On minimal extensions of rings and applications

arXiv:1712.02026v1 [] 6 Dec 2017

Francisco Franco Munoz

Abstract
We study minimal extensions of local rings and their restriction to subrings. Some applications to subrings of K[x]/xn and Z[x]/(pN , xn ) are discussed.

1

Introduction

The study of subrings of a given ring is a natural question, but one that has not been given
enough attention in the literature. In [1] (and the references therein) the authors study the
subrings of naturally occurring rings, such as Zn and Z[x]/xn .
The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on subrings of a local rings and they way those
can be built from extensions (precisely, minimal extensions). After some formal preliminaries
we obtain our main result (Theorem 6) that says we can relate subrings of R with those of
S through a minimal extension ϕ : R → S in a very precise way, leading to an exact count.
After establishing some basic result on (partial)-valuations, we are able to count the subrings
of K[x]/xn , and obtain (section 4) results giving precise estimates in the case of finite fields. At
the end we briefly extend this discussion to subrings of Z[x]/(pN , xn ) (section 5) where similar
counts are obtained.

1.1

Notation

All the rings considered are commutative and unital, and all the homomorphisms are unital.
By a local ring (R, mR ) we mean a ring with a unique maximal ideal mR , not necessarily
noetherian (sometimes called quasi-local rings).
For a ring R denote by R× its group of units.

1.2

On previous literature

We have relied almost entirely on [3] (which is self-contained). Some basic results of commutative algebra are assumed and we’ll refer to [7] for more extended discussions.

2

Minimal extensions

Let (R, mR ), (S, mS ) be local rings. We record here few well known elementary results about
surjective homomorphisms of local rings.
Proposition 1. Let ϕ : R → S be a surjective homomorphism of local rings. Then
1. mR = ϕ−1 ( mS ), in other words, ϕ is a local homomorphism.
2. ϕ( mR ) = mS .

1

3. ϕ : R → S induces an isomorphism on residue fields R/ mR ∼
= S/ mS .
Proof.
1. Since ϕ−1 ( mS ) is a proper ideal it’s contained in the maximal ideal so ϕ−1 ( mS ) ⊆
mR . So we need mR ⊆ ϕ−1 ( mS ) equivalently ϕ( mR ) ⊆ mS . Now, for a surjection of
rings, the image of an ideal is an ideal. In the case of a local ring, ϕ( mR ) is in fact a
proper ideal: For if ϕ(x) = 1 for some x ∈ mR , then 1 − x ∈ Ker(ϕ) ⊆ mR so 1 ∈ mR ,
a contradiction. Hence ϕ( mR ) ⊆ mS .
2. From ϕ−1 ( mS ) ⊆ mR get that mS = ϕ(ϕ−1 ( mS )) ⊆ ϕ( mR ) since ϕ is surjective, and
by above ϕ( mR ) ⊆ mS hence equality: ϕ( mR ) = mS .
3. We have S/ mS ∼
= ϕ−1 (S)/ϕ−1 ( mS ) = R/ mR by the above.

Definition 1. A homomorphism ϕ : R → S is a minimal extension if it’s surjective (in
particular it’s a local homomorphism) and I = Ker(ϕ) is a minimal nonzero ideal of R.
Lemma 2. A minimal ideal I satisfies I mR = 0 and so I is a vector space over the residue
field R/ mR . Moreover its dimension is one. Conversely, suppose that J is an ideal of R such
that J mR = 0 and the dimension of J over R/ mR is one. Then J is a minimal ideal.
Proof. I mR ⊆ mR and by minimality, I mR = 0. The rest is clear.



We need restriction of homomorphisms:
Proposition 3. Let T ⊆ S a subring, and ϕ : R → S be a surjection of local rings, let
T̄ = ϕ−1 (T ). Then T̄ local implies T local. Consider the following statements:
1. mT̄ = mR ∩ T̄
2. mT = mS ∩ T
3. The composition T ⊆ S → S/ mS is surjective
4. The composition T̄ ⊆ R → R/ mR is surjective
Then 1 ⇐⇒ 2 and 3 ⇐⇒ 4 and 3 =⇒ 2.
If ϕ : R → S is a minimal extension then T̄ local iff T local. In that case, we have that
4 ⇐⇒ (ϕ : T̄ → T is a minimal extension)
Proof. It’s clear that T̄ local implies T local, since ϕ is surjective. Assuming that, Proposition
1 is valid for ϕ : R → S and ϕ : T̄ → T .
• 1 =⇒ 2: mT = ϕ( mT̄ ) = ϕ( mR ∩ T̄ ) ⊆ ϕ( mR ) ∩ ϕ(T̄ ) = mS ∩ T and the other inclusion
mS ∩ T ⊆ mT is immediate.
• 2 =⇒ 1: mT̄ = ϕ−1 ( mT ) = ϕ−1 ( mS ∩ T ) = ϕ−1 ( mS ) ∩ ϕ−1 (T ) = mR ∩ T̄ .
• 3 ⇐⇒ 4: T → S → S/ mS surjective ⇐⇒
T /( mS ∩ T ) ∼
= S/ mS ⇐⇒ ϕ−1 (T )/(ϕ−1 ( mS ) ∩ ϕ−1 (T )) ∼
= ϕ−1 (S)/ϕ−1 ( mS ) ⇐⇒
∼
T̄ /( mR ∩ T̄ ) = R/ mR ⇐⇒ T̄ → R → R/ mR surjective
• 3 =⇒ 2: T → S → S/ mS surjective ⇐⇒ T /( mS ∩ T ) ∼
= S/ mS =⇒ mS ∩ T is a
maximal ideal =⇒ mS ∩ T = mT .

