arXiv:1802.08353v1 [] 23 Feb 2018

ON ∗-SEMI HOMOGENEOUS DOMAINS
D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH
Abstract. Let ∗ be a finite character star operation defined on an integral
domain D. Call a nonzero ∗-ideal I of finite type a ∗-homogeneous (∗-homog)
ideal, if I ( D and (J + K)∗ 6= D for every pair D ) J, K ⊇ I of proper ∗ideals of finite type. Call an integral domain D a ∗-Semi Homogeneous Domain
(∗-SHD) if every proper principal ideal xD of D is expressible as a ∗-product
of finitely many ∗-homog ideals. We show that a ∗-SHD contains a family F of
prime ideals such that (a) D = ∩P ∈F DP , a locally finite intersection and (b)
no two members of F contain a common non zero prime ideal. The ∗-SHDs
include h-local domains, independent rings of Krull type, Krull domains, UFDs
etc. We show also that we can modify the definition of the ∗-homog ideals to
get a theory of each special case of a ∗-SH domain.

Dedicated to the memory of Professor P.M. Cohn
1. Introduction
Let ∗ be a finite character star operation defined on an integral domain D.(We
will, in the following, introduce terminology necessary for reading this article.)
Call a nonzero ∗-ideal of finite type a ∗-homogeneous (∗-homog) ideal, if I ( D
and (J + K)∗ 6= D for every pair D ) J, K ⊇ I of proper ∗-ideals of finite type. To
fix the ideas the simplest example of a ∗-homog ideal is an ideal generated by some
positive power of a principal prime. The initial aim of this article is to show that if
a ∗-ideal A is expressible as a ∗-product of finitely many ∗-homog ideals, then A is
uniquely expressible as a ∗-product of finitely many mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-homog
ideals. Call an integral domain D a ∗-Semi Homogeneous Domain(∗-SH domain or
∗-SHD) if for every nonzero non unit x of D the ideal xD is expressible as a ∗product of finitely many ∗-homog ideals. The purpose of this paper is then to show
that a ∗-SHD is a F -IFC domain of [11] that is a ∗-SHD contains a family of prime
ideals F such that (a) D = ∩P ∈F DP and the intersection is locally finite and (b)
no two members of F contain a nonzero prime ideal. It turns out that the ∗-SHDs
contain as special cases the h-local domains of Matlis [27] and an important paper
about them by [28]), independent rings of Krull type of Griffin [23], Krull domains,
weakly Krull domains see [8], UFD’s etc. What is special with our approach is that
for each kind of domains we can modify the definition of the ∗-homog ideals to give
a theory of that kind of domains. But before we explain that, let’s bring in the
above promised introduction to the terminology.
Date: March 30.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13A15; Secondary 13G05; 13F15.
Key words and phrases. ∗-operation, ∗-invertibility, UFD, h-local domain, Ring of Krull type.
We are thankful to Professor S. El Baghdadi for numerous corrections. Advice from Professors
D. Dobbs and G. Bergman was also useful.
1

2

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

Since this work is steeped in and dependent upon the unifying quality of star
operations, it seems pertinent to give the reader a working knowledge of some of
the notions involved. But before we delve into that, let’s indicate the quite a few
theories that we can generate, if we choose to ignore all mention of star-operations.
What we have developed here is a kind of “theory schema”. Let us explain: You
may want to give star-operations a wide berth, for some reason (s ), but you want
to have some idea of what we have developed. Here’s what we can say: If you ignore
the “*”, completely and everywhere, you would get the main theory of SH domains
that characterizes h-local domains of Matlis and if you change the definition of a
homog ideal a little you would get the theory of unique factorization characterizing
1-dimensional h-local domains. Another change of definition of homog ideals gives
you h-local Prufer domains. Proceeding this way and changing definitions of homog
ideals judiciously, or as presented in this paper, you can get to the theories of
Dedekind domains and PID’s. If you have time and inclination, do look into the
paper that way. Finally if you know of the easy to define star operation, called the
t-operation, you would get another round of theories leading to Krull domains and
various kinds of Krull domains and eventually to UFDs.
Let D be an integral domain with quotient field K. Let F (D) (resp., f (D)) be the
set of nonzero fractional ideals (resp., nonzero finitely generated fractional ideals)
of D. A star operation ∗ on D is a closure operation on F (D) that satisfies the
following properties for every I, J ∈ F (D) and 0 6= x ∈ K:
(i) (x)∗ = (x) and (xI)∗ = xI ∗ ,
(ii) I ⊆ I ∗ , and I ∗ ⊆ J ∗ whenever I ⊆ J, and
(iii) (I ∗ )∗ = I ∗ .
Now, an I ∈ F (D) is a ∗-ideal if I ∗ = I, so a principal ideal is a ∗-ideal for every star
operation ∗. Moreover I ∈ F (D) is called a ∗-ideal of finite type if I = J ∗ for some
J ∈ f (D).
S To each star operation ∗ we can associate a star operation ∗s defined by
I ∗s = { J ∗ | J ⊆ I and J ∈ f (D) }. A star operation ∗ is said to be of finite type, if
I ∗ = I ∗s for all I ∈ F (D). Indeed for each star operation ∗, ∗s is of finite character.
Thus if ∗ is of finite character I ∈ F (D) is a ∗-ideal if and only if for each finitely
generated subideal J of I we have J ∗ ⊆ I. ForSI ∈ F (D), let Id = I, I −1 = (D :K
I) = { x ∈ K | xI ⊆ D }, Iv = (I −1 )−1 , It = { Jv | J ⊆ I and J ∈ f (D) }, and
Iw = { x ∈ K | xJ ⊆ I for some J ∈ f (D) with Jv = D }. The functions defined by
I 7→ Id , I 7→ Iv , I 7→ It , and I 7→ Iw are all examples of star operations A v-ideal
is sometimes also called a divisorial ideal. Given two star operations ∗1 , ∗2 on D,
we say that ∗1 ≤ ∗2 if I ∗1 ⊆ I ∗2 for every I ∈ F (D). Note that ∗1 ≤ ∗2 if and
only if (I ∗1 )∗2 = (I ∗2 )∗1 = I ∗2 for every I ∈ F (D). The d-operation, t-operation,
and w-operation all have finite character, d ≤ ρ ≤ v for every star operation ρ,
and ρ ≤ t for every star operation ρ of finite character. We will often use the facts
that (a) for every star operation ∗ and I, J ∈ F (D), (IJ)∗ = (IJ ∗ )∗ = (I ∗ J ∗ )∗ ,
(the ∗-product), (b) (I + J)∗ = (I + J ∗ )∗ = (I ∗ + J ∗ )∗ (the ∗-sum) and (c) Iv = It
for every I ∈ f (D). An I ∈ F (D) is said to be ∗-invertible, if (II −1 )∗ = D. If I
is ∗-invertible for ∗ of finite character, then both I ∗ and I −1 are ∗-ideals of finite
type. An integral domain D is called a Prufer ∗-Multiplication Domain (P∗MD),
for a general star operation ∗, if A is ∗s -invertible for every A ∈ f (D). Now let D
be a P∗MD. Because in a P∗MD D, F ∗ = Fv for each F ∈ f (D), we have A∗s = At
for each A ∈ F (D). (When ∗ is of finite character, ∗ = ∗s and so in such a P∗MD
D, we have A∗ = At for each A ∈ F (D) and so ∗ = t. Moreover, in a PdMD d = t,

∗-SH DOMAINS

3

making a PdMD a Prufer domain.) A PvMD is often written as PVMD. A reader
in need of more introduction may consult [37] or [22, Sections 32 and 34].
For a star operation ∗, a maximal ∗-ideal is an integral ∗-ideal that is maximal
among proper integral ∗-ideals. Let ∗-Max(D) be the set of maximal ∗-ideals of D.
For a star operation ∗ of finite character, it is well known that a maximal ∗-ideal is
a prime ideal; every proper integral ∗-ideal is contained in a maximal ∗-ideal; and
∗-Max(D) 6= ∅ if D is not a field. For a star operation ∗ two ideals A, B may be
called ∗-comaximal if (A, B)∗ = D. Indeed if ∗ is of finite character then two ideals
A, B are ∗-comaximal if, and only if, A, B do not share (being in) a maximal ∗-ideal
M. Thus integral ideals A1 , A2 , ..., An Tare ∗-comaximal to an ideal B if and only
if (A1 A2 ...An , B)∗ = D. Next, Iw = M∈t-Max(D) IDM for every I ∈ F (D) and
Iw DM = IDM for every I ∈ F (D) and M ∈ t-Max(D). A ∗-operation that gets
defined in terms of maximal ∗-ideals
is denoted by ∗w and it is defined as follows:
\
∗w
IDM . This operation was introduced in [4]
For I ∈ F (D), and I =
M∈∗s -Max(D)

where it was established that for any star operation ∗, ∗w is a star operation of
finite character and ∗w -Max(D) = ∗s -Max(D) and ∗w ≤ ∗, according to, again,
[4]. An integral domain D is a P∗MD if and only if DM is a valuation domain
for every maximal ∗-ideal M of D, [24]. Next, as the ∗-product (IJ)∗ of two ∗invertible ∗-ideals is again ∗-invertible it is easy to see that Inv∗ (D) = {I : I is a
∗-invertible ∗-ideal of D} is a group under ∗-multiplication with P (D) the group
of nonzero principal fractional ideals of D as its sub group. The quotient group
Inv∗ (D)/P (D) is called the ∗-class group of D, denoted by Cl∗ (D). The ∗-class
groups were introduced and studied by D.F. Anderson in [12] as a generalization of
the t-class groups introduced in [14], [34] and further studied in [15]. It was shown
in [12], in addition to many other insightful results, that if ∗1 ≤ ∗2 are two star
operations then Cl∗1 (D) ⊆ Cl∗2 (D).
In section 2 we discuss and establish the main features of the general theory as
described in the introduction and in section 3 we discuss the various examples or
special cases of the ∗-SH domains, while in section 4 we discuss weaker or restricted
theories such as weakly factorial domains and almost weakly factorial domains etc.
where the ∗-homog ideals have certain properties under special circumstances. In
this section we also give examples, as those examples do not frequent the general
scene as often as those discussed in section 3.
2. Main Theory
For a start, to save on space, let us agree that throughout hence, ∗ will denote
a star operation of finite character, defined on D, and that D will be reserved for
an integral domain. Let’s also recall from the introduction that a domain D is a
∗-SH domain, if for every nonzero non unit x of D the ideal xD is expressible as
a ∗-product of ∗-homog ideals of D. We start with explaining what an ideal being
∗-homog means.
Let’s, for a start, recall that we call a nonzero ∗-ideal of finite type a ∗-homogeneous
(∗-homog) ideal, if I ( D and (J + K)∗ 6= D for every pair D ) J, K ⊇ I of proper
∗-ideals of finite type.
Proposition 1. Let I be a ∗-homog ideal of D. Define M (I) = {x ∈ D : (x, I)∗ 6=
D}. Then M (I) is the unique maximal ∗-ideal of D containing I.

4

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

Proof. Clearly M (I) is an ideal. For, let x, y ∈ M (I). Then (x, I)∗ 6= D 6= (y, I)∗ .
But then, by definition, ((x, I)∗ + (y, I)∗ )∗ 6= D. Now ((x, I)∗ + (y, I)∗ )∗ = ((x, y) +
I)∗ . Also as ((x, y) + I)∗ = ((x, y)∗ + I)∗ , we conclude that for each a ∈ (x, y)∗
we have (a, I)∗ 6= D and so x, y ∈ M (I) implies (x, y)∗ ⊆ M (I). Next, let
x1 , x2 , ..., xn ∈ M (I). Then as we have already seen (x1 , x2 )∗ ⊆ M (I). Suppose
that we have shown that for x1 , x2 , ..., xn−1 ∈ M (I) we have (x1 , x2 , ..., xn−1 )∗ ⊆
M (I). Then by definition (((x1 , x2 , ..., xn−1 ), I) + (xn , I))∗ 6= D and so D 6=
((x1 , x2 , ..., xn ), I)∗ = ((x1 , x2 , ..., xn )∗ , I)∗ which of course means that for each
α ∈ (x1 , x2 , ..., xn )∗ , (α, I)∗ 6= D, i.e. for each positive integer n, x1 , x2 , ..., xn ∈
M (I) implies that (x1 , x2 , ..., xn )∗ ⊆ M (I). That is, M (I) is a ∗-ideal, because ∗ is
of finite character. Indeed as for each x ∈ I (x, I)∗ = I 6= D we have I ∗ ⊆ M (I).
Now let P be a maximal ∗-ideal containing M (I), then since for each x ∈ P we
must have (x, I)∗ 6= D, P = M (I) and so M (I) is the unique maximal ∗-ideal
containing I.

In [3] a finitely generated nonzero ideal I was called rigid if I belonged to exactly
one maximal t-ideal, and the maximal ideal containing a rigid ideal was in turn
called potent in [5]. Taking a cue from that a finitely generated ideal I was called
∗-rigid, in [25], if I belongs to exactly one maximal ∗-ideal. (In [20] a ∗-rigid ideal
was called homogeneous.) Let us call M (I), defined in the above proposition, the
maximal ∗-ideal spawned by I.

Corollary 1. Let I be a ∗-homog ideal. If I is contained in a prime ideal Q that
is contained in some ∗-ideal then Q ⊆ M (I).
For the record we state and prove the following easy to prove result.

Corollary 2. A nonzero ∗-ideal I of finite type is a ∗-homog ideal if and only if I
is a ∗-rigid ideal.

