arXiv:1611.00988v1 [math.RA] 3 Nov 2016

COMMUTATIVE RINGS WHOSE FINITELY GENERATED
IDEALS ARE QUASI-FLAT
FRANÇOIS COUCHOT
Abstract. A definition of quasi-flat left module is proposed and it is shown
that any left module which is either quasi-projective or flat is quasi-flat. A
characterization of local commutative rings for which each ideal is quasi-flat
(resp. quasi-projective) is given. It is also proven that each commutative ring
R whose finitely generated ideals are quasi-flat is of λ-dimension ≤ 3, and this
dimension ≤ 2 if R is local. This extends a former result about the class of
arithmetical rings. Moreover, if R has a unique minimal prime ideal then its
finitely generated ideals are quasi-projective if they are quasi-flat.

In [1] Abuhlail, Jarrar and Kabbaj studied the class of commutative fqp-rings
(finitely generated ideals are quasi-projective). They proved that this class of rings
strictly contains the one of arithmetical rings and is strictly contained in the one of
Gaussian rings. It is also shown that the property for a commutative ring to be fqp
is preserved by localization. It is known that a commutative ring R is arithmetical
(resp. Gaussian) if and only if RM is arithmetical (resp. Gaussian) for each maximal
ideal M of R. But an example given in [6] shows that a commutative ring which
is a locally fqp-ring is not necessarily a fqp-ring. So, in this cited paper the class
of fqf-rings is introduced. Each local commutative fqf-ring is a fqp-ring, and a
commutative ring is fqf if and only if it is locally fqf. These fqf-rings are defined in
[6] without a definition of quasi-flat modules. Here we propose a definition of these
modules and another definition of fqf-ring which is equivalent to the one given in
[6]. We also introduce the module property of self-flatness. Each quasi-flat module
is self-flat but we do not know if the converse holds. On the other hand, each flat
module is quasi-flat and any finitely generated module is quasi-flat if and only if it
is flat modulo its annihilator.
In Section 2 we give a complete characterization of local commutative rings for
which each ideal is self-flat. These rings R are fqp and their nilradical N is the
subset of zerodivisors of R. In the case where R is not a chain ring for which
N = N 2 and RN is not coherent every ideal is flat modulo its annihilator. Then
in Section 3 we deduce that any ideal of a chain ring (valuation ring) R is quasiprojective if and only if it is almost maximal and each zerodivisor is nilpotent. This
complete the results obtained by Hermann in [11] on valuation domains.
In Section 4 we show that each commutative fqf-ring is of λ-dimension ≤ 3. This
extends the result about arithmetical rings obtained in [4]. Moreover it is shown
that this λ-dimension is ≤ 2 in the local case. But an example of a local Gaussian
ring R of λ-dimension ≥ 3 is given.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13F05, 13B05, 13C13, 16D40, 16B50, 16D90.
Key words and phrases. quasi-flat module, chain ring, arithmetical ring, fqf-ring, fqp-ring,
λ-dimension.
1

2

FRANÇOIS COUCHOT

In this paper all rings are associative and commutative (except in the first section) with unity and all modules are unital.
1. quasi-flat modules: generalities
Let R be a ring, M a left R-module. A left R-module V is M -projective if
the natural homomorphism HomR (V, M ) → HomR (V, M/X) is surjective for every
submodule X of M . We say that V is quasi-projective if V is V -projective. A
ring R is said to be a left fqp-ring if every finitely generated left ideal of R is
quasi-projective.
We say that V is M -flat1 if for any epimorphism p : M → M ′ , for any homomorphism u : V → M ′ and for any homomorphism v : G → M , where M ′ is a left
R-module and G a finitely presented left R-module, there exists a homomorphism
q : G → M such that pq = uv. We call V quasi-flat (resp. self-flat) if V is V n -flat
for each integer n > 0 (resp. n = 1). Clearly each quasi-flat module is self-flat but
we do not know if the converse holds.
An exact sequence S of left R-modules 0 → F → E → G → 0 is pure if it
remains exact when tensoring it with any right R-module. Then, we say that F is
a pure submodule of E. Recall that S is pure if and only if HomR (M, S) is exact
for each finitely presented left R-module M ([15, 34.5]). When E is flat, then G is
flat if and only if S is pure ([15, 36.5]).
Proposition 1.1. Let R be a ring. Then:
(1) each quasi-projective left R-module is quasi-flat;
(2) each flat left R-module is quasi-flat.
Proof. (1). If V is a quasi-projective left R-module then, by [15, 18.2(2)], V is
V n -projective for each integer n > 0.
(2). By [15, 36.8.3] a left R-module is flat if and only if it is M -flat for each left
R-module M .

t

Proposition 1.2. Let R be a ring, 0 → A −
→ B → C → 0 an exact sequence of left
R-modules and V a left module. If V is B-flat then V is A-flat and C-flat.
Proof. Clearly V is C-flat. Let p : A → A′ be an epimorphism of left R-modules.
Consider the following pushout diagram of left R-modules:
0
↓
A
t↓
B

p

−
→
p′

−→

0
↓
A′
′
t ↓
B′

→ 0
→ 0
u

v

Let G be a finitely presented R-module and V −
→ A′ and G −
→ V be homomord
phisms. Since V is B-flat there exists a linear map G −
→ B such that t′ uv = p′ d.
By [15, 10.7] the above diagram is also a pullback diagram of left R-modules, so
q

there exists a homomorphism G −
→ A such that pq = uv. Hence V is A-flat.
Corollary 1.3. Let R be a ring, V a finitely generated left module and I its annihilator. Then V is flat over R/I if and only if V is quasi-flat.
1the module property M -flat is generally used to define flat module

FQF-RINGS

3

Proof. If V is flat over R/I then, from Proposition 1.1 we deduce that it is quasiflat. Conversely, if V is generated by n elements then R/I is isomorphic to a
2
submodule of V n . It follows that F = (R/I)n is isomorphic to a submodule of V n .
By Proposition 1.2 V is F -flat. Since there exists an epimorphism p : F → V , we
get that ker(p) is a pure submodule of F . Hence V is flat over R/I.

