arXiv:1708.06833v3 [math.AC] 20 Mar 2018

ON STRONGLY FLAT AND WEAKLY COTORSION MODULES
LEONID POSITSELSKI AND ALEXANDER SLÁVIK
Abstract. The aim of this paper is to describe the classes of strongly flat and
weakly cotorsion modules with respect to a multiplicative subset or a finite collection of multiplicative subsets in a commutative ring. The strongly flat modules
are characterized by a set of conditions, while the weakly cotorsion modules are
produced by a generation procedure. Passing to the collection of all countable multiplicative subsets, we define quite flat and almost cotorsion modules, and show
that, over a Noetherian ring with countable spectrum, all flat modules are quite
flat and all almost cotorsion modules are cotorsion.

Contents
Introduction
1. Obtainable Modules
2. S-Contramodule R-Modules
3. Rings with a Multiplicative Subset
4. Rings with Several Multiplicative Subsets
5. Finite-Dimensional Noetherian Rings with Countable Spectrum
6. Contramodule Approximation Sequences
7. Quite Flat and Almost Cotorsion Modules
References

1
10
13
20
23
28
35
43
49

Introduction
0.0. The aim of the theory developed in this paper is to describe flat modules over
associative rings. Another related goal is to describe Enochs cotorsion modules (see
the discussion below in Section 0.1). These goals, obviously important, are difficult
to achieve in a substantial enough yet fully general way. In this paper we provide
such descriptions for Noetherian commutative rings with countable spectrum (see
Sections 0.5–0.6). We also describe certain subclasses of flat modules and overclasses
of Enochs cotorsion modules over commutative rings.
It needs to be explained what is meant by “describing flat modules”. One such
description is provided by the Govorov–Lazard theorem [13, 17] claiming that, for
any associative ring R, the flat left R-modules are precisely the filtered inductive
limits of finitely generated projective (or free) R-modules. The following example
illustrates the difference between the Govorov–Lazard theorem and our approach.
1

Let R = Z be the ring of integers. Then the flat R-modules are simply the torsionfree abelian groups. The Govorov–Lazard theorem tells that these are precisely the
filtered inductive limits of finitely generated free abelian groups. This assertion is
obvious, though: any torsion-free abelian group is the directed union of its finitely
generated subgroups, which are free abelian groups. Classifying torsion-free abelian
groups is a hopeless task; still, one can describe them in a way much more nontrivial
than the one provided by the Govorov–Lazard theorem.
The description that we have in mind claims, in the case of the ring R = Z, that
any torsion-free abelian group F is a direct summand of an abelian group G for which
there exists a short exact sequence 0 −→ U −→ G −→ V −→ 0, where U is a free
abelian group and V is a Q-vector space. It is this result, going back to Harrison [16,
Section 2], Matlis [19, Theorem 4.1], and Trlifaj [30, Proposition 2.8], that we seek
to extend to more complicated commutative rings R in this paper.
In a way of further motivation, let us say that flat modules over commutative rings
are obviously of interest in algebraic geometry; and Enochs cotorsion modules over
commutative rings have a geometric significance, too, as the modules of cosections of
locally cotorsion contraherent cosheaves over affine schemes [21] (cf. the discussion
in the introduction to [22]).
0.1. Before proceeding to formulate the main results of this paper, let us give a more
detailed historical overview.
The word “cotorsion” was introduced to homological algebra by Harrison [16], who
called “co-torsion abelian groups” the abelian groups C such that HomZ (Q, C) = 0 =
Ext1Z (Q, C). Subsequently Matlis [19] studied, under the name of cotorsion modules
over a commutative integral domain R, the R-modules C such that HomR (Q, C) =
0 = Ext1R (Q, C), where Q is the field of fractions of R.
The category of Harrison’s co-torsion abelian groups is an abelian subcategory
in Z–mod. So is the category of Matlis’ cotorsion R-modules, provided that the
R-module Q has projective dimension 1 (see [19, p. 13] and [23, Theorem 3.4(a)]).
Commutative domains R with the latter property came to be known as Matlis domains [10, Section IV.4].
The modern terminology originates from Enochs’ paper [8], where an R-module
C was called cotorsion if Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all flat R-modules F . This definition,
applicable to modules over an arbitrary associative ring, is now central to a vast
theory, including two proofs [5] of Enochs’ flat cover conjecture, the notion of a
cotorsion theory (or cotorsion pair ) (going back to Salce’s paper [28]), and numerous
examples and applications [12]. In particular, the pair of full subcategories (flat
modules, cotorsion modules) in the category of left modules over an associative ring
is a thematic example of complete cotorsion theory.
The following two definitions are due to Trlifaj [30, Section 2]. Let Q denote the
total ring of fractions of a commutative ring R. An R-module C is called weakly
cotorsion (or Matlis cotorsion) if Ext1R (Q, C) = 0. An R-module F is called strongly
flat if Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all weakly cotorsion R-modules C. When R is a domain,
every R-module has a weakly cotorsion envelope [30, Theorem 2.10(3)]. The problem
2

of characterizing domains R for which every R-module has a strongly flat cover was
posed in the lecture notes [31, Section 5].
This problem was solved in the series of papers by Bazzoni and Salce [3, 4], where
it was shown that, for a commutative domain R, all R-modules have strongly flat
covers if and only if all flat modules are strongly flat, and if and only if R is an almost
perfect domain. The latter condition means that, for every nonzero element r ∈ R,
the quotient ring R/rR is perfect (in the sense of the classical paper of Bass [2]), that
is, all flat modules over R/rR are projective.
The following generalization of the results of Bazzoni–Salce was obtained in a
recent work of Fuchs and Salce [11]. Let R be a commutative ring and Q be its total
ring of fractions. Then all flat R-modules are strongly flat if and only if R is an
almost perfect ring, which means that the quotient ring R/rR is a perfect ring for
every nonzero-divisor r ∈ R and the ring of fractions Q is a perfect ring. This result
is the starting point for the present research.
0.2. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset (which
may contain some zero-divisors in R). Let us say that an R-module C is S-weakly
cotorsion if Ext1R (S −1 R, C) = 0, where S −1 R denotes the localization of the ring
R at the multiplicative subset S. An R-module F is said to be S-strongly flat if
Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all S-weakly cotorsion R-modules C.
Equivalently, an R-module F is S-strongly flat if and only if it is a direct summand
of an R-module G for which there exists an exact sequence of R-modules
(1)

0 −−→ U −−→ G −−→ V −−→ 0,

where U is a free R-module and V is a free S −1 R-module. This is a corollary of the
general results about cotorsion theories generated by a set of objects in the category
of modules over a ring [12, Corollary 6.13].
The first aim of this paper is to discuss the following
Optimistic Conjecture 0.1. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset such that the projective dimension of the R-module S −1 R does not
exceed 1. Then a flat R-module F is S-strongly flat if and only if the following two
conditions hold: the R/sR-module F/sF is projective for every element s ∈ S, and
the S −1 R-module S −1 F is projective.
Here the notation is S −1 F = S −1 R ⊗R F . Notice that the “only if” assertion in
Optimistic Conjecture 0.1 follows immediately from the description of strongly flat
modules in terms of the exact sequence (1), as such a sequence remains exact after
applying R/sR ⊗R −, and the R/sR-module V /sV vanishes for all s ∈ S, while
S −1 V = V is a free S −1 R-module.
It should be pointed out that the condition on the projective dimension of the
R-module S −1 R in Optimistic Conjecture 0.1 does indeed seem to be necessary.
Indeed, let H be the first syzygy module of the R-module S −1 R, i. e., the leftmost
term of a short exact sequence of R-modules 0 −→ H −→ P −→ S −1 R −→ 0 with
a projective R-module P . Let us introduce the notation pdR M for the projective
dimension of an R-module M.
3

Proposition 0.2. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
consisting of (some) nonzero-divisors in R. Assume that pdR S −1 R ≥ 2, and let H
be the first syzygy module of the R-module S −1 R. Then the R-module H is flat, the
R/sR-module H/sH is projective for every s ∈ S, and the S −1 R-module S −1 H is
projective, but the R-module H is not S-strongly flat.
Let us now formulate the positive results that we can prove.
Theorem 0.3. Let S be a countable multiplicative subset in a commutative ring R.
Then a flat R-module F is S-strongly flat if and only if the R/sR-module F/sF is
projective for every s ∈ S and the S −1 R-module S −1 F is projective.
Theorem 0.4. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
consisting of (some) nonzero-divisors in R. Assume that the projective dimension of
the R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1. Then a flat R-module F is S-strongly flat if
and only if the R/sR-module F/sF is projective for every s ∈ S and the S −1 R-module
S −1 F is projective.
Notice that one has pdR S −1 R ≤ 1 for any countable multiplicative subset S ⊂ R,
but the converse is not true. For example, if R is a Noetherian commutative ring
of Krull dimension 1, then the projective dimension of any flat R-module does not
exceed 1 [27, Corollaire II.3.3.2] (cf. [22, Corollary 13.7(a)]).
Nevertheless, the following result is known [9, 1]: if R is a commutative ring and
S ⊂ R is a multiplicative subset of nonzero-divisors, then the projective dimension of
the R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1 if and only if the R-module S −1 R/R is a direct
sum of countably generated modules. Our Theorem 0.4 is deduced from this result
together with the same computations with countable multiplicative subsets S ⊂ R
which we use to prove Theorem 0.3.
Moreover, the following slight generalization of Theorem 0.4 is provable using the
results of the papers [9, 1]. Given a commutative ring R and a multiplicative subset
S ⊂ R, we will say that the S-torsion in R is bounded if there exists an element
s0 ∈ S such that sr = 0 for s ∈ S and r ∈ R implies s0 r = 0.
Theorem 0.5. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Assume that the projective dimension of the
R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1. Then a flat R-module F is S-strongly flat if and
only if the R/sR-module F/sF is projective for every s ∈ S and the S −1 R-module
S −1 F is projective.
Notice that Theorem 0.3 is not a particular case of Theorem 0.5 as, for a countable
multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring R, the S-torsion in R does not need
to be bounded.
0.3. Let us say a few words about our proofs of Theorems 0.3–0.5. Nothing (or
almost nothing) is being done, in the course of these proofs, with a flat R-module
F satisfying the conditions of these theorems. Instead, we work with an arbitrary
S-weakly cotorsion R-module C, proving that it can be obtained, using a certain set
of rules or operations, from R-modules of simpler nature.
4

Classically, the theory of cotorsion pairs [28, 12] is developed as the theory of
Ext1 -orthogonal classes of modules. Given any class of modules over an associative
ring R, its left Ext1R -orthogonal class is closed under transfinitely iterated extesions
(in the sense of the inductive limit) [7, Lemma 1] and direct summands, while its right
Ext1R -orthogonal class is closed under transfinitely iterated extensions (in the sense
of the projective limit) [7, Proposition 18] and direct summands. In the important
particular case of a hereditary cotorsion pair, the Ext1 -orthogonal class coincides with
the Ext≥1 -orthogonal class.
We change the point of view slightly and assign to a class of R-modules two right
orthogonal classes: the Ext≥1 -orthogonal class and the Ext≥2 -orthogonal class. In
addition to the closedness with respect to transfinitely iterated extensions (in the
sense of the projective limit), the pair of classes of modules so obtained has certain
properties of closedness with respect to kernels of surjections and cokernels of injections. Abstracting from these properties, we define the notion of right 1-obtainability
of an R-module from a given “seed class” of R-modules.
Proposition 0.6. Let S be a countable multiplicative subset in a commutative ring R.
Then an R-module is S-weakly cotorsion if and only if it is right 1-obtainable from
R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, and S −1 R-modules.
Proposition 0.7. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
consisting of (some) nonzero-divisors in R. Assume that the projective dimension of
the R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1. Then an R-module is S-weakly cotorsion if
and only if it is right 1-obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, and S −1 R-modules.
Proposition 0.8. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Assume that the projective dimension of the
R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1. Then an R-module is S-weakly cotorsion if and
only if it is right 1-obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, and S −1 R-modules.
In this paper, Theorems 0.3–0.5 are (easily) deduced from Propositions 0.6–0.8,
while the proofs of the latter require some substantial work.
0.4. Let us consider the following generalization of the setting of Sections 0.2–0.3.
Let S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R be a finite collection of multiplicative subsets in R. We will
denote the collection {S1 , . . . , Sm } by the single letter S for brevity. Let us say that
an R-module C is S-weakly cotorsion if Ext1R (Sj−1 R, C) = 0 for all j = 1, . . . , m. An
R-module F is said to be S-strongly flat if Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all S-weakly cotorsion
R-modules C. Equivalently, an R-module F is S-strongly flat if and only if it is a
direct summand of a transfinitely iterated extension, in the sense of the inductive
limit, of R-modules isomorphic to R or Sj−1 R, 1 ≤ j ≤ m [12, Corollary 6.14].
Given two multiplicative subsets S and T ⊂ R, we denote by ST ⊂ R the multiplicative subset generated by S and T in R; andQ
similarly, given a finite collection of
multiplicative subsets {Sj } in R, we denote by j Sj ⊂ R the multiplicative subset
generated by them. For
Q any subset of indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m}, denote by SJ ⊂ R the
multiplicative subset j∈J Sj ⊂ R. Given a finite collection of multiplicative subsets
5

S = {Sj | 1 ≤ j ≤ m} in a commutative ring R, we denote by S× the finite collection
of multiplicative subsets {SJ | J ⊂ {1, . . . , m}}.
Let J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} be a subset of indices; denote by K the complementary subset
K = {1, . . . , m} \ J. Given a collection of multiplicative subsets S = {S1 , . . . , Sm }
in a commutative ring R and a subset of indices K ⊂ {1, . . . , m}, denote by a single
letter s a collection of elements (sk ∈ Sk )k∈K . Let RJ,s denote the quotient ring of
the ring SJ−1 R by the ideal generated by all the elements sk ∈ SJ−1 R, k ∈ K. So the
ring RJ,s is the result of inverting all the multiplicative subsets Sj ⊂ R, j ∈ J, and
annihilating all the elements sk ∈ R, k ∈ K, in the ring R.
The following formulation is the analogue of Optimistic Conjecture 0.1 for several
multiplicative subsets.
Optimistic Conjecture 0.9. Let R be a commutative ring and S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R
be a finite collection of multiplicative subsets in R. Assume that, for every subset
of indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m}, the projective dimension of the R-module SJ−1 R does not
exceed 1. Then a flat R-module F is S× -strongly flat if and only if the RJ,s -module
RJ,s ⊗R F is projective for every subset of indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and any choice of
elements sk ∈ Sk , k ∈ {1, . . . , m} \ J.
Here is the theorem that we can actually prove.
Theorem 0.10. Let S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R be a finite collection of multiplicative subsets in
a commutative ring R. Assume that, for every subset of indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m}, the
projective dimension of the R-module SJ−1 R does not exceed 1. Furthermore, assume
that for every j = 1, . . . , m, one of the two possibilities is realized: either Sj is
countable, or the Sj -torsion in R is bounded. Then a flat R-module F is S× -strongly
flat if and only if the RJ,s -module RJ,s ⊗R F is projective for every subset of indices
J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and any choice of elements sk ∈ Sk , k ∈ {1, . . . , m} \ J.
We deduce Theorem 0.10 from the following proposition.
Proposition 0.11. Let S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R be a finite collection of multiplicative subsets
in a commutative ring R. Assume that, for every J ⊂ {1, . . . , m}, the projective
dimension of the R-module SJ−1 R does not exceed 1. Furthermore, assume that, for
every 1 ≤ j ≤ m, either Sj is countable, or the Sj -torsion in R is bounded. Then
an R-module is S× -weakly cotorsion if and only if it is right 1-obtainable from the
class of all RJ,s -modules (viewed as R-modules via the restriction of scalars), where
J runs over all the subsets of indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and s runs over all the choices
of elements sk ∈ Sk , k ∈ {1, . . . , m} \ J.
Of course, the product ST of any two countable multiplicative subsets S, T ⊂ R is
countable; and one easily observes that, for any two multiplicative subsets S, T ⊂ R,
the ST -torsion in R bounded whenever the S-torsion is bounded and T -torsion is
bounded. But the product of two multiplicative subsets, one of which is countable
and the other has bounded torsion, may satisfy neither condition.
On the other hand, if all the multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R are countable,
then the condition on the projective dimension of the R-modules SJ−1 R in Theorem 0.10 and Proposition 0.11 is satisfied automatically.
6

0.5. Now let us formulate our descriptions of flat and Enochs cotorsion R-modules.
The following two results were obtained in the paper [22, Section 13] (see [22, Corollary 13.11 and Theorem 13.9(b)]).
Theorem 0.12. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring with finite spectrum. Then
there exists an element s ∈ R such that, denoting by S the multiplicative subset
{1, s, s2, s3 , . . . } ⊂ R generated by s, all flat R-modules are S-strongly flat.
Theorem 0.13. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring of Krull dimension 1. Then
there exists a multiplicative subset S ⊂ R such that all flat R-modules are S-strongly
flat.
In the rest of this introduction we discuss generalizations of these theorems to more
complicated Noetherian commutative rings.
The following simple example is the starting point. Let P be a principal ideal
domain (PID). The content of a polynomial p(x) = pn xn + pn−1 xn−1 + · · · + p0 ∈ P [x]
is defined as the greatest common divisor of its coefficients pn , . . . , p0 . So the content
of a polynomial in one variable x over the ring P is an element of P defined up to a
multiplication by an invertible element of P . By Gauss Lemma, the content of the
product of two polynomials is equal to the product of their contents.
Denote by S1 ⊂ P [x] the multiplicative subset of all nonzero elements of P , viewed
as elements of P [x], and by S2 ⊂ P [x] the multiplicative subset of all polynomials
with content 1. Set S = {S1 , S2 } to be the collection of two multiplicative subsets S1
and S2 in the ring R = P [x].
Theorem 0.14. For any countable (commutative) principal ideal domain P , all flat
P [x]-modules are S× -strongly flat for the above collection of two multiplicative subsets
S = {S1 , S2 } in R = P [x].
The result of Theorem 0.14 generalizes to Noetherian rings of Krull dimension 2
as follows.
Theorem 0.15. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring of Krull dimension 2 with
countable spectrum. Then there exists a pair of countable multiplicative subsets S1
and S2 ⊂ R such that all flat R-modules are S× -strongly flat for S = {S1 , S2 }.
In other words, the assertions of Theorems 0.14 and 0.15 mean that, in their
respective assumptions, every flat R-module is a direct summand of a transfinitely
iterated extension, in the sense of the inductive limit, of R-modules isomorphic to R,
S1−1 R, S2−1 R, or (S1 S2 )−1 R.
Furthermore, the construction of Theorem 0.15 generalizes to higher Krull dimensions d in the following way. Define a function µ : Z≥0 −→ Z≥0 by the rule
X0≤2i≤d
d − 2i,
µ(d) = d + (d − 2) + (d − 4) + · · · =
i∈Z

or equivalently, µ(d) is the closest integer to (d + 1)2 /4. So we have µ(0) = 0,
µ(1) = 1, µ(2) = 2, µ(3) = 4, µ(4) = 6, etc.
7

