arXiv:1312.1250v1 [] 4 Dec 2013

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS OF RING MORPHISMS
GABRIEL PICAVET AND MARTINE PICAVET-L’HERMITTE
Abstract. We characterize some types of FIP and FCP ring extensions R ⊂ S, where S is not an integral domain and R may
not be an integral domain, contrary to a general trend. In most of
the sections, S is a product of finitely many rings that are related
to R in various ways. A section is devoted to the case where S is
the idealization of an R-module. As a by-product we exhibit characterizations of the modules that have finitely many submodules.
Ring extensions of the form Rn ֒→ Rp associated to some matrices
are also considered. The paper ends with the FIP property of étale
morphisms. Our tools are minimal ring morphisms and seminormalization, while Artinian conditions on rings are ubiquitous.

1. Introduction and Notation
All rings R considered are commutative, nonzero and unital; all morphisms of rings are unital. Let R ⊆ S be a (ring) extension. The set
of all R-subalgebras of S is denoted by [R, S]. The extension R ⊆ S
is said to have FIP (for the “finitely many intermediate algebras property”) if [R, S] is finite. A chain of R-subalgebras of S is a set of
elements of [R, S] that are pairwise comparable with respect to inclusion. We say that the extension R ⊆ S has FCP (for the “finite
chain property”) if each chain of R-subalgebras of S is finite. It is
clear that each extension that satisfies FIP must also satisfy FCP. Our
main tool are the minimal (ring) extensions, a concept introduced by
Ferrand-Olivier [16]. Recall that an extension R ⊂ S is called minimal if [R, S] = {R, S}. The key connection between the above ideas
is that if R ⊆ S has FCP, then any maximal (necessarily finite) chain
R = R0 ⊂ R1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Rn−1 ⊂ Rn = S, of R-subalgebras of S,
with length n < ∞, results from juxtaposing n minimal extensions
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary:13B02, 13B21, 13B22; Secondary: 13E10, 13B30, 13B40, 05A18, 13F10.
Key words and phrases. ∆0 -extension, ∆-extension, quadratic extension, SPIR,
Idealization, Stirling number, crucial ideal, decomposed, inert, ramified extension,
flat epimorphism, FIP, FCP extension, minimal ring extension, infra-integral extension, integral extension, integrally closed, Artinian ring, seminormal, subintegral,
support of a module.
1

2

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Ri ⊂ Ri+1 , 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1. Following [21], the length of [R, S], denoted
by ℓ[R, S], is the supremum of the lengths of chains of R-subalgebras of
S. In particular, if ℓ[R, S] = r, for some integer r, there exists a maximal chain R = R0 ⊂ R1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Rr−1 ⊂ Rr = S of R-subalgebras of
S with length r. Against the general trend, we characterized arbitrary
FCP and FIP extensions in [13], a joint paper by D. E. Dobbs and
ourselves whereas most of papers on the subject are concerned with
extensions of integral domains. It is worth noticing here that FCP
extensions of integral domains are generally nothing but extensions of
overrings as a quick look at [9, Theorems 4.1,4.4] shows because FCP
extensions are composite of minimal extensions.
In this paper, we take the opposite way and consider the FCP or
FIP properties for special types of extensions, like K → K n where K
is a field. It is known that these extensions have FIP and actually
this example motivated us to study generalizations. These extensions
are integral and most of time seminormal within the meaning of Swan.
Problems arise when they are not seminormal, leading to the computation of seminormalizations. The seminal work on FIP and FCP by
R. Gilmer is settled for R-subalgebras of K (also called overrings of
R), where R is a domain and K its quotient field. In particular, [18,
Theorem 2.14] shows that R ⊆ S has FCP for each overring S of R
only if R/C is an Artinian ring, where C = (R : R) is the conductor
of R in its integral closure. This necessary Artinian condition is not
surprisingly present in all our results.
We now give a slight outline of our work, slight because results are
too technical to be discussed in an introduction.
Qn Roughly speaking, we
are concerned by product morphisms R → i=1 Ri that are extensions.
We will observe that results may depend on the value
n.
Qof
n
In Section 2, we look at diagonal extensions R ⊆ i=1 Ri , for some
finitely many FCP or FIP extensions R ⊆ Ri . When
Qn R ⊆ Ri has
FCP for each i, Proposition 2.11 asserts that R ⊆ i=1 Ri has FCP
if and only if R is an Artinian ring. The FIP condition is much
Qnmore
complicated. For instance, R has finitely many ideals if R ⊆ i=1 Ri
has FIP (Proposition 2.2). Moreover, R ⊆ R2 has FIP if and only if R
has finitely many ideals (Corollary 2.5).
n
QnSection 3 is concerned with extensions of the form R/ ∩j=1 Ij ⊆
j=1 (R/Ij ), where I1 , . . . , In are proper ideals of a ring R, not necessarily distinct. In particular, for n = 2, we get a generalization of the
Chinese Remainder Theorem.
Section 4 is devoted to diagonal extensions R ⊆ Rn . We get in
(Theorem 4.2) that R ⊆ Rn has FIP if and only if R has finitely many

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

3

ideals and n ≤ 2 as soon as there exists a maximal ideal M of R such
that RM is not a field and R/M is an infinite field. We show that Rn
may have different structures of Rp -algebras if p < n are two positive
integers, leading to different occurrences of FIP extensions Rp ֒→ Rn .
Section 5 is concerned with R-modules M over a ring R and ring
extensions R ⊆ R(+)M, where R(+)M is the idealization of M. The
main results are as follows. (Proposition 5.2) shows that R ⊆ R(+)M
has FCP if and only if the length of the R-module M is finite, while
(Proposition 5.4) says that R ⊆ R(+)M has FIP if and only if M has
finitely many R-submodules. This leads us to characterize R-modules
having finitely many R-submodules in Corollary 5.6. An R-module M,
with C := (0 : M), has finitely many submodules if and only if the
three following conditions are satisfied: M is finitely generated, R/C
has finitely many ideals and MP is cyclic for any prime ideal P of R
containing C such that R/P is infinite. Then Theorem 5.12 gives a
structure theorem for these modules that are faithful.
Etale morphisms are considered in Section 6, because separable algebraic extensions of fields are known to have FIP. In order to extend
this result, we have to add a seminormality condition that is trivial for
algebraic extensions.
Let R be a ring. As usual, Spec(R) (resp. Max(R)) denotes the set
of all prime ideals (resp. maximal ideals) of R. If I is an ideal of R,
we set VR (I) := {P ∈ Spec(R) | I ⊆ P }. If R ⊆ S is a ring extension
and P ∈ Spec(R), then SP is the localization SR\P and (R : S) is the
conductor of R ⊆ S. When there is no possible confusion, we denote
the integral closure of R in S by R. Recall that if E is an R-module, its
support SuppR (E) is the set of prime ideals P of R such that EP 6= 0
and MSuppR (E) := SuppR (E) ∩ Max(R). If E is an R-module, LR (E)
is its length. We will shorten finitely generated module into f.g. module.
Recall that a special principal ideal ring (SPIR) is a principal ideal ring
R with a unique nonzero prime ideal M = Rt, such that M is nilpotent
of index p > 0. Hence a SPIR is not a field. Each nonzero element
of a SPIR is of the form utk for some unit u and some unique integer
k < p. Finally, as usual, ⊂ denotes proper inclusion and |X| denotes
the cardinality of a set X.
We sum up the fundamental results on minimal extensions we need.
Theorem 1.1. [10], [15, Theorem 4.1], [16, Théorème 2.2 and Lemme
3.2] and [29, Proposition 3.2]. Let A ⊂ B be a minimal extension with
associated inclusion map f : A → B. Then:
(a) There is some M ∈ Max(A), called the crucial (maximal)
ideal of A ⊂ B, such that AP = BP for each P ∈ Spec(A) \ {M}. We

4

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

denote this ideal by C(A, B).
(b) The following three conditions are equivalent:
(1) There is a prime ideal in B lying over M;
(2) MB = M;
(3) f is (module-)finite.
(c) The conditions of (b) do not hold if and only if f is a flat epimorphism and then (A : B) is a common prime ideal of A and B that
is contained in M.
(d) There is a bijection Spec(B) \ VB (MB) → Spec(A) \ {M},
with VB (MB) = ∅ when f is a flat epimorphism. Moreover, for each
Q ∈ Max(B), either Q ∩ A ∈ Max(A) or Q = (A : B).
Three types of minimal integral extensions exist, given by the next
Theorem.
Theorem 1.2. [29, Theorem 3.3] Let R ⊂ T be a ring extension and
M := (R : T ). Then R ⊂ T is minimal and finite if and only if
M ∈ Max(R) and one of the following three conditions holds:
(a) inert case: M ∈ Max(T ) and R/M → T /M is a minimal field
extension;
(b) decomposed case: There exist M1 , M2 ∈ Max(T ) such that
M = M1 ∩M2 and the natural maps R/M → T /M1 and R/M → T /M2
are both isomorphisms;
(c) ramified case: There exists M ′ ∈ Max(T ) such that M ′ 2 ⊆
M ⊂ M ′ , [T /M : R/M] = 2 (resp. LR (M ′ /M) = 1), and the natural
map R/M → T /M ′ is an isomorphism.
In each of the above three cases, M is the crucial ideal of R ⊂ T .
We also need some results about seminormality and t-closedness that
we recall here.
Definition 1.3. An integral extension f : R ֒→ S is termed:
(1) infra-integral if all its residual extensions are isomorphisms [28].
(2) subintegral if f is infra-integral and a f is bijective [30].
A minimal morphism is ramified if and only if it is subintegral. Let
{R1 , . . . , Rn } be finitely many
Q infra-integral extensions of a ring R. It
is easy to show that R → ni=1 Ri is infra-integral. But this result is
no longer valid for subintegrality.
A ring extension R ⊆ S is called t-closed if b ∈ S, r ∈ R, b2 −
rb, b3 − rb2 ∈ R ⇒ b ∈ R [28]. Now, R ⊆ S is called seminormal if
b ∈ S, b2 , b3 ∈ R ⇒ b ∈ R [30]. If R ⊂ S is seminormal, (R : S) is
a radical ideal of S. The t-closure St R (resp. seminormalization +
S R) of
R in S is the smallest B ∈ [R, S] such that B ⊆ S is t-closed (resp.

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

5

seminormal). Moreover, St R (resp. +
S R) is the greatest B ∈ [R, S] such
that R ⊆ B is infra-integral (resp. subintegral). The chain R ⊆ +
SR ⊆
t R ⊆ S is called the canonical decomposition of R ⊆ S.
S
T-closure and seminormalization both commute with localization
at arbitrary multiplicatively closed subsets ([26, Proposition 3.6], [30,
Proposition 2.9]).
According to J. A. Huckaba and I. J. Papick [20], an extension R ⊆ S
is termed a ∆0 -extension provided each R-submodule of S containing
R is an element of [R, S], a quadratic extension if R + Rt ∈ [R, S] for
each t ∈ S, and a ∆-extension if R1 + R2 ∈ [R, S] for R1 , R2 ∈ [R, S].
By [20, Proposition 5], an extension is ∆0 if and only if this extension
is quadratic and ∆. We recall here for later use an unpublished result
of the Gilbert’s dissertation.
Proposition 1.4. [17, Proposition 4.12] Let R ⊆ S be a ring extension
with conductor I and such that S = R + Rt for some t ∈ S. Then the
R-modules R/I and S/R are isomorphic. Moreover, each of the Rmodules between R and S is a ring (and so there is a bijection from
[R, S] to the set of ideals of R/I).
We end this introduction with a new result that introduces and gives
the flavor of the next section.
Proposition 1.5. Let R be a commutative ring and n ≥ 2 a positive
integer. Then R ⊆ Rn has FCP if and only if R is an Artinian ring.
Proof. Assume that R ⊆ Rn has FCP and that there is an infinite chain
{Ij }j∈J of ideals of R. For each j ∈ J, set Sj := R + (0 × Ij ). Then,
{Sj }j∈J is an infinite chain of R-subalgebras of Rn , which is absurd.
Hence, any chain of ideals of R is finite and R is Artinian.
Conversely, R ⊆ Rn has a zero conductor and Rn is f.g. over R. Thus
R ⊆ Rn has FCP in view of [13, Theorem 4.2], if R is Artinian.

The following results will be useful.
Proposition 1.6. Let (R, M) be a local Artinian ring such that R/M
is infinite and R ⊆ S a ring extension with conductor C := (R : S).
(1) If R ⊂ S has FIP and is subintegral, then [R, S] is linearly
ordered.
(2) If R ⊆ S is finite, seminormal and infra-integral, then R ⊆ S
has FIP.
(3) If R ⊂ S is finite and infra-integral, then R ⊂ S has FIP if and
only if R ⊆ +
S R has FIP.
Proof. (1) There is no harm to assume that C = 0 because the map
[R, S] → [R/C, S/C] defined by T 7→ T /C is bijective. If R is not

6

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

a field, then the proof of [13, Proposition 5.15] shows that [R, S] is
linearly ordered.
Now, assume that R is a field, so that 0 = (R : S) and R is infinite.
Since R ⊂ S is an FIP subintegral extension, S is Artinian local and
not a field with {N} := Max(S), because R ∼
= S/N by subintegrality
shows that N 6= 0. From [2, Theorem 3.8], we get that S = R[α],
for some α ∈ S such that α3 = 0. In view of the proof of [2, Lemma
3.6(b)], [R, S] is linearly ordered.
(2) We can assume that R 6= S and C = 0 by considering R/C →
S/C and using [13, Proposition 3.7(c)]. By [13, Proposition 5.16], we
get that R ⊂ S has FIP.
(3) Assume that R ⊂ S is finite and infra-integral and set T := +
S R.
∼
Then, T is local Artinian with maximal ideal N and T /N = R/M is
infinite. Moreover, T ⊆ S is finite, seminormal, infra-integral and has
FIP by (2).
If R ⊂ S has FIP, then R ⊆ T has FIP. Conversely, assume that
R ⊆ T has FIP. In view of [13, Theorem 5.8], R ⊂ S has FIP.

We will use the following result. If R1 , . . . , Rn are finitely many rings,
the ring R1 × · · · × Rn localized at the prime ideal P1 × R2 × · · · × Rn is
isomorphic to (R1 )P1 for P1 ∈ Spec(R1 ). This rule works for any prime
ideal of the product.
2. FCP or FIP extensions for products of rings
We extract from the more precise result [14, Proposition 4.15] the following statement, about the canonical diagonal extension K ⊆ K n , for
a field K and a positive integer n > 1. Recall that the nth Bell number
Bn is the number of partitions of {1, . . . , n} [3, p. 214]. Actually, the
finiteness of |[K, K n ]| comes from [7, Proposition 3, p. 29]
Proposition 2.1. Let K be a field and n a positive integer, n > 1.
Then |[K, K n ]| = Bn , where Bn is the nth Bell number and K ⊆ K n
is a seminormal and infra-integral FIP extension.
We now intend to extend the above result to diagonal ring extensions
δn : R ֒→ Rn , for arbitrary rings R. We need information about some
closures and give necessary conditions for the FCP or FIP properties
hold. If R ⊆ RQ
i , i = 1, . . . , n, n ≥ 2 are finitely many ring extensions
and δ : R ֒→ ni=1 RiQis the canonical diagonal extension, it can be
factored R ֒→ Rn ֒→ ni=1 Ri . We can also consider that RQ֒→ R2 is
a subextension by considering the Q
product R × R → R1 × ni=2 Ri of
the extensions R ֒→ R1 and R ֒→ ni=2 Ri . Of course, this embedding

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

7

of R2 is not unique. A more complete study appears in Section 4 (see
Proposition 4.6).
Proposition 2.2. Let Q
R ⊆ Ri , i = 1, . . .Q
, n, n ≥ 2 be finitely many
n
ring extensions, R := i=1 Ri and R ⊆ ni=1 Ri = R the canonical
diagonal extension. Then:
(1) Supp(R/R) = Spec(R).
(2) Assume that R ⊆ R has FCP (resp. FIP). Then, R is an
Artinian ring and each extension R ⊆ Ri has FCP (resp. FIP).
(3) Assume that R ⊆ R has FIP. Then, R has finitely many ideals.
Q
Q
Proof. We have R2 ⊆ ni=1 Ri and Rn ⊆ ni=1 Ri .
(1) Let P ∈ Spec(R). Then, RP 6= 0 implies (1, 0) 6∈ RP and
P ∈ Supp(R2 /R) ⊆ Supp(R/R), which gives (1). Indeed, (R2 /R)P ∼
=
(RP )2 /RP .
(2) Assume that R ⊆ R has FCP, so that R ⊆ Rn has FCP. Then, R
is an Artinian ring in view of Proposition 1.5. Statements about FCP
or FIP are clear.
(3) Assume that R ⊆ R has FIP, so that R ⊆ R2 has FIP. Let I, J
be two distinct ideals of R. Then, R + (0 × I) and R + (0 × J) are two
distinct R-subalgebras of R2 . Since R ⊆ R2 has FIP, it follows that R
has finitely many ideals.

