arXiv:1404.3319v1 [] 12 Apr 2014

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS
INSIDE POWER SERIES RINGS
WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND
Abstract. Given a power series ring R∗ over a Noetherian integral domain
R and an intermediate field L between R and the total quotient ring of R∗ ,
the integral domain A = L ∩ R∗ often (but not always) inherits nice properties
from R∗ such as the Noetherian property. For certain fields L it is possible to
approximate A using a localization B of a particular nested union of polynomial
rings over R associated to A; if B is Noetherian then B = A. If B is not
Noetherian, we can sometimes identify the prime ideals of B that are not
finitely generated. We have obtained in this way, for each positive integer
m, a three-dimensional local unique factorization domain B such that the
maximal ideal of B is two-generated, B has precisely m prime ideals of height
two, each prime ideal of B of height two is not finitely generated and all the
other prime ideals of B are finitely generated. We examine the structure of the
map Spec A → Spec B for this example. We also present a generalization of
this example to dimension four. This four-dimensional non-Noetherian local
unique factorization domain has exactly one prime ideal Q of height three, and
Q is not finitely generated.

1. Introduction
In this paper we analyze the prime ideal structure of particular non-Noetherian
integral domains arising from a general construction developed in our earlier papers
[14],. . . , [18]. With this technique two types of integral domains are constructed:
(1) The intersection of an ideal-adic completion R∗ of a Noetherian integral
domain R with an appropriate subfield of the total quotient ring of R∗ yields an
integral domain A as in the abstract, and
(2) An approximation of the domain A by a nested union B of localized polynomial rings has the second form described in the abstract.
Recently there has been considerable interest in non-Noetherian analogues of
Noetherian notions such as the concept of “regular” ring. Rotthaus and Sega have
shown that the rings A and B produced in the general construction are coherent
regular local rings in the sense that every finitely generated submodule of a free
module has a finite free resolution; see [27] and Remark 4.3.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13B35, 13J10, 13A15.
Key words and phrases. power series, Noetherian and non-Noetherian integral domains.
The authors are grateful for the hospitality, cooperation and support of Michigan State, Nebraska, Purdue and the CIRM at Luminy, France, where several work sessions on this research
were conducted.
1

2

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

We construct in this paper rings that are not Noetherian but are very close
to being Noetherian, in that localizations at most prime ideals are Noetherian
and most prime ideals are finitely generated; sometimes just one prime ideal is
not finitely generated. If a ring has exactly one prime ideal that is not finitely
generated, that prime ideal contains all nonfinitely generated ideals of the ring.
This article expands upon previous work of the authors where we construct nonNoetherian local domains of dimension d ≥ 3 with some of these properties [17] and
[18]. In the case of dimensions three and four, we give considerably more detail in
this article about these non-Noetherian domains. In particular we categorize the

height-one primes of the three-dimensional example in terms of the spectral map
from A to B.
In Section 2 we describe examples of three-dimensional non-Noetherian noncatenary unique factorization domains. Another example of a three-dimensional
non-Noetherian unique factorization domain is given by John David in [5]. The
examples given in Examples 2.1 are very close to being Noetherian. We give more
details about a specific case where there is precisely one nonfinitely generated prime
ideal in Example 2.3. In Section 3 we give background results that apply in a more
general setting. Our main results are in Sections 4 and 5. Section 4 contains the
verification of the properties of the three-dimensional examples.
In Example 5.1 of Section 5, we construct a four-dimensional non-Noetherian
non-catenary local unique factorization domain B that again is close to being Noetherian. The ring B has exactly one prime ideal Q of height three, and Q is not
finitely generated. We leave open the question of whether there exist any prime
ideals of B of height two that are not finitely generated. Following a suggestion
of the referee, we use a “D + M ” construction to obtain in Example 5.16 a fourdimensional non-Noetherian non-catenary local domain C; the maximal ideal of C
is principal and is the only nonzero finitely generated prime ideal of C.
All rings we consider are assumed to be commutative with identity. A general
reference for our notation and terminology is [22]. We abbreviate unique factorization domain to UFD, regular local domain to RLR and discrete rank one valuation
domain to DVR.
2. A family of examples in dimension 3
In this section we construct examples as described in Examples 2.1. In the next
section we give a diagram and more detail for a special case of the example with
exactly one nonfinitely generated prime ideal.
Examples 2.1. For each positive integer m, we construct an example of a nonNoetherian local integral domain (B, n) such that:

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

3

(1) dim B = 3.
(2) The ring B is a UFD that is not catenary.
(3) The maximal ideal n of B is 2-generated.
(4) The n-adic completion of B is a two-dimensional regular local domain.
(5) For every non-maximal prime ideal P of B, the ring BP is Noetherian.
(6) The ring B has precisely m prime ideals of height two.
(7) Each prime ideal of B of height two is not finitely generated; all other prime
ideals of B are finitely generated.
To establish the existence of the examples in Example 2.1, we use the following
notation. Let k be a field, let x and y be indeterminates over k, and set
K := k(x, y) and R∗ : = k[y](y) [[x]].

R : = k[x, y](x,y) ,

The power series ring R∗ is the xR-adic completion of R. Let τ ∈ xk[[x]] be

transcendental over k(x). For each integer i with 1 ≤ i ≤ m, let pi ∈ R \ xR be such
that p1 R∗ , . . . , pm R∗ are m prime ideals. For example, if each pi ∈ R \ (x, y)2 R,

then each pi R∗ is prime in R∗ . In particular one could take pi = y − xi . Let
p := p1 · · · pm . We set f := pτ and consider the injective R-algebra homomorphism
S := R[f ] ֒→ R[τ ] =: T . In this construction the polynomial rings S and T have
the same field of fractions K(f ) = K(τ ). The intersection domain
A := R∗ ∩ K(f ) = R∗ ∩ K(τ )

(2.1.0)

is a two-dimensional regular local domain with maximal ideal (x, y)A and the
(x, y)A-adic completion of A is k[[x, y]], [29].
Let τ := c1 x + c2 x2 + · · · + ci xi + · · · ∈ xk[[x]], where the ci ∈ k and, for each
non-negative integer n, define the “nth endpiece” τn of τ by
P
∞
X
τ − ni=1 ci xi
.
ci xi−n =
((2.1.a))
τn :=
xn
i=n+1
We have the following relation between τn and τn+1 for each n:
(2.1.b)

τn = cn+1 x + xτn+1 .

Define fn := pτn , set Un = R[fn ] = k[x, y](x,y) [fn ], a 3-dimensional polynomial ring
over R, and set Bn = (Un )(x,y,fn ) = k[x, y, fn ](x,y,fn ) , a 3-dimensional localized
polynomial ring. Similarly set Uτ n = R[τn ] = k[x, y](x,y) [τn ], a 3-dimensional
polynomial ring containing Un , and Bτ n = k[x, y, τn ](x,y,τn) , a localized polynomial
ring containing Uτ n and Bn . Let U, B, Uτ and Bτ be the nested union domains
defined as follows:
∞
∞
[
[
Uτ n ;
Un ⊆ Uτ :=
U :=
n=0

n=0

B :=

∞
[

n=0

Bn ⊆ Bτ :=

∞
[

n=0

Bτ n ⊆ A.

4

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

Remark 2.2. By Equation 2.1.b, k[x, y, fn+1 ] ⊆ k[x, y, fn ][1/x] for each n. Thus

k[x, y, f ][1/x] = k[x, y, fn ][1/x] and
(2.2.0)

U [1/x] = R[f ][1/x]; Uτ [1/x] = R[τ ][1/x].

Hence, for each n, the ring Bn [1/x] is a localization of S = U0 = R[f ]. It follows
that B[1/x] is a localization of S and B[1/x] is a localization of Bn . Similarly,
Bτ [1/x] is a localization of T = R[τ ].
We establish in Theorem 4.1 of Section 4 that the rings B of Examples 2.1 have
properties 1 through 7 and also some additonal properties.
Assuming properties 1 through 7 of Examples 2.1, we describe the ring B of
Examples 2.1 in the case where m = 1 and p = p1 = y.
Example 2.3. Let the notation be as in Examples 2.1. Thus
R = k[x, y](x,y) ,

f = yτ,

fn = yτn ,

Bn = R[yτn ](x,y,yτn) ,

B=

∞
[

Bn .

n=0

As we show in Section 4, this ring B has exactly one prime ideal Q := (y, {yτn }∞
n=0 )B
of height 2. Moreover, Q is not finitely generated and is the only prime ideal of B
that is not finitely generated. We also have Q = yA ∩ B, and Q ∩ Bn = (y, yτn )Bn
for each n ≥ 0.

To identify the ring B up to isomorphism, we include the following details: By
Equation 2.1.b, we have τn = cn+1 x + xτn+1 . Thus we have
(2.3.1)

fn = xfn+1 + yxcn+1 .

The family of equations (2.3.1) uniquely determines B as a nested union of the
3-dimensional RLRs Bn = k[x, y, fn ](x,y,fn ) .
We recall the following terminology of [30, page 325].
Definition 2.4. If a ring C is a subring of a ring D, a prime ideal P of C is lost
in D if P D ∩ C 6= P .
Discussion 2.5. Assuming properties 1 through 7 of Examples 2.1, if q is a heightone prime of B, then B/q is Noetherian if and only if q is not contained in Q. This is
clear since q is principal and Q is the unique prime of B that is not finitely generated,
and a ring is Noetherian if each prime ideal of the ring is finitely generated; see [23,
Theorem 3.4].
The height-one primes q of B may be separated into several types as follows:
Type I. The primes q 6⊆ Q have the property that B/q is a one-dimensional

Noetherian local domain. These primes are contracted from A, i.e., they are not
lost in A. To see this, consider q = gB where g 6∈ Q. Then gA is contained in a

height one prime P of A. Hence g ∈ (P ∩ B) \ Q so P ∩ B 6= Q. Since mB A = mA ,

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

5

we have P ∩ B 6= mB . Therefore P ∩ B is a height-one prime containing q, so

q = P ∩ B and Bq = AP .
There are infinitely many primes q of type I, because every element of mB \ Q is
S
contained in a prime q of type I. Thus mB ⊆ Q ∪ {q of Type I}. Since mB is not
the union of finitely many strictly smaller prime ideals, there are infinitely many
primes q of Type I.
Type I*. Among the primes of Type I, we label the prime ideal xB as Type I*.
The prime ideal xB is special since it is the unique height-one prime q of B for
which R∗ /qR∗ is not complete. If q is a height-one prime of B such that x ∈
/ qR∗ ,
then x ∈
/ q by Proposition 3.2.4. Thus R∗ /qR∗ is complete with respect to the
powers of the nonzero principal ideal generated by the image of x mod qR∗ . Notice
that R∗ /xR∗ ∼
= k[y]yk[y] .

If q is a height-one prime of B not of Type I, then B = B/q has precisely three
prime ideals. These prime ideals form a chain: (0) ⊂ Q ⊂ (x, y)B = mB .
Type II. We define the primes of Type II to be the primes q ⊂ Q such that q has

height one and is contracted from a prime p of A = k(x, y, f ) ∩ R∗ , i.e., q is not
lost in A. For example, the prime y(y + τ )B is of Type II, by Lemma 4.5. For q of
this type, B/q is dominated by the one-dimensional Noetherian local domain A/p.
Thus B/q is a non-Noetherian generalized local ring in the sense of Cohen; that is,
i
B/q has a unique maximal ideal n that is finitely generated and ∩∞
i=1 n = (0), [4].
For q of Type II, the maximal ideal of B/q is not principal. This follows because

a generalized local domain having a principal maximal ideal is a DVR [24, (31.5)].
There are infinitely many height-one primes of Type II, for example, y(y + xt τ )B
for each t ∈ N; see Lemma 4.4. For q of Type II, the DVR Bq is birationally
√
dominated by Ap . Hence Bq = Ap and the ideal qA = p ∩ yA.

