Let $S/R$ be an integral extension. Let $\mathfrak {B_1}, \mathfrak {B_2} \in \mathrm {Spec} (S)$ with $\mathfrak {B_1} \subset \mathfrak {B_2}$ are given. If $\mathfrak {B_1} \cap R = \mathfrak {B_2} \cap R$ then $\mathfrak {B_1} = \mathfrak {B_2}.$
In my book the proof goes like as follows $:$
Let $\mathfrak p := \mathfrak {B_1} \cap R =\mathfrak {B_2} \cap R.$ Then $S/\mathfrak {B_1}$ is integral over $R/\mathfrak p$ and $\mathfrak {B_2}/\mathfrak {B_1}$ is a prime ideal of $S/\mathfrak {B_1}$ which intersects $R/\mathfrak p$ in $(0).$ So we must have $\mathfrak {B_1} = \mathfrak {B_2}.$
But I don't understand why $(\mathfrak {B_2} / \mathfrak {B_1}) \cap (R/ \mathfrak p) = (0)$ and how does it imply that $\mathfrak {B_1} = \mathfrak {B_2}$?
Please help me in this regard.
Thank you very much for your valuable time.
EDIT $:$ I think that I got the second implication if we assume that $(\mathfrak {B_2} / \mathfrak {B_1}) \cap (R/ \mathfrak p) = (0).$
Let us first state a lemma.
Lemma $:$ Let $S/R$ be an integral extension. Let $J$ be an ideal of $S$ with $I:= J \cap R.$ If $J$ contains a non-zero divisor of $S$ then $I \neq (0).$
I know this lemma. Now let us try to prove the second implication by this lemma.
In this case $S/\mathfrak {B_1}$ is integral over $R/\mathfrak {p}$ and $(\mathfrak {B_2} /\mathfrak {B_1}) \cap (R/\mathfrak {p}) = (0).$ So it follows from the above lemma that $\mathfrak {B_2}/\mathfrak {B_1}$ doesn't contain any non-zero divisor of $S.$ But if $\mathfrak {B_2}/ \mathfrak {B_1}$ contains a non-zero element then it would be a non-zero divisor of it by the primality of $\mathfrak {B_1}.$ This shows that $\mathfrak {B_2}/ \mathfrak {B_1} = (0) \implies \mathfrak {B_1} =\mathfrak {B_2}.$
But how do I prove the first implication. I am still thinking about it.
Observe that $$R/\mathfrak p = \{r + \mathfrak {B_1} : r \in R \}.$$ because $R/\mathfrak p$ can be identified by it's image under the inclusion map $$\varphi : R/\mathfrak p \hookrightarrow S/\mathfrak {B_1}$$ defined by $$\varphi (r + \mathfrak p) = r + \mathfrak {B_1},\ r \in R.$$ and also $$\mathfrak {B_2} / \mathfrak {B_1} = \{x + \mathfrak {B_1} : x \in \mathfrak {B_2} \}.$$ Now suppose that $s \in (\mathfrak {B_2}/\mathfrak {B_1}) \cap (R/\mathfrak p).$ Then $\exists$ $r \in R$ and $x \in \mathfrak {B_2}$ such that $s=r+\mathfrak {B_1} = x + \mathfrak {B_1}.$ This shows that $$r-x \in \mathfrak {B_1} \implies r \in x+\mathfrak {B_1} \subseteq \mathfrak {B_2} + \mathfrak {B_1} = \mathfrak {B_2}$$ since $\mathfrak {B_1} \subseteq \mathfrak {B_2}.$ So we have $r \in \mathfrak {B_2} \cap R=\mathfrak p.$ Therefore $s = r+\mathfrak {B_1} = 0 + \mathfrak {B_1},$ since $r \in \mathfrak p \subseteq \mathfrak {B_1}.$ This implies that $$(\mathfrak {B_2}/\mathfrak {B_1}) \cap (R/\mathfrak p) = (0).$$