Proof. That a ∗-homog ideal I is ∗-rigid follows from the fact that M (I) is the
unique maximal ∗-ideal containing I. Conversely I is rigid because I is contained
in a unique maximal ideal P and let A be a ∗-ideal containing I such that A∗ 6= D,
then A must be in P and in no other maximal ∗-ideal because A contains I. So
if J and K are two proper ∗-ideals of finite type containing I then both J, K are
contained in P and hence (J + K)∗ 6= D. So, by the definition, every ∗-rigid ideal
is ∗-homog.

Remark 1. (1) The converse in Corollary 2 gives the reason why this is the case
that if an ideal A contains a power of a principal prime pD then At 6= D only if
A ⊆ pD. This is because each positive power of a principal prime indeed generates a
rigid ideal. It also indicates that if two ∗-homog ideals are such that M (I) 6= M (J)
then (I + J)∗ = D that is I and J do not share a maximal ∗-ideal, which is obvious.
(2). The idea of a ∗ homog ideal comes from [20]. (3) There may be a question
as to why use ∗-homog when we already have ∗-rigid. My reason is partly choice
and partly the fact that when we say, “I is ∗-rigid” we have to declare the maximal
∗-ideal M it belongs to. On the other hand, when we say,“I is ∗-homog” we do not
have to worry about that, as I determines its own maximal ∗-ideal M (I).
Proposition 2. Let I, J be two ∗-homog ideals and let K be a ∗-homog ideal such
that K ⊆ M (I) ∩ M (J). Then M (I) = M (J) = M (K). Consequently if I and J
spawn two distinct maximal ∗-ideals then M (I) ∩ M (J) does not contain a ∗-homog
ideal.

∗-SH DOMAINS

5

Proof. Since K ⊆ M (I) and M (I) is a ∗-ideal, for each x ∈ M (I), (x, K)∗ ⊆ M (I)
and so for each x ∈ M (I) (x, K)∗ 6= D. But then M (I) ⊆ M (K). But as M (I) is
a maximal ∗-ideal we have M (I) = M (K). Similarly for M (J). The consequently
part is obvious.

We shall call two or more ∗-homog ideals similar if they spawn (are contained
in) the same maximal ∗-ideal. Indeed it is easy to deduce from the criterion of
similarity that similarity of ∗-rigid ideals is an equivalence relation. If A and B
are ∗-homog ideals spawning distinct maximal ∗-ideals we may call A, B dissimilar.
Also by Remark 1, dissimilar means ∗-comaximal.
Corollary 3. If I and J are two similar ∗-homog ideals then (IJ)∗ is a ∗-homog
ideal similar to them. Consequently any ∗-product of mutually similar ∗- homog
ideals is similar to each of them.

Proof. Suppose that (IJ)∗ is contained in another maximal ∗-ideal P then as, say,
I ⊆ P we have P = M (I). Similarly if there is a maximal ∗-ideal Q containing,
say, J then Q = M (J) = M (I). We can deal with the consequently part using
induction.

Proposition 3. Let I be a ∗-homog ideal of D. Then IDM(I) ∩ D = I.
\
I ∗ DP , because ∗w ≤ ∗.
Proof. Note that since I is a ∗-ideal, I = I ∗w =
P ∈∗- max(D)

But since I is ∗-homog IDP = \
DP for all maximal ∗-ideals P other than M (I),
DP ). So, I = IDM(I) ∩ D 6= D as I ⊆
I = (I)∗w = IDM(I) ∩ (
P ∈∗- max(D)\M(I)

M (I).



Corollary 4. Let I be a ∗-homog ideal of D and let A, B be ideals of D such that
A, B are ∗-comaximal, i.e. (A + B)∗ = D, (i) If AB ⊆ I then A ⊆ I or B ⊆ I. (ii)
If B is ∗-homog and (A + B)∗ = D, then (AB)∗ DM(B) ∩ D = B.
Proof. (i) Clearly if AB ⊆ I then AB ⊆ M (I) which implies A ⊆ M (I) or B ⊆
M (I) but not both, because A, B are ∗-comaximal. Now if A ⊆ M (I) then AB ⊆ I
implies ABDM(I) = ADM(I) ⊆ IDM(I) . This in turn implies that A ⊆ ADM(I) ∩
D ⊆ IDM(I) ∩ D = I. (ii) As AB ⊆ (AB)∗ and as A * M (B) we conclude that
BDM(B) = ABDM(B) ⊆ (AB)∗ DM(B) and so B = BDM(B) ∩ D ⊆ (AB)∗ DM(B) ∩
D. But already AB ⊆ B and so (AB)∗ ⊆ B we have (AB)∗ DM(B) ∩D ⊆ BDM(B) ∩
D = B.

Proposition 4. If an ideal A is expressible as a ∗-product of ∗-homog ideals, then
A is expressible, uniquely, up to order, as a ∗-product of mutually ∗-comaximal
∗-homog ideals.

Proof. Let A = (I1 I2 ...Im )∗ . Pick a ∗-homog factor say I1 and collect all the
∗-homog factors of A that are similar to I1 . Next suppose that by a relabeling
I1 , I2 , ..., In1 are all similar to I1 and all the remaining ideals are dissimilar to I1
and hence to all of I1 , I2 , ..., In1 .Then by Corollary 3, J1 = (I1 I2 ...In1 )∗ is a ∗homog ideal. So A = (J1 In1 +1 ...Im )∗ where none of the In1 +i spawns the same
maximal ∗-ideal as M (J1 ). Now collect all the factors similar to In1 +1 and suppose,
by a relabeling, that those factors are all of In1 +1 , In1 +2 , ..., In2 and the rest are
all dissimilar to In1 +1 . Then by setting J2 = (In1 +1 In1 +2 ...In2 )∗ we have A =

6

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

(J1 J2 In2 +1 ...Im )∗ where J1 , J2 are ∗-comaximal to each other and all remaining
Ii . Continuing thus we can end up with A = (J1 J2 ...Jr )∗ where Ji are mutually
∗-comaximal. Since Ji are mutually ∗-comaximal, and so no two can be in the
same maximal ∗-ideal, ADM(Ji ) ∩ D = Ji , by Corollary 4. Now suppose that A
has another expression A = (K1 K2 ...Ks )∗ as a ∗-product of mutually ∗-comaximal
∗-homog ideals. Then A = (J1 J2 ...Jr )∗ = (K1 K2 ...Ks )∗ . As A ⊆ J1 ⊆ M (J1 ),
we must have Ki ⊆ M (J1 ) for some i, and as Kj are mutually∗-comaximal, Kj *
M (J1 ) for j 6= i. But then M (Ki ) = M (J1 ). Next by Corollary 4, ADM(J1 ) ∩D = J1
and ADM(Ki ) ∩ D = Ki . But as M (Ki ) = M (J1 ), we conclude that J1 = Ki . Thus
for each Ji there is a Kj such that Ji = Kj and r ≤ s. Indeed as Kj are mutually
∗-comaximal, there is a unique Kj to each Ji . Similarly, starting with Ks from the
right side we can show that s ≤ r, thus establishing that r = s.

Corollary 5. Let D be a ∗-SH domain, then each principal ideal xD generated by
a nonzero non unit is uniquely expressible as a ∗-product of mutually ∗-comaximal
∗-homog ideals, each of which is ∗-invertible. Also, if M is a maximal ∗-ideal
containing x then xDM ∩ D is a ∗-invertible ∗-homog ideal.
Proof. Since D is a ∗-SHD, for every nonzero non unit x ∈ D, xD = (J1 J2 ...Js )∗
where each Ji is a ∗-homog ideal. By Proposition 4 we can write xD = (I1 I2 ...Ir )∗
where Ii are mutually ∗-co-maximal ∗-homog ideals. Also as xD is ∗-invertible,
each of Ii is ∗-invertible. Finally if M is a maximal ∗ containing x then because Ii
are mutually ∗-comaximal M contains exactly one of the Ii , say Ik . So M = M (Ik ).
But then by Corollary 4 applies and we get xDM ∩ D = Ik .

Recall that for a finite character star operation ∗ defined on D, D is of finite ∗character if every nonzero non unit element of D belongs to at most a finite number
of maximal ∗-ideals. Recall also that if P and Q are two prime ideals of D such
that no nonzero prime ideal is contained in P ∩ Q then DP DQ = K the quotient
field of D [11, Lemma 4.1].
Theorem 1. The following are equivalent for an integral domain D. (1) D is a
∗-SH domain, (2) D is of finite ∗-character and for every pair P, Q of distinct
maximal ∗-ideals P ∩ Q does not contain a nonzero prime ideal.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2). Suppose that D is a ∗-SH domain and let x be a nonzero non unit
of D. Then xD = (I1 I2 ...Ir )∗ where Ii are ∗-homog ideals. Since each Ii ⊆ M (Ii )
which is a unique maximal ∗-ideal, by Proposition 1, we conclude that x belongs to
at most r maximal ∗-ideals. Also if P is a maximal ∗-ideal of D then for x ∈ P \{0}
xD = (I1 I2 ...Ir )∗ and so at least one of Ii , say Ij ⊆ P. But then by Corollary 1,
P ⊆ M (Ij ). Since P is a maximal ∗-ideal P = M (Ij ). Thus for each maximal ∗-ideal
P of a ∗-SHD D, there is a ∗-homog ideal I such that P = M (I). Now let P and Q
be two distinct maximal ∗-ideals in a ∗-SH domain D. As we have established above,
there exist ∗-homog ideals I, J such that P = M (I) and Q = M (J). Now suppose
that there is a nonzero prime ideal m ⊆ P ∩ Q. Then as m is a nonzero prime ideal,
m contains a nonzero element and hence a ∗-homog ideal A, which is impossible
by Proposition 2, because P = M (I) and Q = M (J) are distinct. We next show
(2) ⇒ (1). Suppose that D is of finite ∗ character and that no two maximal ∗ideals P, Q contain a nonzero prime ideal. Let x be a nonzero non unit element
of D. Let T = {P1 , P2 , ..., Pr } be the set of all the maximal ∗-ideals containing

∗-SH DOMAINS

\

x. Then (x) =

P ∈∗-Max(D)

7

xDP = xDP1 ∩ xDP2 ∩ ... ∩ xDPr ∩ (

= (xDP1 ∩ xDP2 ∩ ... ∩ xDPr ) ∩ D =

r
\
i=1

\

DQ )

Q∈∗-Max(D)\T

(xDPi ∩ D) . We now proceed to show that

xDPi ∩ D is contained in Pi and to no other maximal ∗ -ideal for each i = 1, .., r.
Indeed for any maximal ∗-ideal Q other than Pi we have DPi DQ = K [11, Lemma
4.1] we have (xDPi ∩ D)DQ = xDPi DQ ∩ DQ = K ∩ DQ = DQ . So xDPi ∩ D is
not contained in any maximal ∗-ideal other than Pi . Using this piece of information
r
r
r
\
\
Y
xDPi ∩ D = (x) and as
we see that ( (xDPi ∩ D))∗w = ( xDPi ∩ D)∗w =
i=1

∗w ≤ ∗ we have (x) = (

r
Y

i=1

i=1

i=1

(xDPi ∩ D))∗ . That is each (xDPi ∩ D) is ∗-invertible

and hence of finite type and consequently is a ∗-homog ideal, being also a ∗-ideal.
Thus for each nonzero non unit x of D, xD is expressible as a finite ∗-product of
∗-homog ideals and D is a ∗-SH domain.

The proof of (2) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 1 shows that Theorem 1 could have been
replaced by another interesting result, if we were to use the terminology of [11].
The terminology can be described as follows. Let F = {Pα : α ∈ I} be a\family
of nonzero prime ideals of D. F is called a defining family of D if D =
DPα
α∈I

. The defining family F is of finite character if no nonzero non unit of D belongs
to infinitely many members of F . We may call the defining family F independent
if no two members of F contain a \
common nonzero prime ideal. The function ∗F
on F (D) defined by A 7→ A∗F =
ADPα is called a star operation induced by
α∈I

the family {DPα } of localizations at members of F . (We shall, in what follows,
introduce concepts to facilitate reading of the paper.) In [11], an integral ideal A of
D was called unidirectional if A belongs to a unique member of the defining family
F of primes. With this terminology it was shown in [11, Theorem 2.1] that if D,
F , ∗F are defined as above and if ∗F is of finite character then the family F is
independent of finite character if and only if every nonzero non unit element x of
D, xD is expressible as a ∗F -product of a finite number of unidirectional ideals.
Now, if we match F with ∗-M ax(D), ∗F gets matched with ∗w and unidirectional
ideal with ∗-homog ideal we can restate Theorem 3.3 of [11] as the following result.
Theorem 2. Let ∗ be a star operation of finite character defined on an integral
domain D. Then the following are equivalent: 1. D is of finite ∗-character and
for any two distinct P, Q ∈ ∗-M ax(D) P ∩ Q does not contain a nonzero prime
ideal, 2. every nonzero prime ideal of D contains an element x such that xD is a
∗w -product of ∗-homog ideals (Note that as ∗w ≤ ∗, “∗w -product” can be replaced
by “∗-product”, here.), 3. every nonzero prime ideal of D contains a ∗-homog ∗invertible ∗-ideal, 4. for P ∈ ∗-M ax(D) and 0 6= x ∈ P , xDP ∩ D is a ∗-invertible
and ∗-homog ideal (In [11] 0 6= x ∈ D was mistakenly typed in place of 0 6= x ∈ P.),
5. no pair of distinct maximal ∗-ideals contains a nonzero prime ideal and for any
nonzero ideal A of D, A∗w is of finite type. whenever ADP is finitely generated for
all P in ∗-M ax(D).

