(d+n) represents
Fs (B) over V (d+n) . As Spec(B) → Spec(S) is transversal, the commutativity of (8.5.1) implies
that β is a K(d+n)) -admissible projection, and H = K(d) is an elimination algebra of K(d+n) (see
Definition 6.7). Then, Lemma 6.10 says that
Sing(H) ∼
= Sing (K(d+n) ) = Fs (B),
which proves (2).

Lemma 8.6. Let S ⊂ B be a finite extension of domains over a perfect field k of generic rank
s = max mult(B), where S is regular and B is singular, and let H := GB ∩S[W ] be as in Lemma 8.5.
Consider a prime ideal P ∈ Fs (B) such that B/P is regular, and set p = P ∩ S ∈ Sing(H). Recall
that, in this setting, there is a natural commutative diagram as follows,
Spec(B) o


X1 = BlP (B)


Spec(S) o

Z1 = Blp (S),

H

H1

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

33

where the vertical arrows are finite morphisms, and H1 ⊂ OZ1 [W ] denotes the transform of H (in
the sense of 5.4). Assume that Fs (X1 ) 6= ∅, i.e.,
max mult(X1 ) = max mult(X) = s,
and let GX1 ⊂ OX1 [W ] denote the intrinsic algebra attached to Fs (X1 ). Then there is an inclusion
of algebras H1 ⊂ GX1 (which in general is not finite).
Proof. Proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 8.5, one can construct a commutative diagram as
follows,
K(d+n)

V (d+n) o
β



H

? _ Spec(B)
q
qqq
q
q
qq
x qq
q

Spec(S),

where K(d+n) is a differential and integrally closed Rees algebra representing Fs (B) in V (d+n) , and
H = K(d+n) ∩ S[W ] = GB ∩ S[W ]
is an elimination algebra of K(d+n) over S.
Note that P defines a closed regular center contained in Fs (B), say Y , which can also be regarded
as regular center contained in Sing(K(d+n) ) ⊂ V (d+n) . Moreover, β(Y ) ⊂ Sing(H) is the regular
center defined by the prime p mentioned in the lemma. In this way, after blowing up Spec(B),
V (d+n) and Spec(S) along these centers, we obtain a commutative diagram
(d+n)

K(d+n)

K1

o
V (d+n)
c❋

V1

(d+n)

❋❋
❋❋
❋❋
1Q

g❖❖❖
❖❖❖
❖❖4 T

X1 = BlP (B)

Spec(B) o
✇✇
✇✇
 {✇✇
Spec(S) o



♦♦
♦♦♦
w ♦♦
♦

Z1 = Blp (S),

H

H1

(d+n)

where K1
and H1 denote the transforms of K(d+n) and H respectively. Moreover, locally at
(d+n)
(d+n)
.
points of Sing(K1
), there is an inclusion OZ1 ⊂ OV (d+n) , and it can be checked that H1 ⊂ K1
(d+n)

In addition, if Fs (X1 ) 6= ∅, then K1
have that

1

(d+n)

and therefore H1 ⊂ GX1 .

(d+n)

represents Fs (X1 ) in V1

GX1 = Diff (K1

. Thus, by Definition 5.23, we

)|X1 ,

Proposition 8.7. Let B be a singular domain over a perfect field k with maximum multiplicity
s > 1, and let GB ⊂ B[W ] denote the intrinsic Rees algebra attached to Fs (B) in the sense of
Definition 5.23. Let B ′ = B[θ1 , . . . , θm ] be a finite and dominant extension of B of generic rank r.
If θ1 W, . . . , θm W ∈ B ′ [W ] are integral over GB ⊂ B[W ], then
max mult(B ′ ) = r · max mult(B) = rs,

and therefore the morphism β : Spec(B ′ ) → Spec(B) is transversal. Moreover, in such case, β
induces a natural homeomorphism between Frs (B ′ ) and Fs (B).

34

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

Proof. As B ⊂ B ′ has generic rank r, Zarisiki’s formula (Theorem 2.2) says that
max mult(B ′ ) ≤ r · max mult(B) = rs.

