arXiv:1703.10153v1 [] 29 Mar 2017

TOPOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF
SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING
CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO
Abstract. A semigroup prime of a commutative ring R is a prime ideal of
the semigroup (R, ·). One of the purposes of this paper is to study, from a
topological point of view, the space S(R) of prime semigroups of R. We show
that, under a natural topology introduced by B. Olberding in 2010, S(R) is
a spectral space (after Hochster), spectral extension of Spec(R), and that the
assignment R 7→ S(R) induces a contravariant functor. We then relate – in the
case R is an integral domain – the topology on S(R) with the Zariski topology
on the set of overrings of R. Furthermore, we investigate the relationship
between S(R) and the space X (R) consisting of all nonempty inverse-closed
subspaces of Spec(R), which has been introduced and studied in [20]. In this
context, we show that S(R) is a spectral retract of X (R) and we characterize
when S(R) is canonically homeomorphic to X (R), both in general and when
Spec(R) is a Noetherian space. In particular, we obtain that, when R is a
Bézout domain, S(R) is canonically homeomorphic both to X (R) and to the
space Overr(R) of the overrings of R (endowed with the Zariski topology).
Finally, we compare the space X (R) with the space S(R(T )) of semigroup
primes of the Nagata ring R(T ), providing a canonical spectral embedding
X (R) ֒→ S(R(T )) which makes X (R) a spectral retract of S(R(T )).

1. Introduction and preliminaries
The concept of prime ideal, and the closely related concept of localization, play
a fundamental role in commutative ring theory. In the forties of the last century,
the concept of prime ideal was introduced in the setting of semigroups, and some
analogies and differences between the ring and semigroup theories were pointed
out (cf., for instance, [51], [30], and [40]). Since a ring R can be also regarded as
a semigroup (by considering only the multiplicative structure), it is reasonable to
bring back the concept of semigroup prime from semigroups to rings: hence, we
define a semigroup prime of a ring R to be a prime ideal of the semigroup (R, ·).
Clearly, every prime ideal of R is also a semigroup prime, but not conversely:
the set S(R) of all semigroup primes of R is in general much larger than the prime
spectrum Spec(R) of R. An additional link ties the two concepts: semigroup primes
of R turn out to be the complement of saturated multiplicatively closed subsets of
R and so they give rise to general ring of fractions, while prime ideals give rise to
localizations.
Date: April 16, 2018.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13A15, 13G05, 13B10, 13C11, 13F05, 14A05, 54A10.
Key words and phrases. Spectral space, spectral map, Zariski topology, constructible topology,
inverse topology, semistar operation, semigroup prime, Nagata ring.
This work was partially supported by GNSAGA of Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica. The
first named author was also supported by a Post Doc Grant from the University of Technology of
Graz (Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P 27816).
1

2

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

Nevertheless, for a long time, semigroup primes of a commutative ring were left
out from the mainstream of investigation, even in the natural context of multiplicative ideal theory of rings and integral domains.
Recently, B. Olberding [47] has considered the space S(R), equipped with a
Zariski-like topology, for obtaining new important properties of the spaces of overrings and valuation overrings of an integral domain R.
In this paper, we pursue the study of S(R), mainly from a topological point of
view, considering the general case of a commutative ring R with applications to the
special case of when R is an integral domain. The relevant topologies that turn out
to be useful in our investigation are the hull-kernel topology (classically introduced
by Stone [57]) or Zariski topology, the constructible or patch topology (cf. [31],
and [36]), with an underlying ultrafilter theoretic approach (cf. [26], [16] and [41])
and the inverse topology introduced by Hochster on arbitrary spectral spaces [36]
(definitions and properties used in the present paper will be recalled later in this
section).
As a starting point, we prove that S(R), when endowed with the hull-kernel
topology, is a new unconventional example of spectral space (after Hochster), that
the inclusion map Spec(R) ֒→ S(R) is a spectral map, and that the assignment
R 7→ S(R) induces a contravariant functor. Next, we compare the spectral space
S(R) with the space X (R) consisting of all nonempty inverse-closed subspaces of
Spec(R), which has been introduced and studied in [20] to classify, from a topological point of view, distinguished classes of Krull closure operations, namely the e.a.b.
semistar operations and the stable semistar operations of finite type. In particular, we prove here that S(R) is a spectral retract of X (R) (Proposition 2.11) and
we characterize when S(R) is canonically homeomorphic to X (R), both in general
and when Spec(R) is a Noetherian space. In the general case, this happens under
the purely algebraic condition that the radical of every finitely generated ideal of
R is the radical of a principal ideal (Theorem 2.13) and, in the Noetherian space
case, when every prime ideal of R is the radical of a principal ideal (Corollary 2.14).
When R is a Bézout domain, we prove that S(R) is canonically homeomorphic both
to X (R) and to the space Overr(R) of the overrings of R endowed with the Zariski
topology (Corollary 3.3). When R is a Dedekind domain, S(R) is canonically homeomorphic to X (R) if and only if the ideal class group of R is torsion (Remark 3.5).
Each of the previous homeomorphisms can be interpreted as a topological “dual”
statement to Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz, providing a one-to-one correspondence, compatible with the natural orders, between inverse-closed subspaces of Spec(R) and
semigroup primes of R.
In the final section, we compare the space X (R) with the space S(R(T )) of
semigroup primes of the Nagata ring R(T ) (where T is an indeterminate over R).
In particular, we provide a canonical spectral embedding X (R) ֒→ S(R(T )) which
makes X (R) a spectral retract of S(R(T )) (Propositions 4.2 and 4.4).
In order to facilitate the reader, we recall next some preliminary notions and
results that will be used in the present paper.
1.1. Spectral spaces. A topological space is spectral (after M. Hochster [36]) if
it is homeomorphic to the prime spectrum of a (commutative) ring. While defined
in algebraic terms, this concept admits a purely topological characterization: a
topological space X is spectral if and only if it is T0 , quasi-compact, it admits a

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

3

basis of open and quasi-compact subspaces that is closed under finite intersections,
and every irreducible closed subset of X has a (unique) generic point (i.e., it is the
closure of a one-point set) [36]. If X and Y are spectral spaces, a spectral map
f : X → Y is a map such that f −1 (U ) is a quasi-compact open subspace of X, for
each quasi-compact open subspace U of Y ; spectral maps are the morphisms in the
category having the spectral spaces as objects.
It is well known that the prime spectrum of a commutative ring endowed with
the Zariski topology is always T0 , but almost never Hausdorff (it is Hausdorff if and
only if the ring has Krull dimension zero). Thus, many authors have considered a
finer topology on the prime spectrum of a ring, known as the constructible topology
[31, pages 337-339] or as the patch topology [36].
As in [55], we introduce the constructible topology by a Kuratowski closure operator: if X is a spectral space, for each subset Y of X, we set:
T
Clcons (Y ) := {U ∪(X \V ) | U and V open and quasi-compact in X,
U ∪(X \V ) ⊇ Y } .

We denote by X cons the set X, equipped with the constructible topology. For
Noetherian topological spaces, the closed sets of this topology coincide with the
“constructible sets” classically defined in [8]. It is well known that X cons is a spectral
space and that the constructible topology is a refinement of the given topology which
is always Hausdorff.

1.2. The inverse topology on a spectral space. Recall that the given topology
on a spectral space X induces a canonical partial order ≤X , denoted simply by ≤
when no danger of confusion can arise, defined by x ≤X y if y ∈ Cl({x}), for x, y ∈
X, where Cl(Y ) denotes the closure of a subset Y of X. The set Y gen := {x ∈ X |
y ∈ Cl({x}), for some y ∈ Y } is called closure under generizations of Y . Similarly,
using the opposite order, the set Y sp := {x ∈ X | x ∈ Cl({y}), for some y ∈ Y }
is called closure under specializations of Y . We say that Y is closed under generizations (respectively, closed under specializations) if Y = Y gen (respectively, Y =
Y sp ). It is straightforward that, for two elements x, y in a spectral space X, we
have:
x ≤ y ⇔ {x}gen ⊆ {y}gen ⇔ {x}sp ⊇ {y}sp .
Given a spectral space X, Hochster [36, Proposition 8] introduced a new topology
on X, that we call here the inverse topology, by defining a Kuratowski closure
operator, for each subset Y of X, as follows:
\
Clinv (Y ) := {U | U open and quasi-compact in X, U ⊇ Y } .