In section 2 (Corollary 2.14 and Example 2.15) an example of a quasi-flat module
(over a commutative ring) which is not flat modulo its annihilator is given.
We say that a ring R is a left fqf-ring if each finitely generated left ideal is
quasi-flat. By Corollary 1.3 this definition is equivalent to the one given in [6,
Section 3].
2. quasi-flat ideals over local fqp-rings
In this section R is a commutative ring.
A module U is uniserial if its lattice of submodules is totally ordered by inclusion. A ring R is a chain ring (or a valuation ring) if it is a uniserial R-module.
A chain ring which is an integral domain is a valuation domain. Recall that R is
an IF-ring if each injective R-module is flat. When R is a chain ring, we denote
by P its maximal ideal, by Z its subset of zero-divisors which is a prime ideal, by
N its nilradical and by Q its quotient ring RZ .
Lemma 2.1. Let R be a chain ring and U an R-module. If U is quasi-flat (resp.
quasi-projective) then aU is quasi-flat (resp. quasi-projective) too for each a ∈ R.
Proof. We consider the following homomorphisms: p : (aU )n → U ′ , u : aU → U ′
and v : G → aU where U ′ is an R-module, p is surjective, n an integer > 0 and
G a finitely presented R-module. By [14, Theorem 1] G is a direct sum of cyclic
submodules. It is easy to see that we may assume that G is cyclic. So G = R/bR
for some b ∈ R. If x = v(1 + bR) then bx = 0 and there exists y ∈ U such that
x = ay. So, bay = 0. Let v ′ : R/baR → U , u′ : U → U ′ and p′ : U n → U ′ be the
homomorphisms defined by v ′ (r + baR) = ry for each r ∈ R, u′ (z) = u(az) for each
z ∈ U and p′ (w) = p(aw) for each w ∈ U n .
The quasi-flatness of U implies that there exists a morphism q ′ : R/baR → U n
such that p′ q ′ = u′ v ′ . If we put q(r + bR) = aq ′ (r + baR) for each r ∈ R then
the equalities bq(1 + bR) = baq ′ (1 + baR) = 0 imply that q : G → (aU )n is a well
defined homomorphism, and we get pq = uv.
Now, suppose that n = 1 and U is quasi-projective. There exists t′ : U → U
such that p′ t′ = u′ . Let t = t′ |aU . Then pt = u.

Let I be a non-zero proper ideal of a chain ring R. Then I ♯ = {r ∈ R | rI ⊂ I}
is a prime ideal which is called the top prime ideal associated to I. It is easy to
check that I ♯ = {r ∈ R | I ⊂ (I : r)}. It follows that I ♯ /I is the inverse image of
the set of zerodivisors of R/I by the natural map R → R/I. So, Z = 0♯ .
Proposition 2.2. Let R be a chain ring. Then each proper ideal I satisfying
Z ⊂ I ♯ is flat modulo its annihilator.
Proof. First assume that Z ⊂ I. In this case I is a direct limit of free modules of
rank one. So, it is flat. Now suppose that I ⊆ Z and let t ∈ I ♯ \ Z and a ∈ I \ tI.
Then a = ts for some s ∈ Z \ I and t ∈ (I : s). So, Z ⊂ (I : s). It is easy to check
that I = s(I : s), I ∼
= (I : s)/(0 : s), (0 : I) ⊇ (0 : s) and (I : s)/(0 : s) strickly
contains Z/(0 : s) the subset of zerodivisors of R/(0 : s) (see [3, Lemma 21]).


4

FRANÇOIS COUCHOT

Remark 2.3. If P = Z then by [10, Lemma 3] and [12, Proposition 1.3] we have
(0 : (0 : I)) = I for each ideal I which is not of the form P t for some t ∈ R. In this
case R is self FP-injective and the converse holds. So, if A is a proper ideal such
that A♯ = P then R/A is self FP-injective and it follows that (A : (A : I)) = I for
each ideal I ⊇ A which is not of the form P t for some t ∈ R.
Proposition 2.4. Let R be a chain ring. Then any proper ideal I satisfying I ♯ ⊂ Z
is not self-flat.
Proof. Let s ∈ Z \ I ♯ . Since s ∈
/ s2 Q, by applying the above remark to Q we get
2
that there exists a ∈ (0 : s ) \ (0 : s). The multiplication by s in I induces an
isomorphism σ : I/(0 : s) → I. Let u = σ −1 , p : I → I/(0 : s) be the natural
epimorphism and v : R/sR → I the homomorphism defined by v(r + sR) = rsa.
Then uv(1 + sR) = a + (0 : s) and sb 6= 0 for each b ∈ a + (0 : s). So, there is no
homomorphism q : R/sR → I such that pq = uv.

Lemma 2.5. Let R be a chain ring and I a nonzero proper ideal. Assume that
P = Z and I 6= aP for each a ∈ R. Then I is FP-injective over R/A where
A = (0 : I).
Proof. By Remark 2.3 we have I = (0 : A). Let x ∈ I and c ∈ R \ A such that
(A : c) ⊆ (0 : x). Then (0 : c) ⊆ (0 : x). Since R is self FP-injective there exists
y ∈ R such that x = cy. We have (0 : y) = c(0 : x) ⊇ c(A : c) = A (the first
equality holds by [3, Lemma 2]). Hence y ∈ I.