That each element y(y + xt τ ) is irreducible, and thus generates a height-one
prime ideal, is done in greater generality in Lemma 4.4.

Type III. The primes of Type III are the primes q ⊂ Q such that q has height one

and is not contracted from A, i.e., q is lost in A. For example, the prime yB and

the prime (y + xt yτ )B for t ∈ N are of Type III; see Lemma 4.5. Since the elements
y and y + xt yτ are in mB and are not in m2B and since B is a UFD, these elements
are necessarily prime. There are infinitely many such prime ideals by Lemma 4.4.
√
For q of Type III, we have qA = yA.
If q = yB or q = (y + xt yτ )B, then the image mB of mB in B/q is principal.
It follows that the intersection of the powers of mB is Q/q, and so B/q is not a
T∞
generalized local ring. To see that i=1 (mB )i 6= (0), we argue as follows: If P is
a principal prime ideal of a ring and P ′ is a prime ideal properly contained in P ,
then P ′ is contained in the intersection of the powers of P ; see [20, page 7, ex. 5].

6

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

The picture of Spec(B) is shown below.

mB := (x, y)B

Q := (y, {fi })B

xB ∈ Type I

Type II

yB ∈ Type III

(0)
Diagram 2.3.2
In Remarks 2.6 we examine the height-one primes of B from a different perspective.
Remarks 2.6. (1) Assume the notation of Example 2.3. If w is a nonzero prime
element of B such that w ∈
/ Q, then wA is a prime ideal in A and is the unique prime
ideal of A lying over wB. To see this, observe that w ∈
/ yA since w ∈
/ Q = yA ∩ B.

It follows that if p ∈ Spec A is a minimal prime of wA, then y ∈
/ p. Thus p ∩ B 6= Q,
and so, since we assume the properties of Examples 2.1 hold, p ∩ B has height one.

Therefore p ∩ B = wB. Hence the DVR BwB is birationally dominated by Ap , and

thus BwB = Ap . This implies that p is the unique prime of A lying over wB. We
also have wBwB = pAp . Since A is a UFD and p is the unique minimal prime of
wA, it follows that wA = p. In particular, q is not lost in A; see Definition 2.4.
If q is a height-one prime of B that is contained in Q, then yA is a minimal
prime of q, and q is of Type II or III depending on whether or not qA has other
minimal prime divisors.
To see this, observe that if yA is the only prime divisor of qA, then qA has
radical yA and yA ∩ B = Q implies that Q is the radical of qA ∩ B. Thus q is lost

in A and q is of Type III.
On the other hand, if there is a minimal prime p ∈ Spec A of qA that is different

from yA, then y is not in p ∩ B and hence p ∩ B 6= Q. Since Q is the only prime
of B of height two, it follows that p ∩ B is a height-one prime and thus p ∩ B = q.
Thus q is not lost in A and q is of Type II.
We observe that for every Type II prime q there are exactly two minimal primes
of qA, one of these is yA and the other is a height-one prime p of A such that
p ∩ B = q. For every height-one prime ideal p of A such that p ∩ B = q, we have Bq
is a DVR that is birationally dominated by Ap and hence Bq = Ap . The uniqueness
of Bq implies that there is precisely one such prime ideal p of A.

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

7

An example of a height-one prime ideal q of Type II is q := (y 2 + yτ )B. Then
qA = (y 2 + yτ )A has the two minimal primes yA and (y + τ )A.
(2) The ring B/yB is a rank 2 valuation ring. This can be seen directly or else
one may apply [12, Prop. 3.5(iv)]. For other prime elements g of B with g ∈ Q, it
need not be true that B/gB is a valuation ring. If g is a prime element contained
in m2B , then the maximal ideal of B/gB is 2-generated but not principal and thus
B/gB cannot be a valuation ring. For a specific example over the field Q, let
g = x2 + y 2 τ .
3. Background results
We use results from a general construction developed in our earlier papers. In
particular, we use the following theorem in establishing Examples 2.1.
Theorem 3.1. [15, Theorem 1.1], [16, Theorem 3.2], [19]. Let R be a Noetherian
integral domain with field of fractions K. Let a be a nonzero nonunit of R and let
R∗ be the (a)-adic completion of R. Let h be a positive integer and let τ1 , . . . , τh ∈
aR[[a]] = aR∗ , abbreviated by τ , be algebraically independent over K. Let Uτ and
Cτ be defined as follows
Uτ :=

∞
[

Uτ r

and

Cτ :=

r=0

∞
[

Cτ r ,

r=0

where for each integer r ≥ 0, Uτ r := R[τ1r , . . . , τhr ], Cτ r := (1 + aUτ r )−1 Uτ r , and
each τir is the rth endpiece of τi defined as in Equation 2.1.a. Then the following
statements are equivalent:
(1) Aτ := K(τ ) ∩ R∗ is Noetherian and Aτ = Cτ .
(2) Aτ is Noetherian and is a localization of a subring of Uτ 0 [1/a].
(3) Aτ is Noetherian and is a localization of a subring of Uτ [1/a].
(4) Uτ is Noetherian.
(5) Cτ is Noetherian.
(6) R[τ ] → R∗ [1/a] is flat.
(7) Cτ → R∗ [1/a] is flat.

Propositions 3.2 and 3.4 are used for Examples 2.1.
Proposition 3.2. With the notation of Theorem 3.1, let U = Uτ , Un = Uτ n ,
C = Cτ and A = Aτ . Then for all t ∈ N we have
(3.2.0)

at C = at R ∗ ∩ C

and

U
C
A
R∗
R
.
=
=
=
=
at R
at U
at C
at A
at R ∗

Moreover,
(1) The (a)-adic completions of U , C and A are all equal to R∗ , and a is in
the Jacobson radical of C.

8

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

(2) The ring U [1/a] = R[τ ][1/a], and so C[1/a] is a localization of R[τ ].
(3) If q is a prime ideal of R, then qU is a prime ideal of U , and either qC = C
or qC is a prime ideal of C.
(4) Let I be an ideal of C and let t ∈ N. If at ∈ IR∗ , then at ∈ I.
(5) Let P ∈ Spec C with a ∈
/ P . Then a is a nonzerodivisor on R∗ /P R∗ . Thus

a ∈
/ Q for each associated prime Q of the ideal P R∗ . Since a is in the
Jacobson radical of R∗ , it follows that P R∗ is contained in a nonmaximal

prime ideal of R∗ .
(6) If R is local, then R∗ and C are both local, and we let mR , mR∗ and mC
denote the maximal ideals of R, R∗ and C, respectively. In this case
• mC = mR C and each prime ideal P of C such that ht(mC /P ) = 1 is
contracted from R∗ .
• If an ideal I of C is such that IR∗ is primary for mR∗ , then I is
primary for mC .

Proof. The equalities in Equation 3.2.0 follow from [15, Prop. 2.2.1], [16, Prop.
2.4.3], [19, Corollary 6.19], and these imply item 1 about (a)-adic completions. For
the second statement, since Cn = (1 + aUN )−1 Un , it follows that 1 + ac is a unit
of Cn for each c ∈ Cn . Therefore a is in the Jacobson radical of Cn for each n and
thus a is in the Jacobson radical of C.
For item 2, the relation given in Equation 2.1.b for the case of one variable τ

holds also in the case of several variables and implies that U [1/a] = R[τ ][1/a]. Since
C is a localization of U , we have C[1/a] is a localization of R[τ ] by Remark 2.2.
For item 3, since each Un is a polynomial ring over R, qUn is a prime ideal of
S∞
Un and thus qU = n=0 qUn is a prime ideal of U . Since C is a localization of U ,
qC is either C or a prime ideal of C.
To see item 4, observe that there exist elements b1 , . . . , bs ∈ I such that IR∗ =
(b1 , . . . , bs )R∗ . If at ∈ IR∗ , there exist αi ∈ R∗ such that
at = α1 b1 + · · · + αs bs .
We have αi = ai + at+1 λi for each i, where ai ∈ C and λi ∈ R∗ . Thus
at [1 − a(b1 λ1 + · · · + bs λs )] = a1 b1 + · · · + as bs ∈ C ∩ at R∗ = at C.
Therefore γ := 1−a(b1 λ1 +· · ·+bs λs ) ∈ C. Thus a(b1 λ1 +· · ·+bs λs ) ∈ C∩aR∗ = aC,
and so b1 λ1 + · · · + bs λs ∈ C. By item 1, the element a is in the Jacobson radical

of C. Hence γ is invertible in C. Since γat ∈ (b1 , · · · , bs )C, it follows that at ∈ I.
For item 5, assume that P ∈ Spec C and a ∈
/ P . We have that
P
P + aC
P
∼
P ∩ aC = aP and so
=
=
aP
P ∩ aC
aC
By Equation 3.2.0, C/aC is Noetherian. Hence the C-module C/aC is finitely

generated. Let g1 , . . . , gt ∈ P be such that P = (g1 , . . . , gt )C + aP . Then also

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

9

P R∗ = (g1 , . . . , gt )R∗ +aR∗ = (g1 , . . . , gt )R∗ ; the first equality is by Equation 3.2.0,
and the last equality is by Nakayama’s Lemma.
Let fb ∈ R∗ be such that afb ∈ P R∗ . we show that fb ∈ P R∗ .
P∞
Since fb ∈ R∗ , we have fb := i=0 ci ai , where each ci ∈ R. For each m > 1, let
Pm
fm := i=0 ci ai , the first m + 1 terms of this expansion of fb. Then fm ∈ R ⊆ C
and there exists an element b
h1 ∈ R∗ so that.
Since afb ∈ P R∗ , we have

c1 .
fb = fm + am+1 h

afb = ab1 g1 + · · · + abt gt ,

for some abi ∈ R∗ . The abi have power series expansions in a over R, and thus there
exist elements aim ∈ R such that abi − aim ∈ am+1 R∗ . Thus
where b
h2 ∈ R∗ , and

c2 ,
afb = a1m g1 + · · · + atm gt + am+1 h

c3 ,
afm = a1m g1 + · · · + atm gt + am+1 h

c3 ∈ am+1 R∗ ∩ C =
c3 = h
c2 − ah
c1 ∈ R∗ . Since the gi are in C, we have am+1 h
where h
c3 ∈ C. Rearranging the
am+1 C, the last equality by Equation 3.2.0. Therefore h
last set-off equation above, we obtain

c3 ) = a1m g1 + · · · + atm gt ∈ P.
a(fm − am h

c3 ∈ P . It follows that fb ∈ P +am R∗ ⊆ P R∗ +am R∗ ,
Since a ∈
/ P , we have fm −am h
for each m > 1. Hence we have that fb ∈ P R∗ , as desired.

For item 6, if R is local, then C is local since C/aC = R/aR and a is in the
Jacobson radical of C. Hence also mC = mR C. If a 6∈ P , then item 4 implies that

no power of a is in P R∗ . Hence P R∗ is contained in a prime ideal Q of R∗ that
does not meet the multiplicatively closed set {an }∞
n=1 . Hence P ⊆ Q ∩ C ( mC .

