(NON)VANISHING RESULTS ON LOCAL COHOMOLOGY OF
VALUATION RINGS

arXiv:1601.01954v4 [math.AC] 1 May 2017

RANKEYA DATTA

Abstract. We examine local cohomology in the setting of valuation rings. The novelty
of this investigation stems from the fact that valuation rings are usually non-Noetherian,
whereas local cohomology has been extensively developed mostly in a Noetherian setting.
Various vanishing results on local cohomology for valuation rings of finite Krull dimension
are obtained, and a uniform bound on the global dimension of such rings is established. Our
investigation reveals differences in the sheaf theoretic definition of local cohomology, and the
algebraic definition in terms of a limit of certain Ext functors.

Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Torsion cohomology with respect to the maximal ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Projective dimension of the residue field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Countably exhaustive ordered abelian groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. Examples of countably exhaustive groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Global dimension of valuation rings and torsion cohomology . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Sheaf and local cohomology of valuation rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. A valuation ring of infinite Krull dimension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
3
3
6
6
9
11
12
14
18

1. Introduction
In this paper we study local cohomology of valuation rings. Since such rings are usually
non-Noetherian, some caution is required in what one means by local cohomology. We adopt
Grothendieck’s definition [Gro67] – the derived functors of sections of a sheaf of abelian groups
on a space with support in a closed set are called local cohomology functors. The generality of
this definition often necessitates Noetherian restrictions in applications of local cohomology
to algebraic geometry and commutative algebra. Indeed, local cohomology has proved to be
a potent tool for understanding Noetherian schemes, and hence also Noetherian rings (see
[ILL+07] for a range of applications). Nonetheless, there have been efforts to clarify when
Noetherian hypotheses are necessary, in order to be able to apply this machinery to arbitrary
schemes (for instance, Gabber-Ramero [GR04] and Schenzel [Sch03]).
In commutative algebra, local cohomology with respect to an ideal I of a ring A is usually
defined as a limit of Ext functors (see [HT07], [Lip02], [BS13]) – more precisely as the right
derived functors of the I-torsion functor 1, ΓI , where for a A-module M
ΓI (M ) = {x ∈ M : ∃n ∈ N such that I n x = 0}.
1This terminology is borrowed from [ILL+07, Chapter 7]. In [Lip02], Γ is more accurately called the
I

‘I-power torsion functor’.
1

The derived functors of ΓI are also given the name ‘local cohomology’ because the sheaf
theoretic and algebraic definitions give isomorphic cohomology modules on Noetherian affine
schemes [Har77, Exercise III.3.3]. However, we show that such isomorphisms fail when the
ring A is a valuation ring (Proposition 6.5), affirming the need for caution in what one means
by local cohomology in a non-Noetherian setting. For this reason, we henceforth call the
derived functors of ΓI I-torsion cohomology.
Results: The main results of this paper are summarized, although, for simplicity, not
always in complete generality. Most of the vanishing results are obtained for valuation rings
of finite Krull dimension. Since any valuation ring of the function field of an algebraic variety
over the ground field has finite Krull dimension, such rings already constitute a rich and
interesting class.
In the remainder of the paper, V denotes a valuation ring with maximal ideal m. We first
examine torsion cohomology of valuation rings. The behavior of the m-torsion cohomology
functors is governed by whether m is principal:
Theorem 3.2. Let M be a V -module.
(1) If m is principal, then Ri Γm (M ) = 0 for all i ≥ 2, and R1 Γm (M ) is the cokernel of the
canonical map M → Mf , where f is a generator of m.
(2) If m is not principal, then Ri Γm (M ) ∼
= ExtiV (V /m, M ) for all i ≥ 0.

Since the functors ExtiV (V /m, _) are influenced by the projective dimension of the residue
field V /m, we examine the latter in Section 4. We show that the projective dimension of V /m
is at most 2 when V has finite Krull dimension (Theorem 4.2.5), which gives vanishing of
m-torsion cohomology in degrees ≥ 3 even when m is not principal (Corollary 4.2.6).
The results of Section 4 generalize – for an arbitrary ideal I of a valuation ring V of finite
Krull dimension, the projective dimension of V /I is at most 2. As a result, the following
bound on global dimension is obtained:
Theorem 5.1. The global dimension of a valuation ring V of finite Krull dimension is ≤ 2.
A simple consequence of the finiteness of global dimension is the vanishing of I-torsion cohomology in degrees ≥ 3 (see Theorem 5.2). Moreover, we show in Proposition 3.3 that 3 is an
optimal lower bound for triviality of torsion cohomology.
We next examine local cohomology of sheaves on Spec(V ), proving the following:
Theorem 6.1. Let X = Spec(V ), Z ⊆ X a closed set, and U = X − Z. For a sheaf of abelian
groups F on X, let H i ΓZ (F) denote the ith local cohomology of F with support in Z. Then
(1) H i ΓZ (F) ∼
= H i−1 (U, F|U ) for all i > 1, and H 1 ΓZ (F) = coker(resX
U : F(X) →
F(U )).
(2) If V has finite Krull dimension, H i ΓZ (F) = 0 for all i > 1.
Thus, local cohomology computations on the spectrum of a valuation ring reduce to computations of sheaf cohomology on open subschemes. Theorem 6.1 follows from the triviality
of higher sheaf cohomology of abelian sheaves on the spectrum of any local ring (Lemma
6.4). Finiteness of Krull dimension plays an important role in Theorem 6.1(2), because in
this case an open subscheme of Spec(V ) is always affine (Lemma 6.2). We end the paper
with an example of a valuation ring of infinite Krull dimension for which the ‘affineness’ of
open subschemes fails (Proposition 7.1). Consequently, one would expect Theorem 6.1 to also
fail. Indeed, local cohomology no longer vanishes in degrees > 1 even for the structure sheaf
(Proposition 7.1(4)).
2

Acknowledgments: I am grateful to Karen E. Smith for graciously sharing her ideas, and
for her suggestions that have significantly improved the quality of this paper. I also thank
her for coming up with the name ‘countably exhaustive ordered abelian group’ (Definition
4.1.1). Bhargav Bhatt and Greg Muller’s encouragement inspired this investigation, and I
had numerous enlightening discussions with Bhargav at various stages. One such discussion
helped in simplifying the exposition of Section 6. Andreas Blass and Salman Siddiqi patiently
answered some set theoretic questions I encountered in Section 4. I also thank Viswambhara
Makam, Takumi Murayama, Linquan Ma for helpful discussions, and Juan Felipe Pérez for
comments on a draft of this paper. The author was partially supported by NSF Grant DMS1501625.
2. Preliminaries
All rings are assumed to be commutative, with an identity element. By a local ring we
mean a commutative ring (which is not necessarily Noetherian) with a unique maximal ideal.
We denote the residue field of a local ring by κ. The symbol N denotes the positive integers.
The terminologies ‘limit’ and ‘colimit’ are preferred over ‘inverse/projective limit’ and ‘direct/injective limit’. We assume the reader is familiar with basic properties of valuations and
valuation rings. Both these terms are used interchangeably in the paper. A great all round
reference for valuation theory is [Bou89, Chapter VI]. Valuations are sometimes defined in
different ways in the literature (additive vs. multiplicative notation), so we fix the definition
we use:
Definition 2.1. [Bou89, VI.3.1, Definition 1] A valuation v on a field K with value group
G (a totally ordered abelian group) is a surjective group homomorphism
v : K× ։ G
such that for all x, y ∈ K × with x + y 6= 0, v(x + y) ≥ min{v(x), x(y)}. For a field extension
K/k, a valuation v on K/k is a valuation v on K such that v(k× ) = {0}.

