Let $k$ be a commutative ring. Is there a name for those commutative $k$-algebras with the property that every subalgebra is finitely generated? (Equivalently, the partial order of subalgebras is Noetherian.) Can we say something about their structure? Where can I read more about them? I am particularly interested in the cases $k=\mathbb{Z}$ and when $k$ is field.

Notice that if $k$ is a field then $k[x,y]$ does not have the property, but $k[x]$ does. One can also check directly that the subrings of $\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}$ are finitely generated because they are given by $\mathbb{Z}[(n,0)] = \mathbb{Z} \times_{\mathbb{Z}/n} \mathbb{Z}$, where $n \geq 0$. I wonder if there is a more conceptual reason for this.

(Usually an object is called Noetherian if its partial order of subobjects is Noetherian, and this applies for example to (non-abelian) groups and modules. But a ring is usually called Noetherian if its partial order of quotients is Noetherian. This is somewhat confusing. Therefore, although it would be consistent to call a ring Noetherian if its partial order of subrings is Noetherian, this would contradict the usual terminology.)

Edit. If $k$ is a field, then a necessary condition is that the algebra is finitely generated of Krull dimension $\leq 1$. This follows directly from Noether normalization and the fact, already mentioned above, that $k[x,y]$ does not have the property. But this condition is not sufficient, as the example $k[x,y]/(x^2)$ shows.

Summary of the answers so far. Keith Kearnes suggests the terms "supernoetherian" (if $k$ is Noetherian) and "hereditary finitely generated" (which sounds very good). YCor has reduced the general classification to the case of finitely generated $k$-domains (if $k$ is Noetherian). The classification in this case is still open. If $k$ is a field, is it equivalent to Krull dimension $\leq 1$? Is there a characterization if $k$ is not a field?

YCor has also generalized my observation on $\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}$: The $k$-algebra $k \times k$ is hereditarily finitely generated if and only if $k$ is Noetherian, because in fact there is an isomorphism of partial orders between ideals of $k$ and subalgebras of $k \times k$ given by $I \mapsto k \cdot (1,1) + I \times \{0\}$.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ About terminology: the confusion, if any, is in the other direction: Noetherian was originally defined for finite generation of ideals in rings and then extended to other contexts. $\endgroup$ – YCor Oct 28 '16 at 5:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For non-fields $k$, even for $k = \mathbb{Z}$, this seems to be a very restrictive property. For example, $\mathbb{Z}[X]$ does not have the property since the ring $\mathbb{Z}[2X,2X^2,2X^3,\ldots]$ is not finitely generated. I wonder (just a guess) if $\mathbb{Z}$-algebras with this property have to be subrings of a finite direct product of localizations of $\mathbb{Z}$ at finitely generated submonoids of the monoid of all positive integers under multiplication, or something like that. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Elliott Oct 28 '16 at 6:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems reasonable to conjecture that when $k$ is a field, these are exactly the finitely generated algebras of Krull dimension $\leq 1$. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Oct 28 '16 at 7:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey: I think that $k[x,y]/(x^2)$ is a counterexample to this claim. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 28 '16 at 8:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JesseElliott: It will not be that easy. For instance, finite commutative rings have the property. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 28 '16 at 9:41

Let $k$ be a commutative ring. Is there a name for those commutative $k$-algebras with the property that every subalgebra is finitely generated? $\ldots$ Where can I read more about them?

The paper

Rogalski, D.; Sierra, S. J.; Stafford, J. T., Algebras in which every subalgebra is Noetherian. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 142 (2014), no. 9, 2983-2990.

introduces the term supernoetherian for a not-necessarily-commutative $k$-algebra $A$ that has the property that all subalgebras of $A$ are both (i) finitely generated and (ii) Noetherian. In the commutative case, when $k$ is Noetherian, (ii) follows from (i) by the Hilbert Basis Theorem, so these are exactly the $k$-algebras asked about here when $k$ is Noetherian. The authors of this paper consider only the case where $k$ is an algebraically closed field, and in this case they do observe that the commutative supernoetherian algebras have Krull dimension at most $1$, but they do not classify them.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. This answers the terminology question. I would call this then "super finitely generated", since my question is not primarily about the property of being Noetherian. Notice that (i) -> (ii) needs that $k$ is Noetherian, but in their paper $k$ is just an alg. closed field. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 30 '16 at 19:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I found a paper: Hereditarily Finitely Generated Commutative Monoids by J. C. Rosales and J. I. Garcı́a-Garcı́a, Journal of Algebra 221, 723-732 (1999). They use "hereditarily finitely generated" to mean a monoid whose submonoids are all finitely generated. This term might work for you. $\endgroup$ – Keith Kearnes Oct 30 '16 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ Probably there's no need for new terminology. For instance, Philip Hall (Finiteness conditions for soluble groups, 1954) refers to "the maximal condition for right ideals" (in a ring), "the maximal condition for subgroups" "the maximal condition for normal subgroups", etc. "The maximal condition for subalgebras" can also be found in old papers, e.g. this one: archive.numdam.org/ARCHIVE/CM/CM_1975__31_1/CM_1975__31_1_31_0/… $\endgroup$ – YCor Oct 30 '16 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor: Thank you. But "ascending chain condition" (ACC) seems to be more standard and refers to arbitrary partial orders. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 30 '16 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ @KeithKearnes: This sounds good, especially because it is an adjective in contrast to ACC or maximal condition. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 30 '16 at 20:46

I'll assume that $k$ is noetherian. I'll just write $k$-ACC, or ACC if no ambiguity, to mean the ascending chain condition on $k$-subalgebra.