Since ht(mC /P ) = 1, we have P = Q ∩ C, so P is contracted from R∗ . If a ∈ P ,
then (3.2.0) implies that P R∗ is a prime ideal of R∗ and P = P R∗ ∩ C.
For the second part of item 5, if IR∗ is m-primary then at ∈ IR∗ . Thus at ∈ I
by item 4. By Equation 3.2.0, C/at C = R∗ /at R∗ and so I/at C is primary for the
maximal ideal of C/at C. Therefore I is primary for the maximal ideal of C.



The definition of B as a directed union as given in Examples 2.1 and later in
this article is not the same as the definition of C as a directed union given in
Theorem 3.1 and Propositions 3.2 and 3.4. However the ring B is the same as the
ring C for R as in Examples 2.1. We show this more generally in Remark 3.3.1 for
R a Noetherian local domain.

10

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

Remarks 3.3. (1) Assume the setting of Theorem 3.1 with the additional assumption that R is a Noetherian local domain with maximal ideal m. We observe in
this case that Cτ as defined in Theorem 3.1 is the directed union of the localized
polynomial rings Br := (Uτ r )Pr , where Pr := (m, τ1r , . . . , τhr )Uτ r .
Proof. It is clear that Br ⊆ Br+1 , and Pr ∩ (1 + aUτ r ) = ∅ implies that Cτ r ⊆ Br .

We show that Br ⊆ Cτ r+1 : Let ud ∈ Br , where u ∈ Uτ r and d ∈ Uτ r \ Pr . Then
Ph
d = d0 + i=1 τir bi , where d0 ∈ R and each bi ∈ Uτ r . Notice that d0 ∈
/ m since
Ph
−1
−1
−1
d ∈
/ Pr , and so d0 ∈ R. Thus dd0 = 1 + i=1 τir bi d0 ∈ (1 + aUτ r+1 ) since
S∞
0
each τir ∈ aUτ r+1 by (2.1.b). Hence ud = ud
r=1 Cτ r =
dd0 ∈ Cτ r+1 , and so Cτ =
S∞

r=1 Br .
(2) With the notation of Examples 2.1, where R is the localized polynomial ring
k[x, y](x,y) over a field k, R∗ = k[y](y) [[x]] is the (x)-adic completion of R and
S
τ ∈ xR∗ is transcendental over K, the proof in item (1) shows that Cτ = Br ,

where Br = (Ur )Pr , Ur = k[x, y, τr ] and Pr = (x, y, τr )Ur . A similar remark applies
to Cf with appropriate modifications to Br , Ur and Pr .
(3) Thus the results of Theorem 3.1 and Propositions 3.2 and 3.4 hold for the
ring B of Examples 2.1 and also the examples later in this article.
Proposition 3.4. Assume the notation of Theorem 3.1 and set C := Cτ .
(1) If R is a UFD and a is a prime element of R, then aC is a prime ideal,
C[1/a] is a Noetherian UFD and C is a UFD.
(2) If in addition R is regular, then C[1/a] is a regular Noetherian UFD.
Proof. By Proposition 3.2.3, aC is a prime ideal. Since R is a Noetherian UFD
and S = R[τ1 , · · · , τh ] is a polynomial ring extension of R, it follows that S is a

Noetherian UFD. By Remark 2.2, the ring C[1/a] is a localization of S and thus
a Noetherian UFD; moreover C[1/a] is regular if R is. The (a)-adic completion

of C is R∗ by Proposition 3.2.1. Since R∗ is Noetherian and a is in the Jacobson
T
n ∗
radical of R∗ ; see [22, Theorem 8.2(i)], it follows that ∞
n=1 a R = (0). Thus
T∞ n
n=1 a C = (0) by Equation 3.2.0. It follows that CaC is Noetherian [24, (31.5)],
and hence CaC is a DVR. We use the following fact:
Fact 3.5. If D is an integral domain and c is a nonzero element of D such that cD
is a prime ideal, then D = D[1/c] ∩ DcD .
Proof of fact. Let β ∈ D[1/c] ∩ DcD . Then β =

b
cn

=
n

b1
s

for some b, b1 ∈ D,

s ∈ D \ cD and integer n ≥ 0. If n > 0, we have sb = c b1 =⇒ b ∈ cD. Thus
we may reduce to the case where n = 0; it follows that D = D[1/c] ∩ DcD . This

proves the fact.

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

11

We return to the proof of Proposition 3.4. By the fact, C = C[1/a] ∩ CaC , and

therefore C is a Krull domain. Since C[1/a] is a UFD and C is a Krull domain, it
follows that C is a UFD [28, page 21].


In order to examine more closely the prime ideal structure of the ring B of
Examples 2.1, we establish in Proposition 3.6 some properties of its overring A and
of the map Spec A → Spec B.
Proposition 3.6. With the notation of Examples 2.1, we have
(1) A = Bτ and A[1/x] is a localization of R[τ ].
(2) For P ∈ Spec A with x ∈
/ P , the following are equivalent:
(b) τ ∈ BP ∩B

(a) AP = BP ∩B

(c) p ∈
/ P.

Proof. For item 1, to see that A = Bτ , we first show that the map
ϕ : R[τ ] → R∗ [1/x] = k[y](y) [[x]][1/x]
is flat. By [22, p. 46], the field of fractions L of k[x](x) [τ ] is flat over k[x](x) [τ ] since
it is a localization. The field k[[x]][1/x] contains L and is flat over L since it has a
vector space basis over L. Thus the map ψ : k[x](x) [τ ] → k[[x]][1/x] is flat. We use
the following:

Fact 3.7. Let C be a commutative ring, let D, E and F be C-algebras, and let
ψ : D → E be a flat C-algebra homomorphism; equivalently, E is a flat D-module

via the C-algebra homomorphism ψ. Then ψ ⊗C 1F : D ⊗C F → E ⊗C F is a flat
C-algebra homomorphism; equivalently, E ⊗C F is a flat D ⊗C F -module via the

C-algebra homomorphism ψ ⊗C 1F .

Proof. Since E is a flat D-module, E ⊗D (D ⊗C F ) is a flat (D ⊗C F )-module by

[22, p. 46, Change of coefficient ring]. The fact follows because E ⊗D (D ⊗C F ) =
E ⊗C F .

We return to the proof of Proposition 3.6. We have R = k[x, y](x,y) . Consider
the following composition:
α

γ

R[τ ] = k[x](x) [τ ] ⊗k[x](x) R → k[[x]][1/x] ⊗k[x](x) R ֒→ k[[x]][y](x,y) [1/x].
By Fact 3.7, the map α is flat. The map γ is a localization. Hence the composition
γ ◦ α is flat. The extension k[[x]][y](x,y) → k[y](y) [[x]] is flat since it is the map

taking a Noetherian ring to an ideal-adic completion [23, Corollary 1, p. 170].
Therefore the localization map β : k[[x]][y](x,y) [1/x] → k[y](y) [[x]][1/x] is flat. Thus
the map ϕ = β ◦ γ ◦ α : R[τ ] → k[y](y) [[x]][1/x] is flat. Theorem 3.1 implies that

A = Bτ . By Remark 2.2, the ring A[1/x] is a localization of R[τ ].
For item 2, since τ ∈ A, (a) =⇒ (b) is clear. For (b) =⇒ (c) we show that
p ∈ P =⇒ τ ∈
/ BP ∩B . By Remark 2.2, B[1/x] is a localization of R[f ]. Since

12

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

x∈
/ P , the ring BP ∩B is a localization of R[f ], and thus BP ∩B = R[f ]P ∩R[f ] . The

assumption that p ∈ P implies that some pi ∈ P , and so R[f ]P ∩R[f ] is contained in
the DVR V := R[f ]pi R[f ] . Since R[f ] is a polynomial ring over R, f is a unit in V .
Hence τ = f /p ∈
/ V and thus τ ∈
/ R[f ]P ∩R[f ] . This shows that (b) =⇒ (c).
For (c) =⇒ (a), notice that f = pτ implies that R[f ][1/xp] = R[τ ][1/xp].

By item 1, A[1/x] is a localization of R[τ ][1/x] and so A[1/xp] is a localization of
R[τ ][1/xp] = R[f ][1/xp]. Thus A[1/xp] is a localization of R[f ]. By Remark 2.2,
B[1/x] is a localization of R[f ]. Since xp ∈
/ P and x ∈
/ P ∩ B, we have that AP and
BP ∩B are both localizations of R[f ]. Thus we have
AP = R[f ]P AP ∩R[f ] = R[f ](P ∩B)BP ∩B ∩R[f ] = BP ∩B .
This completes the proof of Proposition 3.6.



We observe in Proposition 3.8 that over a perfect field k of characteristic p > 0
(so that k = k 1/p ) a one-dimensional form of the construction yields a DVR that
is not a Nagata ring, and thus not excellent; see [22, p. 264], [23, Theorem 78,
Definition 34.8].
Proposition 3.8. Let k be a perfect field of characteristic p > 0 and let τ ∈ xk[[x]]

be such that x and τ are algebraically independent over k. Let V := k(x, τ ) ∩ k[[x]].
Then V is a DVR for which the integral closure V of V in the purely inseparable

field extension k(x1/p , τ 1/p ) is not a finitely generated V -module. Hence V is not a
Nagata ring.
Proof. It is clear that V is a DVR with maximal ideal xV . Since x and τ are
algebraically independent over k, [k(x1/p , τ 1/p ) : k(x, τ )] = p2 . Let W denote the
integral closure of V in the field extension k(x1/p , τ ) of degree p over k(x, τ ). Notice
that
W = k(x1/p , τ ) ∩ k[[x1/p ]] and V = k(x1/p , τ 1/p ) ∩ k[[x1/p ]]
are both DVRs having residue field k and maximal ideal generated by x1/p . Thus
V = W + x1/p V . If V were a finitely generated W -module, then by Nakayama’s
Lemma it would follow that W = V . This is impossible because V is not birational
over W . It follows that V is not a finitely generated V -module, and hence V is not
a Nagata ring.



4. Verification of the 3-dimensional examples
In Theorem 4.1 we record and establish the properties asserted in Examples 2.1
and other properties of the ring B.
Theorem 4.1. With the notation of Example 2.1, let Qi := pi R∗ ∩ B, for each i

with 1 ≤ i ≤ m. We have:

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

13

(1) The ring B is a three-dimensional non-Noetherian local UFD with maximal
ideal n = (x, y)B, and the n-adic completion of B is the two-dimensional
regular local ring k[[x, y]].
(2) The rings B[1/x] and BP , for each nonmaximal prime ideal P of B, are
regular Noetherian UFDs, and the ring B/xB is a DVR.
(3) The ring A is a two-dimensional regular local domain with maximal ideal
mA := (x, y)A, and A = Bτ . The ring A is excellent if the field k has
characteristic zero. If k is a perfect field of characteristic p, then A is not
excellent
(4) The ideal mA is the only prime ideal of A lying over n.
(5) The ideals Qi are the only height-two prime ideals of B.
(6) The ideals Qi are not finitely generated and they are the only nonfinitely
generated prime ideals of B.
(7) The ring B has saturated chains of prime ideals from (0) to n of length two
and of length three, and hence is not catenary.
Proof. For item 1, since B is a directed union of three-dimensional regular local
domains, dim B ≤ 3. By Proposition 3.2, B is local with maximal ideal (x, y)B,

xB and pi B are prime ideals, and the (x)-adic completion of B is equal to R∗ , the

(x)-adic completion of R. Thus the n-adic completion of B is k[[x, y]]. Since each
S∞
Qi = i=1 Qin , where Qin = pi R∗ ∩ Bn , we see that each Qi is a prime ideal of B
S
with pi , f ∈ Qi and x ∈
/ Qi . Since pi B = pi Bn , we have f ∈
/ pi B. Thus
(0) ( pi B ( Qi ( (x, y)B.
This chain of prime ideals of length at least three yields that dim B = 3 and that
the height of each Qi is 2.
The map S = R[f ] → R∗ [1/x] is not flat since flat extensions satisfy the goingdown property [22, Theorem 9.5, p. 68], and pi R∗ [1/x] is a height-one prime
whereas pi R∗ [1/x] ∩ S = (pi , f )S is a height-two prime. Therefore Theorem 3.1

implies that the ring B is not Noetherian. By Proposition 3.4, B is a UFD, and so
item 1 holds.