2

Assume that ϕ is a minimal extension. To show T local implies T̄ local. In fact, suppose
that ϕ−1 ( mT ) ⊆ n where n is a proper ideal of T̄ . Then mT = ϕ(ϕ−1 ( mT )) ⊆ ϕ( n) ⊆ T
since ϕ is surjective. But also being surjective implies that ϕ( n) is an ideal of T , and the latter
is a local ring. If ϕ( n) is not proper, then there’s x ∈ n such that ϕ(x) = 1, so x − 1 ∈ Ker(ϕ).
But Ker(ϕ) is square zero since it’s a minimal ideal and so (x − 1)2 = x2 − 2x + 1 = 0, so
1 = x(2 − x) and so x ∈ n ⊆ T̄ is invertible, and so n = T̄ , contradiction. Hence ϕ( n) ⊆ mT ,
i.e. n ⊆ ϕ−1 ( mT ), and ϕ−1 ( mT ) is the maximal ideal of T̄ .
Assume now T̄ local. To show that 4 ⇐⇒ (ϕ : T̄ → T is a minimal extension).
Assume that T̄ → T is minimal. That means I = Ker(ϕ) is a minimal nonzero ideal of T̄ ,
and so mT̄ I = 0. Let x ∈ mT̄ . Then since xI = 0, [x]I = 0, where [x] is the image of x in
R/ mR . But I is a nonzero vector space (in fact one dimensional) over R/ mR , so [x] = [0] i.e.
x ∈ mR , and so mT̄ ⊆ mR ∩ T̄ , and the other inclusion holds since mR ∩ T̄ is an ideal of T̄ ,
hence mT̄ = mR ∩ T̄ . Moreover, we have T̄ /( mR ∩ T̄ ) ⊆ R/ mR is an extension of fields, and
the vector space I has dimension one over both (since ϕ : R → S and ϕ : T̄ → T are minimal),
and so the fields are equal T̄ /( mR ∩ T̄ ) ∼
= R/ mR . Conversely, if we have T̄ → R → R/ mR
surjective then T̄ /( mR ∩ T̄ ) ∼
= R/ mR and so mT̄ = mR ∩ T̄ and the residue fields are the same.
Hence the ideal I is one dimensional over T̄ / mT̄ and the extension ϕ : T̄ → T is minimal by
Lemma 2.

The use of this proposition will be in restricting local homomorphism to subrings and
applying the next two theorems.
Theorem 4. Let ϕ : R → S be a minimal extension of local rings.
1. Assume R and S contain a coefficient field K (the inclusions K ⊆ S, K ⊆ R induce an
isomorphism R/ mR ∼
= S/ mS ∼
= K). If A ⊆ R is a K-subalgebra mapping onto S, then A
2
⊆ A.
is local and mR
2. Assume that characteristic of R is pN for some N ≥ 1, the residue field of S and R is Fq
and that mR is nilpotent. If A ⊆ R is a subring that maps onto S, then A is local and
2
mR
+ pR ⊆ A.
Proof.
1. To show that A is local, notice that the composition K → A → A/( mR ∩ A) ∼
=
S/ mS = K is a bijection, so A = K ⊕ ( mR ∩ A), which says that A is local with maximal
ideal mR ∩ A = mA . And K is also a coefficient field for A. Now, the ideal I = Ker(ϕ)
is one dimensional over R/ mR = A/ mA , and so I ∩ A is an ideal of A that’s at most
one dimensional over A/ mA . Hence either I ⊆ A or I ∩ A = 0. In the first case, since
R/I ∼
= S and A maps onto S, we have A = R which doesn’t map isomorphically onto S
since I is nonzero. So, I ∩ A = 0 and the map ϕ : A → S is an isomorphism. Now as
vector spaces R = mR ⊕ K, and the same for A = mA ⊕ K, and since the dimension of I
is one, the codimension of mA ⊆ mR is one, and one can write mR = I ⊕ mA as vector
2
2
spaces. Since I mR = 0, we get mR
= mA
⊆ A, as claimed.
∼ S/ mS = Fq so mR ∩ A is a maximal
2. To show that A is local, notice that A/( mR ∩ A) =
ideal. Now, let a ∈ A \ mR ∩ A, then a maps to a nonzero element of Fq , hence there’s
l such that al − 1 ∈ Ker(ϕ) ⊆ mR , but mR is nilpotent so (al − 1)m = 0 for some
m which after expanding the equation gives that a is invertible and it’s inverse is in A.
So mR ∩ A = mA is the unique maximal ideal of A, since its complement consists of
invertible elements. Moreover A also has residue field Fq . Now, the ideal I = Ker(ϕ)
is one dimensional over R/ mR = A/ mA , and so I ∩ A is an ideal of A that’s at most
one dimensional over A/ mA . Hence either I ⊆ A or I ∩ A = 0. In the first case, since
R/I ∼
= S and A maps onto S, we have A = R which doesn’t map isomorphically onto S

3

since I is nonzero. So, I ∩A = 0 and the map ϕ : A → S is an isomorphism. In particular,
A is a maximal subring with the same residue field as R. Indeed, a subring A1 containing
A maps onto S and the same arguments above give either that if A1 6= R, then A1 maps
isomorphically onto S and so A1 = A. Now, using [3, Lemma 22], we obtain that if A is
2
a maximal subring with the same residue field as R, A contains mR
+ pR. This finishes
the proof.

Let’s record a consequence in the proof of the above theorem:
Proposition 5. With the same conditions as above:
1. If A ⊆ R is a K-subalgebra mapping onto S not containing Ker(ϕ), then A → S is an
isomorphism and A is a local, maximal K-subalgebra of R.
2. If A ⊆ R is a subring that maps onto S not containing Ker(ϕ) then A → S is an
isomorphism and A is a local, maximal subring of R with the same residue field as R.
Observation. Throughout this paper we haven’t made use of structural results such as Cohen’s structure theorems (see [7, tag/0323]) to simplify the hypothesis of the theorems. It’s
worthwhile to notice that for example, complete local rings of equal characteristic possess
coefficient fields, hence the hypothesis in our theorems hold for a wide class of local rings.
Here’s the main result that completes the analysis:
Theorem 6. Let ϕ : R → S be a minimal extension of local rings. Then one can describe the
subrings A mapping isomorphically to S in the same cases as above:
2
1. Assume R and S contain a coefficient field K. If Ker(ϕ) ⊆ mR
, then there are no Ksubalgebras of R mapping isomorphically onto S under ϕ. Otherwise, the set of such
K-subalgebras is naturally an affine space over K of dimension dimK ( mS / mS2 ).