If we denote by X inv the set X equipped with the inverse topology, Hochster proved
that X inv is still a spectral space and the partial order on X induced by the inverse topology is the opposite order of that induced by the given topology on
gen
X [36, Proposition 8]. In particular, the closure under generizations
of
T {x}
gen
a singleton is closed in the inverse topology of X, since {x}
= {U | U ⊆
X quasi-compact and open, x ∈ U }. On the other hand, it is trivial, by the definition, that the closure under specializations of a singleton {x}sp is closed in the
given topology of X, since {x}sp = Cl({x}).
Finally, recall that, by [17, Remark 2.2], we have Clinv (Y ) = (Clcons (Y ))gen . It
follows that each closed set in the inverse topology (called for short, inverse-closed )
is closed under generizations and, from [17, Proposition 2.6], that a quasi-compact

4

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

subspace Y of X closed for generizations is inverse-closed. On the other hand, the
closure of a subset Y in the given topology of X, Cl(Y ), coincides with (Clcons (Y ))sp
[17, Remark 2.2].
1.3. The spectral space of the inverse-closed subspaces. Given a spectral
space X, let X (X) := {Y ⊆ X | Y 6= ∅, Y = Clinv (Y )}, that is, X (X) is the set of
all nonempty subset of X that are closed in the inverse topology. If X = Spec(R)
for some ring R, we write for short X (R) instead of X (Spec(R)).
We define a Zariski topology on X (X) by taking, as subbasis (in fact, a basis)
of open sets, the sets of the form
U(Ω) := {Y ∈ X | Y ⊆ Ω},
where Ω varies among the quasi-compact open subspaces of X. Note that ∅ =
6 Ω∈
U(Ω), since a quasi-compact open subset Ω of X is a closed in the inverse topology
of X. Note also that, when X = Spec(R), for some ring R, a generic basic open
set of the Zariski topology on X (R) is of the form
U (D(J)) = {Y ∈ X (R) | Y ⊆ D(J)},
where J is any finitely generated ideal of R, and, as usual,
V(J) := {P ∈ Spec(R) | J ⊆ P }

and

D(J) := Spec(R) \ V(J) .

It was proved in [20, Theorem 3.2] that:
(1) the space X (X), endowed with the Zariski topology, is a spectral space;
(2) the canonical map ϕ : X ֒→ X (X), defined by ϕ(x) := {x}gen , for each
x ∈ X, is a spectral embedding (and, in particular, an order-preserving
embedding between ordered sets, with the ordering induced by the Zariski
topologies).
1.4. Semistar operations. Let D be an integral domain with quotient field K.
Let F (D) (respectively, F (D); f (D)) be the set of all nonzero D–submodules of K
(respectively, nonzero fractional ideals; nonzero finitely generated fractional ideals)
of D (thus, f (D) ⊆ F (D) ⊆ F (D)).
A mapping ⋆ : F (D) −→ F (D), E 7→ E ⋆ , is called a semistar operation of D
if, for all z ∈ K, z 6= 0 and for all E, F ∈ F (D), the following properties hold:
(⋆1 ) (zE)⋆ = zE ⋆ ; (⋆2 ) E ⊆ F ⇒ E ⋆ ⊆ F ⋆ ; (⋆3 ) E ⊆ E ⋆ ; and (⋆4 ) E ⋆⋆ := (E ⋆ )⋆ =
E ⋆ . We denote the set of all semistar operations on D by SStar(D).
Given a semistar operation ⋆ on D, a nonzero ideal I of D is called a quasi-⋆-ideal
if I = I ⋆ ∩ D. A quasi-⋆-prime is a quasi-⋆-ideal which is also a prime ideal. The
set of all quasi-⋆-prime ideals of D is denoted by QSpec⋆ (D). The set of maximal
elements in the set of proper quasi-⋆-ideals of D (ordered by set-theoretic inclusion)
is denoted by QMax⋆ (D) and it is a subset of QSpec⋆ (D).
A semistar operation ⋆ is of finite type if, for every E ∈ F (D),
[
E ⋆ = {F ⋆ | F ⊆ E, F ∈ f (D)}.
It is well known that if ⋆ is a semistar operation of finite type then QMax⋆ (D) is
nonempty [24, Lemma 2.3(1)].
For more details on semistar operations see, for instance, [14], [15], [32], [33],
[42], and [46]; for the case of star operations see, for instance, [1], [2], [3], [13] and
[28].
The set of all semistar operations of finite type is denoted by SStarf (D).

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

5

In [21], the set SStar(D) of all semistar operation was endowed with a topology
(called the Zariski topology) having, as a subbasis of open sets, the sets of the type
VE := {⋆ ∈ SStar(D) | 1 ∈ E ⋆ }, where E is a nonzero D-submodule of K.
This topology makes SStar(D) into a quasi-compact T0 space, and SStarf (D) into
a spectral space.
1.5. Spectral semistar operations. Let D be a domain and Y ⊆ Spec(D) be
nonempty. The semistar operation sY is defined as the map such that
\
E sY = {EDP | P ∈ Y } for every E ∈ F (D).

The semistar operations on D that can be written as sY , for some Y , are called spectral ; the set of all finite type spectral semistar operations, denoted by ^
SStar(D),
is a spectral space [19, Theorem 4.6]. By [21, Corollary 4.4], sY is of finite type if
and only if Y is quasi-compact, as a subspace of Spec(D), endowed with the Zariski
topology (see also [22] and [32]).
There is a canonical map
e : SStar(D) −→ ^
Φ
SStar(D)
⋆ 7−→ e
⋆,

where e
⋆ is defined as the map such that, for every E ∈ F (D),
S
{(E : J) | J nonzero finitely generated ideal of D
E e⋆ :=
such that J ⋆ = D⋆ }.
e is a topological retraction [19, Proposition 4.3(2)]; in particular, ⋆ = e
The map Φ
⋆
if and only if ⋆ is spectral and of finite type [22, Corollary 3.9(2)].
The space ^
SStar(D) can also be seen as a natural “extension” of Spec(D), since
the canonical map s : Spec(D) ֒→ ^
SStar(D), defined by P 7→ s{P } , is a topological
embedding.
An alternative way to see the space ^
SStar(D) is through the space X (D) recalled in Section 1.3. By [20, Proposition 5.2], we have the following.
• The map s♯ : X (D) → ^
SStar(D), defined by Y 7→ sY , and the map ∆ :
^
SStar(D) → X (D), defined by ⋆ 7→ QSpec⋆ (D), are homeomorphisms and
are inverse of each other.
• If ϕ : Spec(D) ֒→ X (D) is the canonical embedding defined in 1.3(2), then
s♯ ◦ ϕ = s.
Remark 1.1. Let ⋆ be a semistar operation of finite type on the integral domain
D. It is well known that QMax⋆ (D) = QMaxe⋆ (D) and e
⋆ = sQSpec ⋆(D) = sQMax⋆(D) =
sQMax⋆e (D) [24, Lemma 2.4 and Corollaries 2.7 and 3.5]. Moreover, since QSpece⋆ (D) is
closed in the inverse topology of Spec(D) and the maps ∆, s♯ are homeomorphisms
(see above), it follows that Clinv (QSpec⋆ (D)) = QSpece⋆ (D). Therefore, by [21,
Proposition 5.8], we also have
e
⋆ = sClinv (QSpec ⋆ (D)) = sQSpec⋆e (D) .

6

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

1.6. The set of overrings of an integral domain. Let Overr(D) be the set
of all overrings of D, endowed with the topology whose basic open sets are of the
form B(x1 , x2 , . . . , xr ) := Overr(D[x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ]), for x1 , x2 , . . . , xn varying in K
[58, Ch. VI, §17]. For recent investigations on topological spaces of overrings of an
integral domain see, for instance, [18], [19], [47], [48], [49], [50].
It is known that:
(1) The topological space Overr(D) is a spectral space [16, Proposition 3.5]
and the map ι : Overr(D) ֒→ SStarf (D), defined by ι(T ) := ∧{T } , for each
T ∈ Overr(D), is a topological embedding [21, Proposition 2.5].
(2) The map π : SStarf (D) → Overr(D), defined by π(⋆) := D⋆ , for any
⋆ ∈ SStarf (D), is a topological retraction [18, Proposition 3.2].
2. The space of semigroup primes
Let R be a ring. The purpose of the present section is to investigate a natural
spectral extension of Spec(R) which is intermediate between Spec(R) and X (R),
namely the embeding of the prime spectrum into the set of semigroup primes.
Using the terminology of [47], we recall the following definition:
Definition 2.1. A semigroup prime is a nonempty proper subset Q of a ring R
such that:
(a) for each r ∈ R and for each π ∈ Q, rπ ∈ Q;
(b) for all σ, τ ∈ R \ Q, στ ∈ R \ Q.
Obviously, every prime ideal of R is also a semigroup prime of R.S More generally,
if Y is a nonempty collection of prime ideals of R, then P(Y ) := {P ∈ Spec(R) |
P ∈ Y } is a semigroup prime of R. A more precise result is given next.
Lemma 2.2. Let Q be a proper subset of a ring R. Then, Q is a semigroup prime
of R if and only if there exists a nonempty collection of prime ideals Y of R such
that Q = P(Y ).
Proof. We just need to prove the “only if” part. For each semigroup prime Q of
R, R \ Q is a multiplicatively closed subset of R and it is also saturated, since if
αβ ∈ R \ Q then, from (a) of the previous definition, it follows immediately that
both α and β belong to R \ Q. Since a saturated multiplicatively closed set is the
complement of the union of prime ideals [39, Theorem 2], if Y is a nonempty set of
prime ideals of R such that R \ P(Y ) coincides with the saturated multiplicatively
closed set R \ Q, then Q = P(Y ).

Let S(R) := {Q | Q is a semigroup prime of R}. As in [47, (2.3)], the set S(R)
can be endowed with a hull-kernel topology, by taking as a basis for the open sets
the subsets
U (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) := {Q | xi ∈
/ Q for some i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n} ,
where x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ∈ R.
Proposition 2.3. Let R be a ring.
(1) The set S(R) of semigroup primes of R with the hull-kernel topology is a
spectral space.
(2) The collection of sets {U (x) | x ∈ R} is a basis of open and quasi-compact
subspaces of S(R).