8

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

Note that Theorem 1 proves the equivalence of (1) and (2) of Theorem 2 and that
is grounds enough to include Theorem 2 as part of this paper. On the other hand
the theory developed in [11] is not enough to take care of the more general approach
in this paper. There is, of course, another important difference. While [11] takes
care of independent rings of Krull type and Krull domains by requiring that for
each P ∈ F , DP is a valuation domain, and requiring for Krull domains that DP is
a rank one DVR for each P ∈ F , the theory presented here lets us define a ∗-homog
ideal to fit the picture. For instance we can define, as we show in the following, a
∗-homog ideal to establish the theory of independent rings of Krull type, or of Krull
domains etc. In each case, obviously, Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 are ready proved
and all we need show is that the resulting theory has the distinctive feature that
we claim it has. In what follows, in the next section we make a few demonstrations
that list the variations of the definition of ∗-homog ideals and the domains they
lead to.
In view of a comment, at the start of section 3, in [11] we may also call the
domains characterized in Theorems 1, 2 ∗-h-local, as the domains whose principal
ideals generated by nonzero non units are expressible as ∗-products of finitely many
∗-homog ideals, noting that when ∗ = d we have the usual definition of h-local
domains of Matlis [27] and when ∗ = t we have what we termed as weakly Matlis
domains in [11]. The interesting part of this approach is that, as we demonstrate
below, we can redefine the ∗-homog ideals to fit the various special cases of ∗-SH
domains.
3. Clones or examples of ∗-SHDs
Let’s call D a ∗-weakly Krull domain (∗-WKD) if D is a ∗-SHD such that each
maximal ∗-ideal P of D is of height 1. These domains are known as weakly Krull
domains and were first studied in [8].
Definition 1. Call a ∗-homog ideal I, ∗-homog of type 1, if for every x ∈ M (I)\{0}
there is a positive integer n such that xn DM(I) ∩ D ⊆ I. Also call a domain D a
∗-SH domain of type 1 if for every nonzero non unit x of D, xD is a ∗-product of
finitely many ∗-homog ideals of type 1.
Indeed if I and J are ∗-homog of type 1 then so is (IJ)∗ . This is because (IJ)∗
is a ∗-homog ideal similar to both I and J, to start with. So, M (I) = M (J). Now
let x ∈ M (I)\{0}. Then for some positive integers m, n we have xm DM(I) ∩ D ⊆ I
and xn DM(I) ∩ D ⊆ J. This gives (xm DM(I) ∩ D)(xn DM(I) ∩ D) ⊆ IJ ⊆ (IJ)∗ .
But then (IJ)∗ = (IJ)∗ DM(I) ∩ D ⊇ (xm DM(I) ∩ D)(xn DM(I) ∩ D))DM(I) ∩ D
= xm+n DM(I) ∩ D, for each x ∈ M (I).
Theorem 3. Let D be an integral domain and suppose that D is a ∗-SHD of type
1. Then D is a ∗-WKD. Conversely if D is a ∗-WKD, then every nonzero proper
principal ideal of D is expressible as a ∗-product of finitely many ∗-homog ideals of
type 1, i.e. D is a ∗-SHD of type 1.
Proof. All we need prove is that if every nonzero proper principal ideal of D is
expressible as a finite ∗-product of ∗-homog ideals of type 1 then for each maximal
∗-ideal M we have ht(M ) = 1. For this let us first observe that if D is a ∗-SHD with
M a maximal ∗-ideal of D then by Corollary 5, xDM ∩ D is a ∗-invertible ∗-homog
ideal. Indeed as in the proof of Corollary 5, xD = (I1 I2 ...Ir )∗ where Ii are mutually

∗-SH DOMAINS

9

∗-comaximal and of type 1, because x is a product of ∗-homog ideals of type 1. Also
as M is a maximal ∗-ideal, xDM ∩ D = Ii for some i, by the proof of Corollary 5.
Now let aDM , bDM be two nonzero non units in DM . We can assume that a, b ∈ D.
So that aDM ∩D is of type 1 and b ∈ M and so by definition bm DM ∩D ⊆ aDM ∩D,
for some positive integer m. But then (bm DM ∩ D)DM ⊆ (aDM ∩ D)DM and this
means bm DM ⊆ aDM . Since a and b are arbitrary, we conclude that M DM is
of height one. (We have bm DM ⊆ aDM , for some m, so bDM belongs to every
nonzero prime ideal aDM belongs to. Similarly the other way around and indeed
this forces M to be of height one.) This makes the, otherwise, ∗-h-local domain a
∗-WKD. Conversely if D is a ∗-WKD. Then as we know from Theorems 1 and 2
every ideal generated by a nonzero non unit of D is a ∗-product of ∗-homog ideals
and we need to show these ∗-homog ideals are of type 1. Now all we need do is show
that for each nonzero x and a maximal ∗-ideal M, containing x, the ideal xDM ∩ D
is of type 1. For this let a ∈ M \(0). Then aDM and xDM are nonzero non units of
M DM which is of height one and so am DM ⊆ xDM for some positive integer m.
But then am DM ∩ D ⊆ xDM ∩ D which makes xDM ∩ D of type 1.

Recall\that, as we hinted in relation with Theorem 2 that D is a Krull domain
if D =
DP where the intersection is locally finite and each DP is a discrete
valuation domain. Let’s call a ∗-WKD a ∗-Krull domain if for each maximal ∗-ideal
P of D, the localization DP is a discrete rank one valuation domain. Now note
that a ∗-WKD D is ∗-Krull if and only if every maximal ∗-ideal of D is ∗-invertible.
Since if ∗ is of finite type then every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal is a t-invertible t-ideal [37,
Theorem 1.1] and for a t-invertible prime t-ideal P of height 1, DP is a discrete
valuation domain, because t-invertible extends to t-invertible in localizations [37,
page 436, consequence (a)] P DP is t-invertible and because P DP is of height one,
P DP is a t-ideal and in a t-local domain (i.e. maximal ideal is a t-ideal.) t-invertible
is principal [5, Proposition 1.12]. So, in view of the definitions of a Krull domain,
a ∗-Krull domain is a Krull domain. It appears that a definition that links the
∗-homog ideal with this fact can be worded as below.
Definition 2. Call a ∗-homog ideal I, of type 2 if for some positive integer n,
I = ((M (I))n )∗ . Also call a domain D a ∗-SH domain of type 2 if for every nonzero
x in D, xD is expressible as a ∗-product of a finite number of ∗-homog ideals of
type 2.
Indeed if I and J are both ∗-homog of type 2 then (IJ)∗ = ((M (I))n (M (I))p )∗
and that makes (IJ)∗ of type 2.
Theorem 4. Let D be an integral domain and suppose that D is a ∗-SH domain
of type 2. Then D is a ∗-Krull domain. Conversely if D is a ∗-Krull domain, then
every nonzero proper principal ideal of D is expressible as a ∗-product of finitely
many ∗-homog ideals of type 2.
Proof. Indeed a ∗-homog ideal I that is of type 2 is of type 1 as well, because if
x ∈ M (I), then xDM(I) ∩D ⊆ M (I) and so xn D ⊆ M (I)n ⊆ I. But then xn DM ∩D
⊆ IDM(I) ∩ I = I, by Proposition 3. So, D is a ∗-WKD. Next, let M be a maximal
∗-ideal and let x be a nonzero element in M. Because xD = (I1 I2 ...In )∗ where each
of the Ii is a ∗-homog ideal of type 2, and each of Ii is ∗-invertible. Also at least one
of Ii , say Ij , is contained in M. But as Ij is ∗-homog and as M is a maximal ∗-ideal,
M = M (Ij ). Finally as Ij is of type 2, Ij∗ = (M n )∗ . This makes M ∗-invertible.

10

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

But as ∗ is of finite type, M being ∗-invertible means M is t-invertible and so is
M DM , [37, page 436, consequence (a)]. Next as M DM is of height one, M DM is
a t-ideal and DM is a t-local ring. But in a t-local ring t-invertible is principal,
[5, Proposition 1.12]. But this makes DM a one dimensional quasi local domain
with maximal ideal principal and so a rank one DVR. Now since M was arbitrary
and D is of finite t-character D is ∗-Krull, as defined above. Conversely, note that
a ∗-Krull domain D is a Krull domain, as we have already established and every
maximal ∗-ideal of D is ∗-invertible and hence a t-invertible t-ideal. Now it is well
known that D is a Krull domain if and only if every proper principal ideal of D is a
t-product of prime t-ideals [8, Corollary 3.2]. So, xD = (P1 ...Pn )t . Moreover, as a
∗-Krull domain is a P∗MD, because DM is a valuation domain for every maximal
∗-ideal M , ∗ = t and thus (P1 ...Pn )∗ = (P1 ...Pn )t = xD. Now as in a Krull domain
each prime t-ideal is a maximal t-ideal which is a maximal ∗-ideal we can say that in
a ∗-Krull domain every proper ∗-ideal is a ∗-product of maximal ∗-ideals. Finally
as each maximal ∗-ideal P in a ∗-Krull domain is a ∗-ideal of finite type, being
∗-invertible, it is obviously ∗-homog of type 2.

Definition 3. A nonzero integral ∗-ideal I of finite type is called ∗-super homogeneous (∗-super homog) if (1) if each ∗-ideal of finite type containing I is ∗-invertible
and (2) For every pair of proper integral ∗-ideals A, B of finite type containing I,
(A + B)∗ 6= D.
Remark 2. Note that since every ∗-ideal of finite type is ∗-invertible in a P∗MD a
∗-homog ideal is ∗-super homog in a P∗MD. Indeed, as the definition indicates, a ∗super homog ideal I is a ∗-homog ideal such that each ∗-ideal of finite type containing
I is ∗-invertible, in particular a ∗-super homog ideal is ∗-invertible. Note that a ∗super homog ideal is a ∗-super rigid ideal of [25]. Some properties of ∗-super rigid
(i.e. ∗-super homog) ideals are given in [25, Theorem 1.10]. We list them here in
the language of the present paper, even though some of them have been proved more
in more general setting above.
Theorem 5. Let I be a ∗-super homog ideal of D and suppose that M = M (I).
(1) If A is a proper finitely generated ideal for which A ⊇ I, then A is ∗-super
homog.
(2) If J is a ∗-super homog ideal contained in M , then I ⊆ J ∗ or J ⊆ I ∗ .
(3) If J is a ∗-super homog ideal contained in M , then IJ is also a ∗-super homog
ideal.
(4) I n is ∗-super homog for each positive integer n.
(5) If D is local with maximal ideal M , then I is comparable to each ideal of
n
D, and ∩∞
n=1 I is prime.
∗
(6) I = IDM ∩ D.
n ∗
(7) ∩∞
n=1 ( I ) is prime.
n ∗
(8) If P is a prime ideal of D with P ⊆ M and I * P , then P ⊆ ∩∞
n=1 ( I ) .
Proof. of (2). Let J be a ⋆-super rigid ideal contained in M , and set C := I + J.
Then C is ⋆-invertible, and we have (IC −1 + JC −1 )⋆ = R. Note that IC −1 ⊇ I
and JC −1 ⊇ J, and hence IC −1 * M or JC −1 * M . Since IC −1 , JC −1 can be
contained in no maximal ⋆-ideal of R other than M , we must have (IC −1 )⋆ = R
or (JC −1 )⋆ = R, that is, C ⋆ = I ⋆ or C ⋆ = J ⋆ . The conclusion follows easily.

∗-SH DOMAINS

11

Proof of (3). Let K be a ∗-ideal of finite type such that K ⊇ IJ. Then, as J
is ∗-invertible, being ∗-super homog (KJ −1 )∗ ⊇ I. Again as I is ∗-super homog
and (KJ −1 )∗ is a ∗-ideal of finite type we conclude that (KJ −1 )∗ and hence K
is ∗-invertible. So, (IJ)∗ is such that each ∗-ideal of finite type containing I is
∗-invertible. Now as a ∗-super homog ideal is a ∗-homog ideal and the ∗-product of
two similar ∗-homog ideals is a ∗-homog ideal similar to them we have established
that (IJ)∗ is ∗-super homog.