2. Assume that the characteristic of S is pN where N ≥ 1 and that the residue field of S
2
+ pR, then there are no subrings
and R is Fq and that mR is nilpotent. If Ker(ϕ) ⊆ mR
of R that map isomorphically onto S. Otherwise, the set of such subrings is naturally an
affine space over Fq of dimension dimFq ( mS /(pS + mS2 )).
2
Proof.
1. By Theorem 4, any A mapping onto S satisfies mR
⊆ A.
2
If Ker(ϕ) ⊆ mR then A contains Ker(ϕ) so A = R, which is not the case.
2
, and fix a nonzero z ∈ Ker(ϕ). Notice that z
Assume now Ker(ϕ) not contained in mR
2
is a generator as vector space over R/ mR . Define V (R) = mR / mR
. To A, subalgebra
2
mapping isomorphically onto S, let’s assign the subspace V (A) = mA / mR
. It’s a Kcodimension one subspace in V (R) that doesn’t contain z̄ (the image of z). Conversely, for
V ⊆ V (R) a K-codimension one subspace, assign the subspace A(V ) = K+ Ṽ + m2 , where
Ṽ is a lift of V to m. Notice that A is closed under multiplication since Ṽ contains m2
and KṼ ⊆ Ṽ + m2 . This provides with a 1-to-1 correspondence between the codimension
one subspaces of V (R) not containing z and the K-subalgebras A mapping isomorphically
onto S. Now, since mR = mA ⊕ Kz, projection in the first component gives a bijection
2
2 ∼
2
between {V ⊆ mR / mR
codimension 1 | z̄ ∈
/ V } with mA / mA
which is the
= mB / mB
affine space sought after.
2
+ pR ⊆ A.
2. By Theorem 4, any A mapping onto S satisfies mR
2
If Ker(ϕ) ⊆ mR + pR then A contains Ker(ϕ) so A = R, which is not the case.
By the proposition above, A is a maximal subring with the residue field as R and A
doesn’t contain Ker(ϕ). Now, by [3, Theorem 28], the maximal subrings A with the same
residue field as R are in one to correspondence with the codimension one subspaces of

4

2
+ pR), the bijection being A 7→ V (A) with the notation above. Fix z ∈ Ker(ϕ)
mR /( mR
2
2
nonzero. Then z̄ ∈ mR /( mR
+ pR) is nonzero, and notice that mA /( mR
+ pR) is a
2
codimension one subspace, that doesn’t contain z̄, and furthermore mA /( mR
+ pR) ∼
=
2
mS /( mS + pS). In this manner, as above, we get a bijection between the set of those A
mapping isomorphically onto S and mS /( mS2 + pS).


We need conditions in which to apply the Proposition 3 in the study of subrings.
Proposition 7. Under the following conditions, given a minimal ring extension of local rings
ϕ : R → S and a local subring, T ⊆ S, Theorem 6 applies to the restriction ϕ−1 (T ) → T :
1. All R, S, T have the same coefficient field K.
2. The characteristic of R is pN for some prime p and N ≥ 1, mR is nilpotent and all
R, S, T share the same residue field, a finite field Fq .
Proof. By Proposition 3 the restriction ϕ−1 (T ) → T to a local subring T of a minimal extension
is a minimal extension provided we have the composite map T → S → S/ mS surjective. But
this is the condition we are assuming in either case. So we only need to check the conditions
of Theorem 6.
1. Since K ⊆ T , K ⊆ ϕ−1 (T ), all the algebras involved have the same coefficient field K,
which are the conditions of Theorem 6 part 1.
2. Since T has residue field Fq , so does ϕ−1 (T ). The other conditions of Theorem 6 part 2
are satisfied.

As a result, we can compute dimensions and relate them with the existence of subalgebras.
Proposition 8. Assume that we’re in the coefficient field case of ϕ : R → S minimal extension
2
) is finite. The following are equivalent:
and that d(R) := dimK ( mR / mR
1. R possesses a subalgebra A mapping isomorphically onto B
2
2. Ker(ϕ) is not contained in mR

3. d(R) = d(S) + 1
Proof.
1 ⇐⇒ 2 Theorem 6 part 1.
2
2 ⇐⇒ 3 The map mR → mS gives an isomorphism mR /( mR
+ Ker(ϕ)) ∼
= mS / mS2 and
2
mR / mR
2
∼
mR /( mR
+ Ker(ϕ)) =
2
2 . From here, since dimK (Ker(ϕ)) = 1, it’s clear
( mR
+ Ker(ϕ))/ mR
2
2
2
⇐⇒ dimK (( mR
+ Ker(ϕ))/ mR
) = 1 ⇐⇒ d(R) = d(S) + 1.
Ker(ϕ) 6⊂ mR


3

Valuations

Definition 2. A (commutative) partial-monoid is a set (M, +) endowed with a partial binary
(commutative) operation that has a neutral element 0 (i.e. a + 0 is always defined and a + 0 =
a = 0 + a), and it’s associative when defined (i.e. a + b and (a + b) + c are defined iff b + c
and a + (b + c) are defined, and if so, (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)). A sub-partial-monoid N ⊆ M
is a subset such that if a, b ∈ N and a + b is defined, then a + b ∈ N . From here on all
partial-monoids are commutative.

5

Definition 3. An ordered partial-monoid is triple (M, +, ≤) where (M, +) is a partial-monoid
and ≤ is a partial order that’s compatible with the sum, i.e. given a ≤ c and b ≤ d, if c + d is
defined then a + b is defined and a + b ≤ c + d.
For us, examples of interest are [m] = {0, ..., m} (finite interval of non-negative numbers)
with (partial) addition, and products Mn,N = [n − 1] × [N − 1]. Both are ordered partialmonoids, the first with natural order, the second with lexicographic order: (a, b) ≤ (c, d) iff
a ≤ c or a = c and b ≤ d. These are total orders.
Relevant to our study we need valuation-like functions, defined on commutative rings with
values in partial-monoids.
Definition 4. Let (M, ∗), (N, ⋆) be partial-monoids. A partial-homomorphism is a (total)
function φ : M → N (i.e. everywhere defined) with the properties:
1. φ(0M ) = 0N
2. For all x, y ∈ M , if both x ∗ y and φ(x) ⋆ φ(y) are defined, then φ(x ∗ y) = φ(x) ⋆ φ(y).
φ is called semi-strict if in addition:
3. For all x, y ∈ M , if φ(x) ⋆ φ(y) is defined, then x ∗ y is defined and φ(x ∗ y) = φ(x) ⋆ φ(y).
A typical example of a semi-strict partial-homomorphism is the inclusion N ⊆ M of a
sub-partial-monoid.
Definition 5. Let R a commutative ring. A partial-valuation is partial-homomorphism ν :
R \ {0} → M that is surjective, whose target is an ordered partial-monoid (M, +) (where
(R \ {0}, ·) is the multiplicative partial-monoid of R), that satisfies:
Non-Archimedean condition: If x + y is defined (i.e. not zero), then ν(x + y) ≥ min{ν(x), ν(y)}
in the following sense: for any µ ∈ M such that µ ≤ ν(x) and µ ≤ ν(y), we have ν(x + y) ≥ µ.
ν is called semi-strict if the partial-homomorphism ν : R \ {0} → M is semi-strict.
ν is called strict if it’s semi-strict, M is totally ordered and the equality ν(x+y) = min{ν(x), ν(y)}
holds when ν(x) 6= ν(y).
Observation.
1. The Non-Archimedean condition is most easily stated when M possesses
infima over any finite subset. Then min{ν(x), ν(y)} is actually an element of M and the
condition simply reads that ν(x + y) ≥ min{ν(x), ν(y)}
2. When M is totally ordered and ν is strict, then the Non-Archimedean condition is the
familiar one from valuations on fields.
Proposition 9. Let ν : R \ {0} → M be a semi-strict partial-valuation. Then for a subring
S ⊆ R, the image ν(S) is a sub-partial-monoid. In fact, for any sub-partial-monoid of the
multiplicative partial-monoid T ⊆ R \ {0}, ν(T ) is a sub-partial-monoid.
Proof. Immediate because of the extra condition.



