arXiv:1201.4198v12 [math.AC] 24 Nov 2015

[Candidate CEample, 2015(11-20)Revised]

NOTE ON THE CANDIDATE COUNTER-EXAMPLE TO THE
CANCELLATION PROBLEM FOR AFFINE SPACES
POSED BY ARNO VAN DEN ESSEN
SUSUMU ODA

Professor Emeritus
Kochi University
Residence : 345 Hiradani,Taki-cho, Taki-gun, Mie 519-2178, JAPAN
ssmoda@ma,mctv.ne.jp
(also, ssmoda@kochi-u.ac.jp )

Dedicated to UNYO ODA, a beloved dog of the author’s
family, who passed away on July 1, 2014. He said to the
author that he would wait for the author at the gate of the rainbow.

Abstract. We have proved the following Problem:Let R be a C-affine domain, let T be an element in R \ C and let i : C[T ] ֒→ R be the inclusion. Assume that R/T R ∼
=C[T ] C[T ]T [n−1] . Then R ∼
=C C[n] .
=C C[n−1] and that RT ∼
This result leads to the negative solution of the candidate counter-example
(Conjecture E) of V.Arno den Essen :Let A := C[t, u, x, y, z] denote a polynomial ring, and let f (u) := u3 − 3u, g(u) := u4 − 4u2 and h(u) := u5 − 10u be
the polynomials in C[u]. Let D := f ′ (u)∂x + g ′ (u)∂y + h′ (u)∂z + t∂u which is a
locally nilpotent derivation on A. Let AD be a subring { a ∈ A | D(a) = 0 }.
Then AD ∼
6 C C[4] . Consequently our result in this short paper guarantees the
=
conjectures : the Cancellation Problem for affine spaces”, “the Linearization
Problem”, “the Embedding Problem” and “the affine An -Fibration Problem”
to be still open.

1. Introduction
We use the following notations throughout this paper.
Notations :
N denotes the set of the natural numbers,
Q denotes the quotient number field,
R denotes the real number field,
C denotes the complex number field,
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification : 13B25
Key words and phrases: The cancellation Problem, polynomial rings and affine domains
1

SUSUMU ODA

2

C[n] (n ∈ N) denotes a polynomial ring of n-indeterminates over C,
R[n] (n ∈ N) denotes a polynomial ring in n-variables over a ring R,
Rf denotes the localization of a ring R by the powers of f ∈ R,
RD denotes a subring { r ∈ R | D(r) = 0 } of R for a derivation D on R.
The faded conjecture, the Cancellation Problem for Affine Spaces (or the Zariski
Problem) is the following:
The Cancellation Problem for Affine Spaces(the Zariski Problem). Let
k be a field of characteristic zero, let R be k-algebra and let n ∈ N with (n ≥ 2). If
R[Y ] ∼
=k k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] as a k-algebra, where Y, X1 , . . . , Xn are indeterminates, is
R∼
=k k[X1 , . . . , Xn−1 ] ?
We may assume that k = C in the above problem. The answers are affirmative
for n = 3 and n = 4 ([8], [10], [11], [17]).
A. Shastri [16] obtained the following polynomial representation of the trefoil
knot by putting f (u) := u3 −3u, g(u) := u4 −4u2 , and h(u) := u5 −10u and α(u) :=
(f (u), g(u), h(u)), where α : R → R3 . It is easy to see that F (f (u), g(u), h(u)) = u,
with F (X, Y, Z) := Y Z − X 3 − 5XY + 2Z − 7X. This map α is an embedding and
is called Shastri’s embedding, which extends to α : C → C[3] .
Arno van den Essen [5, Conjecture 5.1] was inspired by Shastri’s embedding,
and posed the following conjecture E. If this conjecture is affirmative, then “The
Cancellation Problem for Affine Spaces(the Zariski Problem)” has a negative solution in the case n = 5.
Conjecture E Let A := C[t, u, x, y, z] denote a polynomial ring, and let f (u), g(u)
and h(u) be the polynomials defined above, that is, f (u) := u3 − 3u, g(u) := u4 − 4u2
and h(u) := u5 − 10u. Let D := f ′ (u)∂x + g ′ (u)∂y + h′ (u)∂z + t∂u (which is easily
seen to be a locally nilpotent derivation on A and has a slice s := t−1 (u − F (f (u) −
tx, g(u) − ty, h(u) − tz))). Then AD [s] = A ∼
6 C C[4] .
=C C[5] but AD ∼
=
This conjecture is equivalent to the following conjecture.
Conjecture E’ C[t, u, x, y, z]/(s) ∼
6 C C[4] .
=
Note that
s