For item 2, by Equation 3.2.0, B/xB is a DVR. By Proposition 3.4, B[1/x]
is a regular Noetherian UFD. If x ∈ P and P is nonmaximal, then, again by

Equation 3.2.0, P = xB. If x 6∈ P , the ring BP is a localization of B[1/x] and so is
a regular Noetherian UFD. Thus item 2 holds.
The statement in item 3 that A is a two-dimensional regular local domain with

maximal ideal mA = (x, y)A follows by a result of Valabrega [29]; see Equation 2.1.0. By Proposition 3.6.1, we have A = Bτ . The ring V := k[[x]] ∩ k(x, τ ) is

a DVR by [24, (33.7)]. If the field k has characteristic zero, then V is excellent by

14

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

[10, Chap IV], [26, Folgerung 3]. Since A is a localization of V [y], it follows that A
is also excellent if k has characteristic zero.
Assume the field k is perfect with characteristic p > 0. By Proposition 3.8, the
ring V is not excellent. Since A = V [y](x,y) , the ring V is a homomorphic image
of A. Since excellence is preserved under homomorphic image, the ring A is not
excellent. This completes the proof of item 3.
By Equation 3.2.0, B/xB = A/xA = R∗ /xR∗ . Hence mA = (x, y)A is the
unique prime of A lying over n = (x, y)B. Thus item 4 holds and for item 5 we see
that x is not in any height-two prime ideal of B.
To complete the proof of item 5, it remains to consider P ∈ Spec B with x 6∈ P
and ht P > 1. By Proposition 3.2.4, we have xn 6∈ P R∗ for each n ∈ N. Thus

ht(P R∗ ) ≤ 1. Since A ֒→ R∗ is faithfully flat, ht(P A) ≤ 1. Let P ′ be a height-one
prime ideal of A containing P A. Since dim B = 3, ht P > 1 and x 6∈ P ′ ∩ B, it

follows that P = P ′ ∩ B. If p ∈
/ P , then Proposition 3.6 implies that AP ′ = BP .

Since P ′ is a height-one prime ideal of A, it follows that P is a height-one prime
ideal of B.
Now suppose that pi ∈ P for some i. Then pi R∗ is a height-one prime ideal
contained in P R∗ and so pi R∗ = P R∗ . Hence P is squeezed between pi B and
Qi = pi R∗ ∩ B 6= (x, y)B. Since dim B = 3, either P has height one or P = Qi for
some i. This completes the proof of item 5.
For item 6, we show that each Qi is not finitely generated by showing for each
n ≥ 0, that fn+1 6∈ (pi , fn )B. By Equation 2.1.b, we have τn = cn+1 x + xτn+1 , and

hence fn = xfn+1 + pxcn+1 . Assume that fn+1 ∈ (pi , fn )B. Then

(pi , fn )B = (pi , xfn+1 + pxcn+1 )B =⇒ fn+1 = api + b(xfn+1 + pxcn+1 ),
for some a, b ∈ B. Thus fn+1 (1 − xb) ∈ pi B. Since 1 − xb is a unit of B, it

follows that fn+1 ∈ pi B, and thus fn+1 ∈ pi Bn+r , for some r ≥ 1. The relations
ft = xft+1 + pxct+1 , for each t ∈ N, imply that
fn+1 = xfn+2 + pxcn+2 = x2 fn+3 + px2 cn+3 + pxcn+2 = · · · = xr−1 fn+r + pα,
where α ∈ R. Thus xr−1 fn+r ∈ (p, fn+1 )Bn+r . Since fn+1 ∈ pi Bn+r , we have
xr−1 fn+r ∈ pi Bn+r . This implies fn+r ∈ pi Bn+r , a contradiction because the ideal
(pi , fn+r )Bn+r has height two. We conclude that Qi is not finitely generated.

Since B is a UFD, the height-one primes of B are principal and since the maximal
ideal of B is two-generated, every nonfinitely generated prime ideal of B has height
two and thus is in the set {Q1 , . . . , Qm }. This completes the proof of item 6.
For item 7, the chain (0) ⊂ xB ⊂ (x, y)B = mB is saturated and has length

two, while the chain (0) ⊂ p1 B ⊂ Q1 ⊂ mB is saturated and has length three.



EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

15

Remark 4.2. With the notation of Examples 2.1 and Theorem 4.1 we obtain the
following additional details about the prime ideals of B.
(1) If P ∈ Spec B is nonzero and nonmaximal, then ht(P R∗ ) = 1 and ht(P A) =
1. Thus every nonmaximal prime of B is contained in a nonmaximal prime
of A.
(2) If P ∈ Spec B is such that P ∩ R = (0), then ht(P ) ≤ 1 and P is principal.

(3) If P ∈ Spec B, ht P = 1 and P ∩ R 6= 0, then P = (P ∩ R)B.
(4) Let pi be one of the prime factors of p. Then pi B is prime in B. Moreover
the ideals pi B and Qi := pi A ∩ B = (pi , f1 , f2 , . . .)B are the only nonmaximal prime ideals of B that contain pi . Thus they are the only prime ideals
of B that lie over pi R in R.
(5) The constructed ring B has Noetherian spectrum
Proof. For the proof of item 1, if P = Qi for some i, then P R∗ ⊆ pi R∗ and
ht P R∗ = 1. If P is not one of the Qi , then by Theorem 4.1 P is a principal heightone prime and ht P R∗ = 1. Since A is Noetherian and local, R∗ is faithfully flat
over A and hence ht P A = 1.
The proof of item 1 is contained in the proof of item 5 of Theorem 4.1.
For item 2, ht P ≤ 1 because the field of fractions K(f ) of B has transcendence
degree one over the field of fractions K of R. Since B is a UFD, P is principal.
For item 3, if x ∈ P , then P = xB and the statement is clear. Assume x 6∈ P .
By Remark 2.2, B[1/x] is a localization of Bn , and so ht(P ∩Bn ) = 1 for all integers

n ≥ 0. Thus (P ∩ R)Bn = P ∩ Bn , for each n, and so P = (P ∩ R)B.
For item 4, each pi B is prime by Proposition 3.2.3. By Theorem 4.1, dim B = 3
and the Qi are the only height-two primes of B. Since for i 6= j, the ideal pi R + pj R

is mR -primary, it follows that pi B + pj B is n-primary, and hence pi B and Qi are
the only nonmaximal prime ideals of B that contain pi .
Item 5 follows from Theorem 4.1, since the prime spectrum is Noetherian if it
satisfies the ascending chain condition and if, for each finite set in the spectrum,
there are only finitely many points minimal with respect to containing all of them.
Thus the proof is complete.

Remark 4.3. Rotthaus and Sega prove that the rings B of Theorem 3.1, Theorem 4.1, and Theorem 5.8 are coherent and regular in the sense that every finitely
generated submodule of a free module has a finite free resolution [27]. For the ring
S
B= ∞
n=1 Bn of these constructions, it is stated in [27] that Bn [1/x] = Bn+k [1/x] =

B[1/x] and that Bn+k is generated over Bn by a single element for all positive inte-

gers n and k. This is not correct for the local rings Bn . However, if instead of using
the localized polynomial rings Bn and their union B of the construction for these
theorems, one uses the underlying polynomial rings Un and their union U defined

16

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

in Theorem 3.1, then one does have that Un [1/x] = Un+k [1/x] = U [1/x] and that
Un+k is generated over Un by a single element for all positive integers n and k.
We use the following lemma.
Lemma 4.4. Let the notation be as in Examples 2.1 and Theorem 4.1.
(1) For every element c ∈ mR \ xR and every t ∈ N, the element c + xt f is a

prime element of the UFD B.
(2) For every fixed element c ∈ mR \ xR, the set {c + xt f }t∈N consists of infinitely many nonassociate prime elements of B, and so there exist infinitely
many distinct height-one primes of B of the form (c + xt f )B.

Proof. For the first item, since f = pτ , Equation 2.1.b implies that
fr = pcr+1 x + xfr+1 .
In B0 = k[x, y, f ](x,y,f ) , the polynomial c + xt f is linear in the variable f = f0
and the coefficient xt of f is relatively prime to the constant term c. Thus c + xt f
is irreducible in B0 . Since f = f0 = pc1 x + xf1 in B1 = k[x, y, f1 ](x,y,f1 ) , the
polynomial c + xt f = c + xt pc1 x + xt+1 f1 is linear in the variable f1 and the
coefficient xt+1 of f1 is relatively prime to the constant term c. Thus c + xt f is
irreducible in B1 . To see that this pattern continues, observe that in B2 , we have
f = pc1 x + xf1 = pc1 x + pc2 x2 + x2 f2 =⇒
c + xt f = c + pc1 xt+1 + pc2 xt+2 + xt+2 f2 ,
a linear polynomial in the variable f2 . Thus c + xt f is irreducible in B2 and a
similar argument shows that c + xt f is irreducible in Br for each positive integer r.
Therefore for each t ∈ N, the element c + xt f is prime in B.
For item 2, observe that (c + xt f )B 6= (c + xm f )B, for positive integers t > m.
If (c + xt f )B = (c + xm f )B := q, a height-one prime ideal of B, then
(xt − xm )f = xm (xt−m − 1)f ∈ q.
Since c ∈
/ xB we have q 6= xB. Thus xm ∈
/ q. Also xt−m − 1 is a unit of B. It
follows that f ∈ q and thus (c, f )B ⊆ q.

By Remark 2.2, B[1/x] is a localization of R[f ] = S, and x ∈
/ q implies that
Bq = Sq∩S . This is a contradiction since the ideal (c, f )S has height two. Thus
there exist infinitely many distinct height-one primes of the form (c + xt f )B.



Lemma 4.5 is useful for giving a more precise description of Spec B for B as in
Examples 2.1. For each nonempty finite subset H of {Q1 , . . . , Qm }, we show there
exist infinitely many height-one prime ideals contained in each Qi ∈ H, but not
contained in Qj if Qj ∈
/ H.

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

17

Lemma 4.5. Let the notation be as in Theorem 4.1. Let G be a nonempty subset
Q
of {1, . . . , m}, and let H = {Qi | i ∈ G}. Let pG = {pi | i ∈ G}. Then for each
t ∈ N, we have
(1) (pG + xt f )B is a prime ideal of B that is lost in A.
(2) (p2G + xt f )B is a prime ideal of B that is not lost in A.