Rings which have finitely many ideals are characterized by D. D.
Anderson and S. Chun [1], a result that will be often used.
Proposition 2.3. [1, Corollary 2.4] A commutative ring R has only
finitely many ideals if and only if R is a finite direct product of finite
local rings, SPIRs, and fields, that are the local rings of R.
From now on, a ring R with finitely many ideals is termed an FMIR
and a ΣFMIR if at least a local ring of R is an infinite SPIR. We
also call ΣPIR an infinite SPIR. For an arbitrary ring R, we denote
by ΣMax(R) the set of all M ∈ Max(R) such that RM is an infinite
FMIR.
Proposition 2.4. Let
Q R ⊆ Ri , i = 1, . . . , n be finitely many ring
extensions and R := ni=1 Ri . Let Ri (resp. R) be the integral closure
of R in Ri (resp. R). Then:
Q
(1) R = ni=1 Ri .
(2) Assume that R ⊆ Ri has FCP for each i. Then, R ⊆ R has
FCP (and FIP).
Proof. (1) is [5, Proposition 9, ch. V, p. 16].

8

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

(2) Assume that R ⊆ Ri has FCP for each i. In view of [13, Theorem
3.13], we get that Ri ⊆ Ri has FCP for each i. This extension has
also FIP since FCP and FIP are equivalent for an integrally closed
extension
6.3]. Now, use [12, Proposition III.4], to get
Q [13, Theorem
Q
that ni=1 Ri ⊆ ni=1 Ri has FCP (and then FIP because integrally
closed).

Corollary 2.5. Let R ⊆ R1 and R ⊆ R2 be two integrally closed
extensions. Then, R ⊆ R1 × R2 has FCP (resp. FIP) if and only if
each R ⊆ Ri has FCP and R is Artinian (resp. an FMIR).
In particular, R ⊆ R2 has FIP if and only if R is an FMIR.
Proof. One implication is obvious, since any R-subalgebra S1 of R1
yields an R-subalgebra S1 × R2 of R1 × R2 . Then, use Proposition 2.2.
Conversely, assume that R ⊆ R1 and R ⊆ R2 have both FCP (and
then FIP) and that R is Artinian. Then, R2 ⊆ R1 × R2 has FCP (resp.
FIP) by Proposition 2.4. Moreover, R2 ⊆ R1 × R2 is integrally closed
and R ⊆ R2 is an integral extension. In view of Proposition 1.5, it
follows that R ⊆ R2 and so R ⊆ R1 × R2 have FCP by [13, Theorem
3.13].
Now, assume that R ⊆ R1 and R ⊆ R2 have both FIP and that R
is an FMIR. By Proposition 1.4, R ⊆ R2 as well as R ⊆ R1 × R2 have
FIP by [13, Theorem 3.13].

Proposition 2.6. Let R ⊆ Ri , i = 1, . . . , n, be finitelyQmany integral
n
+
t
extensions,
Si := Q
Ri R, Ti := Ri R for each i, R :=
i=1 Ri , S :=
Qn
n
i=1 Ti . Then:
i=1 Si and T :=
+
+
(1) RR = S R and Rt R = T .
(2) If each Ti ⊆ Ri has FCP (resp. FIP), then Rt R ⊆ R has FCP
(resp. FIP). This holds if each R ⊆ Ri has FCP (resp. FIP).
+
Proof. (1) Obviously, +
S R ⊆ RR and is subintegral. Moreover, S ⊆ R
+
is seminormal, since so are each Si ⊆ Ri . Then, S ∈ [R
R, R], with
+
+
+
R
⊆
S
seminormal,
so
that
R
⊆
R
is
also
seminormal,
then an
R
S
R
equality.
Q
Q
We know that ni=1 Ti ⊆ ni=1 Ri is t-closed
[25, Lemma 5.6]. To
Qn
Ti is infra-integral.
conclude, it is enough toQshow that R ⊆ i=1 Q
The prime ideals of ni=1 Ti are the Pi × nj=1,j6=i Tj , where Pi is
aQprime ideal ofQTi . For Pi ∈ Spec(Ti ), set Qi := Pi ∩ R. Then,
( ni=1 Ti )/(Pi × nj=1,j6=i Tj ) ∼
= R/Qi , since R ⊆ Ti is infra= Ti /Pi ∼
Q
n
integral. It follows that R ⊆ i=1 Ti is infra-integralQ
(2) In view of [13, Proposition 3.7(d)], we get that ni=1 Ti = Rt R ⊆ R
has FCP (resp. FIP). There was a misprint in the statement of [13,
Proposition 3.7(d)], where we should read: If R = R1 × · · · × Rn is a

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

9

finite product of rings and R ⊆ S satisfies FCP, then S can be identified
with a product
Pn of rings S1 × · · · × Sn where Ri ⊆ Si for each i. Then
ℓ[R, S] = i=1 ℓ[Ri , Si ].

The next proposition and Proposition 2.2 enables us to reduce our
study to quasi-local rings.
Proposition 2.7. [13, Proposition 3.7 and Corollary 3.2] Let R ⊆ S
be a ring extension.
(1) If R ⊆ S has FCP (FIP), then |Supp(S/R)| < ∞.
(2) If |MSupp(S/R)| < ∞, then R ⊆ S has FCP (FIP) if and only
if RM ⊆ SM has FCP (FIP) for each M ∈ MSupp(S/R).
Proposition 2.8. Let R ⊆
QRi , i = 1, . . . , n, be finitely many subintegral extensions and R := ni=1 Ri , where (R, M) is a quasi-local ring.
Then:
(1) Each Ri is a quasi-local ring with {Ni } := Max(Ri ) and R ⊆ R
is infra-integral.
Q
+ N. Then (S, N) is a quasi(2) Set N := ni=1 Ni and S := RQ
local ring and Spec(S) = {Pi′ × nj=1,j6=i Nj | Pi′ ∈ Spec(Ri ), i =
+
1, . . . , n}. In particular, R ⊆ S is infra-integral and R
R ⊆ S.
+
(3) Assume dim(R) = 0. Then, RR = S.
(4) If each Ri is a Noetherian ring and a f.g. R-module, then S is
a f.g. R-module.
Proof. (1) Ri is quasi-local since R ⊆ Ri is subintegral (Definition
1.3).
Q
Now, an arbitrary prime ideal of R is of the form P ′ := Pi′ × nj=1,j6=i Rj ,
for some i and Pi′ ∈ Spec(Ri ). Setting P := P ′ ∩ R, we see that
P = Pi′ ∩ R. From R/P ′ ∼
= Ri /Pi′ ∼
= R/P , since R ⊆ Ri is subintegral,
we deduce that R ⊆ R is infra-integral.
Q
(2) The ideals Ni′ := Ni × nj=1,j6=i Rj are the maximal ideals of R,
for i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, and they all lie over M. Observe that S is an Rsubalgebra of R. From N ∩ R = M, we infer that S/N ∼
= R/M and
that N ∈ Max(S). Since R ⊆ R is an integral extension, so is S ⊆ R.
Moreover, each Ni′ lies over N. Hence (S, N) is a quasi-local ring.
Let Q ∈ Spec(S),
Q there is some P ∈ Spec(R) lying over Q, of the
form P := Pi′ × nj=1,j6=i Rj , for some Pi′ ∈ Spec(Ri ). Since Q ⊆ N, we
Q
Q
Q
get Q ⊆ (Pi′ × nj=1,j6=i Rj ) ∩ ( nk=1 Nk ) = Pi′ × nj=1,j6=i Nj ⊆ S ∩ P =
Q
Q, so that Q = Pi′ × nj=1,j6=i Nj . Conversely, any ideal of the form
Q
Pi′ × nj=1,j6=i Nj , for some i and Pi′ ∈ Spec(Ri ) is in Spec(S), since
Q
Pi′ × nj=1,j6=i Rj lies over it.
Since R ⊆ S is aQ
subextension of R ⊆ R, (1) entails that R ⊆ S is
infra-integral. But ni=1 Ni is also an ideal of R, so that N = (S : R).

10

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

To end, R/N ∼
= R/M give that S/N ⊆ R/N is
= (R/M)n and S/N ∼
+
seminormal by Proposition 2.1, and so is S ⊆ R.
QnThen, RR ⊆ S.
(3) Assume dim(R) = 0. Then, Spec(S) = { i=1 Ni } = {N}. Then
+
R.
S/N ∼
= R/M shows that R ⊆ S is a subintegral extension and S = R
(4) If each Ri is Noetherian and f.g. over R, then, each Ni is a f.g. Ri module, and also a f.g. R-module. Hence, R+N is a f.g. R-module. 
Remark 2.9. Contrary to the t-closure, the seminormalization of a diagonal morphism is not the product of the seminormalizations. We can
compare these results with [25, Lemma 5.6], which says that seminormalization and t-closure commute with finite products of morphisms.
Proposition 2.10. Let
Qn R ⊆ Ri , i = 1, . . . , n be finitely many integral
extensions and R := i=1 Ri , where (R, M) is a quasi-local ring. Then:
(1) Rt R ⊆ R has FCP (resp.FIP) if each R ⊆ Ri has.
+
(2) If dim(R) = 0 and each R ⊆ Ri has FCP, then, R
R ⊆ Rt R has
FIP.
(3) If dim(R) = 0 and each R ⊆ Ri has FCP (resp. FIP), then
R ⊆ R has FCP (resp. FIP) if and only if R ⊆ +
R R has FCP
(resp. FIP).
t
Proof. (1) Proposition 2.6 gives that Q
RR ⊆ R has FCP (resp. FIP).
(2) Set Ti := Rti R, Si := R+i R, T := ni=1 Ti = Rt R. Now, each R ⊆ Si
is subintegral. Q
It follows from Proposition 2.8 and [25, Lemma 5.6]
+
R, where Ni is the maximal ideal of Si for
that S := R + ni=1 Ni = R
each i. Moreover, Ni ⊆ (Si : Ti ) holds for each i by [13, Proposition
4.9] and Si and Ti share the ideal Ni , since Si ⊆ Ti is seminormal and
infra-integral. Actually, Ni = (Si : Ti ) when
Qn Si 6= Ti and (Si : Ti ) = Si
when Si = Ti . Therefore we get N := i=1 Ni ⊆ (S : T ) and N is
a common ideal of S and T , maximal in S by Proposition 2.8. Set
k := R/M ∼
= Ti /Ni,j , for each maximal ideal Ni,j of Ti .
= Si /Ni ∼
= S/N ∼
i
For each i, weQ
have Ni = ∩nj=1
Ni,j , for some ni , [13, Proposition
4.9], so
Qn
ni
∼
that Ti /Ni = j=1 Ti /Ni,j . Then the extension S/N ⊆ ( i=1 Ti )/N ∼
=
P
Qn
ni
, which has FIP (and then
i=1 (Ti /Ni ) can be identified to k ⊆ k
+
FCP) by Proposition 2.1. It follows that R R ⊆ tR R has FIP (and then
FCP) by [13, Proposition 3.7].
(3) By [13, Theorem 4.6 and Theorem 5.8], R ⊆ R has FCP (resp.
+
+
R ⊆ Rt R and Rt R ⊆ R have FCP (resp.
R, R
FIP) if and only if R ⊆ R
+
FIP) if and only if R ⊆ R
R has FCP (resp. FIP) by (1) and (2).


The FCP case is now completely solved with the following theorem.

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

11

Theorem 2.11. Let Q
R ⊆ Ri , i = 1, . . . , n, n ≥ 2 be finitely many
extensions and R := ni=1 Ri . Then R ⊆ R has FCP if and only if R
is an Artinian ring and each extension R ⊆ Ri has FCP.
Proof. The“only if” implication is Proposition 2.2(2).
Conversely, assume that R is an Artinian ring and each R ⊆ Ri has
FCP. FromQ
Proposition 2.4, we infer that R ⊆ R has FCP. Moreover
Rn ⊆ R = ni=1 Ri has FCP by [13, Proposition 3.7] and R ⊆ Rn has
FCP by Proposition 1.5, giving that R ⊆ R has FCP by [13,
QnCorollary
4.3]. To end, use [13, Theorem 3.13] to get that R ⊆ i=1 Ri has
FCP.

We now consider the FIP property for the product of two FIP extensions. The case of n > 2 FIP extensions is studied in Section 4.
Proposition 2.12. Let R ⊂ R1 , R2 be two subintegral FIP extensions
and set R := R1 × R2 . Assume that (R, M) is quasi-local such that
|R/M| = ∞. Then R ⊆ R has not FIP.
Proof. Let Ni be the maximal ideal of Ri . The infra-integrality of
R ⊂ Ri implies that M 6= Ni . It follows that S1 := R + (N1 × M)
and S2 := R + (M × N2 ) are incomparable R-subalgebras of S :=
R+(N1 ×N2 ), because (x, 0) ∈ S1 \S2 for x ∈ N1 \M and (0, y) ∈ S2 \S1
for y ∈ N2 \ M.
Assume now that R ⊂ R has FIP. In this case, R ⊂ S has FIP and
R is Artinian by Proposition 2.2. It follows that S = +
R R by Proposition 2.8, so that R ⊂ S is a subintegral extension. From Proposition 1.6, we deduce that S1 and S2 are comparable, a contradiction
and R ⊂ R has not FIP.

In order to settle the main Theorem 2.17 of the section, we begin to
clear the way by studying when R ⊆ R has not FIP. We can suppose
that R1 = R, because R × R2 ⊆ R1 × R2 . By Proposition 2.2 and
Proposition 2.3, we need only to consider a ΣPIR (R, M) in view of
[13, Proposition 3.7]. Indeed, the case of a field R has already been
studied in [2]. Note that if (R, M) is a local Artinian ring, then R is
finite if and only if R/M is finite, since M n = 0 for some integer n. In
such a case, any finite extension of R has FIP. We first look at minimal
ramified extensions. Before, we give a useful lemma.
Lemma 2.13. Let R ⊂ S be a ring extension, where (R, M) is a quasilocal ring with |R/M| = ∞. Let F be a set of representative elements
of R/M. If there exists a family {Rα } of elements of [R, S] such that
Rα 6= Rβ for each α 6= β ∈ F , then R ⊂ S has not FIP.
Proof. Obvious.