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

7

(3) The set theoretic inclusion i : Spec(R) ֒→ S(R) is a spectral embedding.
Proof. (1) Since R \ Q is a saturated multiplicative set of R for each Q ∈ S(R),
then U (xy) = U (x) ∩ U (y) for each pair x, y ∈ R. By definition, it follows easily
that a basis of open sets for S(R) is given by {U (x) | x ∈ R}.
By [16, Corollary 3.3], to show that S(R) is a spectral space it suffices to show
that, for any ultrafilter U on S(R), the set
{Q ∈ S(R) | ∀x ∈ R, Q ∈ U (x) ⇔ U (x) ∈ U }
is nonempty. Set QU := {r ∈ R | S(R) \ U (r) ∈ U }. An easy argument shows
that QU is a semigroup prime of R. Moreover, by definition, for each x ∈ R,
QU ∈ U (x) if and only if U (x) ∈ U .
(2) By [16, Propositions 2.11, 3.1(3,b) and 3.2], the sets U (x) are clopen, with
respect to the constructible topology of S(R) and, a fortiori, they are quasi-compact
with respect to the hull-kernel topology.
(3) The conclusion follows from the fact that the hull-kernel topology of S(R)
induces the Zariski topology on Spec(R), since i−1 (U (x)) = U (x)∩Spec(R) = D(x)
and from the fact that i(D(x)) = U (x) ∩ i(Spec(R)), for each x ∈ R.

Remark 2.4. Let S be a semigroup. A prime ideal of S is a nonempty proper
subset I ⊆ S such that xs ∈ I for every x ∈ I, s ∈ S and such that st ∈ S \ I
for every s, t ∈ S \ I (see, for example, [30, 40]). Under this terminology, a prime
semigroup of a ring R is just a prime ideal of the multiplicative semigroup (R, ·).
The topology we introduced above in the case of prime semigroups of a ring
can be extended naturally to the set S(S) of the prime ideals of the semigroup S;
likewise, the proof of Proposition 2.3(1) can be transferred verbatim to the case of
semigroups, showing the slightly more general result that S(S) is a spectral space.
Remark 2.5. The subspace Spec(R) of S(R) is dense in S(R). In fact, the closure
of Spec(R) is the set of all Q ∈ S(R) containing the nilradical of R, which is S(R)
(since each Q contains at least one prime P ∈ Spec(R)).
Following [31, Définition (2.6.3)], recall that a subset X0 of a topological space
X is said to be very dense in X if, for any open sets U, V ⊆ X, the equality
U ∩X0 = V ∩X0 implies U = V , that is, in our setting, if the map U 7→ U ∩Spec(R),
from the open subsets of S(R) to the open subsets of Spec(R), is injective. Under
this terminology, Spec(R) is not very dense in S(R). For instance, consider a 1dimensional Bézout domain D with exactly two maximal ideals, say M and N .
Then, S(D) has a maximal element (namely M ∪ N ) that is a closed point but
does not belong to Spec(D).
Given a ring homomorphism f : R1 → R2 , we can canonically associate to f a
map
(1)

S(f ) : S(R2 ) −→ S(R1 )
Q 7−→ f −1 (Q).

We investigate next the properties of this map.
Proposition 2.6. Let f : R1 → R2 be a ring homomorphism, let S(f ) be the map
defined above and let f a : Spec(R2 ) → Spec(R1 ) be the continuous map canonically
associated to f . Assume that S(R1 ) and S(R2 ) are endowed with the hull-kernel
topology. Then:

8

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

(1) S(f ) is well-defined, (continuous) and spectral;
(2) if ik : Spec(Rk ) −→ S(Rk ) is the set-theoretic inclusion (k = 1, 2), then
S(f ) ◦ i2 = i1 ◦ f a ;
(3) the assignment R 7→ S(R), f 7→ S(f ), is a functor from the category of
rings to the category of spectral spaces.
Proof. (1) Let Q be a semigroup prime of R2 , let r ∈ R1 and π ∈ f −1 (Q). Then,
f (πr) = f (π)f (r) ∈ f (r)Q ⊆ Q, so that rπ ∈ f −1 (Q); moreover, if σ, τ ∈
/ f −1 (Q),
then f (σ), f (τ ) ∈
/ Q and thus f (σ)f (τ ) ∈
/ Q, that is, στ ∈
/ f −1 (Q). Hence, S(f ) is
well-defined. Moreover, S(f )−1 (U (x)) = U (f (x)) for each x ∈ R1 , and thus S(f )
is continuous. By the last part of Proposition 2.3(1), the collection {U (y) | y ∈ A}
is a basis of quasi-compact subsets of S(A), for any ring A. Thus, the previous
reasoning implies that S(f ) is a spectral map.
(2) is straightforward.
(3) follows from the previous points and the fact that, given two ring homomorphisms f : R1 → R2 and g : R2 → R3 , S(g ◦ f ) = S(f ) ◦ S(g), which is a direct
consequence of the definitions.

We now start the study of the relationship between the spectral spaces S(R)
and X (R).
Proposition 2.7. Let R be a ring.
(1) For each Q ∈ S(R), set ΣQ := R \ Q and RQ := Σ−1
Q R. The map
j : S(R) −→ X (R)
Q 7−→ λa (Spec(RQ )),
where λa : Spec(RQ ) → Spec(R) is the spectral map associated to the localization homomorphism λ : R → RQ , is a topological embedding. Moreover,
j(Q) = {P ∈ Spec(R) | P ⊆ Q}, for each Q ∈ S(R).
(2) The canonical spectral embedding ϕ : Spec(R) ֒→ X (R) [20, Theorem
3.3(2)] coincides with j ◦ i.
Proof. (1) The map j is clearly injective. In order to prove that j is continuous we
have to verify that, given a nonzero finitely generated ideal J of R, then
H := j −1 (U (D(J))) = {Q ∈ S(R) | j(Q) ⊆ D(J)}
is open in S(R). Take a point Q ∈ H and assume that J ⊆ Q. Then J is disjoint
from ΣQ , and thus there exists a prime ideal P of R disjoint from ΣQ and such that
J ⊆ P . On the other hand, keeping in mind that Q ∈ H and P ∩ ΣQ = ∅, we have
P ∈ j(Q) ⊆ D(J), contradiction. This shows that J * Q, and thus there exists an
element x ∈ J \ Q. It follows that Q ∈ U (x) and, moreover, U (x) ⊆ H. Since
{U (x) | x ∈ R} is a basis of open sets for S(R), it follows that H is open and j
is continuous. Now, the fact that j is a topological embedding follows immediately
from the equality j(U (x)) = j(S(R)) ∩ U(D(x)) that holds for each x ∈ R.
For the last statement, we have P ∈ λa (Spec(RQ )) if and only if P ∩ ΣQ = ∅,
i.e., if and only if P ⊆ Q.
(2) is a straightforward consequence of the definitions.

Proposition 2.8. Let f : R1 → R2 be a ring homomorphism, f a : Spec(R2 ) →
Spec(R1 ) the associated map of spectra, S(f ) the map defined in (1), X (f a ) :
X (R2 ) → X (R1 ) the spectral map defined in [20, Proposition 4.1] and let ik :

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

9

Spec(Rk ) → S(Rk ) (respectively, jk : S(Rk ) → X (Rk )) the spectral embedding
defined in Proposition 2.3 (respectively, Proposition 2.7), for k = 1, 2. Then, the
diagram:

(2)

i

j2

i

j1

Spec(R2 ) −−−2−→ S(R2 ) −−−−→ X (R2 )






S(f )y
X (f a )y
f ay

Spec(R1 ) −−−1−→ S(R1 ) −−−−→ X (R1 )

commutes.

Proof. The left square of (2) commutes by Proposition 2.6(2).
Let now Q ∈ S(R2 ). Then, using Proposition 2.7(1),
j1 ◦ S(f )(Q) = j1 (f −1 (Q)) = {P | P ⊆ f −1 (Q)},
while

X (f a ) ◦ j2 (Q) =
=
=

X (f a ) ({P | P ⊆ Q})
gen
(f a ({P | P ⊆ Q})) 
gen
{f −1 (P ) | P ⊆ Q}
.

Let Q ∈ Spec(R1 ). If Q ∈ X (f a ) ◦ j2 (Q), then Q ⊆ f −1 (P ) for some P ⊆ Q;
hence, Q ⊆ f −1 (Q) and Q ∈ j1 ◦ S(f )(Q).
Conversely, suppose Q ∈ j1 ◦ S(f )(Q), then Q ⊆ f −1 (Q). Therefore, f (Q) ⊆ Q
and so f (Q)R2 ∩ ΣQ = ∅, where ΣQ := R2 \ Q. It follows that f (Q)R2 extends
to a proper ideal of Σ−1
Q R2 , and in particular there is a prime ideal P of R2 such
−1
that f (Q) ⊆ P and Σ−1
Q P 6= ΣQ R2 . Therefore, P ⊆ Q. It follows that Q ⊆
−1
−1
−1
f (f (Q)) ⊆ f (P ) (⊆ f (Q)), and so Q ∈ X (f a ) ◦ j2 (Q). Therefore, also the
right square of (2) commutes.