The sets {(pG + xt f )B}t∈N and {(p2G + xt f )B}t∈N are both infinite. Moreover, the
prime ideals in both item 1 and item 2 are contained in each Qi such that Qi ∈ H,

but are not contained in Qj if Qj ∈
/ H.
Proof. For item 1, we have
(4.5.1)

Y

(pG + xt f )A ∩ B = pG (1 + xt τ

j ∈G
/

pj )A ∩ B = pG A ∩ B =

\

Qi .

i∈G

Thus each prime ideal of B of the form (pG + xt f )B is lost in A and R∗ . By the
second item of Lemma 4.4, there exist infinitely many height-one primes (pG +xt f )B
of B that are lost in A and R∗ .
For item 2, we have
(p2G + xt f )A ∩ B = (p2G + xt pG (
(4.5.2)

Y

j ∈G
/

= pG (pG + xt (

Y

j ∈G
/

pj )τ )A ∩ B
pj )τ )A ∩ B ( pG A ∩ B =

\

Qi .

i∈G

Q
The strict inclusion is because pG + xt ( j ∈G
/ pj )τ ∈ mA . This implies that prime

ideals of B of form (p2G + xt f )B are not lost. By Lemma 4.4 there are infinitely
many distinct prime ideals of that form.

The “moreover” statement for the prime ideals in item 1 follows from Equation 4.5.1. Equation 4.5.2 implies that the prime ideals in item 2 are contained
in each Qi ∈ H. For j ∈
/ G, if p2G + xt f ∈ Qj , then pj + xt f ∈ Qj implies that
p2G − pj ∈ Qj by subtraction. Since pj ∈ Qj , this would imply that p2G ∈ Qj , a
contradiction. This completes the proof of Lemma 4.5.



Remark 4.6. With the notation of Examples 2.1, consider the birational inclusion
B ֒→ A and the faithfully flat map A ֒→ R∗ . The following statements hold
concerning the inclusion maps R ֒→ B ֒→ A ֒→ R∗ , and the associated maps in the
opposite direction of their spectra.
(1) The map Spec R∗ → Spec A is surjective, while the maps Spec R∗ → Spec B
and Spec A → Spec B are not surjective. All the induced maps to Spec R
are surjective since the map Spec R∗ → Spec R is surjecive.

(2) By Lemma 4.5, each of the prime ideals Qi of B contains infinitely many
height-one primes of B that are the contraction of prime ideals of A and
infinitely many that are not.

18

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

Since an ideal contained in a finite union of prime ideals is contained
in one of the prime ideals by [2, Prop. 1.11, page 8], there are infinitely
many non-associate prime elements of the UFD B that are not contained
Sm
in the union i=1 Qi . We observe that for each prime element q of B with
Sm
q ∈
/ i=1 Qi the ideal qA is contained in a height-one prime q of A and

q ∩ B is properly contained in mB since mA is the unique prime ideal of
A lying over mB . Hence q ∩ B = qB. Thus each qB is contracted from A
and R∗ .
In the four-dimensional example B of Theorem 5.8, each height-one

prime of B is contracted from R∗ , but there are infinitely many heighttwo primes of B that are lost in R∗ , i.e., are not contracted from R∗ ; see
Section 5.
(3) Among the prime ideals of the domain B of Example 2.1 that are not
contracted from A are the pi B. Since pi A ∩ B = Qi properly contains pi B,

the prime ideal pi B is lost in A.
(4) Since x and y generate the maximal ideals of B and A, and since B is
integrally closed, a version of Zariski’s Main Theorem [25], [6], implies that
A is not essentially finitely generated as a B-algebra.

Using the information above, we display below a picture of Spec(B) in the case
m = 2.

mB := (x, y)B

Q1

xB ∈ NOT Lost

NL

Q2

L

NL

L

NL

L

(0)
Diagram 4.6.0
Comments on Diagram 4.6.0. Here we have Q1 = p1 R∗ ∩B and Q2 = p2 R∗ ∩B,

and each box represents an infinite set of height-one prime ideals. We label a box
“NL” for “not lost” and “L” for “lost”. An argument similar to that given for
the Type I primes in Example 2.3 shows that the height-one primes q such that
q∈
/ Q1 ∪ Q2 are not lost. That the other boxes are infinite follows from Lemma 4.5.

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

19

5. A 4-dimensional prime spectrum
In Example 5.1, we present a 4-dimensional example analogous to Example 2.3.
Example 5.1. Let k be a field, let x, y and z be indeterminates over k. Set
R : = k[x, y, z](x,y,z)

and

R∗ : = k[y, z](y,z) [[x]],

and let mR and mR∗ denote the maximal ideals of R and R∗ , respectively. The
power series ring R∗ is the xR-adic completion of R. Consider τ and σ in xk[[x]]
τ :=

∞
X

cn xn

and σ :=

n=1

∞
X

dn xn ,

n=1

where the cn and dn are in k and τ and σ are algebraically independent over k(x).
Define
f := yτ + zσ

and A := Af = R∗ ∩ k(x, y, z, f ),

that is, A is the intersection domain associated with f . For each integer n ≥ 0,
let τn and σn be the nth endpieces of τ and σ as in Equation 2.1.a. Then the nth
endpiece of f is fn = yτn + zσn . As in Equation 2.1.b, we have
τn = xτn+1 + xcn+1

and

σn = xσn+1 + xdn+1 ,

where cn+1 and dn+1 are in the field k. Therefore
(5.1.1)

fn = yτn + zσn = yxτn+1 + yxcn+1 + zxσn+1 + zxdn+1
= xfn+1 + yxcn+1 + zxdn+1 .

The approximation domains Un , Bn , U and B for A are as follows:
For n ≥ 0,

Un := k[x, y, z, fn ]
U :=

∞
[

n=0

Un

and

Bn := k[x, y, z, fn](x,y,z,fn )
B := Bf =

∞
[

Bn .

n=0

Thus B is the directed union of 4-dimensional localized polynomial rings. It follows
that dim B ≤ 4.

The rings A and B are constructed inside the intersection domain Aτ,σ :=
R ∩ k(x, y, z, τ, σ). By [16, Prop. 4.1] or [19, Theorem 9.2], the domain Aτ,σ
∗

is Noetherian and equals its approximation domain Bτ,σ . Here Bτ,σ is the nested
union of the regular local domains Bτ,σ,n = k[x, y, z, τn , σn ](x,y,z,τn,σn ) . By Theorem 3.1, the extension T := R[τ, σ] ֒→ R∗ [1/x] is flat. It follows that Aτ,σ is a
3-dimensional RLR that is a directed union of 5-dimensional RLRs.
Before we list and establish the other properties of Example 5.1 in Theorem 5.8,
we discuss the Jacobian ideal of a map and its relation to flatness.

20

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

Discussion 5.2. Let R be a Noetherian ring, let m and n be positive integers, let z1 , . . . , zn be indeterminates over R and let f1 , . . . , fm be polynomials
in R[z1 , . . . , zn ] that are algebraically independent over R. Let
ϕ

(5.2.0)

S := R[f1 , . . . , fm ] ֒→ R[z1 , . . . , zn ] =: T,

be the inclusion map.
We define the Jacobian ideal J of the extension S ֒→ T to be the ideal of T
generated by the m × m minors of the m × n matrix J defined as follows:


∂fi
.
J :=
∂zj 1≤i≤m, 1≤j≤n
For the extension ϕ : S ֒→ T , the nonflat locus of ϕ is the set F , where
F := {Q ∈ Spec(T ) | the map ϕQ : S → TQ is not flat }.
The nonflat locus of ϕ is a closed subset of Spec T , [22, Theorem 24.3]. We say that
an ideal F of T defines the nonflat locus of ϕ if F is such that for every Q ∈ Spec(T ),
we have F ⊆ Q ⇐⇒ the associated map ϕQ : SQ∩S → TQ is not flat.
Proposition 5.3. [13, Propositions 2.4.2, 2.7.2] With notation as in Discussion 5.2, let Q ∈ Spec T and consider ϕQ : S → TQ . Then
(1) ϕQ is flat if and only if, for each prime ideal P ⊆ Q of T , we have ht(P ) ≥
ht(P ∩ S).

(2) If Q does not contain J, then ϕQ is flat. Thus J ⊆ F .

We use the following proposition concerning flatness to justify Example 5.1.
Proposition 5.4. With the notation of Example 5.1, we have
(1) For the extension ϕ : S = R[f ] ֒→ T = R[τ, σ], the Jacobian ideal J is the
ideal (y, z)T . Thus the nonflat locus F of ϕ contains J.
(2) For every P ∈ Spec(R∗ [1/x]), the ideal (y, z)R∗ [1/x] * P ⇐⇒ the map

BP ∩B ֒→ (R∗ [1/x])P is flat. Thus the ideal (y, z)R∗ [1/x] defines the nonflat
locus of the map B ֒→ R∗ [1/x].

(3) For every height-one prime ideal p of R∗ , we have ht(p ∩ B) ≤ 1.
(4) For every prime element w of B, wR∗ ∩ B = wB.
Proof. For item 1, the Jacobian ideal is the ideal of T generated by the 1 × 1 minors
of the matrix (y z) by Discussion 5.2, and so J = (y, z)T . By Proposition 5.3.2,
(y, z)T ⊆ F .

The two statements of item 2 are equivalent by the definition of nonflat locus
in Discussion 5.2. To compute the nonflat locus of B ֒→ R∗ [1/x], we use that
T := R[τ, σ] ֒→ R∗ [1/x] is flat as noted in Example 5.1. Let P ∈ Spec(R∗ [1/x])

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

21

and let Q := P ∩ T . The map B ֒→ R∗ [1/x]P is flat ⇐⇒ the composition
k[x, y, z, f ] ֒→ k[x, y, z, τ, σ] ֒→ R∗ [1/x]P is flat ⇐⇒
ϕ

S :=k[x, y, z, f ] ֒→ TQ = k[x, y, z, τ, σ]Q is flat.
From item 1, the Jacobian ideal of the extension S ֒→ T is the ideal J = (y, z)T .
Since (y, z)T ∩ S = (y, z, f )S has height 3, ϕQ is not flat for every Q ∈ Spec(T )
such that (y, z)T ⊆ Q. Thus the nonflat locus of B ֒→ R∗ [1/x] is (y, z)R∗ [1/x] as
stated in item 2.
For item 3, let p be a height-one prime of R∗ . Since p does not contain (y, z)R∗ ,

the map Bp∩B ֒→ (R∗ )p is faithfully flat. Thus ht(p ∩ B) ≤ 1. This establishes
item 3.
Item 4 is clear if wB = xB. Assume that wB 6= xB and let p be a height-one
prime ideal of R∗ that contains wR∗ . Then pR∗ [1/x] ∩ R∗ = p, and by item 3,
p ∩ B has height at most one. We have p ∩ B ⊇ wR∗ ∩ B ⊇ wB. Thus item 4

follows.



Next we prove a proposition about homomorphic images of the constructed ring
B. This result enables us in Corollary 5.6 to relate the ring B of Example 5.1 to
the ring B of Example 2.3.
Proposition 5.5. Assume the notation of Example 5.1, and let w be a prime
element of R = k[x, y, z](x,y,z) with wR 6= xR. Let π : R∗ → R∗ /wR∗ be the natural
homomorphism, and let denote image in R∗ /wR∗ . Let B ′ be the approximation
domain formed by considering R and the endpieces f n of f , defined analogously to
Equation 2.1.a. That is, B ′ is defined by setting
Un′ = R[f n ], Bn′ = (Un′ )n′n , U ′ =

∞
[

Un′ , and B ′ =

n=1

n′n

where
is the maximal ideal of
′
B = B.