12

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Lemma 2.14. Let R ⊂ S be a minimal ramified extension, where
(R, M) is a SPIR.
(1) There exists t ∈ M such that M = Rt and tp = 0, with tp−1 6= 0,
for some integer p > 1.
(2) Let N be the maximal ideal of S. There exists x ∈ S \ R such
that S = R + Rx, N = Rt + Rx. Moreover, there are some
unique positive integers p ≥ k, q ≥ 1 and some a, b ∈ R\M such
that x2 = atk , tx = btq . Then, (R :R x) = Rt = M = (R : S).
(3) q ≥ 2 holds.
Proof. (1) is the definition of a SPIR (see Section 1). Each element of
R is of the form uth for some unique integer h ≤ p and some unit u.
(2) The integers k and q exist by Theorem 1.2 (c) or [13, Theorem
2.3 (c)] because x2 , tx ∈ M and are unique by (1) since the ideals of R
are linearly ordered.
(3) Assume q = 1. Then, tx = bt implies t(x − b) = 0. But x − b 6∈ N
since b ∈ R \ M, so that x − b is a unit in S, and then t = 0, a
contradiction, which yields q ≥ 2. In particular, tx ∈ Rt2 .

Proposition 2.15. Let R ⊂ S be a minimal ramified extension, where
(R, M) is a ΣPIR. We set R := R × S and {N} := Max(S).
+
(1) T := R
R = R + (M × N).
(2) R ⊂ R has FIP if and only if N 2 = M and MN = M 2 = 0.

Proof. (1) The value of T is given in Proposition 2.8.
(2) We keep the notation of Lemma 2.14. There exists t ∈ M such
that M = Rt and tp = 0, with tp−1 6= 0, for some integer p > 1. There
exists x ∈ S \ R such that S = R + Rx, N = Rt + Rx. Moreover, there
are some positive integers p ≥ k, q ≥ 1 and some a, b ∈ R \ M such that
x2 = atk , tx = btq , with q ≥ 2. Then, M 2 = Rt2 , MN = Rt2 + Rtx =
Rt2 since tx ∈ Rt2 , so that M 2 = MN, and N 2 = Rt2 + Rtx + Rx2 =
Rt2 + Rtk .
Let F be a set of representative elements of R/M. Then F is infinite.
Assume first that k > 1, so that x2 ∈ Rt2 . For α ∈ F , set Rα :=
R + R(0, t + αx) + R(0, t2 ). Then, Rα ∈ [R, T ]. Let β ∈ F be such
that α 6= β, so that α − β 6∈ M. Assume that Rα = Rβ . We get
that (0, t + αx) = (c, c) + (0, dt + dβx) + (0, et2 ), for some c, d, e ∈ R,
giving 0 = c and t + αx = c + dt + dβx + et2 = dt + dβx + et2 .
Since (α − dβ)x = (d − 1)t + et2 ∈ M, we get α − dβ ∈ M (∗)
in view of Lemma 2.14(2). It follows that there exists d′ ∈ R such
that α − dβ = d′ t, yielding d′ tx = d′ btq = (d − 1)t + et2 , so that
(d − 1)t = d′ btq − et2 ∈ Rt2 , leading to d − 1 ∈ M (∗∗). But (∗) and

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

13

(∗∗) give α − β ∈ M, a contradiction. Then, Rα 6= Rβ , and R ⊂ R has
not FIP in view of Lemma 2.13.
It follows that when R ⊂ R has FIP, we must have k = 1.
Now, assume that k = 1. Then, x2 t = at2 = (tx)x = xbtq =
(xt)btq−1 = b2 t2q−1 , so that at2 − b2 t2q−1 = t2 (a − b2 t2q−3 ) = 0. But
q ≥ 2 implies 2q − 3 ≥ 1, giving a − b2 t2q−3 is a unit in R. Then, t2 = 0
and p = q = 2, with tx = 0.
So, when R ⊂ R has FIP, then k = 1 and p = q = 2, which give
M 2 = MN = 0 and N 2 = Rt = M.
Assume now that N 2 = M and MN = M 2 = 0. Then, Rt = Rt2 +
Rtk , giving k = 1, and Rt2 = 0, giving p = q = 2. Observe that R ⊂ R
is an integral FCP extension by Proposition 2.11. Using notation and
statement of [13, Theorem 5.18], set R1 := R + T M = R. Then,
T = R[(0, x)], (0, x)3 = 0 ∈ M, and, with T ′ := R[(0, x)2 ] = R[(0, t)]
and T ′′ := R + T ′ M = R, we have T ′ = T ′′ [(0, t)], with (0, t) ∈ T , and
(0, t)3 = 0 ∈ T ′ M. We can conclude that R ⊂ R has FIP.

Corollary 2.16. Let R ⊂ S be a non minimal subintegral FIP extension, where (R, M) is a ΣPIR. Then, R ⊂ R × S has not FIP.
Proof. Since R ⊂ S has FIP, there is S1 ∈ [R, S], such that R ⊂ S1 is a
minimal extension, necessarily ramified. Assume that R ⊆ R × S has
FIP, then so has R ⊂ R × S1 . Using the notation of Lemma 2.14 and
Proposition 2.15 for R ⊆ S1 , we have M = Rx2 , S1 = R + Rx, N =
Rx2 +Rx, where N is the maximal ideal of S1 and x3 = 0, x2 6= 0. There
exists S2 ∈ [S1 , S] such that S1 ⊂ S2 is a minimal extension, necessarily
ramified. Let P be the maximal ideal of S2 . In view of [13, Theorem
2.3(c)], there is y ∈ S2 such that S2 = S1 + S1 y = R + Rx + Ry + Rxy
and P = N + S1 y = Rx2 + Rx + Ry + Rxy. Moreover, (S1 : y) = N.
But, NP ⊆ N gives xy ∈ N and P 2 ⊆ N gives y 2 ∈ N, so that P =
Rx2 + Rx + Ry and there exist b, c, d, e ∈ R such that y 2 = bx2 + cx (∗)
and yx = dx2 + ex (∗∗). It follows that yx2 = x(dx2 + ex) = ex2 , so
that (y − e)x2 = 0. If e 6∈ M, then e 6∈ P and e − y is a unit in S2 ,
giving x2 = 0, a contradiction. But e ∈ M implies that ex2 ∈ Rx4 = 0,
so that yx2 = 0. Now, (∗) gives xy 2 = bx2 x + cx2 = dx2 y + exy = cx2 .
But e ∈ M = Rx2 entails ex ∈ Rx3 = 0, so that xy 2 = dx2 y = 0,
whence cx2 = 0, from which we infer that c ∈ M = Rx2 . Therefore,
we get y 2 = bx2 since x3 = 0. Let F be a set of representative elements
of R/M. For α ∈ F , set Rα := R + R(0, x + αy) + R(0, x2 ). Then,
Rα ∈ [R, R + (R × S2 )] since (x + αy)2 = (1 + 2αd + α2 b)x2 . Let β ∈ F
be such that α 6= β, so that α −β 6∈ M. Assume that Rα = Rβ . We get
that (0, x + αy) = (c, c) + (0, dx + dβy) + (0, ex2 ), for some c, d, e ∈ R,
giving 0 = c and x + αy = c + dx + dβy + ex2 = dx + dβy + ex2 . Since

14

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

(α − dβ)y = (d − 1)x + ex2 ∈ N, we get α − dβ ∈ N ∩ R = M (†). It
follows that there exists d′ ∈ R such that α − dβ = d′ x2 , yielding 0 =
d′ x2 y = (d −1)x+ ex2 , so that (d −1)x ∈ M, leading to d −1 ∈ M (††).
But (†) and (††) give α − β ∈ M, a contradiction. Then, Rα 6= Rβ ,
and R ⊂ R × S has not FIP in view of Lemma 2.13.

To shorten, a minimal ramified (subintegral) extension (R, M) ֒→
(S, N) between quasi-local rings is called special if M 2 = MN = 0 and
N 2 = M, as in Proposition 2.15. Such extensions exist. Any minimal
ramified extension R ⊂ S such that R is a field is special. Here is
another example. Let K be a field and R := K[T ]/(T 2 ). If t is the
class of T in R, let S := R[X]/(X 2 −t, Xt). The natural map R → S is
injective. This follows from the fact that R[X] is a free K[X]-module
with basis {1, t} and some easy calculations. Let x be the class of X
in S. Then, M := Rt is the only maximal ideal of R, so that (R, M)
is a quasi-local ring. Moreover, S = R[x], with x ∈ S \ R satisfying
x2 ∈ M and Mx ⊆ M, so that R ⊂ S is a minimal ramified extension
[13, Theorem 2.3]. It follows that the only maximal ideal of S is N :=
Rx + Rt, and we have the following relations: t2 = xt = 0 and x2 = t,
giving N 2 = Rx2 = Rt = M and MN = Rt2 + Rtx = Rt2 = M 2 = 0.
Then, R ⊂ S is a special minimal ramified extension.
Theorem 2.17. Let R ⊆ S1 , S2 be FIP extensions, Σi := S+i R for
i = 1, 2 and R := S1 × S2 . Then R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if R is
an FMIR such that Supp(Σ1 /R) ∩ Supp(Σ2 /R) ∩ ΣMax(R) = ∅, and,
for each M ∈ Supp(Σi /R) ∩ ΣMax(R), i ∈ {1, 2}, either RM ⊂ (Σi )M
is a special minimal ramified extension or RM is a field.
Proof. For a maximal ideal M of R, we denote by S(M) the seminormalization of RM in (S1 × S2 )M .
Assume that R ⊆ S1 × S2 has FIP. In view
Qn of Proposition 2.2, R is
an FMIR, and so is a finite direct product i=1 Ri of fields, finite local
rings and SPIRs that are localization of R at some maximal ideal M of
R by Proposition 2.3. Hence RM ⊆ (S1 × S2 )M = (S1 )M × (S2 )M has
FIP by Proposition 2.7. Assume that RM is not a finite ring. Then,
RM is either an infinite field or a ΣPIR.
Let M ∈ ΣMax(R), so that |RM /M ′ | = ∞ for M ′ := MRM (see
the remark before Lemma 2.13). For j ∈ {1, 2}, we have that RM ⊆
(Σj )M is a subintegral FIP extension with (RM , M ′ ) a quasi-local ring.
Assume first that RM is a ΣPIR. Using Propositions 2.12, 2.15 and
Corollary 2.16, we get that RM = (Σj )M for some j ∈ {1, 2}, so that
M 6∈ Supp(Σj /R) and, for l ∈ {1, 2} \ {j}, either RM = (Σl )M or
RM ⊂ (Σl )M is a special minimal ramified extension. Assume now that

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

15

RM is an infinite field. Using Proposition 2.12, we get that RM = (Σj )M
for some j ∈ {1, 2} and, for l ∈ {1, 2} \ {j}, there exists α ∈ (Σl )M
which satisfies (Σl )M = RM [α] and α3 = 0 by [2, Theorem 3.8] since
RM ⊆ (Σl )M has FIP. Then, M 6∈ Supp(Σ1 /R) ∩ Supp(Σ2 /R) and
Supp(Σ1 /R) ∩ Supp(Σ2 /R) ∩ ΣMax(R) = ∅.
QnConversely, assume that R is an FMIR, and so a finite direct product
i=1 Ri of fields, finite local rings and SPIRs such that Supp(Σ1 /R) ∩
Supp(Σ2 /R) ∩ ΣMax(R) = ∅, with, for each M ∈ Supp(Σi /R) ∩
ΣMax(R), i ∈ {1, 2}, either RM ⊂ (Σi )M is a special minimal ramified
extension or RM is an infinite field. Observe first that for each i, there
is M ∈ Max(R) such that Ri = RM .
Since R is a quasi-semilocal ring, MSupp((S1 ×S2 )/R) is finite. Then,
R ⊆ S1 × S2 has FIP if and only if RM ⊆ (S1 × S2 )M has FIP for each
M ∈ MSupp((S1 × S2 )/R) by Proposition 2.7. Moreover, RM ⊆ (Sj )M
is an FIP extension for j = 1, 2. Fix M ∈ MSupp((S1 × S2 )/R).
Proposition 2.4 tells us that RM = (S1 )M × (S2 )M = (S1 × S2 )M ⊆
RM has FIP, where RM (resp. (Si )M ) is the integral closure of RM
in (S1 )M × (S2 )M = (S1 × S2 )M (resp. (Si )M ). Then, in view of [13,
Theorem 3.13], RM ⊆ (S1 × S2 )M has FIP if and only if RM ⊆ (S1 ×
S2 )M has FIP. From Proposition 2.10, we deduce that RM ⊆ (S1 ×
S2 )M has FIP if and only if RM ⊆ S(M) has FIP. But, S(M) =
+
(Σ1 )M ×(Σ2 )M RM by Proposition 2.6. Therefore, S(M) is module finite
over the Artinian ring RM by Proposition 2.8.
(1) If RM is an infinite field, then M ∈ ΣMax(R). We have RM =
(Σl )M for some l ∈ {1, 2} since Supp(Σ1 /R)∩Supp(Σ2 /R)∩ΣMax(R) =
∅. Let j 6= l. Since RM ⊆ (Σj )M has FIP, there is αj ∈ (Σj )M such
that (Σj )M = RM [αj ], with αj3 = 0 by [2, Theorem 3.8]. Moreover,
RM [αj ] is a quasi-local ring with maximal ideal αRM [αj ]. Set αl := 0
and α := (α1 , α2 ). In view of Proposition 2.8, we get S(M) = RM [α],
with α3 = 0, so that RM ⊆ S(M) has FIP by [2, Theorem 3.8]. Indeed,
S(M) = RM + (αj RM [αj ] × 0) = RM + αRM .
(2) If RM is a ΣPIR, then M ∈ ΣMax(R), there is some j ∈ {1, 2}
such that (Σj )M = RM , with, for l ∈ {1, 2} \ {j}, either RM = (Σl )M
or RM ⊂ (Σl )M is a special minimal ramified extension. Then, RM ⊆
S(M) has FIP by either Proposition 2.15 or Corollary 2.5.
(3) If RM is a finite ring, then S(M) is a finite ring since a finitely
generated RM -module, and RM ⊆ S(M) has FIP.
In every case, RM ⊆ S(M) has FIP, and so has R ⊆ R1 × R2 .

Corollary 2.18. Let R ⊆ S1 , S2 be seminormal FIP extensions and
R := S1 × S2 . Then R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if R is an FMIR.

16

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Proof. Since R = S+i R for i = 1, 2, we get Supp(Σ1 /R) ∩ Supp(Σ2 /R) ∩
ΣMax(R) = ∅. Then, use Theorem 2.17.

3. FCP or FIP extensions and the CRT
The aim of this section is to get an extension of the Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT) in the following sense. Let R be a ring, n > 1 an
integer and I1 , . . . , In ideals of R distinct from R, but not necessarily
distinct, such that ∩nj=1 Ij = 0. Such a family {I1 , . . . , In } of ideals
of R is called a separating family, a reference to Algebraic Geometry
where a finite family of morphisms {fj : M → Mj | j = 1, . . . , n} of
R-modules is called separating
if ∩nj=1 ker fj = 0. We intend to study
Qn
the ring extension R ⊆ j=1 (R/Ij ) =: R associated to a separating
family, denoting by C := (R : R) its conductor, also called the conductor of the separating family. We set Jj := (∩nk=1,k6=j Ik ), or more
generally JE := ∩nk=1,k∈E
/ Ik for any subset E of {1, . . . , n}. We also
denote by ei the element of R whose ith coordinate is 1 and the others
are 0 and call {e1 , . . . , en } the “canonical basis”. The above extension
is an isomorphism if C = R (Chinese Remainder Theorem). If not,
either |[R, R]| or ℓ[R, R] measures in some sense how R is far from to
R.
Proposition 3.1. Let R be a ring and {I1 , . . . , In } a separating family
of ideals of R. Then:
(1) R ⊆ R is an infra-integral
Pn extension.
n
(2) C = ∩j=1 (Ij + Jj ) = j=1 Jj .
(3) R ⊆ R has FCP if and only if R/C is Artinian.
Q
Proof. (1) Clearly, R → nj=1 (R/Ij ) is an integral ring extension (actually, module finite), that is infra-integral because of the form of elements of Spec(R)(cf. the remark following Definition 1.3).
(2) is [32, Lemma 2.25].
(3) In view of [13, Theorem 4.2], we have that R ⊆ R has FCP if
and only if R/C is an Artinian.

