arXiv:1512.05024v1 [] 16 Dec 2015

THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN AN ATOMIC DOMAIN
PETE L. CLARK, SAURABH GOSAVI, AND PAUL POLLACK

Abstract. We study the number of atoms and maximal ideals in an atomic
domain with finitely many atoms and no prime elements. We show in particular
that for all m, n ∈ Z+ with n ≥ 3 and 4 ≤ m ≤ n
there is an atomic domain
3
with precisely n atoms, precisely m maximal ideals and no prime elements.
The proofs use both commutative algebra and additive number theory.

1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology. Let B ⊂ Z+ be infinite, and let A ⊂ B. We say the relative
density of A in B is δ if
lim

n→∞

#(A ∩ [1, n])
= δ.
#(B ∩ [1, n])

We say the density of A is δ if the relative density of A in Z+ is δ. Let R be
a domain (a commutative ring without zero-divisors). Let R• = R \ {0}, R× be
the unit group and R◦ = R• \ R× . An element p ∈ R◦ is prime if the ideal (p) is
prime; p ∈ R◦ is an atom if for all x, y ∈ R, p = xy =⇒ x ∈ R× or y ∈ R× . A
domain R is atomic if every x ∈ R◦ is a finite product of atoms and factorial if
every x ∈ R◦ is a finite product of primes. A domain is factorial iff it is atomic and
all atoms are prime [CA, Thm. 15.8]. A domain is primefree if it has no prime
elements. For a domain R and a cardinal κ, “R has κ atoms” means there is a set
P of atoms of R of cardinality κ such that every atom of R is associate to a unique
p ∈ P. “R has κ maximal ideals” means the set MaxSpec R of maximal ideals of
R has cardinality κ.
A Cohen-Kaplansky domain is an atomic domain with κ < ℵ0 atoms. Let
m, n ∈ Z+ and let q be a prime power. A CK(n)-domain is an atomic domain with
n atoms; a CK(n; q)-domain is a CK(n)-domain which is also an Fq -algebra; and a
CK(n; 0)-domain is a CK(n)-domain of characteristic 0. A CK(n, m)-domain
is a CK(n)-domain with exactly m maximal ideals; a CK(n, m; q)-domain is a
CK(n, m)-domain which is also an Fq -algebra; and a CK(n, m; 0)-domain is a
CK(n, m)-domain of characteristic 0.
1.2. Main Results. For any cardinal κ there is a domain with κ atoms: if κ is
finite we may take a localization of Z, and if κ is infinite we may take k[t] for a field k
of cardinality κ. These examples are not so interesting: they are factorial domains,
so every atom is prime. Our point of departure in this note is the following:
Question 1. For which κ is there a primefree atomic domain with κ atoms?
1

2

PETE L. CLARK, SAURABH GOSAVI, AND PAUL POLLACK

In [CK46] Cohen-Kaplansky showed that a primefree atomic domain which is not
a field has at least three atoms and that there are local primefree atomic domains
with n atoms for 3 ≤ n ≤ 10 [CK46]. The case κ ≥ ℵ0 has already been handled.
Theorem 1.1. Let κ be an infinite cardinal. Then:
a) [Cl15, Thm. 5.2] There is a primefree local atomic domain with κ atoms.
b) [Cl15, Thm. 5.5] There is a primefree Dedekind domain with κ atoms.
We are left with the (more interesting) case of κ < ℵ0 atoms. Question 1 becomes:
for which n ≥ 3 is there a primefree CK(n)-domain? In this form it was raised by
Coykendall-Spicer [CS12], who showed there are primefree CK(n)-domains for all
n ≥ 3 conditionally on the conjecture that every even n ≥ 8 is a sum of two distinct
primes. They derived this as a consequence of the following result.
Theorem 1.2 (Coykendall-Spicer
[CS12]). For any primes p1 < . . . < pm there is
Pm
a primefree CK( j=1 (pj + 1), m; 0)-domain.

In the 1930’s Chudakov, Estermann and van der Corput showed that the subset
of even positive integers which are a sum of two primes has relative density 1
[Ch37, Ch38], [Es38], [vdC37]. From this and Theorem 1.2 it follows that the set of
n ∈ Z+ for which there is a primefree CK(n, 2; 0)-domain or a primefree CK(n, 3; 0)domain has density 1. We will give a stronger result with a similar proof, so we
omit the details. By making a different – more elementary – analytic argument, we
may deduce from Theorem 1.2 an answer to Question 1.

Theorem 1.3. For all n ≥ 3 there is a primefree CK(n)-domain.
Here is the key idea of the proof: whereas Coykendall-Spicer apply Theorem 1.2
with m ∈ {2, 3}, to get primefree CK(n, m)-domains, we may choose m in terms of
n. In fact it suffices to prove the following result.
Theorem
1.4. For all n ≥ 6 there are primes p1 < . . . < pm such that n =
Pm
(p
+
1).
j
j=1
This maneuver leads us to ask a refined version of Question 1 in the finite case.
Question 2. For which m, n ∈ Z+ is there a primefree CK(n, m)-domain?
The main goal of this note is to address Question 2. We give a complete answer for
m = 4, an answer up to finitely many n for m = 3, and an answer up to density 0
for m = 2. Moreover we conjecture a complete answer for all m ≥ 2. For m = 1 we
(only) record an implication of an old result of Cohen-Kaplansky. In more detail:
Theorem 1.5. If there is a primefree CK(n, m)-domain, then m ≤

n
3.