=

t−1 (u − F (f (u) − tx, g(u) − ty, h(u) − tz))

=

−7x − 7u2 x + 13u4 x − 3u6 x − 9tux2 + 3tu3 x2 − t2 x3
+5uy − 5u3 y + u5 y + 5txy + 2z − 4u2 z + u4 z − tyz.

Our objectives of this paper are to show that the following Conjecture Fn is
affirmative and that Conjectures E and E’ have negative answers.
Conjecture Fn Let R be a C-affine domain with R× = C× , let T be an element
in R \ C and let i : C[T ] ֒→ R be the inclusion. Assume that R/T R ∼
=C C[n−1] and
[n−1]
. Then R ∼
that RT ∼
= C Cn .
=C[T ] C[T ]T
We will show the following two results in the sections 3 and 4, respectively:

On The Candidate Counter-Example posed by Arno van den Essen

3

The Main Result 1 ; the affirmative answer to Conjecture Fn . Let R be a
C-affine domain, let T be an element in R \ C and let i : C[T ] ֒→ R be the inclusion.
[n−1]
. Then R ∼
Assume that R/T R ∼
=C C[n] .
=C[T ] C[T ]T
=C C[n−1] and that RT ∼
×
×
(Note that R = C by the assumption.)
(And)
The Main Result 2 ; the negative answer to Conjecture E. Let A :=
C[t, u, x, y, z] denote a polynomial ring, and let f (u) := u3 − 3u, g(u) := u4 − 4u2 ,
and h(u) := u5 − 10u. Let D := f ′ (u)∂x + g ′ (u)∂y + h′ (u)∂z + t∂u be a derivation on
A (which is easily seen to be a locally nilpotent derivation on A). Then AD ∼
=C C[4] .

Concerning The Main Result 2, we say the following Remark:
Remark 1.1. If Conjecture E is affirmative, it gives a negative answer to the
Cancellation Problem and to the Linearization Problem, and shows that Shastri’s
embedding is indeed a counterexample to the Embedding Problem and the An Fibration Problem (n ≥ 3) over a line A1C . However, by The Main Result 2, then
they are also still open by [5].
Throughout this paper, all fields, rings and algebras are assumed to be commutative with unity.
Our general reference for unexplained technical terms is [13].

2. Some Easy Preliminaries
We use the following notations freely.
Let k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] be a polynomial ring over a field k of characteristic zero. Then
∂Xi denotes the partial derivation with respect to Xi in k[X1 , . . . , Xn ].
Let R be an k-algebra. Then a k-linear map satisfying D(ab) = aD(b) + bD(a)
for a, b ∈ R is called a k-derivation on R. Furthermore RD := {a ∈ R| D(a) = 0},
which is a k-subalgebra of R. If for every a ∈ R, Dr (a) = |DD{z
· · · D}(a) = 0 for
r

some r ∈ N, then D is called a locally nilpotent derivation on R. If s ∈ R satisfies
D(s) = 1, then we say that D has a slice s. Note that Dr is not necessarily a
derivation.
The following are well-known.
Lemma 2.1. ([5, p.1314] or [6, Proposition 1.3.21 and Corollary 1.3.23]) Let D be
a locally nilpotent derivation having a slice s in A, where A is a Q-algebra. Then
d
on A having a
A is a polynomial ring in s over AD , i.e., A = AD [s] and D =
ds
slice s in A.