Thus, in order to check the transversality of β, we just need to show that Frs (B ′ ) 6= ∅. To this end,
we will argue as follows. Consider a prime ideal P ∈ Fs (B). Since the extension B ⊂ B ′ is finite
and dominant, β is surjective, and therefore there exists at least a prime P ′ ⊂ B ′ sitting on P . We
shall show that P ′ ∈ Frs (B ′ ). Note that this property implies that:
(1) Frs (B ′ ) 6= ∅, and hence β is transversal;
(2) As β is transversal, Frs (B ′ ) is mapped homeomorphically onto β(Frs (B ′ )), and β(Frs (B ′ )) ⊂
Fs (B) (see Corollary 2.6);
(3) Frs (B ′ ) maps surjectively onto Fs (B), as the previous argument holds for any P ∈ Fs (B);
(4) As a consequence of (2) and (3), the set Frs (B ′ ) is mapped homeomorphically to Fs (B).

Thus, in order to prove the lemma, it suffices to show that any prime P ∈ Fs (B) is dominated by
a prime P ′ ∈ Frs (B ′ ).
Fix a prime P ∈ Fs (B), and let P ′ ⊂ B ′ be a prime ideal sitting on P . After replacing B by a
suitable étale neighborhood, we may assume that there is a regular k-algebra contained in B, say
S, so that S ⊂ B is a finite extension of generic rank s = max mult(B) (see the discussion in 5.12).
In other words, the induced finite map β : Spec(B) → Spec(S) is transversal. Consider the Rees
algebra
H := GB ∩ S[W ].
L
l
By Lemma 8.5, we have that GB contains and is finite over H. Set H =
l Jl W ⊂ S[W ]. As
′
θ1 W, . . . , θm W ∈ B [W ] are integral over GB , and GB is integral over H, then θ1 W, . . . , θm W ∈
B ′ [W ] are integral over H. Hence each θi must satisfy a relation of integral dependence of the form
(8.7.1)

θiN + a1 θiN −1 + · · · + aN = 0,

with aj ∈ Jj .
Consider the prime ideal p = P ∩ S. Since P ∈ Fs (B) and Spec(B) → Spec(S) is a finite
transversal morphism, P is the unique prime of Spec(B) sitting on p, and hence BP = B ⊗S Sp .
Thus we may assume without loss of generality that S = Sp , and B = BP . By Lemma 8.5, we have
that p ∈ Sing(H). Therefore, as each aj in (8.7.1) belongs to Jj , we deduce that νp (aj ) ≥ j for all
j. In this way, (8.7.1) can also be regarded as a relation of integral dependence of θi over the ideal
pB ′ ⊂ B ′ . Thus, if a prime ideal Q ⊂ B ′ contains pB ′ , then θ1 , . . . , θm ∈ Q. Note also that
B ′ /(P B ′ + hθ1 , . . . , θm i) = B/P.

Since B/P is a domain, we deduce that P B ′ + hθ1 , . . . , θm i is a prime ideal in B ′ , and hence
P ′ = P B ′ + hθ1 , . . . , θm i. As a consequence, we have that:
i) P ′ is the unique prime of B ′ dominating P ;
ii) P ′ is rational over P ; and
iii) P BP′ ′ is a reduction of P ′ BP′ ′ .

In virtue of 2.3, this implies that P ′ ∈ Frs (P ′ ), which proves the lemma.
Proposition 8.8. Under the same hypotheses of Proposition 8.7, the morphism β : Spec(B ′ ) →
Spec(B) is strongly transversal.
Proof. Proposition 8.7 says that β is transversal, and β(Frs (B ′ )) = Fs (B). Thus we just need to
check that the conditions of the lemma are preserved (locally) after blowing up.
Fix a prime ideal P ∈ Fs (B) which defines a regular center in Spec(B), i.e., such that B/P
is regular, and let P ′ ∈ Frs (B ′ ) be the unique prime in B ′ sitting on P . After replacing B and
B ′ by suitable étale neighborhoods, we may assume that B contains a regular subalgebra, say

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

35

S, so that S ⊂ B is a finite extension of generic rank s = max mult(B). That is, so that the
Spec(B) → Spec(S) is transversal. Then set p = P ∩ S, and consider the Rees algebra
H := GB ∩ S[W ].

By Lemma 8.5, we have that p ∈ Sing(H), and hence it defines a permissible center for H. Moreover,
by Lemma 4.1, there are finite morphisms
BlP ′ (B ′ ) → BlP (B) → Blp (S).