Definition 6. A semi strict partial-valuation ν : R \ {0} → M is monomial-like over R1 , a
subring of R, if it satisfies the following property: for x, y ∈ R \ {0} such that ν(x) = ν(y),
there is u ∈ R1× such that either x − uy = 0 or ν(x − uy) > ν(x).
Here’s an important structural result:
Theorem 10. Let ν : R \ {0} → M be a partial-valuation on R, monomial-like over some
subring R1 , where M is a finite partial-monoid. Suppose that a1 , ...., ad generate M as a
partial-monoid (for every element a ∈ M there are constants α1 , ..., αn ∈ N such that the sum
α1 a1 + · · · + αd ad is defined and equal to a). Let ri ∈ R be elements whose valuations are
ν(ri ) = ai . Then ri generate R as an algebra over the subring R1 .

6

Proof. Let a ∈ M be a maximal element (M is finite), and let r ∈ R such that ν(r) = a.
Then a = α1 a1 + ...αd ad , and so the “monomial” r̃ = r1α1 ...rdαd is nonzero since ν is semi-strict
and ν(r̃) = a. There’s u ∈ R1× such that r − ur̃ 6= 0 then ν(r − ur̃) > ν(r) which is not
possible. Hence r = ur̃. By a standard reverse induction argument the result follows, since
we’re assuming M is finite.

A natural example: take any field K and consider the K-algebra K[x]/xn , where the partialvaluation is ν(ai xi + higher order terms) = i, taking values in [n − 1]. It’s easily checked that
this is a strict partial valuation. This valuation is monomial-like over the coefficient field K:
Lemma 11. Let a, b ∈ K[x]/xn with ν(a) = ν(b), then there is a nonzero u ∈ K such that
either a = ub or ν(a − ub) has valuation strictly larger than ν(a).
Proof. Let a = am xm + ..., b = bm xm + ...., with am , bm nonzero, then take u = am b−1
m and the
result follows.

Lemma 12. Define the following function on R = Z[x]/(pN , xn ): Write a nonzero element x
as a sum of powers in increasing order x = ak xk + higher order terms, where ai ∈ Z/pN is
nonzero, then set ν(x) = (k, ν1 (ak )) (where ν1 is the natural partial-valuation on Z/pN given
by ν1 (upm ) = m where u invertible). Then ν : R \ {0} → Mn,N is a strict partial-valuation,
which is monomial-like over the coefficient ring Z/pN .
Proof. Let z = aj xj + higher order terms, w = bk xk + higher order terms. Notice that
(j, ν1 (aj )) + (k, ν1 (bk )) is defined if and only if j + k < n, and ν1 (aj ) + ν1 (bk ) < N . So if
this is the case, and since ν1 is a strict partial valuation (with values in [N − 1]), we have
aj bk 6= 0, and ν1 (aj bk ) = ν1 (aj ) + ν1 (bk ), so zw = aj bk xj+k + higher order terms, and
ν(zw) = (j + k, ν1 (aj bk )) = (j, ν1 (aj )) + (k, ν1 (bk )) = ν(z) + ν(w). This shows it’s semistrict. To show it’s strict, notice that Mn,N is indeed totally ordered (with lexicographic order
as described before), and moreover, when ν(z) 6= ν(w), either j 6= k or ν1 (aj ) 6= ν(bk ).
1. Say that j 6= k and without loss of generality, j < k, then z+w = aj xk +higher order terms,
and so ν(z + w) = ν(z) = min{ν(z), ν(w)} since by the definition of lexicographic order
here (j, ∗) < (k, ⋆) for any ∗, ⋆ when j < k.
2. Say that j = k, and without loss of generality, ν1 (aj ) < ν1 (bj ). Then z + w = (aj +
bj )xk + higher order terms, and ν(z + w) = (j, ν1 (aj + bj )) = (j, ν(aj )) = min{ν(z), ν(w)}
since ν1 is a strict partial valuation and using again the definition of lexicographic order.
Finally notice by definition ν1 satisfies that ν1 (α) = ν1 (β), for α, β ∈ Z/pN implies there
exist u ∈ (Z/pN )× such that α = uβ. Hence if z = αxm + higher order terms, w = βxm +
higher order terms, and ν(z) = ν(w), one has using the u before that z − uw = (α − uβ)xm +
higher order terms, has only powers higher than m, hence if nonzero, ν(z − uw) > ν(z) =
ν(w).


4
4.1

Subalgebras of K[x]/xn
Setting

Let K be a field and consider the K-algebra K[x]/xn . Of course this is the same as K[[x]]/xn
and this viewpoint will be more appropriate later.
Let R ⊆ K[x]/xn be a K-subalgebra. Notice that for the prime fields Q, Fp , K-subalgebra is
the same as a subring. All the linear maps, bases, and subalgebras are assumed to be K-linear,
unless otherwise specified.

7

Definition 7. For a nonzero polynomial r ∈ K[x]/xn one has a unique minimal i such that
r = ai xi + ... higher order terms, with ai 6= 0 ∈ K. Define ν(r) = i. This is the strict
partial-valuation defined to above r.
Here i is called an exponent of R and we define E(R) as the set of exponents.
Observation. Define ν(0) = ∞ as a formal symbol and with the rule i + ∞ = ∞ for any
i ∈ [0, n − 1] and natural order i ≤ ∞ for all i.
Lemma 13.

1. The set [0, n − 1] ∪ {∞} is an ordered monoid.
n

2. ν : K[x]/x → [0, n − 1] ∪ {∞} is a homomorphism: ν(1) = 0, ν(r1 r2 ) = ν(r1 ) + ν(r2 ).
3. The Non-Archimedean property holds: for any two elements r1 , r2 , ν(r1 +r2 ) ≥ min{ν(r1 ), ν(r2 )}
and equality holds if ν(r1 ) 6= ν(r2 ).
Proof. Immediate.



Proposition 14. E(R) is partial-monoid.
Proof. By Proposition 9. Equivalently, it’s the image of the multiplicative monoid K[x]/xn
under a monoid homomorphism.