Theorem 0.16. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring of finite Krull dimension d
with countable spectrum. Then there exists a collection of m = µ(d) countable multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R such that all flat R-modules are S× -strongly flat
for S = {S1 , . . . , Sm }.
In all the three Theorems 0.14, 0.15, and 0.16, the multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . ,
Sm ⊂ R are constructed in such a way that all the rings RJ,s (in the notation of
Section 0.4) are Artinian. Then all flat RJ,s -modules are projective, and the assertion
that all flat R-modules are S× -strongly flat follows from Theorem 0.10.
0.6. The following approach allows to generalize Theorem 0.16 even further by getting rid of the finite Krull dimension assumption on the ring R. Besides, it allows to
obtain some results applicable to Noetherian rings with uncountable spectrum.
Let R be a commutative ring. Let us say that an R-module C is almost cotorsion if
Ext1R (S −1 R, C) = 0 for all (at most) countable multiplicative subsets S ⊂ R. We say
that an R-module F is quite flat if Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all almost cotorsion R-modules C. Equivalently, an R-module F is quite flat if and only if it is a direct summand
of a transfinitely iterated extension, in the sense of the inductive limit, of R-modules
isomorphic to S −1 R, where S ⊂ R are countable multiplicative subsets.
Theorem 0.17. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring with countable spectrum.
Then all flat R-modules are quite flat.
Notice that, in an (infinite) Noetherian ring, the cardinality of the set of all ideals
does not exceed the cardinality of the ring. Thus any countable Noetherian ring has
at most countable spectrum (while the converse, of course, does not hold).
Theorem 0.17 can be deduced from the following main lemma (which does not
assume countability of the spectrum).
Main Lemma 0.18. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a
countable multiplicative subset. Then a flat R-module F is quite flat if and only if
the R/sR-module F/sF is quite flat for all s ∈ S and the S −1 R-module S −1 F is quite
flat.
Alternatively, Theorem 0.17 can be deduced from the following proposition.
Proposition 0.19. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring with countable spectrum.
Then an R-module is almost cotorsion if and only if it is right 1-obtainable from
vector spaces over the residue fields of prime ideals in R (viewed as R-modules via
the restriction of scalars).
One observes that all vector spaces over fields are (Enochs) cotorsion, all restrictions of scalars take cotorsion modules to cotorsion modules, and all modules right
1-obtainable from cotorsion modules are cotorsion. Thus Proposition 0.19 implies
(or, if one wishes, is equivalent to the combination of) the following two corollaries.
Corollary 0.20. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring with countable spectrum.
Then all almost cotorsion R-modules are cotorsion.
8

Corollary 0.21. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring with countable spectrum.
Then an R-module is (Enochs) cotorsion if and only if it is right 1-obtainable from
vector spaces over the residue fields of prime ideals in R (viewed as R-modules via
the restriction of scalars).
Corollary 0.20 is, of course, just a restatement of Theorem 0.17, while Corollary 0.21 provides a description of cotorsion modules over a Noetherian commutative
ring with countable spectrum. Notice that a description of flat cotorsion modules
over a Noetherian commutative ring, obtained by Enochs in [8], plays in important
role in the locally cotorsion contraherent cosheaf theory [21, Section 5.1]. A description of cotorsion modules over a Noetherian commutative ring of Krull dimension 1
was obtained in [22, Corollary 13.12].
Both Main Lemma 0.18 and Proposition 0.19 can be deduced from the following
stronger version of the main lemma (which, once again, does not assume countability
of the spectrum).
Main Lemma 0.22. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a
countable multiplicative subset. Then an R-module is almost cotorsion if and only
if it is right 1-obtainable from almost cotorsion R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, and almost
cotorsion S −1 R-modules.
0.7. Finally, we should mention that both Main Lemmas 0.18 and 0.22 are generalizable to some situations involving non-Noetherian commutative rings. Notice that,
for any multiplicative subset S in a Noetherian commutative ring R, the S-torsion
in R is necessarily bounded.
Main Lemma 0.23. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then a flat R-module F
is quite flat if and only if the R/sR-module F/sF is quite flat for all s ∈ S and the
S −1 R-module S −1 F is quite flat.
Main Lemma 0.24. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then an R-module is almost
cotorsion if and only if it is right 1-obtainable from almost cotorsion R/sR-modules,
s ∈ S, and almost cotorsion S −1 R-modules.
Here, as with the Noetherian versions of the main lemmas (and as with the resuls
of this paper generally), the description of (quite) flat modules follows easily from
the description of (almost) cotorsion ones, i. e., Main Lemma 0.23 is deduced from
Main Lemma 0.24.
0.8. This paper is a sequel to the paper [26], where largely the same techniques are
applied to a number of similar problems. The main difference is that the exposition
in [26] is restricted to multiplicative subsets S ⊂ R generated by a single element,
S = {1, r, r 2, r 3 , . . . }, where r ∈ R (as these are important for the algebro-geometric
applications to which [26] aims). Thus many results of this paper are generalizations
of the respective results of [26]. In particular, the technique of “obtainable modules”
first appeared in [26, Sections 3 and 6].
9

The reader may wish to glance into [26, Section 1] for an overview of the results
and an outline of the arguments in [26] relevant in the context of the present paper
(the requisite definitions can be found in [26, Section 0.5]).
In particular, [26, Toy Main Lemma 1.8] is notable as the simplest version of Theorem 0.3 (while [26, Lemma 1.10] is an even simpler result whose proof is dual in some
sense). [26, Toy Main Proposition 4.8] is a particular case of Proposition 0.6, while
[26, Theorem 1.9] is a particular case of Theorem 0.10 and [26, Main Proposition 8.1]
is a particular case of Proposition 0.11.
[26, Main Lemma 1.4] is somewhat similar to (but simpler than) Main Lemma 0.18,
while [26, Main Proposition 7.1] is somewhat similar to (but simpler than) Main
Lemma 0.22. Finally, [26, Main Lemma 1.7] is somewhat similar to (but simpler
than) Main Lemma 0.23, while [26, Main Proposition 7.2] is somewhat similar to
(but simpler than) Main Lemma 0.24.
0.9. The proofs of Proposition 0.2, Theorems 0.3–0.5, and Propositions 0.6–0.8 are
presented in Section 3. The proofs of Theorem 0.10 and Proposition 0.11 are given in
Section 4. Theorems 0.14–0.16 are proved in Section 5. The proofs of Theorem 0.17,
Proposition 0.19, Main Lemmas 0.18 and 0.22–0.24, and Corollaries 0.20–0.21 are
contained in the last Section 7.
Acknowledgement. The first author is grateful to Silvana Bazzoni for very helpful discussions and communications. This paper grew out of the first author’s visits
to Padova and Prague, and he wishes to thank Silvana Bazzoni and Jan Trlifaj for the
kind invitations. We also wish to thank Jan Trlifaj for very helpful discussions. The
first author’s research is supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant # 446/15
and by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under the grant P201/12/G028. The
second author’s research is supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic
under the grant 17-23112S and by the SVV project under the grant SVV-2017-260456.
1. Obtainable Modules
In this section, R is an associative ring and R–mod is the abelian category of left
R-modules. The exposition below largely follows [26, Sections 3 and 6].
Given a class of objects (full subcategory) F ⊂ R–mod, we denote by F⊥1 ⊂ R–mod
the class of all objects C ∈ R–mod such that Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all F ∈ F. Similarly,
for any integer n ≥ 0, we denote by F⊥≥n ⊂ R–mod the class of all objects C ∈ R–mod
such that ExtiR (F, C) = 0 for all F ∈ F and i ≥ n.
Let us also introduce notation for the dual operations on classes of modules. Given
a class of objects E ⊂ R–mod, we denote by ⊥1 E ⊂ R–mod the class of all objects
F ∈ R–mod such that Ext1R (F, E) = 0 for all E ∈ E. For any integer n ≥ 0, we denote
by ⊥≥n E ⊂ R–mod the class of all objects F ∈ R–mod such that ExtiR (F, E) = 0 for
all E ∈ E and all i ≥ n.

10

Now let us define transfinitely iterated extensions. Let F be a left R-module and
γ be an ordinal. Suppose that for every ordinal α ≤ γ we are given an R-submodule
Fα ⊂ F such that the following conditions are satisfied:
• F0 = 0 and Fγ = F ;
• one has Fα ⊂ Fβ for
S all α ≤ β ≤ γ;
• and one has Fβ = α<β Fα for all limit ordinals β ≤ γ.
Then one says that the R-module F is a transfinitely iterated extension (in the sense
of the inductive limit) of the R-modules Fα+1 /Fα , where 0 ≤ α < γ.
Here is the dual definition. Let G be a left R-module and δ be an ordinal. Suppose
that for every ordinal α ≤ δ we are given a left R-module Gα and for every pair
of ordinals α < β ≤ δ there is an R-module morphism Gβ −→ Gα such that the
following conditions hold:
• G0 = 0 and Gδ = G;
• the triangle diagrams Gγ −→ Gβ −→ Gα are commutative for all triples of
ordinals α < β < γ ≤ δ;
• the induced morphism into the projective limit Gβ −→ limα<β Gα is an iso←−
morphism for all limit ordinals β ≤ δ;
• the morphism Gα+1 −→ Gα is surjective for all α < δ.
Denote by Hα the kernel of the morphism Gα+1 −→ Gα . Then we will say that the
left R-module G is a transfinitely iterated exension (in the sense of the projective
limit) of the left R-modules Hα , where 0 ≤ α < δ.
Lemma 1.1. (a) Let E ⊂ R–mod be a class of left R-modules. Then the class of left
R-modules F = ⊥1 E is closed under transfinitely iterated extensions, in the sense of
the inductive limit, and direct summands.
(b) Let F ⊂ R–mod be a class of left R-modules. Then the class of left R-modules
C = F⊥1 is closed under transfinitely iterated extensions, in the sense of the projective
limit, and direct summands.
Proof. Closedness under direct summands is obvious. The assertions about closedness
with respect to transfinitely iterated extensions are known as the Eklof Lemma.
Part (a) is the classical version of the Eklof Lemma [7, Lemma 1], while part (b) is
the dual version [7, Proposition 18].

Lemma 1.2. (a) Let E ⊂ R–mod be a class of left R-modules and n ≥ 1 be an
integer. Then the class of left R-modules F = ⊥≥n E is closed under direct summands,
extensions, kernels of surjective morphisms, infinite direct sums, and transfinitely
iterated extensions in the sense of the inductive limit.
(b) Let F ⊂ R–mod be a class of left R-modules and n ≥ 1 be an integer. Then the
class of left R-modules C = F⊥≥n is closed under direct summands, extensions, cokernels of injective morphisms, infinite products, and transfinitely iterated extensions
in the sense of the projective limit.
Proof. Notice that all the operations listed in part (a), with the exception of direct
summands and kernels of surjective morphisms, are particular cases of transfinitely
11

iterated extensions in the sense of the inductive limit, and similarly, all the operations
listed in part (b), with the exception of direct summands and cokernels of injective
morphisms, are particular cases of transfinitely iterated extensions in the sense of the
projective limit. The closedness properties of the classes of modules in Lemma 1.2
with respect to transfinitely iterated extensions follow from the similar properties
of the classes of modules in Lemma 1.1, while closedness with respect to kernels of
surjections or cokernels of injections is easily checked using the long exact sequence
of Ext∗R . We refer to [26, proofs of Lemmas 3.2 and 6.1] for the details.

Let F ⊂ R–mod be a class of left R-modules. For every n ≥ 1, consider the class
of left R-modules Cn = F⊥≥n .
Lemma 1.3. For any class of objects F ⊂ R–mod, the classes of objects Cn = F⊥≥n
have the following properties:
(i) for any n ≥ 1, one has Cn ⊂ Cn+1 ;
(ii) for any n ≥ 1, the class of objects Cn ⊂ R–mod is closed under direct summands, extensions, cokernels of injective morphisms, infinite products, and
transfinitely iterated extensions in the sense of the projective limit;
(iii) the kernel of any surjective morphism from an object of Cn+1 to an object of
Cn belongs to Cn+1 ;
(iv) the cokernel of any injective morphism from an object of Cn+1 to an object of
Cn belongs to Cn .
Proof. This is [26, Lemma 6.1]. The property (i) holds by the definition, (ii) follows
from Lemma 1.2(b), and (iii-iv) are easily provable using the long exact sequence

of Ext∗R .
Let E ⊂ R–mod be a fixed class of objects. Set F = ⊥≥1 E and C = F⊥≥n for n = 1
and 2. Our aim is to formulate a technique that would potentially allow to describe
the class C1 = (⊥≥1 E)⊥≥1 , at least in some special situations. The following two
definitions can be found in [26, Definition 3.3 and 6.2].
We will say that an object C ∈ R–mod is simply right obtainable from a class
E ⊂ R–mod if C belongs to the (obviously, unique) minimal class of objects in
R–mod containing E and closed under direct summands, extensions, cokernels of
injective morphisms, infinite products, and transfinitely iterated extensions in the
sense of the projective limit.
Furthermore, the pair of classes of objects right 1-obtainable from E and right
2-obtainable from E is defined as the (obviously, unique) minimal pair of classes of
objects in R–mod satisfying the following generation rules:
(i) all the objects of E are right 1-obtainable; all the right 1-obtainable objects
are right 2-obtainable;
(ii) all the objects simply right obtainable from right n-obtainable objects are
right n-obtainable (for n = 1 or 2);
(iii) the kernel of any surjective morphism from a right 2-obtainable object to a
right 1-obtainable object is right 2-obtainable;
12

(iv) the cokernel of any injective morphism from a right 2-obtainable object to a
right 1-obtainable object is right 1-obtainable.
Lemma 1.4. For any class of objects E ⊂ R–mod, all the objects right 1-obtainable
from E belong to the class C1 = (⊥≥1 E)⊥≥1 ⊂ R–mod. All the objects right 2-obtainable from E belong to the class C2 = (⊥≥1 E)⊥≥2 ⊂ R–mod.
Proof. This is [26, Lemma 6.3]. Both the assertions follow from Lemma 1.3.



Remark 1.5. We will never use the full power of the above definitions of obtainability in our constructions in this paper. In particular, all our transfinitely iterated
extensions (in the sense of the projective limit) will be indexed by the ordinal of
nonnegative integers ω (we will call these infinitely iterated extensions). However,
we will sometimes use uncountably infinite products. Besides, the second part of the
rule (i) and the rule (iii) will be only used in the following weak combination:
(iii′ ) the kernel of any surjective morphism from a right 1-obtainable object to a
right 1-obtainable object is right 2-obtainable.
We refer to [26, Remarks 3.7 and 6.4] for comparison.
In fact, the following lemma essentially captures all our uses of the rule (iii′ ) (and
hence also of the rules (i) and (iii)).
Lemma 1.6. Let C denote the class of all left R-modules C such that Ext1R (Q, C) = 0
for all left R-modules Q of projective dimension 1. Then all left R-modules are right
2-obtainable from C.
Proof. Any left R-module A can be embedded into an R-module B belonging to C
(e. g., an injective left R-module B). The quotient R-module B/A then also belongs
to C. Now A is the kernel of the surjective morphism B −→ B/A, so it is right
2-obtainable from B and B/A.

2. S-Contramodule R-Modules
Let R be a commutative ring. We will use the notation pdR M for the projective
dimension of an R-module M.
Let S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset. We will use the notation S −1 R for the
localization of the ring R at the multiplicative subset S. For any R-module M, we
set S −1 M = S −1 R ⊗R M.
An R-module M is said to be S-torsion if for every element x ∈ M there exists an
element s ∈ S such that sx = 0 in M. The (unique) maximal S-torsion submodule of
an R-module M is denoted by ΓS (M) ⊂ M. An R-module M is said to have bounded
S-torsion if there exists an element s0 ∈ S such that s0 ΓS (M) = 0.
Assume that the projective dimension pdR S −1 R of the R-module S −1 R does not
exceed 1. In this case, an R-module C is said to be an S-contramodule [23] if
HomR (S −1 R, C) = 0 = Ext1R (S −1 R, C). The full subcategory of S-contramodule
R-modules is denoted by R–modS-ctra ⊂ R–mod.
13

Given a complex of R-modules K • and an R-module A, we will use the simplified
notation ExtiR (K • , A) for the R-modules HomD(R–mod) (K • , A[i]) of morphisms in the
derived category of R-modules D(R–mod).
The two-term complex of R-modules R −→ S −1 R will be particularly important
•
for us. We denote it by KR,S
and place in the cohomological degrees −1 and 0 (so
−1
0
•
one has KR,S = R and KR,S = S −1 R). The functor A 7−→ Ext1R (KR,S
, A) on the
category of R-modules is denoted by ∆R,S .
Lemma 2.1. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset such
that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then
(a) the full subcategory R–modS-ctra is closed under kernels, cokernels, extensions,
and infinite products in R–mod; so, in particular, R–modS-ctra is an abelian category
and its embedding R–modS-ctra −→ R–mod is an exact functor;
•
(b) for any R-module A, the R-module ∆R,S (A) = Ext1R (KR,S
, A) is an S-contramodule; the functor ∆R,S : R–mod −→ R–modS-ctra is left adjoint to the embedding
functor R–modS-ctra −→ R–mod.
Proof. This is [23, Theorem 3.4].



Let us also introduce notation for the S-completion functor ΛR,S : R–mod −→
R–mod
ΛR,S (A) = lims∈S A/sA,
←−
where the projective limit is taken over the set S endowed with the preorder t ≥ s,
s, t ∈ S if there exists r ∈ R such that t = rs. For any R-module A, there is a
natural R-module morphism βR,S,A : ∆R,S (A) −→ ΛR,S (A) [23, Lemma 2.1(b)].
The rest of this section is devoted to the study of right obtainability properties of
S-contramodule R-modules (in the sense of Section 1). We consider three situations
(corresponding to the assumption sets of three Theorems 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5) separately.
2.1. Countable multiplicative subsets. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R
be an (at most) countable multiplicative subset. Firstly we observe that the projective
dimension of the R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1 in this case [23, Lemma 1.9].
Let s1 , s2 , s2 , . . . be a sequence of elements of S such that every element of S
appears infinitely many times in this sequence. Set t0 = 1 and tn = s1 · · · sn for
all n ≥ 1. Then for any R-module A we have ΛR,S (A) = limn≥1 A/tn A, where the
←−
projective limit is taken over the natural surjective maps A/tn A −→ A/tn−1 A.
For any R-module A and an element r ∈ R, denote by r A ⊂ A the submodule
of all elements annihilated by r in A (i. e., the kernel of the multiplication map
r : A −→ A). Then the R-modules tnA, n ≥ 1 form a projective system with the
projection maps sn : tn A −→ tn−1 A.
Lemma 2.2. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be an (at most) countable
multiplicative subset. Then for any R-module A there is a natural short exact sequence
of R-modules
0 −−→ lim1n≥1 tnA −−→ ∆R,S (A) −−→ limn≥1 A/tn A −−→ 0.
←−
←−
14

In other words, the natural morphism βR,S,A : ∆R,S (A) −→ ΛR,S (A) is surjective
with the kernel isomorphic to limn≥1 tnA.
←−
Proof. This is a generalization of [22, Lemma 6.7] and [26, Sublemma 4.6] (which, in
turn, is a particular case of [22, Lemma 7.5]). The reason why it holds is, essentially,
because the complex KR,S • = (R → S −1 R) is the inductive limit of the complexes
tn
R −→
R over the inductive system formed by the morphisms
tn−1

(1,sn )

t

n
(R −→ R) −−→ (R −→
R).