Fix a collection of generators of the ideal p ⊂ S, say p = hx1 , . . . , xt i. Then the blow up of S
along p, say Blp (S), can be covered by t affine charts of the form Spec(Si ), with


x1
xt
Si = S
,...,
.
xi
xi
In addition, by Remark 4.2, BlP (B) and BlP ′ (B ′ ) can be covered by affine charts of the form
Spec(Bi ) and Spec(Bi′ ) respectively, where Bi contains and is finite over Si , and


θm
θ1
′
,...,
.
Bi = Bi
xi
xi
In order to check that the conditions of the lemma are preserved, we shall show that, if Fs (Bi ) 6= ∅,
then θx1i , . . . , θxmi ∈ Bi′ [W ] are integral over GBi (the intrinsic Rees algebra attached to Fs (Bi )).
Let H1 denote the transform of H over the chart Spec(Si ) ⊂ Blp (S), and suppose that H =
L
l
′
l Jl W ⊂ S[W ]. By Lemma 8.5, there is a finite inclusion H ⊂ GB . Since θ1 W, . . . , θm W ∈ B [W ]
are integral over GB , they are also integral over H. Hence each θj satisfies an equation of integral
dependence of the form
θjN + a1 θjN −1 + · · · + aN = 0,
with al ∈ Jl . That is, with al W l ∈ H. Then one readily checks that
aN
a1
W, . . . , N W N ∈ H1 ,
xi
xi

and

θj
xi

∈ Bi′ satisfies an equation of integral dependence of the form
 N
 
θj
a1 θj N −1
aN
+
+ · · · + N = 0,
xi
xi xi
xi

which implies that

θj
xi W

∈ Bi′ [W ] is integral over H1 . In addition, if Fs (Bi ) 6= ∅, then H1 ⊂ GBi by

Lemma 8.6. This proves that
lemma are locally preserved.

θj
xi W

∈ Bi′ [W ] is integral over GBi , and hence the conditions of the
References

[1] C. Abad, ‘On the highest multiplicity locus of algebraic varieties and Rees algebras’, J. of Algebra, 441 (2015)
294-313.
[2] C. Abad, ‘Multiplicity along embedded schemes and differential operators’. Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, 2017.
[3] S.S. Abhyankar, Ramification theoretic methods in Algebraic Geometry, Annals of Mathematics Studies No.
43, Princeton University Press (1959). Princeton New Jersey.
[4] S. S. Abhyankar, Local uniformization on algebraic surfaces over ground fields of characteristic p 6= 0, Ann.
of Math. (2) 63 (1956), 491–256.
[5] A. Benito, ‘The tau invariant and elimination’, J. of Alg., 324 (2010) 1903-1920.
[6] M. Atiyah, M. Macdonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra. Addison-Wesley, 1969.
[7] A. Benito, O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Monoidal transforms and invariants of singularities in positive characteristic’,
Compositio Mathematica, 149, (2013), 8, 1267-1311.
[8] A. Benito, O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Techniques for the study of singularities with applications to resolution of
2-dimensional schemes’, Math. Ann., 353, (2012), 3, 1037-1068.

36

CARLOS ABAD, ANA BRAVO, AND ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR U.