It is obvious that, if f is an isomorphism, S(f ) is a homeomorphism. The
converse does not hold; for example, if R1 ⊂ R2 is a proper integral extension of
one-dimensional local domains, then S(f ) (like f a and X (f a )) is a homeomorphism,
but f is not an isomorphism. More generally, we have:
Corollary 2.9. Let f : R1 → R2 be a ring homomorphism, and let f a : Spec(R2 ) →
Spec(R1 ) be the associated spectral map. If f a is a topological embedding (respectively, a homeomorphism) then so is S(f ).
Proof. If f a is a topological embedding then, by [20, Proposition 4.4(1)], so is
X (f a ), and thus also X (f a ) ◦ j2 is a topological embedding. By Proposition 2.8,
it follows that j1 ◦ S(f ) is a topological embedding, and thus so is S(f ).
If f a is a homeomorphism, then by the previous
paragraph S(f ) is a topological
S
embedding. Let Q ∈ S(R1 ), and let L := {rad(f (P )R2 ) | P ⊆ Q}. Since f a is
a homeomorphism, rad(f (P )R2 ) is a prime ideal of R2 (since the irreducible closed
V(P ) subspace of Spec(R1 ) is homeomorphic to V(rad(f (P )R2 )) in Spec(R2 )), and
so L is a prime semigroup. We claim that S(f )(L ) = Q. Clearly if q ∈ Q then
f (q) ∈ L , and q ∈ f −1 (L ) = S(f )(L ). Conversely, if q ∈ S(f )(L ), then f (q)n ∈
f (P )R2 for some P ⊆ Q and for some n ≥ 1. Hence q n ∈ f −1 (f (P )R2 ) = P , the
last equality coming from the bijectivity of f a . Thus, q ∈ P ⊆ Q. Therefore, S(f )
is surjective, and thus a homeomorphism.

Remark 2.10. Despite the similarity between the properties enjoyed by X (R) and
S(R), there is however a significant difference: while X (R) is a purely topological

10

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

construction (depending only on the topology of Spec(R), see [20, Theorem 3.2 and
Corollary 4.9]), S(R) depends also on the algebraic properties of R. In particular,
S(R), in contrast with X (R) [20, Theorem 4.5] cannot be obtained from Spec(R)
alone through a universal property. We provide now an example of this fact, and
another example will be given later (Example 3.4).
Unlike in the case of X (R) [20, Proposition 4.4], the image of Spec(R) in S(R)
cannot be determined uniquely by topological means. For example, let R be a
unique factorization domain, and let P(R) be the set of equivalence classes of prime
elements of R modulo multiplication by units. Any prime semigroup in S(R) is
uniquely determined by the prime elements that it contains, and thus there is a
bijective correspondence between S(R) and the power set B := B(P(R)) of P(R),
which becomes a homeomorphism if we take, as a subbasis for B, the family of
the subsets of B of the form V (p) := {B ∈ B | p ∈
/ B}, as p runs in P(R).
In particular, the topology of S(R) depends uniquely on the cardinality of P(R),
and thus it does not depend on other properties of R or Spec(R): for example, it
does not depend on the dimension of R. Hence, by cardinality reasons, there exists
a homeomorphism S(Z) ≃ S(Z[X]), but j(Spec(Z)) and j(Spec(Z[X])) are not
homeomorphic, and so they do not correspond under any homeomorphism between
S(Z) and S(Z[X]).
We prove next that the spectral space S(R) is a retract of the spectral space
X (R).
Proposition 2.11. Let R be a ring, j : S(R) → X (R) the canonical embedding
defined in Proposition
2.7(1) and let P : X (R) → S(R) be the map defined by
S
setting P(Y ) := {P | P ∈ Y } for each Y ∈ X (R). Then:
(1) P is surjective and spectral;
(2) P ◦ j is the identity on S(R);
T
(3) for every Y ∈ X (R), (j ◦ P)(Y ) = {D(a) | Y ⊆ D(a)}.

Proof. (1) and (2). Let U (x) be a basic open set of S(R), with x ∈ R. Then,
P −1 (U (x))

=
=
=
=
=

{Y
{Y
{Y
{Y
{Y

∈ X (R) | P(Y ) ∈ U (x)} =
∈ X (R) | x ∈
/S
P(Y )}
∈ X (R) | x ∈
/ {P | P ∈ Y }}
∈ X (R) | x ∈
/ P for every P ∈ Y } =
∈ X (R) | Y ⊆ D(x)} = U (D(x))

which is a basic quasi-compact open set of X (R). Hence, P is (continuous and)
spectral.
The fact that P ◦ j is the identity on S(R) follows directly from Lemma 2.2 and
Proposition 2.7(1), and in particular it implies that P is surjective.
(3)
/ P for every P ∈ Y , and thus
S Let Y ∈ X (R). If Y ⊆ D(a), then a ∈
a∈
/ {P | P ∈ Y } = P(Y ). Hence, if Q ∈ (j ◦ P)(Y ) then a ∈
/ Q and so Q ∈ D(a).
Conversely, suppose Q belongs to the given intersection. If Q ∈
/ (j ◦ P)(Y ), then an
element q ∈ Q \ P(Y ) would exist. But this would imply Y ⊆ D(q) while Q ∈
/ D(q),
which is absurd.

Remark 2.12. As we observed at the beginning of the present section, we can
define P(Y ) := {P | P ∈ Y } for each nonempty subset Y of Spec(R). In this
case, we can show that if Y1 , Y2 ⊆ Spec(R) and if Clinv (Y1 ) ⊆ Clinv (Y2 ) then

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

11

P(Y1 ) ⊆ P(Y2 ). In particular, if Clinv (Y1 ) = Clinv (Y2 ), then P(Y1 ) = P(Y2 ),
hence P(Y ) = P(Clinv (Y )) for each nonempty subset Y of Spec(R).
As a matter of fact, let x ∈ R be such that x ∈ P(Y1 ) \ P(Y2 ). Then D(x)
contains Y2 , and it is a closed set, with respect to the inverse topology of Spec(R).
Thus, by assumption, D(x) ⊇ Clinv (Y2 ) ⊇ Clinv (Y1 ) ⊇ Y1 . On the other hand, since
x ∈ P(Y1 ), there exist a prime ideal P ∈ Y1 such that x ∈ P , and hence Y1 6⊆ D(x),
which is a contradiction.
In the next result, we characterize when the canonical embedding S(R) ֒→ X (R)
is a homeomorphism and, as a consequence, we deduce that, in general, there are
rings R and inverse-closed subspaces Y of Spec(R) such that Y ( (j ◦ P)(Y ).
Theorem 2.13. Let R be a ring. The following statements are equivalent.
(i) The canonical embedding j : S(R) ֒→ X (R) (defined in Proposition 2.7(1))
is a homeomorphism.
(ii) The radical of every finitely generated ideal of R is the radical of a principal
ideal.
S
(iii) If I is a finitely generated ideal of R and I ⊆ Q := {Qλ | λ ∈ Λ} ∈ S(R)
(where Qλ ∈ Spec(R) for each λ), then I ⊆ Qλ for some λ ∈ Λ.
(iv) A basis for the open sets for the Zariski topology of X (R) is given by the
collection {U (D(x)) | x ∈ R}.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). By Proposition 2.7(1), j is a homeomorphism if and only if it is
surjective. Suppose j is a homeomorphism, and suppose there is a nonzero finitely
generated ideal I such that rad(I) 6= rad(aR) for every a ∈ R. Consider Y := D(I):
then, Y is open and quasi-compact in the Zariski topology, and thus it is a closed
set in the inverse topology. Since j is surjective, there is a prime semigroup Q
such that Y = j(Q). Set ΣQ := R \ Q and RQ := Σ−1
Q R. Suppose I ⊆ Q: then,
IRQ 6= RQ , so that there is a prime ideal P such that I ⊆ P and P RQ 6= RQ .
Therefore, P ∈
/ D(I) = Y . On the other hand, P ⊆ Q, and thus P ∈ j(Q) = Y :
a contradiction. Henceforth, I 6⊆ Q, i.e., there exists an element s ∈ I ∩ ΣQ .
However, since the radical of the ideal sR cannot be equal to rad(I), and sR ⊆ I,
there is a prime ideal Q containing sR but not I. Hence, Q ∈ Y , while QRQ = RQ ,
and thus Q ∈
/ j(Q). Again, this conflicts with the assumptions, and so we conclude
that Y is not in the image of j.
(ii) ⇒ (iii). Let I be a nonzero finitely generated ideal of R and assume that
I ⊆ Q. ByShypothesis, rad(I) = rad(sR) for some s, and we can suppose s ∈ I.
Since I ⊆ {Qλ | λ ∈ Λ}, then s ∈ Qλ for some λ ∈ Λ and, hence, I ⊆ rad(I) =
rad(sR) ⊆ Qλ .
S
(iii) ⇒ (i). Let Y ∈ X (R), and let P(Y ) = {Qλ | λ ∈ Λ} ∈ S(R). We
claim that j(P(Y )) = Y . Clearly, Y ⊆ j(P(Y )) (Proposition 2.11(3)). On the
other hand, suppose P ∈ j(P(Y )) \ Y . Then, since Y = Clinv (Y ), there is a
basic closed set Ω = D(I) of the inverse topology on Spec(R), such that Y ⊆ Ω
but P ∈
/ Ω. Since Ω is quasi-compact in the Zariski topology, we can suppose I
finitely generated. The factSthat P ∈
/ D(I) implies I ⊆ P . On the other hand,
P ∈ j(P(Y )), hence P ⊆ {Q | Q ∈ Y }. Therefore, by hypothesis, there is a
Q ∈ Y (⊆ Ω) such that I ⊆ Q; but this would imply Q ∈
/ D(I), which is absurd.
Hence, Y is in the image of j, and so j is surjective.
Clearly, (ii)⇒(iv) since a basis for the open sets of X (R) is given by U (D(J)) for
J varying among the finitely generated ideals of R. Conversely, let J be a nonzero

12

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

finitely generated ideal of R. Since D(J) ∈ U (D(J)), by assumption there is an
element x ∈ R such that D(J) ∈ U (D(x)) ⊆ U (D(J)), that is, D(x) = D(J) and, in
other words, rad(xR) = rad(J).