Given an ordered abelian group G, we use G+ to denote the set of elements of G that
are strictly bigger than the identity element 0. For a ∈ G, we use G≥a to denote the set of
elements of G that are ≥ a, and similarly for G≤a . For elements x, y in a ring R, we use x|y
to denote x divides y.
To avoid confusion, we denote the I-torsion cohomology functors by Ri ΓI , and the local
cohomology functors with support in a closed set Z by H i ΓZ .
3. Torsion cohomology with respect to the maximal ideal
Recall that given a commutative ring A and an ideal I ⊂ A, we get a covariant functor
ΓI : M odA → M odA

called the I − torsion functor, where for an A-module M ,

ΓI (M ) = {m ∈ M : ∃n ∈ N such that I n m = 0}.

It is easy to see that ΓI is left-exact, and its right-derived functors, denoted Ri ΓI for i ≥ 0,
will be called the I-torsion cohomology functors 2. One can also verify that
ΓI (M ) ∼
= colimt∈N HomA (A/I t , M ),
2This non-standard terminology is used for reasons mentioned in the Introduction.
3

and using the fact that cohomology commutes with filtered direct limits, it follows that for
any i ≥ 0,
Ri ΓI (M ) ∼
= colimt∈N ExtiA (A/I t , M ).
In this section, we will examine the functors Ri ΓI when A is a valuation ring V and I is
the maximal ideal m of V . The following Lemma will be useful:
Lemma 3.1. Let v be a non-trivial valuation on a field K with value group G. Let V be the
corresponding valuation ring, and m its maximal ideal. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) m2 6= m.
(2) G+ := {g ∈ G : g > 0} has a smallest element.
(3) m is principal.
Proof. The equivalence of (2) and (3) follows from the fact that the set of principal ideals of
V is linearly ordered by inclusion. Since v is a non-trivial valuation, m is a non-zero ideal,
and so (3) ⇒ (1) follows from Nakayama’s lemma. Thus, it suffices to show (1) ⇒ (2). We
prove the contrapositive of (1) ⇒ (2). Suppose that G+ does not have a smallest element.
Let x ∈ m be a non-zero element. Let
α := v(x).

By our assumption on G, there exists β ∈ G such that 0 < β < α. Similarly, there exists
γ ∈ G such that
0 < γ < min{β, α − β}.
Then 0 < 2γ < β + (α − β) = α. Choose y ∈ V such that v(y) = γ. Then y ∈ m, and
v(y 2 ) = 2γ < α = v(x).

Hence y 2 |x, and so x ∈ (y 2 ) ⊂ m2 . This proves m ⊆ m2 , from which it follows that m = m2 . 
The Lemma can be used to give a quick characterization of the modules Ri Γm (M ), for a
module M over a valuation ring (V, m).
Theorem 3.2. Let V be a valuation ring with non-zero maximal ideal m and residue field κ.
Let M be a V -module.
(1) If m is principal, then Ri Γm (M ) = 0 for all i ≥ 2, and R1 Γm (M ) is the cokernel of
the natural map M → Mf , where f is a generator of m.
(2) If m is not principal, then Ri Γm (M ) ∼
= ExtiV (κ, M ) for all i ≥ 0. In particular,
Γm (M ) = {x ∈ M : mx = 0}, i.e., Γm (M ) is the socle of M .
Proof. We prove (2) first. Note that if m is not principal, then using Lemma 3.1(1) and
induction, one can show that for all n ∈ N, m = mn . Then for all i ≥ 0,
Ri Γm (M ) ∼
= colimt∈N Exti (V /mt , M ) = colimt∈N Exti (κ, M ) = Exti (κ, M ).
V

V

V

Now suppose that m is principal. Let m = (f ), for some f 6= 0. Note that for all t ∈ N, f t is
a non-zerodivisor on V , giving us a short exact sequence of V -modules
f t·

0 → V −−→ V → V /mt → 0,

where the first map is left multiplication by f t . For a V -module M , we then get a long exact
sequence of Ext-modules
f t·

(3.2.0.1) 0 → HomV (V /mt , M ) → HomV (V, M ) −−→ HomV (V, M ) → Ext1V (V /mt , M ) → . . .
4

The projectivity of V gives us ExtiV (V, M ) = 0 for all i ≥ 1. As a result, for all i ≥ 2,
ExtiV (V /mt , M ) = 0, and so
Ri Γm (M ) ∼
= colimt∈N Exti (V /mt , M ) = 0.
V

Since HomV (V, M ) ∼
= M , looking at the first few terms of (3.2.0.1) we get the exact sequence
f t·

0 → HomV (V /mt , M ) → M −−→ M → Ext1V (V /mt , M ) → 0.

We then get a natural map of exact sequences
0

HomV (V /mt , M )

f t·

M

HomV (V /mt+1 , M )

M

Ext1V (V /mt , M )

0

Ext1V (V /mt+1 , M )

0

f·

idM

0

M

f t+1 ·

M

where the left and right-most vertical maps are induced by the canonical map V /mt+1 ։ V /mt .
Taking the colimit of these exact sequences over t ∈ N and using the fact that the colimit
of
f·
f·
f·
M−
→M −
→M −
→ ...
is Mf , we get an exact sequence
0 → Γm (M ) ֒→ M → Mf → colimt∈N Ext1V (V /mt , M ) → 0,

where the map M → Mf is the canonical one. Then R1 Γm (M ) ∼
= colimt∈N Ext1V (V /mt , M ) =
coker(M → Mf ), completing the proof of (1).

We now mount an attack on understanding Ri Γm , when m is not finitely generated. Somewhat surprisingly, we will see in Section 4 that for all valuation rings of finite Krull dimension,
Ri Γm (_) vanishes for all i ≥ 3. Here we deal with the cases i = 1, 2.
Proposition 3.3. If V is a valuation ring with maximal ideal m that is not finitely generated
(equivalently not principal), then
(1) R1 Γm (m) 6= 0.
(2) There exists a V -module M for which R2 Γm (M ) 6= 0.