4

SUSUMU ODA

Corollary 2.2. ([6, Corollary 1.3.23]) Let A be an R-algebra (and R is Q-algebra)
P (−1)i i
D (a)si
and let D ∈ DerR (A) be a locally nilpotent derivation on A. Let ϕ(a) =
i!
for any a ∈ R. Then AD = ϕ(A). In particular if G is a generating set for the
R-algebra A, then ϕ(G) is a generating set for the R-algebra AD .
The following result is not necessary for our Main Results, but it seems to be
interesting in its own way.
Lemma 2.3. Let D be a locally nilpotent derivation on A, where A is a Q-algebra.
If A is a normal domain, then so is AD .
Proof. Let α ∈ K(AD ) be an element which is integral over AD (hence α ∈ A)
αn + a1 αn−1 + · · · an−1 + an = 0
be an integral relation of α over AD . We may assume n is minimal. Then
0 = D(αn + a1 αn−1 + · · · an−1 + an ) = nαn−1 D(α) + (n − 1)αn−2 a1 D(α) + · · · +
an−1 D(α) = (nαn−1 + (n− 1)a1 αn−2 + · · ·+ an−1 )D(α). By the minimality of n, we
have nαn−1 + (n − 1)a1 αn−2 + · · · + an−1 6= 0 and D(α) = 0, that is, α ∈ AD . 

3. The Main Result 1 : The Affirmative Answer to Conjecture Fn
In this section, we show that Conjecture Fn is affirmative.
By an affine, flat fibration over a scheme S by the affine n-space An is meant an
affine flat morphism X → S of finite type such that for each s ∈ S the fiber above
s is isomorphic to Ank(s) over the residue field k(s) of s. Such a fibration is called
an An -bundle over S if X is locally isomorphic to AnS := An ×Z S with respect to
the Zariski topology on S.
Some studies on A1 -fibrations are shown in several articles, for example [10] and
[11]. Conjecture Fn has a relation to An -fibrations.
First we collect the following well-known results required in order to prove the
main result 1.
Lemma 3.1. (cf. [14, Theorem 7.5]) Let R be a ring and R′ be an R-algebra
such that R′ is faithfully flat over R. If I is an ideal of R, then K(R) ⊆ K(R′ ) and
IR′ ∩ R = I.
Corollary 3.2. Let R be a ring and R′ be an R-algebra such that R′ is faithfully
flat over R. Let K(R) (resp. K(R′ )) be the total quotient ring of R (resp. R′ ).
Then IR′ ∩ K(R) = I for any ideal I of R and R′ ∩ K(R) = R.

On The Candidate Counter-Example posed by Arno van den Essen

5

Proof. Take a/b ∈ K(R) ∩ IR′ with a, b ∈ R, where b is not a zero-divisor in R.
Then a ∈ bIR′ ∩ R = bI by by Lemma 3.1. So a/b ∈ I and hence IR′ ∩ K(R) ⊆ I.
The converse inclusion is trivial.

Let A ֒→ B be a ring-extension and let Bp with p ∈ Spec(A) denote S −1 B,
where S is a multiplicative set A \ p. When f is an non-zero element in A, Af
denotes the localization of A by the powers of f , that is, Af = A[1/f ].
Proposition 3.3. Let R be a C-affine domain, let T be an element in R \ C and let
[n−1]
, then R/(T − α)R ∼
i : C[T ] ֒→ R be the inclusion. If RT ∼
=C C[n−1]
=C[T ] C[T ]T
×
canonically for all α ∈ C .
Proof. It is easy to see that R/(T − α)R = RT /(T − α)RT ∼
=C (C[T ]/(T −
α)C[T ])[n−1] ∼