[9] B.M. Bennett, ‘On the characteristic functions of a local ring’, Ann. of Math, 91,(1970), 25-87.
[10] E. Bierstone, P. Milman, ‘Canonical desingularization in characteristic zero by blowing-up the maxima strata
of a local invariant’, Inv. Math., 128 (1997) 207-302.
[11] A. Bravo, M.L Garcı́a-Escamilla, O.E. Villamayor U., On Rees algebras and invariants for singularities over
perfect fields, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 61, (2012), 3, 1201-1251.
[12] A. Bravo, O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Singularities in positive characteristic, stratification and simplification of the
singular locus’, Adv. in Math., 224 (4) (2010) 1349-1418.
[13] A. Bravo, O. E. Villamayor U., ‘On the behavior of the multiplicity on schemes: stratification and blow ups’,
to appear in The Resolution of Singular Algebraic Varieties. Clay Mathematics Institute Proceedings (CMIP),
Editors: Ellwood, Hauser, Mori, Schicho, 2014.
[14] V. Cossart, U. Jannsen, S. Saito, ‘Canonical embedded and non-embedded resolution of singularities for
excellent two-dimensional schemes’. Prepint: arXiv:0905.2191.
[15] V. Cossart, O. Piltant, ‘Resolution of singularities of threefolds in positive characteristic. I. Reduction to local
uniformization on Artin-Schreier and purely inseparable coverings’, J. Algebra, 320 (3) (2008) 1051-1082.
[16] V. Cossart, O. Piltant, ‘Resolution of singularities of threefolds in positive characteristic. II.’, J. Algebra, 321
(7) (2009) 1836-1976.
[17] S. D. Cutkosky, ‘Resolution of singularities of 3-folds in positive characteristic.’, Amer. J. Math., 131 (2009),
no. 1, 59-127.
[18] S. D. Cutkosky, ‘A skeleton key to Abhyankar’s proof of embedded resolution of characteristic p surfaces’,
Asian J. Math.,15 (2011), no. 3, 369-416.
[19] S. D. Cutkosky, Resolution of Singularities (Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 63).
[20] E. C. Dade, Multiplicity and monoidal transformations. Thesis, Princeton University, 1960.
[21] S. Encinas, O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Rees algebras and resolution of singularities’, Biblioteca Revista Matematica
Iberoamericana, Proceedings del XVI-Coloquio Latinoamericano de Algebra (Colonia, 2005) 63-85.
[22] S. Encinas and O. E. Villamayor U., ‘A Course on Constructive Desingularization and Equivariance’, Resolution of Singularities. A research textbook in tribute to Oscar Zariski (eds H. Hauser, J. Lipman, F. Oort, A.
Quirós), Progr. in Math. 181 (Birkhäuser, Basel, 2000) pp. 147-227.
[23] J. Giraud, ‘Contact maximal en caractéristique positive’, Ann. S. de l’Ec. N., 8 (1975) 201-234.
[24] A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonné, Éléments de Géométrie Algébrique, IV Étude locale des schémas et des
morphismes de schémas, Publications Mathématiques I.H.E.S. No. 24 (1965) and No. 28 (1966).
[25] H, Hauser, The Hironaka Theorem on resolution of singularities. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 40 (2003), 323-403.
[26] H, Hauser, On the problem of resolution of singularities in positive characteristic (Or: A proof we are still
waiting for). Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 47 (2010), 130.
[27] M. Herrmann, S. Ikeda, U. Orbanz, Equimultiplicity and Blowing up, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982, 200.232.
[28] M. Herrmann et al., Theorie der normalen Flachheit, Leipzig. Teubner 1977.
[29] M. Herrmann, U. Orbanz, Between equimultiplicity and normal flatness, Algebraic Geometry, Proceedings La
Rabida 1981. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 961. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
[30] H. Hironaka, ‘Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero I-II’, Ann.
Math., 79 (1964) 109-326.
[31] H. Hironaka, Additive groups associated with points of a projective space, Ann. of Math., 92, (1970),2, 327–334.
[32] H. Hironaka, Certain numerical characters of singularities, J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 10, (1970), 1, 151–187.
[33] H. Hironaka, Introduction to the theory of infinitely near singular points, Memorias de Matemática del Instituto
“Jorge Juan”, 28, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas, Madrid, 1974.
[34] H. Hironaka, ‘Gardening of infinitely near singularities’. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Summer-School in
Mathematics (ed. F Oort). Oslo, August 5-25.1970.
[35] H. Hironaka, ‘Introduction to the theory of infinitely near singular points’. Memorias de Matematica del
Instituto Jorge Juan. Vol. 28. Concejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas. Madrid, 1974.
[36] H. Hironaka, ‘Idealistic exponent of a singularity’, Algebraic Geometry, The John Hopkins centennial lectures,
Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press (1977), 52-125.
[37] H. Hironaka, ‘Three key theorems on infinitely near singularities’, Singularités Franco-Japanaises, Sémin.
Congr., 10 Soc. Math. France, Paris, (2005), 87-126.
[38] C. Huneke, I. Swanson, Integral Closure of Ideals, Rings, and Modules, London Mathematical Society Lecture
Note Series 336. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[39] H. Kawanoue, ‘Toward resolution of singularities over a field of positive characteristic I’.Publ. Res. Inst. Math.
Sci., 43 (2007) 819-909.
[40] H. Kawanoue, K. Matsuki, Toward resolution of singularities over a field of positive characteristic (the idealistic
filtration program) Part II. Basic invariants associated to the idealistic filtration and their properties. Publ.
Res. Inst. Math. Sci., 46(2):359422, 2010.
[41] J. Lipman, ‘Stable ideals and Arf rings’, Amer. J. Math. 93 (1971) 649-685.