Theorem 1.6. Let m and n be positive integers.
a) If n ≥ 10 is even and m ∈ [3, n3 ], there is a primefree CK(n, m; 0)-domain.
b) If n ≥ 13 is odd and m ∈ [4, n3 ], there is a primefree CK(n, m; 0)-domain.
c) If n is sufficiently large, there is a primefree CK(n, 3; 0)-domain.
Theorem 1.7.
a) The set of n ∈ Z+ for which there is a primefree CK(n, 2; 0)-domain has
density 1.

THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN AN ATOMIC DOMAIN

3

b) Conditionally on the Goldbach Conjecture – Conjecture 3.7 in §3 – for every
even n ≥ 6 there is a primefree CK(n, 2; 0)-domain.
c) Conditionally on Schinzel’s generalization of the Goldbach Conjecture– Conjecture 3.9 in §3 – for every sufficiently large odd integer n there is a primefree CK(n, 2; 0)-domain.
Conjecture 1.8. Let n be a positive integer.
a) There is a primefree CK(n, 2; 0)-domain iff n ≥ 6.
b) There is a primefree CK(n, 3; 0)-domain iff n ≥ 9.
Theorem 1.9. The set of primes n such that there is a primefree CK(n, 1)-domain
has density 0 inside the set of all primes.
We will use results in the theory of Cohen-Kaplansky domains due to CohenKaplansky [CK46] and Anderson-Mott [AM92] as well as the following result.
Theorem 1.10 (Globalization Theorem).
a) Let q be either 0 or a prime power. Let M, n1 , . . . , nM , m1 , . . . , mM ∈ Z+ .
Suppose for all 1 ≤ j ≤ M there is a primefree CK(nj , mj ; q)-domain.
PM
PM
Then there is a primefree CK( j=1 nj , j=1 mj ; q)-domain.
b) If q1 , . . . , qm are prime powers and d1 , . . . , dm ≥ 2 are integers, there is a
Pm qdj −1
primefree CK( j=1 qjj −1 , m; 0)-domain. If q1 , . . . , qm are all powers of a
Pm qdj −1
prime power q, there is a primefree CK( j=1 qjj −1 , m; q)-domain.

Here is another application of Theorem 1.10.
Theorem 1.11. Let q be a prime power.

a) If R is a primefree atomic domain which is an Fq -algebra and not a field,
then R has at least q + 1 atoms.
b) For all n ≥ 3, there is a primefree CK(n; 2)-domain.
c) If q is even, then for all n ≥ 2q 2 − q there is a primefree CK(n; q)-domain.
d) If q is odd, then for all n ≥ 2q 2 −q +1 there is a primefree CK(n; q)-domain.
1.3. Structure of the Paper. In §2 we give material on Cohen-Kaplansky domains. In §3 we will prove Theorems 1.3–1.7 and 1.9–1.11 and give supporting
arguments for Conjecture 1.8. Final comments are given in §4.
2. Preliminaries on Cohen-Kaplansky Domains
There is a beautiful structure theory for Cohen-Kaplansky domains pioneered by
Cohen-Kaplansky [CK46] and enhanced by Anderson-Mott [AM92]. In this section
we recall some of these results – and quick consequences of them – for later use.
Theorem 2.1 ([CK46]). A Cohen-Kaplansky domain is Noetherian and has only
finitely many nonzero prime all ideals, all of which are maximal.
Theorem 2.2. Let R be a semilocal domain, with maximal ideals m1 , . . . , mm .
a) R is Cohen-Kaplansky iff Rmj is Cohen-Kaplansky for all 1 ≤ j ≤ m.

4

PETE L. CLARK, SAURABH GOSAVI, AND PAUL POLLACK

b) Every atom p of R lies in mj for exactly one j, and R ֒→ Rmj induces a
bijection from the atoms of R lying in mj to the atoms of Rmj .
c) Suppose R is Noetherian of dimension one. The following are equivalent:
(i) R has a prime element.
(ii) For at least one j, Rmj has a prime element.
(iii) For at least one j, Rmj is a DVR.
Proof. Parts a) and b) are results from [CK46]. c) (i) =⇒ (ii): if p ∈ R is prime,
then since dim R = 1 we have (p) = mj for some j and p is a prime element of Rj .
(ii) ⇐⇒ (iii): for all j, Rmj is one-dimensional local Noetherian, hence is a DVR
iff the maximal ideal is principal [CA, Thm. 17.19]. (iii) =⇒ (i): if Rmj is a DVR
for some j, by part b) there is exactly one atom pj ∈ mj . Since R is atomic and mj
is prime, every element of mj is divisible by pj , so mj = (pj ) and pj is prime. 
Lemma 2.3. Let (R, m) be a local atomic domain with residue field k = R/m.
a) Every element of m \ m2 is an atom of R.
b) If two atoms p, p′ ∈ m\m2 are associate, then p (mod m2 ) and p′ (mod m2 )
generate the same one-dimensional k-subspace of m/m2 .
c) If (R, m) is a primefree Cohen-Kaplansky domain then k ∼
= Fq is a finite
d
−1
2
d−1
atoms.
field, d = dimk m/m is finite, and R has at least #P (Fq ) = qq−1
d) A primefree Cohen-Kaplansky domain has at least 3 atoms.
Proof. Parts a) and b) are left to the reader. c) R is a one-dimensional Noetherian
local ring which is not a DVR, so 1 < dimk m/m2 < ℵ0 . By parts a) and b), choosing
a nonzero element from each one-dimensional subspace of m/m2 gives nonassociate
atoms. This set is in bijection with the set of lines through the origin of the Fq vector space m/m2 , hence with Pd−1 (Fq ). d) By Theorem 2.2 we reduce to the local
case. Then, with notation as above we have at least #Pd−1 (Fq ) ≥ #P1 (F2 ) = 3
atoms.