An example where the previous theorem can be applied is when R contains an
uncountable field but its spectrum is only countable [54, Proposition 2.5].
In case Spec(R) is a Noetherian space, we have the following.
Corollary 2.14. Let R be a ring. The following statements are equivalent.
(i) The canonical embedding j : S(R) → X (R) is a homeomorphism and
Spec(R) is a Noetherian space.
(ii) Every prime ideal of R is the radical of aSprincipal ideal.
(iii) If I is an ideal of R and I ⊆ Q := {Qλ | λ ∈ Λ} ∈ S(R) (where
Qλ ∈ Spec(R) for each λ), then I ⊆ Qλ forSsome λ ∈ Λ.
(iv) If P is a prime ideal of R and P ⊆ Q := {Qλ | λ ∈ Λ} ∈ S(R) (where
Qλ ∈ Spec(R) for each λ), then P ⊆ Qλ for some λ ∈ Λ.
Proof. The equivalence of (i) and (ii) follows from the previous theorem, since
Spec(R) is Noetherian if and only if every radical ideal is the radical of a finitely
generated ideal (see for instance [43] or [23, Theorem 3.1.11]). The equivalences
(ii) ⇔ (iii) ⇔ (iv) are due to W.W. Smith [56].

Remark 2.15. Rings verifying property (iii) of the previous corollary has been
called compactly packed in [53].
Remark 2.16. It is well known that the rings verifying the equivalent conditions
(ii)-(iv) of the previous corollary have Noetherian spectrum. On the other hand,
Theorem 2.13 implies that j is surjective for any Bézout domain and there are
examples of Bézout domains (or, even, valuation domains) R such that Spec(R) is
not Noetherian. Therefore, for an arbitrary ring R, conditions (ii) ⇔ (iii) ⇔ (iv) of
the previous corollary do not provide a characterization of when j : S(R) −→ X (R)
is a homeomorphism. In other words, the property that j : S(R) → X (R) is a
homeomorphism does not depend only on the topology of the spectrum of R, but
also on the algebraic structure of R.
Remark 2.17.
S (a) Let R be a ring. If T := {Qα | α ∈ A} is a nonempty subset of
S(R), then {Qα | α ∈ A} is a prime semigroup of R, and it is easily seen that it
is the supremum of T in S(R), with the order induced by the hull-kernel topology,
that is the set theoretic inclusion.
For investigating the existenceTof the infimum of T , we cannot argue in a dual
way, since the natural candidate {Qα | α ∈ A} is not, in general, a prime semigroup (for example, if P and Q are incomparable prime ideals of R, they are both
prime semigroups, but P ∩ Q is not). However, we can show that an infimum can
be determined in many cases. More precisely, let j : S(R) ֒→ X (R) be the topological embedding defined in Proposition 2.7(1). Then, the set j(T ) := {j(Qα ) |
α ∈ A} T
is a family of closed subsets in the inverse topology of Spec(R), and so if
CT := {j(Qα ) | α ∈ A} is nonempty (for instance, since X inv is compact, for
this assumption it suffices that the set of the j(Qα ) satisfies the finite intersection
property), then it still belongs to X (R), and it is the infimum of j(T ) in X (R).
We claim
S that CT = j(Q0 ) for some Q0 ∈ S(R). More precisely, we claim that
Q0 = {Q | Q ∈ CT }.

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

13

Indeed, if Q ∈ CT then Q ∈ j(Q0 ) by Proposition 2.7(1). Conversely, if P ∈
j(Q0 ), then P ⊆ Q0 ⊆ Qα for every α ∈ A, and thus (again, by Proposition 2.7(1))
P ∈ j(Qα ) for every α, i.e., P ∈ CT . Therefore, j(Q0 ) is the infimum of j(T ) in
j(S(R)), and since j is a homeomorphism between S(R) and its image in X (R), it
follows that Q0 is the infimum of T in S(R).
(b) From (a), it follow by construction that the topological embedding j :
S(R) ֒→ X (R) preserves the infimum, in the cases where it exists. However, the
embedding j in general does not preserve the supremum.
For example, let D be a local unique factorization domain of dimension 2, and
let Y1 , Y2 be two nonempty disjoint sets of prime ideals
S such that Y1 ∪ Y2 is the set
Spec1 (D) of prime ideals of height 1 of D. If Qi := {P | P ∈ Yi }, then j(Qi ) =
Yi ∪ {(0)}, and thus j(Q1 ) ∪ j(Q2 ) = Spec1 (D) ∪ {(0)} ( Spec(D). However,
Q1 ∪ Q2 is equal to the set of non-units of D, so that j(Q1 ∪ Q2 ) = Spec(D).
On the other hand, if {P1 , P2 , . . . , Pn } is a finite set of prime ideals (and thus, in
particular, of prime semigroups) of R, then j(P1 ∪ P2 ∪ · · · ∪ Pn ) = j(P1 ) ∪ j(P2 ) ∪
· · · ∪ j(Pn ). Indeed, by Proposition 2.7(1), Q ∈ j(P1 ∪ P2 ∪ · · · ∪ Pn ) if and only if
Q ⊆ P1 ∪ P2 ∪ · · · ∪ Pn and, by prime avoidance, this is equivalent to Q ⊆ Pi for
some i, and thus to Q ∈ j(Pi ) for some i.
3. The integral domain case
Let D be an integral domain, and recall that the set Overr(D) of the overrings
of R has a natural topological structure (see Section 1.6). Then, there is a natural
map
ℓ0 : Spec(D) −→ Overr(D)
P 7−→ DP ,
which is a topological embedding [9, Lemma 2.4]. We show next that S(D) admits
a similar interpretation with respect to Overr(D).
Proposition 3.1. Let D be an integral domain with quotient field K and let Overr(D)
be the set of the overrings of D, endowed with the Zariski topology.
(1) Let Q ∈ S(D) and set as above ΣQ := D \ Q and DQ := Σ−1
Q D. The map
ℓ : S(D) −→ Overr(D)
Q 7−→ DQ
is a topological embedding that extends the map ℓ0 defined above.
(2) The map
ω : Overr(D) −→ X (D)
∧{T }
T 7−→ QSpec ^
(D)

is a continuous map of spectral spaces. Moreover, if T ∈ Overr(D) and the
canonical embedding τ : D −→ T is flat, then ω(T ) = τ a (Spec(T )).
(3) The composition ω ◦ ℓ : S(D) ֒→ X (D) coincides with the topological embedding j defined in Proposition 2.7(1).
Proof. (1) Since {B(x) | x ∈ K} is a subbasis of open sets for Overr(D), to get
continuity of ℓ it suffices to prove that, if x ∈ K, then ℓ−1 (B(x)) is open in S(D).
Take a semigroup prime Q ∈ ℓ−1 (B(x)), and let d, s ∈ D with s ∈
/ Q such that

14

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

x = ds ∈ DQ . Then, we have Q ∈ U (s) ⊆ ℓ−1 (B(s−1 )) ⊆ ℓ−1 (B(x)), that is,
ℓ−1 (B(x)) is open in S(D).
To prove that ℓ is a topological embedding it is now sufficient to note that, for
any nonzero element f ∈ D, we have ℓ(U (f )) = ℓ(S(D)) ∩ B(f −1 ). The inclusion ⊆
is trivial. Conversely, if T ∈ ℓ(S(D)) ∩ B(f −1 ), then there are a semigroup prime Q
/Q
and elements d, s ∈ D such that s ∈
/ Q and f1 = ds ∈ DQ = T . It follows s = df ∈
and, a fortiori, by definition of semigroup prime, f ∈
/ Q. Then T ∈ ℓ(U (f )), and
thus the proof is complete.
(2) It is sufficient to note that ω is the composition of three continuous maps,
namely the topological embedding ι : Overr(D) ֒→ SStar(D) (defined, for each
overring T of D, by ι(T ) := ∧{T } [21, Proposition 2.5]), the continuous surjection
e : SStar(D) ։ ^
e
Φ
SStar(D) (defined, for each ⋆ ∈ SStar(D), by Φ(⋆)
:= e
⋆ [19,
∼
^
Proposition 4.3(2)]), and the homeomorphism ∆ : SStar(D) −
→ X (D) (defined,
for each ⋆ ∈ ^
SStar(D), by ∆(⋆) := QSpec⋆ (D) [20, Proposition 5.2(1)]).
∧{T }
Suppose T is flat over D. In order to show that QSpec ^
(D) = {Q ∩ D | Q ∈
∧{T }
Spec(T )} we observe that, even if T is not D-flat, the equality QSpec ^
(D) =
inv
∧{T }
Cl (QSpec
(D)) holds, in view of Remark 1.1, since ∧{T } is a semistar operation of finite type. Moreover, P ∈ QSpec∧{T } (D) if and only if P = P T ∩ D. Hence,
τ a (Spec(T )) = {Q∩D | Q ∈ Spec(T )} ⊆ QSpec∧{T } (D). Conversely, assuming that
T is D-flat, if P ∈ QSpec∧{T } (D) and if Q ∈ Spec(T ) and it is minimal over P T
then, by flatness, Q ∩ D = P [39, Section 1-6, Exercise 37] and so P ∈ τ a (Spec(T )).
(3) is a straightforward consequence of the definitions.