=C C[n−1] because T 6∈ (T − α)C[T ] for α ∈ C× .

n−1 ∼
Remark 3.4. We use the same notations as in Conjecture Fn . Since AC
=C
a −1
i (V (T − α)C[T ]) = Spec(R/(T − α)R) for every α ∈ C by Proposition 3.3 and
the assumption in Conjecture Fn , T − α ∈ C[T ] is a non-zero-prime element in both
C[T ] and R, and R/(T − α)R is regular. Hence R is faithfully flat over C[T ] by [3,
Corollaries 6.9 and 6.3 ], and R is a regular domain by [14, Theorem 23.7].
We also see that R is a UFD by Nagata’s Theorem ([14, Theorem 20.2] or [7])
[n−1]
is a UFD.
because T is a prime element in R and RT ∼
=C[T ] C[T ]T

Let A be a ring, A 6= 0. The Jacobson radical rad(A) of A is the intersection of
all maximal ideals of A.
Remark 3.5. [13, (1.L)] Let A be a ring , A 6= 0 and let I be an ideal of A. If
1 + x is a unit for for each x ∈ I, then I ⊆ rad(A).

Lemma 3.6. [13, (24.A)] Let A be a Noetherian ring with an I-adic topology, where
I is an ideal of A. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) A is a Zariski ring, that is, every ideal is closed in A;
(2) I ⊆ rad(A);
b of A is faithfully flat over A.
(3) the completion A
The next Theorem asserts that Conjecture Fn has an affirmative solution
(Main Result 1).
Theorem 3.7. Let R be a C-affine domain with R× = C× , let T be an element in
R \ C and let i : C[T ] ֒→ R be the inclusion. Assume that R/T R ∼
=C C[n−1] and
[n−1]
[n]
∼
∼
. Then R =C C .
that RT =C[T ] C[T ]T

SUSUMU ODA

6

Proof. By Remark 3.4, R is faithfully flat and smooth over C[T ] and R is a regular
UFD. So R is written as k[T ][x1 , . . . , xm ], where x1 , . . . , xm are prime elements in
R and xi 6∈ T R (1 ≤ i ≤ m).
Let the canonical homomorphism σ : R → R/T R = C[Z 1 , . . . , Z n−1 ], a polynomial ring over C. Take Zi ∈ R such that σ(Zi ) = Z i (1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1).
Put A := C[T ][Z1 , . . . , Zn−1 ], which is a polynomial ring over C[T ].
Since T is a prime element in both the C-affine UFDs A and R of the same
dimension, the ideal T R ∩ A is a prime ideal of A and hence T R ∩ A = T A.
Moreover T ℓ R ∩ A = T ℓ A for all ℓ ∈ N. Indeed, we can this by induction on ℓ.
The case ℓ = 1 is already shown above. Suppose that T ℓ−1 R ∩ A = T ℓ−1 A. Then
T ℓ A = T ℓ−1 (T A) = T ℓ−1 (T R∩A) = T ℓ R∩T ℓ−1 A = T ℓ R∩(T ℓ−1 R∩A) = T ℓ R∩A,
Let A# denote the integral closure of A in K(R). Then A# is a finite A-algebra
and hence a C-affine domain, which is well-known. Since R is regular by Remark
3.4, A# ⊆ R and K(R) = K(A# ).
Let pα = (T − α)C[T ] denote a prime ideal of C[T ] for α ∈ C.
Let p = p0 and set
p :=

T C[T ]

′

:=

ApA = AT A

∗

:=

A# ⊗A A′

′

:=

RT R

:=

(the pA′ -adic completion of A′ )

:=

(the pA′ -adic completion of A∗ )

:=

(the pR′ -adic completion of R′ ).