4.2

The set of exponents E(R) and generators

A subalgebra R ⊆ K[x]/xn lifts to a subalgebra R̃ of K[[x]] of finite codimension.
Lemma 15. The finite codimension subalgebras of K[[x]] are exactly those coming from K[x]/xn .
Proof. By [3, Theorem 1], those finite codimension subalgebras correspond to subalgebras of
finite dimensional quotients K[[x]]/I where I ⊆ K[[x]] is an finite codimension ideal. Now,
K[[x]] is a DVR and its nonzero ideals are xn K[[x]], hence the claim.

The discrete valuation on K[[x]] is: ν(ai xi + ... higher order terms) = i, the same as before.
An important property of this valuation is (with proof as in Lemma 11) that this is a monomiallike valuation over K.
Lemma 16. We have E(R̃) = E(R) ∪ {n, n + 1, n + 2, ...} hence E(R̃) is a numerical monoid,
i.e. a submonoid of (N, +) with finite complement (It’s also true that such a monoid has a
unique, finite, set of minimal generators [6]).
Proof. Immediate.



From now we’ll work with finite index R̃ ⊆ K[[x]] in this way.
Proposition 17. R̃ contains xn K[[x]] iff E(R̃) contains {n, n + 1, ...}.
Proof. The converse needs to be checked only. Assume {n, n + 1, ....} ⊆ E(R̃). Then there are
rk ∈ R̃ monic such that ν(rk ) = k, for k ≥ m. Write rn = xn +αn+1 xn+1 +αn+2 xn+2 +.... There
are constants βk such that the sequence sl = rn − βn+1 rn+1 − .... − βn+l rn+l has coefficients 0
for xm for n < m < l, hence sl converges to xm . Since R̃ is complete (finite index in K[[x]]),
xm ∈ R̃.

Consider now the map π : K[[x]] → K[[x]]/xn . Then for R̃ ⊆ K[[x]] containing xn K[[x]], let
R ⊆ K[[x]]/xn be its image.
2 ∼
2
n
Lemma 18. mR / mR
= mR̃ /( mR̃ + x K[[x]]) ∼
=

8

2
( mR̃

2
mR̃ / mR̃
2
+ xn K[[x]])/ mR̃

Proof. Clear since xn K[[x]] ⊆ R̃.



The following result connects generators of the monoid E(R̃) and algebra generators of R̃:
Proposition 19. Let {a1 , ..., ad } be the minimal generating set for E(R̃). The following are
equivalent:
2
has a basis {r1 , ..., rd } where ν(ri ) = ai
1. Then the vector space mR̃ / mR̃

2. For all n such that xn K[[x]] ⊆ R̃, let E(n) = {ai |ai < n} be the a minimal generating set
2
for E(R = R̃/xn ) as partial-monoid. Then {ri |ai ∈ E(n) } is a basis for mR / mR
.
2
Proof.
1. Let the vector space mR̃ / mR̃
have basis {r1 , ..., rd } where ν(ri ) = ai . Then by
2
Lemma 16, a basis for mR / mR is obtained consisting of those ri such that ν(ri ) < n, i.e,
by {ri |ai ∈ E(n) }.
2
2. Conversely, taking n equal to one plus the maximum of the ai , we have xn K[[x]] ⊆ mR̃
2 ∼
2
and hence the isomorphism mR / mR = mR̃ / mR̃ gives the result.


Theorem 10 and its proof applied to R = R̃/xn says:
Lemma 20. If {a1 , ..., ad } generate E(R) as partial-monoid. Let r1 , ..., rd be monic such
that ν(ri ) = ai . Then ri generate R as algebra. Furthermore, if n − 1 ∈ E(R) is not a
2
generator, then xn−1 ∈ mR
, more precisely, xn−1 is a nontrivial (not just one factor) monomial
αd
α1
n−1
r1 ....rd = x
where n − 1 = α1 a1 + ... + αd ad .
Proposition 21. The valuation maps are compatible under injection and projection: Let R ⊂
K[x]/xn be a K-subalgebra.
• xn−1 ∈ R ⇐⇒ n − 1 ∈ E(R)
• Let n ≥ m and consider the projection map ϕ : K[x]/xn → K[x]/xm given by annihilating
xm . Then the valuation maps are identical where defined: for any nonzero r̄ ∈ ϕ(R),
ν(r̄) = ν(r) for any preimage r of r̄.
∼ ϕ(R), the sets of exponents are
• In particular, if the projection gives an isomorphism R =
identical.
• In general E(ϕ(R)) = E(R) ∩ [0, m − 1]
• The cardinality of E(R) is #(E(R)) = dimK (R).
Proof. Immediate by definition.



Proposition 22. For E ⊆ [N − 1] a sub-partial-monoid, let d(E) be the cardinality of its
2
(unique) minimal generating set. If R ⊆ K[x]/xn has E(R) = E, then dimK ( mR / mR
) ≤ d(E).
Proof. Combine Proposition 19 and Lemma 20.

4.3



Failure of equality in dimK ( mR / mR2 ) ≤ d(E)

2
Proposition 22 says that dimK ( mR / mR
) ≤ d(E) and that’s the most that one can assert.
Here’s a family of examples for which the equalities don’t hold.

The algebra generated by {1, a = x6 + x9 , b = x7 , c = x8 } inside K[x]/x18 has elements the
powers
• a = x6 + x9
• b = x7

9

• c = x8
• a2 = x12 + 2x15
• ab = x13 + x16
• b2 = x14
• ac = x14 + x17
• bc = x15
• c2 = x16
Hence a linear basis is {1, x6 +x9 , x7 , x8 , x12 , x13 , x14 , x15 , x16 , x17 }, and E = {0, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17}
and the generators of E are {6, 7, 8, 17} so 17 is a generator of E while x17 = ac − b2 which
2
belongs to m2 . We have also dimK ( mR / mR
) = 3 < 4 = d(E). This example (a = 6) can be
generalized to an infinite family as follows:
Proposition 23. Let a ≥ 6, and consider the following subalgebra of K[x]/xn where n = 2a+6,
generated by {1, a = xa + xa+3 , b = xa+1 , c = xa+2 }. We have:
• a = xa + xa+3
• b = xa+1
• c = xa+2
• a2 = x2a + 2x2a+3
• ab = x2a+1 + x2a+4
• b2 = x2a+2
• ac = x2a+2 + x2a+5
• bc = x2a+3
• c2 = x2a+4
A linear basis is {xa + xa+3 , xa+1 , xa+2 , x2a , x2a+1 , x2a+2 , x2a+3 , x2a+4 , x2a+5 }, and E =
{0, a, a + 1, a + 2, 2a, 2a + 1, 2a + 2, 2a + 3, 2a + 4, 2a + 5} and the generators of E are {a, a +
1, a + 2, 2a + 5} so 2a + 5 is a generator of E while x2a+5 = ac − b2 which belongs to m2 .
2
Further, dimK ( mR / mR
) = 3 < 4 = d(E).
Proof. The only need to check is the assertion regarding E(R). But this follows from the
assumption a ≥ 6 which guarantees that the sum of any three nonzero elements of E is larger
than 2a + 5 (in fact, the minimum of the sum of any three nonzero elements is 3a > 2a + 5)
and the sum of two nonzero elements is an element of the set {2a, 2a + 1, 2a + 2, 2a + 3, 2a + 4},
so indeed 2a + 5 is not the sum of two nonzero elements, so it’s a generator.


