3
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a graded ring such that $R_0$ is a field and let $\frak{m}$ be the maximal ideal generated by all the elements of positive degree. Then, is it true that $R$ is a UFD iff $R_{\frak{m}}$ is a UFD?

If not, then what would be an example of $R_{\frak{m}}$ being a UFD, but $R$ NOT being a UFD?

It'll be nice if the counterexample, if there exists one, is of a finitely generated algebra over an algebraically closed field.

$\endgroup$
2

4 Answers 4

5
$\begingroup$

(Note: The original question had an incorrect premise. The ideal generated by elements of positive degree in an arbitrary graded ring is not generally maximal.)

Here is the solution to the original problem: Let $R=\mathbb{Z}+x\mathbb{Q}[x]$. This is an $\mathbb{N}$-graded ring, where grade-$0$ is $\mathbb{Z}$, and grade-$n$ with $n\geq 1$ is $\mathbb{Q}x^n$.

This ring is is not a UFD, since $x=2(2^{-1}x)=2^2(2^{-2}x)=\cdots$ shows that $x$ is infinitely divisibly by the irreducible element $2$.

Letting $\mathfrak{m}$ be the ideal generated by all elements of positive grade, then $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is the subring of $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ where the constant term of the polynomial in the denominator is nonzero, which is a UFD. (Up to a unit multiple, every nonzero element is a unique nonnegative power of $x$.)

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe the OP wants the degree 0 component to be a field so that the ideal is maximal? $\endgroup$ Jun 17, 2022 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ My follow-up question is- can we find a counter example for a ring which is a quotient of a polynomial ring over algebraically closed field? $\endgroup$
    – It'sMe
    Jun 17, 2022 at 16:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why is $R_m\cong\mathbb Q[x]$? Shouldn't it also contain e.g. $1+x$, as it is not in $m$? On the same note, isn't $R=\mathbb Q[x]$ a counterexample to your final claim in the edit, since again $1+x\not\in m$ should have an inverse in $R_m$? $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jun 17, 2022 at 20:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Wojowu Yeah, that was a mistake. It has been fixed now. The idea is that once the nonzero elements of $\mathbb{Z}$ have been inverted, we are just looking at a localization of $\mathbb{Q}[x]$, which will be a UFD. $\endgroup$ Jun 17, 2022 at 20:35
1
$\begingroup$

The following are just some partial thoughts about the new question which are too long for comments. Throughout, assume that $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is a UFD, $R_0$ is a field, etc...

First, let $x\in \mathfrak{m}$ be homogeneous, and irreducible in $R$; we will prove that $x$ remains irreducible in $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$. If not, then after clearing denominators we can write $(1+s)x=yz$ for some $s,y,z\in \mathfrak{m}$. Let $y_m$ and $z_n$ be the leading terms (i.e., the nonzero components of smallest grade) in $y$ and $z$ respectively. Then the homogeneity of $x$ forces $x=y_mz_n$. Since $m,n\geq 1$, we see that $y_m$ and $z_n$ are not units, which contradicts the irreducibility of $x$ in $R$.

Second, let's prove that such an $x$ is prime in $R$. Suppose that $x|(yz)$ for some $y,z\in R$, and further suppose by way of contradiction that $x$ doesn't divide $y$ nor $z$. Let $y_m$ and $z_n$ be the smallest components of $y$ and $z$ (respectively) that $x$ doesn't divide. The grade $m+n$ component of $yz$ is $\sum_{i,j\, :\, i+j=m+n}y_i z_j$. By the homogeneity of $x$, we know that it divides each component of $yz$, and in particular it divides this sum. By the minimality on $m$ and $n$, we know that it divides each term where $(i,j)\neq (m,n)$. Hence it divides $y_m z_n$. So, we reduce to the case that $y$ and $z$ are homogeneous.

Now, write $y$ and $z$ as products of irreducibles of $R$ (such factorizations exist by degree arguments), none of which is an $R$-associate of $x$. As $y$ and $z$ are homogeneous, all of these irreducibles are homogeneous. Thus, these irreducibles stay irreducible in $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$, which is a UFD. So, one of these irreducibles, say $x'$, must be $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$-associate to $x$. After clearing denominators, this means $(1+s)x=c(1+t)x'$ for some $s,t\in \mathfrak{m}$ and some $c\in R_0$. Looking at leading terms, this means $x=cx'$, contradicting the fact that $x$ and $x'$ are not $R$-associates.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Note: the claim in this answer that $R$ is graded is wrong, I leave it here for the record until popular opinion requests for me to remove it (David Lampert)

Here is a counterexample.