Un′

∞
[

Bn′ ,

n=1

that contains f n and the image of mR . Then

Proof. By Proposition 3.2.3, wB is a prime ideal of B. By Proposition 5.4.3,
wR∗ ∩ B = wB. Hence B = B/(wR∗ ∩ B) = B/wB. We have
R/xR = B/xB = R∗ /xR∗ ,
and the ring R∗ is the (x)-adic completion of R. Since the ideal (y, z)R has height
2 and the kernel of π has height 1, at least one of y and z is nonzero. Since τ
and σ are algebraically independent over k(x, y, z), the element f = y · τ + z · σ

of the integral domain B is transcendental over R. Similarly the endpieces f n are
∗

transcendental over R. The fact that R may fail to be an integral domain does
not affect the algebraic independence of these elements that are inside the integral
domain B.

22

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

By Proposition 3.2.2 and Remarks 3.3.2, we have Un [1/x] = U [1/x], and thus
wU ∩ Un = wUn for each n ∈ N. Since Bn is a localization of Un , we also have
wB ∩ Bn = wBn . Since wR∗ ∩ B = wB, it follows that wR∗ ∩ Bn = wBn . Thus
we have

R ⊆ Bn = Bn /wBn ⊆ B = B/wB ⊆ R∗ = R∗ /wR∗ .
S∞
We conclude that B = n=0 Bn . Since Bn′ = B n , we have B ′ = B.



Corollary 5.6. The homomorphic image B/zB of the ring B of Example 5.1 is

isomorphic to the three-dimensional ring B of Example 2.3.
Proof. Assume the notation of Example 5.1 and Proposition 5.5 and let w = z.
We show that the ring B/zB ∼
= C, where C is the ring called B in Example 2.3.
By Proposition5.5, we have B ′ = B/zB, where B ′ is the approximation domain
over R = R/zR using the element f , transcendental over R. Let RC denote the
base ring k[x, y](x,y) for C in Example 2.3, and let ψ0 : R → RC denote the kisomorphism defined by x 7→ x and y 7→ y. Then ψ0 extends to an isomorphism
ψ : (R)∗ → (RC )∗ that agrees with ψ0 on R and such that ψ(τ ) = τ . Furthermore
ψ(f ) = ψ(y · τ + z · σ) = yτ , which is the transcendental element f used in the

construction of C. Thus ψ is an isomorphism from B = B/zB to C, the ring
constructed in Example 2.3.


In the proof of Theorem 5.8, we use the following proposition regarding a birational extension of a Krull domain.
Proposition 5.7. Let S ֒→ T be a birational extension of commutative rings, where
S is a Krull domain and each height-one prime ideal of S is contracted from T .
Then S = T .
Proof. Recall that S is Krull implies that S = ∩{Sp | p is a height-one prime ideal

of S}. We show that T ⊆ Sp , for each height-one prime ideal of S. Since p is
contracted from T , there exists a prime ideal q of T such that q ∩ S = p. Then
Sp ⊆ Tq and Tq birationally dominates Sp . Since Sp is a DVR, we have Sp = Tq .
Therefore T ⊆ Sp , for each p. It follows that T = S.

We record in Theorem 5.8 properties of the ring B and its prime spectrum.
Theorem 5.8. As in Example 5.1, let R := k[x, y, z](x,y,z) with k a field, let x, y
and z be indeterminates, and let R∗ := k[y, z](y,z)[[x]], the xR-adic completion of

R. Let τ and σ ∈ xk[[x]] be algebraically independent over k(x). Set f := yτ +zσ,
S∞
S∞
A := R∗ ∩k(x, y, z, f ), and B := n=0 Bn = n=0 k[x, y, z, fn ](x,y,z,fn ) as in (5.1.2).
Let Q := (y, z)R∗ ∩ B. Then

(1) The rings A and B are equal.

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

23

(2) The ring B is a four-dimensional non-Noetherian local UFD with maximal ideal mB = (x, y, z)B, and the mB -adic completion of B is the threedimensional RLR k[[x, y, z]].
(3) The ring B[1/x] is a Noetherian regular UFD, the ring B/xB is a twodimensional RLR, and for every nonmaximal prime ideal P of B, the ring
BP is an RLR.
(4) The ideal Q is the unique prime ideal of B of height 3.
S∞
(5) The ideal Q equals n=0 Qn where Qn := (y, z, fn )Bn , Q is a nonfinitely
generated prime ideal, and QBQ = (y, z, f )BQ .
(6) There exist infinitely many height-two prime ideals of B not contained in
Q and each of these prime ideals is contracted from R∗ .
(7) For certain height-one primes p contained in Q, there exist infinitely many
height-two primes between p and Q that are contracted from R∗ , and infinitely many that are not contracted from R∗ . Hence the map Spec R∗ →

Spec B is not surjective.
(8) Every saturated chain of prime ideals of B has length either 3 or 4, and
there exist saturated chains of prime ideals of lengths both 3 and 4. Thus
B is not catenary.
(9) Each height-one prime ideal of B is the contraction of a height-one prime
ideal of R∗ .
(10) B has Noetherian spectrum.

We prove Theorem 5.8 below. First, assuming Theorem 5.8, we display a picture
of Spec(B) and make some remarks.
mB := (x, y, z)B

Q := (y, z, {fi })B

(x, y − δz)B ∈ ht. 2, 6⊂ Q

xB ∈ ht. 1, 6⊂ Q

ht. 2, contr. R∗

(y, z)B ∈ ht. 2, Not contr. R∗

yB, zB ∈ ht. 1, ⊂ Q

(0)
Diagram 5.8.0

24

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

Comments on Diagram 5.8.0. A line going from a box at one level to a box at
a higher level indicates that every prime ideal in the lower level box is contained in
at least one prime ideal in the higher level box. Thus as indicated in the diagram,
every height-one prime gB of B is contained in a height-two prime of B that
contains x and so is not contained in Q. This is obvious if gB = xB and can be
seen by considering minimal primes of (g, x)B otherwise. Thus B has no maximal
saturated chain of length 2. We have not drawn any lines from the lower level
righthand box to higher boxes that are contained in Q because we are uncertain
about what inclusion relations exist for these primes. We discuss this situation in
Remarks 5.15.

Proof. (of Theorem 5.8) For convenience we prove item 2 first: Since B is a directed
union of four-dimensional RLRs, we have dim B ≤ 4. By Corollary 5.6 and Theo-

rem 4.1, dim(B/zB) = 3, and so dim B ≥ 4. Thus dim B = 4. By Proposition 3.2,
B is local with maximal ideal mB = (x, y, z)B and the (x)-adic completion of B

is R∗ . Thus the mB -adic completion of B is k[[x, y, z]]. By Krull’s Altitude Theorem, the ring B is not Noetherian [22, Theorem 13.5]. The ring B is a UFD by
Proposition 3.4.
For item 1, the ring B is a UFD by item 2, and hence a Krull domain, and the
extension B ֒→ A is birational. Thus it suffices to show that each height-one prime
P of B is the contraction of a prime ideal of A by Proposition 5.7.
Let p be a height-one prime ideal of B. Then pR∗ ∩ B = p by Proposition 5.4.4.

Also B \ p is a multiplicatively closed subset of R∗ , and so, if P is an ideal of
R∗ maximal with respect to P ∩ (B \ p) = ∅, then P is a prime ideal of R∗ and

P ∩ B = p. Then also P ∩ A is a prime ideal of A with (P ∩ A) ∩ B = p, and so p
is contracted from A. Thus A = B as desired for item 1.

For item 3, the ring B[1/x] is a Noetherian regular UFD by Proposition 3.4.1.
By Equation 3.2.0, we have R/xR = B/xB. Thus B/xB is a two-dimensional
RLR.
For the last part of item 3, if x ∈
/ P , then BP is a localization of B[1/x], which

is Noetherian and regular, and so BP is a regular local ring. In particular, this
proves that BQ is a regular local ring. If x ∈ P and ht P = 1, then P = (x) and
BxB is a DVR. If x ∈ P and ht(P ) = 2, the ideal P is finitely generated since
B/xB is an RLR. Since B is a UFD from item 2, it follows that BP is a local UFD

of dimension 2 with finitely generated maximal ideal. Thus BP is Noetherian by
Cohen’s Theorem [22, Theorem 3.4]. This, combined with B/xB a regular local
ring, implies that BP is a regular local ring. Since ht P ≤ 2 for every nonmaximal

prime ideal P of R with x ∈ P , this completes the proof of item 3.

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

25

For item 4, since (y, z)R∗ is a prime ideal of R∗ , the ideal Q = (y, z)R∗ ∩ B is

prime. By Proposition 3.2, the ideals yB and (y, z)B are prime. Consider the chain
of prime ideals
(0) ⊂ yB ⊂ (y, z)B ⊂ Q ⊂ mB .
The list y, z, f, x shows that each of the inclusions is strict; for example, we have
f ∈ Q \ (y, z)B, since f ∈
/ (y, z)Bn for every n ∈ N. By item 2 we have ht mB = 4.
Thus ht Q = 3. This also implies that (y, z)B is a height-two prime ideal of B.
For the uniqueness in item 4, let P be a nonmaximal prime ideal of B. We
first consider the case that x ∈
/ P . Then, by Proposition 3.2.4, xn 6∈ P R∗ for

each positive integer n. Hence P R∗ [1/x] 6= R∗ [1/x]. Let P1 be a prime ideal
of R∗ [1/x] such that P ⊆ P1 . If both y and z are in P1 , then (y, z)R∗ [1/x] ⊆
P1 . Since (y, z)R∗ [1/x] is maximal, we have (y, z)R∗ [1/x] = P1 . Therefore, P ⊆
(y, z)R∗ [1/x] ∩ B = Q, and so either ht(P ) ≤ 2 or P = Q.

Next suppose that x ∈
/ P and y or z is not in P1 . By Propositions 5.4.1 and 5.3.2,

the map ψ : B → R∗ [1/x]P1 is flat. Since dim R∗ [1/x] = 2 we have ht(P1 ) ≤ 2.
Flatness of ψ implies ht(P1 ∩ B) ≤ 2; see [22, Theorem 9.5]. Hence ht P ≤ 2.

To complete the proof of item 4, we consider the case that x ∈ P . We have
ht P ≤ 3, since dim B = 4 and P is not maximal. If ht P ≥ 3, there exists a chain
of primes of the form
(5.8.1)

(0) ( P1 ( P2 ( P ( (x, y, z)B.

By Equation 3.2.0, B/xB ∼
= R/xR, and so dim(B/xB) = 2. If x ∈ P2 , then
ht P2 ≥ 2 implies that (0) ( xB ( P2 ( P ( (x, y, z)B, a contradiction to
dim(B/xB) = 2. Thus x ∈
/ P2 . Since x ∈ P and P is nonmaximal, we have that y

or z is not in P . Hence y or z is not in P2 .
By Equation 3.2.0, P corresponds to a nonmaximal prime ideal P ′ of R∗ containing P R∗ . Let P2′ be a prime ideal of R∗ inside P ′ that is minimal over P2 R∗ . If
both y and z are in P2′ , then, (x, y, z)R∗ ⊆ P ′ , a contradiction to P ′ nonmaximal.