Using the proof of (3) we can show that if I1 , I2 , ..., Ir are ∗-super homog ideals
similar to each other then (I1 I2 ...Ir )∗ is a ∗-super homog ideal similar to each of
Ii . Now Let A = (J1 J2 ...Jn )∗ be a ∗-product of a finite number of ∗-super homog
ideals. Then as we can regroup them into classes of similar ∗-super homog ideals
as in the proof of Proposition 4, we can write A = (K1 K2 ...Km )∗ where Ki∗ are
mutually ∗-comaximal. But this expression is unique being a ∗-product of mutually
∗-comaximal ∗-homog ideals as shown in the proof of Proposition 4. We have thus
proved the following proposition.
Proposition 5. Let J1 , J2 , ..., Jn be a set of ∗-super homog ideals of a domain
D. Then the ∗-product (J1 J2 ...Jn )∗ can be expressed uniquely, up to order, as a
∗-product of mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-super homog ideals.
To make an efficient use of the material we have put together let us recall that an
integral domain D an independent ring of Krull type (IRKT) if (1) There is a family
F = {Pα } of prime ideals such that DPα is a valuation domain for each Pα ∈ F.
(2) D = ∩DPα and the intersection is locally finite and (3) No two members of F
contain as a subset a nonzero prime ideal of D. Independent rings of Krull type
were studied by Griffin [23]. Let us call D a ∗-independent ring of Krull type (∗IRKT), for a star operation ∗ of finite type, if (i) DP is a valuation domain for each
maximal ∗-ideal P, (ii) D = ∩DP , the intersection is locally finite and P ranges
over maximal ∗-ideals of D, (3) No two distinct maximal ∗-ideals P and Q contain
a nonzero prime ideal in common. In other words a ∗-IRKT is a ∗-SH domain such
that DP is a valuation domain for each maximal ∗-ideal P of D. Now recall, again,
that a domain D is called a P∗MD if every finitely generated nonzero ideal of D is
∗-invertible and one of the characterizations of a P∗MD is that DP is a valuation
domain for each maximal ∗-ideal P of D [24] and indeed a ∗-IRKT is a P∗MD, as
we have noted above. Let’s also note that a ∗-IRKT is an IRKT and there is mixed
opinion on whether there are any ∗-IRKTs, for finite type ∗ different from d and
t. If ∗ = d the ∗-IRKT is indeed a Prufer domain. The situation gets complicated
in view of the fact that for any finite type star operation ∗ a ∗-invertible ideal is
t-invertible [37, Theorem 1.1]. In any case, even d and t causing two different kinds
of domains makes the case for the use of a general ∗-operation approach sufficiently
strong. We shall call a ∗-SH domain whose ∗-homog ideals are ∗-super homog a
∗-super SH domain. In general a ∗-homog ideal I is a ∗-super homog ideal in a
Ṗ∗MD, with ∗ of finite type, because every ∗-ideal F of finite type containing I is
∗-invertible.
We now proceed to show that if for every nonzero non unit x of a domain D,
xD is a ∗-product of ∗-super homog ideals then D is a ∗-IRKT. Note that since a
∗-super homog ideal is ∗- homog, a domain D whose principal ideals generated by
nonzero non units are ∗-products of ∗-super homog ideals is ∗-h-local to start with.
All we have to do is show that for each maximal ∗-ideal P of D the localization

12

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

DP is a valuation domain. For this all we need show is that xDP and yDP are
comparable for every pair of nonzero non units x, y in DP . As we can assume that
x, y ∈ D, we have that xDP ∩ D, yDP ∩ D are ∗-homog by Corollary 5. Indeed
xD = (II I2 ...Ir )∗ where Ii are mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-super homog ideals in the
current situation. Then the maximal ∗-ideal P contains exactly one of the ∗-super
homog ideals Ii , say I1 ⊆ P. That is P = M (I1 ). But then by Corollary 4 I1∗ =
xDM(I1 ) ∩ D = xDP ∩ D is a ∗-super homog ideal. Similarly yDP ∩ D is a ∗-super
homog ideal. By (2) of Theorem 5, xDP ∩ D ⊆ yDP ∩ D or xDP ∩ D ⊇ yDP ∩ D,
because xDP ∩D, yDP ∩D are ∗-super homog ideals contained in the same maximal
∗-ideal. Now “xDP ∩ D, yDP ∩ D comparable” translates to xDP = (xDP ∩ D)DP ,
yDP = (yDP ∩D)DP comparable for each pair x, y of nonzero non units of DP . That
is, DP is a valuation domain. Conversely if D is a ∗-IRKT, then using Theorem
2 we can establish that for every nonzero non unit x of D, xD expressible as a
∗-product of finitely many ∗-homog ideals of the form xDP ∩ D. But as a ∗-IRKT
is a P∗MD, every ∗ ideal of finite type is ∗-invertible, so every ∗-ideal F of finite
type containing xDP ∩ D is ∗-invertible making xDP ∩ D a ∗-super homog ideal.
In other words we have the following result.
Proposition 6. The following are equivalent for an integral domain D : (1) D
is a ∗-super SH domain, i.e., every nonzero non unit x of the domain D, xD is
expressible as a ∗-product of finitely many ∗-super homog ideals (2) D is a ∗-IRKT).

Note that in a ∗-IRKT every maximal ∗-ideal M contains at least one ∗-super
homog ideal and so must be spawned by a ∗-super homog ideal. So, for ∗ = d,
d-IRKT is a ∗-IRKT in which every maximal ∗-ideal is a maximal ideal. Now, by
Proposition 6, in a ∗-IRKT D, we have DP a valuation domain for every maximal
∗-ideal P. So a d-IRKT is a Prufer domain.
Recall that a domain D is called a generalized Krull
\ domain (GKD) if there is
a family F of height one primes such that (1) D =
DP where the intersection
P ∈F

is locally finite and DP is a valuation ring for each P ∈ F . Indeed a GKD is an
IRKT. Following the pattern we can say that a ∗-IRKT whose maximal ∗-ideals
are of height one is a ∗-GKD. Indeed a d-GKD is a Prufer domain
Definition 4. Call a ∗-super homog ideal I a ∗-super homog ideal of type 1, if I
is also a ∗-homog ideal of type 1.

Indeed as the ∗-product of two ∗-homog ideals of type 1 is ∗-homog of type 1, the
∗-product of two ∗-super homog ideals of type 1 is a ∗-super homog ideal of type 1
and the theory runs along lines parallel to the theory based on ∗-homog ideals of
type 1.
Definition 5. Call a domain D a ∗-super SH domain of type 1 if for every nonzero
non unit x of D the principal ideal xD is expressible as a ∗-product of ∗-super homog
ideals of type 1.
Proposition 7. The following are equivalent for an integral domain D : (1) For
every nonzero non unit x of the domain D, xD is expressible as a ∗-product of
finitely many ∗-super homog ideals of type 1,i.e. D is a ∗-super SH domain of type
1 (2) D is a ∗-GKD.

Proof. By Proposition 6, D is a ∗-super SH domain (∗-IRKT) and by Theorem 3
D is ∗-WKD. Thus D is a ∗-GKD. The converse can be proved in the same manner

∗-SH DOMAINS

13

as the converse of Proposition 6 was. That is by assuming that D is a ∗-GKD,
then using Theorem 2 we can establish that for every nonzero non unit x of D, xD
expressible as a ∗-product of finitely many ∗-homog ideals of the form xDP ∩ D.
But as DP is a rank one valuation domain for each maximal ∗-ideal P , every finite
type ∗-ideal I containing xDP ∩ D would have to be ∗-invertible because a ∗-GKD
is a P∗MD, so xDP ∩ D is a ∗-super homog ideal.

Proposition 8. For each pair a, b of nonzero non units in a ∗-IRKT (i.e. a ∗-super
SH domain) D, (a, b)∗ = D or (a, b)∗ = a ∗-product of ∗-super homog ideals I, each
containing both a and b such that (a, b)DM(I) = aDM(I) or (a, b)DM(I) = bDM(I) .
Proof. Because a, b are nonzero non units of a ∗-IRKT D, we can write (a) =
(I1 I2 ....Il )∗ , where Ii are mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-super homog ideals and similarly
we can write (b) = (J1 J2 ....Jm )∗ , where m ≥ n and Jj are mutually ∗-comaximal
∗-super homog ideals. If for some i, Ii is similar to some Jj , then (Ii , Jj ) is a unique
pair in that Ii is ∗-comaximal with each of the other ∗-super homog ideals appearing
in the expression for (a) above and similarly for Jj . We conclude that (Ii , b)∗ 6= D
and similarly (Jj , a)∗ 6= D and that there are exactly the same number of Ii s that
have (Ii , b)∗ 6= D as Jj s that have (Jj , a)∗ 6= D. Suppose that, by a relabeling if
necessary, I1 , I2 , ..., Ir are all the Ii such that (Ii , b)∗ 6= D, and J1 , J2 , ..., Jr are
all the Jj such that (Jj , a)∗ 6= D Thus (a) = (I1 I2 ...Ir Ir+1 ...Il )∗ such that each
of the I1 , ..., Ir is similar to some, and hence exactly one, of the Jj . Similarly we
can write, relabeling if necessary, (b) = (J1 J2 ...Jr ...Jm )∗ such that each of the Ji
is similar to Ii for i = 1, 2, ..., r. Now as Ii , Ji are similar, i.e. M (I1 ) = M (J1 ), we
conclude that (Ii , Ji )∗ = Ki∗ , for i = 1, ..., r, where Ki∗ = Ji if Ii ⊆ Ji and Ki∗ = Ii if
Ji ⊆ Ii . Obviously, in either case, (a, b)∗ ⊆ Ki∗ and as Ki are mutually ∗-comaximal
(a, b)∗ ⊆ (K1 K2 ...Kr )∗ = H. As Ki∗ are the only ∗-super homog ideals containing
both a and b we conclude that (a, b)∗ = (K1 K2 ...Kr )∗ . This can be seen as follows:
Since (a, b)∗ = ((K1 ...Kr )((K1−1 ...Kr−1 )a, (K1−1 ...Kr−1 )b))∗ . This is because Ki are
∗-invertible and (a, b)∗ ⊆ (K1 K2 ...Kr )∗ . So, (a, b)∗ = ((K1 ...Kr )∗ (K1−1 ...Kr−1 I1 I2
... Ir Ir+1 ...Il )∗ , (K1−1 ...Kr−1 b))∗ = ((K1 ...Kr )∗ ((K1−1 I1 )∗ ...(Kr−1 Ir )∗ Ir+1 ... Il ,
(K1−1 J1 )∗ ... (Kr−1 Jr )∗ Jr+1 ...Jm )∗ )∗ . Now note that (Ki−1 Ii )∗ = D or (Ki−1 Ii )∗ is a
∗-super homog ideal similar to Ii . Similarly (Ki−1 Ji )∗ = D or (Ki−1 Ji )∗ is a ∗-super
homog ideal similar to Ji . Moreover, in both cases, ((Ki−1 Ii )∗ , (Ki−1 Ji )∗ )∗ = D and,
for i 6= j, ((Ki−1 Ii )∗ , (Kj−1 Jj )∗ )∗ = D, i, j = 1, ..., r. Moreover ((Ki−1 Ii )∗ , Jt )∗ = D,
for i = 1, ..., r, t = r + 1, ..., m anyway and already for each s = r + 1, ..., lt =
r + 1, ..., m (Is , Jt )∗ = D. So, each of the factors in (K1−1 I1 )∗ ... (Kr−1 Ir )∗ Ir+1 ...Il =
(K1−1 ...Kr−1 )a is ∗-comaximal with each of the factors in the ∗-product of (K1−1 J1 )∗ .
..(Kr−1 Jr )∗ Jr+1 ...Jm = (K1−1 ...Kr−1 )b. Thus ((K1−1 ...Kr−1 )a, (K1−1 ...Kr−1 )b)∗ = D
and that gives (a, b)∗ = ((K1 ...Kr )((K1−1 ...Kr−1 )a (K1−1 ...Kr−1 )b))∗ = (K1 ...Kr )∗ .

The above, ab-initio, proof was to stress the idea that there is a kind of GCD at
work. Below we provide an alternate statement that seems to get similar results in
a different way.
Corollary 6. Given two nonzero elements a, b in a ∗-super SH domain D, the
following hold: (1) if there is no maximal ∗-ideal P of D that contains both a and
b, then (a, b)∗ = D, (2) if either of a, b is a unit, then (a, b)∗ = D, (3) if P is a

14

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

maximal ∗-ideal containing both a, b then (a, b)∗ DP ∩ D = aDP ∩ D if a|b in DP
and (a, b)∗ DP ∩ D = bDP ∩ D if b|a in DP , (4) if P1 , P2 , ..., Pn are all the maximal
∗-ideals of D that contain both a and b and if Ii = (a, b)∗ DPi ∩ D for i = 1, ..., n,
then (a, b)∗ = (I1 I2 ...In )∗ , (5) for every pair a, b ∈ D\{0}, (a, b) is ∗-invertible and
so, D is a P∗MD and (6) a d-super SH domain is a Prufer domain.
Proof. (1) and (2) are straight forward. For (3) let P be a maximal ∗-ideal containing both a, b. Then as (a, b)∗ = (a, b)∗w we have (a, b)∗ DP ∩ D = (a, b)∗w DP ∩ D =
(a, b)DP ∩ D. Now as DP is a valuation domain a|b or b|a in DP and so (a, b)DP =
aDP if a|b and (a, b)DP = bDP if b|a in DP . For (4) note that for any maximal
∗-ideal P such that P does not contain at least one of a or b, (a, b)DP = DP . Now
i=n
i=n
i=n
\
\
\
\
Ii
(a, b)DPi ∩ D) =
(a, b)DP = ( (a, b)DPi ) ∩ D =
(a, b)∗w =
P ∈t-Max(D)

i=1

i=1

i=1

= (I1 I2 ...In )∗w , Ii being ∗-super homog. So (a, b)∗w = (I1 I2 ...In )∗w and applying
∗ to both sides we get (a, b)∗ = (I1 I2 ...In )∗ . Finally, for (5) and (6), note that as
(a, b)DP is principal for each maximal ∗-ideal P, because DP is a valuation domain,
we conclude that in f D is a ∗-super SH domain and if, for a, b ∈ D with (a, b) 6= (0)
then (a, b) is ∗w -invertible and hence ∗-invertible. This makes the ∗-super SHD D
a P∗MD and d-super SHD a PdMD which is Prufer.