Proof. Let κ be the residue field of V . For a V -module M , the modules Ri Γm (M ) are just
the modules ExtiV (κ, M ) by Theorem 3.2(2). The short exact sequence
0→m→V →κ→0

gives us a long exact sequence of Ext-modules

· · · → ExtiV (κ, M ) → ExtiV (V, M ) → ExtiV (m, M ) → Exti+1
V (κ, M ) → . . . .
(1) For i = 0 and M = m, this gives us an exact sequence
0 → HomV (κ, m) → HomV (V, m) → HomV (m, m) → Ext1V (κ, m).

Assume for contradiction that Ext1V (κ, m) = 0. Then the natural map HomV (V, m) →
HomV (m, m) induced by the inclusion m ֒→ V is surjective. This means that m is a direct summand of V , and so m is projective. Kaplansky showed that any projective module
over a local ring is free [Kap58]. But m cannot be free because if an ideal of a ring is a free
5

module then it has to be principal, whereas we picked our valuation ring so that its maximal
ideal is not principal. This shows that R1 Γm (m) = Ext1V (κ, m) 6= 0.
(2) It suffices to show that there exists some V -module M for which Ext2V (κ, M ) 6= 0.
Using the long exact sequence of Ext modules obtained in the beginning of the proof, and the
fact that ExtiV (V, M ) = 0 for all i ≥ 1, we get
Ext2 (κ, M ) ∼
= Ext1 (m, M ),
V

V

for all V -modules M . If Ext2V (κ, M ) = 0 for all V -modules M , then Ext1V (m, M ) = 0 for all
V -modules M . This again implies m is projective [Wei94, Lemma 4.1.6], which, as we saw
while proving (1), is impossible.

√
Remark 3.4. For an ideal I in a Noetherian ring, the functors ΓI and Γ√I coincide ( I
denotes the radical of I). However, this property no longer holds for ideals in valuation rings.
Intuition suggests this is because the radical of a finitely generated ideal of a valuation ring
need not be finitely generated. Here is a specific example. Let V be a valuation ring of finite
Krull dimension d ≥ 1 such that the maximal ideal m is not finitely generated. For instance,
V could be a non-Noetherian valuation ring of dimension 1. Then Spec(V ) is a single chain
of prime ideals
(0) = P0 ( P1 ( P2 ( . . . Pd−1 ( Pd = m.
Pick f ∈ m such that f ∈
/ Pd−1 . The radical of the ideal (f ) is clearly m, giving us a principal
ideal whose radical is not finitely generated. Now
consider the V -module V /(f ). Let x denote

the class of 1 in V /(f ). Then x ∈ Γ(f ) V /(f ) since the annihilator of x in V is (f ). Because

Γm V /(f ) consists
 of elements of
 V /(f ) that are annihilated
 by m (Theorem3.2(2)), we have
√
x∈
/ Γ (f ) V /(f ) = Γm V /(f ) , proving that Γ(f ) V /(f ) 6= Γ√(f ) V /(f ) . This example
will reappear in Proposition 6.5 where we show that torsion and local cohomologies do not
give isomorphic modules, even in degree 0.
4. Projective dimension of the residue field
With an eye toward understanding the higher m-torsion cohomology modules of a valuation
ring V when m is not principal, we turn to computing the projective dimension of the residue
field κ. The projective dimension of a V -module M will be denoted pdV (M ). The main result
is:
Theorem 4.2.5: Let V be a valuation ring of finite Krull dimension with residue field κ.
Then pdV (κ) ≤ 2. Moreover, pdV (κ) = 1 if and only if m is principal.
The proof of this theorem will take some work, and is given in 4.2.5. It readily implies a
vanishing result on m-torsion cohomology when m is not finitely generated (Corollary 4.2.6).
It turns out that the maximal ideal of any valuation ring of finite Krull dimension can
be generated by countably many elements, and we will prove more generally that pdV (κ) is
bounded above by 2 whenever the maximal ideal is countably generated (see Theorem 4.1.4).
4.1. Countably exhaustive ordered abelian groups. As a first step, we translate the
property of countable generation of the maximal ideal of a valuation ring into a statement
about the value group. This translation is more illuminating and will help us identify valuation rings whose maximal ideals are countably generated. Thus, we introduce the following
terminology:
6

Definition 4.1.1. Let G be an ordered abelian group. Let G+ = {g ∈ G : g > 0}. Then G
is countably exhaustive if there exists a sequence (gn )n∈N in G+ satisfying
(i) g1 ≥ g2S≥ g3 ≥ . . . .
(ii) G+ = n∈N G≥gn .
Remark 4.1.2. If G+ has a smallest element, then G is clearly countably exhaustive. If G+
does not have a least element, and G is countably exhaustive, then one can find a a strictly
decreasing sequence (gn )n∈N in G+ satisfying axiom (ii) in the above definition.

We next show that the notion of a countably exhaustive ordered abelian group captures
the notion of countable generation of the maximal ideal of a valuation ring.
Proposition 4.1.3. Let v be a valuation on a field K with value group G. Then the maximal
ideal m of the valuation ring V is countably generated if and only if G is countably exhaustive.
Proof. S
For the backward implication, suppose we have a sequence (gn )n∈N in G+ such that
+
G = n G≥gn . Let an ∈ m such that v(an ) = gn . Then m = (a1 , a2 , a3 , . . . ). For the forward
implication, we may suppose m is not principal as otherwise G+ has a smallest element and
so is countably exhaustive. Choose a countable generating set {xn : n ∈ N} of m. Define a
subsequence (xnk )k∈N of this generating set inductively as follows: Let xn1 = x1 . Given xnk ,
pick xnk+1 to be the first xi such that i > nk and v(xi ) < v(xnk ). Since m is not principal,
such an xi has to exist as otherwise m would equal the ideal (xnk ). ClearlyS(xnk )k∈N is also
a generating set for m. If gk := v(xnk ), then g1 ≥ g2 ≥ g3 ≥ . . . and G+ = k∈N G≥gk . So G
is countably exhaustive.