By Proposition 3.2.5, P2′ does not contain x. Thus P2′ ( P ′ ( (x, y, z)R∗ . Also
P2′ = P2′′ ∩ R∗ , where P2′′ is a prime ideal of R∗ [1/x], and one of y and z is not an

element of P2′′ .
By Proposition 5.4.2, the map ψ : B → R∗ [1/x]P2′′ is flat. This implies ht(P2′′ ) ≥

ht(P2′′ ∩ B) ≥ ht P2 ≥ 2; that is, ht(P2′′ ) ≥ 2. Also P2′′ intersects R∗ in P2′ , and
so ht P2′ ≥ 2. Thus in R∗ we have a chain of primes P2′ ( P ′ ( (x, y, z)R∗ , where
ht P2′ ≥ 2, a contradiction, since R∗ , a localization of k[y, z][[x]], has dimension 3.

This proves item 4.
S∞
For item 5, let Q′ = n=0 Qn , where each Qn = (y, z, fn )Bn . Each Qn is a

prime ideal of height 3 in the 4-dimensional RLR Bn . Therefore Q′ is a prime ideal

26

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

of B of height ≤ 3 that is contained in Q. The ideal (y, z)B is a prime ideal of

height 2 by the proof of item 3. Hence ht(Q′ ) = 3 and we have Q′ = Q.
To show the ideal Q is not finitely generated, we show for each positive integer

n that fn+1 6∈ (y, z, fn )B. By Equation 5.1.1, fn = xfn+1 + yxcn+1 + zxdn+1 .
If fn+1 ∈ (y, z, fn )B, then fn+1 = ay + bz + c(xfn+1 + yxcn+1 + zxdn+1 ), where

a, b, c ∈ B. This implies fn+1 (1 − cx) is in the ideal (y, z)B. By Proposition 3.2.1,
x ∈ J (B), and so 1 − cx is a unit of B. This implies fn+1 ∈ (y, z)B ∩ Bn+1 .

For each positive integer j, we show that (y, z)B ∩ Bj = (y, z)Bj . It is clear
that (y, z)Bj ⊆ (y, z)B ∩ Bj . To show the reverse inclusion, it suffices to show for

each integer j ≥ 0 that (y, z)Bj+1 ∩ Bj ⊆ (y, z)Bj . We have Bj [fj+1 ] ⊆ (Bj )(y,z)Bj
f
since fj+1 = xj + ycj+1 + zdj+1 by (5.1.1). The center of the 2-dimensional
RLR (Bj )(y,z)Bj on Bj [fj+1 ] is the prime ideal (y, z)Bj [fj+1 ]. This prime ideal
is contained in the maximal ideal (x, y, z, fj+1 )Bj [fj+1 ]; it follows that Bj+1 ⊆

(Bj )(y,z)Bj and so (y, z)Bj+1 ∩ Bj ⊆ (y, z)Bj .

Thus (y, z)B ∩Bn+1 = (y, z)Bn+1 , and fn+1 ∈ (y, z)Bn+1 . Since x, y, z and fn+1
are algebraically independent variables over k, and Bn+1 = k[x, y, z, fn+1 ](x,y,z,fn+1 ) ,
this is a contradiction. We conclude that Q is not finitely generated.
By item 3 the ring BQ is a three-dimensional regular local ring. Since x is a unit
of BQ and since Q = (y, z, f, f1 , f2 , . . . )B, it follows from Proposition 3.2.2 (a = x
and C = B) that QBQ = (y, z, f )BQ . This establishes item 5.
For item 6, since x 6∈ Q and B/xB ∼
= R/xR, there are infinitely many height-two
primes of B containing xB. This proves there are infinitely many height-two primes

of B not contained in Q. If P is a height-two prime of B not contained in Q, then
ht(mB /P ) = 1, by item 4 above, and so, by Proposition 3.2.5, P is contracted from
R∗ . This completes item 6.
For item 7 we show that p = zB has the stated properties. By Corollary 5.6,
the ring B/zB is isomorphic to the ring called B in Example 2.3. For convenience
we relabel the ring of Example 2.3 as B ′ . By Theorem 4.1, B ′ has exactly one
non-finitely generated prime ideal, which we label Q′ , and ht Q′ = 2. It follows
that Q/zB = Q′ . By Discussion 2.5, there are infinitely many height-one primes
contained in Q′ of Type II (that is, primes that are contracted from R∗ /zR∗ ) and
infinitely many height-one primes contained in Q′ of Type III (that is, primes that
are not contracted from R∗ /zR∗). The preimages in R∗ of these primes are heighttwo primes of B that are contained in Q and contain zB. It follows that there are
infinitely many contracted from R∗ and there are infinitely many not contracted
from R∗ , as desired for item 7.
For item 8, we have a saturated chain of prime ideals
(0) ⊂ xB ⊂ (x, y)B ⊂ (x, y, z)B = mB

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

27

of length 3 by Equation 3.2.0 We have a saturated chain of prime ideals
(0) ⊂ yB ⊂ (y, z)B ⊂ Q ⊂ mB
of length 4 from the proof of item 4. Hence B is not catenary. By item 2, dim B = 4,
so there is no saturated chain of prime ideals of B of length greater than 4. By
Comments 5.8.0, no saturated chain of prime ideals of B has length less than 3.
For item 9, since R∗ is a Krull domain and B = A = Q(B) ∩ R∗ , it follows

that B is a Krull domain and each height-one prime of B is the contraction of a
height-one prime of R∗ . Since B/xB and B[1/x] are Noetherian, item 10 follows
from [11, Corollary 1.3].



Remarks 5.9. Let the notation be as in Theorem 5.8.
(1) It follows from Theorem 5.8 that the localization B[1/x] has a unique maximal ideal QB[1/x] = (y, z, f )B[1/x] of height three and has infinitely many maximal
ideals of height two. We observe that B[1/x] has no maximal ideal of height one.
To show this last statement it suffices to show for each irreducible element p of B
with pB 6= xB there exists P ∈ Spec B with pB ( P and x 6∈ P . Assume there does

not exist such a prime ideal P . Consider the ideal (p, x)B. This ideal has height
two and has only finitely many minimal primes since B/xB is Noetherian. Let g
be an element of mB not contained in any of the minimal primes of (p, x)B. Every
prime ideal of B that contains (g, p)B also contains x and hence has height greater
than two. Since x ∈
/ Q, it follows that (g, p)B is mB -primary, and hence that
(g, p)R∗ is mR∗ -primary. Since R∗ is Noetherian and ht mR∗ = 3, this contradicts
the Altitude Theorem of Krull [24, Theorem 9.3].
(2) Every ideal I of B such that IR∗ is mR∗ -primary is mB -primary by Proposition 3.2.5.
(3) Define
Cn :=
We have C =

S∞

n=0

Bn
(y, z)Bn

and

C :=

B
.
(y, z)B

Cn by item 1. We show that C is a rank 2 valuation domain with

principal maximal ideal generated by the image of x. For each positive integer n, let
gn ∈ Cn denote the image of the element fn and let x denote the image of x. Then

Cn = k[x, gn ](x,gn ) is a 2-dimensional RLR. By (5.1.1), fn = xfn+1 + x(cn y + dn z).
It follows that gn = xgn+1 for each n ∈ N. Thus C is an infinite directed union
of quadratric transformations of 2-dimensional regular local rings. Thus C is a

valuation domain of dimension at most 2 by [1]. By items 2 and 4 of Theorem 5.8,
dim C ≥ 2, and therefore C is a valuation domain of rank 2. The maximal ideal of

C is xC.

28

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

By Corollary 5.6, B/zB ∼
= D, where D is the ring B of Example 2.3. By an
argument similar to that of Proposition 5.5 and Corollary 5.6, we see that the above
ring C is isomorphic to D/yD.
Question 5.10. For the ring B constructed as in Example 5.1, we ask: Is Q the
only prime ideal of B that is not finitely generated?
Theorem 5.8 implies that the only possible nonfinitely generated prime ideals of
B other than Q have height two. We do not know whether every height-two prime
ideal of B is finitely generated. We show in Corollary 5.13 and Theorem 5.14 that
certain of the height-two primes of B are finitely generated.
Lemma 5.11 is the key to the proof of Theorem 3.1 and is also useful below. We
are grateful to Roger Wiegand for observing it.
Lemma 5.11.

[16, Lemma 3.1], [19, Lemma 8.2] Let S be a subring of a ring T

and let b ∈ S be a regular element of both S and T . Assume that bS = bT ∩ S and
S/bS = T /bT . Then
(1) T [1/b] is flat over S ⇐⇒ T is flat over S.
(2) If T and S[1/b] are both Noetherian and T is flat over S, then S is Noetherian.
The following theorem shows that the nonflat locus of the map ϕ : B → R∗ [1/a]

yields flatness for certain homomorphic images of B, if R, a, R∗ and B are as in the
general construction outlined in Theorem 3.1.

Theorem 5.12. Let R be a Noetherian integral domain with field of fractions K,
let a ∈ R be a nonzero nonunit, and let R∗ denote the (a)-adic completion of R. Let
s be a positive integer and let τ = {τ1 , . . . , τs } be a set of elements of R∗ that are
algebraically independent over K, so that R[τ ] is a polynomial ring in s variables
over R. Define A := K(τ ) ∩ R∗ . Let Un , Bn , B and U be defined as follows
U :=

∞
[

r=0

Un

and

B :=

∞
[

Bn ,

n=0

where, for each integer n ≥ 0, Un := R[τ1n , . . . , τsn ], Bn := (1 + aUn )−1 Un , and

each τin is the nth endpiece of τi defined as in Equation 2.1.a. Assume that F is
an ideal of R∗ [1/a] that defines the nonflat locus of the map ϕ : B → R∗ [1/a]. Let
I be an ideal in B such that IR∗ ∩ B = I and a is regular on R∗ /IR∗ .

(1) If IR∗ [1/a] + F = R∗ [1/a], then ϕ ⊗B (B/I) is flat.
(2) If R∗ [1/a]/IR∗ [1/a] is flat over B/I, then R∗ /IR∗ is flat over B/I.
(3) If ϕ ⊗B (B/I) is flat, then B/I is Noetherian.

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

29

Proof. The hypothesis of item 1 implies that ϕP is flat for each P ∈ Spec R∗ [1/a]

with I ⊆ P . Hence for each such P we have ϕP ⊗B (B/I) is flat. Since flatness is
a local property, it follows that ϕ ⊗B (B/I) is flat.

For items 2 and 3, apply Lemma 5.11 with S = B/I and T = R∗ /IR∗ ; the
element b of Lemma 5.11 is the image in B/IB of the element a from the setting

of Theorem 3.1. Since IR∗ ∩ B = I, the ring B/I embeds into R∗ /IR∗ , and since
B/aB = R∗ /aR∗ , the ideal a(R∗ /IR∗ ) ∩ (B/I) = a(B/I). Thus item 2 and item 3
of Theorem 5.12 follow from item 1 and item 2, respectively, of Lemma 5.11.



Corollary 5.13. Assume the notation of Example 5.1. Let w be a prime element
of B. Then B/wB is Noetherian if and only if w ∈
/ Q. Thus every nonfinitely
generated ideal of B is contained in Q.

Proof. If w ∈ Q, then B/wB is not Noetherian since Q is not finitely generated.