An immediate consequence is the following. Let R be a ring, n > 1
an integer and I1 , . P
. . , In ideals of R distinct from R,
Q but not necessarily
distinct. Set C := nj=1 Jj . Then, R/(∩nj=1Ij ) ⊆ nj=1 (R/Ij ) has FCP
if and only if R/C is an Artinian ring.
In the rest of the section, we examine the FIP property. The case of
a separating family with two elements is easy to solve.

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

17

Proposition 3.2. Let R be a ring, with two ideals I and J such that
I, J 6= R and I ∩ J = 0. Then R ⊆ R/I × R/J is a ∆0 -extension,
which has FIP if and only if R/(I + J) is an FMIR.
Proof. For x ∈ R, we denote by x̄ its class in R/I and by x̃ its class in
R/I. Set e1 := (1̄, 0̃), e2 := (0̄, 1̃), so that {e1 , e2 } is a generating set
of the R-module R/I × R/J. From e2i = ei and e1 e2 = 0 follow that
R/I × R/J = R + Re1 . Hence there is a bijection between the set of
ideals of R containing I + J and [R, R/I × R/J] by Proposition 1.4 and
R ⊆ R/I × R/J has FIP if and only if R/(I + J) is an FMIR.

Next lemma shows that we can reduce our study to a zero conductor
extension.
Lemma 3.3. Let R be a ring and {I1 , . . . , In } a separating family of
ideals of R. Then
FIP if and only if the zero conductor
Pn R ⊆ RQhas
n
extension R/( j=1 Jj ) ⊆ j=1 (R/(Ij + Jj )) has FIP.
Proof. By [13, Proposition 3.7], R ⊆ R, with conductor C, has FIP
if and only if R/C ⊆ R/C has FIP. Since C is an ideal of R, for
each j ∈ {1,
Q . . . , n}, there exists an ideal Cj of R containing Ij such
that C = nj=1 Cj /Ij . Now, there is a natural isomorphism R/C ∼
=
Qn
). For each j, we get that Cj /Ij = (Ij + Jj )/Ij because
j=1 (R/C
P
Pn j
Ij + i=1 Ji = Jj + ( ni=1,i6=j Ji ) + Ij = Ij + Jj . Then, R/Cj ∼
=
∼
R/(I
+J
)
giving
the
wanted
(R/I
)/((I
+J
)/I
)
(R/Ij )/(Cj /Ij ) ∼
=
j
j
j
j
j
j =
result.

Proposition 3.4. Let R be a ring and {I1 , . . . , In } a separating family
of ideals of R with zero conductor. Then:
(1) Jj = 0 for each j.
(2) If R ⊆ R has FIP, then R/(JP1 + JP2 ) is an FMIR for any
partition {P1 , P2 } of {1, . . . , n} as well as R/Ij for each j. In
that case, R is an Artinian ring.
P
Proof. (1) By Proposition 3.1, C = nj=1 Jj , so that Jj = 0.
(2) Set Ki := JPi for i = 1, 2. Then, K1 ∩ K2 =Q0, so that we
have the extensions R ⊆ R/K1 × R/K2 and R/Ki ⊆ j∈Pl (R/Ij ) for
l 6= i, l ∈ {1, 2} leading to the composite R ⊆ R/K1 × R/K2 ⊆ R. If
R ⊆ R has FIP, then so has R ⊆ R/K1 × R/K2 . By Proposition 3.2,
R/(K1 + K2 ) is an FMIR. The second statement follows from (2) and
Jj = 0. To complete the proof, use Proposition 3.1 since C = 0.

The following result shows that the case of a nonlocal Artinian ring
R is very different from the local case.

18

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Proposition 3.5. Let R be a ring containing a set of p > 1 orthogonal
idempotents {e1 , . . . , ep }, generating the ideal R. Then R is an FMIR
if R ⊆ R has FIP for each separating family {I1 , . . . , In } of ideals of
R. In particular, an Artinian nonlocal ring R is an FMIR if R ⊆ R
has FIP for each separating family of ideals of R. The converse holds
if no local ring of R is a SPIR.
Q
Proof. Consider the faithfully flat extension R ⊆ pi=1 R/Rei =: S
with zero conductor (Proposition 3.1). If R ⊆ S has FIP, then each
R/Rei is an FMIR by Proposition 3.4 and so is S. Then observe that if
R → S is a faithfully flat ring morphism, R is an FMIR if S is, because
IS ∩ R = I for each ideal I of R. Now if R is Artinian nonlocal,
then R has p > 1 idempotents generating the ideal R by the Structure
Theorem of Artinian rings.

Now let (R, M) be a local Artinian ring with |R/M| < ∞. Then
|R| < ∞ (see the remark before Lemma 2.13), so that R ⊆ R has FIP
for each separating family, since |R| < ∞.
We know that |MSupp(S/R)| < ∞ if R ⊆ S has FIP (Proposition 2.7(1)). By Proposition 2.7 and former results of the section, the
FIP property study can be reduced to the next proposition hypotheses.
If (R, M) is an Artinian local ring, we denote by n(R) the nilpotency
index of M.
Proposition 3.6. Let (R, M) be an Artinian local ring with |R/M| =
∞ and a separating family {I1 , . . . , In } of ideals, with C = 0.
We set T := R + MR, C := (R : T ), n(R/C) = p, and for each
i > 0, Mi := M + T M i = M + RM i+1 , Ri := R + T M i = R + RM i+1 .
Then,
+
(1) T = R
R and R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if R ⊆ T has FIP.
(2) C = (0 : M).
(3) R ⊆ T has FIP if and only if either R = T , or R1 = T , or
R1 ⊂ T is minimal (ramified), with, in the two last situations,
either M = (R : T ), or LR (Mi /Mi+1 ) = 1 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ p − 1.
The case R = T corresponds to an extension of the form K ⊆ K n ,
where K is a field, and the case M = C to M 2 = 0.
Proof. Let {e1 , . . . , en } be the canonical basis of the R-module R. Since
(R : R) = 0, Jj = 0 for each j ∈ {1, . . . , n} by Proposition 3.4.
+
(1) T = R
R follows from [13, Theorem 5.18] since Rad(R) = MR
and R ⊆ R has FCP by Proposition 3.1. Since R ⊆ R is infra-integral,
R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if R ⊆ T has FIP by Proposition 1.6.
(2) is an easy calculation, because each Jj = 0, ∩nj=1 Ij = 0 and the
unit element of R is e1 + · · · + en .

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

19

(3) Since R ⊆ Ri ⊆ T is finite and subintegral, (Ri , Mi ) is local
Artinian for each i > 0. We have T M = M + RM 2 = M1 ⊆ RM ∈
Max(T ), R1 = R + RM 2 , R2 = R + RM 3 and M2 = M + RM 3 .
Because R/M is infinite, [13, Theorem 5.18], applied with S := R,
gives that R ⊆ T has FIP if and only if the next two properties hold:
(i) Either R = T , or M = (R : T ), or LR (Mi /Mi+1 ) = 1 for all
1 ≤ i ≤ p − 1;
(ii) If R 6= T , there exists α ∈ T such that T = R1 [α] and α3 ∈ T M,
and, with T ′ := R1 [α2 ] and T ′′ := R + T ′ M, there exists β ∈ T such
that T ′ = T ′′ [β] and β 3 ∈ T ′ M.
Assume that T 6= R, R1 , so that α 6∈ R1 . We first show that (ii)
implies that R1 ⊂ T is minimal. Let α ∈ T such that α3 ∈ T M =
M1 ⊆ RM, giving α ∈ RM, so that α2 ∈ RM 2 ⊆ M1 and αM1 ⊆
RMM1 = RM(M + RM 2 ) ⊆ RM 2 ⊆ M1 . Then, R1 ⊂ T is minimal
(ramified) in view of [13, Theorem 2.3(c)].
Conversely, we show that R1 ⊂ T is minimal (ramified), with either
M = (R : T ), or LR (Mi /Mi+1 ) = 1 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ p − 1 implies
(ii). Actually, (i) already holds. Since R1 ⊂ T is minimal, there is
α ∈ T such that T = R1 [α] and α2 ∈ M1 ⊂ R1 , with αM1 ⊆ M1 .
Then, α3 ∈ M1 = T M. Now, we can rewrite (ii) as T ′ = R1 [α2 ] = R1
and T ′′ = R + T ′ M = R + R1 M = R + RM 3 = R2 . Assume that
M 6= (R : T ) = (0 : M), so that M 2 6= 0. Then, M12 = (M + RM 2 )2 ⊆
M +RM 3 = M2 ⊂ M1 (because LR (M1 /M2 ) = 1) implies that R2 ⊂ R1
is minimal ramified by Theorem 1.2(c). Arguing as for α, we obtain
some β ∈ T such that T ′ = T ′′ [β] and β 3 ∈ T ′ M and (ii) holds.
If T = R1 , it is enough to take α = 0 to get (ii).
If R = T , then Ij = M for each j entails M = ∩nj=1 Ij = 0 and R is
a field. Then R ⊆ R is of the form K ⊆ K n , where K is a field, and
has FIP (see Proposition 2.1). Assume that M = C, then M 2 = 0. 
By Proposition 3.4, we know that when R ⊆ R has FIP, then R/Ij
is an FMIR for each j. It is natural to ask if the converse holds, and if
not, what conditions are needed to get the FIP property. We consider
here a simple case which already gives a rather complicated result.
Proposition 3.7. Let (R, M) be an Artinian local ring such that M 2 =
0 and |R/M| = ∞. Let {I1 , . . . , In } be a separating family of ideals,
with conductor 0 and n ≥ 3. Then, R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if R/Ij
is an FMIR and M = Ij + ∩k6=j,l Ik , for each j, l ∈ {1, . . . , n}, j 6= l.
Proof. Set T := R + MR, C := (R : T ), and for each i > 0, Mi := M +
T M i = M + RM i+1 , Ri := R + T M i = R + RM i+1 . Since M 2 = 0, we
get that R1 = R and M1 = M = M2 . Then, applying Proposition 3.6,

20

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

we have that R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if R ⊆ T has FIP, if and only if
either R = R1 = T , or R ⊂ T is minimal (ramified), with M = (R : T ).
This last condition is always satisfied since C = (0 : M). Then, R ⊆ R
has FIP if and only if either R = R1 = T , or R ⊂ T is minimal.
We begin to remark that M = Ik for at least n − 1 ideals Ik implies that M = 0, so that R is a field and we are in the situation of
Proposition 2.1. Indeed, if n − 1 ideals Ik are equal to M, for instance
I1 , . . . , In−1 , we get that ∩k6=n Ik = M = 0 since (R : R) = 0. In particular, we get that In = 0. Hence, the assertion of Proposition 3.7
holds.
So, in the following, we may assume that there exist some Ij , Il 6=
M, j 6= l. Consider the following R-subextension of (R/Ij ) × R defined
by Rj′ := R + ((M/Ij ) × 0) = {(x + m, x) | x ∈Q
R, m ∈ M}. Since
∩k6=j Ik = 0, we have the ring extension R ⊆ R + k6=j M/Ik . An easy
calculation shows that we have a ring extension Rj′ ⊆ T . Moreover,
R 6= Rj′ since (m, 0) ∈ Rj′ \ R for any m ∈ M \ Ij . In particular,
R 6= T . The canonical map ϕ : Rj′ → T is defined by ϕ(x + m, x) =
(x, . . . , x) + (m, 0, . . . , 0) (after reindexing the components).
Assume first that R ⊆ R has FIP, so that R ⊂ T is a minimal
extension. Then, R 6= Rj′ implies that Rj′ = T and ϕ is surjective.
Let y ∈ M and j ′ ∈ {1, . . . , n}, j ′ 6= j. Consider (0, . . . , y, . . . , 0) ∈
T , where all the coordinates are 0 except possibly the j ′ th which is
y. Then, there exist x ∈ R, m ∈ M such that (0, . . . , y, . . . , 0) =
(x, . . . , x) + (m, 0, . . . , 0). This gives y − x ∈ Ij ′ , x + m ∈ Ij and x ∈ Ik
for each k 6= j, j ′ . Then, x ∈ ∩k6=j,j ′ Ik and y ∈ Ij ′ + ∩k6=j,j ′ Ik , giving
M = Ij ′ + ∩k6=j,j ′ Ik for any j ′ 6= j. Since there is some l 6= j such that
M 6= Il , the same reasoning gives that M = Ij + ∩k6=j,l Ik . At last, if
there exist j ′ , l′ ∈ {1, . . . , n}, j ′ 6= l′ such that M 6= Ij ′ , Il′ , the same
reasoning gives again M = Ij ′ + ∩k6=j ′,l′ Ik . But, when M = Ij ′ , we have
M = Ij ′ + ∩k6=j ′,l′ Ik whatever is Il′ .
Conversely, assume that R/Ij ′ is a FMIR and M = Ij ′ + ∩k6=j ′ ,l′ Ik ,
for each j ′ , l′ ∈ {1, . . . , n}, j ′ 6= l′ , with M 6= Ij for some j. We are
going to show that R ⊂ Rj′ is minimal ramified and that Rj′ = T .
Since R/Ij is an FMIR with |R/M| = ∞ and M 6= Ij , there exists
some z ∈ M \ Ij such that M/Ij = (R/Ij )z, with z 6= 0 and z 2 = 0. Set
t := (z, 0) ∈ Rj′ \ R. Using the properties of Rj′ , we get that Rj′ = R[t],
with t2 = 0 ∈ M, tM = 0 ⊆ M, so that R ⊂ Rj′ is a minimal ramified
extension by [13, Theorem 2.3].
Let j ′ 6= j and x ∈ M. Since M = Ij ′ + ∩k6=j ′,j Ik , there exist a ∈ Ij ′
and b ∈ ∩k6=j ′,j Ik such that x = a + b. Then, x = b in M/Ij ′ . It follows that we get (0, . . . , x, . . . , 0) = (b, . . . , b, . . . , b)+(0, . . . , −b, . . . , 0),

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

21

where x stands at the j ′ th component in the first element, and −b
stands at the jth component in the last element. Indeed, for k 6= j, j ′ ,
we have b = 0 since b ∈ ∩k6=j ′,j Ik . We have (b, . . . , b, . . . , b) ∈ R and
(0, . . . , −b, . . . , 0) ∈ (M/Ij ) × 0, so that (0, . . . , x, . . . , 0) ∈ Rj′ . This
holds for any j ′ 6= j and obviously for (0, . . . , x, . . . , 0) where
Q x stands
at the jth component by definition of Rj′ . Then, T = R + k (M/Ik ) =
R + ((M/Ij ) × 0) = Rj′ , giving that R ⊂ T is minimal, so that R ⊂ R
has FIP.