Theorem 2.4.
a) [CK46, Thm. 13] For every prime power q and d ≥ 2, there is a primefree
d
−1
CK( qq−1
, 1)-domain.
b) [CK46, Cor., p. 475] If there is a primefree CK(n, 1)-domain for a prime
d
−1
number n, then n is of the form qq−1
for a prime power q and an integer
d ≥ 2.
c) [AM92, Cor. 7.2] For any prime power q and d, e ∈ Z+ , Fq + te Fqd [[t]] is a
d

−1 d(e−1)
q
, 1; q)-domain. It is primefree unless (d, e) = (1, 1).
CK(e qq−1

Remark 2.5. As mentioned above, Theorem 2.4 implies there are primefree CK(n, 1)domains for all 3 ≤ n ≤ 10 and there is not a primefree CK(11, 1)-domain.
We say a ring R has finite residue fields if R/m is finite for all m ∈ MaxSpec R.
For a domain R with fraction field K, and I, J two R-submodules of K, we define
(I : J) = {x ∈ K | xJ ⊂ I}.
Theorem 2.6. Let (R, m) be a local Cohen-Kaplansky domain with residue field
k = R/m ∼
= Fq , and put d = dimk m/m2 . Let R be the normalization of R.

THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN AN ATOMIC DOMAIN

5

a) The ring R is a DVR, R is finitely generated as an R-module, and the ring
R/(R : R) is finite.
Let m be the maximal ideal of R and put k = R/m ∼
= FqD . Let r : R → k be
the quotient map.
b) The following are equivalent:
(i) The ideal m2 is universal: every element of m2 is divisible by every
atom of R.
d
−1
(ii) R has qq−1
atoms.
(iii) We have R = r −1 (Fq ).
(iv) We have m = m = (R : R).
c) Under the equivalent conditions of part b), we have d = D.
Proof. a) The ring R is a DVR by the Krull-Akizuki Theorem. By [AM92, Thm.
2.4], (R : R) ) (0). Thus R/m is finitely generated as a module over R/m ∼
= Fq ,
∼
hence is a finite field, say R/m = FqD . The conductor (R : R) is the largest ideal
of R which is also an ideal of R; since it is a nonzero ideal of a DVR with finite
residue field, the ring R/(R : R) is finite. b) See [AM92, §5]. c) Since R is a DVR,
we have 1 = dimFqD m/m2 , so [m : m2 ] = q D . But m = m, so
[m : m2 ] = [m : m2 ] = q D
and
d = dimR/m m/m2 = dimFq m/m2 = logq [m : m2 ] = D.



Let R be a ring, let I be an ideal of R, let q : R → R/I be the quotient map,
and let S be a subring of R/I. Following Anderson-Mott [AM92], we call q −1 (S)
the composite of R and S over I. Thus the condition R = r −1 (Fq ) in Theorem
2.6b) above is that R is the composite of R and Fq over m. On the other hand,
Anderson-Mott characterize all Cohen-Kaplansky domains with finite residue fields
(thus all primefree Cohen-Kaplansky domains) in terms of composites, as follows.
Theorem 2.7.
a) Let D be a semilocal PID with finite residue fields and maximal
Qm ideals e
M1 , . . . , Mm . Let I = Me11 · · · Memm be an ideal of D, so D/I ∼
= j=1 D/Mj j .
Q
e
For 1 ≤ j ≤ m let Sj be a subring of D/mj j , and put S = m
j=1 Sj ⊂ D/I.
Let R be the composite of D and S over I. Then R is a Cohen-Kaplansky
domain with normalization D and such that (R : D) ⊃ I. Moreover R has
precisely m maximal ideals, namely mj = Mj ∩ R for 1 ≤ j ≤ m.
b) Let R be a Cohen-Kaplansky domain with finite residue fields, with normalization R. Then R is a semilocal PID with maximal ideals M1 , . . . , Mm ,
and each R/Mj is finite. The conductor ideal (R : R) is nonzero, so may
be written
as Me11 · · · Memm , and the subring
Qm S = R/(R : R) of R/(R :
Q
e
m
R) ∼
= j=1 R/Mj j may be decomposed as j=1 Sj with each Sj a subring
e
of R/Mj j . R is the composite of R and S over (R : R).
Proof. This is a rewording of [AM92, Thm. 4.4] suitable for our purposes.



6

PETE L. CLARK, SAURABH GOSAVI, AND PAUL POLLACK

Remark 2.8. For a Cohen-Kaplansky domain R, its normalization R is a root
extension: for all r ∈ R there is an n ∈ Z+ such that rn ∈ R [AM92, Lemma
4.1]. Thus S = R/(R : R) ⊂ R/(R : R) is also a root extension. If (R : R) =
Me11 · · · Memm then by the Chinese Remainder Theorem R/(R : R) decomposes as
a product of m finite local rings, with corresponding idempotents ǫ1 , . . . , ǫm . Since
ǫnj = ǫj for all n, it follows that each ǫj lies in S. The Sj in Theorem 2.7b) is the
projection Sǫj .
Corollary 2.9. Let R be a Cohen-Kaplansky
domain with finite residue fields which
Q
e
S
over
(R : R) = Me11 · · · Mj j . Then:
is the composite of R and S = m
j=1 j

a) R has precisely m maximal ideals, mj = Mj ∩ R.
b) The localization Rmj is the composite of RMj and Sj over (Rmj : RMj ) =
e
[
d
d
M j RMj . The completion R
mj is the composite of RMj and Sj over (Rmj :
j

e
[ =M
[ ) = Mej R
dj j .1
R
Mj
Mj
j
e
c) For 1 ≤ j ≤ m, let Rj be the composite of R and Sj over Mj j . Then Rj is
Tm
a local Cohen-Kaplansky domain, R = j=1 Rj and (Rj )Mj ∩Rj = RMj ∩R .