Part (5) of Corollary 6 is sort of tongue in the cheek in that for every maximal
∗-ideal M of a ∗-IRKT D we have that DM is a valuation domain, a necessary and
sufficient condition for D to be a P∗MD.
An integral domain D is called an almost GCD (AGCD) domain if for every pair
a, b ∈ D\{0} there is a positive integer n such that (an ) ∩ (bn ) is a principal ideal.
Equivalently, D is an AGCD domain if (and only if) for every pair a, b ∈ D\{0}
there is a positive integer n such that (an , bn )v is a principal ideal. Now we can write
(an , bn )v as (an , bn )t because the number of generators is finite. AGCD domains
have been studied in [34] and in [10] as a generalization of GCD domains. Here D
is a GCD domain if every pair a, b of nonzero elements of D has a greatest common
divisor GCD. It is well known that D is a GCD domain if and only if for every pair
of nonzero elements a, b the ideal aD ∩ bD is principal (i.e. if and only if (a, b)v is
principal).
Since a ∗-IRKT is a P∗MD, and hence integrally closed (an , bn )t = ((a, b)n )t .
Also since a P∗MD is a PtMD we have ((a, b)n )∗ = ((a, b)n )t = (an , bn )t .
Proposition 9. A ∗-IRKT D is an AGCD domain if and only if for every ∗-super
homog ideal A of D we have (An )∗ principal for some positive integer n.
Proof. Let D be a ∗-IRKT. Suppose that for every ∗-super homog ideal A we have
(An )∗ principal for some n. Let a, b be two nonzero non units of D. By Proposition
8 we have (a, b)∗ = (J1 J2 ...Jr )∗ where Ji are mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-super homog
ideals, each dividing out a or b. Now let ni be the positive integers such that
(Ji )ni = (di ). Let m = LCM ({ni }). Then ((a, b)m )∗ = (J1m J2m ...Jrm )∗ , as (Jim )∗ =
((Jini )m/ni )∗ = ((di )m/ni ) = (Di ), say. But then ((a, b)m )∗ = (D1 ...Dr ) a principal
ideal. Applying the v-operation to both sides we have ((a, b)m )v = (D1 ...Dr ) as a
∗-IRKT is integrally closed, we have ((a, b)m )v = (am , bm )v . Now (am , bm )v being
principal leads to am D ∩ bm D Indeed if one of a or b is a unit, or if a, b are ∗comaximal, (a, b)∗ is principal which leads to aD ∩ bD principal and so D is an
AGCD domain. Conversely, let the ∗-IRKT D be an AGCD domain. Then, as

∗-SH DOMAINS

15

every ∗-homog ideal I is such that I ∗ is of finite type and as D is a ∗-IRKT, we
have (I n )∗ principal for some n [34, Theorem 3.9].

Definition 6. A ∗-homog ideal I will be called a ∗-almost factorial homog (∗-afhomog) ideal if for each ∗- ideal J of finite type containing I we have (J n )∗ principal,
for some positive integer n. Also, a domain D will be called ∗-af-SH domain if for
every nonzero non unit x of D, xD is expressible as a ∗-product of finitely many
∗-af-homog ideals.

Indeed a ∗-af-homog ideal I is ∗-super homog, as (J n )∗ principal implies J is
∗-invertible for each ∗- ideal J of finite type containing I.
Proposition 10. The ∗-product of a finite number of ∗-af-homog ideals is uniquely
expressible as a ∗-product of mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-af-homog ideals.
Proof. We first show that the ∗-product of two similar ∗-af-homog ideals K, L is a
∗-af-homog ideal similar to I, J. For this let J be a ∗-ideal of finite type containing
KL, i.e. J ⊇ KL. Then as K, L are both ∗-af-homog and hence ∗-super homog we
have (JL−1 )∗ a ∗-ideal of finite type containing K. But then, by definition, there
a positive integer m such that ((JL−1 )m )∗ = dD, or (J m )∗ = (Lm )∗ dD. Now as,
for some positive integer n, we have (Ln )∗ is principal we conclude that (J mn )∗
is principal. Now (KL)∗ is ∗-homog similar to K and L because K and L are
similar and because for each ∗-ideal J of finite type containing (KL)∗ there is a
positive integer r such that (J r )∗ is principal we conclude that (KL)∗ is indeed a ∗af-homog ideal, similar to K and L. That a ∗-product of finitely many ∗-af-homog
ideals similar to each other is a ∗-af-homog ideal similar to them can be shown
by doing it taken two at a time. Next ∗-af-homog ideals being ∗-homog we can
express the ∗-product uniquely as a ∗-product of mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-homog
ideals obtained by taking ∗-products of similar ∗-homog ideals. Now in this case
the ∗-products of those mutually similar ∗-homog ideals are ∗-af-homog ideals, as
we found in the proof of Proposition 6, by noting that if xD is a ∗-product of
∗-af-homog ideals then xD ∩ D is one of those ∗-af-homog ideals.

Theorem 6. The following are equivalent for an integral domain D : (1) for every
nonzero non unit x of the domain D, xD is expressible as a ∗-product of finitely
many ∗-af-homog ideals (2) D is an AGCD ∗-IRKT.

Proof. D is a ∗-IRKT by Proposition 6 and by Proposition 9, supported by the
definition of ∗-af-ideals, D is an AGCD ∗-IRKT. For the converse note that, as we
have already observed, every principal ideal xD generated by a nonzero non unit
x can be expressed as a ∗-product of ∗-homog ideals, each of which is, ∗-invertible
and, expressible as xDP ∩ D where DP is a valuation domain. Now a ∗-ideal J of
finite type containing xDP ∩ D is a ∗-ideal of finite type of an AGCD domain in
which ∗ = t and so there must be a positive integer n such that (J n )∗ is principal.
Thus each of xDP ∩ D is ∗-af-homog.

We can define ∗-af-homog ideals of type 1 and type 2 and prove obvious results
about AGCD ∗-GKD and AGCD ∗-Krull.
Call a ∗-homog ideal I a ∗-af-homog ideal of type 1, if I is a ∗-af-homog ideal
and a ∗-homog ideal of type 1. Now let I, J be two ∗-af-homog ideals of type 1,
Then IJ is a ∗-af-homog ideal, by the proof of Proposition 10 and of type 1 by the
remark before Theorem 3

16

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

As we have done in other cases let’s call an integral domain D a ∗-af-SH domain
of type 1 if for every nonzero non unit x ∈ D, xD is expressible as a ∗-product of
∗-af-homog ideals of type 1.
Indeed a ∗-af-homog ideal of type 1 is a ∗-super homog ideal of type 1 and so a
∗-af-SH domain of type 1 is at least a ∗-GKD. Next, an AGCD ∗-GKD is at least a
∗-GKD. So the proof of the following statement will run along lines similar to that
of Proposition 7.
Proposition 11. The following are equivalent for an integral domain D : (1) D is
a ∗-af- domain of type 1, i.e. for every nonzero non unit x of the domain D, xD
is expressible as a ∗-product of finitely many ∗-af-homog ideals of type 1, (2) D is
an AGCD ∗-GKD.
Next call a ∗-homog ideal I, a ∗-af-homog ideal of type 2 if I is ∗-af-homog and
every ∗-homog ideal J containing I is ∗-af-homog such that J ∗ = (M (J)n )∗ for
some positive integer n. It is easy to see that a ∗-af-homog ideal of type 2 is a
∗-af-homog of type 1. Now we can, indeed, call D a ∗-af-SH domain of type 2 if for
every nonzero non unit x ∈ D the ideal xD is expressible as a ∗-product of finitely
many ∗-af-homog ideals of type 2. Thus a ∗-af-SH domain of type 2 is a ∗-af-SH
domain of type 1 and so a ∗-GKD.
Theorem 7. Let D be an integral domain and suppose that every nonzero proper
principal ideal of D is expressible as a finite ∗-product of ∗-af-homog ideals of type
2. Then D is an AGCD ∗-Krull domain. Conversely if D is an AGCD ∗-Krull
domain, then every nonzero proper principal ideal of D is expressible as a ∗-product
of finitely many ∗-af-homog ideals of type 2.
The proof should be somewhat simpler than that of Theorem 4 because we have
assumed I ∗-af-homog and that makes M (I) ∗-invertible for each ∗-af-homog ideal
I, making D a ∗-Krull domain right away.
The AGCD ∗-Krull domains were first studied by U. Storch in [30]. The easiest
to access these domains is taking Dedekind domains with torsion class groups.
Definition 7. Call a ∗-homog ideal ∗-factorial homog (∗-f-homog) if every ∗-ideal
of finite type containing I is principal.
In other words, repeating Definition 3, a nonzero ∗-ideal of finite type is called
∗-f-homog if (1)S for each ∗-ideal of finite type containing I is principal and (2)S For
every pair of proper integral ∗-ideals A, B of finite type containing I, (A+ B)∗ 6= D.
Indeed a ∗-f-homog ideal I is ∗-super homog and so has all the properties listed
in Proposition ??. In particular as a ∗-f-homog ideal is principal, we can use “∗f-homog element x” instead of “∗-f-homog ideal xD”. Consequently, we can say
that, the set of all factors of ∗-f-homog elements is totally ordered under inclusion
of the principal ideals generated by them, i.e. ∗-f-homog element is a rigid element.
To be exact we have the following result linking “rigid element” with “∗-f-homog
element”.
Proposition 12. For the generator of the principal ideal rD the following are
equivalent. (1) rD is ∗-f-homog, (2) r is a rigid element that belongs to a unique
maximal t-ideal and every ∗-ideal of finite type containing r is principal.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) Suppose rD is ∗-f-homog then, as already mentioned, r is rigid
i.e. for each pair x, y of factors of r, x|y or y|x. The condition (2)S ensures that

∗-SH DOMAINS

17

r belongs to a unique maximal ∗-ideal the remainder is taken care of by condition
(1)S. For (2) ⇒ (1) Let I be a ∗-ideal of finite type containing rD. Then I contains
r and hence must be principal, this takes care of (1)S. Next let A and B be two
integral ∗-ideals of finite type containing rD. Then we have seen that A = xD and
B = yD for some factors x and y of r. But as x|y or y|x we have (A + B)∗ 6= D
which is (2)S.
It may be noted that merely saying “r is a rigid element belonging to a maximal
∗-ideal P ”, is not enough. We need to make sure that every finite type proper
√
∗-ideal containing r is principal. This is because in the Dedekind
domain Z[ −5],
√
2
where, of course, ∗ = d. For
√ the prime ideal P = (2, 1 + −5) we have P = (2)
where 2 is irreducible in Z[ −5] and so fits the definition of a rigid element, but 2
is not ∗-f-homog because P contains 2 yet P is not principal.
Note that the ∗-product (IJ)∗ of two similar ∗-f-homog ideals I, J is a ∗-f-homog
ideal similar to both I and J. (I, J are similar ∗-super homog, so (IJ)∗ is ∗-super
homog, similar to I and J and ((IJ)∗ ⊆ I ⊆ J or (IJ)∗ ⊆ J ⊆ I), say I ⊆ J.
Now let C be a star ideal of finite type containing (IJ)∗ . Since I is principal so is
I −1 and so CI −1 is a ∗-ideal of finite type and CI −1 ⊇ (IJ)∗ I −1 = J. So CI −1 is
principal which forces C to be principal.) Consequently a product of finitely many
∗-f-homog ideals/elements is expressible, uniquely, up to associates and order, as a
product of mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-f-homog ideals/elements.
Theorem 8. Suppose that every nonzero non unit x of D generates xD that is
expressible as a ∗-product of finitely many ∗-f-homog ideals. Then D is a GCD
∗-IRKT whose nonzero non units are uniquely expressible as products of mutually
co prime ∗-f-homog elements. Conversely if D is a GCD ∗-IRKT then every proper
principal ideal of D is expressible as a finite ∗-product of ∗-f-homog ideals.
Proof. Because every ∗-f-homog ideal is ∗-super homog ideal, D is a ∗-IRKT by
Proposition 6. It is also well known that if D is a ∗-IRKT then D is a P∗MD and
so ∗ = t. We have already established, in Proposition 4, that if xD = (I1 I2 ...In )∗ ,
where Ii are ∗-homog ideals then xD = (J1 J2 ...Jr )∗ where Jj are mutually ∗comaximal ∗-homog ideals and this expression is unique up to order etc. Indeed
as a ∗-f-homog ideal is ∗-homog the statement holds here too. Now let a, b be two
nonzero elements of D. We can assume that aD = (A1 ...Ar )∗ where Ai are mutually
∗-comaximal ∗-f-homog ideals. (A∗1 ...A∗r )∗ = a1 D...ar D, here A∗i = ai D because Ai
is ∗-f-homog . Similarly, bD = b1 D...bs D where bi are mutually ∗-comaximal. Let
P1 , P2 ...Pn be all the maximal ∗-ideals that contain both a and b. By rearranging
we can assume that ai D, bi D ∈ Pi , for i = 1, 2, ...n. Now as ai D, bi D are ∗-f-homog
belonging to the same maximal ∗-ideal Pi ai |bi or bi |ai . Thus (ai , bi )∗ = ai D or bi D
according as ai |bi or bi |ai . Let’s denote (ai , bi )∗ by di D. Proceeding as in Proposition
n
Y
Y
8 we have (a, b)∗ = ( (ai , bi )∗ )∗ = ( di D)∗ = (d1 d2 ...dn D)∗ = d1 d2 ...dn D. Thus
i=1

(a, b)∗ = d1 d2 ...dn D a principal ideal. Applying the v-operation on both sides we
get (a, b)v = d1 d2 ...dn D a principal ideal. As a, b were arbitrary we conclude that
D is a GCD-domain. Also as we have already established that D is a ∗-IRKT, we
are done. For the converse note that in a ∗-IRKT ∗ = t, d a t-IRKT is an IRKT
and a d-IRKT is a Prufer domain. That a GCD IRKT is semirigid (every nonzero
non unit expressible as a product of finitely many rigid elements) was established
in [33], where IRKT was dubbed as IKT domain or use the following lemma.