We will give examples of countably exhaustive ordered abelian groups in the next subsection
(Proposition 4.2.1). We end this one by proving that one can bound the projective dimension
of the residue field of any valuation ring whose value group is countably exhaustive:
Theorem 4.1.4. Let v be a valuation on a field K with value group G. Let V be the
corresponding valuation ring with maximal ideal m, and residue field κ.
(1) pdV (κ) = 1 if and only if G+ has a smallest element.
(2) If G is countably exhaustive, then pdV (κ) ≤ 2.
Proof. If G is the trivial group, then V is the field K, and κ = V . Hence, pdV (κ) = 0.
Suppose G is non-trivial. Then V is not a field, and in particular pdV (κ) ≥ 1 (κ cannot be
projective because κ is not free). From the exact sequence
m → V → κ → 0,

we get that pdV (κ) = 1 if and only if m is projective, and the latter happens if and only
if m is free (again using Kaplansky’s characterization of projectives over local rings), hence
principal since m is an ideal of V . But principality of m is equivalent to G+ having a smallest
element by Lemma 3.1. This proves (1).
Now assume G+ does not have a smallest element. By (1), pdV (κ) > 1. By Remark 4.1.2
we have a sequence (an )n∈N of elements of G+ such that
a1 > a2 > a3 > a4 > . . . ,
and
G+ =

[
n
7

G≥an .

Let xn ∈ m such that v(xn ) = an . Our choice of (an )n∈N shows that
m = (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . ),
and v(x1 ) > v(x2 ) > v(x3 ) > . . . . Pick the obvious surjection
M
V ։ m.
i∈N

L
If fi denotes the
standard basis
Lvector of i∈N V , then the above surjection maps fi 7→ xi .
We will show that the kernel of n∈N V ։ m is generated by the set
(
)
xi
S := fi −
fi+1 : i ∈ N .
xi+1
L
Clearly S is linearly independent over V , and S ⊆ ker( n∈N V ։ m). Hence the submodule,
hSi, generated by S is contained in the kernel. Observe that for all i, n ∈ N, the element
xi
(4.1.4.1)
fi −
fi+n
xi+n
ith

is an element of hSi. This is easily seen by induction on n. As an illustration, for n = 2,
!
!
xi
xi
xi+1
xi
fi+2 = fi −
fi+1 +
fi+2 ∈ hSi.
fi+1 −
fi −
xi+2
xi+1
xi+1
xi+2
L
Now suppose a1 f1 + a2 f2 + · · · + an fn is some element in ker( n∈N V ։ m), where ai ∈ V .
This means that a1 x1 + a2 x2 + · · · + an xn = 0. Then
!
x2
xn−1
x1
+ a2
+ · · · + an−1
+ an = 0.
x n a1
xn
xn
xn
Since m is torsion-free, solving for an we get
x1
x2
xn−1
an = −a1
− a2
− · · · − an−1
,
xn
xn
xn
and so,
!
!
!
x2
xn−1
x1
a1 f1 + a2 f2 + · · · + an fn = a1 f1 − fn + a2 f2 − fn + · · · + an−1 fn−1 −
fn .
xn
xn
xn
However, by (4.1.4.1),
f1 −

x1
x2
xn−1
fn , f2 −
fn , . . . , fn−1 −
fn ∈ hSi,
xn
xn
xn

and so, a1 f1 + a2 f2 + · · · + an fn ∈ hSi, showing that
M

V ։m .
hSi = ker
n∈N

L
Therefore, ker( n∈N V ։ m) is a free V -module, and κ has a projective resolution
M
M
0 → ker(
V ։ m) →
V → V → 0,
n∈N

n∈N

proving that its projective dimension is 2.

8



Remark 4.1.5. The projective dimension of ideals of a valuation ring was the subject of
investigation of a paper by B. Osofsky [Oso67] in which the following result was established:
Let V be a valuation ring. Let I be an ideal of V . Then pdV (I) = n + 1 if and only if I can
be generated by set of cardinality ℵn , but not by a set of smaller cardinality for all n ≥ −1.
Theorem 4.1.4 is a special case of Osofsky’s result when the maximal ideal m is generated by
set of cardinality at most ℵ0 . Osofsky’s proof requires set theoretic considerations that were
avoided in our proof of the ℵ0 case. We will soon see that this case is already very rich, and
includes all valuation rings of finite Krull dimension (Proposition 4.2.2).
4.2. Examples of countably exhaustive groups.
Proposition 4.2.1. For n ∈ N, consider R⊕n with lexicographical ordering. If G is an ordered
subgroup of R⊕n , then G is countably exhaustive.
Proof. For i = 1, . . . , n, we let πi : R⊕n → R denote projection onto the ith -coordinate. The
proof follows a recursive procedure, and uses the greatest lower bound property of the real
numbers. In particular, we use the convention that if a subset of R is not bounded below,
then its infimum is −∞.
Let α1 be the greatest lower bound of π1 (G+ ). We note that α1 ≥ 0. If α1 ∈
/ π1 (G+ ),
+
choose a sequence (sn )n ⊂ G such that π1 (s1 ) ≥ π1 (s2 ) ≥ π1 (s3 ) ≥ . . . , and
lim π1 (sn ) = α1 .

n→∞

S
Then s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 ≥ . . . (by definition of lexicographical order), and G+ = n∈N G≥sn ,
proving countable exhaustivity.
If α1 ∈ π1 (G+ ), choose ω1 ∈ G+ such that π1 (ω1 ) = α1 , and let α2 be the greatest lower
bound of π2 (Λ1 ), where
Λ1 := G+ ∩ G≤ω1 .
If α2 ∈
/ π2 (Λ1 ), then repeat the procedure in the previous paragraph, for Λ1 instead of
+
G , to get countable exhaustivity of G. In other words, pick t1 , t2 , t3 , · · · ∈ Λ1 such that
π2 (t1 ) ≥ π2 (t2 ) ≥ π2 (t3 ) ≥ . . . , and
lim π2 (tn ) = α2 .

n→∞

Note π1 (tn ) = α1 , for all n, by
S definition of α1 , and since 0 < tn ≤ ω1 by choice. Thus,
t1 ≥ t2 ≥ t3 ≥ . . . , and G+ = n G≥tn .
If α2 ∈ π2 (Λ1 ), choose ω2 ∈ Λ1 such that
π2 (ω2 ) = α2 .

Then ω2 also satisfies π1 (ω2 ) = α1 , for the same reason as the elements tn do. Continuing as
above, define Λ2 := G+ ∩ G≤ω2 , and α3 := inf π3 (Λ2 ). Depending on whether α3 ∈ π3 (Λ2 ),
we repeat the above argument.
This process terminates after at most n steps, and one of two possibilities occur –
(1) There exists a smallest j ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that the infimum αj of πj (Λj−1 ) is not an
element of the set. Then repeating the argument in the second paragraph of this proof for
Λj−1 instead of G+ , one gets countable exhaustivity of G.
(2) For all j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, αj ∈ πj (Λj−1 ), allowing us to pick ω ∈ G+ such that
ω = (α1 , α2 , . . . , αn ).