Remark 3.8. When n = 3, the condition of Proposition 3.7 becomes
M = Ij + Il , for each j, l ∈ {1, 2, 3}, j 6= l. Here is an example where
Ij 6⊆ Il for each j, l ∈ {1, 2, 3}, j 6= l.
Let k be an infinite field, and set R := k[X, Y ]/(X, Y )2 = k[x, y],
for some indeterminates X, Y . Then, R is an Artinian local ring with
maximal ideal M := (x, y) such that M 2 = 0 and |R/M| = ∞. Set
Ij := k(x + λj y), where λ1 , λ2 and λ3 are three distinct elements of k.
Then, Ij ∩ Il = 0 for each j, l ∈ {1, 2, 3}, j 6= l. We have R/Ij = k[x],
which is a SPIR, although R is not a SPIR, with M/Ij = kx.
In the following, we are going to consider a kind of converse for
Proposition 3.4, taking for R a local FMIR. By Proposition 2.3, either
R is a field, or a finite ring, or a ΣPIR. The case where R is a field
is Proposition 2.1. If R is a finite ring, R being R-module finite, R is
also a finite ring, so that R ⊆ R has FIP. The last case to consider is
a ΣPIR R.
Proposition 3.9. Let (R, M) be a ΣPIR and a separating family
{I1 , . . . , In } of ideals, with conductor 0. Then, R ⊆ R has FIP if
and only if either n = 2, or Ij = M for n − 2 ideals Ij .
Proof. For n = 2, we get I1 = I2 = 0 and Corollary 2.5 gives that
R ⊆ R/I1 × R/I2 has FIP.
Assume that n > 2. The ideals of the SPIR R are linearly ordered.
Thus we can assume I1 ⊆ · · · ⊆ Ij ⊆ · · · ⊆ In . By Proposition 3.4,
we get that Jj = 0 for each j ∈ {1, . . . , n}. Hence, for j = 1, we get
I2 = 0 and I1 = 0 for j 6= 1. Moreover, there is some t ∈ M such
that M = Rt, with tp = 0, tp−1 6= 0 for some positive integer p > 1
since R is not a field, and, for each j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, there is an integer
pj > 0 such that Ij = Rtpj , with Ij 6= Rtpj −1 . In particular, we have
p = p1 = p2 ≥ · · · ≥ pj ≥ · · · ≥ pn .
Assume that I3 6= M, whence p3 > 1. Let {e1 , . . . , en } be the canonical basis of R over R and F a set of representative elements of R/M.
For each α ∈ F , set Rα := R + R(tp−1 e2 + αtp3 −1 e3 ), which is an Rsubalgebra of R. Let α, β ∈ F , α 6= β, so that α−β 6∈ M. Assume that

22

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Rα = Rβ . Then, tp−1 e2 + αtp3 −1P
e3 ∈ Rβ , so that there exist a, b ∈ R
such that tp−1 e2 + αtp3 −1 e3 = a nj=1 ej + b(tp−1 e2 + βtp3 −1 e3 ). This
gives a = 0, tp−1 (1 − b) = 0 (∗) and tp3 −1 (α − bβ) ∈ I3 (∗∗). But we get
1 − b ∈ M by (∗) and α − bβ ∈ M by (∗∗), so that α − β ∈ M, a contradiction; whence Rα 6= Rβ , and R ⊆ R has not FIP by Lemma 2.13.
Now, assume that n > 2 and Ij = M for all j ≥ 3. Using the
notation of Proposition 3.6, we get that T = R + (M × M) ⊆ R2 . But
R ⊆ R2 has FIP by Corollary 2.5, so that R ⊆ T has FIP, inducing
that R ⊆ R has FIP by Proposition 3.6.

Corollary 3.10. Let (R, M) be a quasi-local ring such that |R/M| =
∞, P
and a separating family {I1 , . . . , In } of ideals of R. Assume that
R/( ni=1 Jj ) is a SPIR. Then, R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if either
n = 2, or Ij + Jj = M for n − 2 ideals Ij + Jj .
P
Proof. Set R′ := R/( ni=1 Jj ) = R/C, where
Qn C := (R : R), so that
′
R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if R ⊆
j=1 (R/(Ij + Jj )) has FIP
(Lemma 3.3). Then, apply Proposition 3.9 to this extension.

Remark 3.11. Let (R, M) be a local Artinian ring such that |R/M| =
∞, and a separating family I1 , . . . , In of ideals of R different from M,
with n > 2, associated extension R ⊆ R and conductor C. We give
below such an extension having FIP while R/C is not an FMIR.
Let K be an infinite field, R := K[X, Y ]/(X, Y )2 with maximal
ideal M. Then (R, M) is a local Artinian ring with M 2 = 0 and
classes of X, Y in R, I1 := Rx, I2 :=
R/M ∼
= K infinite. Let x, y be the
Q3
Ry, I3 := R(x + y) and R := j=1 (R/Ij ). From Ij ∩ Ik = 0 for each
j 6= k ∈ {1, 2, 3}, we deduce that C = 0 by Proposition 3.1 and also
that {I1 , I2 , I3 } is a separating family. Let a be the class of a ∈ R in
any R/Ij . Observe that M/I1 = (R/I1 )y, M/I2 = (R/I2 )x, M/I3 =
(R/I3 )x, because y = (x + y) − x. Hence each M/Ij is a principal ideal
with (M/Ij )2 = 0, so that each R/Ij is a SPIR. Set e1 := (y, 0, 0), α :=
e2 := (0, x, 0), e3 := (0, 0, x). Using theP
notation of Proposition 3.6, we
have (R : T ) = M, T = R+RM = R+ 3i=1 Rej and R1 = R+RM 2 =
R. Since (0, x, x) = x ∈ R, we get e2 + e3 = x, whence e3 = x − α.
At last, e1 = (y, 0, 0) = (x + y, 0, 0) = (x + y, x + y, x + y) − (0, x, 0) =
(x + y) − α. It follows that T = R[α], with α2 = 0 and Mα = 0, so that
R = R1 ⊂ T is a minimal ramified extension [13, Theorem 2.3]. Then,
R ⊂ T and R = R1 ⊂ R have FIP by Proposition 3.6, although (R, M)
is a local ring which is not a SPIR: the set of ideals {R(x+ay) | a ∈ F }
is infinite, if F is a set of representative elements of R/M ∼
= K.

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

23

Corollary 3.12. Let (R, M) be a quasi-local ring with |R/M| = ∞.
Let I, J be ideals of R with I ∩ J = 0 and such that S := R/(I + J) is
a SPIR with nilpotency index n(S) = p > 0 if I + J 6= R.
(1) Assume that I + J = R. Then, |[R, R/I × R/J]| = 1.
(2) Assume that I + J 6= R. Then, |[R, R/I × R/J]| = p + 1.
In particular, if (R, M) is a SPIR with n(R) = q ≥ 1, then |[R, R2 ]| =
q + 1 and [R, R2 ] = {R + M i R2 }i=0,...,q .
Proof. (1) If I + J = R, then |[R, R/I × R/J]| = 1 by the CRT.
(2) Assume now that I + J 6= R. Since (S, N) is a SPIR with
N := M/(I + J), R ⊆ R/I × R/J has FIP by Proposition 3.2 and
its conductor C = I + J by Proposition 3.1. Moreover, the proof of
Proposition 3.2 shows that there is a bijection between [R, R/I × R/J]
and the set of ideals of R/C = S. Since (S, N) is a SPIR, there is some
t ∈ S such that N = St and the ideals of S are linearly ordered. Then,
this set of ideals is {Stk | k ∈ {0, . . . , p}} and |[R, R/I × R/J]| = p + 1.
Now if (R, M) is a SPIR, with n(R) = q ≥ 1, we deduce from (2)
that |[R, R2 ]| = q + 1. Since (R, M) is a SPIR, there exists x ∈ R
such that M = Rx and the ideals of R are the Rxi , for i = 0, . . . , q.
Moreover, the bijection ϕ between the set of ideals of R and [R, R2 ] is
given by ϕ(Rxi ) = R + xi R2 .

We next generalize some Ferrand-Olivier’s result [16, Lemme 1.5].
Theorem 3.13. Let R be a ring, {I1 , . . . , In }, n > 2, a separating
family of ideals of R. Then, R ⊆ R is a minimal extension if and only
if the following condition (†) holds:
(†): There exist j0 , k0 ∈ {1, . . . , n}, j0 6= k0 such that Ij0 + Ik0 ∈
Max(R) and Ij + Ik = R for any (j, k) 6= (j0 , k0), j 6= k.
If (†) holds, then {I1 , . . . , In } satisfies a weak Chinese Remainder
Theorem: Ij + ∩k6=j Ik = ∩k6=j (Ij + Ik ) for each j ∈ {1, . . . , n}.
Proof. Assume first that (†) holds. There is no harm to suppose that
j0 = 1, k0 = 2 and set JQ := ∩nj=2 Ij . Then Ij + Ik = R for any
j, k ≥ 2, j 6= k gives that nj=2 (R/Ij ) ∼
= R/J. So, we are reduced to
the extension R ⊆ R/I1 × R/J. But, I1 + Ij = R for each j > 2 and
I1 + I2 = M give I1 + J = M because I1 + J ⊆ M. For the reverse
inclusion, consider in R/I1 the relations 1 = xj (∗j ) for some xj ∈ Ij ,
for any j > 2. Let m ∈ M. There is x2 ∈ I2 with m = x2 in R/I1 .
Using (∗j ), we get that m = x2 · · · xn , so that m ∈ I1 + J. Then, by
[16, Lemme 1.5], R ⊆ R is a minimal extension since I1 ∩ J = 0.
Conversely, if R ⊆ R is minimal (integral), then M := (R : R) ∈
Max(R) is an ideal of R. Moreover, there is some N1 ∈ Max(R) above

24

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

M and possibly only
Qnanother one N2 . There is no harm to suppose
that
N
=
M/I
×
1
1
k=2 R/Ik with I1 ⊆ M and N2 = R/I1 × M/I2 ×
Qn
′
is lain over by
k=3 R/Ik with I2 ⊆ M. Any other M 6= M in Max(R),
Q
a unique element of Max(R), of the form M ′ S = nj=1((M ′ +Ij )/Ij ) by
[13, Lemma 2.4]. Then, M ′ + Ij = R for all j but one, so that there is a
unique Ij contained in M ′ . Then, for any j, Q
k > 2, j 6= k and i = 1, 2,
we have Ij + Ik = Ii + Ij = R, which gives nj=2 (R/Ij ) ∼
= R/J where
n
J := ∩j=2 Ij . So, the minimal extension R ⊆ R/I1 × R/J is involved.
By [16, Lemme 1.5], we get that I1 + J = M ′′ , for some M ′′ ∈ Max(R),
whence I1 , J ⊆ M ′′ . Actually, we have M = M ′′ . Deny, then Ij 6⊆ M ′′
for all j ≥ 2 gives J 6⊆ M ′′ , a contradiction. A similar proof gives
I2 ⊆ M since J ⊆ M. From M = I1 + J ⊆ I1 + I2 ⊆ M, we get that
I1 + I2 = M and the proof is complete.
Assume that (†) holds, then easy calculations show that Ij +∩nk=1,k6=j Ik
= ∩nk=1,k6=j (Ij + Ik ) for each j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, so that {I1 , . . . , In } satisfies
a weak Chinese Remainder Theorem.

4. The case of ring powers
In this section, we consider separating families whose ideals are zero.
Proposition 4.1. Let (R, M) be a ΣPIR and an integer n > 1. Then
R ⊆ Rn has FIP if and only if n = 2.
Proof. Use Proposition 3.9 with Ij = 0 for each j. Since (R : Rn ) = 0
and M 6= 0, we get the result.

We are now in position to get a result in the general case.
Theorem 4.2. Let R be a ring and n > 1 an integer. Then R ⊆ Rn
has FIP if and only if R is an FMIR with n = 2 when R is a ΣFMIR.
Proof. For any maximal ideal M of R, we have (Rn )M = (RM )n 6= RM ,
so that MSupp(Rn /R) = Max(R).
Assume that R ⊆ Rn has FIP. Using Proposition 3.4 with Ij = 0 for
each j and since (R : Rn ) = 0, we get that R is an FMIR. Moreover,
RM ⊆ (RM )n has FIP for each M ∈ Max(R) in view of Proposition 2.7.
Assume that there is some M ∈ Max(R) such that RM is a ΣPIR. Since
MRM 6= 0, we get that n ≤ 2 by Proposition 4.1, so that n = 2.
Conversely, if R is an FMIR, then |Max(R)| < ∞ and R ⊆ Rn
has FIP if and only if RM ⊆ (RM )n has FIP for each M ∈ Max(R).
Let M ∈ Max(R). If RM is a field, then RM ⊆ (RM )n has FIP by
Proposition 2.1. If RM is a finite ring, then so is (RM )n and RM ⊆
(RM )n has FIP. Assume that RM is a ΣPIR, so that R is a ΣFMIR

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

25

and n = 2. Then, Proposition 4.1 gives that RM ⊆ (RM )n has FIP.
Therefore, R ⊆ Rn has FIP.

We get now a generalization of Theorem 2.17.
Theorem 4.3. Let R ⊆ SjQ
, j = 1, . . . , n be finitely many FIP exten+
sions, Σj := Sj R and S := nj=1 Sj . Then R ⊆ S has FIP if and only
if R is an FMIR satisfying the following conditions (B1 ) and (B2 ):
(B1 ) Supp(Σj /R)∩Supp(Σj /R)∩ΣMax(R) = ∅ for any j, l ∈ {1, . . . , n}
such that j 6= l.
(B2 ) If there exists M ∈ ΣMax(R) such that RM is a ΣPIR, then n = 2
and, for each such M and each j ∈ {1, 2}, either RM ⊂ (Σj )M is a
special minimal ramified extension or RM = (Σj )M .
Proof. The result can be written under the form (A) ⇔ R is an FMIR
satisfying conditions (B1 ) and (B2 ) where (A) is the statement: R ⊆ S
has FIP.
Assume that (A) holds. Then, R ⊆ Rn has FIP. In view of Theorem 4.2, R is an FMIR and n = 2 as soon as R is a ΣFMIR, in which
case we can use Theorem 2.17.
If there exist j, l ∈ {1, . . . , n}, j 6= l and M ∈ Supp(Σj /R) ∩
Supp(Σl /R) ∩ ΣMax(R), then RM 6= (Σj )M , (Σl )M , with RM infinite.
Moreover, RM ⊂ (Σj )M and RM ⊂ (Σl )M are subintegral extensions.
In view of Proposition 2.12, we get that RM ⊂ (Σj )M × (Σl )M has not
FIP, and so RM ⊂ SM has not FIP, a contradiction. Then, (B1 ) holds.
If there exists M ∈ ΣMax(R) such that RM is a ΣPIR, then R is a
ΣFMIR and n = 2 by Theorem 4.2. Moreover, since RM is not a field,
Theorem 2.17 gives that for each j ∈ {1, 2}, either RM ⊂ (Σj )M is a
special minimal ramified extension or RM = (Σj )M . Then (B2 ) holds.
Conversely, assume that R is an FMIR and that (B1 ) and (B2 ) hold.
Clearly, MSupp(S/R) is finite. Then, R ⊆ S has FIP if and only if
RM ⊆ SM has FIP for each M ∈ MSupp(S/R)
by Proposition 2.7.
Q
The integral closure of R in S is S = nj=1 S j by Proposition 2.4 and
S ⊆ S has FIP. Hence, S M ⊆ SM has FIP for each M ∈ MSupp(S/R).
Then, R ⊆ S has FIP if and only if the module finite extension RM ⊆
S M has FIP for each M ∈ MSupp(S/R) [13, Theorem 3.13].
If RM is finite, so is S M and RM ⊆ S M has FIP. Now if RM is
an infinite field, RM ⊆ S+M RM as well as RM ⊆ S M have FIP. To see
this, mimic the proof of Theorem 2.17, using the fact that there is at
most one j ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that RM 6= (Σj )M , so that RM = (Σl )M
for each l ∈ {1, . . . , n}, l 6= j. As in the proof of Theorem 2.17, we
get that RM ⊂ S+M RM has FIP, because S+M RM = RM [α], where α is
the n-uple whose all components are 0, except the jth which is αj

26

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

defining (Σj )M = RM [αj ]. Lastly, if RM is a ΣPIR, then n = 2 and
Theorem 2.17 gives that RM ⊆ S M has FIP.
To conclude, R ⊆ S has FIP.

