Does Smith normal form imply PID? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-21T17:25:50Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/31275http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/31275/does-smith-normal-form-imply-pidDoes Smith normal form imply PID?Ricky Demer2010-07-10T06:36:03Z2011-10-21T11:49:52Z
<p>Let R be a commutative ring with a 1 different from 0, such that all finite matrices over R have a Smith normal form. Does it follow that R is a Principal Ideal Domain?</p>
<p>If not, what if R also has no zero divisors? (aka is an integral domain)
What if additionally the diagonal entries are always unique up to associatedness?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/31275/does-smith-normal-form-imply-pid/31277#31277Answer by Robin Chapman for Does Smith normal form imply PID?Robin Chapman2010-07-10T06:47:51Z2010-07-10T06:47:51Z<p>If every matrix has a Smith normal form, then every finitely generated
$R$-submodule $M$ of $R^n$ satisfies $R^n/M$ is a finite
direct sum of modules isomorphic to $R/aR$. If $R$ is Noetherian
this implies that every finitely generated module is a direct sum of modules
of the form $R/aR$. So if $I$ is a maximal ideal of the Noetherian $R$
then $R/I$ is a simple ideal, so if $R/I\cong R/aR$ then $I=aR$ is
principal. So in a Noetherian ring with Smith normal form for all matrices, every
maximal ideal is principal. Does this imply that all ideals
are principal?....I'm not sure :-)</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/31275/does-smith-normal-form-imply-pid/31287#31287Answer by Tyler Lawson for Does Smith normal form imply PID?Tyler Lawson2010-07-10T12:38:52Z2011-10-21T11:49:52Z<p>The implication is false without the assumption that R is Noetherian, because finite matrices don't detect enough information about infinitely generated ideals.</p>
<p>For example, let R be the ring
<code>$$
\bigcup_{n \geq 0} k[[t^{1/n}]]
$$</code>
where $k$ is a field (an indiscrete valuation ring). Any finite matrix with coefficients in R comes from a subring $k[[t^{1/N}]]$ for some large $N$, and hence can be reduced to Smith normal form within this smaller PID.</p>
<p>However, the ideal <code>$\cup (t^{1/N})$</code> is not principal.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/31275/does-smith-normal-form-imply-pid/31305#31305Answer by Bill Dubuque for Does Smith normal form imply PID?Bill Dubuque2010-07-10T15:55:39Z2010-07-10T15:55:39Z<p>Work on ring-theoretic generalizations of Hermite/Smith normal forms goes way back, but made it into the mainstream via classic papers by Helmer and Kaplansky. Nowadays such rings are called elementary divisor rings, or rings with elementary divisors (r.e.d.) or Helmer rings, etc. A search on such terms, and for citations of Kap's classic paper [1] should quickly answer all your questions and then some.</p>
<p>[1] I. Kaplansky, "Elementary divisors and modules," Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 66, 464-491. (1949).<br>
<a href="http://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1949-066-02/S0002-9947-1949-0031470-3/S0002-9947-1949-0031470-3.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1949-066-02/S0002-9947-1949-0031470-3/S0002-9947-1949-0031470-3.pdf</a></p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/31275/does-smith-normal-form-imply-pid/31306#31306Answer by Victor Protsak for Does Smith normal form imply PID?Victor Protsak2010-07-10T16:07:09Z2010-07-10T16:07:09Z<p>Such rings are apparently called elementary divisor rings. They are necessarily Bezout rings (i.e. every finitely-generated ideal is principal), but not easy to characterize completely.</p>
<p>The first paper giving a nontrivial sufficient condition (beyond classical case) seems to be </p>
<p>Helmer, Olaf
The elementary divisor theorem for certain rings without chain condition.
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 49, (1943). 225--236, <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=7744" rel="nofollow">MR</a></p>
<p>More complete results are in a series of papers starting with</p>
<p>Larsen, Max D.; Lewis, William J.; Shores, Thomas S.
Elementary divisor rings and finitely presented modules.
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 187 (1974), 231--248, <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=335499" rel="nofollow">MR</a></p>