To give a formal proof, consider the two-term complex
M∞
M∞
R
R −−→
n=1

n=0

with the differential taking an eventually vanishing sequence x0 , x1 , x2 , . . . ∈ R to
the eventually vanishing sequence y1 , y2 , y3 , . . . ∈ R with yn = xn − sn xn−1 , n ≥ 1.
We denote
this complex L
by T • and place it in the cohomological degrees 0 and 1 (so
L
∞
•
T 0 = n=0 R and T 1 = ∞
n=1 R). Furthermore, denote by Tn the subcomplex
Mn
Mn−1
R
R −−→
i=1

i=0

in the complex T • . Then the complex Tn• is homotopy equivalent to the complex
tn
R −→
R; the homotopy equivalence is provided by the morphism of complexes taking
a sequence of elements x0 , . . . xn−1 ∈ R to the element x0 ∈ R and a sequence of
elements y1 , . . . yn ∈ R to the element −sn sn−1 · · · s2 y1 −sn sn−1 · · · s3 y2 −· · ·−yn ∈ R.
It follows that the complex T • is quasi-isomorphic to the complex R −→ S −1 R; the
quasi-isomorphism is provided by the morphism of complexes taking an eventually
vanishing sequence (xn ∈ R)∞
element x0 ∈ R and an eventually vanishing
n=0 to the P
∞
−1
to
the
element
−
R. To be more precise, the
sequence (yn ∈ R)∞
n=1
n=1 yn /tn ∈ S
•
•
complex T is quasi-isomorphic to the complex KR,S [−1].
•
Now we can compute the R-module ∆R,S (A) = Ext1R (KR,S
, A) as ∆R,S (A) =
•
•
H0 (HomR (T , A)). Furthermore, the complex HomR (T , A) is the projective limit
of the complexes HomR (Tn• , A), which form a countable directed projective system
of complexes with termwise surjective morphisms between them. Hence we have a
natural short exact sequence of R-modules
0 −−→ lim1n H1 (HomR (Tn• , A)) −−→ H0 (limn HomR (Tn• , A))
←−
←−
−−→ limn H0 (HomR (Tn• , A)) −−→ 0,
←−
t

n
and it remains to recall that H0 (HomR (Tn• , A)) = H0 (A →
A) = A/tn A and
tn
•
H1 (HomR (Tn , A)) = H1 (A → A) = tnA.


Lemma 2.3. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be an (at most) countable
multiplicative subset. Let D1 ←− D2 ←− D3 ←− · · · be a projective system of
R-modules such that Dn is an R/tn R-module for every n ≥ 1. Then the R-modules
(a) limn Dn and (b) lim1n Dn are simply right obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ S.
←−
←−
15

Proof. This is a generalization of [26, Sublemma 4.7]. Part (a): denote by Dn′ ⊂
Dn the image of the projection map limm Dm −→ Dn . Then we have limn Dn =
←−
←−
′
limn Dn′ , and the maps Dn′ −→ Dn−1
are surjective. Hence the R-module limn Dn is
←−
←−
an infinitely iterated extension, in the sense of the projective limit, of the R-modules
′
D1′ and ker(Dn′ → Dn−1
), n ≥ 2. These are, obviously, R/tn R-modules. The proof
of part (b) is the same as in [26, Sublemma 4.7(b)].

Lemma 2.4. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be an (at most) countable
multiplicative subset. Then all S-contramodule R-modules are simply right obtainable
from R/sR-modules, s ∈ R.
Proof. By Lemma 2.1(b), any S-contramodule R-module C has the form C =
∆R,S (A) for some R-module A; in fact, one has C = ∆R,S (C). According to
Lemma 2.2, the R-module C is an extension of two R-modules, both of which,
according to Lemma 2.3(a-b), are simply right obtainable from R/sR-modules. 
Remark 2.5. Notice that the converse assertion to Lemma 2.4 obviously holds for
any multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring R such that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. In fact,
all the R-modules right 1-obtainable from R/sR-modules, and even all the R-modules
right 2-obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, are S-contramodules. This follows
simply from the fact that the class of S-contramodule R-modules is closed under kernels, cokernels, extensions, and infinite products (which implies closedness under projective limits, which can be expressed as kernels of morphisms between products) by
Lemma 2.1(a), together with the fact that all R/sR-modules are S-contramodules [23,
Lemma 1.6(b)].
2.2. Matlis multiplicative subsets of nonzero-divisors. A Matlis multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring R is a multiplicative subset S ⊂ R such that
pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. All the results concerning uncountable Matlis multiplicative subsets
in this paper are based on the following theorem from the paper [1].
Theorem 2.6. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
consisting of (some) nonzero-divisors in R. Then the projective dimension of the
R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1 if and only if the quotient R-module S −1 R/R is
isomorphic to a direct sum of countably presented R-modules.
Proof. This is [1, Theorem 1.1 (1)⇔(5)]. The argument combines two techniques:
Hamsher’s “restrictions” [15] and tight systems. Another proof, using tilting theory
rather than tight systems, can be found in [12, Theorem 14.59(a)⇔(c)] (the required
result from tilting theory is “deconstruction to countable type”, another proof of
which can be found in [29, Theorem 3.6]). For the particular case when R is an
integral domain, see [11, Corollary 2.8].

Let us have a little discussion of what Theorem 2.6 entails. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset of nonzero-divisors. Then, for any
multiplicative subset T ⊂ S ⊂ R, one has T −1 R ⊂ S −1 R and T −1 R/R ⊂ S −1 R/R.
Obviously, any countable subset in S −1 R/R is contained in T −1 R/R for some countable multiplicative subset T ⊂ S.
16

Furthermore, if an R-submodule M ⊂ S −1 R/R is a direct summand in S −1 R/R
and T ⊂ S is a multiplicative subset such that M ⊂ T −1 R/R ⊂ S −1 R/R, then M is
a direct summand in T −1 R/R as well. Thus, it follows from Theorem 2.6 that, for
any Matlis multiplicative subset of nonzero-divisors S in a commutative ring R, the
quotient module S −1 R/R is a direct sum of direct summands of the quotient modules
T −1 R/R, where T runs over countable multiplicative subsets in R contained in S.
Proposition 2.7. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
of nonzero-divisors such that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then the functor ∆R,S : R–mod −→
R–modS-ctra is isomorphic to an infinite product of functors ∆αR,S ,
Y
∆R,S (A) =
∆αR,S (A)
for all A ∈ R–mod,
α

indexed by some set of indices {α} and such that for every α there is a countable
multiplicative subset Tα ⊂ S for which the functor ∆αR,S is a direct summand in the
functor ∆R,Tα ,
∆R,Tα (A) = ∆αR,S (A) ⊕ ′∆αR,S (A)

for all A ∈ R–mod.

Proof. For any multiplicative subset of nonzero-divisors S ⊂ R, the complex
•
KR,S
= (R → S −1 R) is quasi-isomorphic to the quotient module S −1 R/R, so one
has ∆R,S (A) = Ext1R (S −1 R/R, A). Now if L
pdR S −1 R ≤ 1 then, according to the
preceding discussion, we have S −1 R/R =
α Lα , where the R-modules Lα are
direct summands in the quotient modules Tα−1 R/R for some countable multiplicative

subsets Tα ⊂ S. It remains to set ∆αR,S = Ext1R (Lα , −).
Lemma 2.8. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset of
nonzero-divisors such that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then all S-contramodule R-modules are
simply right obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ S.
Proof. Let C be an S-contramodule
By Lemma 2.1(b) and ProposiQ R-module.
α
tion 2.7, we have C = ∆R,S (C) = α ∆R,S (C), where the R-modules ∆αR,S (C) are
direct summands in the R-modules ∆R,Tα (C) for some countable multiplicative subsets Tα ⊂ S ⊂ R. By Lemma 2.4, every R-module ∆R,Tα (C) is simply right obtainable
from R/tR-modules, t ∈ Tα ⊂ S, hence it follows that the R-module C is simply right
obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ S.

2.3. Matlis multiplicative subsets with bounded torsion. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset. Then the maximal S-torsion
submodule ΓS (R) ⊂ R is the kernel ideal of the ring homomorphism R −→ S −1 R.
Set I = ΓS (R) and denote by R the quotient ring R = R/I.
For any multiplicative subset T ⊂ R, the image of T under the ring homomorphism
R −→ R is a multiplicative subset T ⊂ R. The localization of the R-module R at
the multiplicative subset T ⊂ R is the same thing as the localization of the ring R
−1
at the multiplicative subset T ⊂ R, that is T −1 R = T R.
In particular, we denote by S ⊂ R the image of the multiplicative subset S ⊂ R
−1
in the ring R. Then we have a natural isomorphism of rings S −1 R = S R and a
17

commutative diagram of ring homomorphisms R −→ R −→ S −1 R = S −1 R. The
multiplicative subset S ⊂ R is a multiplicative subset of nonzero-divisors in R.
We are indebted to Silvana Bazzoni for the idea to use the simple observation that
is formulated in the next lemma.
Lemma 2.9. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset such
−1
that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then one has pdR S R ≤ 1.
−1

Proof. Clearly, S R = R ⊗R S −1 R. For any ring homomorphism R −→ R′ and
any flat R-module F , one has pdR′ (R′ ⊗ F ) ≤ pdR F , as tensoring with R′ over R
transforms a projective resolution of the R-module F into a projective resolution of
the R′ -module R′ ⊗R F .

The following two results from the paper [1], forming together a slightly more
precise version of Theorem 2.6, will be needed for the purposes of this section.
Theorem 2.10. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
of nonzero-divisors such that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then for any countable multiplicative
subset T0 ⊂ S there exists a countable multiplicative subset T0 ⊂ T1 ⊂ S such that
the R-submodule T1−1 R/R ⊂ S −1 R/R is a direct summand.
Proof. This is [1, Corollary 4.4]. (For the particular case when R is an integral
domain, see [11, sentence after Theorem 2.7].)

Theorem 2.11. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
of nonzero-divisors such that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then every direct summand in the
R-module S −1 R/R is isomorphic to a direct sum of countably presented R-modules.
Proof. This is [1, Theorem 7.11].



Lemma 2.12. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset such
−1
that the S-torsion in R is bounded and pdR S R ≤ 1. Then the two-term complex
•
of R-modules KR,S
is isomorphic, as an object of the derived category D(R–mod),
to a direct sum of complexes of R-modules L•α such that, for every α, there exists a
countable multiplicative subset Tα ⊂ S ⊂ R for which the complex L•α , viewed as an
•
.
object of D(R–mod), is a direct summand in the complex KR,T
α
Proof. Let t0 ∈ S be an element such that t0 I = 0. By Theorem 2.10 applied to the
commutative ring R with a multiplicative subset of nonzero-divisors S ⊂ R, there
exists a countable multiplicative subset T 1 ⊂ S containing the image t̄0 ∈ R of the
−1
element t0 ∈ R and such that the R-submodule T 1 R/R is a direct summand in the
−1
R-module S R/R. Lifting every element of T 1 to an element of S ⊂ R and taking
the multiplicative closure, we obtain a countable multiplicative subset T1 ⊂ R such
that t0 ∈ T1 ⊂ S and the image of T1 in R coincides with T 1 ⊂ R.
−1
−1
−1
Let M ⊂ S R/R denote an R-submodule such that S R/R = T 1 R/R⊕M. By
Theorem 2.11, the R-module M is a direct sum of countably generated R-modules Lβ .
According to the discussion in Section 2.2, for every β there exists a countable mul−1
tiplicative subset T β ⊂ S such that Lβ is a direct summand in T β R/R. Arguing
18

as above, we lift the multiplicative subset T β ⊂ S ⊂ R to a countable multiplicative
subset Tβ ⊂ S ⊂ R. Enlarging the multiplicative subsets T β and Tβ if necessary, we
can assume that T 1 ⊂ T β and T1 ⊂ Tβ for all β.
Now, two-term complexes of R-modules K −1 −→ K 0 , viewed as objects of the
derived category D(R–mod), are classified by triples (H −1 , H 0, ξ), where H −1 =
H −1 (K • ) and H 0 = H 0 (K • ) are the cohomology R-modules, and ξ is an extension
•
•
class ξ ∈ Ext2R (H 0 , H −1). In the case of the complex KR,S
, we have H −1 (KR,S
)=I
−1

•
and H 0 (KR,S
) = S R/R. For any T1−1 R-module L, one has Ext∗R (L, I) = 0, because
the element t0 ∈ R acts by an automorphism of L and by zero in I.
−1
−1
−1
In particular, M = S R/T 1 R is a T 1 R-module. So we have Ext2R (M, I) = 0
−1
−1
•
and S R/R = T 1 R/R ⊕ M, hence it follows that the complex KR,S
is isomorphic
•
to the direct sum of its subcomplex KR,T1 and the R-module M in D(R–mod).
•
•
) = I and
, we have H −1 (KR,T
Similarly, in the case of the complex KR,T
β
β

−1

•
H 0 (KR,T
) = T β R/R. Since Ext2R (Lβ , I) = 0 and the R-module Lβ is a direct
β

−1

summand in the R-module T β R/R, it follows that the R-module Lβ is a direct
•
summand of the complex KR,T
in D(R–mod).
β
L
•
•
We have shown that KR,S ≃ KR,T
⊕ β Lβ in D(R–mod), where Lβ is a direct
1
•
summand of KR,T
in D(R–mod). It remains to define the set of indices {α} to
β
be the disjoint union of the set of indices {β} and the one-element set {1}, that is
•
{α} = {β} ⊔ {1}. Put L•β = Lβ and L•1 = KR,T
.

1
The following corollary provides a partial converse assertion to Lemma 2.9.
Corollary 2.13. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
−1
such that the S-torsion in R is bounded and pdR S R ≤ 1. Then pdR S −1 R ≤ 1.
Proof. For any bounded complex of R-modules K • , denote by pdR K • the supremum
of all the integers n for which there exists an R-module A such that ExtnR (K • , A) 6= 0.
So pdR K • ∈ Z∪{+∞} if K • 6= 0 in D(R–mod), and pdR K • = −∞ when the complex
K • is acyclic. For any distinguished triangle K • −→ L• −→ M • −→ K • [1] in the
bounded derived category Db (R–mod), we have pdR L• ≤ max(pdR K • , pdR M • ).
In particular, for any commutative ring R with a multiplicative subset S ⊂ R
•
we have pdR KR,S
≤ 1 if and only if pdR S −1 R ≤ 1, because pdR R = 0. Now if
−1

the S-torsion in R is bounded and pdR S R ≤
L1, then we can apply Lemma 2.12,
•
obtaining a direct sum decomposition KR,S
≃ α L•α in Db (R–mod), where L•α is a
•
in Db (R–mod) and the multiplicative subset Tα ⊂ S ⊂ R
direct summand of KR,T
α
•
≤ 1 and
is countable. By [23, Lemma 1.9], we have pdR Tα−1 R ≤ 1, hence pdR KR,T
α
•
•
−1
pdR Lα ≤ 1 for all α. Thus pdR KR,S ≤ 1, and it follows that pdR S R ≤ 1.

The next proposition is a generalization of Proposition 2.7 to the case of bounded
torsion.
Proposition 2.14. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative
subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded and pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then the functor
19

∆R,S : R–mod −→ R–modS-ctra is isomorphic to an infinite product of functors ∆αR,S ,
Y
∆R,S (A) =
∆αR,S (A)
for all A ∈ R–mod,
α

indexed by some set of indices {α} and such that for every α there is a countable
multiplicative subset Tα ⊂ S for which the functor ∆αR,S is a direct summand in the
functor ∆R,Tα ,
∆R,Tα (A) = ∆αR,S (A) ⊕ ′∆αR,S (A)

for all A ∈ R–mod.

Proof. In view of Lemma 2.9, Lemma 2.12 is applicable, and it remains to recall that
•
•
, −).

∆R,S = Ext1R (KR,S
, −) and ∆R,Tα = Ext1R (KR,T
α
Lemma 2.15. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset
such that the S-torsion in R is bounded and pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then all S-contramodule
R-modules are simply right obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ S.
Proof. Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.8, using Lemma 2.1(b), Proposition 2.14, and
Lemma 2.4.

3. Rings with a Multiplicative Subset
We start with a proof of Proposition 0.2 and then proceed to prove Propositions 0.6–0.8 and Theorems 0.3–0.5 (which is the aim of this section).
Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset. Recall that
an R-module C is said to be S-weakly cotorsion if Ext1R (S −1 R, C) = 0, and an
R-module F is said to be S-strongly flat if Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all S-weakly cotorsion
R-modules C.
An R-module M is said to be S-divisible if sM = M for all s ∈ S. An R-module
M is said to be S-h-divisible if there exists a surjective R-module morphism onto
M from an S −1 R-module. Any S-h-divisible R-module is S-divisible. An R-module
M is S-h-divisible if and only if the natural morphism HomR (S −1 R, M) −→ M
is surjective. More precisely, for any R-module M let us denote the image of the
morphism HomR (S −1 R, M) −→ M by hS (M) ⊂ M. Then hS (M) is the (unique)
maximal S-h-divisible submodule of M. An R-module M is said to be S-h-reduced
if it has no S-h-divisible submodules, that is hS (M) = 0. An R-module M is S-hreduced if and only if HomR (S −1 R, M) = 0. We refer to [23, Section 1] and the
references therein for further discussion.
Proof of Proposition 0.2. For any commutative ring R with a multiplicative subset
S ⊂ R, the class of all flat R-modules F such that the R/sR-module F/sF is projective for all s ∈ S and the S −1 R-module S −1 F is projective is closed under kernels of
surjective morphisms (as well as under extensions and infinite direct sums, and more
generally, transfinitely iterated extensions in the sense of the infuctive limit). Since
the R-module S −1 R belongs to this class, so does its first syzygy R-module H.
20

On the other hand, assume that the multiplicative subset S ⊂ R consists of (some)
nonzero-divisors in a R. Suppose that the R-module H is S-strongly flat. Then we
have Ext2R (S −1 R, C) = Ext1R (H, C) = 0 for all S-weakly cotorsion R-modules C.
Hence the cokernel of any injective morphism of S-weakly cotorsion R-modules is an
S-weakly cotorsion R-module.
For the purposes of this proof, let K denote the quotient R-module S −1 R/R.
Following the argument in [12, proof of Lemma 7.53(c)⇒(a)] and using [23,
Lemma 1.7(a)], one shows that the R-module Ext1R (K, M) is S-h-reduced for any
R-module M, hence the R-module M/hS (M) is S-h-reduced for any M, and therefore the class of all S-h-divisible R-modules is closed under extensions. Finally,
it remains to apply [23, Lemma 1.8(b)] in order to conclude that the projective
dimension of the R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1.