Proof. a) This is a property of Cohen-Kaplansky domains [AM92, Thm. 2.4].
b) Fix 1 ≤ J ≤ m. By Theorems 2.2 and 2.7b), the ring RmJ is a local CohenKaplansky domain and is the composite of RMJ = RmJ = R ⊗R RmJ and

Y
m
Sj ⊗R RmJ
RmJ /(RmJ : RMJ ) = RmJ /(RmJ : R⊗R RmJ ) = R/(R : R)⊗R RmJ =
j=1

over

MeJJ RMJ

= (R : R)RmJ = (RmJ : RMJ ). Consider the localization map

Y
m
m
Y
Sj ⊗R RmJ ,
Sj →
ϕ:
j=1

j=1

which is the restriction of the localization map

Y
m
m
Y
ej
ej
ϕ:
R/Mj →
R/Mj ⊗R RmJ .
j=1

Because
Y
m

j=1

e

R/Mj j



j=1

⊗R RmJ =

m
Y

j=1

RMj /(Mj RMJ )eJ = RMJ /(MJ RMJ )eJ

we find that ϕ factors through the projection
e

∼

Qm

j=1

e

R/Mj j → R/MeJJ to

ι : R/Mj j → RMJ /(MJ RMJ )eJ .
Qm
Thus ϕ factors through the projection j=1 Sj → SJ to give an injection

Y
m
Sj ⊗R RmJ = SJ ⊗R RmJ .
ι : SJ →
j=1

1Here we have used the canonical ring isomorphisms R/Mej
j

\ to regard S as a subring of the latter two rings.
\ /Mej R
R
j
Mj
Mj
j

∼

e

→ RMj /Mj j RMj

∼

→

THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN AN ATOMIC DOMAIN

7

Thus ι is an injective localization map on the local Artinian R-algebra SJ . Since
every element of a local Artinian ring is either a nilpotent or a unit, any nonzero
localization
map on a local Artinian ring is an isomorphism, so ι identifies SJ with
Qm
( j=1 Sj ) ⊗R RmJ . The case of the completion is similar but easier.
Tm
c) The subring j=1 Rj is the set of elements x ∈ R such that for all 1 ≤ j ≤ m
e
we have x (mod Mj j ) ∈ Sj : manifestly, this is R. By Theorem 2.7b), Rj is a local
Cohen-Kaplansky domain. Finally, by part b) each of (Rj )Mj ∩Rj and RMj ∩R is
e
the composite of RMj and Sj over R/Mj j , so they are equal.

3. The Proofs
3.1. Proofs of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4. By Remark 2.5 there are primefree
CK(n)-domains for n ∈ [3,
P 5], and by Theorem 1.2 if p1 < . . . < pm are primes
there is a primefree CK( m
j=1 (pj + 1), m)-domain. Thus to prove Theorem 1.3,
that primefree CK(n)-domains exist
Pmfor all n ≥ 3 it is enough to prove Theorem
1.4, that every n ≥ 6 is of the form j=1 (pj +1) for primes p1 < . . . < pm (Theorem
1.4).
Step 1: We show that for all n ≥ 18, there is a prime in the interval ( n2 − 1, n − 7].
The values 18 ≤ n ≤ 51 can easily be checked by hand, so we may suppose n ≥ 52.
We will make use of a sharpening of Bertrand’s postulate due to Nagura [Na52]:
n
for all x ≥ 25, there is a prime in the interval (x, 6x
5 ]. Applying this with x = 2 − 1
n
3n
6
we find that there is a prime number in the interval ( 2 − 1, 5 − 5 ] hence also in
the larger interval ( n2 − 1, n − 7].
Step 2: It suffices to show that for all j ≥ 0, every n ∈ [6, 17 · 2j ] is a sum of
distinct pj + 1’s. We show this by induction on j. The base case j = 0 is an easy
computation. Suppose the result holds for some j ≥ 0, and let n ∈ (17 · 2j , 17 · 2j+1 ].
By Step 1, there is a prime number p ∈ ( n2 − 1, n − 7], so
n
6 ≤ n − (p + 1) < ≤ 17 · 2j .
2
P
By induction there are primes p1 < . . . < pm such that n − (p + 1) = m
j=1 (pj + 1),
Pm
and thus n = j=1 (pj + 1) + (p + 1). Since p + 1 > n2 , we have pj + 1 < n2 for all
j, so p > pm and we have written n as a sum of distinct pj + 1’s.
Remark 3.1. Theorem 1.4 is a variant of a result of H.-E. Richert [Ri49], who
used Bertrand’s postulate to show that every n ≥ 7 is the sum of distinct primes.
3.2. An Algebra Globalization Theorem.
Theorem 3.2. Let q1 , . . . , qm be prime powers.
a) There is a number field L and a sequence of distinct maximal ideals m1 , . . . , mm
of the ring of integers ZL of L such that for all 1 ≤ j ≤ m the quotient
ZL /mj is a finite field of order qj .
b) If there is a prime power q and b1 , . . . , bm such that qj = q bj for all
1 ≤ j ≤ m, there is a finite degree field extension L/Fq (t) and a sequence
of distinct maximal ideals m1 , . . . , mm of the integral closure S of Fq [t] in
L such that for all 1 ≤ j ≤ m the quotient S/mj is a finite field of order qj .