We can rephrase Theorem 4.2 in the following way.
Corollary 4.4. Let R be a ring and n > 1 an integer. Then, R ⊆ Rn
has FIP if and only if R is Artinian and setting {M1 , . . . , Mm } :=
Max(R) and αi := n(RMi ), then for each i, one of the following conditions holds:
(1) αi = 1.
(2) |R/Mi | < ∞.
(3) RMi is a SPIR and n ≤ 2 as soon as there exists some i such
that αi > 1 and RMi is a ΣPIR.
n
Proof. By Theorem
Qm 4.2, R ⊆ R has FIP if and only if R is a finite
direct product i=1 RMi of finite local rings, SPIRs, and fields, with
n
2 as soon as there is some RMi which is a ΣPIR. Note that 0 =
Q=
m
αi
αi
i=1 Mi and set Ri := RMi so that 0 = Mi Ri .
n
Assume that R ⊆ R has FIP and fix some i. Then Ri is a field if
and only if αi = 1, giving (1). We know that RMi is a finite ring if
and only if |R/Mi | < ∞, which gives (2). Assume that αi > 1 and
|R/Mi | = ∞. Then, Ri is a ΣPIR, so that n = 2 and we have (3).
Conversely, assume that R is an Artinian ring and that for each i one
of conditions
Q (1), (2) or (3) holds. It follows that R is a finite direct
product m
i=1 Ri of primary rings. We have just seen that Ri is a field
when αi = 1. If |R/Mi | = |Ri /Mi Ri | < ∞, then Ri is a finite ring. At
last, if αi > 1 and |R/Mi | = ∞, then RMi is a ΣPIR and n ≤ 2. Now,
use Theorem 4.2 to get that R ⊆ Rn has FIP.


Extensions of the form Rp ⊆ Rn , for some integers 1 < p < n generalize extensions R ⊆ Rn . For Rp and Rn endowed with their canonical
structures of R-algebras, we show that HomalR (Rp , Rn ) has at least
S(n, p) elements (the Stirling number of the second kind S(n, p) :=
|P (n, p)| where P (n, p) is the set of partitions of {1, . . . , n} into p subsets). We set ExalR (Rp , Rn ) := {ϕ ∈ HomalR (Rp , Rn ) | ϕ injective}.
Proposition 4.5. Let R be a ring and 1 < p < n two integers, then:
(1) |ExalR (Rp , Rn )| ≥ S(n, p).
(2) If R is connected, |ExalR (Rp , Rn )| = S(n, p).
(3) If R ⊆ Tot(R) is t-closed and Tot(R) Artinian (for instance, if
R is Artinian), then |ExalR (Rp , Rn )| ≤ S(n, p)|Min(R)| .

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

27

Proof. Let C := {f1 , . . . , fp } and B := {e1 , . . . , en } be the canonical
bases of the R-algebras Rp and Rn , that are complete families of orthogonal idempotents.
For ϕ ∈ HomalR (Rp , Rn ), let λ(ϕ) = (ai,j ) P
∈ Mn,p (R) be its matrix
in the bases C and B (with the rule ϕ(fj ) = ni=1 ai,j · ei for each j).
Then λ defines an injective map whose image Λ we compute. Applying
the ring morphism ϕ to the relations fj2 = fj , fj fk = 0 for each j 6=
Pp
k and
(∗1 ): a2i,j = ai,j , (∗2 ):
j=1 fj = 1Rp , we get the conditions
Pp
ai,j ai,k = 0 for each j 6= k and (∗3 ):
j=1 ai,j = 1, for each i. It
is easily seen that Λ = {(ai,j ) ∈ Mn,p (R) | (∗1 ), (∗2), (∗3 )} and that
λ : HomalR (Rp , Rn ) → Λ is bijective. Indeed, any element of Λ is the
matrix of a ring morphism by (∗1 ), (∗2 ), (∗3 ).
(1) Let H := {ϕ ∈ ExalR (Rp , Rn ) | λ(ϕ) ∈ Mn,p ({0, 1})}. For ϕ ∈ H
and λ(ϕ) = (ai,j ), we have ai,j ∈ {1, 0} for each (i, j) and then ai,k = 0
as soon as ai,j = 1 for some j 6= k by (∗2 ). For each j ∈ {1, . . . , p},
set Aj := {i ∈ {1, . . . , n} | ai,j = 1}. Since ϕ is injective, ϕ(fj ) 6= 0
for all j implies that each Aj 6= ∅. Then (∗2 ) implies Aj ∩ Ak = ∅ for
j 6= k and (∗3 ) that {1, . . . , n} = ∪pj=1 Aj , since each i ∈ {1, . . . , n}
is in one (and only one) Aj , so that {A1 , . . . , Ap } ∈ P (n, p). Hence,
there is a mapPµ : H → P (n, p), where µ(ϕ) = {A1 , . . . , Ap }, such
that ϕ(fj ) =
i∈Aj ei for each j. Then µ is bijective because any
element P
{A1 , . . . , Ap } of P (n, p) defines some ϕ ∈ H by the relations
ϕ(fj ) = i∈Aj ei for each j.
(2) If R is connected, (∗1 ) implies that H
= ExalR (Rp , Rn ).
Q
m
(3) If T := Tot(R) is Artinian, then T ∼
= l=1 RMl , where Min(R) :=
{M1 , . . . , Mm }. Since R ⊆ T is t-closed, the idempotents of R and T
coincide. Then it is enough to use (2).

We show that anything is possible when R is a ΣPIR.
Proposition 4.6. Let (R, M) be a ΣPIR, p, n be two integers such that
1 < p < n and ϕ ∈ ExalR (Rp , Rn ). The following statements hold:
(1) If n = p + 1, ϕ has FIP.
(2) If p + 2 ≤ n ≤ 2p, ϕ has FIP in some cases and not FIP in
some others.
(3) If n ≥ 2p + 1, then ϕ has not FIP.
Proof. We keep notation of Proposition 4.5(2). Since R is connected,
any extension ϕ of R-algebra Rp ⊆PRn comes from some partition
∪pj=1 Aj of {1, . . . , n} with ϕ(fj ) = i∈Aj ei . In view of [12, Lemma
Q
III.3], we may identify S := Rn with pj=1 Sj , where Sj := ϕ(fj )S is a
ring extension of R for each j. Moreover, Rp ⊆ Rn has FIP if and only

28

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

if each R ⊆ Sj has FIP [12, Proposition III.4]. But Sj is the R-algebra
generated by {ei | i ∈ Aj }, and then isomorphic to R|Aj | . Consider the
following cases and use Theorem 4.2 for each R ⊆ Sj .
(1) n = p + 1. Then, |Aj | = 1 for all j, except one j0 such that
|Aj0 | = 2. It follows that Sj is isomorphic either to R, or R2 . In both
cases, R ⊆ Sj has FIP and Rp ⊆ Rn has FIP.
(2) p + 2 ≤ n ≤ 2p. We consider two subcases:
(a) If |Aj | = 1 for all j, except one j0 such that |Aj0 | = n − p + 1 ≥ 3,
then R ⊂ Sj0 has not FIP, whence also Rp ⊆ Rn .
(b) Set k := n − p ≤ p and consider a partition {A1 , . . . , Ap } such
that |Aj | = 2 for j ≤ k and |Aj | = 1 for j > k. Then, R ⊆ Sj has FIP
for each j and so has Rp ⊆ Rn . We have proved that Rp ⊆ Rn has FIP
or not according to the structure of Rp -algebra considered for Rn .
(3) n ≥ 2p + 1. Consider a partition as above. If |Aj | ≤ 2 for all j,
then n ≤ 2p is a contradiction. Hence, there is j0 such that |Aj0 | > 2.
It follows that R ⊂ Sj0 has not FIP and Rp ⊂ Rn has not FIP.

Proposition 4.7. Let R be a (resp. connected) ring and 1 < p < n
two integers. Then, ϕ ∈ ExalR (Rp , Rn ) has FIP if (resp. and only if )
R is an FMIR and n ≤ 2p when R is a ΣFMIR.
Proof. We use the notation of the proof of Proposition 4.6 which holds
for an arbitrary ring. Then, Rp ⊆ Rn has FIP if and only if R ⊆ Sj
has FIP for each j. Fix a partition {A1 , . . . , Ap } of {1, . . . , n}, so that
Sj ∼
= R|Aj | . Set kj = |Aj | and k := sup{kj }j=1,...,p . It follows that
R ⊆ Sj has FIP for each j if and only if R ⊆ Rk has FIP, since there
are extensions Rkj ⊆ Rk . But Theorem 4.2 shows that R ⊆ Rk has
FIP if and only if R is a FMIR and k ≤ 2 when R is ΣFMIR. Assume
that R is a ΣFMIR. An easy calculation using the discussion of the
proof of Proposition 4.6 leads to a partition {A1 , . . . , Ap } of {1, . . . n}
such that |Aj | ≤ 2 for each j if and only if n ≤ 2p, giving the wanted
result.
If R is connected, Proposition 4.5 tells us that ExalR (Rp , Rn ) is in
bijection with the set P (n, p) of partitions {A1 , . . . , Ap } of {1, . . . , n}.
Assume that ϕ : Rp ֒→ Rn has FIP, so that R ⊆ Sj has FIP for each
j ∈ {1, . . . , p}. The first part of the proof shows that this holds if and
only if R is a FMIR and k ≤ 2 when R is a ΣFMIR, whatever is its
associated partition.

5. Idealizations which are FCP or FIP extensions
Let M be an R-module. In this section, we consider the ring extension R ⊆ R(+)M, where R(+)M is the idealization of M in R.

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

29

Recall that R(+)M := {(r, m) | (r, m) ∈ R × M} is a commutative
ring whose operations are defined as follows:
(r, m) + (s, n) = (r + s, m + n) and (r, m)(s, n) = (rs, rn + sm)
Then (1, 0) is the unit of R(+)M, and R ⊆ R(+)M is a ring morphism defining R(+)M as an R-module, so that we can identify any
r ∈ R with (r, 0). The following lemma will be useful for all this section.
Lemma 5.1. Let M be an R-module, then R ⊆ R(+)M is a subintegral
extension with conductor (0 : M).
Proof. If (r, m) ∈ R(+)M, then (r, m)2 = 2r(r, m) − r 2 (1, 0) shows
that R(+)M is integral over R. Moreover, by [19, Theorem 25.1(3)],
Spec(R(+)M) = {P (+)M | P ∈ Spec(R)} implies that R ⊆ R(+)M
is subintegral.
Set S := R(+)M and let x ∈ (R : S). Then, we have (x, 0)(0, m) =
(0, xm) ∈ R for any m ∈ M, so that x ∈ (0 : M). Conversely, any
x ∈ (0 : M) gives x(r, m) = (xr, 0) ∈ R for any (r, m) ∈ R(+)M, which
implies x ∈ (R : S). So, we get (R : S) = (0 : M).

Proposition 5.2. Let M be an R-module, then R ⊆ R(+)M has FCP
if and only if LR (M) < ∞ and, if and only if R/(0 : M) is Artinian
and M is f.g. over R.
Proof. Set S := R(+)M. Since R ⊆ S is integral, R ⊆ S has FCP if
and only if LR (S/R) < ∞ by [13, Theorem 4.2]. By the same reference,
this condition is equivalent to R/(0 : M) ∼
= R/(R : S) is Artinian and
R ⊆ S is module finite. But R ⊆ S is module finite implies that
S/R ∼

= M is also f.g.. The converse is obvious.
For a submodule N of an R-module M, we denote by JN, MK the set
of all submodules of M containing N and set JMK := J0, MK. Recall
that M is called uniserial if JMK is linearly ordered.
Proposition 5.3. Let M be an R-module, then R ⊆ R(+)M is a
∆0 -extension because [R, R(+)M] = {R(+)N | N ∈ JMK}.
Proof. Set S := R(+)M and let T ∈ JR, SK. Let p : S → M be
the projection defined by p(r, m) = m, for any (r, m) ∈ S and set
N := p(T ). Obviously, T ⊆ R × N. Let (r, n) ∈ R × N. There exists
x ∈ R such that (x, n) ∈ T . But (r, 0) and (x, 0) ∈ R ⊆ T . This implies
(0, n) ∈ T , which gives (r, n) ∈ T , so that T = R × N as R-submodules
of S, and T = R(+)N as R-subalgebras of S.

We say that an R-module M is an FMS module if M has finitely
many R-submodules. An FMS R-module M is Noetherian and Artinian and R/(0 : M) is a Noetherian and Artinian ring. We denote

30

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

by νR (M) (or ν(M)) the number of submodules of an FMS R-module
M. Hence, ν(R) is the number of ideals of an FMIR R.
Proposition 5.4. Let M be an R-module, then R ⊆ R(+)M has FIP if
and only if M is an FMS module. In this case, |[R, R(+)M]| = ν(M).
Proof. Set S := R(+)M. By Proposition 5.3, [R, R(+)M] = {R(+)N |
N ∈ JMK}. It follows that R ⊆ S has FIP if and only if M is an FMS
module. In this case, |[R, R(+)M]| = ν(M).

We now intend to characterize FMS modules by using the previous
proposition.
Theorem 5.5. An R-module M over a quasi-local ring (R, P ) is an
FMS module if and only if conditions (1) and (2) hold with C = (0 : M):
(1) M is finitely generated, and cyclic when |R/P | = ∞.
(2) R/C is an FMIR.
If M is an FMS R-module, (R, P ) is local, |R/P | = ∞, and M = Re
for some e ∈ M, then M is uniserial, JMK = {P j e | j = 0, . . . , m},
with m := n(R/C) = ν(R/C) − 1 and |[R, R(+)M]| = m + 1.
Assume in addition that P = (0 : M). Then R ⊆ R(+)M has FIP
if and only if M is simple, if and only if R ⊆ R(+)M is minimal
ramified.
Proof. Note that R-submodules and R/C-submodules of M coincide.
Assume that M is an FMS module. Then Proposition 5.4 shows that
R ⊆ R(+)M has FIP, whence has FCP. We deduce from Proposition 5.2 that M is f.g. and (R/C, P/C) is local Artinian. To prove (2),
we consider two cases. If |R/P | < ∞, then |R/C| < ∞ (see the remark
before Lemma 2.13), so that R/C is an FMIR.
Assume now that |R/P | = ∞. Denote by Re1 , . . . , Ren , with ei ∈
M, the finitely many cyclic submodules of M. Then for any m ∈ M,
there is some i such that Rm = Rei . Hence, M = ∪ni=1 Rei . If n = 1,
then M is cyclic and uniserial since JMK = {0, M}. Assume that
n > 1 and that M is not uniserial. Then M has two incomparable
cyclic submodules, for instance Re1 and Re2 , and we may assume that
Re2 6⊆ Rei for any i ∈ {1, . . . , n} \ {2}. Let F be a(n infinite) set of
representative of the non-zero elements of R/P . Then, each α ∈ F
is a unit of R. For each α ∈ F , set mα := e1 + αe2 . Obviously
mα 6∈ Re1 ∪ Re2 , so that mα ∈ Rei , for some i 6= 1, 2. Let α, β ∈
F , α 6= β. We claim that mα and mβ are not in the same Rei . Deny,
then mα − mβ = (α − β)e2 ∈ Rei and α − β is a unit implies e2 ∈ Rei ,
a contradiction. By the pigeonhole principle, this is absurd and M is
uniserial and necessarily cyclic.