$R=\mathbb{Q}[x,y_1,y_2,y_3,...]/(y_1^2-1-x,y_2^2-y_1,y_3^2-y_2,...).$

There is an embedding $R \subset \mathbb{Q}[[x]]$ defined by power series expansions which gives $R$ a grading with $m=(x,y_1-1,y_2-1,y_3-1,...).$ Note: this is wrong, see commments below.

$R$ is not a UFD: there is no irreducible element dividing the non-unit $y_1$.

$R_m$ is a UFD: (1) Every non-unit is a product of irreducibles since each $y_n$ is a unit in $R_m$; (2) If an irreducible divides a product then it does so in some $\mathbb{Q}[y_n, y_n^{-1}]$ which is a UFD.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ My follow-up question is- can we find a counter example where the ring is a quotient of a polynomial ring in finitely many variables, over algebraically closed field? $\endgroup$
    – It'sMe
    Jun 18, 2022 at 18:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ David, I don't understand how the embedding in $\mathbb{Q}[[x]]$ gives $R$ an $\mathbb{N}$-grading. For example, what are the finitely many graded components of $y_1$? $\endgroup$ Jun 18, 2022 at 19:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PaceNielsen You are right, I sloppily had thought $y_1-1$ was pure grade but this is wrong. I think we can salvage something by changing $\mathbb{Q}$ to $\mathbb{F}_2$ and using $\mathbb{Q}$-grading instead of $\mathbb{N}$-grading but that wouldn't answer the original question. $\endgroup$ Jun 18, 2022 at 21:32
0
$\begingroup$

$\DeclareMathOperator{\mmm}{\mathfrak{m}}\DeclareMathOperator{\nn}{\mathbb{N}}$This is a partial answer. Assuming $R$ is $\nn$-graded, $R_0$ is a field, and $R_{\mmm}$ is a UFD, we show that every element of $R$ can be represented as a product of irreducible elements.

First, it is easy to see that $\mmm$ does not have a zero divisor. It follows that if $f = gh$, then $\deg(f) = \deg(g) + \deg(h)$, and since nonnegative integers can not indefinitely decrease, every element in $R$ can be expressed as a finite product of elements which satisfy the following property, call it $(*)$:

it can not be represented as a product of elements with smaller degree.

Any element satisfying $(*)$

  1. either has degree zero, in which case it is a unit, or
  2. if represented by a finite product, then all but one of the multiplicands must have degree zero (due to additivity of degree) and hence units.

It follows that any element satisfying $(*)$ is irreducible. It remains to show that the decomposition is unique. Initially I thought that it follows from additivity of degree and non-existence of zero-divisors, but Pace Nielsen gave a great counterexample in the comments.

Edit: The following argument is incorrect, as pointed out by Pace Nielsen in the comments.

We now prove a weaker statement that every decomposition of an element has the same number of irreducible (non-unit) elements.

Indeed, let $f = \prod_{i=1}^m g_i = \prod_{j = 1}^n h_j$ such that the degree of each $g_i$ and $h_j$ are positive. Then $\prod_{i=1}^m g_{i,d_i} = \prod_{j=1}^n h_{j,e_j}$, where $g_{i,d_i}$ and $h_{j,e_j}$ are the highest degree homogeneous components of respectively $g_i$ and $h_j$. Now the lemma below implies that each $g_{apply the assumption that $R_{\mmm}$ is a UFD to see that $m = n$, and moreover, after a reordering if necessary, $g_{i,d_i} = h_{i,e_i}$ for $i = 1, \ldots, m$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't follow your claim of uniqueness of the decomposition. For instance, the ring $\mathbb{Q}[x^2,x^3]$ is an atomic domain (i.e., a domain satisfying ($\ast$)) that is $\mathbb{N}$-graded and whose $0$-grade is a field, but it isn't a UFD, since $x^6=x^2\cdot x^2\cdot x^2=x^3\cdot x^3$ are two different decompositions into irreducibles. You have to use more than additivity of degree and non-existence of zero-divisors if you want uniqueness. $\endgroup$ Jun 17, 2022 at 22:26
  • $\begingroup$ There there - I fell in the trap of thinking "it is easy to see ...". Nice example, btw! I edited the answer - it now proves (I hope correctly) a weaker statement. $\endgroup$
    – pinaki
    Jun 17, 2022 at 23:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, I don't follow your new claim. What forces the $g$'s or the $h$'s to remain irreducible in $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$? It seems you need that fact to assert $m=n$. (Note that the $g_{i,d_i}$ and $h_{j,e_j}$ don't need to be irreducible., so the second equality of products says even less about $m$ and $n$.) $\endgroup$ Jun 17, 2022 at 23:32
  • $\begingroup$ Aah - you are right again. Clearly I can't think now. $\endgroup$
    – pinaki
    Jun 17, 2022 at 23:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.