•
As in Section 2, we denote by KR,S
the two-term complex of R-modules R −→
−1
S R, with the term R sitting in the cohomological degree −1 and the term S −1 R
in the cohomological degree 0. We also denote simply by S −1 R/R the cokernel
•
of the R-module morphism R −→ S −1 R. The functor A 7−→ Ext1R (KR,S
, A) =
•
HomD(R–mod) (KR,S , A[1]) is denoted by ∆R,S : R–mod −→ R–mod.

Lemma 3.1. Let R be commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset. Then
for any R-module A there is a natural 5-term exact sequence of R-modules
(2) 0 −−→ HomR (S −1 R/R, A) −−→ HomR (S −1 R, A)
−−→ A −−→ ∆R,S (A) −−→ Ext1R (S −1 R, A) −−→ 0,
which in the case of an S-weakly cotorsion R-module C reduces to a 4-term exact
sequence
(3)
0 −−→ HomR (S −1 R/R, C) −−→ HomR (S −1 R, C) −−→ C −−→ ∆R,S (C) −−→ 0.
Proof. Apply the cohomological functor HomD(R–mod) (−, A[∗]) to the distinguished
triangle
•
R −−→ S −1 R −−→ KR,S
−−→ R[1]
in the derived category D(R–mod).

The next lemma uses the definitions from Section 2.
Lemma 3.2. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset such
that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Then for any S-torsion R-module D and any R-module A the
R-module HomR (D, A) is an S-contramodule.
Proof. Recall the notation r D ⊂ D for the kernel of the multiplication map r : D −→
D, r ∈ R. Then one has D = lims∈S s D, hence HomR (D, A) = lims∈S HomR (s D, A).
←−
−→
Now the R-module HomR (s D, A) is annihilated by the action of the element s ∈ S,
so it is an S-contramodule by [23, Lemma 1.6(b)]. By Lemma 2.1(a), the class of
S-contramodule R-modules is closed under infinite products and kernels of morphisms
in R–mod, hence it is also closed under all projective limits.
21

In fact, the assumption of projective dimension of S −1 R not exceeding 1 is not
needed for the validity of this lemma; see [19, Theorem 2.1] and [23, Lemma 1.4 or
proof of Lemma 1.7(a)] (but we have only defined S-contramodule R-modules in the
assumption of pdR S −1 R ≤ 1).

Lemma 3.3. Let R −→ R′ be a homomorphism of commutative rings and F be a flat
R-module. Then for any R′ -module C ′ and all i ≥ 0 there is a natural isomorphism
of Ext groups/modules ExtiR (F, C ′ ) ≃ ExtiR′ (R′ ⊗R F, C ′ ).
Proof. This is a particular case of [26, Lemma 4.1(a)].



Proof of Propositions 0.6–0.8. In all the cases covered by the assumptions of these
three propositions, one has pdR S −1 R ≤ 1, so ∆R,S (A) is an S-contramodule R-module for any R-module A (see Lemma 2.1(b) and/or [23, Lemma 1.7(c)]).
Now let C be an S-weakly cotorsion R-module. We will prove a stronger assertion, viz., that C is simply right obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, and an
S −1 R-module (see Section 1 for the definitions).
The exact sequence (3) represents C as an extension of an S-contramodule
∆R,S (C) and the cokernel of an injective morphism from an S-contramodule
HomR (S −1 R/R, C) (see Lemma 3.2) into an S −1 R-module HomR (S −1 R, C). So any
S-weakly cotorsion R-module is simply right obtainable from two S-contramodule
R-modules and one S −1 R-module.
It remains to recall that, as we already know, in the assumptions of any of the
three propositions all S-contramodule R-modules are simply right obtainable from
R/sR-modules, s ∈ S. In the case of Proposition 0.6, this is the result of Lemma 2.4;
in the case of Proposition 0.7, we have Lemma 2.8; and in the case of Proposition 0.8,
we need to apply Lemma 2.15.
This proves the “only if” assertions of the three propositions. The “if” assertion
holds for any multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring R. To prove as much,
denote by E ⊂ R–mod the class of all R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, and all S −1 R-modules
(viewed as R-modules via the restriction of scalars).
By Lemma 3.3, for any R-module E ∈ E we have ExtiR (S −1 R, E) = 0 for all i > 0
(since S −1 R is a flat R-module, R/sR ⊗R S −1 R = 0, and S −1 R ⊗R S −1 R = S −1 R
is a free S −1 R-module). It remains to apply Lemma 1.4 in order to conclude that
Ext1R (S −1 R, C) = 0 for all R-modules C right 1-obtainable from E.

Proof of Theorems 0.3–0.5. The “only if” assertion holds for any multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring R and follows immediately from the description of
S-strongly flat R-modules in terms of the exact sequence (1).
To prove the “if”, we, as above, denote by E ⊂ R–mod the class of all
R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, and all S −1 R-modules (viewed as R-modules via the restriction of scalars). Let F be a flat R-module such that the R/sR-module F/sF
is projective for all s ∈ S and the S −1 R-module S −1 F is projective. Then, by
Lemma 3.3, we have ExtiR (F, E) = 0 for all E ∈ E and all i > 0.
Applying Lemma 1.4, we learn that ExtiR (F, C) = 0 for all R-modules C right
1-obtainable from E and all i > 0. Depending on which of the three Theorems 0.3,
22

0.4, or 0.5 we want to prove, we can use one of the respective Propositions 0.6, 0.7,
or 0.8, which tells that all S-weakly cotorsion R-modules C are right 1-obtainable
from E. Thus Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all S-weakly cotorsion R-modules C, that is, F is
an S-strongly flat R-module.

4. Rings with Several Multiplicative Subsets
The aim of this section is to prove Proposition 0.11 and Theorem 0.10. The arguments here generalize those in [26, Section 8].
Lemma 4.1. Let f : R −→ R′ be a homomorphism of commutative rings, S ⊂ R be
a multiplicative subset, and S ′ = f (S) ⊂ R be the image of S in R′ . In this setting:
(a) if pdR S −1 R ≤ 1, then pdR′ S ′−1 R′ ≤ 1;
(b) an R′ -module is an S-weakly cotorsion R-module if and only if it is an S ′ -weakly
cotorsion R′ -module;
(c) an R′ -module is an S-contramodule R-module if and only if it is an S ′ -contramodule R′ -module.
Proof. Part (a) was already explained in the proof of Lemma 2.9, while parts (b)
and (c) follow from Lemma 3.3.

Lemma 4.2. Let R be a commutative ring, s ∈ R be an element, and S ⊂ R be a
multiplicative subset such that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Let K • be a complex of R-modules
and C be an R-module. Then
(a) the R-module HomR (K • , C[i]) is annihilated by s for all i ∈ Z whenever the
R-module C is annihilated by s;
(b) the R-module HomR (K • , C[i]) is an S-contramodule for all i ∈ Z whenever the
R-module C is an S-contramodule.
Proof. Part (a) holds because, for any R-module C, the multiplication map
s : HomR (K • , C) −→ HomR (K • , C) is induced by the multiplication map s : C −→
C. Part (b) is a (partial) generalization of the related assertion of [22, Lemma 6.2(b)].
Since pdR S −1 R ≤ 1, for any complex of R-modules B • there are short exact sequences
0 −−→ Ext1R (S −1 R, H i−1(B • )) −−→
H i (R HomR (S −1 R, B • )) −−→ HomR (S −1 R, H i (B • ) −−→ 0,
where R HomR denotes the derived functor of R-module homomorphisms, viewed as
a functor acting on the derived category of R-modules. Therefore, the R-modules
H i (B • ) are S-contramodules for all i ∈ Z if and only if R HomR (S −1 R, B • ) = 0 in
D(R–mod) (cf. [23, Lemma 4.5(b)]).
Now one has
R HomR (S −1 R, R HomR (K • , C)) = R HomR (K • , R HomR (S −1 R, C)),
23

hence acyclicity of the the complex R HomR (S −1 R, C) implies acyclicity of the complex R HomR (S −1 R, R HomR (K • , C)).

Let R be a commutative ring and S = {S1 , . . . , Sm } be a finite collection of multiplicative subsets in R. Assume that pdR Sj−1 R ≤ 1 for all j = 1, . . . , m. We will
say that an R-module C is an S-contramodule if it is an Sj -contramodule for every
1 ≤ j ≤ m.
Let s1 ∈ S1 , . . . , sm ∈ Sm be a sequence of elements, which will denote for brevity
by a single letter s. Then we denote by Rs the quotient ring Rs = R/(s1 R+· · ·+sm R)
of the ring R by the ideal generated by the elements s1 , . . . , sm .
Lemma 4.3. Let R be a commutative ring and S = {S1 , . . . , Sm } be a finite collection
of multiplicative subsets in R such that, for every 1 ≤ j ≤ m, either Sj is countable,
or the Sj -torsion in R is bounded and pdR Sj−1 R ≤ 1. Then an R-module C is an
S-contramodule if and only if it is simply right obtainable from Rs -modules, where
s runs over all the sequences of elements s1 ∈ S1 , . . . , sm ∈ Sm .
Proof. The “if” assertion holds for any collection of Matlis multiplicative subsets
Sj ⊂ R. In fact, any R-module right 1-obtainable from Rs -modules is an Sj -contramodule for every j by Remark 2.5, hence it is an S-contramodule. The “only if”
assertion is the nontrivial part of the lemma.
The following proof is a generalization of the “alternative” proof of [26, Lemma 8.2].
Arguing by induction on n = 0, . . . , m for a fixed ring R with m multiplicative
subsets S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R, we will prove the following assertion: any R-module which
is an Sj -contramodule for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n and which is annihilated by the ideal
sn+1 R + · · · + sm R ⊂ R for sume elements sk ∈ Sk , n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m, is simply right
obtainable from Rs -modules. For n = 0, this is a trivial assertion, which provides the
induction base. For n = m, this is the assertion of the lemma.
We do not want to pass to quotient rings R′ = R/(sn+1 R + · · · + sm R) for the
purposes of the current induction procedure because, if the Sj -torsion in R is bounded
and pdR Sj−1 R ≤ 1 for some 1 ≤ j ≤ n, and Sj′ is the image of Sj in R′ , it does not
follow that the Sj′ -torsion in R′ is bounded. So we will not really use Lemma 4.1 in
this proof, but will rather use Lemma 4.2(a) instead.
Let C be an R-module that is an Sj -contramodule for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n, and let sk ∈ Sk ,
n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m, be some elements such that sk C = 0 for all n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m. We have
two cases, depending on whether the multiplicative subset Sn ⊂ R is countable, or it
is a Matlis multiplicative subset with bounded torsion.
If Sn is countable, we follow the proof of Lemma 2.4 for S = Sn in order to observe
that C is simply right obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈ Sn , each of which, in turn,
can be obtained from C in a functorial way using the operations of the passages to
the kernels and cokernels of (natural) R-module morphisms and infinite products of
R-modules. All such R/sR-modules, therefore, are Sj -contramodule R-modules for
all 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1 and are annihilated by sk for n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m. It remains to set
sn = s and use the induction assumption.
24

If the Sn -torsion in R is bounded and pdR Sn−1 R ≤ 1, we apply Lemma 2.1(b) and
Proposition 2.14, obtaining a direct product decomposition
Y
C = ∆R,Sn (C) =
∆αR,S (C),
α

∆αR,S (C)

where
are direct summands in the R-modules ∆R,Tα (C) for some countable
multiplicative subsets Tα ⊂ Sn . By Lemma 4.2(a-b), the R-modules ∆R,Tα (C) are
annihilated by sk for all n+1 ≤ k ≤ m and are Sj -contramodules for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n−1.
Applying the proof of Lemma 2.4 for S = Tα to the Tα -contramodules ∆R,Tα (C) and
arguing as above, we see that the R-modules ∆R,Tα (C) are simply right obtainable
from R-modules that are Sj -contramodules for 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1, annihilated by the
elements sk for n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m, and also annihilated by some elements s ∈ Tα ⊂ Sn .
Once again, it remains to set sn = s and use the induction assumption.

Remark 4.4. Notice that no products of multiplicative subsets Sj ⊂ R, j = 1, . . . , m
are involved in the formulation of Lemma 4.3, though they are necessary in Proposition 0.11 and Theorem 0.10. The following observations may help the reader feel
more comfortable: if T ⊂ S ⊂ R are two embedded multiplicative subsets, then
any T -contramodule R-module is an S-contramodule R-module. Indeed, S −1 R is a
T −1 R-module, so [23, Lemma 1.2] applies. On the other hand, a T -weakly cotorsion R-module does not need to be S-weakly cotorsion (consider the case of a trivial
multiplicative subset T = {1}). Cf. [22, Remark 5.2].
Furthermore, for a pair of multiplicative subsets S and T in a commutative ring
R, an S-weakly cotorsion and T -weakly cotorsion R-module does not have to be
ST -weakly cotorsion. Indeed, otherwise the R-module (ST )−1 R would be a direct
summand in a transfinitely iterated extension of copies of the three R-modules R,
S −1 R, and T −1 R. However, for any such transfinitely iterated extension F and a
nonzero element x ∈ F there exists an R-submodule G ⊂ F , x ∈ G and an R-module
morphism from G into either R, or S −1 R, or T −1 R taking x to a nonzero element.
In addition, the quotient module F/G is also a transfinitely iterated extension of
the three R-modules R, S −1 R, and T −1 R. For example, consider the case of the
ring of integers R = Z with the multiplicative subsets S = {pn | n ∈ Z≥0 } and
T = {q n | n ∈ Z≥0 }, where p and q are two distinct prime numbers. Then no
transfinitely iterated extension of the three Z-modules Z, Z[p−1 ], and Z[q −1 ] contains
elements infinitely divisible by pq.
Lemma 4.5. Let R be a commutative ring and S, T ⊂ R be two multiplicative
subsets. Denote by S ′ ⊂ T −1 R the image of S under the localization morphism
R −→ T −1 R. Assume that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then the S ′ -torsion in
T −1 R is bounded.
Proof. Let s0 ∈ S be an element such that s0 ΓS (R) = 0. Denote by s′0 ∈ S ′ the
image of the element s0 ∈ R under the ring homomorphism R −→ T −1 R. Then
s′0 ΓS ′ (T −1 R) = 0. Indeed, if s′ r/t = 0 in T −1 R for some s′ ∈ S ′ , r ∈ R, and t ∈ T ,
then, denoting by s ∈ S a preimage of the element s′ , there exists an element u ∈ T
such that sru = 0 in R. It follows that s0 ru = 0 in R, hence s′0 r/t = 0 in T −1 R. 
25

Lemma 4.6. Let R be a commutative ring and S, T ⊂ R be two multiplicative
subsets. Assume that an R-module C is ST -weakly cotorsion. Then the R-module
HomR (T −1 R, C) is S-weakly cotorsion.
Proof. According to [26, proof of Lemma 8.6], for any flat R-modules F and G
R-module Ext1R (F, HomR (G, C)) is a submodule in the R-module Ext1R (F ⊗R G,
In particular, the R-module Ext1R (S −1 R, HomR (T −1 R, C)) is a submodule in
R-module Ext1R ((ST )−1 R, C), so the former vanishes whenever the latter does.

the
C).
the


Now we return to the notation of Section 0.4. Suppose that we have a commutative ring R with several multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R. Q
For any subset of
indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} we denote by SJ the multiplicative subset j∈J Sj ⊂ R. The
collection of m multiplicative subsets {Sj | 1 ≤ j ≤ m} is denoted by S, and the
collection of 2m multiplicative subsets {SJ | J ⊂ {1, . . . , m}} is denoted by S× .
Given a subset of indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m}, we denote its complement by K =
{1, . . . , m} \ J. The symbol s denotes an arbitrary collection of elements sk ∈ Sk ,
k ∈ K, and the ring RJ,s is defined as the quotient ring of SJ−1 R by the ideal generated
by the elements sk , k ∈ K.
Proof of Proposition 0.11. This proof is a generalization of the proof of [26, Main
Proposition 8.1], and the reader may wish to glance into the discussion in [26] for
motivation related to the inductive argument below.
We will prove the following assertion by induction on a pair of integers 0 ≤
n ≤ m: any R-module that is SJ -weakly cotorsion for all J ⊂ {1, . . . , n} and an
Sk -contramodule for all n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m is right 1-obtainable from RJ,s -modules,
where J ⊂ {1, . . . , n} ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and s runs over all the collections of elements
sk ∈ Sk , k ∈ K = {1, . . . , m} \ J. For n = m, this is the “only if” assertion of the
proposition.
Induction base: for n = 0, this is the assertion of Lemma 4.3.
Let C be an R-module that is SJ -weakly cotorsion for all J ⊂ {1, . . . , n} and an
Sk -contramodule for all n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m. Consider the exact sequence (3) (from
Lemma 3.1) for the multiplicative subset S = Sn :
(4)
0 −−→ HomR (Sn−1 R/R, C) −−→ HomR (Sn−1 R, C) −−→ C −−→ ∆R,Sn (C) −−→ 0.
Denote by En ⊂ R–mod the class of all RJ,s -modules with J ⊂ {1, . . . , n} ⊂
{1, . . . , m}. To show that C is right 1-obtainable from En , it suffices to check that
the R-modules HomR (Sn−1 R, C) and ∆R,Sn (C) are right 1-obtainable from En and
the R-module HomR (Sn−1 R/R, C) is right 2-obtainable from En . Let us consider
these three R-modules one by one.
The R-module HomR (Sn−1 R, C) is an Sn−1 R-module. By Lemma 4.2(b), it is also an
Sk -contramodule for all n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m, and by Lemma 4.6, it is SJ -weakly cotorsion
for all J ⊂ {1, . . . , n − 1}. In order to conclude that the R-module HomR (Sn−1 R, C)
is right 1-obtainable from En , we apply the induction assumption to the pair of
integers (n′ , m′ ) = (n − 1, m − 1), the ring R′ = Sn−1 R, and the collection of m − 1
′
′
′
multiplicative subsets S1′ , . . . , Sn−1
, Sn+1
, . . . , Sm
⊂ R obtained as the images of
26

the multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sn−1 , Sn+1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R under the localization
morphism R −→ Sn−1 R.
It needs to be observed that, if the multiplicative subset Sj ⊂ R is countable, then
the multiplicative subset Sj′ ⊂ R′ is countable; if pdR Sj−1 R ≤ 1, then pdR′ Sj′ −1 R ≤ 1
by Lemma 4.1(a); and if the Sj -torsion in R is bounded, then the Sj′ -torsion in R′
is bounded by Lemma 4.5. The R′ -module HomR (Sn−1 R, C) is SJ′ -weakly cotorsion
for all J ⊂ {1, . . . , n − 1} and an Sk′ -contramodule for all n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m by
Lemma 4.1(b-c). Finally, for any subset of indices J ′ ⊂ {1, . . . , n − 1} ⊂ {1, . . . ,
′
′
n − 1, n + 1, . . . , m} and any collection s′ of elements s′n+1 ∈ Sn+1
, . . . , s′m ∈ Sm
, the
′
′
R-algebra RJ ′ ,s′ is isomorphic to RJ,s , where J = J ∪ {n} ⊂ {1, . . . , n} ⊂ {1, . . . , m}
is the related subset of indices and s is a collection of preimages sn+1 ∈ Sn+1 , . . . ,
sm ∈ Sm of the elements s′k ∈ Sk′ , n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m.
The R-module ∆R,Sn (C) is SJ -weakly cotorsion for all J ⊂ {1, . . . , n − 1}, since
it is a quotient module of an SJ -weakly cotorsion R-module C and pdR SJ−1 R ≤ 1.
It is also an Sn -contramodule by Lemma 2.1(b), and an Sk -contramodule for all
n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m by Lemma 4.2(b). So ∆R,Sn (C) is an Sk -contramodule R-module for
all n ≤ k ≤ m. The claim that the R-module ∆R,Sn (C) is right 1-obtainable from En
(in fact, even from En−1 ) now follows from the induction assumption applied to the
pair of integers (n′ , m′ ) = (n − 1, m), the same ring R′ = R, and the same collection
′
= Sm .
of multiplicative subsets S1′ = S1 , . . . , Sm
−1
The R-module HomR (Sn R/R, C) is an Sn -contramodule by Lemma 3.2 and an
Sk -contramodule for all n + 1 ≤ k ≤ m by Lemma 4.2(b). By Lemma 4.3, the
R-module HomR (Sn−1 R/R, C) is simply right obtainable from modules over the quotient rings R′′ = R/(sn R + sn+1 R + · · · + sm R) for various combinations of elements
sn ∈ Sn , sn+1 ∈ Sn+1 , . . . , sm ∈ Sm .
Denote by SJ′′ ⊂ R′′ the images of the multiplicative subsets SJ ⊂ R, J ⊂
{1, . . . , n − 1} in the ring R′′ . By Lemma 4.1(a), we have pdR′′ SJ′′−1 R′′ ≤ 1. Therefore, by Lemma 1.6, all R′′ -modules are right 2-obtainable from R′′ -modules that
are SJ′′ -weakly cotorsion for all J ⊂ {1, . . . , n − 1}. Applying Lemma 4.1(b), we see
that all such R′′ -modules are SJ -weakly cotorsion as R-modules. Thus all R-modules
annihilated by sn R + · · · + sm R are right 2-obtainable from R-modules annihilated
by sn R + · · · + sm R that are SJ -weakly cotorsion for all J ⊂ {1, . . . , n − 1}. Any
R-module annihilated by an element sk ∈ Sk is an Sk -contramodule.
Now we apply the induction assumption to the pair of integers (n′ , m′ ) = (n−1, m),
′
the ring R′ = R, and the collection of multiplicative subsets S1′ = S1 , . . . , Sm
= Sm
in order to conclude that all R-modules annihilated by sn R + · · · + sm R, sk ∈ Sk ,
are right 2-obtainable from En−1 . It follows that the R-module HomR (Sn−1 R/R, C)
is also right 2-obtainable from En−1 .
This proves the “only if” assertion of the proposition. The “if” assertion holds for
any collection of multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm in a commutative ring R. To prove
as much, let E ⊂ R–mod denote the class of all RJ,s -modules, viewed as R-modules
via the restriction of scalars, where J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and s runs over all the collections
of elements sk ∈ Sk , k ∈ K = {1, . . . , m} \ J.
27

By Lemma 3.3, for any R-module E ∈ E and any subset of indices I ⊂ {1, . . . , m},
we have ExtiR (SI−1 R, E) = 0 for all i > 0, since SI−1 R is a flat R-module and
(
RJ,s if I ⊂ J,
RJ,s ⊗R SI−1 R =
0,
if I 6⊂ J
is always a free RJ,s -module (with 1 or 0 generators). It remains to apply Lemma 1.4
in order to conclude that Ext1R (SI−1 R, C) = 0 for all R-modules C right 1-obtainable
from E.

Proof of Theorem 0.10. The “only if” assertion holds for any collection of multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm in a commutative ring R. Indeed, an R-module is
S× -strongly flat if and only if it is a direct summand of a transfinitely iterated
extension, in the sense of the inductive limit, of copies of the R-modules SI−1 R,
I ⊂ {1, . . . , m} [12, Corollary 6.14]. Now, for any subset J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and any
collection s of elements sk ∈ Sk , k ∈ {1, . . . , m} \ J, the functor of extension of
scalars RJ,s ⊗R − : R–mod −→ RJ,s –mod takes transfinitely iterated extensions (in
the sense of the inductive limit) of flat R-modules to transfinitely iterated exensions
of flat RJ,s -modules, and the R-modules SI−1 R to free RJ,s -modules (with 1 or 0
generators).
To prove the “if”, denote, as above, by E ⊂ R–mod the class of all RJ,s -modules
(viewed as R-modules via the restriction of scalars). Let F be a flat R-module such
that the RJ,s -module RJ,s ⊗R F is projective for all subsets of indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m}
and all collections s of elements sk ∈ Sk , k ∈ {1, . . . , m} \ J. Then, by Lemma 3.3,
we have ExtiR (F, E) = 0 for all E ∈ E and all i > 0.
Applying Lemma 1.4, we see that ExtiR (F, C) = 0 for all R-modules C right
1-obtainable from E and all i > 0. According to Proposition 0.11, all S× -weakly
cotorsion R-modules are right 1-obtainable from E. Thus Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all
S× -weakly cotorsion R-modules C, so F is an S× -strongly flat R-module.

5. Finite-Dimensional Noetherian Rings with Countable Spectrum
The aim of this section is to prove Theorems 0.14, 0.15, and 0.16. The essential
idea of these arguments was already stated in Section 0.5; the following corollary,
formulated in the notation of Section 0.4, summarizes it.
Corollary 5.1. Let S = {S1 , . . . , Sm } be a finite collection of countable multiplicative subsets in a commutative ring R. Assume that, for any subset of indices
J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and any collection of elements sk ∈ Sk , k ∈ K = {1, . . . , m} \ J, the
ring RJ,s is Artinian. Then all flat R-modules are S× -strongly flat.
Proof. This is a corollary of Theorem 0.10. Since we assume the multiplicative subsets
S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R to be countable, the condition that the projective dimension of the
R-module SJ−1 R does not exceed 1 for all J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} holds automatically. All
flat modules over an Artinian commutative ring are projective, so our assumptions
28

guarantee that all flat RJ,s -modules are projective, and the assertion of the corollary
follows immediately from Theorem 0.10.

Let P be a (commutative) principal ideal domain and R = P [x] be the ring of
polynomials in one variable x with coefficients in P . Changing the notation of Section 0.5 slightly, denote by S ⊂ P [x] the multiplicative subset of all nonzero elements
of P , viewed as elements of P [x], and by T ⊂ P [x] the multiplicative subset of all
polynomials with content 1.
Proposition 5.2. For any principal ideal domain P , and any two elements s ∈ S
and t ∈ T , the four rings R/sR ⊗R R/tR, R/sR ⊗R T −1 R, S −1 R ⊗R R/tR, and
S −1 R ⊗R T −1 R are Artinian.
Proof. The multiplicative subset ST ⊂ P [x] consists of all the nonzero elements of the
commutative domain R = P [x], so S −1 R⊗R T −1 R = (ST )−1R is a field. Furthermore,
denoting by Q the field of fractions of the domain P , one has S −1 R ⊗R R/tR =
Q[x]/tQ[x], where t is a nonzero polynomial in one variable x over the field Q. This
is obviously an Artinian ring. Finally, for any commutative ring A with a finitely
generated nilpotent ideal n ⊂ A, the ring A is Artinian if and only if the ring A/n
is. Besides, the direct sum of a finite number of Artinian rings is Artinian. This
reduces the task of proving that the rings R/sR ⊗R R/tR and R/sR ⊗R T −1 R are
Artinian to the case of a prime element s ∈ P . In this case, k = R/sR is a field, and
the ring R/sR ⊗R T −1 R is isomorphic to the field of rational functions k(x), since
every unital polynomial f (x) = xn + fn−1 xn−1 + · · · + f0 in the variable x with the
coefficients in k can be lifted to a unital polynomial in x with the coefficients in P ,
which belongs to T . On the other hand, any polynomial t = t(x) ∈ T reduces to a
nonzero polynomial g(x) ∈ k[x] modulo s, so the ring R/sR ⊗R R/tR is isomorphic
to the quotient ring k[x]/gk[x], which is Artinian.

Proof of Theorem 0.14. When the principal ideal domain P is countable, so are both
the multiplicative subsets S1 = S and S2 = T ⊂ R = P [x]. According to Proposition 5.2, all the rings RJ,s , J ⊂ {1, 2}, are Artinian, so Corollary 5.1 is applicable. 
Remark 5.3. A commutative algebra R′ over a commutative ring R is said to be
finite (over R) if it is finitely generated as an R-module. Let P be a countable
PID and R′ be a finite commutative algebra over the ring R = P [x]. Denote by
S1′ = S ′ and S2′ = T ′ ⊂ R′ the images of our two multiplicative subsets S1 = S
and S2 = T ⊂ P [x] in the ring R′ . Then, for any elements s′ ∈ S ′ and t′ ∈ T ′ ,
the four rings R′ /s′ R′ ⊗R′ R′ /t′ R′ , R′ /s′ R′ ⊗R′ T ′−1 R′ , S ′−1 R′ ⊗R′ R′ /t′ R′ , and
S ′−1 R′ ⊗R′ T ′−1 R′ are Artinian, because the similar rings related to the multiplicative
subsets S and T ⊂ R are Artinian by Proposition 5.2 and a commutative ring finite
over an Artinian commutative ring in Artinian.
This provides an elementary explicit construction of pairs of multiplicative subsets
′
S = {S1′ , S2′ } in some countable Noetherian commutative rings R′ of Krull dimension 2 such that all flat R′ -modules are S′× -strongly flat. In particular, if R′ is
a finitely generated commutative algebra of transcendence degree ( = Krull dimension) 2 over a countable field k, then, by the Noether normalization lemma, one can
29

find two elements x, y ∈ R′ such that R′ is finite over its k-subalgebra generated by x
and y, which is the polynomial algebra k[x, y] ⊂ R′ . Applying the above construction
to the principal ideal domain P = k[y] and the ring R = P [x] = k[x, y], we obtain a
pair of multiplicative subsets S1′ , S2′ ⊂ R′ with the desired properties.
Let R be a commutative ring, S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset, and p q be two
prime ideals in R, one of which is properly contained in the other one. We will say
that the multiplicative subset S distinguishes p from q if p ∩ S = ∅ and q ∩ S 6= ∅.
We will say that a collection of multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R distinguishes p
from q if there exists 1 ≤ j ≤ m such that Sj distinguishes p from q.
Lemma 5.4. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring and S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R be a
collection of multiplicative subsets in R. Then the ring RJ,s is Artinian for every
subset of indices J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and every collection of elements sk ∈ Sk , k ∈
{1, . . . , m} \ J if and only if for every pair of prime ideals p
q in R there exists
1 ≤ j ≤ m for which p ∩ Sj = ∅, while q ∩ Sj 6= ∅.
Proof. For any commutative ring R with a collections of multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . ,
Sm ⊂ R, and any J ⊂ {1, . . . , m} and sk ∈ Sk , the map of spectra Spec RJ,s −→
Spec R induced by the commutative ring homomorphism R −→ RJ,s identifies the
spectrum of the ring RJ,s with the subset in Spec R consisting of all the prime ideals
p ⊂ R such that p ∩ Sj = ∅ for all j ∈ J and sk ∈ p for all k ∈
/ J. If the collection
of multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm distinguishes all the pairs of prime ideals one
of which is properly contained in the other one in the ring R, the above conditions
cannot be simultaneously satisfied for two such prime ideals p q ⊂ R. Hence the
Krull dimension of the ring RJ,s is equal to 0. If the ring R is Noetherian, then so is
the ring RJ,s ; and it follows that RJ,s is Artinian.
Conversely, let p
q be a pair of prime ideals in R not distinguished by the
multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm . Denote by J the set of all indices 1 ≤ j ≤ m for
which q ∩ Sj = ∅. For every k ∈ {1, . . . , m} \ J, the intersection p ∩ Sk is nonempty,
so the exists an element sk ∈ p ∩ Sk . Consider the related ring RJ,s . Then both the
prime ideals p and q ⊂ R belong to the image of the map Spec RJ,s −→ Spec R, so
they correspond to a pair of prime ideals one of which is properly contained in the
other one in the ring RJ,s . Consequently, the ring RJ,s has positive Krull dimension
and is not Artinian.

The next lemma is a simple elementary version of the one following after it.
Lemma 5.5. Let R be a Noetherian ring of Krull dimension 1. Then there exists
a multiplicative subset S ⊂ R such that all the rings R/sR, s ∈ S, and S −1 R are
Artinian. If the spectrum of R is countable, one can choose S to be a countable
multiplicative subset in R.
Proof. The point is that the set of all minimal prime ideals in a Noetherian commutative ring is finite. To obtain just some multiplicative subset S
S ⊂ R for which the
−1
rings R/sR and S R are Artinian, it suffices to set S = R \ ki=1 qi , where qi are
the minimal prime ideals in R. Then, by prime avoidance, for any prime ideal p ⊂ R
30

of height 1 there exists an element s ∈ p ∩ S, so the multiplicative subset S ⊂ R
distinguishes all the pairs of prime ideals one of which is properly contained in the
other one in the ring R (cf. [22, Section 13]). When Spec R is countable, one can
choose, for every prime ideal p ⊂ R of height 1, an element s ∈ R not belonging to
any of the minimal prime ideals, and set S to be the multiplicative subset generated
by all the elements s so obtained. Then S is countable and all the pairs of prime
ideals one of which is properly contained in the other one in R are still distinguished
by S, so the rings R/sR, s ∈ S, and S −1 R are Artinian.

Lemma 5.6. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring of Krull dimension 2 with
countable spectrum. Then there exists a pair of countable multiplicative subsets S and
T ⊂ R such that, for any two elements s ∈ S and t ∈ T , the four rings R/sR⊗R R/tR,
R/sR ⊗R T −1 R, S −1 R ⊗R R/tR, and S −1 R ⊗R T −1 R are Artinian.
Proof. Let p1 , p2 , . . . be all the prime ideals of the ring R, numbered by the positive
integers in an arbitrary order. We proceed by induction, constructing two nondecreasing sequences of finite subsets of elements S0′ ⊂ S1′ ⊂ S2′ ⊂ · · · ⊂ R and
T0′ ⊂ T1′ ⊂ T2′ ⊂ · · · ⊂ R in the following way.
Throughout the construction, the following conditions will be always satisfied.
Prime ideals of height 0 in R do not intersect the subsets Sn′ and Tn′ ⊂ R. A prime
ideal of height 1 may intersect either Sn′ , or Tn′ , but not both. Prime ideals of height 2
are allowed to intersect both Sn′ and Tn′ .
For the purposes of this proof, given a finite subset U = Sn′ or Tn′ ⊂ R, we will say
that a prime ideal p ⊂ R of height 1 is a U-prime if p intersects U. Since the primes
of height 0 do not intersect U, such a prime p is a minimal prime over the principal
ideal (u) ⊂ R generated by some element u ∈ U. Since the set U is finite and the
set of all minimal prime ideals in a Noetherian commutative ring is finite, the set of
all U-primes in R will be always finite. (Notice that, by Krull’s Hauptidealsatz, all
minimal primes over a principal ideal in R have height at most 1; but we do not need
to use this result, as all our “U-primes” have height 1 by definition.)
′
To begin with, set S0′ = ∅ = T0′ . For any n ≥ 1, suppose that the subsets Sn−1
′
and Tn−1
⊂ R have been constructed already, and consider the prime ideal pn ⊂ R.
′
′
If pn is a prime ideal of height 0, we set Sn′ = Sn−1
and Tn′ = Tn−1
.
′
If pn is a prime ideal of height 1, it may intersect one of the two subsets Sn−1
and
′
′
and
, or it may intersect neither of them. In the former case, we set Sn′ = Sn−1
Tn−1
′
′
Tn = Tn−1 . In the latter case, we use prime avoidance to find an element s ∈ pn
′
not belonging to any of the Tn−1
-primes and any of the primes of height 0 in R. Set
′
′
′
Sn = Sn−1 ∪ {s} and Tn = Tn−1 .
′
If pn is a prime ideal of height 2, it may intersect both the subsets Sn−1
and
′
Tn−1 ⊂ R, or only one of them, or neither one. In any case, we construct the sets
′
Sn′ and Tn′ so that pn intersects both of them. Specifically, if pn ∩ Sn−1
= ∅, we find
′
an element s ∈ pn not belonging to any of the Tn−1 -primes and any of the primes of
′
′
′
height 0 in R, and set Sn′ = Sn−1
∪ {s}. If pn ∩ Sn−1
6= ∅, we set Sn′ = Sn−1
. Then,
′
if pn ∩ Tn−1 = ∅, we find an element t ∈ pn not belonging to any of the Sn′ -primes
31

′
′
and any of the primes of height 0 in R, and set Tn′ = Tn−1
∪ {t}. If pn ∩ Tn−1
6= ∅,
′
′
we set Tn = Tn−1 .
S
′
After
the whole inductive process has been finished, we set S ′ = ∞
n=1 Sn and
S
∞
′
′
T = n=1 Tn , and observe that any prime ideal p ⊂ R of height h intersects exactly
h of the two subsets S ′ and T ′ ⊂ R. Finally, we set S ⊂ R to be the multiplicative
subset generated by S ′ and T ⊂ R to be the multiplicative subset generated by T ′
in R, and again observe that any prime ideal of height h in R intersects exactly h of
the two multiplicative subsets S and T ⊂ R.
Applying Lemma 5.4, we conclude that the pair of countable multiplicative subsets
S and T ⊂ R has the desired properties.


Proof of Theorem 0.15. Denote the two multiplicative subsets S and T constructed
in Lemma 5.6 by S1 = S and S2 = T , and apply Corollary 5.1.