Assume w ∈
/ Q. Since B/xB is known to be Noetherian, we may assume that
wB 6= xB. By Proposition 5.4.1, QR∗ [1/x] = (y, z)R∗ [1/x] defines the nonflat

locus of ϕ : B → R∗ [1/x]. Since wR∗ [1/x] + (y, z)R∗ [1/x] = R∗ [1/x], Theorem 5.12
with I = wB and a = x implies that B/wB is Noetherian.
For the second statement, we use that every nonfinitely generated ideal is con-

tained in an ideal maximal with respect to not being finitely generated and the
latter ideal is prime. Thus it suffices to show every prime ideal P not contained
in Q is finitely generated. If P 6⊆ Q, then, since B is a UFD, there exists a prime
element w ∈ P \Q. By the first statement, B/wB is Noetherian, and so P is finitely

generated.



Theorem 5.14. Assume the notation of Example 5.1. Let w be a prime element
of R with w ∈ (y, z)k[x, y, z]. If w is linear in either y or z, then Q/wB is the

unique nonfinitely generated prime ideal of B/wB. Thus Q is the unique nonfinitely
generated prime ideal of B that contains w.
denote image under the canonical map π : R∗ → R∗ /wR∗ . We
Proof. Let
may assume that w is linear in z, that the coefficient of z is 1 and therefore that
w = z − yg(x, y), where g(x, y) ∈ k[x, y]. Thus R ∼
= k[x, y](x,y) . By Proposition 5.5
B is the approximation domain over R with respect to the transcendental element
f = y · τ + z · σ = y · τ + y · g(x, y) · σ.
The setting of Proposition 3.4 applies with C = B, the underlying ring R replaced
by R, and a = x. Thus the ring B is a UFD, and so every height-one prime ideal
of B is principal. Since w ∈ Q and Q is not finitely generated, it follows that
ht(Q) = 2 and that Q is the unique nonfinitely generated prime ideal of B. Hence
the theorem holds.



30

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

Remarks 5.15. It follows from Proposition 3.2.5 that every height two prime of
B that is not contained in Q is contracted from a prime ideal of R∗ . As we state in
item 7 of Theorem 5.8, there are infinitely many height-two prime ideals of B that
are contained in Q and are contracted from R∗ and there are infinitely many heighttwo prime ideals of B that are contained in Q and are not contracted from R∗ . In
particular infinitely many of each type exist between zB and Q, and similarly also
infinitely many of each type exist between yB and Q.
Since BQ is a 3-dimensional regular local ring, for each height-one prime p of B
with p ⊂ Q, the set
Sp = {P ∈ Spec B | p ⊂ P ⊂ Q and ht P = 2}
is infinite. The infinite set Sp is the disjoint union of the sets Spc and Spn , where the

elements of Spc are contracted from R∗ and the elements of Spn are not contracted

from R∗ .
We do not know whether there exists a height-one prime p contained in Q having
the property that one of the sets Spc or Spn is empty. Furthermore if one of these
sets is empty, which one is empty? If there are some such height-one primes p with
one of the sets Spc or Spn empty, which height-one primes are they? It would be
interesting to know the answers to these questions.
The referee of this article asked how Example 5.1 compares to a specific ring
constructed using the popular “D + M ” technique of multiplicative ideal theory;
see for example [8, p. 95], [9] or [3]. The “D + M ” construction involves an
integral domain D and a prime ideal M of an extension domain E of D such that
D ∩ M = (0). Then D + M = {a + b | a ∈ D, b ∈ M }. Moreover, for a, a′ ∈ D

and b, b′ ∈ M , if a + b = a′ + b′ , then a = a′ and b = b′ . Since D embeds in
E/M , the ring D + M may be regarded as a pullback as in [7] or [21, p. 42]. The
ring suggested by the referee is an interesting example that contrasts nicely with
Example 5.1. We describe it in Example 5.16.
Example 5.16. Let B be the ring of Example 2.3. Then B = k + mB in the
notation of Example 2.3. Assume the field k is the field of fractions of a DVR V ,
and let t be a generator of the maximal ideal of V . Define
C := V + mB = { a + b | a ∈ V, b ∈ mB }.
The integral domain C has the following properties:
(1) The maximal ideal mB of B is also a prime ideal of C, and C/mB ∼
=V.
(2) C has a unique maximal ideal mC ; moreover, mC = tC.
T∞
(3) mB = n=1 tn C, and B = CmB = C[1/t].
(4) Each P ∈ Spec C with P 6= mC is contained in mB ; thus P ∈ Spec B.
(5) dim C = 4 and C has a unique prime ideal of height h, for h = 2, 3 or 4.

EXAMPLES OF NON-NOETHERIAN DOMAINS

31

(6) mC is the only nonzero prime ideal of C that is finitely generated. Indeed,
every nonzero proper ideal of B is an ideal of C that is not finitely generated.
Thus C is a non-Noetherian non-catenary four-dimensional local domain.
Proof. Since C is a subring of B, mB ∩ V = (0) and V mB = mB , item 1 holds. We

have C/(tV + mB ) = V /tV . Thus tV + mB is a maximal ideal of C. Let b ∈ mB .
Since 1 + b is a unit of the local ring B, we have
b
b
1
= 1−
and
∈ mB .
1+b
1+b
1+b
Hence 1 + b is a unit of C. Let a + b ∈ C \ (tV + mB ), where a ∈ V \ tV and b ∈ mB .

Then a is a unit of V and thus a unit of C. Moreover, a−1 (a + b) = 1 + a−1 b and
a−1 b ∈ mB . Therefore a + b is a unit of C. We conclude that mC := tV + mB is
the unique maximal ideal of C. Since t is a unit of B, we have mB = tmB . Hence

mC = tV + mB = tC. This proves item 2.
For item 3, since t is a unit of B, we have mB = tn mB ⊆ tn C for all n ∈ N.
T∞
T∞
Thus mB ⊆ n=1 tn C. If a + b ∈ n=1 tn C with a ∈ V and b ∈ mB , then
b ∈
Hence mB =

∞
\

n=1

T∞

n=1

tn C =⇒ a ∈ (

∞
\

n=1

tn C) ∩ V =

∞
\

tn V = (0).

n=1

n

t C. Again using tmB = mB , we obtain

C[1/t] = V [1/t] + mB = k + mB = B.

Since t ∈
/ mB , we have B = C[1/t] ⊆ CmB ⊆ BmB = B. This proves item 3.

For P as in item 4, we have P ( tC. Since P is a prime ideal of C, it follows
that P = tn P for each n ∈ N. By item 3, P ⊆ mB , and it follows that P ∈ Spec B.

Item 5 now follows from item 4 and the structure of Spec B.
For item 6, let J be a nonzero proper ideal of B. Since t is a unit of B, we have
J = tJ. This implies by Nakayama’s Lemma that J as an ideal of C is not finitely
generated; see [3, Lemma 1]. Thus item 6 follows from item 4.
By item 6, C is non-Noetherian. Since (0) ( xB ( mB ( tC is a saturated
chain of prime ideals of C of length 3, and (0) ( yB ( Q ( mB ( tC is a saturated
chain of prime ideals of C of length 4, the ring C is not catenary.

References
[1] S. S. Abhyankar, On the valuations centered in a local domain, Amer. J. Math. 78
(1956) 321-348.
[2] M. Atiyah and I. Macdonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra, Addison-Wesley,
London 1969.
[3] J. W. Brewer and E. A. Rutter, D+M constructions with general overrings. Michigan
Math. J. 23 (1976) 33-42.
[4] I. S. Cohen, On the structure and ideal theory of complete local rings, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 59 (1946) 54-106.
[5] J. David, A characteristic zero non-Noetherian factorial ring of dimension three, Trans.
Amer. Math Soc. 180 (1973), 315-325.

32

WILLIAM HEINZER, CHRISTEL ROTTHAUS, AND SYLVIA WIEGAND

[6] E. Evans, A generalization of Zariski’s Main Theorem, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 26 (1970)
45-48.
[7] S. Gabelli and E. Houston, Coherentlike conditions in pullbacks. Michigan Math. J. 44
(1997) 99-123.
[8] R. Gilmer, Prüfer-like conditions on the set of overrings of an integral domain, Lecture
Notes in Math., Vol. 311, Springer, Berlin (1973) 90-102.
[9] R. Gilmer, Multiplicative ideal theory, Queen’s Papers in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 90. Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, 1992.
[10] A. Grothendieck, Élement de Géométrie Algébrique IV, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Étud.
Sci. 24, 1965.
[11] W. Heinzer and M. Roitman, The homogeneous spectrum of a graded commutative
ring, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2001) 1573-1580.
[12] W. Heinzer and J. Sally, Extensions of valuations to the completion of a local domain,
J. Pure Applied Algebra 71 (1991) 175-185.
[13] W. Heinzer, C. Rotthaus and S. Wiegand, Building Noetherian domains inside an idealadic completion II, in Advances in Commutative Ring Theory (Fez, 1997), 411–419,
Lecture Notes Pure & Applied Mathematics 205, Dekker, New York, 1999.
[14] W. Heinzer, C. Rotthaus and S. Wiegand, Noetherian rings between a semilocal domain
and its completion, J. Algebra 198, (1997), no. 2, 627–655.
[15] W. Heinzer, C. Rotthaus and S. Wiegand, Building Noetherian domains inside an idealadic completion, in Abelian groups, module theory, and topology (Padua, 1997), (Dikran
Dikranjan and Luigi Salce, eds.) 279–287, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 201,
Dekker, New York, 1998.
[16] W. Heinzer, C. Rotthaus and S. Wiegand, Noetherian domains inside a homomorphic
image of a completion, J. of Algebra 215, (1999), no. 2, 666–681.
[17] W. Heinzer, C. Rotthaus and S. Wiegand, Examples of integral domains inside power
series rings, in Commutative Rings and Applications (Fez, 2001), 233–254, Lecture
Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 231, Dekker, New York, 2003.
[18] W. Heinzer, C. Rotthaus and S. Wiegand, Non-finitely generated prime ideals in subrings of power series rings, in Rings, modules, algebras, and abelian groups, 333–341,
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 236, Dekker, New York, 2004.
[19] W. Heinzer, C. Rotthaus and S. Wiegand, Power series over Noetherian rings, book in
progress.
[20] I. Kaplansky, Commutative Rings, Allyn Bacon, Boston 1970.
[21] G. Leuschke and R. Wiegand, Cohen-Macaulay representations, Mathematical Surveys
and Monographs, 181. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012.
[22] H. Matsumura, Commutative ring theory, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[23] H. Matsumura Commutative algebra, second edition, Benjamin, 1980.
[24] M. Nagata, Local Rings, John Wiley, New York, 1962.
[25] C. Peskine, Une généralsation du “main theorem” de Zariski, Bull. Sci. Math. 90 (1966)
377-408.
[26] C. Rotthaus, Nicht ausgezeichnete, universell japanische Ringe, Math. Z. 152 (1977)
107-125.
[27] C. Rotthaus, and L. Sega, On a class of coherent regular rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
135 (2007) 1631-1640.
[28] P. Samuel, Unique Factorization Domains, Tata Inst. of Fundamental Research, Bombay (1964).
[29] P. Valabrega, On two-dimensional regular local rings and a lifting problem, Annali della
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 27 (1973) 1-21.
[30] O. Zariski and P. Samuel, Commutative Algebra II, Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1960.
Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
E-mail address: heinzer@math.purdue.edu
Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1027
E-mail address: rotthaus@math.msu.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0130
E-mail address: swiegand@math.unl.edu