Theorem 2.6. Let R be a chain ring. Assume that either Z 6= Z 2 or Q is not
coherent. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) Z = N ;
(2) each ideal I is flat over R/A where A = (0 : I).
Proof. By Proposition 2.4 (2) ⇒ (1).
(1) ⇒ (2). Let I be an ideal and A = (0 : I). By Proposition 2.2 it remains to
examine the case where I ♯ = Z. If Z 6= Z 2 then Z is principal over Q. It follows
that Q is Artinian. Since I is a principal ideal of Q then I is flat over Q/A and
R/A. Now suppose that Z = Z 2 and Q is not coherent. By [3, Theorem 10] Z
is flat, and we easily deduce that aZ is flat over R/(0 : a) for each a ∈ R. Now
suppose that I is neither principal over Q nor of the form aZ for each a ∈ R. By
Lemma 2.5 I is FP-injective over R/A. From Q no coherent we deduce that (0 : r)
is not principal over Q for each 0 6= r ∈ I. By [7, Theorem 15(4)(c)] I is flat over
R/A.

Remark 2.7. If R is a chain ring such that either Z is principal over Q or Q is
not coherent then each ideal I satisfying Z ⊆ I ♯ is flat modulo its annihilator.
Lemma 2.8. Let R be a chain ring and M a finitely generated R-module. Then,
for each proper ideal A which is not of the form rP for any r ∈ P , we have
AM = ∩s∈P \A sM .
Proof. By [8, Theorem 15] there is a finite sequence of pure submodules of M ,
0 = M0 ⊂ M1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Mn−1 ⊂ Mn = M.
such that Mk /Mk−1 is cyclic for each k = 1, . . . , n. We proceed by induction on n.
When n = 1 M is cyclic and we use [3, Lemma 29] to conclude. Now suppose that

FQF-RINGS

5

n > 1. Let x ∈ ∩s∈P \A sM . We may assume that x ∈
/ Mn−1 . Since M/Mn−1 is
cyclic there exist y ∈ M and a ∈ A such that (x − ay) ∈ Mn−1 . Moreover, by using
the fact that Mn−1 is a pure submodule of M we have that (x−ay) ∈ ∩s∈P \A sMn−1 .
From the induction hypothesis we deduce that x = ay + bz for some z ∈ Mn−1 and
b ∈ A.

Proposition 2.9. Let R be a chain ring. Then, for each a ∈ R, aZ is quasi-flat.
Proof. We may assume that Z = Z 2 6= 0. By Lemma 2.1 it is enough to study the
case a = 1. First suppose that Z = P . We consider the following homomorphisms:
p : Z n → Z ′ , u : Z → Z ′ and v : G → Z where Z ′ is an R-module, p is surjective, n
an integer > 0 and G = R/aR for some a ∈ R. If r = v(1 + aR) then ar = 0. Let
s ∈ Z \Rr. Then r = ss′ for some s′ ∈ P and u(r) = su(s′ ). So, u(r) ∈ ∩s∈Z\Rr sZ ′ .
Consider the following commutative pushout diagram:
0
↓
Zn
t↓
Rn

p

−
→
p′

−→

0
↓
Z′
′
t ↓
R′

→ 0
→ 0

where t is the canonical inclusion. Clearly R′ is finitely generated. So, by Lemma
2.8 u(r) = rx′ for some x′ ∈ R′ . Let x ∈ Rn such that p′ (x) = x′ . Let q : G → Z n
be the homomorphism defined by q(1 + aR) = rx. Then q : G → Z n is well defined
because ar = 0 and we have pq = uv. Hence P is quasi-flat.
Now assume that Z 6= P and Z is faithful. Let a ∈ P and t ∈ Z \ (0 : a). Let
K = ker(p) and G1 = R/Rta. Then G ∼
= Rt/Rta ⊆ G1 . Since Q is FP-injective
v extends to v1 : G1 → Q. But v1 (1 + Rta) ∈ Z because it is annihilated by ta.
There exists a homomorphism q ′ : (G1 )Z → Z n such that pZ q ′ = uZ (v1 )Z . Let q1
be the composition of the natural map G1 → (G1 )Z with q ′ , r = v1 (1 + atR) and
x = q1 (1 + atR). Then u(r) − p(x) ∈ KZ /K. Let q = q1 |G . We have v(t + taR) = tr
and q(t + taR) = tx. So, u(tr) − p(tx) = t(u(r) − p(x)) = 0. Hence uv = pq.

Proposition 2.10. Let R be a chain ring. Then each ideal I satisfying Z ⊆ I ♯ is
self-flat.
Proof. By Remark 2.7 we may assume that 0 6= Z = Z 2 and Q is coherent, and
by Proposition 2.2 that I ♯ = Z. We may suppose that I is neither principal over
Q nor of the form aZ for any a ∈ R. We consider the following homomorphisms:
p : I → I ′ , u : I → I ′ and v : G → I where I ′ is an R-module, p is surjective
and G = R/aR for some a ∈ P . By Lemma 2.5 I is FP-injective over R/A, where
A = (0 : I) and by [7, Theorem 15(4)(c)] Z ⊗R I is flat over R/A because (0 : r)
is principal over Q for each r ∈ I. Since I = ZI the canonical homomorphism
φ : Z ⊗R I → I is surjective. Let r = v(1 + aR). Then r = φ(s ⊗ b) where s ∈ Z and
Q
b ∈ I. Since ar = 0 then a(s ⊗ b) ∈ ker(φ) ∼
= Tor1 (Q/Z, I). So, aZ ⊆ (0 : s ⊗ b).
′
Let v : R/taR → Z ⊗R I be the homomorphism by v ′ (1 + taR) = s ⊗ b where
t ∈ Z. From the flatness of Z ⊗R I we deduce there exists qt′ : R/taR → I such
that pqt′ = uφv ′ . Let xt = qt′ (1 + taR). Then taxt = 0. Let t′ another element of Z.
Thus p(xt ) = p(xt′ ) = u(r), whence (xt′ − xt ) ∈ ker(p) ⊂ Qxt since I is a uniserial
Q-module. So, Qxt = Qxt′ and we can choose xt = xt′ = x. Hence aZ ⊆ (0 : x).