Remark 5.7. One might wish to extend the construction of Lemma 5.6 to Noetherian
rings R of Krull dimension 3 with countable spectrum by producing a collection of
three multiplicative subsets S, T , and U ⊂ R such that any prime ideal of height h
in R intersects exactly h of them. However, the most straightforward attempt to do
so breaks down on the following problem. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 5.6,
suppose that we have a prime ideal pn ⊂ R of height 1 which does not intersect any
′
′
′
. We need to add an element of the ideal pn
, and Un−1
, Tn−1
of the three sets Sn−1
to one of these three sets in order to produce a new set Sn′ , Tn′ or Un′ that would
interstect pn . The problem occurs when the prime ideal pn is contained in three
′
′
prime ideals of height 2, say q′ , q′′ , and q′′′ , such that q′ intersects Sn−1
and Tn−1
,
′
′′′
′
′
′′
′
while q intersects Sn−1 and Un−1 , and at the same time q intersects Tn−1 and Un−1 .
Then, into whichever of the three sets Sn′ , Tn′ , or Un′ we decide to include an element
of the prime ideal pn , the condition that any prime ideal of height 2 intersects at
most two of these three sets would be violated.
Another approach might be to do several waves of the induction process, treating
all the prime ideals of height 1 before starting with the prime ideals of height 2.
But then the sets S ′ , T ′ , and U ′ produced after an infinite number of such steps
become infinite themselves, and the argument with prime avoidance, based on there
being only a finite number of prime ideals of height 1 intersecting either of these
sets, would no longer work (of course). Yet another approach, which we successfully
develop below, is to use more than d multiplicative subsets for a Noetherian ring of
Krull dimension d with countable spectrum.
In fact, more than d multiplicative subsets for a Noetherian ring of Krull dimension d are necessary in some cases. Let R = k[x, y, z] be the ring of polynomials in
three variables over a countable field k, or alternatively, R = Z[x, y] be the ring of
polynomials in two variables with integer coefficients. Then the intersection of any
finite set of prime ideals of height 2 in R contains infinitely many primes of height 1
[18, Corollary 11], and in particular, the intersection of any three prime ideals of
height 2 contains a prime ideal of height 1. For this reason, one cannot find 3 multiplicative subsets in R such that any prime ideal of height h intersects exactly h of
them. So the result of Proposition 5.9 below, providing 4 multiplicative subsets in a
32

Noetherian ring of Krull dimension 3 with countable spectrum, is really the best one
could hope for in these cases.
In the sequel, when we say that “a collection of multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . ,
Sm ⊂ R in a commutative ring R distinguishes all prime ideals belonging to a certain
set of primes P ⊂ Spec R from all prime ideals belonging to a certain other set of
primes Q ⊂ Spec R ”, we mean that every pair of prime ideals p
q with p and q
belonging to the respective sets of prime ideals in R is distinguished by the collection
of multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R. So, “distinguishing prime ideals” always
means distinguishing pairs of prime ideals one of which is properly contained in the
other one.
Lemma 5.8. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring with countable spectrum, and
let l ≥ 2 be an integer. Then there exists a collection of l multiplicative subsets
S1 , . . . , Sl ⊂ R distinguishing all the prime ideals of height l and l − 1 in R from
each other, and from all the prime ideals of smaller height.
Proof. The assertion of the lemma means that, for every pair of prime ideals p q
in R such that the height of q is equal to l or l − 1, there exists 1 ≤ j ≤ l for which
Sj ∩ p = ∅ and Sj ∩ q 6= ∅.
The proof is similar to that of Lemma 5.6. Let p1 , p2 , . . . be all the prime ideals of
height l or l −1 in the ring R, numbered by the positive integers in an arbitrary order.
We proceed by induction, constructing l nondecreasing sequences of finite subsets of
′
′
′
elements Sj,0
⊂ Sj,1
⊂ Sj,2
⊂ · · · , 1 ≤ j ≤ l in the ring R in the way described
below.
Throughout the construction, the following condition will be always satisfied. Any
prime ideal of height h, 0 ≤ h ≤ l in the ring R may intersect at most h of the
′
′
l finite sets S1,n
, . . . , Sl,n
⊂ R (but not more).
′
′
We will denote the collections of l sets S1,n
, . . . , Sl,n
by S′n for brefity, and say
that a prime ideal p ⊂ R of height h is an S′n -prime if p intersects h of the l sets
′
′
S1,n
, . . . , Sl,n
. Since a prime ideal of height less than h cannot intersect h of these
sets by assumption, such a prime p is a minimal prime over the ideal generated by
′
some collection of h elements sj ∈ Sj,n
, j ∈ J, where J ⊂ {1, . . . , l} is a subset of
′
′
indices of the cardinality |J| = h. Since all the sets S1,n
, . . . , Sl,n
are finite and the
set of all minimal prime ideals in a Noetherian commutative ring is finite, the set of
all S′n -primes in R will be always finite.
′
To begin with, set Sj,0
= ∅ for all 1 ≤ j ≤ l. For any n ≥ 1, suppose that
′
the subsets Sj,n−1 ⊂ R, 1 ≤ j ≤ l have been constructed already; and consider
the minimal element in in the set of all positive integers i such that the prime ideal
pi ⊂ R is not an S′n−1 -prime.
Since pin is a prime ideal of height l or l − 1, there exists an index k, 1 ≤ k ≤ l
′
= ∅. By prime avoidance, we can find an element s ∈ pin
such that pin ∩ Sk,n−1
′
not belonging to any of the S′n−1 -primes of height ≤ l − 1 in R. Then we set Sk,n
=
′
′
′
Sk,n−1 ∪ {s} and Sj,n = Sj,n−1 for all j = 1, . . . , k − 1, k + 1, . . . , l.
33

The sequence of integers in is nondecreasing, 1 ≤ i1 ≤ i2 ≤ i2 ≤ i3 ≤ · · · ; it may
visit a given integer i more than once, but at most l times. If for a certain n ≥ 1
it turns out that all primes of height l and l − 1 are S′n−1 -primes already, we stop
′
′
′
the induction at this point and set Sj,n−1
= Sj,n
= Sj,n+1
= · · · for all 1 ≤ j ≤ l.
Otherwise, the construction proceeds for all n ≥ 1.
S
′
After the whole inductive process has been finished, we set Sj′ = ∞
n=1 Sj,n for all
j = 1, . . . , l, and observe that any prime ideal p ⊂ R of height h ≤ l − 2 intersects at
most h of the l subsets S1′ , . . . , Sl′ ⊂ R, while any prime ideal q ⊂ R of height h = l
or l − 1 intersects exactly h of these l subsets. Finally, we set Sj ⊂ R, 1 ≤ j ≤ l, to
be the multiplicative subset generated by Sj′ , and again observe that any prime ideal
of height h ≤ l − 2 in R intersects at most h of the multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . ,
Sl ⊂ R, while any prime ideal of height h = l or l − 1 in R intersects exactly h of
these l multiplicative subsets.

We recall the notation µ : Z≥0 −→ Z≥0 for the function taking a nonnegative
integer d to the nonnegative integer µ(d) = d + (d − 2) + (d − 4) + · · · + (d − 2k),
where d − 2k = 0 or 1 (see Section 0.5).
Proposition 5.9. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring of finite Krull dimension d with countable spectrum. Then there exists a collection of m = µ(d) countable
multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R such that, for every pair of prime ideals p q
in R there exists 1 ≤ j ≤ m for which p ∩ Sj = ∅, while q ∩ Sj 6= ∅.
Proof. If d = 0, then there are no pairs of prime ideals one of which is properly
contained in the other one in the ring R, so m = 0 and an empty collection of
multiplicative subsets in R is sufficient. If d = 1, one has m = 1 and the one
countable multiplicative subset S ⊂ R constructed in Lemma 5.5 is sufficient. If
d = 2, one has m = 2 and there is a pair of multiplicative subsets S and T ⊂ R
constructed in Lemma 5.6.
Generally for an arbitrary integer d ≥ 0, let k ≥ 0 be an integer such that d−2k = 0
or 1. We apply Lemma 5.8 k times to the same ring R with the parameter l = d,
l = d−2, . . . , l = d−2k+2. This produces the total of m′ = d+(d−2)+· · ·+(d−2k+2)
countable multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm′ ⊂ R.
The first d of these m′ multiplicative subsets distinguish prime ideals of height d
and d−1 from each other and from prime ideals of lower height; the next d−2 of these
multiplicative subsets distinguish prime ideals of height d − 2 and d − 3 from each
other and from prime ideals of lower height, etc. The last d − 2k + 2 = 2 or 3 of these
m′ multiplicative subsets distinguish prime ideals of height d − 2k + 2 and d − 2k + 1
from each other and from prime ideals of height d − 2k and lower.
If d is even, then d − 2k = 0, m = m′ , and we are done. If d is odd, then
d − 2k = 1, m = m′ + 1, and we still need one more multiplicative subset Sm ⊂ R to
distinguish prime ideals of height 1 from prime ideals of height 0 in R. The argument
here repeats the one in the proof of Lemma 5.5. For every prime ideal p of height 1
in R, we use prime avoidance to choose an element s ∈ p not belonging to any of
34

(the finite set of) prime ideals of height 0. Then set Sm ⊂ R to be the multiplicative
subset generated by all the elements s ∈ R so obtained.

Proof of Theorem 0.16. We apply Proposition 5.9 to produce a collection of m = µ(d)
multiplicative subsets S1 , . . . , Sm ⊂ R distinguishing all the prime ideals in R. Then,
by Lemma 5.4, all the rings RJ,s are Artinian. According to Corollary 5.1, it follows
that all flat R-modules are S× -strongly flat.

6. Contramodule Approximation Sequences
The aim of this section is to prepare ground for the proofs of Main Lemmas 0.22
and 0.24 in the next Section 7. The constructions of contramodule approximation
sequences in this section generalize those in [26, Sections 5.2–5.3].
We refer to [26, Section 5.1] and the references therein for a general discussion
of cotorsion theories in abelian categories, including, first of all, the definitions of
a cotorsion theory (or pair ), the approximation sequences and a complete cotorsion
theory, and also a hereditary complete cotorsion theory.
Specifically, we are interested in what we call the flat and the quite flat cotorsion theories in the abelian category of S-contramodule R-modules R–modS-ctra ,
where R is a commutative ring and S ⊂ R is a countable multiplicative subset (see
Lemma 2.1(a)). Our constructions of these cotorsion theories will require making
some assumptions on the ring R and/or the multiplicative subset S.
6.1. Flat cotorsion theory in S-contramodule R-modules for a Noetherian
commutative ring R. We refer to Section 0.1 of the introduction and the paper [8]
for the definition of an (Enochs) cotorsion R-module. In this section, as well as below,
we will be particularly interested in S-contramodule R-modules that are flat, cotorsion, etc. as R-modules. To emphasize this aspect, we will call such S-contramodule
R-modules R-flat, R-cotorsion, etc.
The aim of this section is to prove the following theorem (which generalizes [26,
Theorem 5.2]).
Theorem 6.1. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset. Then the pair of full subcategories (R-flat S-contramodule
R-modules, R-cotorsion S-contramodule R-modules) is a hereditary complete cotorsion theory in the abelian category R–modS-ctra .
Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset. We refer to
Section 3 for the discussion of S-divisible and S-h-divisible R-modules.
Lemma 6.2. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative
subset. Then an R-module is S-divisible if and only if it is S-h-divisible.
Proof. This well-known fact has a straightforward proof. One observes that, in the
notation of Section 2.1, the R-module S −1 R is the inductive limit of the inductive
s1
s2
s3
system of R-modules R −→
R −→
R −→
· · · (cf. [23, proof of Lemma 1.9]).
35

Now let M be an S-divisible R-module and x ∈ M be an element. Set x0 = x and,
proceeding by induction, choose elements x1 , x2 , . . . ∈ M such that sn xn = xn−1 for
all n ≥ 1. Then there exists a unique R-module morphism S −1 R −→ M taking the
−1
element t−1
R to the element xn ∈ M for all n ≥ 0.

n ∈ S
The next three lemmas form a version of the theory developed in [20, Section B.9]
and [22, Section 10] (see also the paper [32]). We refer to Section 2 for the definition
of the S-completion functor ΛR,S , as well as for the definition of a partial order on
the set S and the related discussion.
Lemma 6.3. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring, S ⊂ R be a multiplicative
subset, K ⊂ L be a finitely generated R-module and its submodule, and F be an
R-module. Then the natural map between the projective limits
lims∈S K/sK ⊗R F −−→ lims∈S K/(K ∩ sL) ⊗R F
←−
←−
is an isomorphism.
Proof. For any S-indexed projective system of R-modules (Ms )s∈S , there is a natural
isomorphism of projective limits
lims∈S Ms = lims∈S limn≥1 Msn .
←−
←− ←−
Thus it suffices to show that the natural map
limn≥1 K/sn K ⊗R F −−→ limn≥1 K/(K ∩ sn L) ⊗R F
←−
←−
is an isomorphism for every fixed s ∈ S. Now, according to the Artin–Rees Lemma
applied to the pair of embedded finitely generated R-modules K ⊂ L and the principal ideal (s) ⊂ R generated by the element s ∈ R, there exists an integer m ≥ 1 such
that K ∩ sn L = sn−m (K ∩ sm L) for every n ≥ m. Hence sn K ⊂ K ∩ sn L ⊂ sn−m K,
implying the desired isomorphism of projective limits over n.

Lemma 6.4. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring, S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset, and F be an R-module such that the R/sR-module F/sF is flat for
all s ∈ S. Then the R-module ΛR,S (F ) = lims∈S F/sF is flat.
←−
Proof. Consider the functor M 7−→ lims∈S M ⊗R F/sF acting from the category of
←−
finitely generated R-modules to the category of R-modules. Let us show that this
functor is exact.
Indeed, for any short exact sequence of finitely generated R-modules 0 −→ K −→
L −→ M −→ 0 there are short exact sequences of R/sR-modules 0 −→ K ∩ sn L −→
sn L −→ sn M −→ 0. Applying the functor − ⊗R F preserves exactness of these short
exact sequences, since F/sF is a flat R/sR module. The passage to the projective
limits over s ∈ S preserves exactness of the resulting short exact sequences of tensor
products, because these are countable filtered projective limits of surjective maps. It
remains to take into account Lemma 6.3.
Furthermore, for any finitely generated R-module M we have a natural R-module
morphism
M ⊗R lims∈S F/sF −−→ lims∈S M ⊗R F/sF,
←−
←−
36

which is clearly an isomorphism for finitely generated free R-modules M. Both
the functors being right exact on the category of finitely generated R-modules M,
it follows that the morphism is an isomorphism for all such M and the functor
M 7−→ M ⊗R ΛR,s (F ) is exact on the category of finitely gnerated R-modules.

We recall that, for any countable multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring
R, the natural R-module morphism ∆R,S (M) −→ ΛR,S (M) is surjective for all
R-modules (see Lemma 2.2).
Lemma 6.5. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring, S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset, and F be an R-module such that the R-module F/sF is flat for all
s ∈ S. Then the natural R-module map ∆R,S (F ) −→ ΛR,S (F ) is an isomorphism.
Proof. Denote by K the kernel of the natural map ∆R,S (F ) −→ ΛR,S (F ); so we have
a short exact sequence of R-modules 0 −→ K −→ ∆R,S (F ) −→ ΛR,S (F ) −→ 0.
Applying the functor R/sR ⊗R − and taking into account the fact that the R-module
ΛR,S (F ) is flat by Lemma 6.4, we get a short exact sequence of R/sR-modules
0 −−→ K/sK −−→ ∆R,S (F )/s∆R,S (F ) −−→ ΛR,S (F )/sΛR,S (F ) −−→ 0.
Now we have ∆R,S (F )/s∆R,S (F ) = F/sF by [23, Lemma 1.11] and ΛR,S (F )/sΛR,S (F )
= F/sF by [23, Proposition 2.2(b) and Theorem 2.3 (i)⇔(iv)], hence it follows that
K/sK = 0 and K = sK. As this holds for all s ∈ S, we can apply Lemma 6.2 and
conclude that the natural morphism HomR (S −1 R, K) −→ K is surjective.
On the other hand, both ∆R,S (F ) and ΛR,S (F ) are S-contramodule R-modules (see
Lemma 2.1(b) and [23, Lemma 2.1(a)]), hence K is an S-contramodule R-module and
HomR (S −1 R, K) = 0. Therefore, K = 0.

Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset such that
pdR S −1 R ≤ 1. Let 0 −→ A −→ B −→ C −→ 0 be a short exact sequence of
•
R-modules. Applying the cohomological functor HomD(R–mod) (KR,S
, −), we obtain
an exact sequence
(5) 0 −−→ HomR (S −1 R/R, A) −−→ HomR (S −1 R/R, B) −−→
HomR (S −1 R/R, C) −−→ ∆R,S (A) −−→ ∆R,S (B) −−→ ∆R,S (C) −−→ 0
(see Section 3 for the notation).
Notice that, when R is a Noetherian commutative ring, the S-torsion in R is
bounded for any multiplicative subset S ⊂ R.
Lemma 6.6. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset such
that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then one has HomR (S −1 R/R, F ) = 0 for any
flat R-module F .
Proof. If the S-torsion in a commutative ring R is bounded, then the S-torsion in
any flat R-module F is bounded, too [23, proof of Corollary 2.7]. Furthermore,
one has HomR (S −1 R/R, M) = HomR (S −1 R/R, ΓS (M)) = 0 for any R-module M
with bounded S-torsion, since HomR (S −1 R/R, N) ⊂ HomR (S −1 R, N) = 0 for any
R-module N annihilated by an element s ∈ S.

37

Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative
subset. The pair of full subcategories (R-flat S-contramodule R-modules, R-cotorsion
S-contramodule R-modules) is called the flat cotorsion theory in the abelian category
R–modS-ctra . Having finished the preparatory work, we can now proceed to construct
the approximation sequences in the category R–modS-ctra proving that this is indeed
a complete cotorsion theory (as it was promised in Theorem 6.1).
Lemma 6.7. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable
multiplicative subset. Let C be an S-contramodule R-module, and let 0 −→ K −→
F −→ C −→ 0 be a short exact sequence of R-modules with a flat R-module F . Then
there is a short exact sequence of S-contramodule R-modules
0 −−→ ∆R,S (K) −−→ ∆R,S (F ) −−→ C −−→ 0
with a flat R-module ∆R,S (F ). If K is a cotorsion R-module, then the R-module
∆R,S (K) is also cotorsion.
Proof. By Lemma 2.1(b), we have ∆R,S (C) = C. Furthermore, the R-module
HomR (S −1 R/R, C) is a submodule in the R-module HomR (S −1 R, C), which vanishes by virtue of C being an S-contramodule. Hence the desired short exact
sequence is a particular case of the exact sequence (5). By Lemmas 6.4 and 6.5, the
R-module ∆R,S (F ) is flat for any flat R-module F .
Finally, we have HomR (S −1 R/R, F ) = 0 by Lemma 6.6, and consequently
HomR (S −1 R/R, K) = 0. Assume that the R-module K is S-weakly cotorsion. Then
the exact sequence (3) (from Lemma 3.1) for the R-module K reduces to a short
exact sequence 0 −→ HomR (S −1 R, K) −→ K −→ ∆R,S (K) −→ 0.
Now, since the R-module S −1 R is flat, the R-module HomR (S −1 R, K) is cotorsion
whenever the R-module K is [21, Lemma 1.3.2(a)]. Therefore, the R-module ∆R,S (K)
is also cotorsion in this case, as the cokernel of an injective morphism of cotorsion
R-modules.