But ω is then the smallest element of G+ , and so G is trivially countably exhaustive.
9



A consequence of Proposition 4.2.1 is that the maximal ideal of a valuation ring of finite
Krull dimension is countably generated.
Proposition 4.2.2. Let v be a valuation on a field K such that the corresponding valuation
ring V has finite Krull dimension d. Then the value group G of v is order-isomorphic to
a subgroup of R⊕d , with induced lexicographical ordering. In particular, G is countably
exhaustive.
Proof. One has the notion of an isolated subgroup of an ordered abelian group in valuation
theory [Bou89, VI.4.2, Definition 1], and there is a well-known inclusion reversing bijection
{prime ideal of V } ←→ {isolated subgroup of G}.

For details we refer the reader to [Bou89, VI §4.1 and VI §4.3]. Under this bijection, the
maximal ideal m corresponds to the trivial subgroup, and the zero ideal corresponds to G.
Thus, the number of non-trivial isolated subgroups of G, denoted ρ(G), equals the number
of non-maximal prime ideals of V . Since a valuation ring of dimension d has d non-maximal
primes ideals,
ρ(G) = d.
Applying [Abh59, Chapter 2, Proposition 2.10] we get that G is order isomorphic to a subgroup
of R⊕d , and so also countably exhaustive by Proposition 4.2.1.

Remark 4.2.3. Isolated subgroups are also called convex subgroups in the literature. The
number ρ(G) is called the height/rank of the ordered abelian group G. Following [Abh59],
we have defined ρ(G) (at least for valuation rings of finite Krull dimension) to be the number of
non-trivial convex subgroups of G. However, other sources such as [Bou89, VI §4.5, Definition
2] define ρ(G) to be the number of proper convex subgroups of G.
As a corollary, we obtain that most valuations arising in algebraic geometry have value
groups that are countably exhaustive.
Corollary 4.2.4. Fix a ground field k. Let K be a finitely generated field extension of k
(such as the function field of a variety over k). If v is a valuation on K/k with value group
G, then G is countably exhaustive.
Proof. Let d be the dimension of the corresponding valuation ring (at this point d could
be infinite), and κ the residue field. We have the following fundamental inequality due to
Abhyankar [Abh56, Corollary 1]:
d + tr.deg κ/k ≤ tr.deg K/k.

Then d is finite since tr.deg K/k is finite, and so we are done by Proposition 4.2.2.



The proof the theorem stated at the very beginning of this section is now a matter of
putting together all the results we have obtained so far:
Theorem 4.2.5. Let V be a valuation ring of finite Krull dimension with residue field κ,
and assume V is not a field. Then pdV (κ) ≤ 2. Moreover, pdV (κ) = 1 if and only if m is
principal.
Proof. If we consider V as the valuation ring associated to a valuation on the fraction field of
V with value group G, then G is countably exhaustive by Proposition 4.2.2. The result now
follows Theorem 4.1.4.

10

The bound on the projective dimension of the residue field yields:
Corollary 4.2.6. Let V be a valuation ring of finite Krull dimension. Suppose that the
maximal ideal m of V is not principal. Then for all V -modules M , Ri Γm (M ) = 0 for all i ≥ 3.
Proof. Let κ be the residue field. Since m is not principal, and Ri Γm (M ) ∼
= ExtiV (κ, M ) for
all i (Theorem 3.2(2)), the result follows from the bound on the projective dimension of the
residue field obtained in Theorem 4.2.5 above.

Remark 4.2.7. Theorem 4.1.4 tells us more generally that Ri Γm vanishes for all i ≥ 3 when
m is countably generated (equivalently the value group is countably exhaustive). In Section 7
we give an example of a valuation ring of infinite Krull dimension with non-finitely generated
maximal ideal whose value group is countably exhaustive. Thus, countably exhaustive ordered
abelian groups also include cases where the valuation ring has infinite Krull dimension.
5. Global dimension of valuation rings and torsion cohomology
Recall that the global dimension of a ring R, denoted gldim(R), is the supremum of the
injective dimensions of all R-modules. One also has
gldim(R) = sup{pdR (R/J) : J is an ideal of R}

[Wei94, Theorem 4.1.2].

Surprisingly, valuation rings of finite Krull dimension have finite global dimension:
Theorem 5.1. Let V be a valuation ring of finite Krull dimension. Then gldim(V ) ≤ 2.
Moreover, gldim(V ) = 1 if and only if V is a discrete valuation ring.
Before giving the proof, note that Theorem 5.1 immediately implies the following vanishing
result on torsion cohomology with respect to arbitrary ideals, generalizing Corollary 4.2.6:
Theorem 5.2. Let I be an ideal of a valuation ring V of finite Krull dimension, and ΓI be
the I-torsion functor. Then for all V -modules M and i ≥ 3, Ri ΓI (M ) = 0.

Proof. Since gldim(V ) ≤ 2 (Theorem 5.1), the injective dimension of any V -module M is also
bounded above by 2. The vanishing of Ri ΓI (M ), for i ≥ 3, follows.

For the proof of Theorem 5.1, the following Lemma will be useful. It generalizes Proposition
4.2.2. The strategy of proof is similar to Proposition 4.2.1.

Lemma 5.3. Let v be a valuation on a field K with value group G. Suppose the corresponding
valuation ring V has finite Krull dimension. If J is a non-zero ideal of V , there exists a
sequence (xn )n ∈ J such that v(x1 ) ≥ v(x2 ) ≥ . . . , and J = (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . ).

Proof. We may assume G is a subgroup of R⊕n , the latter being ordered lexicographically
(Proposition 4.2.2). We may also assume J =
6 V . Consider the set
S := v(J − {0}).

Note S has the property that if x ∈ S, then G≥x ⊆ S. Replacing G+ by S everywhere in the
proof of Proposition 4.2.1, we see that one can choose elements s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 ≥ . . . in S such
that
[
S=
G≥sn .
n

Picking xn ∈ J satisfying v(xn ) = sn , we get v(x1 ) ≥ v(x2 ) ≥ v(x3 ) ≥ . . . and J =
(x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . ).

11

Remark 5.4. In [Cou03, Corollary 36], Lemma 5.3 is proved, more generally, for valuation
rings V such that Spec(V ) is countable. But we hope our simple proof will be of some benefit.
Proof of Theorem 5.1. We may assume V is not a field (fields have global dimension 0).
If the global dimension of V equals 1, then pdV (V /J) ≤ 1, for all ideals J in V . The latter
is equivalent to the projectivity of J, which happens only when J is free of rank ≤ 1 (any
ideal of a ring which is free as a module must have rank ≤ 1). But a free ideal of rank ≤ 1
is principal, which shows that V must be a Noetherian valuation ring, that is it is discrete.
On the other hand, a discrete valuation ring is a dimension 1 regular local ring, and so has
global dimension 1. This proves the second assertion of the theorem.
Now assume that gldim(V ) > 1. Then there exists an ideal J of V which is not finitely
generated. By Lemma 5.3 one can pick a sequence (xn )n ∈ J such that v(x1 ) > v(x2 ) > . . .
and J = (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . ). The argument in the proof Theorem 4.1.4(2) can be repeated
verbatim for J instead of the maximal ideal m to see that pdV (V /J) = 2. Since every ideal
of V is countably generated (Lemma 5.3), V has global dimension 2.