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

31

Assume that M is an FMS module with M = Re for some e ∈ M;
so that C = (0 : e). Set R′ := R/C, P ′ := P/C and IN := (N :R e) for
N ∈ JMK. Then, IN ∈ JC, RK and is such that N = IN e. Conversely,
I ∈ JC, RK is such that I = IIe with Ie ∈ JMK, since C ⊆ I. We define
a bijective map ψ : JC, RK → JMK by I 7→ Ie. It follows that R′ is an
FMIR (either a field or a SPIR) and ν(M) = ν(R/C).
If R′ is a SPIR, there is some x ∈ P , whose class x̄ ∈ R′ is such that
′
P = R′ x̄, x̄m = 0 and x̄m−1 6= 0, for m := n(R′ ) > 1. It follows that
JC, RK = {P j + C|j ∈ {0, . . . , m}} and JMK = {P j e|j ∈ {0, . . . , m}}
(to see this, use the bijection ψ). If R′ is a field, then P = C gives
m = 1.
Now, assume that (1) and (2) hold. There is no harm to suppose
that C = 0 and that R is an FMIR, so that (R, P ) is local Artinian.
If |R/P | < ∞, we get that |M| < ∞ and then M is an FMS module.
Assume that |R/P | = ∞, and that M = Re is cyclic. If P = 0, then
M is a one-dimensional vector space over the field R, so that ν(M) =
2 = ν(R). If P 6= 0, consider S := R(+)M = R + Rf , where f = (0, e).
From [17, Proposition 4.12] we deduce that |JR, SK| < ∞, since R is
an FMIR and also that there is a bijective map JR, SK → JMK. In fact
JR, SK = {R(+)N | N ∈ JMK}. By Proposition 5.3, M is an FMS
module.
To end, assume that (R, P ) is quasi-local with |R/P | = ∞. Let
M be a simple R-module, with P = (0 : M). Then [R, R(+)M] =
{R, R(+)M} by Proposition 5.3. It follows that R ⊆ R(+)M has FIP
and is a minimal ramified extension since minimal subintegral.

Corollary 5.6. Let M be an R-module and C := (0 : M). Then M is
an FMS module if and only if the two following conditions hold:
(1) M is f.g. and MP cyclic for all P ∈ V(C) such that |R/P | = ∞.
(2) R/C is an FMIR.
In case (1), (2) both hold, set {P1 , . . . , Pn } = V(C) and suppose that
each |R/Pi | = ∞. Then M is generated by some e1 , . . . , en ∈ M, such
that MPi = RPi (ei /1) for each i.
Proof. If M is an FMS module, Proposition 5.4 shows that R ⊆ R(+)M
has FIP, and then has FCP. Then, M is f.g. and R/C is Artinian by
Proposition 5.2. Let P ∈ V(C), then MP is an FMS module, so that
we can use Theorem 5.5. Then RP /CP ∼
= (R/C)P is an FMIR, and so
is R/C, since |V(C)| < ∞, which gives (2). Moreover, for P ∈ V(C)
with |R/P | = ∞, Theorem 5.5 gives that MP is cyclic and (1) holds.
Conversely, if (1) and (2) hold, they also hold for each MP , where
P ∈ V(C). Theorem 5.5 gives that MP is an FMS module for any P ∈

32

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

V(C). To show that M is an FMS module, there is no harm to suppose
that C = 0, so that R is Artinian, with Max(R) = {P1 , . . . , Pn }. Now
if N is a submodule of M, it is well known that N = ∩ni=1 ϕ−1
i (NPi ),
where ϕi : M → MPi is the natural map and M is an FMS module.
Now, assume that (1) and (2) hold and that |R/P | = ∞ for any
P ∈ V(C) = {P1 , . . . , Pn }. For each j = 1, . . . , n, there is some ej ∈ M
such that MPj = RPj (ej /1). Set M ′ := Re1 + · · · + Ren . It is easy to
show that MP′ j = MPj for j = 1 . . . , n. Observe that V(C) = Supp(M),
because M is f.g. ([4, Proposition 17, ch. II, p.133]). Now let P ∈
Max(R) \ V(C). We get that MP′ ⊆ MP = 0 and then M ′ = M.

Let N be a submodule of an R-module. By Proposition 5.3, R(+)N
is an R-subalgebra of R(+)M and then R(+)M is an (R(+)N)-algebra.
Even if R ⊆ R(+)M has not FCP (resp. FIP), it may be that R(+)N ⊆
R(+)M has FCP (resp. FIP).
Any (R(+)N)-subalgebra of R(+)M is an R-subalgebra of R(+)M,
and then is of the form R(+)N ′ , for some N ′ ∈ JN, MK since R(+)N ⊆
R(+)N ′ . Conversely, for any R-subalgebra N ′ of M containing N,
R(+)N ′ is an (R(+)N)-subalgebra of R(+)M. In particular, R(+)N ⊆
R(+)M is a minimal extension if and only if M/N is a simple module.
Proposition 5.7. Let N be a submodule of an R-module M. Then:
(1) R(+)N ⊆ R(+)M is a ∆0 -extension.
(2) R(+)N ⊆ R(+)M has FCP if and only if LR (M/N) < ∞. In
this case, ℓ[R(+)N, R(+)M] = LR (M/N).
(3) R(+)N ⊆ R(+)M has FIP if and only if M/N is an FMS
module. In this case, |[R(+)N, R(+)M]| = ν(M/N).
Proof. (1) By Proposition 5.3, R ⊆ R(+)M is a ∆0 -extension. Since an
(R(+)N)-submodule S of R(+)M containing R is also an R-submodule
of R(+)M, we get that S is a ring, so that R(+)N ⊆ R(+)M is a ∆0 extension.
(2) By Lemma 5.1, R ⊆ R(+)M is integral and so is R(+)N ⊆
R(+)M. Therefore, the following conditions are equivalent:
- R(+)N ⊆ R(+)M has FC
- there exists a finite chain of minimal finite extensions going from
R(+)N to R(+)M ([13, Theorem 4.2(2)])
- there is a finite maximal chain of R-submodules of M going from
N to M
- LR (M/N) < ∞.
In this case, ℓ[R(+)N, R(+)M] = LR (M/N), the supremum of the
lengths of chains of submodules of M containing N.
(3) The following conditions are equivalent:

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

33

- R(+)N ⊆ R(+)M has FIP
- there are finitely many R(+)N-subalgebras of R(+)M
- there are finitely many R-subalgebras of R(+)M containing R(+)N
- there are finitely many R-submodules of M containing N
- M/N is an FMS module.
In this case, |[R(+)N, R(+)M]| is also the number of R-subalgebras
of M containing N, which is also ν(M/N).

We consider now the special case where M is an ideal I of R.
Proposition 5.8. Let I be an ideal of a ring R, S := R(+)R and
T := R(+)I. Then:
(1) R ⊆ S has FCP if and only if LR (R) < ∞ if and only if R is
Artinian. In this case, ℓ[R, R(+)R] = LR (R).
(2) R ⊆ T has FCP if and only if LR (I) < ∞ if and only if I
is finitely generated and R/(0 : I) is Artinian. In this case,
ℓ[R, R(+)I] = LR (I).
(3) R ⊆ S has FIP if and only if R is an FMIR. In this case,
|[R, R(+)R]| = ν(R).
(4) R ⊆ T has FIP if and only if JIK is finite. In this case,
|[R, R(+)I]| = ν(I).
Proof. Proposition 5.7 gives most of results, taking N = 0, because
R(+)0 ∼
= R with M equal either to R or I.
(1) By [23, Theorem 7, p.24], LR (R) < ∞ if and only if R is Artinian.
(2) If LR (I) < ∞, then [23, Proposition 9, p.22 and Theorem 7, p.24]
give that I is of finite type and it follows that R/(0 : I) is Artinian
by [23, Corollary of Theorem 2, p.181]. Conversely, this corollary gives
that LR (I) < ∞ when I is finitely generated and R/(0 : I) is Artinian.

Proposition 5.9. Any f.g. module over a ring R is an FMS module if
and only if R is a finite ring.
Proof. If R is finite, then JMK is finite for any f.g. R-module M.
Conversely, let R be a ring such that any f.g. R-module is an FMS
module. Set S := R[X, Y ]/(X 2 , XY, Y 2 ) = R[x, y], where x and y are
respectively the classes of X and Y in S. Then S is an R-module with
basis {1, x, y}. For each α ∈ R, set Sα := R(x + αy), which is an
R-submodule of S. If α, β ∈ R, α 6= β, then Sα 6= Sβ . Therefore,
|R| = ∞ gives a contradiction and R is a finite ring.

Remark 5.10. If N is a submodule of an R-module M, Proposition 5.2
shows that R ⊆ R(+)M has FCP if and only if R ⊆ R(+)N and
R ⊆ R(+)(M/N) have FCP. This property does not hold for FIP. It

34

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

is enough to consider a 2-dimensional vector space M over an infinite
field, and a 1-dimensional subspace N because N and M/N are FMS
modules, while M is not.
Example 5.11. In the following examples, we mix properties of the
former sections.
(1) Let k be a field, n > 1 an integer, E an n-dimensional k-vector
space with basis {e1 , . . . , en } and set R := k n . We can equip E with
the structureP
of an R-module by the following law: for (aP
1 , . . . , an ) ∈
n
n
x
e
,
x
∈
k,
we
set
(a
,
.
.
.
,
a
)x
:=
R and x =
i
1
n
i=1 ai xi ei .
i=1 i i
Then E is generated over R by {e1 , . . . , en } and faithful, while R is an
FMIR. Finally, the prime (maximal) ideals of R are the ideals Pi :=
{(a1 , . . . , an ) ∈ R | ai = 0} for i = 1, . . . , n, so that RPi ∼
= k. The
canonical base {ε1 , . . . , εn } of R over k is such that each εi ∈
/ Pi . We
have εi ej = 0 for each i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n} such
P that i 6= j, so that ej /1 = 0
in RPi for j 6= i. It follows that EPi = nj=1 RPi (ej /1) = RPi (ei /1) is
cyclic over RPi ∼
= k. Then, whatever |k| may be, Corollary 5.6 gives
that E is an FMS R-module. But, as soon as |k| = ∞ and n ≥ 2, |JEK|
is infinite (as a k-module). Since EPi ∼
= k(ei /1) isQone-dimensional over
k, EPi has only two RPi -submodules). Set F := ni=1 EPi and consider
the canonical injective morphism of R-modules ϕ : E → F and the
projections
form
Qn ϕi : F → EPi . Any R-submodule N of F ′ is ofPthe
n
′
N := i=1 Ni , where Ni = ϕi (N), because N ⊆ N ⊆
i=1 εi N.
Now ϕ is a k-isomorphism because Dimk (E) = Dimk (F ), whence an
R-isomorphism. It follows that νR (E) = 2n .
By Proposition 5.4, k n ⊆ k n (+)E has FIP, and k ⊆ k n has FIP by
Proposition 2.1. But, always in view of Proposition 5.4, if |k| = ∞ and
n ≥ 2, then k ⊆ k(+)E has not FIP, so that k Q
⊆ k n (+)E has not FIP.
(1’) We keep the context of (1). Set R := ni=1 (k/(0 : ei )). Since
(0 : ei ) = 0 for each i, we get R = k n . Then k ⊂ k n has FIP while
k ⊆ k(+)E has not FIP.
(2) Let k be an infinite field, n > 1 an integer and E an n-dimensional
vector space over k. Let u ∈ End(E) with minimal polynomial X n .
Then, un = 0 and un−1(e1 ) 6= 0 for some e1 ∈ E. If ei := ui−1 (e1 )
for any i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, an easy induction shows that {e1 , . . . , en } is a
basis of E over k. Set R := k[u], then E is a faithful R-module with
scalar multiplication defined by P (u) · x := P (u)(x), for P (X) ∈ k[X]
and x ∈ E. Since R ∼
= k[X]/(X n ) is a SPIR and E = R · e1 because
i−1
ei = u · e1 for each i, then by Theorem 5.5, E is an FMS R-module
and R ⊆ R(+)E has FIP by Proposition 5.4.
(2’) We keep the context of (2). Since un = 0, un−1(e1 ) 6= 0 and
ej = uj−1(e1 ) for any j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, a short calculation gives Ij :=

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

35

(0 :R ej ) = Run−j+1. Then, ∩nj=1 Ij = 0 because I1 = Run = 0 and
{I1 , . . . , In } is a separating family such that Ij ⊂ Ij+1 for each j ∈
{1, . . . , n − 1}. Moreover,
R/Ij = R/Run−j+1 ∼
= k[X]/(X n−j+1). Set
Qn
M := Ru, R := i=1 (R/(0 : ei )) and Jj := (∩nk=1,k6=j Ik ). Then, J1 =
n
I2 ∼
Corollary 3.10.
= (X n−1
Pn)/(X ) and Jj = 0 for each
Pjn > 1. Apply ∼
We have j=1 Jj = I2 , giving that R/ j=1 Jj = R/I2 = k[X]/(X n−1)
is a SPIR and |R/M| = ∞, because R/M ∼
= k. Since I1 + J1 = I2 ∼
=
n−j+1
n−1
n
∼
)/(X n ) for each j > 1, it is
(X )/(X ) and Ij + Jj = Ij = (X
enough to take n P
> 3 to get that R ⊂ R has not FIP.
n
(3) Let
M
=
i=1 Rei be a faithful Artinian R-module and set
Qn
R := i=1 (R/(0 : ei )). Then, R is an Artinian ring in view of [23,
Theorem 2, page 180]. Since (0 : M) = ∩ni=1 (0 : ei ) = 0, the family
{(0 : ei )}i=1,...,n is separating and R ⊆ R has FCP by Proposition 3.1.
Examples
(1’) and (2’) show that for a finitely generated R-module
P
M = ni=1 Rei such that {(0 : e1 ), . . . , (0 : en )} is a separating family,
we
Qn may have only one of the two extensions R ⊆ R(+)M and R ⊆
i=1 (R/(0 : ei )) which has FIP, and not the other one.
(4) Let k be an infinite field, n > 1 an integer and E an n-dimensional
vector
space over k. Let u ∈ End(E) with minimal polynomial πu (X) :=
Qs
αi
(X) ∈ k[X] of degree 1, Pi (X) 6= Pj (X) for
i=1 Pi (X), with each PiP
αi
i 6= j, and such that n = si=1 αi . For
Ls each i, set Ei := ker(Pi (u)).
The Kernel Lemma gives that E = i=1 Ei (∗), with αi = dimk (Ei ).
If R := k[u], then E is a faithful R-module for the scalar multiplication defined by P (u) · x := P (u)(x), for P (X) ∈ k[X] and x ∈ E.
Since R ∼
= k[X]/πu (X) is an Artinian FMIR, to conclude that E is
an FMS module over R by applying Corollary 5.6, we need only to
show that EM is cyclic for each M ∈ Max(R) = {M1 , . . . , Ms } where
Mi := Pi (u)R. We next prove that EMi ∼
= (Ei )Mi as RMi -modules. Let
α
α
x ∈ Ej for some j 6= i, then Pj j (u)(x) = 0 and Pj j (u) is a unit in
RMi since Pj (X) 6∈ (Pi (X)). It follows that x/1 = 0 in EMi , so that
EMi ∼
= (Ei )Mi by (∗). Now, we are reduced to (2) with Piαi (u) = 0 in
(Ei )Mi , so that each (Ei )Mi is cyclic over RMi and Corollary 5.6 holds.
Theorem 5.12. A faithful R-module M is an FMS module if and only
if the two following conditions are satisfied:
(1) R is an FMIR which is a direct product of two rings R′ × R′′ ,
where |R′ | < ∞ and |R′′ /P | = ∞ for any P ∈ Spec(R′′ ).
(2) M is the direct product of a finite R′ -module and a rank one
projective R′′ -module.
Proof. If M is an FMS module, R is an FMIR and
QnM is f.g. over R
by Corollary 5.6. Then by Proposition 2.3, R = i=1 Ri , a product