Lemma 6.8. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable
multiplicative subset. Let C be an S-contramodule R-module, and let 0 −→ C −→
K −→ F −→ 0 be a short exact sequence of R-modules with a flat R-module F . Then
there is a short exact sequence of S-contramodule R-modules
0 −−→ C −−→ ∆R,S (K) −−→ ∆R,S (F ) −−→ 0
with a flat R-module ∆R,S (F ). If K is a cotorsion R-module, then the R-module
∆R,S (K) is also cotorsion.
Proof. For the reasons mentioned in the proof of Lemma 6.7, we have ∆R,S (C) = C
and HomR (S −1 R/R, F ) = 0. Hence the desired short exact sequence is a particular
case of the exact sequence (5). The R-module ∆R,S (F ) is flat for any flat R-module
F , as it was pointed out. Also for the reasons explained in the proof of Lemma 6.7, we
have HomR (S −1 R/R, C) = 0. Hence HomR (S −1 R/R, K) = 0, and in the same way
as in the proof of Lemma 6.7 one deduces that the R-module ∆R,S (K) is cotorsion
whenever the R-module K is.

38

Proof of Theorem 6.1. All the substantial work has been done already in Lemmas 6.7
and 6.8, which produce the required approximation sequences out of the approximation sequences for the flat cotorsion theory on the category of R-modules R–mod
(which exist by [7, Theorem 10] and [5, Proposition 2]).
One can further observe that the functor Ext1 in the abelian category R–modS-ctra
agrees with the functor Ext1 in R–mod, since R–modS-ctra ⊂ R–mod is a full subcategory closed under kernels, cokernels, and extensions. Besides, the full subcategory
of R-flat objects in R–modS-ctra is closed under direct summands and kernels of epimorphisms, while the full subcategory of R-cotorsion objects in R–modS-ctra is closed
under direct summands and cokernels of monomorphisms, since the full subcategories of flat R-modules and cotorsion R-modules in the abelian category R–mod
have similar properties. This observations are sufficient to imply that the pair of full
subcategories in R–modS-ctra which we are interested in is a cotorsion theory/pair,
and that this cotorsion theory is complete and hereditary.

Remark 6.9. Notice that, in the context of Lemma 6.7, if the R-module K is, at
least, S-weakly cotorsion, then so is the R-module F (because the R-module C, being
an S-contramodule, is consequently S-weakly cotorsion, and F is an extension of C
and K). Hence one has ∆R,S (K) = K/hS (K) and ∆R,S (F ) = F/hS (F ). Similarly,
in the context of Lemma 6.8, if the R-module K is S-weakly cotorsion, then so is the
R-module F (as a quotient R-module of K). Hence one also has ∆R,S (K) = K/hS (K)
and ∆R,S (F ) = F/hS (F ). In other words, for a countable multiplicative subset S in
a Noetherian commutative ring R, in order to produce the approximation sequences
for the flat cotorsion theory in R–modS-ctra from the approximation sequences for the
flat cotorsion theory in R–mod, all one needs to do is to quotient out the maximal
S-divisible submodules.
6.2. Quite flat cotorsion theory in the bounded torsion case. Let R be a
commutative ring, S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset, and M be an R-module. The
S-topology on M is the topology with the base of neighborhoods of zero formed by the
submodules sM ⊂ M, where s ∈ S. The R-module ΛS (M) = lims∈S M/sM is the
←−
completion of M with respect to the S-topology. When S is countable, the topology of
projective limit (of discrete R-modules M/sM) on ΛS (M) always coincides with the
S-topology of the R-module ΛS (M) [23, Proposition 2.2(b) and Theorem 2.3 (i)⇔(ii)].
We refer to [20, Section 1.2] or [25, Section 5] for the definition of a left contramodule over a complete, separated topological associative ring R with a base of
neighborhoods of zero fomed by open right ideals. In the context of this paper, we set
R = ΛS (R), where R is a commutative ring and S ⊂ R is a countable multiplicative
subset. The commutative ring R is endowed with its topology of projective limit of
discrete commutative rings lims∈S R/sR or, which is the same, its S-topology (as an
←−
R-module). We denote the abelian category of R-contramodules by R–contra.
The following result is a generalization of [26, Theorem 5.9].

39

Theorem 6.10. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then the forgetful functor R–contra −→ R–mod induces an equivalence of abelian categories R–contra ≃
R–modS-ctra .
Proof. In fact, this assertion holds under in the greater generality of a multiplicative subset S ⊂ R such that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1 and the S-torsion in R is bounded.
See [24, Example 2.4(3)]. For a countable multiplicative subset S ⊂ R such that the
S-torsion in R is unbounded, the abelian category R–contra is, generally speaking, a
full subcategory in the abelian category R–modS-ctra with an exact embedding functor
R–contra −→ R–modS-ctra [24, Example 3.7(2)] (cf. [26, Theorem 5.20]).

It is important for us that, when the multiplicative subset S ⊂ R is countable,
the topological ring R has a countable base of neighborhoods of zero, so the results
of [25, Sections 6–7] are applicable.
An R-contramodule F is called flat if the R/sR-modules F/sF are flat for all elements s ∈ S (see [21, Section D.1] or [25, Sections 5–6]). Unlike in the Noetherian case
of Section 6.1, there is no claim that flat R-contramodules are flat R-modules in our
present generality (when S is just a countable multiplicative subset in a commutative
ring R such that the S-torsion in R is bounded).
Lemma 6.11. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative
subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then, for any flat R-module F , the
S-contramodule R-module ∆R,S (F ) is a flat R-contramodule.
Proof. By [23, Lemma 1.11], we have ∆R,S (F )/s∆R,S (F ) = F/sF , which is a flat
R/sR-module.

The definitions of an almost cotorsion and a quite flat R-module were given
in Section 0.6. The following definitions extend these concepts to the realm of
S-contramodule R-modules. For simplicity of notation, let us recall and use the fact
that the functor Ext1 in the abelian category R–modS-ctra agrees with the functor
Ext1 in the abelian category R–mod, as R–modS-ctra ⊂ R–mod is a full subcategory
closed under kernels, cokernels, and extensions.
Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset such
that the S-torsion in R is bounded. For any countable multiplicative subset T ⊂ R,
consider the S-contramodule R-module ∆R,S (T −1 R). An S-contramodule R-module
C is said to be almost cotorsion if Ext1R (∆R,S (T −1 R), C) = 0 for all countable multiplicative subsets T ⊂ R. An S-contramodule R-module F is said to be quite flat if
Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all almost cotorsion S-contramodule R-modules C.
In other words, these definitions mean that the pair of full subcategories (quite flat
S-contramodule R-modules, almost cotorsion S-contramodule R-modules) is defined
as the cotorsion theory/pair generated by the objects ∆R,S (T −1 R) in the abelian
category R–modS-ctra . This cotorsion theory is called the quite flat cotorsion theory
in the abelian category R–modS-ctra .
40

Once again, there is no claim that quite flat S-contramodule R-modules are quite
flat as R-modules (even for a Noetherian ring R). On the other hand, the following
assertions hold.
Proposition 6.12. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then all quite flat S-contramodule
R-modules are flat R-contramodules.
Proof. Both the arguments in [26, proof of Proposition 5.12] are applicable to the situation at hand just as well (proving also in addition that an S-contramodule R-module
is quite flat if and only if it is a direct summand of a transfinitely iterated extension
of the objects ∆R,S (T −1 R) in the category R–modS-ctra , in the sense of the inductive
limit, or more precisely, of [25, Definition 4.3]).

Theorem 6.13. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative
subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then an S-contramodule R-module
is almost cotorsion if and only if it is almost cotorsion as an R-module.
Proof. The proof of this theorem does not really use the condition of countability of
the multiplicative subset S ⊂ R, but only the conditions that the S-torsion in R is
bounded and that the projective dimension of the R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1.
We will construct an isomorphism of the Ext modules
Ext1R (F, C) ≃ Ext1R–modS-ctra (∆R,S (F ), C)
for any flat R-module F and any S-contramodule R-module C. Specializing to the
case of the flat R-module F = T −1 R will then immediately imply the assertion of
the theorem.
Suppose that we have short exact sequence of R-modules
(6)

0 −−→ C −−→ B −−→ F −−→ 0,

where C is a flat R-module and C is an S-contramodule R-module. Applying the
functor ∆R,S and recalling the exact sequence (5) from Section 6.1 together with
Lemma 6.6, we get a short exact sequence of S-contramodule R-modules
(7)

0 −−→ C −−→ ∆R,S (B) −−→ ∆R,S (F ) −−→ 0,

because ∆R,S (C) = C by Lemma 2.1(b). There is a natural adjunction morphism
from the short exact sequence (6) to the short exact sequence (7), hence it follows that
the sequence (6) is the pullback of the sequence (7) with respect to the adjunction
morphism F −→ ∆R,S (F ).
Conversely, given a short exact sequence of S-contramodule R-modules
(8)

0 −−→ C −−→ B ′ −−→ ∆R,S (F ) −−→ 0,

one can take the pullback with respect to the morphism F −→ ∆R,S (F ) in order to
produce a short exact sequence of R-modules (6). Then there is a natural morphism
of short exact sequences of R-modules from the exact sequence (6) into the exact
sequence (8); and the adjunction morphisms provide an isomorphism from the exact
sequence (7) to the exact sequence (8).

41

Theorem 6.14. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative
subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then the pair of full subcategories
(quite flat S-contramodule R-modules, almost cotorsion S-contramodule R-modules)
is a hereditary complete cotorsion theory in the abelian category R–modS-ctra .
Proof. Since the R-module T −1 R is flat for any (countable) multiplicative subset
T ⊂ R, the R-contramodule ∆R,S (T −1 R) is flat by Lemma 6.11. Identifying the
category R–modS-ctra with the category R–contra by Theorem 6.10, we can apply the
result of [25, Corollary 7.11], according to which any cotorsion theory generated by
a set of flat R-contramodules is complete in R–contra.
To show that the quite flat cotorsion theory in R–modS-ctra is hereditary, we
will check that the objects ∆R,S (T −1 R) have projective dimension at most 1 in
R–modS-ctra . This will prove the stronger claim that the class of almost cotorsion
S-contramodule R-modules is closed under the passages to arbitrary quotient objects in R–modS-ctra , while all quite flat S-contramodule R-modules have projective
dimension at most 1 as objects of R–modS-ctra .
Indeed, let 0 −→ Q −→ P −→ T −1 R −→ 0 be a projective resolution of the
R-module T −1 R. Applying the functor ∆R,S and using the exact sequence (5)
together with Lemma 6.6, we obtain a short exact sequence of S-contramodule
R-modules 0 −→ ∆R,S (Q) −→ ∆R,S (P ) −→ ∆R,S (T −1 R) −→ 0. The functor
∆R,S : R–mod −→ R–modS-ctra is left adjoint to an exact functor, so it takes projectives to projectives. Thus we have obtained the desired two-term projective resolution
of our object ∆R,S (T −1 R) ∈ R–modS-ctra .

6.3. Separated S-contramodule R-modules. Let R be a commutative ring and
S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset. An R-module C is said to be S-complete if the
natural map
λR,S,C : C −−→ ΛR,S (C) = lims∈S C/sC
←−
is surjective, and S-separated if the map λR,S,C is injective.
T
Clearly, an R-module C is S-separated if and only if the intersection s∈S sC ⊂ C
vanishes.
It follows that any R-submodule of an S-separated R-module is
S-separated.
For any multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring R such that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1,
any S-separated and S-complete R-module is an S-contramodule [23, Lemma 2.1(a)].
It follows from our Lemmas 2.1(b) and 2.2 that, for any countable multiplicative
subset S ⊂ R, any S-contramodule R-module is S-complete.
The following corollaries pick out the aspects of the results of Sections 6.1–6.2 relevant for the proofs of Main Lemmas 0.22 and 0.24 in Section 7. We recall that, according to our terminology introduced in the beginning of Section 6.1, an S-contramodule
R-module is called R-almost cotorsion if it is almost cotorsion as an R-module.
Corollary 6.15. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring, S ⊂ R be a countable
multiplicative subset, and C be an R-almost cotorsion S-contramodule R-module.
Then the R-module C can be presented as the cokernel of an injective morphism of
R-almost cotorsion S-separated S-complete R-modules.
42

Proof. By Theorem 6.1, or more specifically by Lemma 6.7, there exists a short exact
sequence of S-contramodule R-modules 0 −→ K −→ F −→ C −→ 0, where the
R-mdoule F is flat and the R-module K is cotorsion. What is important for us is
that the R-module K is almost cotorsion; since the R-module C is almost cotorsion
by assumption, it follows that the R-module F is almost cotorsion, too.
Furthermore, any R-flat S-contramodule R-module is S-separated by Lemma 6.5.
The R-module F being S-separated, it follows that its submodule K is S-separated,
too. Thus K −→ F is an injective morphism of R-almost cotorsion S-separated
S-contramodules with the cokernel C.

Corollary 6.16. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset such that the S-torsion in R is bounded. Then any R-almost cotorsion
S-contramodule R-module can be presented as the cokernel of an injective morphism
of R-almost cotorsion S-separated S-complete R-modules.
Proof. By Theorem 6.14, the quite flat cotorsion theory in R–modS-ctra is complete.
Hence for any S-contramodule R-module C there exists a short exact sequence 0 −→
K −→ F −→ C −→ 0, where K is an almost cotorsion S-contramodule R-module
and F is a quite flat S-contramodule R-module.
By Theorem 6.13, K is an almost cotorsion R-module. Assuming that C is an
almost cotorsion R-module, we can conclude that the R-module F is almost cotorsion,
too. By Proposition 6.12, F is a flat R-contramodule. By [21, Corollary D.1.7] or [25,
Corollary 6.15], all flat R-contramodules are S-separated. So the R-module F is
S-separated, and it follows that its submodule K is S-separated, too.
Thus K −→ F is an injective morphism of R-almost cotorsion S-separated
S-contramodule R-modules with the cokernel C.

Remark 6.17. Just as in [26, Sections 5.5–5.6], for any countable multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring R one can define the full subcategory of quotseparated
S-contramodule R-modules R–modqs
S-ctra ⊂ R–mod and show that it is equivalent to
the abelian category R–contra. The one can proceed to construct, following essentially the exposition in [21, Section D.4] with the words “very flat” replaced by “quite
flat” and the word “contraadjusted” replaced by “almost cotorsion”, and with the
same simplifications as in [26], the quite flat cotorsion theory on the abelian category R–modqs
S-ctra . In the same way as in [26], it follows that any R-almost cotorsion
quotseparated S-contramodule R-module is the cokernel of an injective morphism of
R-almost cotorsion S-separated S-complete R-modules. We omit the details.
7. Quite Flat and Almost Cotorsion Modules
Let us start from recalling the definitions given in Section 0.6. Let R be a commutative ring. We say that an R-module C is almost cotorsion if Ext1R (S −1 R, C) = 0
for all at most countable multiplicative subsets S ⊂ R. An R-module F is said to be
quite flat if Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all almost cotorsion R-modules C.
43

An R-module F is quite flat if and only if it is a direct summand of a transfinitely iterated extension, in the sense of the inductive limit, of R-modules isomorphic to S −1 R, where S ⊂ R are (at most) countable multiplicative subsets [12,
Corollary 6.14]. The pair of full subcategories (quite flat R-modules, almost cotorsion
R-modules) is called the quite flat cotorsion theory in R–mod.
The following four lemmas list the general properties of the classes of almost cotorsion and quite flat modules over commutative rings.
Lemma 7.1. (a) For any commutative ring R, the class of all almost cotorsion
R-modules is closed under extensions, quotients (by arbitrary submodules), infinite
products, and transfinitely iterated extensions in the sense of the projective limit in
the category R–mod.
(b) For any commutative ring R, the class of all quite flat R-modules is closed
under extensions, kernels of surjective morphisms, direct summands, infinite direct
sums, and transfinitely iterated extensions in the sense of the inductive limit in the
category R–mod.
(c) The projective dimension of any quite flat R-module does not exceed 1.
Proof. The properties of closedness with respect to quotients in part (a) and kernels
of surjective morphisms in part (b) follow from the fact that pdR S −1 R ≤ 1 for
all countable multiplicative subsets S ⊂ R. So does the assertion of part (c). All
the other assertions are general properties of Ext1 -orthogonal classes in R–mod [7,
Lemma 1 and Proposition 18].

Lemma 7.2. (a) For any commutative ring R, the class of quite flat R-modules is
closed with respect to the tensor products over R.
(b) For any commutative ring R, any quite flat R-module F , and any almost
cotorsion R-module C, the R-module HomR (F, C) is almost cotorsion.
Proof. Similar to the proof of [21, Lemma 1.2.1], using the isomorphism Ext1R (F ⊗R
G, C) ≃ Ext1R (G, HomR (F, C)), holding for any R-module G, any quite flat R-module
F , and any almost cotorsion R-module C.

Lemma 7.3. Let f : R −→ R′ be a homomorphism of commutative rings. Then
(a) any almost cotorsion R′ -module is also an almost cotorsion R-module in the
R-module structure obtained by the restriction of scalars via f ;
(b) if F is a quite flat R-module, then the S-module S ⊗R F obtained by the
extension of scalars via f is also quite flat.
Proof. Both the assertions hold, essentially, because for any (at most) countable
multiplicative subset S ⊂ R, the image S ′ = f (S) ⊂ R′ of the multiplicative subset
S under the map f is an (at most) countable multiplicative subset S ′ ⊂ R′ , and the
R′ -algebra/module R′ ⊗R S −1 R is isomorphic to S ′−1 R′ (cf. [21, Lemma 1.2.2(a-b)]).

Lemma 7.4. Let f : R −→ R′ be a homomorphism of commutative rings such that
for every element r ′ ∈ R′ there exist an element r ∈ R and an invertible element
44

u ∈ R′ for which r ′ = uf (r). Then an R′ -module is almost cotorsion if and only if it
is almost cotorsion as an R-module.
Proof. The “only if” assertion holds by Lemma 7.3. To prove the “if”, suppose that
we are given a countable multiplicative subset S ′ ⊂ R′ . For every element s′ ∈ S ′ ,
choose an element s ∈ R such that there exists an invertible element u ∈ R′ for which
s′ = uf (s). Let S ⊂ R be the multiplicative subset generated by all the elements
s ∈ R so obtained. Then S is a countable multiplicative subset in R and we have
R′ ⊗R S −1 R = S ′−1 R′ . Now if C is an R′ -module that is almost cotorsion as an
R-module, then Ext1R′ (S ′−1 R, C) = Ext1R′ (R′ ⊗R S −1 R, C) = Ext1R (S −1 R, C) = 0,
hence C is an almost cotorsion R′ -module.