Remark 5.5. Theorem 5.1 implies that modules over valuation rings of finite Krull dimension
have finite injective dimension. Injective modules over valuation rings share many common
traits with injective modules over Noetherian rings. We refer the reader to [Mat59].
6. Sheaf and local cohomology of valuation rings
Let X be a topological space. Let Z ⊆ X be a closed subset, and U = X − Z. Let AbX
denote the category of sheaves of abelian groups on X, and Ab the category of abelian groups.
We have a covariant functor
ΓZ : AbX → Ab,
where for a sheaf F,
ΓZ (F) := ker(resX
U : F(X) → F(U )).
In other words, ΓZ (F) is the set of global sections of F whose support is contained in Z. The
functor ΓZ is clearly left-exact, and the right derived functors of ΓZ , denoted H i ΓZ , are the
local cohomology functors with support in Z.
We now specialize to the case where X = Spec(V ), for a valuation ring V . The goal will
be to prove the following result:
Theorem 6.1. Let Z be a closed subset of X = Spec(V ), for a valuation ring V , and
U = X − Z. For a sheaf of abelian groups F on X, we have the following:

resX
U
(1) H i ΓZ (F) ∼
= H i−1 (U, F|U ) for all i > 1, and H 1 ΓZ (F) ∼
= coker F(X) −−−→ F(U ) .
(2) If V has finite Krull dimension or if U is quasi-compact, then H i ΓZ (F) = 0 for all
i > 1.
Theorem 6.1 will follow from vanishing of higher sheaf cohomology of abelian sheaves on
the spectrum of any local ring (Lemma 6.4), and some peculiarities of the Zariski topology of
the spectrum of a valuation ring.
The relevant properties of the Zariski topology are recorded first:
Lemma 6.2. Let V be a valuation ring.
12

(1) Any non-empty closed subset of Spec(V) is irreducible.
(2) An open subset U ⊆ Spec(V ) is quasi-compact if and only if there exists f ∈ V such
that U = D(f ). In particular, any affine open subscheme of Spec(V) is of the form
D(f ), and all quasicompact opens of Spec(V ) are affine.
(3) If V has finite Krull dimension, then any open subscheme of Spec(V ) is affine.
Proof. (1) follows from the fact that in a valuation ring, any radical ideal is a prime ideal or
the whole ring. That a proper radical ideal I ( V is a prime ideal follows easily from the fact
that the prime ideals that contain I are totally ordered by inclusion.
For (2), the ‘if’ part is clear. On the other hand, if U is a quasi-compact open subscheme
of Spec(V ), then there exist f1 , . . . , fn ∈ V such that U = D(f1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ D(fn ). Since the
open subsets of Spec(V ) are totally ordered by inclusion, U must equal D(fi ) for some i.
Quasi-compactness of affine opens now gives us the second statement of (2).
(3) is a consequence of (2). If V has finite Krull dimension, the underlying set of Spec(V )
is finite. Hence any open subscheme of Spec(V ) is quasi-compact, thus affine by (2).

Remark 6.3. Lemma 6.2(3) is false without the hypothesis that V has finite Krull dimension.
We construct a counter-example in Section 7.
We now show the triviality of higher sheaf cohomology on the spectrum of any local ring.
Lemma 6.4. Let R be a local ring, X = Spec(R). Then the global sections functor on the
category of sheaves of abelian groups on X is exact. In particular, for any sheaf of abelian
groups F on X, H i (X, F) = 0 for all i > 0.
Proof. Let Γ be the global sections functor. Since the only open set of X that contains the
unique closed point is X itself, the stalk of any sheaf at the closed point is the global sections
of that sheaf. Since taking stalks preserves exactness, Γ is an exact functor, and all higher
sheaf cohomology groups vanish.

We can now derive Theorem 6.1.
Proof of Theorem 6.1. We have a well-known long exact sequence involving sheaf and local
cohomology [Gro67, Corollary 1.9]:
resX

U
0 → ΓZ (F) → F(X) −−−→
F(U ) → H 1 ΓZ (F) → H 1 (X, F) → H 1 (U, F|U ) → H 2 ΓZ (F) → . . .

Here H i (X, F) and H i (U, F|U ) stand for sheaf cohomology. Since H i (X, F) = 0 for all i ≥ 1
by Lemma 6.4, we get
H i ΓZ (F) ∼
= H i−1 (U, F|U )

for all i > 1. The exactness of

resX

0 → ΓZ (F) → F(X) −−−U→ F(U ) → H 1 ΓZ (F) → 0
resX

U
F(U ). This proves (1).
shows that H 1 ΓZ (F) is the cokernel of F(X) −−−→
For (2), if V has finite Krull dimension or if U is quasi-compact, then U is a distinguished
affine open subscheme D(f ) of X by Lemma 6.2. In particular, Vf is also a valuation ring,
and so U is also the spectrum of a valuation ring. Thus, Lemma 6.4 implies H i (U, F|U ) = 0
for i ≥ 1. So from (1) we get H i ΓZ (F) = 0 for i > 1.


13

f, I
Let X = Spec(A) for a Noetherian ring A, M an A-module with associated sheaf M
i
an ideal, and Z = V(I). Then the A-modules R ΓI (M ) are isomorphic to the A-modules
f) for all i ≥ 0 [Har77, Exercise III.3.3]. However, we show that the functors ΓI and
H i ΓZ (M
ΓV(I) give non-isomorphic A-modules when A is a valuation ring:

Proposition 6.5. Let V be any valuation ring with maximal ideal m that is not finitely generated, and Z be the closed point of Spec(V ). Suppose that the punctured spectrum Spec(V ) − Z
is quasi-compact (for instance if V has finite Krull dimension). Then there exists a V -module
f) are not isomorphic V -modules.
M such that Γm (M ) and ΓZ (M
Proof. Since Spec(V ) − Z is quasi-compact, by Lemma 6.2 there exists f ∈ V such that
Spec(V ) − Z = D(f ).

Then f ∈ m, but it is not contained in any prime ideal of Spec(V ) that is not maximal. Let M
be the V -module V /(f ), and let x ∈ M denote the class of 1 ∈ V . The annihilator of x is (f ),
and since m is not finitely generated, (f ) ( m. Thus, x is not an element of Γm (M ), because
Γm (M ) = {y ∈ M : my = 0} (Theorem 3.2(2)). However, for all prime ideals p of Spec(V )
that are not maximal, we have Mp = 0. Considering x as a global section of the associated
f, it follows that its support is contained in Z, that is x ∈ ΓZ (M
f). Then Γm (M ) and
sheaf M
f) cannot be isomorphic V -modules because every element of Γm (M ) is annihilated by
ΓZ (M
m, whereas x is not.