A
A

R
c′
A

c∗
A
c′
R

Note that p is a prime in C[T ] and that T is a prime element both in R and
A. It follows that pA and pR are prime, respectively, and both C[T ]p ֒→ A′
and C[T ]p ֒→ R′ are flat by Remark 3.4. Note that A∗ is finite over A′ , that
c∗ = A∗ ⊗A′ A
c′ by [2, Proposition 10.13].
A′ ⊆ A∗ ⊆ R′ and that A
′
′
′
Let ϕ : A ֒→ R and ϕ : A ֒→ R denote the inclusions.
We can obviously assert that the Jacobson radicals of A′ , A∗ and R′ contains the
ideal T A′ , T A∗ and T R′ by Remark 3.5, respectively, which means these topological
c′ (resp. A
c∗ , R
c′ ) is faithfully flat over A′ (resp. A∗ , R′ )
rings are Zariski rings. So A
by Lemma 3.6.
Since R/T R = A/T A, we have R = A + T R = A + T 2 R = · · · = A + T ℓ R for all
ℓ ∈ N. It follow that R/T ℓR = A + T ℓ R/T ℓR = A/T ℓ R ∩ A = A/T ℓ A. So we see
that R′ /T ℓ R′ = A′ /T ℓ R′ ∩ A′ = A′ /T ℓA′ . It follows that
c′ −→ R
c′
ϕb′ : A

is bijective.
c′ induce
The inclusion A′ ֒→ A∗ and the flatness of A′ → A
c′ = A
c′ = A′ ⊗A′ A
c′ ֒→ A∗ ⊗A′ A
c′ = A
c∗
R

c′ = A
c′ as was shown above. That is, R
c′ ֒→ A
c∗ . Since K(A∗ ) = K(R′ ),
because R
we conclude that
c′ ∩ K(R′ ) ֒→ A
c∗ ∩ K(A∗ ) = A∗
R′ = R
by Corollary 3.2 and hence that R′ = A∗ because A∗ ⊆ R′ trivially. Then R′ = A∗ is
c′ .
c′ = A
c′ = R
c′ = A
c∗ = A∗ ⊗A′ A
(module-)finite over A′ , which implies that A′ ⊗A′ A

On The Candidate Counter-Example posed by Arno van den Essen

7

c′ is faithfully flat by Lemma 3.6, we conclude that A′ = A∗ = R′ ,
Since A′ ֒→ A
that is, RT R = AT A . Whence we have
K(A) = K(R).
Let Rpα (resp. Apα ) denote R ⊗C[T ] C[T ]pα (resp. A ⊗C[T ] C[T ]pα ), that is,
{r/s | r ∈ R, s ∈ C[T ] \ pα } (resp. {a/s | a ∈ A, s ∈ C[T ] \ pα }).
Since Ap ⊆ Rp are UFDs and K(Ap ) = K(A) = K(R) = K(Rp ), we have
Ht1 (Rp ) ∩ Ap ⊆ Ht1 (Ap ), where Ht1 (Rp ) ∩ Ap := {P ∩ Ap | P ∈ Ht1 (Rp )}. Note
that Ht1 (Rp ) = {Ht1 (C(T )⊗C[T ] R)∩Rp } ∪{T Rp} and Ht1 (Ap ) = {Ht1 (C(T )⊗C[T ]
A) ∩ Ap } ∪ {T Ap } and that T Ap = T Rp ∩ Ap mentioned above. Since RT ∼
=C[T ]
[n−1]
[n−1]
∼
, we have C(T ) ⊗C[T ] RT =C[T ] C(T )
C[T ]T
and hence (C(T ) ⊗C[T ] RT )× =
×
C(T ) . Take a prime element a ∈ (C(T )⊗C[T ] A)∩Ap , then a((C(T )⊗C[T ] R)∩Rp ) ⊆
P for some P ∈ Ht1 ((C(T ) ⊗C[T ] R) ∩ Rp ) because (C(T ) ⊗C[T ] RT )× = C(T )× and
C(T ) ⊗C[T ] R is a UFD. It follows that Ht1 (C(T ) ⊗C[T ] A) ⊆ Ht1 (C(T ) ⊗C[T ] R) ∩
(C(T )⊗C[T ] A) and consequently, Ht1 (Rp )∩Ap = Ht1 (Ap ). So for each Q ∈ Ht1 (Rp ),
we have AQ∩A ⊆ RQ which are DVRs on K(A) = K(R), and hence AQ∩A = RQ .
Therefore we have
\
\
RQ = Rp .
Aq =
Ap =
q∈Ht1 (Ap )