4.4

Subalgebras of given shape and counting

Lemma 24. The extension ϕ : K[x]/xn+1 → K[x]/xn is minimal. Furthermore, for any R a
subalgebra of K[x]/xn+1 containing xn , the extension R → R/xn is minimal.
Proof. In fact xn K[x]/xn+1 is the unique minimal ideal of K[x]/xn+1 . The second follows as
well (by applying restrictions of minimal extensions, Proposition 7).

Here’s the main use of our results on minimal extensions:
Theorem 25. Let R ⊆ K[x]/xn+1 subalgebra.
2
1. If xn ∈ mR
, there are no subalgebras mapping isomorphically onto ϕ(R) = S.

10

2. Otherwise, the set of such subalgebras is parametrized by an affine space of dimension
dimK ( mS / mS2 ).
Proof. This is Theorem 6 part 1, since all the subalgebras involved have coefficient field K.



Corollary 26. Let K = Fq a finite field of q elements. Let R ⊆ K[x]/xn+1 subalgebra, and
n ∈ E(R).
2
, there are no subalgebras mapping isomorphically onto ϕ(R) = S.
1. If xn ∈ mR

2. Otherwise, the number of such subalgebras is q d(S) , where d(S) = dimK ( mS / mS2 ).
Proof. Immediate from Theorem 25, and Proposition 21 (n ∈ E(R) iff xn ∈ R).



Corollary 27. Suppose that A ⊆ Fq [x]/xn+1 and that n ∈
/ E(A). Then the number of subalgebras of Fq [x]/xn+1 mapping isomorphically onto ϕ(A) is q d(A) where d(A) ≤ d(E(A)).
Proof. Let S = ϕ(A), R = ϕ−1 (A). Since n ∈
/ E(A), the map A → S is an isomorphism
and we’re in situation 2 of Corollary 26, and so the number of such subalgebras is d(S) =
2
dimFq ( mS / mS2 ) = dimFq ( mA / mA
) = d(A) and d(A) ≤ d(E(A)).


4.4.1

Shape

Definition 8. Let E ⊆ [n − 1] a sub-partial-monoid. The collection of subalgebras of K[x]/xn
of shape E is the set Sn (E) = {R ⊆ K[x]/xn | E(R) = E}. This is a partition of the set of
subalgebras of K[x]/xn .
Proposition 28. Let E ⊆ [n] a sub-partial-monoid, R ⊆ K[x]/xn+1 subalgebra, E(R) = E.
1. If n ∈ E, the mapping R 7→ R/xn induces a bijection of sets Sn+1 (E) 7→ Sn (E \ {n})
∼ R, induces a mapping Sn+1 (E) 7→ Sn (E).
2. If n ∈
/ E, the mapping R 7→ R/((xn ) ∩ R) =
Moreover, for E1 6= E2 sub-partial-monoids of [n] such that n ∈
/ E1 , n ∈
/ E2 , the images
of Sn+1 (E1 ) and Sn+1 (E2 ) are disjoint, under the mapping just described.
3. If n ∈
/ E, the mapping above Sn+1 (E) 7→ Sn (E) is surjective ⇐⇒ for all B ∈ Sn (E) the
ring R = ϕ−1 (B) possesses a subring A mapping isomorphically to B ⇐⇒ the kernel
2
⇐⇒ d(R) = d(B) + 1.
Ker(R → B) doesn’t lie in mR
Proof.
1. By Proposition 21, the mapping is well defined, and so is the inverse mapping
B 7→ ϕ−1 (B), B ⊆ K[x]/xn . It’s immediate to see that the composition in both ways
yields the identity on the sets S.
∼ R induces an equality
2. By Proposition 21, for n ∈
/ E, the the mapping R 7→ R/((xn )∩R) =
n
of sets E(R) = E(R/((x ) ∩ R)), hence both claims follow.
3. The last two equivalences are the content of Proposition 8. For the first one, to have a
surjective map Sn+1 (E) 7→ Sn (E) amounts to have that R is not the only ring mapping
to B, which by theory of minimal extensions (Theorem 6), is the same as saying R has a
subring mapping isomorphically onto B.

In the setting of a finite field K = Fq , we can make an estimate of the number of subalgebras.
For E ⊆ [n − 1] a sub-partial-monoid, let e(E) be the following quantity recursively defined,
with d(E) being the minimal number of generators (so d({0}) = 0)


if n = 1
0
en (E) = en−1 (E \ {n − 1}) if n − 1 ∈ E, n > 1


d(E) + en−1 (E)
if n − 1 ∈
/ E, n > 1

11

Theorem 29. Let E ⊆ [n − 1]. Then #(Sn (E)) is at most q en (E) .
Proof. By induction. For n = 1, the only such sub-partial-monoid is E = {0} and S1 (E) = {Fq }
and obviously #(S1 (E)) = 1 = q 0 = e1 (E).
Assume for n. And let consider R ⊆ Fq [x]/xn+1 . Then xn ∈ R iff n ∈ E(R).
• n ∈ E(R). By Proposition 28 part1, #(Sn+1 (E)) = #(Sn (E \ {n})) which is at most
q en (E\{n})=en+1 (E) .
• n ∈
/ E(R). By Proposition 28 part 2, there are only two sets F = F1 , F2 such that
Sn+1 (F ) maps to Sn (E), namely, F1 = E, F2 = E ∪ {n}. For each B ∈ Sn (E), the rings
A ∈ Sn+1 (E) mapping to B give isomorphisms A ∼
= B, and every such A is contained in
ϕ−1 (B), and by Corollary 27 there are q d(B) ≤ q d(E) of them, so the fiber has at most q d(E)
elements, hence #(Sn+1 (E)) ≤ q d(E) #(Sn (E)) which by induction is ≤ q d(E) q en (E) =
q d(E)+en (E) = q en+1 (E) by definition.