Remark 6.6. Let V be a valuation ring of finite Krull dimension with non-zero principal
f), and Theorem
(equivalently finitely generated) maximal ideal m. Then Γm (M ) = ΓV(m) (M
f) are isomorphic
6.1, combined with Theorem 3.2(1) implies that Ri Γm (M ) and H i ΓV(m) (M
for all i ≥ 0.
7. A valuation ring of infinite Krull dimension
We construct a valuation ring V of infinite Krull dimension such that
(a) Spec(V ) has an open subscheme that is not affine (i.e. Lemma 6.2(3) fails if Krull
dimension is not finite).
(b) There exists a sheaf of abelian groups F on Spec(V ) for which H i ΓZ (F) does not
vanish for some i ≥ 2, and the closed point Z (i.e. Theorem 6.1(2) fails if Krull
dimension is not finite).
In fact, in (b) we can even choose F to be the structure sheaf. Another interesting feature of
this example is that the m-torsion cohomology functors Ri Γm associated to this ring vanish
for i ≥ 3. Our construction is inspired by [Liu06, Exercises 3.3.26 and 3.3.27].
For the remainder of this section, K will denote L
the field C(X1 , X2 , X3 , . . . , Xn , . . . ), where
the Xn are indeterminates for all n ∈ N. Let G := n∈N Z, ordered lexicographically. The ith
standard Z-basis element of G will be denoted ei . So in the lexicographical ordering, ei > ej
if and only if i < j. There exists a unique valuation v on K/C with value group G such that
v(Xi ) = ei . Let V be the corresponding valuation ring, and m the maximal ideal of V .
Proposition 7.1. The valuation ring V constructed above satisfies the following properties:
(1) V has infinite Krull dimension.
(2) The maximal ideal m is not finitely generated. In particular, m = (X1 , X2 , X3 , . . . ).
(3) The punctured spectrum Spec(V ) − {m} is not quasi-compact, hence is not affine.
14

(4) If Z is the closed point of Spec(V ), then H 2 ΓZ (OSpec(V ) ) 6= 0.
(5) As a V -module, the residue field κ has projective dimension 2.
(6) For all V -modules M , Ri Γm (M ) = 0 for all i ≥ 3, where Ri Γm is the ith m-torsion
cohomology functor (see Section 3).
Proof. For the rest of the proof let
Y := Spec(V ); Z = {m}; U := Spec(V ) − {m}.
(1) We have
v(X1 ) > v(X2 ) > v(X3 ) > . . . ,
which gives us a chain of ideals
(7.1.0.1)

(X1 ) ( (X2 ) ( (X3 ) ( . . . .

Define
(7.1.0.2)

Pn := radical of the ideal (Xn ).

Then Pn is a prime ideal because the radical of a proper ideal of a valuation ring is prime (see
proof of Lemma 6.2(1) for an explanation). Since every power of Xn+1 has value strictly less
that the value of Xn , it follows that Xn+1 is an element of Pn+1 , but not of Pn . So we get an
infinite chain of prime ideals
(7.1.0.3)

P1 ( P2 ( P3 ( . . . ,

which shows that V has infinite Krull dimension, proving (1).
Using the lex ordering on G, it is easy to see that
m = (X1 , X2 , X3 , . . . ).
Hence the maximal ideal m cannot be finitely generated, because then m would equal (Xi )
for some Xi , which is impossible since Xi+1 would not be in m. This proves (2).
S
As a consequence of (2), we see that U = Spec(V ) − V(m) = n∈N D(Xi ). Now from
(7.1.0.1) we get
D(X1 ) ⊆ D(X2 ) ⊆ D(X3 ) ⊆ . . . .
Since the prime ideal Pn defined in (7.1.0.2) is an element of D(Xn+1 ) but not of D(Xn ), the
inclusions D(Xn ) ⊆ D(Xn+1 ) are strict, that is we actually have a chain of open sets
D(X1 ) ( D(X2 ) ( D(X3 ) ( . . . .

Thus, the punctured spectrum U cannot be quasi-compact, because the open cover {D(Xn ) :
n ∈ N} cannot have a finite sub-cover, proving (3).
The proof of (4) will require some work. Using Theorem 6.1, we get H 2 ΓZ (OY ) ∼
=
1
H (U, OY |U ). Hence to prove (2), it suffices to show that H 1 (U, OY |U ) 6= 0.
e denote the constant sheaf of rational functions on Y . Note that OY may be identified
Let K
e and we make this identification. We get a short exact sequence of quasias a subsheaf of K,
coherent sheaves of OY -modules
e → K/O
e Y → 0.
0 → OY → K
Restricting to the punctured spectrum U gives us a corresponding short exact sequence of
quasi-coherent sheaves on U
e U → (K/O
e Y )|U → 0.
0 → OY |U → K|
15

This gives a corresponding long-exact sequence in cohomology whose initial terms are
(7.1.0.4)

e Y (U ) → H 1 (U, OY |U ) → H 1 (U, K|
e U) → ... .
0 → OY (U ) → K → K/O

e Y )(U ) is
To prove that H 1 (U, OY |U ) 6= 0, it suffices to show that the map K → (K/O
not surjective. For this we need to develop a better understanding of the OY (U )-module
e Y )(U ).
(K/O
e Y )(U ) is the limit (a.k.a inverse limit) of the diagram
Claim 7.2. (K/O
··· ։

K
K
K
։
։
.
VX 3
VX 2
VX 1

The claim is not difficult to prove, but to prevent breaking the flow we postpone it until
after the proof of this proposition. Note that
It is easy to check that

e Y )(D(Xn )).
K/VXn = (K/O

e Y )(U )
K → (K/O
is the unique map such that for all n ∈ N,
resU
D(X

n)

e Y )(U ) −−−−−−→ K/VXn = K ։ K/VXn ,
K → (K/O

where K ։ K/VXn is the usual projection. We now explicitly construct an element of the
limit of
K
K
K
։
։
··· ։
VX3
VX2
VX 1
which cannot be in the image of K, completing the proof that H 2 ΓZ (OY ) 6= 0.
For n ≥ 2,
−1
X1−1 , . . . , Xn−1
∈
/ VX n ,
as otherwise some power of Xn would be divisible by Xi , for some i < n. At the same time
Xi−1 is an element of VXn , for all i ≥ n. Define
α1 := 0,

and
for all n ≥ 2. Then

−1
αn := class of X1−1 + · · · + Xn−1
in K/VXn ,

(α1 , α2 , α3 , . . . ) ∈ limn∈N K/VXn .
Assume for contradiction that (α1 , α2 , α3 , . . . ) is the image of some α ∈ K. There exists
n >> 0 such that
α ∈ C(X1 , . . . , Xn ),
and by our assumption,
−1
α − αn+2 = α − (X1−1 + · · · + Xn+1
) ∈ VXn+2 .