6

FRANÇOIS COUCHOT

But (0 : x) is a principal ideal of Q, whence ax = 0. If we put q(c + aR) = cx for
each c ∈ R then pq = uv.

Theorem 2.11. Let R be a chain ring. Then each ideal I is self-flat if and only if
Z = N.
The following can be proven by using [1, Lemmas 3.8, 3.12 and 4.5].
Theorem 2.12. [6, Theorem 4.1]. Let R a local ring and N its nilradical. Then R
is a fqp-ring if and only if either R is a chain ring or R/N is a valuation domain
and N is a divisible torsionfree R/N -module.
Corollary 2.13. Let R be a local fqf-ring which is not a chain ring and N its
nilradical. Then each ideal of R is flat modulo its annihilator.
Proof. Let I be an ideal. If I ⊆ N then I is a torsionfree module over the valuation
domain R/N . Hence it is a flat R/N -module. If I * N then each finitely subideal
of I is principal and free. So, I is flat.

The following corollary and example allow us to see there exist quasi-flat modules
which are not flat modulo their annihilator.
Corollary 2.14. Let R a chain ring. Assume that P is not principal and R is an
IF-ring. Then, for each a ∈ R, aP is quasi-flat but it is not flat over R/(0 : aP ).
Proof. Since R is coherent and P is not finitely generated we get that P is faithful.
By [3, Theorem 10] P is not flat. Let 0 6= a ∈ P . There exists b ∈ P such
that (0 : a) = Rb. So, aP ∼
= P/Rb, and Rb = (0 : aP ) because P is faithful.
By [3, Theorem 11] R/Rb is an IF-ring and consequently R/Rb satisfies the same
conditions as R. Hence aP is quasi-flat but not flat over R/Rb.

Example 2.15. Let R = D/dD, where D is a valuation domain with a nonprincipal maximal ideal and d a non-zero element of D which is not invertible.
Then R satisfies the assumptions of Corollary 2.14.
3. Quasi-projective ideals over local fqp-rings
An R-module M is said to be linearly compact if every finitely solvable set of
congruences x ≡ xα (mod Mα ) (α ∈ Λ, xα ∈ M and Mα is a submodule of M for
each α ∈ Λ) has a simultaneous solution in M . A chain ring R is maximal if it is
linearly compact over itself and R is almost maximal if R/A is maximal for each
non-zero ideal A.
Theorem 3.1. Let R be a chain ring. The following conditions are equivalent:
(1) R is almost maximal and Z = N ;
(2) each ideal is quasi-projective.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2). Let I be a non-zero proper ideal of R, p : I → I ′ an epimorphism,
K = ker(p) and u : I → I ′ a homomorphism. First suppose that I ⊆ Z. By
Theorem 2.11 I is self-flat. So, for each r ∈ I and b ∈ (0 : r) there exists yr,b ∈ I
such that byr,b = 0 and u(r) = p(yr,b ). Even if K 6= 0 we can take yr,b = yr,c = yr
if c is another element of (0 : r). So, (0 : r) ⊆ (0 : yr ). Since Q is FP-injective then
yr = rxr where xr ∈ Q. We put R′ = Q/K, p′ : Q → R′ the canonical epimorphism
and x′r = p′ (xr ) for each r ∈ I. So, for each r ∈ I, u(r) = rx′r . If s ∈ I \ Rr then
we easily check that (x′s − x′r ) ∈ R′ [r] = {y ∈ R′ | ry = 0}. If R is almost maximal

FQF-RINGS

7

then the family of cosets (x′r + R′ [r])r∈I has a non-empty intersection. Let x′ be
an element of this intersection. Then u(r) = rx′ for each r ∈ I. Let x ∈ Q such
that p′ (x) = x′ . For each r ∈ I, rx ∈ rxr + K ⊆ I. If q is the multiplication by x
in I then pq = u. Hence I is quasi-projective. Now suppose that Z ⊂ I. Then for
each r ∈ I \ Z there exists yr ∈ I such that u(r) = p(yr ). But yr = r(r−1 yr ) = rxr
where xr ∈ Q. We do as above to show that I is quasi-projective.

Proposition 3.2. Let R a chain ring. Assume that P = N . Then R is almost
maximal if each ideal I is quasi-projective.
Proof. If P is finitely generated then R is Artinian. In this case R is maximal.
Now assume that P is not finitely generated. Let (aλ + Iλ )λ∈Λ be a totally ordered
family of cosets such that I = ∩λ∈Λ Iλ 6= 0. By [3, Lemma 29] I 6= aP for each
a ∈ R. Let A = P (0 : I).
First we assume that I is different of the minimal non-zero ideal when it exists.
So, A ⊂ P . We have I = (0 : A) = ∩r∈A (0 : r) (if (0 : I) is not principal then
A = (0 : I). If not, either I is not principal and from I = P I we deduce that
(0 : (0 : I)) = (0 : A), or I is principal which implies that P is faithful and
(0 : (0 : I)) = (0 : A)). Let r ∈ A. We may assume that I ⊂ Iλ for each λ ∈ Λ.
Hence there exists λ ∈ Λ such that Iλ ⊆ (0 : r). We put a(r) = aλ r. If Iµ ⊂ Iλ then
(aµ − aλ ) ∈ Iλ , whence aµ r = aλ r. So, in this manner, we define an endomorphism
of A. Since P = N there exists c ∈ P \ A such that c2 ∈ A. Let B = (A : c). Then
A = cB and c ∈ B. Let p : B → A be the homomorphism defined by p(r) = cr
and u : B → A be the homomorphism defined by u(r) = a(cr), for each r ∈ B.
The quasi-projectivity of B implies there exists an endomorphism q of B such that
pq = u. Since (0 : c) ⊆ (0 : q(c)) and R is self FP-injective we deduce that q(c) = ca′
for some a′ ∈ R and a(cr) = cq(r) = q(cr) = rq(c) = a′ cr for each r ∈ B. Let
λ ∈ Λ. We have I = ∩r∈B (0 : rc). Since I ⊂ Iλ then (0 : rc) ⊆ Iλ for some r ∈ B.
From I = ∩µ∈Λ Iµ we deduce there exists µ ∈ Λ such that Iµ ⊆ (0 : rc). It follows
that (a′ − aµ ) ∈ (0 : rc). But (aµ − aλ ) ∈ Iλ , so a′ ∈ (aλ + Iλ ) for each λ ∈ Λ.
Now we assume that I is the minimal non-zero ideal of R. In this case A = P .
Let s, t ∈ P such that I = Rst. There exists λ0 ∈ Λ such that Iλ0 ⊆ Rt ⊂ P . Let
Λ′ = {λ ∈ Λ | Iλ ⊆ Iλ0 } . Put Jλ = (Iλ : t) and J = ∩λ∈Λ′ Jλ . Since s ∈ J \ I then
J is not minimal. From (aλ − aλ0 ) ∈ Iλ0 we deduce there exists bλ ∈ R such that
(aλ − aλ0 ) = tbλ for all λ ∈ Λ′ . If λ, µ ∈ Λ′ such that Iµ ⊆ Iλ then we easily check
that bµ ∈ bλ + Jλ . From above it follows that there exists b ∈ ∩λ∈Λ′ bλ + Jλ and it