There’s a way to make these estimates more precise with a finer partition of the set of
algebras, which won’t be pursued here. However, as a corollary of the proof, we have equalities
in the following cases:
Proposition 30. For E ⊆ [n] sub-partial-monoid:
• If n ∈ E, #(Sn+1 (E)) = #(Sn (E \ {n}))
• If n ∈
/ E, #(Sn+1 (E)) ≤ q d(E) #(Sn (E)) and furthermore, if for all B ∈ Sn (E), d(ϕ−1 (B)) =
d(B) + 1, then #(Sn+1 (E)) = q d(E) #(Sn (E))
Proof.
• Immediate.
• If n ∈
/ E, the above proof produces the inequality and so the only thing to check is
the equality: #(Sn+1 (E)) = q d(E) #(Sn (E)) provided for all B ∈ Sn (E), d(B) = d(E).
Indeed, if that’s the case, as in the proof above, the fiber of the map for all Sn+1 (E) 7→
Sn (E) has exactly q d(B) = q d(E) elements. Furthermore, it’s surjective by Proposition 28
part 3. Hence the equality #(Sn+1 (E)) = q d(E) #(Sn (E)).

Proposition 31. Let B ⊆ K[x]/xn subalgebra and R = ϕ−1 (B). If d(R) = d(E(R)), then
d(B) = d(E(B)).
Proof. We have two cases: d(R) = d(B) or d(R) = d(B)+1, and in both cases, from Proposition
21, E(R) = E(B) ∪ {n}.
• d(R) = d(B). We need to show that d(E(R)) = d(E(B)). It’s clear that d(E(B)) ≤
d(E(R)) and d(E(R)) = d(R) = d(B) ≤ d(E(B)) by Proposition 22, hence equality
d(E(B)) = d(B).
• d(R) = d(B) + 1. We need to show that d(E(R)) = d(E(B)) + 1, which is equivalent to
show that n is a generator of E(R). But if not, by Lemma 20, then xn would belong to
2
which is not the case since the condition d(R) = d(B) + 1 as we have above, says
mR
2
that Ker(ϕ) = (xn ) is not in mR
. This concludes the result.

Proposition 32. With the same setup as above, assume d(R) = d(B) + 1. If d(B) = d(E(B))
then d(E(R)) = d(R).
Proof. To show d(E(R)) = d(E(B)) + 1, and the proof is the same as above.



2
) ≤ d(E) shows.
When d(R) = d(B) the above is not true as section 4.3 on dimK ( mR / mR

12

Subrings of Z[x]/(pN , xn)

5
5.1

Setting

To study the subrings of R = Z[x]/(pN , xn ) in the framework of minimal extensions we need a
consider a slightly larger family of rings. Most proofs in this section are analogous to those of
K[x]/xn and will be omitted for the most part.
Definition 9. Let n ≥ 2, 1 ≤ k ≤ N . Rn,N,k is defined as the ring Rn,N,k = Z[x]/(pN , xn , pk xn−1 ).
This family “interpolates” between family Z[x]/(pN , xn ) in the sense that Rn,N,N = Z[x]/(pN , xn )
and Rn,N,0 = Z[x]/(pN , xn−1 ) = Rn−1,N,N . Notice that the rings Rn,N,k decrease as k decreases
from N to 0, more precisely:
Lemma 33. Rn,N,j is a quotient of Rn,N,k for N ≥ k ≥ j.
We can extend the definition of the partial-valuation of Lemma 12 to this entire family:
Definition 10. Let R = Rn,N,k . Write a nonzero element x as a sum of powers in increasing
order x = ak xk + higher order terms, where ai ∈ Z/pN is nonzero, let ν be the function
ν : Rn,N,k → Mn,N defined by ν(x) = (k, ν1 (ak )) (where ν1 is the natural partial-valuation on
Z/pN given by ν1 (upm ) = m where u invertible). Here (k, ν1 (ak )) is called an exponent of R
and we define D(R) as the set of exponents.
Lemma 34.
1. The set Mn,N = [n − 1] × [N − 1] is a totally ordered monoid with the
lexicographic order.
2. ν is a strict partial valuation on Rn,N,k with values in the monoid Mn,N (whose image is
the set where (a, b) ∈ D(R) and a = n then b ≤ k).
3. The Non-Archimedean property holds: for any two elements r1 , r2 , ν(r1 +r2 ) ≥ min{ν(r1 ), ν(r2 )}
and equality holds if ν(r1 ) 6= ν(r2 ).
4. D(R) is a partial-monoid.

5.2

The set of exponents D(R) and generators

Let R ⊆ Rn,N,k a subring. Theorem 10 and its proof give:
Lemma 35. If {a1 , ..., ad } generate D(R) as partial-monoid. Let r1 , ..., rd be monic such that
ν(ri ) = ai . Then ri generate R as algebra. Furthermore, if (n − 1, k − 1) ∈ D(R) is not a
2
, more precisely, pk−1 xn−1 is a nontrivial (not just one factor)
generator, then pk−1 xn−1 ∈ mR
αd
α1
k−1 n−1
monomial r1 ....rd = p
x
where n − 1 = α1 a1 + ... + αd ad .
Proposition 36. The valuation maps are compatible under injection and projection: Let R ⊆
Rn,N,k be a subring:
• pk−1 xn−1 ∈ R ⇐⇒ (n − 1, k − 1) ∈ D(R)
• Let k = j + 1 and consider the projection map ϕ : Rn,N,k → Rn,N,j . Then the valuation
maps are identical where defined: for any nonzero r̄ ∈ ϕ(Rn,N,k ), ν(r̄) = ν(r) for any
preimage r of r̄.
• In particular, if the projection gives an isomorphism R ∼
= ϕ(R), the sets of exponents are
identical.
• In general D(ϕ(R)) = D(R) ∩ ν(Rn,N,k )
• The cardinality of R is #(R) = p#(D(R)) .
Proposition 37. For D ⊆ Mn,N a sub-partial-monoid, let d(D) be the cardinality of its
2
+pR)) ≤
(unique) minimal generating set. If R ⊆ Rn,N,k has D(R) = D, then dimFp ( mR /( mR
d(D) − 1.

13

5.3

Subrings of given shape and counting

Lemma 38. The extension ϕ : Rn,N,k+1 → Rn,N,k is minimal. Furthermore, for any subring
R ⊆ Rn,N,k+1 containing pk xn−1 , the extension R → R/(pk xn−1 ) is minimal.
Proof. In fact (pk xn−1 ) is the unique minimal ideal of Rn,N,k+1 . The second follows as well
(applying restrictions of minimal extensions, Proposition 7).