Q∈Ht1 (Rp )

[n−1]
Hence Rp = Ap ∼
.
=C C[T ]p
[n−1]
[n−1]
Since the assumption RT ∼
yields Rpα ∼
for
=C[T ] C[T ]T
=C[T ] C[T ]pα
[n−1]
for all α ∈ C. It
0 6= α ∈ C, the above result gives rise to Rpα ∼
=C[T ] C[T ]pα
follows that R is a locally polynomial ring over C[T ].
Now by using [4], R is represented as a symmetric algebra SymC[T ] (M ) for some
finitely generated projective module M over C[T ]. Since C[T ] is a PID, M is free
over C[T ]. Therefore R ∼
=C[T ] SymC[T ] (M ) is a polynomial ring over C[T ], that is,
[n−1] ∼
[n]
∼
R =C[T ] C[T ]

=C C .

To prove The Main Result 2, we have a special case,
Corollary 3.8. Let R be a C-affine domain with R× = C× , let T be an element
in R \ C and let i : C[T ] ֒→ R be the inclusion. Assume that R/T R ∼
=C C[4] and
[3]
that RT ∼
=C[T ] C[T ]T . Then R ∼
=C C[4] .

4. The Main Result 2 : The negative answer to Conjecture E
In this section, we show that Conjecture E above is negative.
From now on, we use the following notations.
Let A := C[t, u, x, y, z] denote a polynomial ring, and let f (u) := u3 − 3u, g(u) :=
u4 − 4u2 , and h(u) := u5 − 10u. Let D := f ′ (u)∂x + g ′ (u)∂y + h′ (u)∂z + t∂u be
a derivation on A (which is easily seen to be a locally nilpotent derivation on A).
Let AD := {α ∈ A|D(α) = 0}. Since AD ⊆ A, we have (AD )× = A× = C× .

SUSUMU ODA

8

Put F (X, Y, Z) := Y Z−X 3 −5XY +2Z−7X ∈ C[X, Y, Z]. Then F (f (u), g(u), h(u)) =
u by an easy computation.
Let v[x] := f (u)−xt, v[y] := g(u)−yt, v[z] := h(u)−zt ∈ A and s = s(t, u, x, y, z) :=
t−1 (u − F (v[x] , v[y] , v[z] )) = −7x − 7u2 x + 13u4x − 3u6 x − 9tux2 + 3tu3 x2 − t2 x3 +
5uy − 5u3 y + u5 y + 5txy + 2z − 4u2 z + u4 z − tyz. Then s(t, u, x, y, z) ∈ A and
D(s) = 1 by the easy computation(cf.[5]), and hence A = AD [s] is a polynomial
ring in s over AD by Lemma 1.1 in Section 1.
Lemma 4.1. The elements t, v[x] := f (u) − xt, v[y] := g(u) − yt, v[z] := h(u) − zt
belong to AD and
At = C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ][s]t = (AD )t [s].
Proof. Indeed, D(t) = f ′ (u)∂x (t)+g ′ (u)∂y (t)+h′ (u)∂z (t)+t∂u (t) = 0+0+0+0 = 0
and D(v[x] ) = f ′ (u)∂x (v[x] ) + g ′ (u)∂y (v[x] ) + h′ (u)∂z (v[x] ) + t∂u (v[x] ) = −f ′ (u)t +
0 + 0 + tf ′ (u) = 0. By the same way, we have D(v[y] ) = 0, D(v[z] ) = 0. Thus
C[t, u, x, y, z] = A = AD [s] ⊇ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ][s] = C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ][t−1 (u −
F (v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ))]. Localizing by powers of t, we have At = AD [s]t ⊇ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] , s]t .
In At ,
s = t−1 (u − F (v[x] , v[y] , v[z] )) ∈ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s]
implies that
u − F (v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ) ∈ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ][s]t
and hence that
u ∈ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s].
It follows that
C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s] = C[t, u, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s].
Since
v[x] = f (u) − tx ∈ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s] = C[t, u, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s],
we have
tx ∈ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s]
and hence
x ∈ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s].
Similarly, we obtain that y, z ∈ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s]. Therefore
AD [s]t ⊆ C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s] = C[t, u, x, y, z]t [s] = At .
Therefore we have
At = (AD )t [s] = C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t [s].