When we specialize our investigation to the class of Prüfer domains, we obtain
more precise statements.
Proposition 3.2. Let D be a Prüfer domain. Then, the chain of canonical maps
e

ι
Φ
∆
Overr(D) −→ SStarf (D) −→ ^
SStar(D) −→ X (D)

e is the identity. Moreover, the composition
is a chain of homeomorphisms, and Φ
e
∆ ◦ Φ ◦ ι coincides with the map ω defined in Proposition 3.1(2), and ω(T ) :=
QSpec∧{T } (D) for all T ∈ Overr(D).

Proof. The map ∆ : ^
SStar(D) → X (D) (defined by ∆(⋆) := QSpec⋆ (D) for each
⋆ spectral semistar operation of finite type on D) is a homeomorphism by [20,
Proposition 5.2(1)].
Since D is a Prüfer domain, each of its overrings is D-flat [23, Theorem 1.1.1].
e ◦ ι : Overr(D) −→ ^
]
Then, the canonical map Φ
SStar(D), T 7→ ∧{T } = ∧
{T } , is a
topological embedding (proof of Proposition 3.1(2) or [21, Proposition 2.5]).
We need to show that SStarf (D) = ^
SStar(D). Indeed, if ⋆ ∈ SStarf (D), then
the domain D⋆ , as an overring of a Prüfer domain, is still a Prüfer domain. Hence,
⋆
⋆
^
∧{D⋆ } = ∧
{D⋆ } , since D is D-flat, and D admits a unique star operation of finite
⋆
type. It follows that ⋆|F (D⋆ ) : F (D ) → F (D⋆ ) is the identity star operation of
D⋆ . On the other hand note that, for each F ∈ f (D),
F ⋆ = (F D)⋆ = (F D⋆ )⋆ = F D⋆ .
Therefore, we have ⋆ = ∧{D⋆ } and so ι is surjective.

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

15

e ◦ ι holds in general (see the proof of Proposition 3.1(2))
The equality ω = ∆ ◦ Φ
]
and the last claim follows from the fact that ∧{T } = ∧
{T } , since every overring T
of the Prüfer domain D is D-flat.

Recall that an integral domain D is a QR-domain if each overring of D is a ring
of fractions of D (for more details see, for example, [29] and [35]). For example, a
Bézout domain is a QR-domain [28, page 250 Exercise 10(b)].
Corollary 3.3. Let D be a QR-domain. Then, the chain of maps
ℓ

ω

S(D) −→ Overr(D) −→ X (D)
is a chain of homeomorphisms.
Proof. By Proposition 2.7(3), ℓ is a topological embedding, and the hypothesis
that D is a QR-domain guarantees that ℓ is also surjective. Therefore, ℓ is a
homeomorphism. Since a QR-domain is – in particular – a Prüfer domain [28, p.
334], then we know from Proposition 3.2 that ω is a homeomorphism. The claim
follows.

Example 3.4. Consider a Dedekind domain D such that the class group Cl(D)
of D is not a torsion group (an explicit example is given by D := K[X, Y ]/(X 2 −
Y 3 + Y + 1), where K is an algebraically closed field; see [29, Sections 3 and 4]
and [52, page 146], and for a general result [27, Theorem 14.10]). Then, there is a
maximal ideal P of D such that the class [P ] has infinite order in Cl(D), i.e., P n
is never principal or, equivalently, no principal ideal is P -primary [27, Proposition
6.8]. Let Y := Spec(D) \ {P }: then, Y is closed in the inverse topology, since it is a
quasi-compact open subspace of Spec(D), endowed with the Zariski topology. We
claim that Y ∈
/ j(S(D)). If it was, say Y = j(Q), then Q ∈ S(D) must contain
every element of Y , but there must be an x ∈ P such that x ∈
/ Q. However, the
ideal xD is not P -primary, and so there also exists a prime ideal Q of D, Q 6= P ,
such that x ∈ Q. This contradicts Y = j(Q), and so j is not surjective.
On the other hand, if D′ is a principal ideal domain, then j ′ : S(D′ ) → X (D′ )
is surjective (Corollary 3.3). Moreover, we can always find a principal ideal domain
D′ such that the cardinality of Max(D′ ) is equal to the cardinality of Max(D) (it
suffices to take D′ := F [T ], where F is a field with the same cardinality of Max(D))
and T is an indeterminate over F . Then, Spec(D′ ) and Spec(D) are homeomorphic
(it is enough to take any bijection between Max(D′ ) and Max(D) then extend it to a
bijection ρ : Spec(D′ ) → Spec(D) such that ρ((0)) = (0)), but j ′ is surjective while
j is not.
Remark 3.5. Note that, by [53, Theorem 2.2], when R := D is a Dedekind domain,
the condition that the canonical map S(D) → X (D) is a homeomorphism and,
hence, the equivalent conditions of Corollary 2.14 are equivalent to the following:
(iv) The ideal class group of D is torsion.
(v) D is a QR-domain.
4. The space of semigroup primes of the Nagata ring
Our next goal is to show that, for each ring R, the spectral space X (R) can be
embedded in a space of prime semigroups of a different ring A: more precisely, we
will show that we can choose A to be the Nagata ring of R.

16

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

Recall that, given a ring R and an indeterminate T over R, the Nagata ring
R(T ) of R is the localization S −1 R[T ], where S is the multiplicative set of all
the primitive
S polynomials of R[T ]. It is well known [28, Proposition 33.1(1)] that
S = R[T ]\ {M [T ] | M ∈ Max(R)}. Let g : R ֒→ R(T ) be the canonical embedding.
For the sake of simplicity, we identify R with g(R) inside R(X). It is clear that
the spectral map g a : Spec(R(T )) → Spec(R) is surjective. For uses of Nagata
rings and related rings of rational functions in the context of star and semistar
operations, see [28], [24], [25], [4], [5], [6], [7], [12], [34], [38], [37] and [45].
Now, we consider another map γ : Spec(R) → Spec(R(T )) by setting γ(P ) :=
P R(T ) for each P ∈ Spec(R): this map is well-defined and injective (since IR(T ) ∩
R = I, for all ideals I of R [28, Proposition 33.1(4)]). Clearly, γ ◦ g a is the identity
map of Spec(R). Further properties are given next.
Lemma 4.1. Let γ : Spec(R) → Spec(R(T )) and g a : Spec(R(T )) → Spec(R) be
as above.
(1) The map γ is a spectral embedding and g a is a spectral retraction.
Let Y andSZ two nonempty subsets of Spec(R), and, for any X ⊆ Spec(R), let
Q(X) := {P R(T ) | P ∈ X} ⊆ R(T ).
(2) If Clinv (Y ) = Clinv (Z), then also Clinv (γ(Y )) = Clinv (γ(Z)).
(3) The equality Q(Y ) = Q(Z) holds if and only if Clinv (Y ) = Clinv (Z).
Proof. (1) Take a nonzero element f /p ∈ R(T ), where f, p ∈ R[T ] and p is primitive,
and write f := a0 + a1 T + . . . + an T n . For any prime ideal P of R, we have:
f
∈
/ P R(T ) ⇐⇒ f ∈
/ P R[T ] ⇐⇒ P + (a0 , a1 . . . , an )R,
p
 

that is, γ −1 D fp R(T ) = D((a0 , a1 , . . . , an )R). This proves that γ is (continuous

and) spectral. Moreover, for each x ∈ R we have γ(D(xR)) = D(xR(T )) ∩ Im(γ),
and thus γ is a topological embedding. The conclusion follows from the fact that
g a ◦ γ is the identity of Spec(R).
(2) Assume that Clinv (Y ) = Clinv (Z). By definition, a basis for closed sets for
the inverse topology of Spec(R(T )) is given by the quasi-compact open subspaces
of Spec(R(T )) (when endowed with the Zariski topology). Thus, we have to prove
that, for any nonzero finitely generated ideal J of R(T ), we have γ(Y ) ⊆ D(J) if
and only if γ(Z) ⊆ D(J). Let pf11 , pf22 , . . . , pfrr ∈ R(T ) be generators of the ideal J,
where fi , pi ∈ R[T ] and pi is primitive, for i = 1, 2, . . . , r, and let Ci be the content
of fi . Then γ(Y ) ⊆ D(J) if and only if for any P ∈ Y there is some index i such
/ P R(T ), that is fi ∈
/ P R[T ] = P R(T ) ∩ R[T ]. In other words, P + Ci ,
that pfii ∈
i.e., P ∈ D(Ci ). If we set C := C1 + C2 + . . . + Cr , the previous argument shows
that γ(Y ) ⊆ D(J) if and only if Y ⊆ D(C). Since C is a finitely generated ideal
of R, the set D(C) is a quasi-compact open subspace of Spec(R), and thus also
Z ⊆ D(C), because Y and Z have the same closure, with respect to the inverse
topology. Thus, any prime ideal Q of Z does not contain some coefficient of some
polynomial fi , and then pfii ∈
/ QR(T ), that is γ(Z) ⊆ D(J).
(3) If Clinv (Y ) = Clinv (Z) then Clinv (γ(Y )) = Clinv (γ(Z)), by part (2). Thus, the
equality Q(Y ) = Q(Z) holds by Remark 2.12. Conversely, assume that Q(Y ) =
Q(Z), and let J := (a0 , a1 , . . . , an )R be a nonzero finitely generated ideal of R.
We have to prove that Y ⊆ D(J) if and only if Z ⊆ D(J). Suppose that Y ⊆ D(J).