FINITE MORPHISMS AND SIMULTANEOUS REDUCTION OF THE MULTIPLICITY

37

[42] J. Lipman, ‘Relative Lipschitz-saturation’, Amer. J. Math. 97 (1975) 791-813.
[43] J. Lipman, ‘Equimultiplicity, reduction, and blowing up’, Commutative Algebra. Editor: R.N.Draper. Lecture
Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. 68 Marcel Dekker, New York (1982) 111-147.
[44] H. Matsumura. ‘Commutative algebra’, Mathematics Lecture Note Series, 56, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 2nd ed. edition, 1980.
[45] H. Matsumura. ‘Commutative ring theory’, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, 8, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[46] M. Nagata, Local Rings, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1962.
[47] M. Nagata, ‘The theory of multiplicity in general local rings’ Proceedings of the International Symposium.
Tokyo-Nikko 1955. Scientific Council of Japan, Tokio. (1956) 191-226.
[48] A. Nobile, ‘Equivalence and resolution of singularities’, J. of Algebra, 420 (2015) 161-185.
[49] D. G. Northcott and D. Rees, ‘Reduction of ideals in local rings’ Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 50 (1954) 145-158.
[50] T. Oda, Hironaka’s additive group scheme, Number theory, algebraic geometry and commutative algebra, in
honor of Yasuo Akizuki, Kinokuniya, Tokyo, 1973, pp. 181–219.
[51] U. Orbanz, ‘Multiplicities and Hilbert functions under blowing up,’ Man. Math. 36 (1981), 179-186.
[52] M. Raynaud, Anneaux Locaux Henséliens, Lectures Notes in Mathematics 169. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, (1970).
[53] D. Rees, ‘Transforms of local rings and a theorem of multiplicity,’ Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 57 (1961) 8-17.
[54] P.Samuel, ‘La notion de multiplicit é en Algebra et en Géométrie algébrique. Journal de Math., tome XXX
(1951) 159-274.
[55] B. Singh, ‘Effect of a permissible blowing up on local Hilbert functions,’ Inventiones Math., 26 (1974) 201-212.
[56] O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Constructiveness of Hironaka’s resolution’, Ann. Scient. Ec. N. Sup. 22 (1989) 1-32.
[57] O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Patching local uniformizations’, Ann. Scient. Ec. Norm. Sup., 25 (1992), 629-677.
[58] O. E. Villamayor U., Tschirnhausen transformations revisited and the multiplicity of the embedded hypersurface, Boletı́n de la Real Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Córdoba, Argentina 65, (2000), 239–250.
[59] O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Hypersurface singularities in positive characteristic’, Adv. in Math. 213 (2007) 687-733.
[60] O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Elimination with applications to singularities in positive characteristic’, Publ. Res. Inst.
Math. Sci., 44 (2) (2008) 661-697.
[61] O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Rees algebras on smooth schemes: integral closure and higher differential operators’,
Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 24 (1) (2008) 213-242.
[62] O. E. Villamayor U., ‘Equimultiplicity, algebraic elimination, and blowing-up’, Adv. in Math., 262, (2014),
313-369.
[63] O. E. Villamayor U., ‘On the simplification of singularities by blowing up at equimultiple centers’ (2017). To
appear in Indiana Univ. Math. Journal.
[64] O. Zariski, P. Samuel, Commutative Algebra,Vol.2 Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1960.
Dpto. Matemáticas, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and Instituto de Ciencias Matemáticas CSICUAM-UC3M-UCM, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
E-mail address, Carlos Abad: carlos.abad@uam.es
E-mail address, Ana Bravo: ana.bravo@uam.es
E-mail address, Orlando E. Villamayor U.: villamayor@uam.es