18

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

Lemma 1. The following are equivalent for a ∗-ideal I of finite type in a GCD
domain D : (1) I is ∗-homog, (2) I is ∗-super homog, (3) I is ∗-f-homog and (4)
I = rD where r is a rigid element.
Proof. Note that in a GCD domain ∗ = t. Now (1) ⇒ (3) because I is ∗-homog
such that every ∗-ideal of finite type of D is principal, being t-ideal of finite type
of a GCD domain and one that fits the definition of a ∗-f-homog ideal (3) ⇒ (2)
because principal is invertible and (2) ⇒ (1) is obvious. Now, in a GCD domain a
rigid element r belongs to a unique maximal t-ideal M = {x, (r, x)v 6= D}. This is
because (r, x)v 6= D implies that r has a non unit common factor rx with x So for
each x ∈ M \{0} we have x = rx (x/rx ) where rx is a non unit factor of r. Now let
x1 , ..., xn ∈ M \{0}. Then xi = rxi (x/rxi ) where rxi are non unit factors of the rigid
element r. Since for all a, b|r we have a|b or b|a we have (x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) ⊆ (rxj ) which
means (x1 , x2 , ..., xn )v ⊆ (rxj ) for some 1 ≤ j ≤ n. But as (rxj , x)v = (rxj ) 6= D
we have (x1 , x2 , ..., xn )v ⊆ (rxj ) ⊆ M and M is a t-ideal and there is no t-ideal
not contained in M that contains r. For if N were such a t-ideal, then there is
say α ∈ N \M. But then (α, r)v = D. Whence any t-ideal containing r must be
contained in M . Thus I = rD is ∗-homog and (4) ⇒ (1). Now a ∗-f-homog ideal
that is principal must be a generated by a rigid element by Proposition 12 and this
establishes (3) ⇒ (4).

We can call a ∗-f-homog ideal I = xD a ∗-f-homog ideal of type 1 if, in addition,
1I is ∗-homog of type 1. Indeed I = xD a ∗-f-homog ideal is of type 1 if and only if
for every ∗-f-homog ideal A = yD containing xD, i.e. y|x in D, there is a positive
integer n such that x|y n . If we develop a theory of factorization on it we will get a
theorem like the following.
Theorem 9. The following are equivalent for an integral domain D : (1) For every
nonzero non unit x of the domain D, xD is expressible as a ∗-product of finitely
many ∗-f-homog ideals of type 1 (2) D is a GCD ∗-GKD.
Proof. By (1), using Theorem 8, D is a GCD ∗-IRKT, because every ∗-f-homog
ideal of type 1 is a ∗-f-homog ideal. But a ∗-f-homog ideal of type 1 is also a ∗super homog ideal of type 1 and so Proposition 7 applies to give that D is a GCD
∗-GKD. For the converse the reader may refer to [2] or just note that a ∗-GKD is
a ∗-IRKT whose maximal ∗-ideals are of height 1.

The domains of Theorem 9 were studied in [2] under the name of Generalized
Unique Factorization Domains (GUFDs).
We can call a ∗-f-homog ideal xD of type 2 if xD = (M (xD))n and get a theory
of UFD’s. Of course that is too well known to repeat here.
4. Restricted or weak theories
Before we get down to explaining the restricted theories let us take care of a
topic that is in a way essential to them. The topic is that of (integral) ∗-invertible
∗-ideals. It is often noted that an integral invertible ideal behaves like a principal
ideal in many respects, for example an invertible ideal is locally principal. In fact
a nonzero finitely generated ideal I is invertible if and only if I is locally principal,
i.e., IDM is principal for every maximal ideal M. In a similar manner a ∗-invertible
∗-ideal may be characterized by, “a ∗-ideal of finite type I such that IDP is principal
for each maximal ∗-ideal P of D” (see We plan to use this feature in the following

∗-SH DOMAINS

19

in a somewhat indirect manner. But first we must talk about another important
property of integral ∗-invertible ∗-ideals, in the context of ∗-SH domains.
Theorem 10. Let D be a ∗-SH domain and I a ∗-invertible ∗-ideal of D. Then I is
uniquely expressible, up to order, as a ∗-product of mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-homog
ideals.
Proof. Indeed as D is of finite ∗-character, I is contained in at most a finite
number of maximal ∗-ideals P1 , P2 , ..., Pn we have I = ∩ni=1 (IDPi ∩D). Now because
Pi shares no nonzero prime ideal with any other maximal t-ideal we conclude that
none of Ii = (IDPi ∩ D) is contained in any maximal ∗-ideal other than Pi for
i = 1, ..., n. Next as D is of finite ∗-character each of Ii is a ∗-ideal of finite type.
Thus each of Ii is ∗-homog. Also Ii are mutually ∗-comaximal by Remark 1. So,
I = ∩ni=1 Ii = (I1 I2 ...In )∗w = (I1 I2 ...In )∗ . That this expression is unique, up to
order, follows from proofs of similar results in earlier sections such as Proposition
4.
Corollary 7. Let D be a ∗-SH domain. Then the ∗-class group of D is 0 if and
only if every ∗-invertible ∗-homog ideal of D is principal.
Taking a cue from the above result we make the following definition.
Definition 8. An integral ∗-ideal I is a ∗-weakly factorial homogeneous (∗-wfhomog) ideal if I is ∗-homog such that when ∗-invertible every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal
J containing I is a principal ideal.
So a ∗-homog ideal I is ∗-wf-homog if I is principal along with all the ∗-invertible
∗-ideals containing it in the event that I is ∗-invertible, otherwise it is just a ∗homog ideal. This is because being ∗-homog I is of finite type and I is contained
in a unique maximal ∗-ideal M, so I is ∗-invertible if and only if IDM is principal.
We may call the generator of a principal ∗-wf-homog ideal an ∗-wf-homog element.
It is easy to see that the ∗-product (IJ)∗ of two similar ∗-wf-homog ideals I, J
is a ∗-wf-homog ideal similar to both I and J. (I, J are similar ∗-homog, so (IJ)∗
is ∗-homog and similar to I and J. Also if (IJ)∗ is ∗-invertible then so are both
of I and J and hence, by definition, have the property that every ∗-invertible ∗ideal containing each is principal. Next let X be a ∗-invertible ∗-ideal such that
X ⊇ IJ. Then XI −1 ⊇ J making XI −1 a principal ideal, because it is a ∗invertible ∗-ideal that contains J. Now if XI −1 is principal, say XI −1 = rD, then,
since I is already principal, XI −1 is principal.) Consequently a product of finitely
many ∗-wf-homog elements is expressible, uniquely, up to associates and order, as
a product of mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-wf-homog elements.
Definition 9. Call an integral domain D a ∗- weakly factorial SH (∗-wf-SH) domain, if every nonzero non unit of D is expressible as a finite product of ∗-wf-homog
elements.
Proposition 13. A ∗-SH domain with trivial ∗-class group is a ∗-wf-SH domain.
Conversely a ∗-wf-SH domain is a ∗-SH domain with trivial ∗-class group.
Proof. Indeed if the ∗-class group of D is zero, every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal of D is
principal. Now for every nonzero non unit x in a ∗-SH domain xD = (I1 I2 ...In )∗ ,
where Ii are mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-invertible ∗-ideals. With the added restriction
of trivial ∗-class group, each of Ii = xi D is a principal ideal which fits the definition

20

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

of a ∗-wf-homog element (indeed every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal containing xi D is principal because Cl∗ (D) = (0)). Hence, as the ∗-operation is ineffective on principal
ideals, xD = d1 d2 ...dn D, or x = ed1 d2 ...dn is a product of ∗-wf-homog elements,
where e is a unit. Conversely, it is obvious that (a) D is of finite ∗-character and
(b) every prime ideal of D contains a ∗-wf-homog element which generates a ∗homog ideal. It is now easy to show that every maximal ∗-ideal of D is spawned
by a ∗-wf-homog principal ideal and that no two distinct maximal ∗-ideals contain
a nonzero prime ideal. So, a ∗-wf-SH domain D is a ∗-SH domain. Next to show
that the ∗-class group of D is trivial, take an integral ∗-invertible ∗-ideal I of D
and let 0 6= x ∈ I. By Theorem 10, I = (I1 I2 ...In )∗ where each of Ii is a ∗-homog
ideal and Ii mutually ∗-comaximal. Pick one, say Ik , and note that x is d1 d2 ...dr
of ∗-wf-homog elements belongs to Ik . Since for each i, di D is ∗-homog and since
di are mutually ∗-comaximal, by Corollary 4 only one of the di belongs to Ik . Now
di being a ∗-wf-homog element, di D has the property that any ∗-invertible ∗-ideal
containing it is principal, by Definition 8. Finally as I and Ii were arbitrary, we
conclude that every integral ∗-invertible ∗-ideal of D is principal.

Examples: (a) (When ∗ = d and no restriction on dimension). Let (R, M ) be a
regular local domain of dimension n ≥ 2, let L be the quotient field of R and let X
be an indeterminate over L. Then the ring D = R + XL[X] is an n + 1 dimensional
d-SH factorial domain such that Cld (D), the ideal class group of D is zero.
Illustration: By [19, Cororollary 1.3] D is a GCD domain and so Clt (D) = (0)
and as Cld (D) ⊆ Clt (D) we conclude that Cld (D) = (0). Also, by [19, Theorem
4.21], the maximal ideals of D are (a) M + XL[X] where M is the maximal ideal
of R and (b) ideals of the type f (X)D where f (X) is an irreducible element and
hence a prime, of D such that f (0) = 1. Next a typical nonzero non unit f (X) of
D can be expressed as ab X r (1 + Xg(X)) where a, b ∈ D\{0}, b = 1 if r = 0 and
g(X) ∈ K[X]. Clearly f (X) = ab X r × (1 + f1 (X))r1 × ... × (1 + fm (X))rm where
the (1 + fi (X)), i = 1, .., m, and r, ri ≥ 0, are irreducible and hence generate a
principal maximal ideal each and of course ab X r ∈ M + XL[X]. (Indeed if r = 0,
a r
b X = a and if a is a non unit then a ∈ M + XL[X]. Thus f (X) belongs to only
finitely many maximal i.e. maximal d-ideals). That no two maximal ideals contain
a common nonzero prime ideal is obvious. In sum D is a d-SH factorial domain,
which works out to be an h-local domain with zero ideal class group.
Sticking with D = R + XL[X], where R is quasi local we note that a maximal
ideal (hence a maximal d-ideal) of D is either M + XL[X] where M is the maximal
ideal of R or a height one principal prime ideal of the form f (X)D ([19, Theorem
4.21]). Thus a d-homog ideal I of D such that I ∩ R is non-trivial is of the form
I ∩ R + XL[X]. On the other hand any d-homog ideal J with M (J) ∩ R = (0) would
have to be a power of a prime of the form f (X)D where f (X) generates the maximal
ideal M (J). For, by part (a) of Proposition 4.12 of [19] J = h(X)(F +XL[X]) where
F is a D-submodule of L and such that h(0)F ⊆ D and h(X) ∈ L[X]. We claim
that h(0) 6= 0 for otherwise h(X)(F + XL[X]) would be contained in XL[X] and
so in M + XL[X]. Finally as J = h(X)(F + XL[X]) ⊆ f (X)D where f (X)D
is a height one prime ideal, there a positive integer n such that J ⊆ f (X)n D
but J * f (X)n+1 D or J/f (X)n ⊆ D but J/f (X)n * f (X)D. We claim that
J/f (X)n is not contained in any maximal deal. For if J/f (X)n is contained in
a maximal ideal N then J is contained in N, contradicting the assumption that
J is d-homog. Thus J/f (X)n = D, making J = f (X)n D. Thus a finite product

∗-SH DOMAINS

21

of d-homog ideals of D is an ideal of the form l(X)(A + XL[X]) where l(X) is a
polynomial in D with l(0) = 1 and A an ideal of R. Also by Lemma 4.41 of [19]
(l(X)(A+XL[X]))t = l(X)(At +XL[X]).Thus we have proved the following result.
Lemma 2. Let (R, M ) be quasi local, L the quotient field of R, X an indeterminate
over L and let D = R + XL[X]. Then D is d-SH with d-homog ideals J described
by (a) J = f (X)n D, when J ∩ R = (0) and (b) J = J ∩ R + XL[X], when
J ∩ R 6= (0). Moreover a finite product of d-homog ideals of D is of the form
J = l(X)(A + XL[X]) and Jt = l(X)(At + XL[X]). Finally, every principal ideal
of D is of the form J = al(X)D where a ∈ D.
The construction D = R + XL[X] where L is the quotient field of R, will deliver
D with Cld (D) = 0, when Cld (R) = 0. This is because in D = R + XL[X] every
finitely generated ideal is of the form F = f (X)JD where f (X) ∈ T and J is a
finitely generated ideal of R [19, Proposition 4.12]. So every invertible ideal of D
is principal if and only if every invertible ideal of R is principal. Thus if R is quasi
local then D = R + XL[X] is a d-SH domain with Cld = 0.
The above reasoning works in the Clt (D) trivial or torsion cases too if we look
at it this way: If an ideal G of R + XL[X] is t-invertible then there is a finitely
generated ideal F = f (X)JD of D such that GtD = (f (X)JD)tD , where tD denotes
the t-operation of the domain D. But by Lemma 4.41 of [19] GtD = f (X)JtR D.
So every t-invertible t-ideal of D is principal if and only if every t-invertible tideal of R is principal. In other words, Clt (D) = 0 ⇔ Clt (R) = 0. We have
seen that for a t-invertible ideal G ∈ R + XL[X] we have GtD = f (X)JtR D. So,
(Gn )tD = f (X)(J n )tR D. Thus (Gn )tD is principal if and only if (J n )tR is principal.
Thus Clt (D) is torsion ⇔ Clt (R) is torsion.
Next every t-local domain, i.e. a quasi local domain whose maximal ideal is a
t-ideal is an example of a t-wf-SH domain. This is because in a t-local domain
(D, M ) every t-invertible ideal is invertible and hence principal, [5].
We shall see other examples as we define the ∗-homog ideals defining the various
clones of the ∗-wf-SH domains.
Example (b). Let R be a t-local domain and let D = R + XL[X] be as in Lemma
2 then D is an example of a t-wf-domain.
Illustration: Indeed by 2 a t-wf-homog ideal J of D is either principal of the form
J = f (X)n D, when J ∩ R = (0) or Jt = (J ∩ R)t + XL[X], when J ∩ R 6= (0). Here
f (X)n D is principal (in fact a t-f-homog ideal) that satisfies the condition that
if t-invertible then every t-invertible t-ideal containing it is principal. Of course
the ideal Jt = (J ∩ R)t + XL[X] satisfies the same condition because its being
t-invertible or principal depends upon (J ∩ R)t being t-invertible or principal which
is a t-ideal of a t-local ring R.
Definition 10. Call a ∗-homog ideal I ∗-wf-homog of type 1, if I is a ∗-homog ideal
of type 1 such that whenever I is a ∗- invertible ∗- ideal every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal
J containing I is principal.
As above we can call the generator of a principal ∗-wf-homog ideal a ∗-wf-homog
element and define a ∗-wf-SH domain of type 1 as the domain whose nonzero non
unit elements are expressible as products of ∗-wf-homog elements of type 1.
Proposition 14. A ∗-wf-SH domain of type 1 is a ∗-weakly Krull domain with
trivial ∗-class group.