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

17

Then, if f := a0 + a1 T + . . . + an T n ∈ R[T ], we have f ∈
/ P R[T ] = P R(T ) ∩ R[T ],
/ Q(Y ) = Q(Z). In other words, f ∈
/ QR[T ], for each
for each P ∈ Y , that is f1 ∈
Q ∈ Z, i.e., Z ⊆ D(J).

Now, we are in condition to prove that the spectral space X (R) can be embedded
in the spectral space of prime semigroups of the Nagata ring R(T ).
Proposition 4.2. Let R be a ring, j : S(R) ֒→ X (R) the spectral embedding
defined in Proposition 2.7(1), g : R ֒→ R(T ) the canonical ring embedding and let
S(g) : S(R(T )) → S(R) be the spectral map associated to g defined in (1). Define
ν as the map
ν : X (R) −→ S(R(T ))
[
Y 7−→ {P R(T ) | P ∈ Y }.

The following properties hold.
(1) ν is a spectral embedding.
(2) S(g) ◦ ν ◦ j is the identity of S(R). In particular, S(g) : S(R(T )) → S(R)
is a topological retraction.
(3) If P : X (R) → S(R) is the map defined in Proposition 2.11, then P =
S(g) ◦ ν.

Proof. (1). By Lemma 4.1(3), the map ν is injective. Now, let 0 6= fp ∈ R(T ),
where f, p ∈ R[T ] and p is primitive and let C be the content of the polynomial f .
Then, using the notation of Lemma 4.1(3),
  
ν −1 U fp
= {Y ∈ X (R) | fp ∈
/ Q(Y )}
= {Y ∈ X (R) | f ∈
/ P R[T ] for all P ∈ Y } = U (D(C)).
This proves that ν is continuous and spectral. On the other hand, with similar
arguments, it can be shown that, given a0 , a1 , . . . , an ∈ R, if f := a0 + a1 T + . . . +
an T n ∈ R[T ] we have
 
f
ν (D(a0 , a1 , . . . an )) = Im(ν) ∩ U
,
1

that is, ν is a topological embedding.
(2) Let P ∈SS(R). Let Y be a nonempty set of prime ideals of RSsuch that
P = P(Y ) = {P ∈ Spec(R) | P ∈ Y } (Lemma 2.2). Set Q(Y ) := {P R(T ) |
P ∈ Y } ∈ S(R(T )). Recall that, for each prime ideal P ∈ Spec(R), P R(T ) ∩ R =
g −1 (P R(T )) = P [28, Proposition 33.1(4)]. Then,
S(g) ◦ ν ◦ j(P) =
=
=
=

S(g)(Q(Y
)) = g −1 (Q(Y ))
S
( {P R(T ) | P ∈ Y }) ∩ R
S
S ({P R(T ) | P ∈ Y } ∩ R)
{P ∈ Spec(R) | P ∈ Y } = P .

(3) Let Y ∈ X (R). Then, we have
(S(g) ◦ ν)(Y ) = g

−1

(ν(Y )) = g

−1

[

P ∈Y
−1

!

P R(T )

=

[

g −1 (P R(T )).

P ∈Y

However, as noted
S above, g (P R(T )) = P for every P ∈ Spec(R), and thus
(S(g) ◦ ν)(Y ) = {P | P ∈ Y }, which is exactly the definition of P(Y ).


18

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

We now introduce some notation that will be used in the following Remark 4.3
and Proposition 4.4, where we will show that, given a ring R, X (R) is a topological
retract of the spectral space S(R(T )).
If Q ∈ S(R(T )), then we set ΣQ := R(T ) \ Q, R(T )Q := Σ−1
Q R(T ). We denote
by g : R → R(T ) and λ1 : R(T ) → R(T )Q the canonical flat homomorphisms and
we set λ := λ1 ◦ g : R → R(T )Q .
Remark 4.3. In [11] the authors introduced and studied what they called the flat
topology on Spec(R), where R is any ring, by taking as closed subspaces the subset
ρa (Spec(R′ )) for ρ : R → R′ varying among the flat ring homomorphisms. By [11,
Theorem 2.2] the flat topology on Spec(R) coincides with the inverse topology.
We are in condition to give an explicit description of the S
inverse-closed subspaces
of Spec(R). Let Y ⊆ Spec(R), set as above Q(Y ) := {P R(T ) | P ∈ Y } ∈
S(R(T )). Then, it is straightforward to see that Q(Y ) = Q(λa (Spec(R(T )Q(Y ) ))),
where λ : R → R(T )Q(Y ) is the canonical flat embedding. Thus, in view of Lemma
4.1(3) and of the fact that the image of λa is closed in the inverse topology, being
λ flat, we have Clinv (Y ) = λa (Spec(R(T )Q(Y ) )). In particular, Y = Clinv (Y ) if and
only if Y = λa (Spec(R(T )Q(Y ) )).
Proposition 4.4. Let R be a ring. With the notation introduced above, the map
χ : S(R(T )) −→ X (R)
Q 7−→ λa (Spec(R(T )Q ))
is continuous and surjective. Moreover, if ν : X (R) ֒→ S(R(T )) is the spectral
embedding defined in Proposition 4.2(1), then χ ◦ ν is the identity on X (R).
Proof. Note that χ is well-defined by Remark 4.3, since, for any Q ∈ S(R(T )), the
canonical homomorphism λ : R → R(T )Q is flat. Let X (g a ) : X (R(T )) → X (R) be
the spectral map associated to the canonical flat ring embedding g : R → R(T ) and
defined by X (g a )(Y ) := g a (Y )gen = g a (Y ) = {g −1 (Q) | Q ∈ Y } = {Q ∩ R | Q ∈
Y }, for each Y ∈ X (R(T )) (see [20, Proposition 4.1] and [11, Proposition 2.7]).
Then, the map χ coincides with the composition of the topological embedding
j : S(R(T )) ֒→ X (R(T )) (Proposition 2.7(1)) with X (g a ). In fact,
(X (g a ) ◦ j)(Q) =
=
=

X (g a )({Q ∈ Spec(R(T )) | Q ⊆ Q})
X (g a )(λa (Spec(R(T ))Q )) = g a (λa (Spec(R(T )Q )))
X (λa )(Spec(R(T )Q )) = λa (Spec(R(T )Q ) = χ(Q)) .

Hence χ is continuous as a composition of continuous maps (Proposition 2.7(1) and
[20, Proposition 4.1]).
S
Let now Y ∈ X (R). Set, as usual, Q(Y ) := {P R(T ) | P ∈ Y }. Then, a
direct calculation shows that (χ ◦ ν)(Y ) is the canonical image of Spec(R(T )Q(Y ) )
into Spec(R), which is is clearly equal to Y (Remark 4.3). Therefore χ ◦ ν is the
identity. This implies that χ is surjective.

Remark 4.5. Given a ring R, there is another possible natural way to define a
continuous map S(R(T )) −→ X (R). Indeed, define χ′ as the map
χ′ : S(R(T )) −→ X (R)
Q 7−→ {P ∈ Spec(R) | g(P ) ⊆ Q}.

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

19

ϕ
X (ga )

Spec(R)

i

S(R)

jR
PR

X (R)

ν
χ

S(R(T ))

jR(T )
PR(T )

X (R(T ))

S(g)

Figure 1. Maps between S- and X -type spaces.
Clearly, χ(Q) ⊆ χ′ (Q), for each Q ∈ S(R(T )). Moreover, a direct calculation
shows that χ′ = j ◦ S(g), so that χ′ is continuous. Furthermore, by Proposition
4.2(3), we have
χ′ ◦ ν = j ◦ S(g) ◦ ν = j ◦ P.
Recall that χ◦ν is the identity on X (R) (Proposition 4.4) and, in general, χ′ ◦ν (=
j ◦ P) is not (Proposition 2.11(3)). We note that χ′ , unlike χ, is not surjective: for
example, let D be a 2-dimensional Noetherian local ring and let Spec1 (D) be the
set of the height-1 primes of D. Then, Z := Spec1 (D) ∪ {(0)} is inverse-closed in
Spec(D), and the maximal ideal M of D is contained in the union of the elements
of Z. Hence, M D(T ) ⊆ Q(Z), and thus M ∈ {P ∈ Spec(D) | g(P ) ⊆ Q(Z)} =
χ′ (Q(Z)). Therefore, χ′ (Q(Z)) = Spec(D). On the other hand, M ∈
/ χ(Q(Z)),
since Z = χ(Q(Z)), because Z is inverse-closed (Remark 4.3). We easily conclude
that Z is not in the range of χ′ . As a matter of fact, suppose there exists a semigroup
prime Q ⋆ of D(T ) such that Z = χ′ (Q ⋆ ) = {P ∈ Spec(D) | P ⊆ g −1 (Q ⋆ )}. Thus,
the union of all the prime ideals belonging to Z is contained in g −1 (Q ⋆ ) and, a
fortiori, M ⊆ g −1 (Q ⋆ ). It follows that M ∈ χ′ (Q ⋆ ) = Z, a contradiction.
Acknowledgment. The authors thank the referee for his/her thorough report and
highly appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions, which contributed to
improving the quality of the paper.
References
[1] D.D. Anderson, Star-operations induced by overrings, Comm. Algebra 16 (1988), 2535–2553.
[2] D.D. Anderson and D.F. Anderson, Examples of star operations on integral domains, Comm.
Algebra 18 (1990), 1621–1643.
[3] D.D. Anderson and S.M. Clarke, Star-operations that distribute over finite intersections,
Comm. Algebra 33 (2005), 2263–2274.
[4] G.W. Chang, ∗-Noetherian domains and the ring D[X]N∗ , J. Algebra 297 (2006), 216–233.
[5] G.W. Chang, Prüfer ∗-multiplication domains, Nagata rings, and Kronecker function rings,
J. Algebra 319 (2008), 309–319.
[6] G.W. Chang, The Kronecker function ring of the ring D[X]N∗ , Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 47
(2010), 907–913.
[7] G.W. Chang and B.G. Kang, Prüfer-like domains and the Nagata ring of integral domains,
Comm. Algebra 39 (2011), 4246–4258.
[8] C. Chevalley and H. Cartan, Schémas normaux; morphismes; ensembles constructibles,
Séminaire Henri Cartan 8 (1955-1956), Exp. No. 7, 1–10.
[9] D.E. Dobbs, R. Fedder, and M. Fontana, Abstract Riemann surfaces of integral domains and
spectral spaces. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4), 148 (1987), 101–115.
[10] D.E. Dobbs and M. Fontana, Kronecker function rings and abstract Riemann surfaces, J.
Algebra 226 (1986), 263–284.
[11] D.E. Dobbs, M. Fontana, and I.J. Papick, On the flat spectral topology. Rend. Mat. (7) 1
(1981), 559–578.