In view of Lemma 7.1(c), it follows from Theorem 0.17 that the projective dimension of a flat module over a commutative Noetherian ring with countable spectrum
cannot exceed 1. Let us present a simpler alternative proof of this result before
proceeding to prove Theorem 0.17.
Lemma 7.5. Let S and T ⊂ R be two multiplicative subsets in a commutative ring R.
Assume that, for any prime ideal p ⊂ R, one has p ∩ S 6= ∅ if and only if p ∩ T 6= ∅.
Then the two R-algebras S −1 R and T −1 R are naturally isomorphic.
Proof. It suffices to check that an element r ∈ R is invertible in S −1 R if and only if
it is invertible in T −1 R. Indeed, if an element r ∈ R is not invertible in S −1 R, then
there exists a maximal ideal m ⊂ S −1 R such that the image of r in S −1 R belongs
to m. Denote by p ⊂ R the full preimage of the maximal ideal m ⊂ S −1 R under the
localization morphism R −→ S −1 R. Then p is a prime ideal in R such that r ∈ p
and p ∩ S = ∅. Conversely, if p ⊂ R is a prime ideal such that p ∩ S = ∅, then the
extension of p in S −1 R is not the unit ideal in S −1 R; so if r ∈ p then r is not invertible
in S −1 R. Thus an element r ∈ R becomes invertible in S −1 R if and only if one has
p ∩ S 6= ∅ for all prime ideals p ⊂ R containing r. As the set of all elements r ∈ R
that become invertible in T −1 R can be described similarly, the assertion follows. 
We refer to the dissertation [6, Section 3.2] for a general discussion of Noetherian
rings with small spectrum.
Lemma 7.6. Let R be a commutative ring with (at most) countable spectrum, and
let S ⊂ R be a multiplicative subset. Then there exists an (at most) countable multiplicative subset T ⊂ S such that T −1 R = S −1 R.
Proof. It suffices to choose, for every prime ideal p ⊂ R such that p ∩ S 6= ∅, an
element t ∈ p ∩ S. Set T ⊂ R to be multiplicative subset generated by all the
elements t ∈ R so obtained. Then the multiplicative subset T is (at most) countable,
it is contained in S, and T −1 R = S −1 R by Lemma 7.5.

Theorem 7.7. For any Noetherian commutative ring R, the supremum of projective
dimensions of flat R-modules is equal to the supremum of projective dimensions of
the R-modules S −1 R over all multiplicative subsets S ⊂ R.
45

Proof. This is [27, Théorème II.3.3.1] (see [14, §1] for a correction of a mistake in the
exposition in [27]).

Corollary 7.8. Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring with countable spectrum.
Then the projective dimension of any flat R-module does not exceed 1.
Proof. According to Lemma 7.6 and [23, Lemma 1.9], the projective dimension of
the R-module S −1 R does not exceed 1 for any multiplicative subset S ⊂ R. Thus it
remains to apply Theorem 7.7.
Alternatively, one can use Theorem 0.17 and Lemma 7.1(c).

First proof of Theorem 0.17. Let us show that Theorem 0.17 follows from Main
Lemma 0.18. Clearly, for any element r ∈ R, the quotient ring R/rR is a Noetherian
ring with (at most) countable spectrum. Proceeding by Noetherian induction (cf.
the proof of [26, Main Theorem 1.3] in [26, Section 2]), we can assume that, for any
nonzero element r ∈ R, all flat R/rR-modules are quite flat.
S
Let q1 , . . . , qk ⊂ R be the minimal prime ideals in R. Set S = R \ ki=1 qk ⊂ R.
Then S is a multiplicative subset in R and the ring S −1 R is Artinian, so all flat
S −1 R-modules are projective. By Lemma 7.6, there exists a countable multiplicative
subset T ⊂ S such that T −1 R = S −1 R.
Let F be a flat R-module. Then the the R/tR-module F/tF is flat for all t ∈ T and
the T −1 R-module T −1 F is flat. By the Noetherian induction assumption, it follows
that the R/tR-module F/tF is quite flat; and all flat T −1 R-modules are projective,
hence also quite flat. Applying Main Lemma 0.18 to the Noetherian commutative
ring R with the countable multiplicative subset T ⊂ R and the flat R-module F , we
conclude that the R-module F is quite flat.

Second proof of Theorem 0.17. Theorem 0.17 follows immediately from (is, in fact,
an equivalent restatement of) Corollary 0.20.

Proof of Corollaries 0.20 and 0.21. It was essentially already explained in Section 0.6
that Proposition 0.19 implies Corollaries 0.20 and 0.21, but let us repeat this explanation here adding a couple of references. The point is that all the R-modules right
1-obtainable from vector spaces over the residue fields of prime ideals in R are not
only almost cotorsion but, in fact, cotorsion. Indeed, all vector spaces are obviously
cotorsion as modules over their respective fields, all restrictions of scalars take cotorsion modules to cotorsion modules [21, Lemma 1.3.4(a)], and all R-modules right
1-obtainable from cotorsion R-modules are cotorsion (by Lemma 1.4).

Proof of Proposition 0.19. The “if” part has been already explained in the preceding
proof. One deduces the “only if” from Main Lemma 0.22 proceeding by Noetherian
induction on the ring R.
Assume that, for all nonzero elements r ∈ R, all almost cotorsion R/rR-modules
are right 1-obtainable from vector spaces over the residue fields of prime ideals of
R/rR. As in the first proof of Theorem 0.17 above, one can find a countable multiplicative subset T ⊂ R such that 0 ∈
/ T and the ring of fractions T −1 R is Artinian.
46

Then all T −1 R-modules are obtainable as finitely iterated extensions of modules over
the residue fields of the maximal ideals of T −1 R.
By Main Lemma 0.22, all almost cotorsion R-modules are right 1-obtainable from
almost cotorsion R/tR-modules, t ∈ T , and almost cotorsion T −1 R-modules. It
remains to recall that all the residue fields of the rings R/tR and T −1 R are, at the
same time, residue fields of the ring R.

Proof of Main Lemmas 0.18 and 0.23. The “only if” assertions hold for any multiplicative subset S in a commutative ring R by Lemma 7.3(b). The “if” assertions
of Main Lemmas 0.18 and 0.23 are deduced from the “only if” assertions of Main
Lemmas 0.22 and 0.24, respectively.
Under any of the respective assumptions on R and/or S, consider a flat R-module
F such that the R/sR-module F/sF is quite flat for all s ∈ S and the S −1 R-module
S −1 F is quite flat. In order to show that the R-module F is quite flat, we will check
that Ext1R (F, C) = 0 for all almost cotorsion R-modules C.
Denote by E the class of all almost cotorsion R/sR-modules, s ∈ S, and all almost
cotorsion S −1 R-modules (viewed as R-modules via the restriction of scalars). By
Lemmas 3.3 and 7.1(c), we have ExtiR (F, E) = 0 for all R-modules E ∈ E and all
i > 0. According to Main Lemma 0.22 or 0.24, all almost cotorsion R-modules
are right 1-obtainable from E. By virtue of Lemma 1.4, it follows it follows that
ExtiR (F, C) = 0 for all almost cotorsion R-modules C.

Main Lemmas 0.22 and 0.24 are deduced from Corollaries 6.15 and 6.16 from
Section 6.3. Before proceeding with this proof, we will need one more lemma.
Lemma 7.9. Let R be a commutative ring and S ⊂ R be a countable multiplicative subset. Then any R-almost cotorsion S-separated S-complete R-module is an
infinitely iterated extension, in the sense of projective limit, of almost cotorsion
R/sR-modules, where s ∈ S.
Proof. We will use the notation from Section 2.1. Let C be an R-almost cotorsion
S-separated S-complete R-module. Then we have C = lims∈S C/sC = limn≥1 C/tn C.
←−
←−
Furthermore, we have exact sequences
tn−1

C/sn C −−→ C/tn C −−→ C/tn−1 C −−→ 0,
showing that the kernels of the projection maps C/tn C −→ C/tn−1 C are quotient
modules of the R-modules C/sC, s ∈ S. Finally, it remains to recall that all
quotient modules of an almost cotorsion R-module C are almost cotorsion R-modules
by Lemma 7.1(a), and all R/sR-modules that are almost cotorsion R-modules are
also almost cotorsion R/sR-modules by Lemma 7.4.

Proof of Main Lemmas 0.22 and 0.24. The “if” assertions hold for any multiplicative
subset S in a commutative ring R. Indeed, all almost cotorsion R/sR-modules and
almost cotorsion S −1 R-modules are almost cotorsion R-modules by Lemma 7.3(a),
and all R-modules right 1-obtainable from almost cotorsion R-modules are almost
cotorsion by Lemmas 1.4 and 7.1(c). The nontrivial part is the “only if”.
47

Denote by E ⊂ R–mod the class of all almost cotorsion R/sR-modules, s ∈ S,
and all almost cotorsion S −1 R-modules (viewed as R-modules via the restriction of
scalars). Let C be an almost cotorsion R-module; we need to show that C is right
1-obtainable from E. Our argument is based on the exact sequence (3) from Section 3
(which is applicable because an almost cotorsion R-module C is S-weakly cotorsion
for a countable multiplicative subset S ⊂ R, by the definition).
In order to prove that C is right 1-obtainable from E, it suffices to check that the
R-modules HomR (S −1 R, C) and ∆R,S (C) are right 1-obtainable from E, while the
R-module HomR (S −1 R/R, C) is right 2-obtainable from E. Let us consider these
three R-modules one by one.
The R-module HomR (S −1 R, C) is almost cotorsion by Lemma 4.6, hence it is an
almost cotorsion S −1 R-module by Lemma 7.4. So the R-module HomR (S −1 R, C)
already belongs to E.
The R-module ∆R,S (C) is almost cotorsion as a quotient module of an almost
cotorsion R-module C (by Lemma 7.1(a)). Besides, it is an S-contramodule R-module
(by Lemma 2.1(b)). Applying Corollary 6.15 or 6.16, we can present ∆R,S (C) as
the cokernel of an injective morphism of R-almost cotorsion S-separated S-complete
R-modules K −→ L. By Lemma 7.9, both K and L are obtainable as infinitely
iterated extensions of almost cotorsion R/sR-modules, s ∈ S. Thus the R-module
∆R,S (C) is simply right obtainable from E.
The R-module HomR (S −1 R/R, C) is an S-contramodule by Lemma 3.2 (and in
fact even an S-separated S-complete R-module, as a projective limit of S-separated
S-complete R-modules). So it is simply right obtainable from R/sR-modules, s ∈
S, by Lemma 2.4 (Lemma 2.3(a) is sufficient). By Lemma 1.6, all R/sR-modules
are right 2-obtainable from almost cotorsion R/sR-modules. Hence the R-module
HomR (S −1 R/R, C) is right 2-obtainable from E.

Remark 7.10. Notice that, for a Noetherian commutative ring of finite Krull dimension with countable spectrum, Theorem 0.16 provides a result stronger than
Theorem 0.17. Indeed, Theorem 0.17 uses the localizations with respect to all countable multiplicative subsets S ⊂ R in order to generate the flat cotorsion theory in
R–mod, while Theorem 0.16 offers a finite collection of such multiplicative subsets.
Nevertheless, these are two different theorems with completely different proofs (one
of them presented in Section 5 and the other one in this Section 7). Moreover, we do
not know how to extend our proof of Theorem 0.16 to the case of Noetherian rings of
infinite Krull dimension, as it is based on Theorem 0.10, which only works for finite
collections of multiplicative subsets.
Still, how many multiplicative subsets are actually needed in Theorem 0.17 ? The
answer is: a countable number. For any Noetherian commutative ring R with countable spectrum, there exists a countable collection of countable multiplicative subsets
S1 , S2 , S3 , . . . ⊂ R such that all R-modules C for which Ext1R (Sj−1 R, C) = 0 for all
j = 1, 2, 3, . . . are cotorsion.
To prove this assertion, one only needs to follow the Noetherian induction argument in the first proof of Theorem 0.17 or in the proof of Proposition 0.19 above.
48

Starting from a Noetherian commutative ring R with countable spectrum, it produces
a countable multiplicative subset T ⊂ R such that the ring T −1 R is Artinian. Then it
passes from the ring R to the countable collection of rings R/tR, t ∈ T , and repeats
the procedure with each of them. What one obtains in this way is a rooted tree in
which the degree of any vertex is at most countable and (due to Noetherianity) there
is no infinite branch. By a countable version of the König Lemma, such a tree is
countable. In each of its vertices, there sits a quotient ring of the original ring R by
a certain ideal and a countable multiplicative subset in this quotient ring. All one
needs to do is to lift these multiplicative subsets in the quotient rings to countable
multiplicative subsets in R, using the procedure from the proof of Lemma 7.4. This
produces the desired collection of multiplicative subsets Sj ⊂ R.
One needs to follow the argument all the way down to the proof of Main
Lemma 0.22 in order to convince oneself that all the R-modules that are Sj -weakly
cotorsion for all j ≥ 1 are right 1-obtainable from vector spaces over the residue
fields of the spectrum points of R. Then it follows that all such R-modules are
cotorsion.
References
[1] L. Angeleri Hügel, D. Herbera, J. Trlifaj. Divisible modules and localizations. J. Algebra 294,
#2, p. 519–551, 2005.
[2] H. Bass. Finitistic dimension and a homological generalization of semi-primary rings. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 95, p. 466–488, 1960.
[3] S. Bazzoni, L. Salce. Strongly flat covers. J. London Math. Soc. 66, #2, p. 276–294, 2002.
[4] S. Bazzoni, L. Salce. On strongly flat modules over integral domains. Rocky Mountain J. Math.
34, #2, p. 417–439, 2004.
[5] L. Bican, R. El Bashir, E. Enochs. All modules have flat covers. Bull. London Math. Soc. 33,
#4, p. 385–390, 2001.
[6] C. H. Colbert. Cardinality restrictions on Noetherian spectra. Ph. D. Dissertation, University
of Texas at Austin, May 2017.
[7] P. C. Eklof, J. Trlifaj. How to make Ext vanish. Bull. London Math. Soc. 33, #1, p. 41–51,
2001.
[8] E. Enochs. Flat covers and flat cotorsion modules. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 92, #2, p. 179–184,
1984.
[9] L. Fuchs, L. Salce. S-divisible modules over domains. Forum Math. 4, #4, p. 383–394, 1992.
[10] L. Fuchs, L. Salce. Modules over non-Noetherian domains. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 84, American Math. Society, 2001.
[11] L. Fuchs, L. Salce. Almost perfect commutative rings. To appear in J. Pure Appl. Algebra.
[12] R. Göbel, J. Trlifaj. Approximations and endomorphism algebras of modules. Second Revised
and Extended Edition. De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics 41, De Gruyter, Berlin–Boston,
2012.
[13] V. E. Govorov. On flat modules (Russian). Sibir. Mat. Zh. 6, p. 300–304, 1965.
[14] L. Gruson. Dimension homologique des modules plats sur un anneau commutatif noetherien.
Convegno di Algebra Commutativa, INDAM, Rome, 1971, Symposia Mathematica XI, Academic Press, London, 1973, p. 243–254.
[15] R. M. Hamsher. On the structure of a one-dimensional quotient field. J. Algebra 19, #3,
p. 416–425, 1971.
49

[16] D. K. Harrison. Infinite abelian groups and homological methods. Ann. of Math. 69, #2,
p. 366–391, 1959. Correction, Ann. of Math. 71, #1, p. 197, 1960.
[17] D. Lazard. Autour de la platitude. Bull. Soc. Math. France 97, p. 81–128, 1969.
[18] S. McAdam. Intersections of height 2 primes. J. Algebra 49, #2, p. 315–321, 1977.
[19] E. Matlis. Cotorsion modules. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 49, 1964.
[20] L. Positselski. Weakly curved A∞ -algebras over a topological local ring. Electronic preprint
arXiv:1202.2697 [math.CT].
[21] L. Positselski. Contraherent cosheaves. Electronic preprint arXiv:1209.2995 [math.CT].
[22] L. Positselski. Contraadjusted modules, contramodules, and reduced cotorsion modules.
Moscow Math. J. 17, #3, p. 385–455, 2017. arXiv:1605.03934 [math.CT]
[23] L. Positselski. Triangulated Matlis equivalence. Electronic preprint arXiv:1605.08018
[math.CT], to appear in J. Algebra Appl.
[24] L. Positselski. Abelian right perpendicular subcategories in module categories. Electronic
preprint arXiv:1705.04960 [math.CT].
[25] L. Positselski, J. Rosický. Covers, envelopes, and cotorsion theories in locally presentable abelian categories and contramodule categories. J. Algebra 483, p. 83–128, 2017.
arXiv:1512.08119 [math.CT]
[26] L. Positselski, A. Slávik. Flat morphisms of finite presentation are very flat. Electronic preprint
arXiv:1708.00846 [math.CA].
[27] M. Raynaud, L. Gruson. Critères de platitude et de projectivité: Techniques de “platification”
d’un module. Invent. Math. 13, #1–2, p. 1–89, 1971.
[28] L. Salce. Cotorsion theories for abelian groups. Conference on abelian groups and their relationship to the theory of modules, INDAM, Rome, 1977, Symposia Mathematica XXIII, Academic
Press, London, 1979, p. 11–32.
[29] J. Šaroch, J. Št’ovı́ček. The countable telescope conjecture for module categories. Adv. Math.
219, #3, p. 1002–1036, 2008. arXiv:0801.3936 [math.RA]
[30] J. Trlifaj. Cotorsion theories induced by tilting and cotilting modules. In: Abelian groups, rings
and modules (Perth, 2000), Contemp. Math. 273, AMS, Providence, 2001, p. 285–300.
[31] J. Trlifaj. Covers, envelopes, and cotorsion theories. Lecture notes for the workshop “Homological methods in module theory”, Cortona, September 2000, 39 pp. Available from
http://matematika.cuni.cz/dl/trlifaj/NALG077cortona.pdf
[32] A. Yekutieli. Flatness and completion revisited. Electronic preprint arXiv:1606.01832
[math.AC], to appear in Algebr. Represent. Theory.
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Haifa,
Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel; and
Laboratory of Algebraic Geometry, National Research University Higher School
of Economics, Moscow 119048; and
Sector of Algebra and Number Theory, Institute for Information Transmission
Problems, Moscow 127051, Russia; and
Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Department of Algebra,
Sokolovská 83, 186 75 Prague 8, Czech Republic
E-mail address: positselski@yandex.ru
A.S.: Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Department of
Algebra, Sokolovská 83, 186 75 Prague 8, Czech Republic
E-mail address: Slavik.Alexander@seznam.cz

50