22

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

The proof follows as we chase the definitions. Remarkable here is the abundance
of examples. Every one dimensional quasi local domain is indeed an example of a
d-wf-SH domain of type 1 and so is every one dimensional local domain with trivial
ideal class group. A weakly Krull domain D with trivial t-class group is an example
of a t-wf-SH domain of type 1. A weakly Krull domain with zero t-class group is
also known as a weakly factorial domain and that, perhaps, is the reason for the
abundance of examples. Weakly factorial domains were among the earliest efforts
to generalize the notion of factoriality. These domains were initially defined by
Anderson and Mahaney in [6] as domains whose nonzero non units were expressible
as products of primary elements. Here an element x of D is called primary if xD is
a primary ideal. Then it was shown, among
other results, in [9], that D is a weakly
\
DP , the intersection is locally finite, and
factorial domain if and only if D =
P ∈X 1 (D)

D has trivial t-class group, another way of saying that D is a weakly Krull domain
with trivial t-class group. (At that time we did not have the idea of christening the
domains D that are locally finite intersections of localizations at height one primes
as weakly Krull domains.) To give the other properties, more important for the
purposes of that paper, it was shown that (a) D is a weakly factorial domain if and
only if every convex directed subgroup of the group of divisibility of D is a cardinal
summand and (b) D is a weakly factorial domain if and only if the following is
true: if P is a prime ideal of D minimal over a proper principal ideal xD, then P
has height one and xDP ∩D is principal. Indeed there has been a lot of activity
around this concept.
On the other hand, as we come to consider the ∗-super homog ideals and ∗super SH domains, things fall into the pattern of same old same old. Just to make
sure that the readers don’t miss anything let’s recall that the definition of a ∗super homog ideal I requires that every ∗-ideal of finite type containing I must
be ∗-invertible and the definition of a ∗-wf-homog ideal I requires that if I is ∗invertible every ∗-ideal of finite type containing I must be principal. That is if I
is an ideal that is both ∗-super homog and ∗-wf-homog then every ∗-ideal of finite
type containing I is principal. But that, in case I is ∗-invertible, makes I a ∗-f-ideal,
as Definition 7 tells us. Conversely if I is ∗-f-homog, then I is obviously a ∗-super
homog and a ∗-wf-homog ideal. This gives us the following result.
Proposition 15. A ∗-ideal I of finite type is ∗-f-homog if and only if I is a ∗-super
homog and a ∗-wf-homog ideal.

We already know that a domain whose nonzero non units are products of ∗-felements is a GCD ∗-IRKT. All that remains is making links with other related
concepts.
Proposition 16. For a domain D the following statements are equivalent: (1)
D is a ∗-IRKT whose ∗-super homog ideals are also ∗-wf-homog, (2) D is a ∗wf-SH domain whose ∗-wf-homog ideals are also ∗-super homog, (3) D is a GCD
∗-IRKT, (4) D is a ∗-IRKT with Cl∗ (D) = 0, (5) D is a locally GCD ∗-IRKT and
Cld (D) = 0.
Proof. (1) ⇔ (3) By Proposition 15 and Theorem 8, (1) ⇒ (2) A ∗-IRKT is a
∗-SH domain. Now apply Proposition 15 (2) ⇒ (4) A ∗-wf-SH domain has trivial
∗-class group by Proposition 13 and every ∗-wf-homog ideal being ∗-super homog
makes D a ∗-IRKT, (4) ⇒ (3) Note that if D is a ∗-IRKT with Cl∗ (D) = 0, then

∗-SH DOMAINS

23

every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal of D is principal and so every ∗-super homog ideal of D is
principal. Thus every ∗-super homog ideal of D is ∗-f-homog. Now apply Theorem
8, (3) ⇒ (5) D being a GCD domain implies that D is locally GCD and Clt (D) = 0
and we know that Clt (D) ⊇ Cld (D), (5) ⇒ (3) Let’s prove the following result. 
Lemma 3. Let D be a locally
\ GCD domain and let F be a family of nonzero
primes of D such that D =
DP is locally finite. If Cld (D) = 0 then D is a
P ∈F

GCD domain.
Proof. Let τ be the star operation induced by {DP }P ∈F . Since D is locally GCD,
each of DP is a GCD domain and so for each pair a, b of non zero
\ elements of D
we have (aD ∩ bD)DP = aDP ∩ bDP principal. Because D =
DP is locally
P ∈F

finite, aD ∩ bD is contained in at most a finite number P1 , P2 , ..., Pn of members
of F , precisely ones that contain at least one of a, b. That is (aD ∩ bD)DQ = DQ
for all Q ∈ F such that ab ∈
/ Q. Then (aD ∩ bD)DPi = xi DPi where we can
take xi ∈ Pi for some i and indeed we can take xi ∈ aD ∩ bD, i = 1, 2, ...n. Set
A = (ab, x1 , ...xn ). Then Av ⊆ aD∩bD because A ⊆ aD∩bD which is a v-ideal. Now
(aD ∩ bD)DPi = xi DPi ⊆ ADPi for i = 1, ..., n and (aD ∩ bD)DQ = DQ = ADQ
for all Q ∈ F such that ab ∈
/ Q. So (aD ∩ bD)DP ⊆ ADP for all P ∈ F . Thus
(aD ∩ bD) ⊆ At ⊆ Av and this shows that (aD ∩ bD) is a v-ideal of finite type. Now
as D is locally GCD (aD ∩ bD) is locally principal and hence flat. But a flat ideal
that is also a v-ideal of finite type is invertible [36, Proposition 1]. Now for each
pair a, b ∈ D\{0}, (aD ∩ bD) is invertible and Cld (D) = 0 means every invertible
ideal of D is principal. Whence for each pair a, b ∈ D\{0} (aD ∩ bD) is principal
and D is a GCD domain.

Next from Proposition 15, we conclude that a ∗-f-homog ideal of type 1 is nothing
but a ∗-super homog ideal of type 1 that is also a ∗-wf-homog ideal. Again we know
that a domain whose nonzero non units are expressible as products of ∗-f- elements
of type 1 is a GCD-∗-GKD (cf Theorem 9) and that these domains were studied
in [2] as GUFDs with a totally different set of definitions. We also know that only
two values of ∗, d and t, have any effect. That is a GUFD D is a one dimensional
Bezout domain if ∗ = d and a GCD-GKD if ∗ = t.
Let’s call a ∗-homog ideal I a weak ∗-almost factorial homog (∗-waf-homog) ideal
if whenever I is a ∗-invertible ∗-ideal for every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal J that contains
I there is a positive integer j such that (J j )∗ is principal.
It is easy to see that the product IJ of two similar ∗-waf-homog ideals I, J
is a ∗-waf-homog ideal similar to both I and J. (I and J are ∗-waf-homog, so
(IJ)∗ is ∗-homog. Next, if IJ is ∗-invertible then both I and J are ∗-invertible
and so ∗-af-homog, by the remark after Definition 8 making (IJ)∗ a ∗-waf-homog
ideal.) Consequently a product of finitely many ∗-waf-homog ideals is a expressible,
uniquely, up to order, as a product of mutually ∗-comaximal ∗-waf-homog ideals.
Let’s start with a clone of Corollary 7.
Proposition 17. Let D be a ∗-SH domain. Then the ∗-class group of D is torsion
if and only if for every ∗-invertible ∗-homog ideal I of D we have (I r )∗ principal
for some r.
Next we have a clone of the definition of weakly factorial domains.

24

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

Definition 11. Call an integral domain D a ∗-SH weakly almost factorial domain
(∗-waf-SH) if every nonzero non unit of D is expressible as a finite ∗-product of
∗-waf-homog ideals.
Proposition 18. A ∗-SH domain with torsion ∗-class group is a ∗-waf-SH domain.
Conversely a ∗-waf-SH domain is a ∗-SH domain with torsion ∗-class group.
Proof. Indeed if the ∗-class group of D is torsion, for every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal
I of D there is a positive integer n such that (I n )∗ is principal. Now for every
nonzero non unit x in a ∗-SH domain xD = (I1 I2 ...In )∗ , where Ii are mutually
∗-comaximal ∗-invertible ∗-ideals. With the added restriction of torsion ∗-class
group, each of Ii is a ∗-invertible ∗-ideal which fits the definition of a ∗-waf-homog
ideal, i.e., Ii is such that for every ∗-invertible ∗-ideal say Ji there is a positive
integer ni such that (Ji )ni is principal, provided amply by the fact that the ∗-class
group of D is torsion. Conversely, it is obvious that (a) D is of finite ∗-character
and (b) every prime ideal of D contains a ∗-waf-homog ideal. It is now easy to
show that every maximal ∗-ideal of D is spawned by a ∗-waf-homog ideal, because
a ∗-waf-homog ideal is a ∗-homog ideal to start with, and that no two distinct
maximal ∗-ideals contain a nonzero prime ideal. So, a ∗-waf-SH domain D is a
∗-SH domain. Next to show that the ∗-class group of D is torsion, take an integral
∗-invertible ∗-ideal I of D and let 0 6= x ∈ I. By Theorem 10, I = (I1 I2 ...In )∗
where each of Ii is a ∗-homog ideal and Ii mutually ∗-comaximal. Pick one, say
Ik , and note that xD = (K1 K2 ...Kr )∗ ∈ Ik where Ki are, mutually ∗–comaximal
∗-waf-homog ideals. Since for each i, Ki is ∗-homog and since Ki are mutually ∗comaximal, by Corollary 4 only one of the Ki is contained in Ik . Now Ki being a
∗-waf-homog ideal, Ki (is ∗-invertible and) has the property that for any ∗-invertible
∗-ideal L containing Ki there is a positive integer t such that (Lt )∗ is principal,
by our definition. Thus (Ikmk )∗ is principal for some positive integer mk . Now
m
m
m
let m = lcm(m1 , m2 , ..., mn ), then (I m )∗ = ((I1m1 )( m1 ) (I2m2 )( m2 ) ...(Inm1 )( mn ) )∗ is
principal. Finally as I was arbitrary, we conclude that for every integral ∗-invertible
∗-ideal J of D, (J m )∗ is principal for some positive integer m and this, indeed, forces
Cl∗ (D) to be torsion.

Examples: (c) (When ∗ = d and no restriction on dimension). Let (R, M ) be a
quasi local almost factorial domain, let L be the quotient field of R and let X be an
indeterminate over L. Then the ring D = R + XL[X] is an n + 1 dimensional d-SH
domain such that Cld (D), the ideal class group of D is zero but Clt (D) is torsion,
because all d-homog ideals are either principal or of the form f (X)(A + XL[X])
where A is an ideal of R and ((A + XL[X])r )t = ((Ar )t + XL[X]). Thus if for
every finitely generated ideal A of R we have a positive integer r such that (Ar )t
is principal the corresponding ideals of the form f (X)(A + XL[X]) have the same
property.
Of course Example (c) cannot be used as an example of a t-waf-SH domain,
if R is not t-local. For if R has say maximal t-ideals M and N then D has two
corresponding maximal t-ideals M + XL[X] and N + XL[X], ensuring that D is
not a t-SH domain. Meaning that for D to be a t-SH domain R has to be a domain
with a unique maximal t-ideal. But such a domain will have to be t-local. Indeed
if R has a unique maximal t-ideal N then every nonzero non unit of R would be
contained in N and that forces every maximal ideal of R contained in N. But R
being t-local means that Clt (D) is zero, slightly more than torsion.

∗-SH DOMAINS

25

The reason is the following result.
Proposition 19. Let (D, M ) be a t-local domain. Then (a) if A is a t-invertible
ideal of D then A is principal and (b) If A is an ideal of D such that (An )t = D
for some positive integer n, then A is principal.
Proof. (a) If A is t-invertible, then AA−1 is not contained in any maximal t-ideal
and so AA−1 is not contained in M. But then AA−1 is not contained in any maximal
ideal of D, because M is the only maximal ideal of D. Hence. AA−1 = D. But
then A is invertible in a quasi local domain and hence principal, (b) if (An )t = D
then A is t-invertible and so, by (a) above, is principal.