20

CARMELO A. FINOCCHIARO, MARCO FONTANA, AND DARIO SPIRITO

[12] D. Dobbs and P. Sahandi, On semistar Nagata rings, Prüfer-like domains and semistar goingdown domains, Houston J. Math. 37 (2011), 715–731.
[13] J. Elliott, Functorial properties of star operations, Comm. Algebra 38 (2010), 1466–1490.
[14] N. Epstein, A guide to closure operations in commutative algebra, in “Progress in commutative algebra, Closures, Finiteness and Factorization”, 2, (C. Francisco, L.C. Klingler, S.M.
Sather-Wagstaff, and J. Vassilev, Editors), 1–37, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2012.
[15] N. Epstein, Semistar operations and standard closure operations, Comm. Algebra 43 (2015),
325–336.
[16] C.A. Finocchiaro, Spectral spaces and ultrafilters, Comm. Algebra 42 (2014), 1496–1508.
[17] C.A. Finocchiaro, M. Fontana, and K. A. Loper, The constructible topology on spaces of
valuation domains, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 365 (2013), 6199–6216.
[18] C.A. Finocchiaro, M. Fontana, D. Spirito, New distinguished classes of spectral spaces: a
survey, in “Multiplicative Ideal Theory and Factorization Theory - Commutative and NonCommutative Perspectives” (S. Chapman, M. Fontana, A. Geroldinger, and B. Olberding,
Editors), Springer Verlag Publisher 2016 (to appear).
[19] C.A. Finocchiaro, M. Fontana and D. Spirito, Spectral spaces of semistar operations, J. Pure.
Appl. Algebra (2016, to appear).
[20] C.A. Finocchiaro, M. Fontana and D. Spirito, The space of inverse-closed subsets of a spectral
space is spectral, submitted.
[21] C.A. Finocchiaro and D. Spirito, Some topological considerations on semistar operations, J.
Algebra 409 (2014), 199–218.
[22] M. Fontana and J. Huckaba, Localizing systems and semistar operations, in “Non-Noetherian
Commutative Ring Theory” (Scott T. Chapman and Sarah Glaz, Editors), Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2000, pp. 169–198.
[23] M. Fontana, J.A. Huckaba and I.J. Papick, Prüfer domains, M. Dekker, New York, 1997.
[24] M. Fontana and K.A. Loper, Nagata rings, Kronecker function rings and related semistar
operations, Comm. Algebra 31 (2003), 4775–4805
[25] M. Fontana and K.A. Loper, An historical overview of Kronecker function rings, Nagata rings,
and related star and semistar operations, in “Multiplicative Ideal Theory in Commutative
Algebra: A Tribute to the Work of Robert Gilmer” (J.W. Brewer, S. Glaz, W. Heinzer, and
B. Olberding, Editors), 169–187, Springer, New York 2006.
[26] M. Fontana and K. A. Loper, The patch topology and the ultrafilter topology on the prime
spectrum of a commutative ring, Comm. Algebra 36 (2008), 2917–2922.
[27] R.M. Fossum, The divisor class group of a Krull domain, Springer, New York, 1973.
[28] R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory, M. Dekker, New York, 1972.
[29] R. Gilmer and J. Ohm, Integral domains with quotient overrings, Math. Ann. 153 (1964),
97–103.
[30] H. B. Grimble, Prime Ideals in Semigroups, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1950.
[31] A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonné, Éléments de Géométrie Algébrique I, IHES 1960;
Springer, Berlin, 1970.
[32] F. Halter-Koch, Localizing systems, module systems, and semistar operations, J. Algebra
238 (2001), 723–761.
[33] F. Halter-Koch, Multiplicative ideal theory in the context of commutative monoids, in “Commutative algebra, Noetherian and non-Noetherian perspectives”, 203–231, Springer, New
York, 2011.
[34] F. Halter-Koch, Kronecker function rings and generalized integral closures, Comm. Algebra
31 (2003), 45–59.
[35] W. Heinzer, Quotient overrings of integral domains, Mathematika 17 (1970), 139–148.
[36] M. Hochster, Prime ideal structure in commutative rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 142
(1969), 43–60.
[37] P. Jara, Nagata rings, Front. Math. China 10 (2015), 91–110.
[38] B.G. Kang, Prüfer v-multiplication domains and the ring R[X]Nv , J. Algebra 123 (1989),
151–170.
[39] I. Kaplansky, Commutative rings, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1970.
[40] J. Kist, Minimal prime ideals in commutative semigroups, Proc. London Math. Soc. 13
(1963), 31–50.

SEMIGROUP PRIMES OF A COMMUTATIVE RING

21

[41] K. A. Loper, The use of ultrafilters to study the structure of Prüfer and Prüfer-like rings,
in “Commutative algebra, Noetherian and non-Noetherian perspectives” (M. Fontana, S.-E.
Kabbaj, B. Olberding, I. Swanson, Editors), 319–333, Springer, New York, 2011.
[42] R. Matsuda, Note on spectral semistar operations of finite type, JP J. Algebra Number Theory
Appl. 22 (2011), 225–231.
[43] J. Ohm and R.L. Pendleton, Rings with Noetherian spectrum, Duke Math. J. 35 (1968),
631–639.
[44] A. Okabe, A note on semistar operations and localizing systems, JP J. Algebra Number
Theory Appl. 6 (2006), 149–174.
[45] A. Okabe and R. Matsuda, Kronecker function rings of semistar-operations, Tsukuba J. Math.
21 (1997), 529–540.
[46] A. Okabe and R. Matsuda, Semistar-operations on integral domains, Math. J. Toyama Univ.
17 (1994), 1–21.
[47] B. Olberding, Noetherian spaces of integrally closed rings with an application to intersections
of valuation rings, Comm. Algebra 38 (2010), no. 9, 3318–3332.
[48] B. Olberding, Intersections of valuation overrings of two-dimensional Noetherian domains.
in “Commutative algebra, Noetherian and non-Noetherian perspectives” (M. Fontana, S.-E.
Kabbaj, B. Olberding, I. Swanson, Editors), 335–361, Springer, New York, 2011.
[49] B. Olberding, On the geometry of Prüfer intersections of valuation rings, Pacific J. Math.
273 (2015), 353–368.
[50] B. Olberding, Affine schemes and topological closures in the Zariski-Riemann space of valuation rings, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 219 (2015), 1720–1741.
[51] D. Rees, On semi-groups, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Society 36 (1940), 387–400.
[52] D. Rees, On a problem of Zariski, Illinois J. Math. 2 (1958), 145–149.
[53] C.M. Reis and T.M. Viswanathan, A compactness property for prime ideals in Noetherian
rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1970), 353–356.
[54] R. Y. Sharp and P. Vámos, Baire’s category theorem and prime avoidance in complete local
rings, Archiv der Mathematik 44(3) (1985), 243–248.
[55] N. Schwartz and M. Tressl, Elementary properties of minimal and maximal points in Zariski
spectra, J. Algebra 323 (2010), 698–728.
[56] W.W. Smith, A covering condition for prime ideals, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 30 (1971), 451–452.
[57] M. H. Stone, Applications of the theory of Boolean rings to general topology, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 41 (1937), no. 3, 375–481.
[58] O. Zariski and P. Samuel, Commutative Algebra, Volume II, Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1960.
E-mail address:
finocchiaro@math.tugraz.at; fontana@mat.uniroma3.it; spirito@mat.uniroma3.it
C.A.F.: Institute of Analysis and Number Theory, University of Technology,
Steyrergasse 30/II, 8010 Graz, Austria
M.F.&D.S.: Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università degli Studi “Roma Tre”,
Largo San Leonardo Murialdo, 1, 00146 Roma, Italy