is easy to see that (aλ0 + tb) ∈ ∩λ∈Λ aλ + Iλ . Hence R is almost maximal.
Proof of (2) ⇒ (1) in Theorem 3.1. Since each ideal I is self-flat we have Z = N by
Theorem 2.11. From the previous proposition we deduce that Q is almost maximal
and we may assume that P 6= Z. When Z = 0 R is almost maximal by [11,
Theorem 3.3]. Now suppose Z 6= 0. We shall prove that R/Z is maximal and we
will conclude that R is almost maximal by using [5, Theorem 22]. Let 0 6= x ∈ Z
and I a proper ideal of R such that Z ⊂ I. Since I is quasi-projective then I is
(Qx/Zx)-projective by [15, 18.2]. Let q : I → Q/Z be a homomorphism. If z ∈ Z
and t ∈ I \ Z then z = z ′ t for some z ′ ∈ Z. So, q(z) = z ′ q(t) = 0, whence q factors
through I/Z. It follows that I/Z is (Q/Z)-projective for each ideal I containing
Z. By [11, Theorem 3.3] R/Z is almost maximal. Suppose that Z 2 = Z. We
have that Qx is (Qx/Zx)-projective. Let q : Q → Q/Z be a homomorphism and
z ∈ Z. There exist z ′ , t ∈ Z such that z = z ′ t. So, q(z) = z ′ q(t) = 0 whence q

8

FRANÇOIS COUCHOT

factors through Q/Z. It follows that Q/Z is quasi-projective. If Z 6= Z 2 then Z is
principal over Q and there exists x ∈ Z such that Z = (0 : x). Hence Q/Z ∼
= Qx
is quasi-projective. From R/Z almost maximal and [11, Theorem 3.4] we get that
R/Z is maximal.

Theorem 3.3. Let R be a local fqp-ring which is not a chain ring and N its
nilradical. Consider the following conditions:
(1) R is a linearly compact ring;
(2) each ideal is quasi-projective;
(3) N is of finite rank over R/N .
Then (1) ⇔ ((2) and (3)).
Proof. (1) ⇒ ((2) and (3)). Let R′ = R/N and Q′ its quotient field. Then R′ is a
maximal valuation domain. Since N is a direct sum of modules isomorphic to Q′
and a linearly compact module then N is of finite rank by [15, 29.8]. Let I be an
ideal contained in N . By [11, Lemma 4.4] I is quasi-projective. Now suppose that
I * N . In this case N ⊂ I and since I/N is uniserial, by a similar proof as the one
of Theorem 3.1 we show that I is quasi-projective.
((2) and (3))⇒ (1). Since Q′ is isomorphic to a direct summand of N , Q′ and
its submodules are quasi-projective. Hence, by [11, Theorems 3.3 and 3.4] R′ is
maximal. It follows that N is linearly compact. Whence R is linearly compact by
[15, 29.8].

Remark 3.4. In the previous theorem:
(1) if N is the maximal ideal of R then each ideal is quasi-projective even if N
is not of finite rank over R/N ;
(2) if N is not the maximal ideal and if Q/N is countably generated over R/N
then (1) ⇔ (2) because (2) ⇒ (3) by [11, Lemma 4.3(b)].
4. λ-dimension of commutative fqf-rings
In this section R is a commutative ring. We say that R is arithmetical if RP
is a chain ring for each maximal ideal P .
An R-module E is said to be of finite n-presentation if there exists an exact
sequence:
Fn → Fn−1 → · · · F1 → F0 → E → 0
with the Fi ’s free R-modules of finite rank. We write
λR (E) = sup{n | there is a finite n−presentation of E}.
If E is not finitely generated we also put λR (E) = −1.
The λ-dimension of a ring R (λ−dim(R) is the least integer n (or ∞ if none
such exists) such that λR (E) ≥ n implies λR (E) = ∞. See [13, chapter 8]. Recall
that R is Noetherian if and only if λ-dim(R) = 0 and R is coherent if and only if
λ-dim(R) ≤ 1. The rings of λ-dimension ≤ n are also called n-coherent by some
authors.
This notion of λ-dimension of a ring was formulated in [13, chapter 8] to study
the rings of polynomials or power series over a coherent ring.
Theorem 4.1. Let R be a local fqp-ring. Then λ−dim(R) ≤ 2.
Proof. By [4, Theorem II.11] λ−dim(R) ≤ 2 if R is a chain ring. Theorem 2.12 and
the following proposition complete the proof.