(For $k$ arbitrary, $A=k$ is the only $k$-subalgebra of itself so satisfies the property, so can be arbitrarily bad.)

Here's an equivalence which then boils down to the case of a domain:

A $k$-algebra $A$ ($k$ is noetherian) has ACC iff the following 3 condition hold:

(i) $A$ is noetherian

(ii) the nilradical $N_A$ of $A$ is a finitely generated $k$-module

(iii) $A/P$ has ACC for every (minimal) prime ideal $P$ of $A$.

Indeed suppose that $A$ has ACC. (iii) immediately follows.

Let $(I_n)$ be an increasing sequence of ideals; so $(I_n\cap k1_A)$ is an ascending sequence of ideals of $k1_A$ and hence is stationary, say for $n\ge n_0$. Also $(k1_A+I_n)$ is an ascending sequence of $k$-subalgebras of $A$. So there exists $n_1$ (say $\ge n_0$) such that for every $n\ge n_1$ and $x\in I_n$, one can write $x=x'+t1_A$ with $x'\in I_{n_1}$ and $t\in k$. Then $x'-x\in I_n\cap k1_A$ and hence $x'-x\in I_{n_0}$. Thus $x\in I_{n_1}$; whence $I_n=I_{n_1}$ for all $n\ge n_1$. This proves (i).

To prove (ii), use that $A$ is noetherian to write a nested sequence of submodules $0\le N_1\le \dots N_k=N_A$ with each $N_i$ isomorphic as an $A$-module to $A/P_i$ for some prime $i$. Suppose by contradiction that some $N_i$ is an infinitely generated $k$-module. Since ACC passes to quotients, we can suppose that $i=1$. Since $P_i$ annihilates $N_1$ and contains the nilradical, we see that $xy=0$ for all $x,y\in N_1$. Therefore, for every $k$-submodule $V$ of $N_1$, the $k$-subalgebra generated by $V$ is reduced to $k1_A+V$. So if $(V_n)$ is an increasing sequence of submodules, from ACC we deduce that for large $n$, $k1_A+V_n=k1_A+V_{n+1}$ (in other words, the canonical map $V_n/(k1_A\cap V_n)\to V_{n+1}/(k1_A\cap V_{n+1})$ is an isomorphism). Since $k$ is noetherian, $(k1_A\cap V_n)$, as an ascending sequence of $k$-submodule of $k1_A$, is also stationary, say with union $W$. Hence the above canonical map is the inclusion $V_n/W\to V_{n+1}/W$; since it is an isomorphism it means that $V_{n+1}=V_n$.

Conversely suppose that (i),(ii),(iii) hold. It is easy to check (see below) that a finite direct product of $k$-algebras with ACC has ACC. By (i), $A$ has finitely many minimal primes $P_i$, so $A/N_A$ embeds as subalgebra in the finite product $\prod A/P_i$, which has ACC using (iii), hence $A/N_A$ has ACC. Also it is immediate that if an algebra $A$ has an ideal $I$ that is a f.g. $k$-module and $A/I$ has ACC then $A$ has ACC. Then using (ii) $A$ has ACC.

Fact: ($k$ noetherian) the $k$-ACC condition passes to finite direct products.

Proof: it's enough to do it for a product $A\times B$. Let $(H_n)$ be an ascending sequence of subalgebras of $A\times B$. The projections being stationary, we can suppose that the projections of $H_n$ on both $A$ and $B$ are surjective. It follows that the intersection $H_n\cap (A\times\{0\})$ is an ideal in $A$. Since $A$ is noetherian (as I first checked: this didn't use this finite product claim), this intersection is stationary and we're done.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Why is ACC preserved by finite products? This seems to be a nontrivial statement. A subalgebra of a product is not determined by its projections. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 30 '16 at 20:49
  • $\begingroup$ You have to play with both intersections and projections. If $H_1\subset H_2\subset A\times B$ and $H_1$ and $H_2$ have the same projections and intersections then $H_1=H_2$. $\endgroup$ – YCor Oct 30 '16 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by intersection? $A$ is not a subalgebra of $A \times B$. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 30 '16 at 20:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Here is a comment about the Noetherian assumption on $k$: A commutative ring $k$ is Noetherian iff the $k$-algebra $k\times k$ is hereditarily finitely generated. $\endgroup$ – Keith Kearnes Oct 30 '16 at 22:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KeithKearnes thanks for the remark (there's indeed a canonical poset isomorphism between the poset of ideals in $k$ and the poset of subalgebras of $k\times k$) $\endgroup$ – YCor Oct 30 '16 at 22:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.