Corollary 4.2.
[3]
(AD )t ∼
=C[t] C[t]t .
[3]
Proof. The proof follows from Lemma 4.1 because C[t, v[x] , v[y] , v[z] ]t ∼
=C[t] C[t]t .


On The Candidate Counter-Example posed by Arno van den Essen

9

From Corollary 2.2, we have the following Lemma.
Lemma 4.3. Let ϕ( ) denote the same as in Corollary 2.2 (here R = C). We have
ϕ(t) = t,
ϕ(u) = u + ts,
ϕ(x) = x + 3(1 − u2 )s + 3tus2 − t2 s3 ,
4
ϕ(y) = y + 4(2 − u2 )us + 4(u − 1)ts2 − t2 s3 ,
3
ϕ(z) = z + 5(2 − u4 )s + 10tu3 s2 − 10t2 u2 s3 + 10t3 us4 − t4 s5 .
Therefore AD = C[ϕ(t), ϕ(u), ϕ(x), ϕ(y), ϕ(z)].
Lemma 4.4. AD /tAD ∼
=C C[3] .
Proof. First we claim tA ∩ AD = tAD . Indeed, take tη ∈ tA ∩ AD (η ∈ A). Then
0 = D(tη) = D(t)η +tD(η) = tD(η) because t ∈ AD . Since A is an integral domain,
we have D(η) = 0, that is, η ∈ AD .
Since AD [s] = C[t, u, x, y, z] and ϕ(u) = u + ts, we see that u = ϕ(u) − ts ∈
D
A +tA and that u ∈ (AD +tA)/tA = AD /tA∩AD = AD /tAD . Put B = AD /tAD .
It is clear that B[s] = C[u, x, y, z], where B[s] is a polynomial ring in x over B and
C[u, x, y, z] is a polynomial ring in u, x, y, z over C. Hence B × = C× and B is a
UFD by [7, Theorem 8.1].
Since B ∋ ϕ(x) = x+3(1−u2 )s, we have B1−u2 [x] = B1−u2 [s] = C[u]1−u2 [x, y, z] =
C[u]1−u2 [y, z][x], that is,
B1−u2 [x] = C[u]1−u2 [y, z][x],
which is a UFD. Since both B[x] and C[u, x, y, z] are UFDs and x is a prime
e :=
element in B[x] and in C[u, x, y, z], we have xC[u, x, y, z] ∩ B[x] = xB[x]. Put B
B[x]/xB[x] and put C[e
u, ye, ze] := C[u, x, y, z]/xC[u, x, y, z]. Then B ∼
=
B[x]/xB
=C
×
×
e
e
e
B, B = C and K(B) = K(C[e
u, ye, ze]). Since B is a UFD as mentioned above, we
e is a UFD.
see that B
Hence
e1−eu2 = C[e
B
u]1−eu2 [e
y , ze]
(∗).