FQF-RINGS

9

Proposition 4.2. Let R be a local fqp-ring which is not a chain ring and N its
nilradical. Then:
(1) either R is Artinian or λ−dim(R) = 2 if N is maximal;
(2) λ−dim(R) = 2 if N is not maximal.
Moreover, if G is a finitely 2-presented module then:
(3) G is free if N is maximal and not finitely generated;
(4) G is of projective dimension ≤ 1 if N is not maximal.
Proof. (1) and (3). If N is an R/N -vector space of finite dimension then R is
Artinian. Assume that N is not of finite dimension over R/N . Let G be an Rmodule of finite 2-presentation. So, there exists an exact sequence
u

u

1
2
F0 → G → 0,
F1 −→
F2 −→

where Fi is free of finite rank for i = 0, 1, 2. Let Gi be the image of ui for i = 1, 2.
Since R is local we may assume that Gi ⊆ N Fi−1 for i = 1, 2. Then Gi is a
module of finite length for i = 1, 2. It follows that F1 is of finite length too. This is
possible only if F1 = 0. So, G is free. Hence λR (G) = ∞ and λ−dim(R) ≤ 2. Let
0 6= r ∈ N . Since (0 : r) = N , λR (R/rR) = 1, whence λ−dim(R) = 2.
(2) and (4). Let P be the maximal ideal of R. Each r ∈ P \ N is regular. So,
Rr is free and since each finitely generated ideal which is not contained in N is
principal, P is flat. Let G, G1 and G2 be as in (1). Since R is local we may assume
R
∼
that Gi ⊆ P Fi−1 for i = 1, 2. Then TorR
1 (G1 , R/P ) = Tor2 (G, R/P ) = 0. So, the
following sequence is exact:
v

→ G1 /P G1 → 0,
0 → G2 /P G2 → F1 /P F1 −
where v is induced by u1 . Since v is an isomorphism it follows that G2 /P G2 = 0,
and by Nakayama Lemma G2 = 0. So, G1 is free. Now, we do as in (1) to conclude
(N is not finitely generated because it is divisible over R/N ).

Let A be a ring and E an A-module. The trivial ring extension of A by E
(also called the idealization of E over A) is the ring R := A ∝ E whose underlying
group is A × E with multiplication given by (a, e)(a′ , e′ ) = (aa′ , ae′ + a′ e). Let R be
a ring. For a polynomial f ∈ R[X], denote by c(f ) (the content of f ) the ideal of R
generated by the coefficients of f . We say that R is Gaussian if c(f g) = c(f )c(g)
for any two polynomials f and g in R[X].
The following example shows that we cannot replace ”fqf-ring” with ”Gaussian
ring” in Theorem 4.1.
Example 4.3. Let D be a non almost maximal valuation domain and M its maximal ideal. Let 0 6= d ∈ M such that D/Dd is not maximal and E the injective hull
of D/Dd. Consider R = D ∝ E the trivial ring extension of D by E. Then R is a
Gaussian local ring and λ−dim(R) ≥ 3.
Proof. By [3, Theorem 17] E is not uniserial. By [6, Corollary 4.3] R is Gaussian
but not a fqp-ring because E is neither uniserial nor torsionfree. Let e ∈ E such
that (0 : e) = Dd. We put a = (0, e) and b = (d, 0). Then (0 : a) = Rb and
(0 : b) = {(0, x) | dx = 0} = 0 ∝ E[d], where E[d] = {x ∈ E | dx = 0}. If
D′ = D/Dd then E[d] is isomorphic to the injective hull of D′ over D′ and D′ 6= E[d]
because D′ is not maximal. By [3, Theorem 11] D′ is an IF-ring and consequently
E[d] and E[d]/D′ are flat over D′ . Then E[d] is not finitely generated, else E[d]/D′

10

FRANÇOIS COUCHOT

is a free D′ -module and this contradicts that E[d] is an essential extension of D′ .
So, (0 : b) is not finitely generated, λR (R/Ra) = 2 and λ−dim(R) ≥ 3.

Proposition 4.4. Let R be a fqf-ring with a unique minimal prime ideal N . The
following assertions hold:
(1) RP is not a chain ring for each maximal ideal P if R is not arithmetical;
(2) R is a fqp-ring.
Proof. (1). There exists a maximal ideal L such that RL is a local fqp-ring which
is not a chain ring. So, NL is torsionfree and divisible over RL /NL . Moreover,
since NL is not uniserial over RL , by [1, Lemma 3.8] there exist a, b ∈ NL such that
aRL ∩ bRL = 0. It follows that NL = NN and it is a vector space over RN /NN
of dimension > 1. Let P be a maximal ideal. Then NN is a localization of NP .
Consequently NP is not uniserial. Hence, RP is not a chain ring.
(2). It follows that N is a torsionfree divisible module over R/N . So, if I is a
finitely generated ideal contained in N then I is a finitely generated flat module
over the Prüfer domain R/N . So, I is projective over R/N . Now, if I * N then
IP is a free RP -module of rank 1. We conclude by [2, Chap.2, §5, 3, Théorème 2]
that I is projective.

Corollary 4.5. Let R be a fqf-ring with a unique minimal prime ideal N . Assume
that R is not arithmetical. Then either R is Artinian or λ−dim(R) = 2.
Proof. When N is maximal we use Proposition 4.2. Now assume that N is not
maximal. Let G be a R-module such that λR (E) ≥ 2. We use the same notations
as in the proof of Proposition 4.2. This proposition implies that G1 is locally free.
Since G1 is a finitely presented flat module, we successively deduce that G1 is
projective, G2 is projective and ker(u2 ) is finitely generated.