36

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

of local rings that are either finite, or a SPIR, or a field. Let R′ be
the ring product of the Ri that are finite and R′′ the product of the
others. Then |R′ | < ∞ and a SPIR factor (Ri , Pi ) of R′′ is such that
|Ri /Pi | = ∞ because Ri is local Artinian. When Ri is an infinite field,
take Pi = 0. So, (1) holds with R = R′ × R′′ .
Set M ′ := R′ M = {(r ′, 0)m | r ′ ∈ R′ , m ∈ M} and M ′′ := R′′ M =
{(0, r ′′)mL
| r ′′ ∈ R′′ , m ∈ M}. By [6, Remarque 3, ch.II, p.32], we get
′
M =M
M ′′ ∼
= M ′ × M ′′ , R′ M ′′ = R′′ M ′ = 0 and (0 :R′′ M ′′ ) = 0.
Clearly, |M ′ | < ∞ since M ′ is f.g. over the finite ring R′ . In the same
way, M ′′ is f.g. over R′′ . Now an R′′ -submodule N of M ′′ gives an Rsubmodule of M by the one-to-one function N 7→ M ′ × N. It follows
that M ′′ is an FMS R′′ -module. Therefore, we can assume that R is
an FMIR with |R/P | = ∞ for each P ∈ Spec(R) = {P1 , . . . , Pn }. By
Corollary 5.6, M is generated over R by some e1 , . . . , en ∈ M such that
MPi = RPi (ei /1) for each i. Actually, ei /1 is free over RPi : suppose
that (a/t)(ei /1) = 0 for a ∈ R and t ∈ R \ Pi . There is some si ∈ R \ Pi
such that si aei = 0. Moreover, ej /1 ∈ MPi for j 6= i allows us to pick
up some sj ∈ R \ Pi such that sj aej = 0. Setting s := s1 · · · sn , we
get saek = 0 for each k ∈ {1, . . . , n}. Since M is faithful, sa = 0 and
a/t = 0. By [4, Théorème 2, ch.II, p.141], M is a rank one projective
R-module and (2) follows.
Conversely, assume that (1) and (2) hold and keep the above notation
with R = R′ × R′′ , |R′ | < ∞, |R′′ /P | = ∞ for any P ∈ Spec(R′′ ) and
M = M ′ × M ′′ , where M ′ is a finite R′ -module and M ′′ is a rank one
projective R′′ -module. Then, from [4, Théorème 2, ch. II, p. 141],
we deduce that M ′′ is f.g. over R′′ , with MP′′ cyclic for each maximal
ideal P of R′′ . Since M ′ is also f.g. over R′ because finite, M is f.g.
over R. For each N ∈ Max(R) such that |R/N| = ∞, there exists
P ∈ Max(R′′ ) such that N = R′ × P and in this case MN ∼
= MP′′ as
RN -modules. Indeed, consider the RN -linear isomorphism u : MN ∼
=
′
′′ ′
′′
′
′′
′′
(M × M )R ×P → MP defined by u((m , m )/(s, t)) = m /t, using the
ring isomorphism RN ∼
= RP′′ . It follows that MN is cyclic over RN . By
Corollary 5.6, we can conclude that M is an FMS module.

We end this section by two results about quadratic extensions. According to [8], an extension R ⊂ S is called pointwise minimal if
R ⊂ R[t] is minimal for each t ∈ S \ R.
Proposition 5.13. Let R ⊂ S be a quadratic seminormal infra-integral
FIP extension, where (R, M, k) is a quasi-local ring with k := R/M.
Then, R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal, and minimal as soon as |k| > 2.

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

37

Proof. Since R ⊂ S is quadratic, the R-module St := R + Rt is a ring
for each t ∈ S\R. Moreover, Ct := (R : St ) is a radical ideal of St and R
and R/Ct is Artinian by [13, Lemma 4.8, Theorem 4.2], so that Ct = M.
From dimk (St /M) ≤ 2, we deduce that k ⊂ St /M is minimal, and so is
R ⊂ St . Hence R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal. In fact, by [13, Proposition
4.9], (R : S) = Q
M = ∩ni=1 Mi , where {M1 , . . . , Mn } := Max(S) and
n
R/M ⊆ S/M ∼
= i=1 S/Mi ∼
= (R/M)n is also quadratic. We claim that
n
if k ⊆ k is quadratic and |k| > 2, then n = 2. Deny and let {e1 , . . . , en }
be the canonical basis of k n . Let f := eP
1 + αe2 for α ∈ k \ {0, 1}. Then
f 2 = e1 + α2 e2 ∈ k + kf , so that a ni=1 ei + b(e1 + αe2 ) = f 2 for
some a, b ∈ k. Since n > 2, we get a = 0, so that b = 1 and α2 = α,
a contradiction. Then, n = 2, k ⊂ k 2 is minimal, and so is R ⊆ S.
However, if k = {0, 1}, then k ⊆ k n is quadratic, seminormal, infraintegral and FIP (each element of k n is idempotent), even if n > 2
(Proposition 2.1).

Remark 5.14. Let R ⊂ S be a minimal extension. Then R ⊂ S is a
quadratic extension if and only if R ⊂ S is a ∆0 -extension.
Proof. A minimal extension is obviously a ∆-extension. Moreover, R ⊂
S is a ∆0 -extension if and only if R ⊂ S is a quadratic ∆-extension by
[20, Proposition 5], giving the result.

6. Etale and separable morphisms
A finite extension of fields has FIP when it is separable. We now
examine separable (étale) extensions. For instance, let R be an Artinian
reduced
ring and f1 , . . . , fn ∈ R such that (f1 , . . . , fn ) = R; we set S :=
Qn
i=1 Rfi . It is known that R → S is a faithfully flat étale morphism.
For each P ∈ Spec(R), we get a morphism of the form RP → SP =
(RP )p where p is the number of open subsets D(fi ) containing P while
RP is a field. In view of [13, Proposition 3.7], R → S is an FIP
extension by Proposition 2.1. We generalize below this example.
Before that, we introduce some terminology for ring morphisms R →
S of finite type (R-algebras S of finite type). For some authors, a
separable morphism R → S is such that S ⊗R S → S defines S as a
projective S ⊗R S-module [11], a definition we keep in the rest of the
paper. In case R → S is of finite type, then R → S is separable if
and only if its S-module of Kähler differential ΩS|R = 0. In Algebraic
Geometry, such a morphism is called either formally neat or formally
unramified. It is well known that a morphism is étale if and only if it
is flat of finite presentation and formally neat.

38

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Proposition 6.1. Let f : R ⊆ S be a separable ring extension such
that R is Artinian and reduced. The following statements hold:
(1) R → S is (module-)finite and étale.
(2) R → S has FIP and is seminormal.
Q
Moreover, |[R, S]| ≤ M ∈MSupp(S/R) BnM , where nM = dimR/M (S/MS).
Proof. (1) We first note that MSupp(S/R) is finite. Thus it is enough to
show that the separable morphism RM → SM is finite for M ∈ Spec(R).
Since RM is a field, this follows from [11, Corollary 2.2, p.48]. To
complete the proof, observe that R is absolutely flat and Noetherian.
(2) We can assume that R is a field by using [13, Proposition 3.7]. By
[7, Definition 1, Ch. 5, p.28], there is a base change R → L, where L
is a field extension of R, such that L ⊗R S ∼
= Ln . Then n is necessarily
dimR (S). The result follows from Proposition 2.1, [27, Théorème 2.29]
and [14, Lemma 2.1], since the base change R → L is faithfully flat.
The last statement is a consequence of [13, Theorem 3.6].

Theorem 6.2. Let R ⊆ S be a (module-)finite étale extension with
conductor C. Then
(1) R ⊆ S has FIP and is seminormal if and only if R/C is Artinian and reduced.
(2) R ⊆ S has FIP and R/C is reduced if and only if R ⊆ S is
seminormal and R/C is Artinian.
Proof. (1) Assume that R/C is Artinian and reduced. In that case
R/C ⊆ S/C is module-finite and separable. In view of Proposition 6.1,
this extension has FIP and is seminormal and so is R ⊆ S.
Conversely, if R ⊆ S has FIP, it has FCP and then R/C is Artinian
by [13, Theorem 4.2]. Moreover, the seminormality of R ⊆ S entails
that C is semi-prime in S [13, Lemma 4.8], whence in R.
(2) If R ⊆ S has FIP, then R/C is Artinian by (1), which gives that
R ⊆ S is seminormal when moreover, R/C is reduced.
Always by (1), the seminormality of R ⊆ S entails that R/C is
reduced, and then R ⊆ S has FIP, whereas R/C is Artinian.

As a consequence of the above theorem, we see that a seminormal
finite separable extension has FIP if and only if it has FCP. Moreover,
it follows from Proposition 6.1 that a separable extension R ⊆ S whose
conductor is a maximal ideal of R has FIP.
Remark 6.3. Let A be a ring, p(X) ∈ A[X] and B := A[X]/(p(X)),
with p(X) monic, so that f : A → B is faithfully flat. It is easy to
show, using [24, Lemma 2.6], that f is infra-integral if and only if p(X)
splits in each κ(P )[X] for P ∈ Spec(A), so that each fiber morphism

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

39

κ(P )[X] → κ(P )[X]⊗A B is of the form κ(P ) → κ(P )n for some integer
n. It follows that f is étale if f is infra-integral. Since the conductor
of f is 0, when f is infra-integral, f has FIP and is seminormal if and
only if A is Artinian reduced.
Remark 6.4. Let k ⊆ K be a finite separable extension of fields with
minimal polynomial f (X) ∈ k[X] and f (X) := (X − α)f1 (X) · · · fr (X)
its decomposition into irreducible factors in K[X]. There are ring morphisms pi : k[X]/(f (X)) ∼
= K → K[X]/(fi (X)) for i = 1, . . . , r. Denoting by Li the pullback fields associated to the morphisms pi and
K → K[X]/(fi (X)), we get subextensions k ⊆ Li of k ⊆ K. Each
subextension of k ⊆ K is an intersection of some of the Li s [31, Theorem 1].
This last result can be generalized to FCP extensions, by using Noetherian lattices. Let R ⊆ S be an FCP extension, then [R, S] endowed
with the inclusion is a lattice for intersection and compositum. An
element T ∈ [R, S] is called ∩-irreducible (resp. comp-irreducible) if
T = T1 ∩ T2 (resp. T = T1 T2 ) implies T = T1 or T = T2 . It is clear
that T ∈ [R, S] is ∩-irreducible (resp. comp-irreducible) if and only if
either T = S (resp. T = R) or there is a unique T ′ ∈ [R, S] such that
T ⊂ T ′ (resp. T ′ ⊂ T ) is a minimal extension. Then by [22, Proposition 1.4.4], any T ∈ [R, S] is a finite intersection (resp. compositum) of
∩-irreducible (resp. comp-irreducible) elements of [R, S].

References
[1] D. D. Anderson and S. Chun, Commutative rings with finitely generated
monoids of fractional ideals, J. Algebra, 320, (2008), 3006–3021.
[2] D. D. Anderson, D. E. Dobbs and B. Mullins, The primitive element theorem for commutative algebras, Houston J. Math., 25, (1999), 603–623.
[3] G. E. Andrews, The theory of partitions, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1976.
[4] N. Bourbaki, Algèbre Commutative, Chs. 1 and 2, Hermann, Paris, 1961.
[5] N. Bourbaki, Algèbre Commutative, Chs. 5 and 6, Hermann, Paris, 1964.
[6] N. Bourbaki, Algèbre, Chs. 1–3, Hermann, Paris, 1970.
[7] N. Bourbaki, Algèbre, Chs. 4–7, Masson, Paris, 1981.
[8] P.-J. Cahen, D. E. Dobbs and T. G. Lucas, Valuative domains, J. Algebra
Appl., 9 (2010), 43–72.
[9] P.-J. Cahen, D. E. Dobbs and T. G. Lucas, Characterizing minimal extensions, Rocky Mountain J. Math., 41 (2011), 1081–1125.
[10] L. I. Dechéne, Adjacent extensions of rings, Ph. D. thesis, University of
California at Riverside, Riverside, (1978).
[11] F. DeMeyer and E. Ingraham, Separable algebras over commutative rings,
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 181, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York,
1971.

40

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

[12] D. E. Dobbs, B. Mullins, G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, On the FIP
property for extensions of commutative rings, Comm. Algebra, 33 (2005),
3091–3119.
[13] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Characterizing the
ring extensions that satisfy FIP or FCP, J. Algebra, 371 (2012), 391–429.
[14] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Transfer results for the
FIP and FCP properties of ring extensions, to appear in Comm. Algebra.
[15] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet, M. Picavet-L’Hermitte and J. Shapiro, On intersections and composites of minimal ring extensions, J P J. Algebra, Number
Theory Appl., 26 (2012), 103–158.
[16] D. Ferrand and J.-P. Olivier, Homomorphismes minimaux d’anneaux, J.
Algebra, 16 (1970), 461–471.
[17] M. S. Gilbert, Extensions of commutative rings with linearly ordered intermediate rings, Ph. D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
(1996).
[18] R. Gilmer, Some finiteness conditions on the set of overrings of an integral
domain, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 131 (2002), 2337–2346.
[19] J. A. Huckaba, Commutative Rings with Zero Divisors, Dekker, New York,
1988.
[20] J. A. Huckaba and I. J. Papick, A note on a class of extensions, Rend. Circ.
Mat. Palermo, 38 (1989), 430–436.
[21] A. Jaballah, Finiteness of the set of intermediary rings in normal pairs,
Saitama Math. J., 17 (1999), 59–61.
[22] C. Nǎstǎsescu and F. Van Oystayen, Dimensions of Ring Theory, Mathematics and its applications, 36 D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1987.
[23] D. G. Northcott, Lessons on Rings, Modules and Multiplicities, Cambridge
University Press, London, 1968.
[24] G. Picavet, Totally t-Closed Rings, J. Pure Appl. Alg., 115 (1997), 87–106.
[25] G. Picavet, Seminormal or t-Closed Schemes and Rees Rings, Algebr. Represent. Theory, 1 (1998), 255–309.
[26] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Morphismes t-clos, Comm. Algebra,
21 (1993), 179–219.
[27] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Anneaux t-clos, Comm. Algebra,
23, (1995), 2643–2677.
[28] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, T-Closedness, pp. 369–386, in:
Non-Noetherian Commutative Ring Theory, Math. Appl. 520, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000.
[29] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, About minimal morphisms, pp.
369–386, in: Multiplicative Ideal Theory in Commutative Algebra, SpringerVerlag, New York, 2006.
[30] R. G. Swan, On seminormality, J. Algebra, 67 (1980), 210–229.
[31] M. Van Hoeij, J. Klüners and A. Novocin, Generating subfields, Journal of
Symbolic computation, 52 (2013), 17–34.
[32] M. A. Vitulli, Weak normality and seminormality, pp. 441–480, in: Commutative Algebra, Springer, New York, 2010.

FIP AND FCP PRODUCTS

41

Université Blaise Pascal, Laboratoire de Mathématiques, UMR6620
CNRS, Les Cézeaux, 24, avenue des Landais, BP 80026, 63177 Aubière
CEDEX, France
E-mail address: Gabriel.Picavet@math.univ-bpclermont.fr, picavet.gm(at)wanadoo.fr
E-mail address: Martine.Picavet@math.univ-bpclermont.fr