Take P ∈ Ht1 (C[e
u, ye, ze]). If 1 − u
e ∈ P , then P = (1 − u
e)C[e
u, ye, ze] because 1 − u
e
is a prime element in C[e
u, ye, ze]. Similarly if 1 + u
e ∈ P , then P = (1 + u
e)C[e
u, ye, ze].
e ∈ Ht1 (B).
e If 1 − u
e ∈ Ht1 (B)
e by (∗).
In these cases, P ∩ B
e2 6∈ P , then P ∩ B
e
e
e e for each
Thus Ht1 (B) = {P ∩ B | P ∈ Ht1 (C[e
u, ye, ze])} and C[e
u, ye, ze]P ⊇ B
P ∩B
e = K(C[e
P ∈ Ht1 (C[e
u, ye, ze]). Since these localizations are DVRs on K(B)
u, ye, ze]),
e
we have the equalities C[e
u, ye, ze]P = BP ∩Be for all P ∈ Ht1 (C[e
u, ye, ze]). It follows
from [7] that
\
\
eq = B
e∼
B
C[e
u, ye, ze]Q =
C[e
u, ye, ze] =
=C B,
Q∈Ht1 (C[e
u,e
y ,e
z ])

e∼
which means that AD /tAD = B ∼
=C C[3] .
=C B
Now we obtain The Main Result 2 :

e
q∈Ht1 (B)



10

SUSUMU ODA

Theorem 4.5. Let A := C[t, u, x, y, z] denote a polynomial ring, and let f (u) :=
u3 − 3u, g(u) := u4 − 4u2 , and h(u) := u5 − 10u. Let D := f ′ (u)∂x + g ′ (u)∂y +
h′ (u)∂z + t∂u be a derivation on A ( which is easily seen to be a locally nilpotent
derivation on A ). Then AD ∼
=C C[4] .
Proof. From Lemma 4.4 and Corollary 4.2, we have a C-isomorphism:
[3]
AD /tAD ∼
=C[t] C[t]t .
=C C[3] and (AD )t ∼
So AD is C-isomorphic to C[4] by Theorem 3.7.



Added in Proof. The author would like to express his thanks to Professor
Michiel de Bondt, who informed the candidate counterexample [5] to the author.
The author wonders why Conjecture E has been left unsettled for more than ten
years.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]

A.Altman and S.Kleiman, Introduction to Grothendieck duality theory, Lecture Notes in
Math. 146, Springer-Verlag (1970).
M.F.Atiyah and L.G.MacDonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra, Addison-Wesley,
London (1969).
D.Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra with a view toward algebraic geometry, GTM 150,
Springer-Verlag (1995).
H.Bass, E.H.Connel and D.L.Wright, Locally polynomial algebras are symmetric algebras,
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 82 (1976), 719-720.
A.van den Essen and P.van Rossum, Triangular derivations related to problems on affine
n-space, Proc. Amer. Math. Sc. 130 (2002), 1311-1322.
A. van den Essen, Polynomial Automorphisms and the Jacobian Conjecture, volume 190 of
Progress in Mathematics, Birkhäuser-Verlag (2000).
R.Fossum, The Divisor Class Group of a Krull Domain, Springer-Verlag (1973).
T.Fujita, On Zariski Problem, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci 55 (1975), 106-110.
R.Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, GTM 52, Springer-Verlag (1977).
T.Kambayashi, On one-parameter family of affine planes, Invent. Math. no. 52 (1979), 275281.
T.Kambayashi and D.Wright, Flat families of affine lines are affine-line bundles, Illinois Journal of Math. Vol. 29 (1985), 672-681.
E.Kunz, Introduction to Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, Birkhäuser (1985).
H.Matsumura, Commutative Algebra, Benjamin, New York (1970).
H.Matsumura, Commutative Ring Theory, Cambridge Univ. Press (1980).
M.Nagata, Local Rings, Interscience, 1962.
A.Shastri, Polynomial representations of knots, Tohoku Math. J. (1992), 11-17.
A.Sathaye, Polynomial rings in two variables over a D.V.R.,: A Criterion, Invent. Math., 74
(1983) 159-168,

