I understand that for any nonempty set $S$ of characteristics, there exists a PID $R$ such that the set of characteristics of residue fields of $R$ (i.e. quotients by of $R$ by maximal ideals -- I'm not including the residue field at the generic point. Thanks to Steven Landsburg for pointing out this terminological ambiguity in the comments below) is precisely $S$. I learned this from a paper of Heitmann, PID’s with specified residue fields (which proves much more), which I originally found at Exotic principal ideal domains.

Question: What is a "nice" example of a PID $R$ such that $R$ has a residue field of characteristic 0 and a residue field of finite characteristic?

By "nice", I'd ideally mean that $R$ is not just custom-built for the purpose of providing such an example, and might be a ring I'd meet on the street one day. Failing that, I'd settle for a streamlined description of such a ring $R$ (in order to understand Heitmann's example one must wade through several layers of extra generality related to his more ambitious aims).

If we only require $R$ to be Noetherian, then YCor gave a simple example in the comments (1 2 3) on If a PID has no nonzero divisible elements, then is the same true of its finitely-generated modules?: $R = \mathbb Z_p[t]$ has residue fields $\mathbb F_p$ and $\mathbb Q_p$ (the latter obtained by modding out by $(1-pt)$). Similarly, $\mathbb Z_{(p)}[t]$ has residue fields $\mathbb F_p$ and $\mathbb Q$. It would be nice if there were an example of a PID with this property just as "nice" as $\mathbb Z_p[t]$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Note to self: the URL for a direct link to an MO comment can be found in the timestamp for the comment. $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Oct 7 at 18:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Further note to @TimCampion: if you're trying to cram a bunch of comment URLs into a characters-limited space like a comment box, you can strip the slug: e.g., https://mathoverflow.net/questions/373535/example-of-a-pid-with-a-residue-field-of-finite-characteristic-and-a-residue-fie#comment945342_373535 can be trimmed to https://mathoverflow.net/questions/373535#comment945342_373535. $\endgroup$ – LSpice Oct 7 at 20:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Am I missing something? ${\mathbb Z}_p$ has a residue field of finite characteristic at the closed point and a residue field of zero characteristic at the generic point. $\endgroup$ – Steven Landsburg Oct 7 at 20:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StevenLandsburg By "residue field", I mean "quotient by a maximal ideal", as opposed to "fraction field of quotient by a prime ideal". I'd better check that's what Heitmann means.... $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Oct 7 at 20:57
  • $\begingroup$ At any rate, even if Heitmann is using the more general meaning of "residue field", in a PID the only prime which is not maximal is 0. Heitmann's theorem actually allows us to specify a collection of residue fields up to isomorphism, and there can be multiple residue fields of each characteristic. So if we apply his theorem with a set of two distinct fields of characteristic 0 and another of characteristic $p$, then only one of the fields of characteristic 0 can be the field of fractions, leaving the other to be a quotient by a maximal ideal, along with the field of characteristic $p$. Whew! $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Oct 7 at 21:11

You can take the ring of fractions $\frac{a}{b}$ with $a,b \in \mathbb Z[x]$, where $b$ is nonzero mod $p$ and nonzero mod $px-1$.

Given any polynomial $a$, we can remove all factors of $p$ and remove all factors of $px-1$, obtaining a polynomial that is nonzero mod $p$ and nonzero mod $px-1$. So every polynomial is a power of $p^i (px-1)^j$ times a unit for natural numbers $i,j$.

Because the ideal generated by $p$ and $px-1$ contains $1$, the ideal generated by $p^{i_1} (px-1)^{j_1}$ and $p^{i_2} (px-1)^{j_2}$ is also generated by $p^{ \min(i_1,i_2)} (px-1)^{\min(j_1,j_2) } $. So every ideal is generated by a single element of the form $p^i (px-1)^j$.

There are two maximal ideals, $(p),$ and $(px-1)$, whose quotients $\mathbb F_p(x)$ and $\mathbb Q$ have characteristics $p$ and $0$ respectively.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I'm so happy with this example that I can't resist recording my own train of thought about it: Let $R$ be the ring in question. We have $R/p = \mathbb F_p(x)$ and $R/(1-px) = \mathbb Q$, so these ideals are maximal. If $R \to k$ is a homomorphism to a field and neither $p$ nor $1-px$ are killed, then they are both inverted, and the map factors through $(1/p-x)^{-1}\mathbb Q[x]_{(1/p - x)} = \mathbb Q(x)$, the fraction field (where we used that $\mathbb Q[x]$ is a PID to conclude the last equality). So the only other prime is $0$.... $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Oct 8 at 15:22
  • $\begingroup$ ... $R$ is a localization of $\mathbb Z[x]$ and hence a UFD. To see it's a PID, it suffices to see that it's a Dedekind domain, i.e. that it's Noetherian (check) and that the localization at each maximal ideal is a DVR. To see that $R_{(p)}$ and $R_{(1-px)}$ are DVR's, we just need to know that their maximal ideals $(p)$ and $(1-px)$ are principal, which they are. To conclude: we can verify that this is an example without worrying about what Gauss' Lemma tells us about factoring polynomials in $\mathbb Z[x]$ (the sort of thing which always makes me a bit uncomfortable). $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Oct 8 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ In fact, let $A$ be any commutative ring, and let $p_1,\dots, p_n$ be prime ideals in $A$. Let $S = (A\setminus p_1) \cap \dots \cap (A\setminus p_n)$. Then by the prime avoidance lemma, the maximal ideals of $S^{-1} A$ are precisely $p_1,\dots, p_n$. If $A$ is a Noetherian UFD, then so is $S^{-1} A$. If in addition $p_1,\dots, p_n$ are principal, then the $A_{p_i}$ are DVR's, so that $S^{-1} A$ is a PID. $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Oct 8 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ @TimCampion For the last version, I think one needs to know that ideals like $p_i + p_j$ are $1$ because otherwise those will be additional prime ideals. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Oct 8 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ Do we? This isn't the case in your example! The localization is going to kill any prime ideals containing the $p_i$'s, so conditions on the sum of the $p_i$'s seem superfluous, I think. And the criterion "Noetherian domain + localization at each maximal ideal is a DVR $\Rightarrow$ Dedekind domain" doesn't require consideration of non-maximal primes... $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Oct 8 at 16:54

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.