8

PETE L. CLARK, SAURABH GOSAVI, AND PAUL POLLACK

Remark 3.3. Theorems of this kind appear in the literature. For instance, part
(a) is a special case of [Ha26, Satz 1]. However, we prefer to give a self-contained
argument with the number field and function field cases treated on equal footing.
Proof of Theorem 3.2.
Step 1: Let K be a field, and let v1 , . . . , vg+1 be inequivalent discrete valuations
on K. For 1 ≤ i ≤ g + 1 let K̂i denote the completion of K at vi . Let d ∈ Z+ .
For 1 ≤ i ≤ g + 1, let Li be an étale K̂i -algebra – i.e., a finite product of finite
degree separable field extensions of K̂i – with dimK̂i Li = d and such that Lg+1 is
a field. Then by Krasner’s Lemma and weak approximation, there is a separable
field extension L/K of degree d and for all 1 ≤ i ≤ g + 1 a K̂i -algebra isomorphism
∼
K ⊗F K̂i → Li . (We may write each Ai as K̂i [t]/(fi (t)) for a separable polynomial
fi ∈ K̂i . Then we may take L = K[t]/(f (t)) where for all i, the coefficients of f
are sufficiently close to those of fi in the vi -adic topology. Thus we get a separable
K-algebra L. The condition that Lg+1 is a field ensures that L is a field.)
Step 2: Recall that for all d ∈ Z+ there is a p-adic field with residue field Fpd :
we may take the unique degree d unramified extension of Qp . Let g ∈ Z+ be such
that q1 , . . . , qj1 are all powers of a prime p1 , qj1 +1 , . . . , qj2 are all powers of a prime
p2 , . . ., and so forth, up to qjg−1 +1 , . . . , qjg – note jg = m – all powers of pg . Put
j0 = 0. Let K = Q, for 1 ≤ i ≤ g let vi = ordpi , and let


ji
Y
Li = 
Lj  × Mi
j=ji−1 +1

be a finite product of p-adic fields such that the residue cardinality of the valuation
ring of Lj is qk and Mi is a “fudge field” chosen so that there is D ∈ Z+ such
that dimQi Li = D for all 1 ≤ i ≤ g. The field extension L/K obtained by the
construction of Step 1 is the desired number field in part a).

Step 3: Suppose we are in the case considered in part b). For all d ∈ Z+ , Fqd ((t))
is a finite extension of Fq ((t)) with residue field Fqd . We proceed as in Step 2 but
with K = Fq (t), g = 1, v1 = ordt and v2 = ordt−1 .

3.3. Proof of Theorem 1.10. a) For 1 ≤ j ≤ M we are given a primefree
CK(nj , mj ; q)-domain Rj . For 1 ≤ k ≤ mj let njk be the number of atoms in the
kth maximal ideal of Rj (under some ordering). By Theorem 2.2 there are primePM
P
free local CK(njk , 1; q)-domains Rj,1 , . . . , Rj,mj such that j,k njk = j=1 nj . So
we may assume without loss of generality that mj = 1 for all j.
Suppose first that q = 0, and for each 1 ≤ j ≤ M we are given a primefree
CK(nj , 1; 0)-domain Aj . By [CK46, Thm. 9], the completion Âj of the local ring
Aj is also a CK(nj , 1; 0)-domain, so it is no loss of generality to assume that each
Aj is complete. Let Aj be the integral closure of Aj , a complete DVR, say with
e
maximal ideal (πj ). Let (Aj : Aj ) = (πj j ). By Theorem 2.7, Aj is the composite
ej
e
of Aj and Sj = Aj /(Aj : Aj ) = Aj /(πj ) over (Aj : Aj ) = (πj j ).
Since Aj is a complete DVR of characteristic 0 with finite residue field Fpaj , its
j
fraction field Lj is a finite extension of Qpj . Arguing as in the proof of Theorem
3.2 there is a number field L and a set of finite places v1 , . . . , vM of L such that

THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN AN ATOMIC DOMAIN

9

for all j, the completion of L at vj is isomorphic to Lj . Let M1 , . . . , MM be the
corresponding maximal ideals of the ring of integers ZL of L, and let D be the localSM
ization of ZL at ZL \ j=1 Mj , so D is a semilocal PID with precisely M maximal
ideals M1 , . . . , MM . Moreover, for 1 ≤ j ≤ M we may identify the completion of
e
e
D with respect to Mj with Aj , Mj Aj with (πj ) and D/Mj j with Aj /(πj j ) and
ej
thus we may view Sj as a subring of D/Mj . Let Rj be the composite of D and
T
e
Sj over Mj j and R = M
j=1 Rj . By Corollary 2.9, R is a Cohen-Kaplansky domain
with M maximal ideals {mj = Mj ∩ R}M
j=1 and we have Rmj = (Rj )Mj ∩Rj and
P
the completion of Rmj is Aj . Thus R is a primefree CK( M
j=1 nj , M ; 0)-domain.
Now suppose that q 6= 0, and for each 1 ≤ j ≤ M we are given a primefree
CK(nj , 1; q)-domain Aj . Then Aj is a complete DVR with finite residue field which
is an Fq -algebra, so its fraction field Lj is a finite extension of Fq ((t)). We now
argue as above except taking L to be a finite extension of Fq (t) and D to be the
subring of L consisting of functions regular at the places v1 , . . . , vM .
b) Let q1 = pa1 1 , . . . , qm = pamm be prime powers and d1 , . . . , dm ≥ 2. For 1 ≤ j ≤ m
let Kj be the unramified extension of Qpj of degree aj dj , let Aj be its valuation
∼
ring, with maximal ideal (πj ), let rj : Aj /(πj ) → Fqdj , and let Aj = rj−1 (Fq ). By
q