Note α − X1−1 − · · · − Xn−1 is also an element of field C(X1 , . . . , Xn ), and either α − X1−1 −
−1
−1
). Because Xn+1
is not an element of
· · · − Xn−1 = 0 or v(α − X1−1 − · · · − Xn−1 ) 6= v(Xn+1
−1
−1
VXn+2 , α − X1 − · · · − Xn cannot equal 0. Thus,
−1
v(α − X1−1 − · · · − Xn−1 ) 6= v(Xn+1
).
16

Since v is a valuation, this tells us that

−1
−1
v α − (X1−1 + · · · + Xn+1
) = min{v(α − X1−1 − · · · − Xn−1 ), v(Xn+1
)}.

−1
−1
In particular, v(α − (X1−1 + · · · + Xn+1
)) ≤ v(Xn+1
), and so for all m ∈ N ∪ {0} we must have



−1
−1
−1
m
m
v Xn+2 α − (X1 + · · · + Xn+1 ) ≤ v(Xn+2
Xn+1
) < 0.

This contradicts

−1
α − (X1−1 + · · · + Xn+1
)
being an element of VXn+2 , completing the proof of (4).

We can, for this example, give a nice characterization of H 2 ΓZ (OY ). Recall that H 2 ΓZ (OY ) ∼
=
e U ) = 0 on account of K|
e U being a flabby sheaf on U , from
H 1 (U, OY |U ), and since H 1 (U, K|
the exactness of (7.1.0.4) it follows that H 1 (U, OY |U ) is the cokernel of the map
e Y )(U ).
K → (K/O

e Y )(U )).
Thus, H 2 ΓZ (OY ) ∼
= coker(K → (K/O
L
It remains to show (5) and (6). Note that G = n∈N Z with the lex order is countably
exhaustive (see Definition 4.1.1), because the sequence formed by the basis vectors (ei )i∈N
satisfies
[
e1 > e2 > e3 > . . . and G+ =
G≥ei .
i∈N

G+

Also,
clearly does not have a least element. Then (5) follows from Theorem 4.1.4. For (6)
one can apply the proof of Theorem 4.2.6 verbatim, so we omit it.

To complete the proof of the above proposition, it remains to establish Claim 7.2.
Proof of Claim 7.2. Let A be the partially ordered set whose elements are open subsets of
the form D(f ) contained in the punctured spectrum U , and where the order relation is given
by inclusion. In fact, A is totally ordered by this relation, hence in particular also a directed
set. If D(g) ⊆ D(f ) ⊂ U , then we have a natural map
K
K
։
,
OY (D(f ))
OY (D(g))

induced by the restriction map OY (D(f )) ֒→ OY (D(g)). This is the data of an inverse system
on A. It is well-known that

e Y )(U ) = limA (K/O
e Y )(D(f )) = limA K/ OY (D(f )) .
(K/O
Let I be the subset of A consisting
of the open sets D(Xn ) for n ∈ N. Recall it was shown
S
in Proposition 7.1 that U = n∈N D(Xn ). Then I is cofinal in A. This is because if D(f ) is
any open set contained in U , there has to exist an Xi such that D(f ) ⊆ D(Xi ). Otherwise,
D(Xn ) ⊆ D(f ) for all n since any two open subsets of Spec(V ) are comparable, and so,
D(f ) = U , which contradicts the non-quasicompactness of U (Proposition 7.1(2)). From the
cofinality of I it follows that
limA K/(OY (D(f ))) = limI K/(OY (D(Xn ))).

But the latter is precisely the limit of
··· ։

K
K
K
։
։
.
VX 3
VX 2
VX 1
17



References
[Abh56]
[Abh59]
[Bou89]
[BS13]
[Cou03]
[GR04]
[Gro67]
[Har77]
[HT07]

[ILL+07]

[Kap58]
[Kuh00]

[Lip02]

[Liu06]
[Mat59]
[Oso67]
[Sch03]
[Sta15]
[Wei94]

Shreeram Abhyankar, On the valuations centered in a local domain, American Journal of Mathematics 78 (1956), no. 2, 321–348.
, Ramification theoretic methods in algebraic geometry, Annals of Mathematics Studies,
vol. AM-43, Princeton University Press, 1959.
N. Bourbaki, Commutative algebra, chapters 1-7, english translation ed., Elements of mathematics, Springer, 1989.
Markus Brodmann and Rodney Sharp, Local cohomology, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, vol. 136, Cambridge, New York, 2013.
F. Couchot, Injective modules and fp-injective modules over valuation rings, Journal of Algebra
267 (2003), no. 1, 359–376.
Ofer
Gabber
and
Lorenzo
Ramero,
Foundations
of
almost ring
theory,
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0409584, 2004.
Alexander Grothendieck, Local cohomology, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 41, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1967.
Robin Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 52, Springer, New
York, 1977.
Craig Huneke and Amelia Taylor, Lectures on local cohomology, Contemporary Mathematics,
vol. Interactions between Homotopy Theory and Algebra, Summer School (436), pp. 51–100,
AMS, 2007.
Srikanth Iyengar, Graham Leuschke, Anton Leykin, Claudia Miller, Ezra Miller, Anurag Singh,
and Uli Walther, Twenty-four hours of local cohomology, Graduate Studies in Mathematics,
vol. 87, AMS, Providence, RI, 2007.
Irving Kaplansky, Projective modules, Annals of Mathematics 68 (1958), no. 2, 372–377.
Franz-Viktor Kuhlmann, Valuation theoretic and model theoretic aspects of local uniformization,
Progress in Mathematics, vol. Resolution of Singularities-A Research Textbook in Tribute of
Oscar Zariski, pp. 381–456, Birkhäuser Verlag, 2000.
Joseph Lipman, Lectures on local cohomology and duality, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied
Mathematics, vol. Local cohomology and its applications (226), pp. 39–89, Dekker, New York,
2002.
Qing Liu, Algebraic geometry and arithmetic curves, Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics,
vol. 6, Oxford, Great Britain, 2006.
Eben Matlis, Injective modules over Prüfer rings, Nagoya Math. J. 15 (1959), 57–69.
Barbara L. Osofsky, Global dimension of valuation rings, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 127 (1967), no. 1, 136–149.
Peter Schenzel, Proregular sequences, local cohomology, and completion, Mathematica Scandinavica 92 (2003), no. 2, 161–180.
The Stacks Project Authors, stacks project, http://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2015.
Charles Weibel, An introduction to homological algebra, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, vol. 38, Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1994.

Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, 2074 East Hall, 530 Church Street,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
E-mail address: rankeya@umich.edu

18