Remark 3. Part (a) of Proposition 19 is [5, Proposition 1.12] but the proof there
is not quite clear. Here we have made the necessary clarifications. Thus even if
(D, M ) is an almost valuation domain, i.e. for each pair of nonzero elements x, y
there is a positive integer n such that xn |y n or , y n |xn , Clt (D) = (0).
This gives us Example (b) all over again. That means D = R + XL[X] is not of
much use in this context.
Indeed if, on the other hand, we consider the ∗-super homog ideals and ∗-super
SH domains things fall into the realm of what we already know. Let’s recall that the
definition of a ∗-super homog ideal I requires that every ∗-ideal of finite type containing I must be ∗-invertible and the definition of a ∗-waf-homog ideal I requires
that if I is ∗-invertible then for every ∗-ideal of finite type J containing I there is a
positive integer n such that (J n )∗ is principal. That is if I is an ideal that is both
∗-super homog and ∗-waf-homog then for every ∗-ideal J of finite type containing
I there is a positive integer n such that (J n )∗ is principal. But that, in case I is
∗-invertible, makes I a ∗-af-ideal as Definition 7 tells us and if we are considering
a ∗-super homog ideal that is also a ∗-waf homog ideal then we have a ∗-af homog
ideal. Conversely if I is ∗-af-homog, then I is obviously a ∗-super homog and a
∗-waf-homog ideal because it satisfies the “if I is ∗-invertible”, vacuously . This
gives us the following result.
Proposition 20. A ∗-ideal I of finite type is ∗-af-homog if and only if I is a ∗-super
homog and a ∗-waf-homog ideal.
We already know that a domain whose nonzero non units are products of ∗-afelements is an AGCD ∗-IRKT. All that remains is making links with other related
concepts.
Proposition 21. For a domain D the following statements are equivalent: (1) D
is a ∗-IRKT whose ∗-super homog ideals are also ∗-wf-homog, (2) D is a ∗ waf-SH
domain whose ∗-waf-homog ideals are also ∗-super homog, (3) D is an AGCD ∗IRKT, (4) D is a ∗-IRKT with Cl∗ (D) torsion, (5) D is a locally AGCD ∗-IRKT
and Cld (D) is torsion.
Proof. (1) ⇔ (3) By Proposition 20 and Theorem 6, (1) ⇒ (2) A ∗-IRKT is a
∗-SH domain. Now apply Proposition 20 (2) ⇒ (4) A ∗-waf-SH domain has torsion
∗-class group by Proposition 18 and every ∗-waf-homog ideal being ∗-super homog
makes D a ∗-IRKT, (4) ⇒ (3) Note that if D is ∗-IRKT with Cl∗ (D) torsion, then
every ∗-ideal K of D is is ∗-invertible such that (K n )∗ is principal for some n and
so every ∗-homog ideal I of D is ∗-super homog such that (J n )∗ is principal for
every ∗-ideal J of finite type containing I. Thus every ∗-super homog ideal of D is

26

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

∗-af-homog. Now apply Theorem 6, (3) ⇒ (5) D being an AGCD domain implies
that D is locally AGCD and Clt (D is torsion and Clt (D) ⊇ Cl∗ (D), (5) ⇒ (3) Let’s
note that D is a locally AGCD domain if for each maximal ideal M of D we have
for each pair a, b ∈ D a positive integer nM = nM (a, b) such that anM DM ∩ bnM DM
is principal, then prove the following result.

Lemma 4. Let
\ D be a locally AGCD domain and let D be of finite t- character
that is D =
DP is locally finite. If Cld (D) is torsion then D is an AGCD
P ∈F

domain.
Proof. Let w be the usual star operation induced by {DP }P ∈t- max(D) .Since D is
locally AGCD, each of DP is an AGCD domain and so for each pair a, b of non
zero elements of D we have for some positive integer nP , (anP D ∩ bnP D)DP =
anP DP ∩ bnP DP principal (actually, as DP is t-local and AGCD DP is an almost
Bezout domain.) Now for each P there would be a medley of numbers ({nM(P )
for each maximal ideal M \
containing P } but choosing any one would serve our
DP is locally finite, aD ∩ bD is contained in at
purpose. Because D =
P ∈t- max(D)

most a finite number P1 , P2 , ..., Pr of members of t-max(D), ones that contain a
or b. Choose n = lcm(nP1 , nP2 , ..., nPr ). Now as (anPi D ∩ bnPi D)DP i = anPi DPi ∩
bnP i DPi is principal, for each i, and as nPi |n we have (anPi DPi ∩ bnP i DPi )n/npi =
((anPi )n/npi DPi ∩ (bnP i )n/npi DPi ) = an DPi ∩ bn DPi = (an D ∩ bn D)DPi = di DPi
principal and of course for all those Q ∈ F such that none of a, b belong to Q we
have (an D ∩ bn D)DQ = DQ and hence principal we conclude, as in the proof of
Lemma 3 that (an D ∩ bn D) = (ab, d1 , ..., dr )w = (ab, d1 , ..., dr )v . Going back again
and applying the result that if A is a t-ideal of finite type and t-locally principal
then A is t-invertible. Now (an D ∩ bn D) is t-invertible and so, of finite type and
as D is locally AGCD there is for each maximal ideal M a positive integer mM
such that ((an D ∩ bn D)DM )mM )v = dM DM or, as (an D ∩ bn D) is t-invertible
(an(mM ) D ∩ bn(mM ) D) = dM DM . Thus by Theorem 2.3 of [1] there is a positive
integer m such that ((an D ∩ bn D)m )v = (anm D ∩ bnm D) is invertible. But as the
d-class group of D is torsion we have (anm D ∩ bnm D)r = dD for a positive integer
r and for d ∈ D. Proving that for for each pair a, b ∈ D\0 there is a positive integer
t such that at D ∩ bt D is principal.

The above results can give us more examples of general ∗-waf-SH domains and
indeed it may not be too hard to construct examples of ∗-waf-SH domains of higher
dimensions. But, as it stands, most of the available examples are one dimensional.
So, for now, we look at one dimensional ∗-waf-SH domains. For that let’s start
with the definition of ∗-waf-homog ideals. We can say that a ∗-homog ideal of
type 1 that is a ∗-waf ideal as well is a ∗-waf-homog ideal of type 1. Similarly
we can just breeze through other definitions and results saying that a ∗-waf-SH
domain of type 1. In the t-dimension 1 scenario one source that stands out is [7].
In it, Anderson and Mott discuss domains with only finitely many non-associated
irreducible elements. These domains are called Cohen Kaplansky domains, because
Cohen and Kaplansky were the first to study them in [18]. It turns out that CKdomains are weakly Krull domains with only a finite number of maximal t-ideals
and DP is a CK-domain for each maximal t-ideal P. Indeed each maximal t-ideal
is of height one and maximal, this is because of the fact that if D has only a finite

∗-SH DOMAINS

27

number of maximal t-ideals then these maximal t-ideals are precisely the maximal
ideals of D. It was also established in [7] that a CK-domain D is an AGCD domain
that happens to have Clt (D) = 0. In other words a CK-domain is weakly factorial
domain and an almost weakly factorial domain.
The other important source of examples is [13]. In this paper the authors study
under the name of generalized weakly factorial domains the domain whose nonzero
non units x have the property that for each x there is a positive integer n such that
xn is a product of primary elements. These are weakly Krull domains with torsion
t-class group. (Indeed as xD = ((xDP1 ∩ D)(xDP2 ∩ D)...(xDPr ∩ D))t and the
t-class group is torsion we get the same result.)
The second author got interested in generalizing the existing notions of unique
factorization from Professor P.M. Cohn’s work. Perhaps the second author was not
too interested in non-commutative algebra, that Cohn was so admirably good at,
the second author chose to concentrate on unique factorization in commutative ring
theory. His first attempt was the theory of GUFDs. Then he tried to mimic Cohn’s
rigid factorizations [17] in the commutative rings. Apparently all he had to go on
was that if r is rigid in the non-commutative domain R then the lattice L(Rr, R)
was a chain and that Paul Cohn used 2-firs for rigid factorizations. Another good
yet brief source, if you want to have a quick idea is Cohn’s survey on UFDs [16].
Now in the commutative case, r being rigid boils down to a non-unit r such that for
all x, y|r we have x|y or y|x. But then an irreducible element is also rigid and products of irredible elements produce unique factorization under some very stringent
conditions. Now Cohn’s 2-firs in the commutative case are Bezout domains. It was
easy to show that in a Bezout domain a product of finitely many rigid elements can
be uniquely written as a product of mutually coprime rigid elements. So, he tried
to see if a product of finitely many rigid elements in a GCD domain D is uniquely
expressible as a product of mutually coprime rigid elements. It worked and he wrote
his paper on Semirigid GCD domains [32]. But the question was: How to define a
rigid element so that in a general commutative domain D a finite product of rigid
elements is uniquely expressible as a product of mutually coprime “improved” rigid
elements? The definition of ∗-f-homog does that. Now the question is: Can we
do something similar to the definition of rigid in the non-commutative case, to get
better results?
References
[1] D.D. Anderson, Globalization of some local properties in Krull domains, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 85(1982), 141-145.
[2] D.D. Anderson, D.F. Anderson, and M. Zafrullah, A generalization of unique factorization,
Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. A(7)9(1995), 401-413.
[3] D.D. Anderson, D.F. Anderson, and M. Zafrullah, Completely integrally closed Prufer vmultiplication domains, Comm. Algebra 45(2017), 5264-5282.
[4] D.D. Anderson and S.J. Cook, Two star operations and their induced lattices, Comm. Algebra
28(2000), 2461-2476.
[5] D.D. Anderson, G.W. Chang, and M. Zafrullah, Integral domains of finite t-character, J.
Algebra 396(2013), 169-183.
[6] D.D. Anderson and L. A. Mahaney, On primary factorizations, J. Pure Appl. Algebra
54(1988), 141-154.
[7] D.D. Anderson and J. Mott, Cohen-Kaplansky domains: Integral domains with a finite number of irreducible elements, J. Algebra 148(1992), 17-41.
[8] D.D. Anderson, J. Mott, and M. Zafrullah, Finite character representations for integral domains, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. B(7)6(1992), 613-630.

28

D.D. ANDERSON AND MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLAH

[9] D.D. Anderson and M. Zafrullah, Weakly factorial domains and groups of divisibility, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 109(1990), 907-913.
[10] D.D. Anderson and M. Zafrullah, Almost Bezout domains, J. Algebra 142(1991), 285-309.
[11] D.D. Anderson and M. Zafrullah, Independent locally-finite intersections of localizations,
Houston J. Math. 25(1999), 433-449.
[12] D.F . Anderson, A general theory of class groups, Comm. Algebra 16(1988), 805-847.
[13] D.F. Anderson, G.W. Chang and J. Park, Generalized weakly factorial domains, Houston J.
Math, 29(2003), 1-13.
[14] A. Bouvier, Le groupe des classes d’un anneau integre, 107 erne Congres National des Societe
Savantes, Brest , Fasc. IV(1982), 85-92.
[15] A. Bouvier and M. Zafrullah, On some class groups of an integral domain, Bull. Soc. Math.
Grece 29(1988), 45-59.
[16] Unique factorization domains, Amer. Math. Monthly, 80 (1 )(1973) 1-18.
[17] P.M. Cohn, Free Rings and Their Relations, Academic Press, London 1985.
[18] I.S. Cohen and I. Kaplansky, Rings with a finite number of primes I, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 60(1946), 468-477.
[19] D. Costa, J. Mott and M. Zafrullah, The construction D + XDS [X], J. Algebra 53(1978)
423-439.
[20] T. Dumitrescu and M. Zafrullah, Characterizing domains of finite ∗-character, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 214(2010), 2087-2091.
[21] S. El Baghdadi, S. Gabelli, and M. Zafrullah, Unique representation domains II, J. Pure
Appl. Algebra 212(2008), 376-393.
[22] R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1972.
[23] M. Griffin, Rings of Krull type, J. Reine Angew. Math. 229(1968), 1-27.
[24] E. Houston, S. Malik and J. Mott, Characterizations of *-multiplication domains, Canad.
Math. Bull., 27(1)(1984) 48-52.
[25] E. Houston and M. Zafrullah, ∗-Super potent domains, I. Commut. Algebra, (to appear)
[26] I. Kaplansky, Commutative Rings. Revised Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
and London, 1974.
[27] E. Matlis, Torsion-free modules, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, 1972.
[28] Bruce Olberding, Characterizations and constructions of h-local domains, in Models, modules
and abelian groups, 385-406, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008.
[29] P. Ribenboim, Anneaux normaux réels à caractère fini, Summa Brasil. Math. 3(1956), 213253.
[30] U. STORCH, Fastfaktorielle rings, in Schriftenreihe Math. Inst. Univ. Munster, Vol. 36,
University of Munster, Munster, 1967.
[31] M. Zafrullah, Generalization of unique factorization and related topics, PhD Dissertation,
The University of London, 1974.
[32] M. Zafrullah, Semirigid GCD domains, Manuscripta Math. 17(1975), 55-66.
[33] M. Zafrullah, Rigid elements in GCD domains J. Natur. Sci. and Math. 17(1977), 7-14.
[34] M. Zafrullah, A general theory of almost factoriality, Manuscripta Math. 51(1985), 29-62.
[35] M. Zafrullah, On a property of pre-Schreier domains, Comm. Algebra 15(1987), no. 9, 18951920.
[36] M. Zafrullah, Flatness and invertibility of an ideal, Comm. Algebra, 18(1990), 2151-2158.
[37] M. Zafrullah, Putting t-invertibility to use, in, Non-Noetherian Commutative Ring Theory
429-457, Math. Appl., 520, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2000.
[38] M. Zafrullah, t-Invertibility and Bazzoni-like statements, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214(2010),
654–657.

∗-SH DOMAINS

Department of Mathematics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
E-mail address: ÿ
Department of Mathematics, Idaho State University, Pocatello, 83209 ID
E-mail address: mzafrullah@usa.net
URL: http://www.lohar.com

29

