3
$\begingroup$

Is $A[X]/(aX+b)$ a Krull domain when $A$ is and when $a\in A-\{0\}, b\in A-Aa$ are such that $Aa$ and $Aa+Ab$ are prime ideals of $A$?

This is stated as Proposition 8 in Pierre Samuel, "Sur les anneaux factoriels", Bulletin de la S. M. F., tome 89 (1961), p. 155-173. (Much the same argument appears in Bourbaki, Commutative Algebra, as exercises 13 and 15 for §1 of Ch.VII.)

Samuel notes that $A[X]/(aX+b) \cong B := A[b/a]$, $a$ is a also a prime element of $B$, and the ring $B[a^{-1}] = A[a^{-1}]$ is again a Krull domain - all true enough.

He then refers back to Remark 2 to Proposition 2 of the same paper, to conclude from the fact that $B = B[a^{-1}]\cap B_{Ba}$ that $B$ is Krull. However, in the Remark it is assumed that $B$ has the ACCP (the maximal condition for principal ideals). Indeed, this will guarantee that $B_{Ba}$ is a DVR (discrete valuation ring).

For $B_{Ba}$ to be a DVR, it is necessary and sufficient that $\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb{N}} Ba^{n} = 0$, and this is easily seen to be equivalent to $\bigcap_{n}\mathfrak p^{n} = 0$ in $A$, where $\mathfrak p$ denotes the prime ideal $Aa+Ab$ of $A$.

Any counterexamples with $\bigcap_{n}\mathfrak p^{n} \neq 0$ for such a $\mathfrak p$?

If $v$ is any of the essential valuations of $Q(A)$ for the Krull domain $A$ (corresponding to the height 1 prime ideals of $A$), then $v(a) = 1, v(b) = 0$ if $v$ belongs to $Aa$, and $v(a) = 0$ for any other $v$. So not much can be said about the various $v(x)$ for a general element $x$ of $\mathfrak p$, it would seem...

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal L = \{0,1,+,\cdot,a,b,c\}$ be the first order language of ring theory, augmented with three individual constants $a$, $b$ and $c$, and let $T$ consist of the usual axioms expressing that any models are integral domains, along with the following axioms:

1) $a$, $b$ and $c$ are nonzero

2) $a$ generates a prime ideal not containing $b$

3) $a$ and $b$ generate a proper prime ideal

4) $c$ is in every power of the prime ideal mentioned in (3); this requires infinitely many first order statements, one for each $n\in\mathbb N$

5) if $x_{0}$ is nonzero and not a unit, it is divisible by an irreducible element

6) factorization into irreducibles, as far as it exists, is unique; this requires infinitely many statements of the form all $x_{i},y_{j}$ irreducible $\rightarrow x_{0}\cdot … \cdot x_{n} \neq y_{0}\cdot … \cdot y_{m}$ (one statement for each $n \gt m$), plus all $ x_{i},y_{i}$ irreducible, and $x_{0}\cdot … \cdot x_{n} = y_{0}\cdot … \cdot y_{n}$ $\rightarrow\bigvee_{\sigma\in S_{n+1}} (x_{i}$ and $y_{\sigma(i)}$ are associated$)$, where the disjunction runs over the symmetric group on $0, 1, …, n$ (one statement for each $n$).

Clearly, $T$ is consistent: if $S\subseteq T$ is a finite subset, the polynomial ring $k[X,Y]$ over a field $k$ is a model of $S$, when $a$, $b$ and $c$ are interpreted as $X$, $Y$ and $X^{n}$, with $n$ sufficiently large; so we can use the Compactness Theorem.

Now let $\Sigma = \{x_{0}\neq 0$ and $\exists_{y_{0}\ … y_{n}}(x_{0} = y_{0}\cdot … \cdot y_{n}$ and $y_{i}$ is irreducible for $i \lt n)\, |\,n\in\mathbb N\}$. It is a set of $\mathcal L$-formulas having only the variable $x_{0}$ free. Finite subsets of it are realized in every $T$-model $A$, as any such $A$ contains the irreducible element $a^{A}$ (the interpretation of the $\mathcal L$-constant $a$), and for $n$ large enough its $n$th power will satisfy all formulas of the finite subset.

No single $\mathcal L$-formula $\phi(x_{0})$ with only $x_{0}$ free and consistent with $T$ can imply all statements of $\Sigma$ under $T$, for it would have to express that $x_{0}$ is divisible by products of arbitrarily many irreducible elements. Therefore, $\Sigma$ is not an isolated type.

By the Omitting Types Theorem of Model Theory, $T$ has a model $A$ which omits $\Sigma$. Such an $A$ must be a UFD, since none of its nonzero elements can be divisible by products of arbitrarily many irreducible elements, whereas all nonzero non-units do have an irreducible factor, in view of axiom (5); and the axiom schema (6) ensures that factorizations are unique.

A fortiori, $A$ is a Krull domain, and by axioms (1) through (4), $\mathfrak p: = Aa^{A}+Ab^{A}$ provides a counterexample. Indeed, $0\neq c^{A}\in \bigcap_{n}\mathfrak p^{n}$. Here, $a^{A}$, $b^{A}$ and $c^{A}$ again denote the interpretations of the constants $a$, $b$ and $c$ in the structure $A$.

Edit: superficially, the same argument would seem to yield an UFD $A$ having an irreducible element $a^{A}$ and a nonzero element $c^{A}$ such that $c^{A}$ is divisible by every power of $a^{A}$, if one replaces (4) by the schema $\exists_{x}(c = a^{n}\cdot x)$, with $n$ ranging over $\mathbb N$. But then one would have $T\vdash\forall_{x_{0}}(\phi(x_{0})\rightarrow\psi(x_{0}))$ for all $\psi(x_{0})\in\Sigma$, where $\phi(x_{0})$ is the formula $x_{0} = c$. So $\Sigma$ would be an isolated type, and the rest of the argument would fall apart.

$\endgroup$

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.