Here’s the main use of our results on minimal extensions:
Theorem 39. Let R ⊆ Rn,N,k+1 subring.
2
1. If pk xn−1 ∈ mR
+ pR, there are no subrings of Rn,N,k+1 mapping isomorphically onto
ϕ(R) = S.

2. Otherwise, the set of such subrings is parametrized by an affine space over Fp of dimension
d(S) = dimFp ( mS /( mS2 + pS)), hence there are pd(S) of them.
Proof. This is Theorem 6 part 2, since the subrings involved have characteristic pN and residue
field Fp .

Corollary 40. Suppose that A ⊆ Rn,N,k+1 and that (n − 1, k − 1) ∈
/ D(A). Then the number
of subrings of Rn,N,k mapping isomorphically onto ϕ(A) is pd(A) where d(A) ≤ d(D(A)).
Proof. Let S = ϕ(A), R = ϕ−1 (A). Since (n − 1, k − 1) ∈
/ D(A), the map A → S is an
isomorphism and applying Theorem 39, the number of such subrings is pd(S) where d(S) =
2
dimFp ( mS /( mS2 + pS)) = dimFp ( mA /( mA
+ pA)) = d(A) and d(A) ≤ d(D(A)).


5.3.1

Shape

Definition 11. Let D ⊆ Mn,N a sub-partial-monoid. The collection of subrings of Rn,N,k of
shape D is Sn,N,k (D) = {R ⊆ Rn,N,k | D(R) = D}, a partition of the set of subrings of Rn,N,k .
We need a simple characterization of those D that are the set of exponents of a subring.
Proposition 41. D ⊆ Mn,N is the set of exponents of a subring R ⊆ Rn,N,k ⇐⇒ D is a
partial-sub-monoid of Mn,N containing (pi , 0) for all 0 ≤ i ≤ N − 1.
Proposition 42. Let D ⊆ Mn,N a sub-partial-monoid, R ⊆ Rn,N,k+1 subring, D(R) = D.
1. If (n−1, k) ∈ D, the mapping R 7→ R/(pk xn−1 ) induces a bijection of sets Sn,N,k+1 (D) 7→
Sn,N,k (D \ {(n − 1, k)})
2. If (n−1, k) ∈
/ D, the mapping R 7→ R/((pk xn−1 )∩R) ∼
= R, induces a mapping Sn,N,k+1 (D) 7→
/ D1 ,
Sn,N,k (D). Moreover, for D1 6= D2 sub-partial-monoids of Mn,N such that (n−1, k) ∈
(n − 1, k) ∈
/ D2 , the images of Sn+1 (D1 ) and Sn+1 (D2 ) are disjoint, under the mapping
just described.
3. If (n − 1, k) ∈
/ D, the mapping above Sn,N,k+1 (D) 7→ Sn,N,k (D) is surjective ⇐⇒ for all
B ∈ Sn,N,k (D) the ring R = ϕ−1 (B) possesses a subring A mapping isomorphically to B
2
+ pR ⇐⇒ d(R) = d(B) + 1.
⇐⇒ the kernel Ker(R → B) doesn’t lie in mR
Proof.
1. By Proposition 36, the mapping is well defined, and so is the inverse mapping
B 7→ ϕ−1 (B), B ⊆ Rn,N,k . It’s immediate to see that the composition in both ways
yields the identity on the sets S.
2. By Proposition 36, for (n − 1, k) ∈
/ D, the the mapping R 7→ R/((pk xn−1 ) ∩ R) ∼
= R
induces an equality of sets D(R) = D(R/((pk xn−1 ) ∩ R)), hence both claims follow.

14

3. The last two equivalences follow in the same way as Proposition 28 follows from Proposition 8. For the first one, to have a surjective map Sn,N,k (D) 7→ Sn,N,k (D) amounts to
have that R is not the only ring mapping to B, which by theory of minimal extensions
(Theorem 6), is the same as saying R has a subring mapping isomorphically onto B.

We can proceed to estimate the number of subrings. For D ⊆ Mn,N a sub-partial-monoid
containing (pi , 0) for all 0 ≤ i ≤ N − 1, let ǫ(D) be the following quantity recursively defined,
with d(D) being the minimal number of generators (so d({0}) = 0)


if n = 1
0
ǫn,N,k (D) = ǫn,N,k−1 (D \ {(n − 1, k − 1)}) if (n − 1, k − 1) ∈ D, n > 1


d(D) − 1 + ǫn,N,k−1 (D)
if (n − 1, k − 1) ∈
/ D, n > 1
Here’s the main counting result:

Theorem 43. Let D ⊆ Mn,N . Then #(Sn,N,k (D)) is at most pǫn,N,k (D) .
Proposition 44. For D ⊆ Mn,N sub-partial-monoid:
• If (n − 1, k) ∈ D, #(Sn,N,k+1 (D)) = #(Sn,N,k (D \ {(n − 1, k)}))
• If (n − 1, k) ∈
/ D, #(Sn,N,k+1 (D)) ≤ pd(D)−1 #(Sn (D)) and furthermore, if for all B ∈
Sn,N,k (D), d(ϕ−1 (B)) = d(B) + 1, then #(Sn,N,k+1 (D)) = pd(D)−1 #(Sn,N,k (D))
Proposition 45. Let B ⊆ Rn,N,k subalgebra and R = ϕ−1 (B). If d(R) = d(D(R)) − 1, then
d(B) = d(D(B)) − 1.
Proposition 46. With the same setup as above, assume d(R) = d(B)+1. If d(B) = d(D(B))−
1 then d(R) = d(D(R)) − 1.

References
[1] S. Atanasov, N. Kaplan, B. Krakoff, and J. Menzel, Counting finite index subrings of Zn
and Z[x]/(xn ), arxiv.org/abs/1609.06433
[2] M.F. Atiyah, I.G. Macdonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra. Addison–Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1969.
[3] Franco Munoz, Subrings of finite commutative rings.
[4] Ganske, G.; McDonald, B.R., Finite local rings. Rocky Mountain J. Math. 3 (1973), no. 4,
521-540.
[5] MacDonald B. R., Finite rings with identity, M. Dekker (1974).
[6] J. C. Rosales, J. C and P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, P. A. Numerical semigroups. Developments
in Mathematics, 20. Springer, New York, 2009
[7] The Stacks Project https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/
Francisco Franco Munoz, Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA 98195
E-mail address: ffm1@uw.edu

15