An integral domain D is almost Dedekind is DP is a Noetherian valuation
domain for each maximal ideal P .
The following example shows that we cannot remove the assumption ”R is not
arithmetical” in Corollary 4.5.
Example 4.6. Let D be an almost Dedekind domain which is not Noetherian (see
[9, Example III.5.5]), Q its quotient field, P ′ a maximal ideal of D which is not
finitely generated and E = Q/DP ′ . Let R = D ∝ E and N = {(0, y) | y ∈ E}. Then
R is an arithmetical ring, N is its unique minimal prime ideal and λ−dim R = 3.
Moreover, RP is IF where P is the maximal ideal of R satisfying P ′ = P/N , and
RL is a valuation domain for each maximal ideal L 6= P .
Proof. For each maximal ideal L of R let L′ = L/N . Let p ∈ P ′ such that P ′ DP ′ =
pDP ′ , x = 1/p + DP ′ , a = (p, 0) and b = (0, x). Since 0 is the sole prime ideal of D
contained in P ′ ∩ L′ for each maximal ideal L′ 6= P ′ , then EL′ = 0. So, RL = DL′ .
Since E is uniserial and divisible over DP ′ , RP is a chain ring by [6, Proposition
1.1]. So, R is arithmetical. We have (0 :RP b) = aRP = P RP . By [3, Theorem
10] RP is IF. Clearly Dx is the minimal submodule of E. So, P ′ = (0 : x) and
DP ′ x = Dx. If q ∈ Q \ DP ′ then q = spn /t where s, t ∈ D \ P ′ and n an integer
> 0. So, pq ∈ DP ′ if and only if n = 1. It follows that Dx = {y ∈ E | py = 0}. Let
â and b̂ be the respective multiplications in R by a and b. Then ker(â) = Rb and
ker(b̂) = P which is not finitely generated. So, λR (R/Ra) = 2 and λ−dim(R) = 3
by [4, Theorem II.1].


FQF-RINGS

11

Theorem 4.7. Let R be a fqf-ring. Then λ−dim(R) ≤ 3.
Proof. Let G be an R-module of finite 3-presentation. So, there exists an exact
sequence
u1
u2
u3
F0 → G → 0,
F1 −→
F2 −→
F3 −→
where Fi is free of finite rank for i = 0, 1, 2, 3. Let Gi be the image of ui for
i = 1, 2, 3.
We do as in the proof of [4, Theorem II.1]. For each maximal ideal P we shall
prove that there exist tP ∈ R \ P such that λRtP (GtP ) ≥ 4. We end as in the proof
of [4, Theorem II.1] to show that ker(u3 ) is finitely generated, by using the fact
that Max R is a quasi-compact topological space.
Let P be a maximal ideal. First assume that RP is a chain ring. As in the proof
of [4, Theorem II.1] we show there exists tP ∈ R \ P such that λRtP (GtP ) ≥ 4.
Now assume that RP is not a chain ring. We suppose that either P is not
minimal or P is minimal but P RP is not finitely generated over RP . In this case
(G1 )P is free over RP by Proposition 4.2. Since G1 is finitely presented, there exists
tP ∈ R \ P such that (G1 )tP is free over RtP by [2, Chapitre 2, §5, 1, Corollaire de
la proposition 2]. It follows that (G2 )tP and (G3 )tP are projective. So, ker((u3 )tP )
is finitely generated.
Finally assume that RP is not a chain ring, P is minimal and P RP is finitely
generated over RP . We have P 2 RP = 0. Since P 2 RL = RL for each maximal
ideal L 6= P , P 2 is a pure ideal of R. It follows that R/P 2 is flat. Clearly R/P 2
is local . So, RP = R/P 2 . If P 2 is finitely generated then P 2 = Re where e
is an idempotent of R. So, if tP = 1 − e then D(tP ) = {P }, RtP = RP and
ker((u3 )tP ) is finitely generated. If P 2 is not finitely generated then P = I + P 2
where I is finitely generated but not principal because so is P/P 2 . Since I 2 is
a finitely generated subideal of the pure ideal P 2 there exists a ∈ P 2 such that
r = ar for each r ∈ I 2 . It follows that (1 − a)I 2 = 0. Hence I 2 Rt = 0 where
t = (1 − a) and IRt 6= 0 because for each s ∈ I \ P 2 , s 6= sa. Since Gt is finitely
generated, after possibly multiplying t with an element in R \ P , we may assume
that Gt has a generating system {g1 , . . . , gp } whose image in (Gt )P is a minimal
generating system of (Gt )P containing p elements. Let F0′ be a free Rt -module with
basis {e1 , . . . , ep }, π : F0′ → Gt be the homomorphism defined by π(ek ) = gk for
k = 1, . . . , p and G′1 = ker(π). We get the following commutative diagram with
exact rows and columns:

0
0
0

0
↓
→ P 2 G′1
↓
→
G′1
↓
→ (G′1 )P
↓
0

→
→
→

0
↓
P 2 F0′
↓
F0′
↓
(F0′ )P
↓
0

0
↓
π
−
→ P 2 Gt
↓
π
−
→
Gt
↓
πP
−−→
(Gt )P
↓
0

→ 0
→ 0
→ 0

Since (G′1 )P ⊆ P (F0′ )P , we have that G′1 ⊆ P F0′ . But, since G′1 is finitely generated,
after possibly multiplying t with and element of R\P , we may assume that G′1 ⊆ IF0′
and that G′1 has a generating system {g1′ , . . . , gq′ } whose image in (G′1 )P is a minimal