dj

−1

Theorem 2.6 Aj is a (necessarily primefree) CK( qjj −1 , 1; 0)-domain. Applying part
Pm qdj −1
a), we get that there is a primefree CK( j=1 qjj −1 , 1; 0)-domain.
Now suppose there is a prime power q such that each qj is a power of q = pa .
Then p1 = . . . = pm = p and a1 , . . . , am are all divisible by a. We run through the
argument as above but with Kj = Fqaj dj /a ((t)) for all j.
3.4. Recalled Results and Conjectures in Additive Number Theory.
Theorem 3.4 (Sylvester [Sy84]). Let x, y be coprime positive integers. Then:
a) The equation ax + by = xy − x − y has no solution in non-negative integers
a, b.
b) For all N ≥ xy − x − y + 1 = (x − 1)(y − 1), there are non-negative integers
a, b such that ax + by = N .
Remark 3.5. Let x, y ∈ Z+ with gcd(x, y) = d. Theorem 3.4 implies: if N ≥
(a−d)(b−d)
and d | N , then there are non-negative integers a, b such that ax+by = N .
d
Theorem 3.6 (Helfgott [He15]). Every odd n ≥ 7 is a sum of three primes.
Conjecture 3.7 (Goldbach). Every even n ≥ 4 is a sum of two primes.
Theorem 3.8 (Chudakov [Ch37, Ch38], Estermann [Es38], van der Corput [vdC37]).
The set of even integers which are sums of two primes has relative density 1 in the
set of even positive integers (and thus density 21 ).
Conjecture 3.9 (Schinzel). Let f (x) = x2 + bx + c, where b and c are integers
of opposite parity and 3 ∤ b. There is a constant N0 = N0 (f ) such that for all
odd integers n > N0 not belonging to f (Z), there are primes p1 and p2 with n =
f (p1 ) + p2 .

10

PETE L. CLARK, SAURABH GOSAVI, AND PAUL POLLACK

Remark 3.10. Conjecture 3.9 is a special case of a conjecture of Schinzel [Sc63]
generalizing the Goldbach conjecture. The conditions on b, c, and n guarantee that
the polynomial n − f (x) is irreducible over Z and that x(n − f (x)) has no fixed
divisor. Now the asymptotic prediction appearing as eq. (3) in [Sc63] implies that
the number of representations of n in the form f (p1 )+p2 tends to infinity as n → ∞.
Theorem 3.11 (van der Corput). If f (x) satisfies the hypotheses of Conjecture 3.9,
then the set of odd n representable in the form f (p1 ) + p2 , with p1 and p2 prime,
has relative density 1 in the set of odd positive integers.
Proof. This is a special case of a more general theorem of van der Corput, announced in [vdC37] and proved in [vdC39]. See also [Sc61, Satz 2a].

3.5. Proof of Theorem 1.5. This follows from Theorem 2.2 and Lemma 2.3d).
3.6. Proof of Theorem 1.6. We prove parts (a) and (b) simultaneously. Let
m, n ∈ Z+ . We suppose: (i) n ≥ 3m; (ii) if n is even then m ≥ 3 and n ≥ 10; (iii)
if n is odd then m ≥ 4 and n ≥ 13.
Case 1: Suppose m 6≡ n (mod 2). Then n − 3(m − 3) is even and n − 3(m − 3) ≥ 9,
so in fact n − 3(m − 3) ≥ 10. By Theorem 3.6 there are primes p1 , p2 , p3 such that
m
X
(2 + 1).
n = (p1 + 1) + (p2 + 1) + (p3 + 1) +
j=4

Case 2: Suppose m ≡ n (mod 2). Then m
4. Moreover n− 3(m− 4) ≥ 12 and is
P≥
m
even. If n−3(m−4) = 12 then n = 3m = j=1 (2+1). Otherwise n−3(m−4) ≥ 14,
so n − 3(m − 4) − (3 + 1) ≥ 10 and is even, so by Theorem 3.6 there are primes
p1 , p2 , p3 such that
m
X
(2 + 1).
n = (p1 + 1) + (p2 + 1) + (p3 + 1) + (3 + 1) +
j=5

In all cases Theorem 1.10 applies to show there is a primefree CK(n, m; 0)-domain.
(c) By part (a), we may assume that n is odd. We appeal to a generalization
due to Schwarz of Vinogradov’s “three primes theorem” [Sc60, Hauptsatz, p. 25].
Schwarz’s result implies that all sufficiently large odd n are representable in the
form (p21 + p1 + 1) + (p2 + 1) + (p3 + 1). Apply Theorem 1.10.
3.7. Proof of Theorem 1.7. a) If n+2 = (p1 +1)+(p2 +1) for some primes p1 and
p2 , Theorem 1.10 applies to show there is a primefree CK(n, 2; 0) domain. According
to Theorem 3.8, the set of even n for which n + 2 is so expressible has relatively
density 1 in the set of even positive integers. Similarly, if n = (p21 + p1 + 1) + (p2 + 1)
for some primes p1 and p2 , Theorem 1.10a) applies to show there is a primefree
CK(n, 2; 0)-domain. Theorem 3.11, with f (x) = x2 + x + 2, implies that the set of
odd n so representable has relative density 1 in the set of odd numbers.
b) We argue as in part a) but apply Conjecture 3.7 instead of Theorem 3.8.
c) When f (x) = x2 + x + 2, the condition n ∈
/ f (Z) is satisfied by all odd integers
n. Now we argue as in part a) but apply Conjecture 3.9 instead of Theorem 3.11.

THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN AN ATOMIC DOMAIN

11

3.8. Proof of Theorem 1.9. Let n be a prime number such there is a primefree
d
−1
. By a result of BatemanCK(n, 1)-domain. By Theorem 2.4b), n is of the form qq−1
√

50 x
Stemmler [BS62], the number of primes n ≤ x of this form is at most log
2 x , for
all sufficiently large x. The result now follows from the Prime Number Theorem:
π(x) = #{primes p ≤ x} ∼ logx x .

3.9. Proof of Theorem 1.11. a) Let R be a primefree atomic domain which is an
Fq -algebra. We may assume R is Cohen-Kaplansky, for otherwise it has infinitely
many atoms. Let m be a maximal ideal of R. By Theorem 2.2, R has at least as
many atoms as Rm , so we may assume that (R, m) is local. Then R/m ∼
= Fqa and
by Lemma 2.3c) R has at least #Pd−1 (Fqa ) ≥ #P1 (Fq ) = q + 1 atoms.
b) Let n ≥ 8. Taking a = 2 + 1, b = 4 + 1 in Theorem 3.4, we get that there are
x, y ∈ N such that x(2 + 1) + y(4 + 1) = n. By Theorem 1.10 there is a primefree
CK(n, x + y)-domain of characteristic 2. The equation x(2 + 1) + y(4 + 1) = n also
has a solution in non-negative integers x, y for n ∈ {3, 5, 6}, so there is a primefree
CK(n)-domain of characteristic 2 for these values as well. For n ∈ {4, 7} there is a
primefree CK(n, 1)-domain of characteristic 2 by Theorem 2.4c).
c) By Theorem 2.4 there are a primefree CK(n, 1; q)-domains for n ∈ {q + 1, 2q}, so
by Theorem 1.10 for all a, b ∈ N there is a primefree CK(a(q + 1) + b(2q), a + b; q)domain. Because q is a power of 2, q + 1 and 2q are coprime, so by Theorem 3.4
every n ≥ (q + 1 − 1)(2q − 1) = 2q 2 − q is of the form a(q + 1) + b(2q) for a, b ∈ N.
d) Theorem 2.4 gives primefree CK(n, 1; q)-domains for n ∈ {q + 1, 2q, q 2 + q + 1},
so by Theorem 1.10 for all a, b, c ∈ N there is a primefree CK(a(q + 1) + b(2q) +
c(q 2 + q + 1), a + b + c; q)-domain. Since q is odd we have gcd(q + 1, 2q) = 2, so by
Remark 3.5 every even n ≥ (q − 1)2 is of the form a(q + 1) + b(2q) for a, b ∈ N. If
n ≥ 2q 2 − q + 1 is odd, then n ≥ 2q 2 − q + 2 and n − (q 2 + q + 1) ≥ (q − 1)2 is even.
3.10. Concerning Conjecture 1.8. By Theorem 1.5 if there is a CK(n, 2)-domain
then n ≥ 6 and if there is a CK(n, 3)-domain then n ≥ 9.
Using PARI/GP, we computed that there are 168 odd integers below 1010 not
expressible in the form (p21 + p1 + 1) + (p2 + 1), the largest being 1446379. Using
Mathematica, we checked that the 165 exceptional integers lying in [7, 1010 ] neverd
−1
. Combined with
theless can be represented as a sum of two integers of the form qq−1
Conjecture 3.7, we view this as evidence that all integers n ≥ 6 admit a representation in that form. This would imply that there is a primefree CK(n, 2; 0)-domain
for all n ≥ 6. If so, then as above for all n ≥ 6 there is a primefree CK(n + 3, 3; 0)domain, so the first part of Conjecture 1.8 implies the second.
Combining our computations with the verification of the Goldbach conjecture
to 4 · 1018 [OHP14], it follows that both parts of Conjecture 1.8 hold for n ≤ 1010 .
4. Final Comments
4.1. The connection with orders. Coykendall-Spicer construct the domains used
to prove Corollary 1.2 using local orders: for S a S
finite nonempty set of primes, let
ZS be the localization of Z with respect to Z \ p∈S (p). Let K be any number
field such that for all p ∈ S, there is a unique prime of ZK lying over p. Then the

12

PETE L. CLARK, SAURABH GOSAVI, AND PAUL POLLACK

normalization R of ZS in K is a semilocal PID with m maximal ideals. Let R be
any ZS -order in K: i.e., a finitely generated ZS -subalgebra of K with fraction field
K. Then R is a Cohen-Kaplansky domain (cf. [CS12, §2]).
One can replace ZS with any semilocal PID A with finite residue fields. In the
early stages of our work we took A to be a semilocalization of the ring of integers of
a number field F , K/F a quadratic extension and worked with relative quadratic
orders R in the normalization R of A in K. Then, using Theorem 3.2 the residue
fields of A may be taken to be any multiset of finite fields, so the condition distinct
primes may be replaced with arbitrary prime powers. When R has squarefree conductor ideal (R : R) then each localization Rm of R is m2 -universal in the sense of
Theorem 2.7b), and this is easy to prove using the criterion m = m = (Rm : Rm ).
This gives an alternate proof of Theorem 1.10b) in the case d1 = . . . = dm = 2.
The proof of Theorem 1.10 shows that for every primefree CK(n; 0)-domain R
there is an order O in a number field K and a finite set S of maximal ideals of O
such that the
S group of divisibility of R is isomorphic to the group of divisibility of
OS = (O \ m∈S m))−1 O. Here we have a localized order rather than a ZS -order.
But as in the proof of Theorem 1.10, one sees that every group of divisibility of
a local Cohen-Kaplansky domain in characteristic zero arises as a Z(p) -order in a
number field, and that in positive characterstic the same holds with Z(p) replaced
by the localization of Fp [t] at an irreducible polynomial. It would be interesting to
compute the number of irreducibles in various local orders.
4.2. A better Globalization Theorem? The main algebraic problem considered
in this paper is the following:
Question 3. Let R1 , . . . , Rm be primefree Cohen-Kaplansky P
domains with n1 , . . . , nm
m
atoms. Is there a primefree Cohen-Kaplansky domain with j=1 nj atoms?