12

FRANÇOIS COUCHOT

generating system of (G′1 )P with q elements. Let F1′ a free Rt -module with basis
{e′1 , . . . , e′q }, u′1 : F1′ → F0′ defined by u′1 (e′k ) = gk′ for k = 1, . . . , q and G′2 = ker(u′1 ).
Again, for a suitable t ∈ R \ P we may assume that G′2 is contained in IF1′ and
has a generating system whose image in (G′2 )P is a minimal generating system with
the same cardinal. Since It2 = 0, it follows that G′2 = IF1′ . Consequently, if It is
generated by {r1 , . . . , rn } then G′2 is generated {ri e′k | 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ k ≤ q}. Let
F2′ be a free Rt -module with basis {ǫi,k | 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ k ≤ q}, u′2 : F2′ → F1′ be
the homomorphism defined by u′2 (ǫi,k ) = ri e′k for i = 1, . . . , n and k = 1, . . . , q and
G′3 = ker(u′2 ). Since G′3 is finitely generated, as above, for a suitable t ∈ R \ P , we
get that G′3 = It F2′ . We easily deduce that It = (0 :Rt ri ) for each i = 1, . . . , n. Now,
let F3′ be a free Rt -module of rank qn2 and u′3 : F3′ → F2′ be the homomorphism
defined like u′2 . Then we get that ker(u′3 ) = IF3′ and it is finitely generated. So,

for a suitable tP ∈ R \ P we have λRtP (GtP ) ≥ 4.
With a similar proof as the one of [4, Corollary II.13], and by using Proposition
4.2 we get the following theorem.
Theorem 4.8. Let R be a fqf-ring. Assume that RP is either an integral domain
or a non-coherent ring for each maximal ideal P which is not an isolated point of
Max R. Then λ−dim(R) ≤ 2.
Proof. Let G be an R-module of finite 2-presentation. So, there exists an exact
sequence
u1
u2
F0 → G → 0,
F1 −→
F2 −→
where Fi is free of finite rank for i = 0, 1, 2. Let Gi be the image of ui for i = 1, 2.
We do as in the proof of the previous theorem. First suppose that P is a nonisolated point of Max R. In this case (G1 )P is free over RP by Proposition 4.2.
Since G1 is finitely presented, there exists tP ∈ R \ P such that (G1 )tP is free over
RtP by [2, Chapitre 2, §5, 1, Corollaire de la proposition 2]. It follows that (G2 )tP
is projective. So, ker((u2 )tP ) is finitely generated. Now assume that P is isolated.
There exists tP ∈ R\ P such that RP ∼
= RtP . By Theorem 4.1 ker((u2 )tP ) is finitely
generated.

Example 4.6 and the following show that the assumption ”RP is a non-coherent
ring” cannot be removed in Theorem 4.8.
Example 4.9. Let A be a von Neumann regular ring which is not self-injective, H
the injective hull of A, x ∈ H \ A, E = A + Ax and R = A ∝ E. Then:
(1) R is a fqf-ring which is not an fqp-ring;
(2) for each maximal ideal P , RP is Artinian;
(3) λ−dim(R) = 3.
Proof. Let N = {(0, y) | y ∈ E}, a = (0, 1) and b = (0, x).
(1). See [6, Example 4.6].
(2). If P is a maximal ideal of R then RP is the trivial ring extension of the
field AP ′ by the finite dimensional vector space EP ′ where P ′ = P/N . Hence RP
is Artinian.
(3). Consider the following free resolution of R/aR:
u

u

1
2
R → R/Ra → 0
R −→
R2 −→

where u2 ((r, s)) = ra + sb for each (r, s) ∈ R2 and u1 (r) = ra for each r ∈ R.
We easily check that this sequence of R-modules is exact. The A-module E is not

FQF-RINGS

13

finitely presented, else E/A is finitely presented and, since each exact sequence
of A-modules is pure, A is a direct summand of E which contradicts that A is
essential in E. Consequently, N , which is the image of u2 , is not finitely presented.
So, λR (R/Ra) = 2 and λ−dim(R) = 3.

References
[1] J. Abuhlail, V. Jarrar, and S. Kabbaj. Commutative rings in which every finitely generated
ideal is quasi-projective. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 215:2504–2511, (2011).
[2] N. Bourbaki. Algèbre commutative, Chapitres 1 et 2. Hermann, Paris, (1961).
[3] F. Couchot. Injective modules and fp-injective modules over valuation rings. J. Algebra,
267:359–376, (2003).
[4] F. Couchot. The λ-dimension of commutative arithmetic rings. Comm. Algebra, 31(7):3143–
3158, (2003).
[5] F. Couchot. Pure-injective hulls of modules over valuation rings. J. Pure Appl. Algebra,
207:63–76, (2006).
[6] F. Couchot. Trivial ring extensions of Gaussian rings and fqp-rings. Comm. Algebra,
43(7):2863–2874, (2015).
[7] F. Couchot. Weak dimension of fp-injective modules over chain rings. Comm. Algebra, 44:381–
389, (2016).
[8] L. Fuchs and L. Salce. Modules over valuation domains, volume 97 of Lecture Notes in Pure
and Appl. Math. Marcel Dekker, New York, (1985).
[9] L. Fuchs and L. Salce. Modules over Non-Noetherian Domains. Number 84 in Mathematical
Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, (2001).
[10] D.T. Gill. Almost maximal valuation rings. J. London Math. Soc., 4:140–146, (1971).
[11] P. Hermann. Self-projective modules over valuation rings. Arch. Math., 43:332–339, (1984).
[12] G.B. Klatt and L.S. Levy. Pre-self injectives rings. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 137:407–419,
(1969).
[13] W.V. Vasconcelos. The rings of dimension two, volume 22 of Lecture Notes in pure and
applied Mathematics. Marcel Dekker, (1976).
[14] R. Warfield. Decomposability of finitely presented modules. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 25:167–
172, (1970).
[15] R. Wisbauer. Foundations of Module and Ring Theory. (1991).
Normandie Univ, UNICAEN, CNRS, LMNO, 14000 Caen, France
E-mail address: francois.couchot@unicaen.fr