Theorem 1.10 answers this question in the affirmative when R1 , . . . , Rm all have the
same characteristic. Perhaps this is the only “natural” case: in what reasonable
sense can domains of different characteristics be combined? But from the perspective of Question 2 it would be nice if one could combine local building blocks of
different characteristics. Could it be that whenever there is a primefree CK(n, 1; q)domain for q > 0 there is also a primefree CK(n, 1; 0)-domain?
We end by discussing a possible strategy for showing this. Every complete
CK(n, 1)-domain R of positive characteristic is the composite of Fq [[t]] and a subring
S of Fq [[t]]/(te ) over (te ). Every ring Fq [[t]]/(te ) has an isomorphic copy OK /Me ,
where K is a p-adic field with valuation ring OK and maximal ideal M [Ne71].
Thus we can build the “corresponding characteristic 0 CK-domain” R̃: the composite of OK and the isomorphic copy of S over Me . Does R̃ have the same number
(R/(R:R))×
of irreducibles as R? The group of divisibility of R is isomorphic to Z ⊕ (R/(R:R))
×
[AM92, Thm. 4.4]. But this is an isomorphism of abstract groups, whereas to
count atoms we need the isomorphism to respect the partial orderings. (The atoms
are the minimal nonzero elements of the positive cone.) Do these composites have
isomorphic order structure? If so, then Question 3 has an affirmative answer.
References
[AM92]

D.D. Anderson and J.L. Mott, Cohen-Kaplansky domains: integral domains with a
finite number of irreducible elements. J. Algebra 148 (1992), 17-41.

THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN AN ATOMIC DOMAIN

13

[BS62]

P.T. Bateman and R.M. Stemmler, Waring’s problem for algebraic number fields and
r
. Illinois J. Math. 6 (1962), 142-156.
primes of the form ppd −1
−1
[CA]
P.L. Clark, Commutative Algebra, http://math.uga.edu/~ pete/integral.pdf.
[Ch37]
N.G. Chudakov, On the Goldbach problem. C. R. (Dokl.) Acad. Sci. URSS (2) 17 (1937),
335–338.
[Ch38]
, On the density of the set of even numbers which are not representable as the
sum of two odd primes. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 2 (1938), 25–40.
[CK46] I.S. Cohen and I. Kaplansky, Rings with a finite number of primes. I. Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 60 (1946), 468-477.
[Cl15]
P.L.
Clark,
The
Euclidean
criterion
for
irreducibles.
http://alpha.math.uga.edu/~ pete/Euclidean_Criterion.pdf
[CS12]
J. Coykendall and C. Spicer, Cohen-Kaplansky domains and the Goldbach conjecture.
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (2012), 2227-2233.
[Es38]
T. Estermann, On Goldbach’s problem: Proof that almost all even positive integers are
sums of two primes. Proc. London Math. Soc. 44 (1938), 307-314.
[Ha26]
H. Hasse, Zwei Existenztheoreme über algebraische Zahlkörper, Math. Ann. 95 (1926),
229–238.
[He15]
H.A. Helfgott, The ternary Goldbach problem. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.05438.pdf
[Na52]
J. Nagura, On the interval containing at least one prime number. Proc. Japan Acad. 28
(1952), 177-181.
[Ne71]
A.A. Nečaev, The structure of finite commutative rings with unity. Mat. Zametki 10
(1971), 679-688.
[OHP14] T. Oliveira e Silva, S. Herzog, and S. Pardi, Empirical verification of the even Goldbach
conjecture and computation of prime gaps up to 4 · 1018 . Math. Comp. 83 (2014), 2033–
2060.
[Ri49]
H.-E Richert, Über Zerfällungen in ungleiche Primzahlen. Math. Z. 52 (1949), 342-343.
[Sc60]
W. Schwarz, Zur Darstellung von Zahlen durch Summen von Primzahlpotenzen. I.
Darstellbarkeit hinreichend großer Zahlen. J. Reine Angew. Math. 205 (1960), 21–47.
, Zur Darstellung von Zahlen durch Summen von Primzahlpotenzen II. Darstel[Sc61]
lungen für “fast alle” Zahlen. J. Reine Angew. Math. 206 (1961), 78–112.
[Sc63]
A. Schinzel, A remark on a paper of Bateman and Horn. Math. Comp. 17 (1963), 445447.
[Sy84]
J.J. Sylvester, Problem 7382, Educational Times 37 (1884), 26; reprinted in: Mathematical questions with their solution, Educational Times (with additional papers and
solutions) 41 (1884), 21.
[vdC37] J.G. van der Corput, Sur l’hypothèse de Goldbach pour presque tous les nombres pairs.
Acta Arith. 2 (1937), 266-290.
, Contribution à la théorie additive des nombres. V. Proc. Akad. Wet. Amster[vdC39]
dam 42 (1939), 2–12.

E-mail address: pete@math.uga.edu
E-mail address: saurabh.gosavi@uga.edu
E-mail address: pollack@uga.edu
Department of Mathematics, Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center, University of
Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA

