arXiv:1302.4766v1 [] 19 Feb 2013

ELASTICITY IN POLYNOMIAL-TYPE EXTENSIONS
MARK BATELL AND JIM COYKENDALL
Abstract. The elasticity of an atomic integral domain is, in some sense, a
measure of how far the domain is from being a unique factorization domain (or,
more properly, a half-factorial domain). We consider the relationship between
the elasticity of a domain, R, and the elasticity of its polynomial ring R[x]. For
example, if R has at least one atom, a sufficient condition for the polynomial
ring R[x] to have elasticity 1 is that every nonconstant irreducible polynomial
f ∈ R[x] be irreducible in K[x]. We will determine the integral domains R
whose polynomial rings satisfy this condition.

1. Introduction and Motivation
In this paper, R will always be an integral domain with quotient field K. The
notation Irr(R) will stand for the irreducible elements of R, A(R) will be the elements of R that can be expressed as a product of atoms, U (R) and Cl(R) will
respectively denote the unit group and the class group of R. For a nonzero nonunit
element x ∈ A(R), we define the elasticity of x to be
n
|x = π1 π2 · · · πn = ξ1 ξ2 · · · ξm }
m
where each πi , ξj is an irreducible element of R. For example, if x is a product of
primes or is an element of a half-factorial domain, then ρ(x) = 1. If x ∈
/ A(R) then
ρ(x) is undefined.
For an integral domain R, the elasticity is defined by
ρ(x) = sup{

ρ(R) = sup{ρ(x)|x ∈ A(R)}.
As previously, we say that the elasticity of a domain without any atoms is undefined. It is well-known that if R is atomic, then ρ(R) = 1 if and only if R is an HFD,
but in the nonatomic case, the situation can be more exotic. For example in [CZ] a
domain was constructed with a unique (up to associates) irreducible element. Such
a domain, R, is necessarily nonatomic, but ρ(R) = 1.
More generally in [CM] it is shown that any atomic monoid can be realized as
the “atomic part” of an integral domain (again, usually non-atomic). Hence, one
can construct nonatomic domains that display any prescribed elasticity.
Given an integral domain, R, it is natural to ask what is the relationship between ρ(R) and ρ(R[x]). Since any factorization of a constant in R[x] must be a
factorization in R, it is easy to see that, in general, ρ(R[x]) ≥ ρ(R). More generally,
one can ask if we have the sequence of integral domains
R = R0 ⊆ R1 ⊆ R2 ⊆ · · · ⊆ K
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 13F15.
Key words and phrases. Factorization, unique factorization.
1

2

MARK BATELL AND JIM COYKENDALL

what is the relationship between ρ(R0 + R1 x + R2 x2 + · · · ) and the collection of
data ρ(Ri )? Some special cases of this general construction worth noting are the
polynomial ring (Ri = R for all i ≥ 0), the construction R + xK[x] (R0 = R and
Ri = K for all i ≥ 1), and R + Rx + x2 K[x] (R0 = R1 = R and Ri = K for all
i ≥ 2).
2. Some Polynomial-Type Constructions
We begin this section with some preliminary lemmata, but first we recall the
notion of an AP-domain.
Definition 2.1. We say that the integral domain, R, is an AP-domain if every
irreducible (atom) in R is prime.
Lemma 2.2. Let R be an AP-domain with at least one irreducible element, then
ρ(R) = 1.
Proof. Of course, if R is an AP-domain vacuously (that is, in the case that R has
no atoms), then ρ(R) is undefined. Suppose, on the other hand, that Irr(R) is
nonempty. Since all atoms in an AP-domain, are prime, any irreducible factorization is a prime factorization and therefore is unique. Hence ρ(x) = 1 for all
x ∈ A(R) and so ρ(R) = 1.

Lemma 2.3. Let R be a domain, p ∈ R be a nonzero prime element, and a ∈ A(R).
Then ρ(a) ≥ ρ(ap).
Proof. Suppose we have the following irreducible factorization of ap:
ap = ξ1 ξ2 · · · ξn ,

where each ξi ∈ Irr(R) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Since p ∈ R is prime, p must be associated
with one of the ξi ; we will say, without loss of generality, that ξn = up for some
u ∈ U (R). Since R is an integral domain, we cancel the factor of p to obtain
a = ξ1 ξ2 · · · ξn−1 u.

The upshot is that an arbitrary irreducible factorization of ap is (up to associates)
p times an irreducible factorization of a. Hence there is a factorization of ap of
length m + 1, if and only if there is a corresponding factorization of a of length m.
m+1
Since m ≥ k ≥ 1 implies that m
k ≥ k+1 , we have that ρ(a) ≥ ρ(ap).

Remark 2.4. To tie up a loose end, we note √that the inequality in the previous
result can be strict. For example, in the ring Z[ −14] the element 81 has precisely
two irreducible factorizations (up to associates and reordering):
√
√
81 = (3)(3)(3)(3) = (5 + 2 −14)(5 − 2 −14).

√
So ρ(81) = 2. Now consider the element 81 as an element of Z[ −14][x]. As
before 81 has only two irreducible factorizations (the ones mentioned previously)
and x is a prime element. An easy check shows that ρ(81x) = 35 < 2.
We now present the following theorem.

ELASTICITY IN POLYNOMIAL-TYPE EXTENSIONS

3

Theorem 2.5. Let R be an integral domain with quotient field K. If R contains
at least one atom, then ρ(R) = ρ(R + xK[x]). If R has no atoms (that is, R is an
antimatter domain) then ρ(R) is undefined and ρ(R + xK[x]) = 1.
Proof. Let g(x) be a nonconstant polynomial in R + xK[x]. We claim that if g(x)
is irreducible, then g(x) is (up to associates) either x or of the form 1 + xf (x)
where 1 + xf (x) ∈ Irr(K[x]). To see this, note that if g(x) is nonconstant, then
g(x) = r + xk(x) with k(x) ∈ K[x] \ {0}. If r = 0 then the stipulation that g(x) is
irreducible forces the condition k(x) ∈ U (R). On the other hand, if r 6= 0, then the
factorization g(x) = r(1 + r1 xk(x)) shows that if g(x) is irreducible, then r ∈ U (R)
and 1 + r1 xk(x) ∈ Irr(K[x]). This establishes the claim.
We also note that the elements x and 1 + xf (x) ∈ Irr(K[x]) are, in fact, prime
elements of R+xK[x]. The fact that x is prime is straightforward. For an irreducible
of the form 1 + xf (x), note that if 1 + xf (x) divides the product h(x)k(x) (with
h(x), k(x) ∈ R + xK[x]) then without loss of generality, 1 + xf (x) divides h(x) in
K[x]. We say that h(x) = (1 + xf (x))q(x), and comparing constant terms, we see
that q(x) ∈ R + xK[x]. Hence x and irreducibles of the form 1 + xf (x) are prime
in R + xK[x].
From the previous observations, we see that if R is an antimatter domain, then
R + xK[x] is an AP-domain (with Irr(R + xK[x]) nonempty) and hence ρ(R +
xK[x]) = 1 by Lemma 2.2.
Now suppose that R has at least one irreducible element. Since any element of
R, factored as an element of R[x], has only factors from R (and any irreducible in
R remains irreducible in R[x]), we have that ρ(R + xK[x]) ≥ ρ(R). On the other
hand, let f (x) ∈ A(R + xK[x]). We factor f (x) into irreducibles as follows:
f (x) = π1 π2 · · · πm g1 (x)g2 (x) · · · gk (x)
with πi ∈ Irr(R) and gi (x) ∈ Irr(R + xK[x]) of degree at least 1. By our previous
remarks, each gi (x) is prime. Hence by Lemma 2.3, ρ(f (x)) ≤ ρ(π1 π2 · · · πm ).
Hence ρ(R + xK[x]) ≤ ρ(R) and so, we have equality.

In stark contrast, the next result shows that a minor tweaking of the previous
construction can yield a domain with infinite elasticity. This also gives a strong
indication of the level of difficulty of determining the elasticity of R0 +R1 x+R2 x2 +
· · · in terms of the elasticities ρ(Ri ).
Proposition 2.6. Let R be a domain that contains at least one atom, then
ρ(R + Rx + x2 K[x]) = ∞.
Proof. Let π ∈ Irr(R). For all n ∈ N0 the polynomial (π n ± x) ∈ Irr(R + Rx +
x2 K[x]). The irreducible factorizations
(π n + x)(π n − x) = π 2n (1 −

1 2
x )
π 2n

have lengths 2 and 2n + 1 respectively. Hence we see that ρ(R + Rx + x2 K[x]) =
∞.


4

MARK BATELL AND JIM COYKENDALL

We now specialize to the case R[x]. In comparing the elasticities ρ(R) and
ρ(R[x]), there are two dynamics to consider. The first is the factorization of constants (which is reflected in ρ(R)) and the different factorizations that may result
from the polynomial structure. To illustrate we consider the following examples.
√
Example 2.7. It is well-known (see for example [C1]) that √
Z[ −3] is a halffactorial domain (and hence has elasticity 1). The domain Z[ −3][x] is not an
HFD. The irreducible factorizations
√
√
(2x + (1 + −3))(2x + (1 − −3)) = (2)(2)(x2 + x + 1)
demonstrates that the elasticity of the polynomial extension exceeds 1.
A close look at√the mechanics of the previous example reveals that the failure
of the domain Z[ −3] to be integrally closed allowed the creation of this “bad
factorization.” In the proof of the main theorem in [C2] it is shown that if R is not
integrally closed, a simliar effect occurs.
It is known (see [Za]) that if R is a Krull domain, then R[x] is an HFD if and
only if |Cl(R)| ≤ 2. It is also known from [Ca] that if R is a ring of algebraic
integers (and hence, certainly a Krull domain), then R is an HFD if and only if
|Cl(R)| ≤ 2. Hence if R is a ring of algebraic integers with |Cl(R)| ≤ 2, then R
is an HFD and so is R[x]. In this case ρ(R) = ρ(R[x]), but the equality can be
delicate as we will demonstrate in the following example. The following example
should be constrasted with the previous as it is integrally closed.
√
Example 2.8. The integral domain R := Z[ −5] is a ring of integers of class
number precisely 2 (see, for example, the tables in [Co]) and hence is an HFD that
does not have unique factorization. But although ρ(R[x])
√ = 1, the factorizations
√
can be exotic. The elements 2x2 + 2x + 3, 2, 2x + 1 + −5, and 2x + 1 − −5 are
all elements of Irr(R[x]). Consider the factorizations
√
√
(2)(2x2 + 2x + 3) = (2x + 1 + −5)(2x + 1 − −5).
The upshot is that even in this relatively “nice” domain, the factorizations of
elements can depend on how the polynomials break down (with respect to degree) in
a nontrivial way.
It is well-known that if R is a UFD with quotient field K, then any irreducible
polynomial over R[x] remains irreducible over K[x]. More generally, domains, R,
for which every irreducible polynomial of degree at least one remains irreducible
in K[x] would seem to be the basic case to solve. For these domains, it would
seem likely that there is a more direct correlation between ρ(R) and ρ(R[x]), since
there must be a one to one correspondence between irreducible factors of degree at
least 1 for any two irreducible factorizations of the same element. Certainly, bad
factorizations of the ilk of the previous two examples are precluded (although we
feel obligated to point out again that the second example is an HFD).
Although it may seem reasonable to consider domains where irreducibles of degree at least one in R[x] remain irreducible in K[x], it is not obvious that in this case
ρ(R) = ρ(R[x]). To illustrate the problem, consider the irreducible factorizations
π1 π2 · · · πk f1 (x)f2 (x) · · · fm (x) = ξ1 ξ2 · · · ξt g1 (x)g2 (x) · · · gn (x)
with each πi , ξj ∈ Irr(R) and fi (x), gj (x) all irreducible of degree at least one.

ELASTICITY IN POLYNOMIAL-TYPE EXTENSIONS

5

Even if we have that m = n and each fi (x) and gj (x) pair off (up to units in
K), there is no guarantee that the ratio of k and t are within the elasticity bounds
of R (precisely because there is ambiguity up to units in K).
That being said, we present the following theorem. The rest of the paper will
be devoted to establishing this result. The theorem will follow quickly from our
classification of domains with this property.
Theorem 2.9. Let R be a domain such that every irreducible of R[x] of degree
greater than or equal to 1 is irreducible in K[x]. Then if ρ(R) is defined, then
ρ(R) = ρ(R[x]).
As noted before, these conditions are not necessary as Example 2.8 shows.
3. Irreducibles of R[x] versus irreducibles of K[x]
In this section, we use the following facts and definitions many times without
further mention.
a) If F is a nonzero fractional ideal of R, then Fv = (F −1 )−1 .
b) The elements a1 , a2 , · · · , an ∈ R have a greatest common divisor provided
that (a1 , a2 , · · · , an )v is principal.
c) If f ∈ K[x], the ideal generated by the coefficients of f is denoted Af .
d) The greatest common divisor of a1 , a2 , · · · , an ∈ R will be denoted [a1 , a2 , · · · , an ]
if it exists.
Our goal in this last section is to characterize those domains R having the following property:
(P) every nonconstant irreducible polynomial f ∈ R[x] is irreducible in K[x]
The techniques used in the proof we shall give strongly resemble those used in
the classical proof that every polynomial ring R[x] over a UFD is again a UFD.
The proof of this classical result boils down to showing that any UFD, R, satisfies
property (P) above. Gauss’s Lemma, which states that the product of two primitive
polynomials is primitive, is the key which allows this proof to go through in the
UFD case.
Conditions under which the product of two primitive polynomials remains primitive has been studied in more general domains (see for instance, [T]). It turns
out that the domains satisfying property (P) must satisfy a condition somewhat
stronger than Gauss’s Lemma; they must satisfy what is called the PSP-property.
Definition 3.1. A domain R has the PSP-property if whenever a0 +a1 x+· · ·+an xn
is a primitive polynomial over R and z ∈ (a0 , a1 , · · · , an )−1 , then z ∈ R.
Polynomials a0 + a1 x + · · · + an xn satisfying the above definition are called
superprimitive. Thus a domain has the PSP-property if every primitive polynomial
is superprimitive.
For integral domains, the following implications are well-known
UFD =⇒ GCD =⇒ PSP-property =⇒ GL-property =⇒ AP-property.
and in [AQ] it is shown that all of these types are equivalent for atomic domains.
Arnold and Sheldon [AS, Example 2.5] gave an example of a domain satisfying
Gauss’s Lemma (such domains are said to have the GL-property), but failing to
have the PSP-property. The domain they considered was the domain F [{xα : α >

6

MARK BATELL AND JIM COYKENDALL

0}, {y α : α > 0}, {z αxβ : α, β > 0}, {z αy β : α, β > 0}]. Here, all exponents α
and β are understood to be taken from the field Q of rational numbers. This is an
example of a monoid domain, and can intuitively be thought of as the ring of all
formal polynomials in the given ”indeterminates” with coefficients in F , the field
of two elements. We note that yt + x is a primitive polynomial in t that fails to be
superprimitive, as z ∈ (x, y)−1 . This leads us to the following theorem.
Proposition 3.2. Assume every nonconstant irreducible f ∈ R[x] is irreducible in
K[x]. Then R is integrally closed and has the PSP-property.
Proof. Assume R is not integrally closed. Choose an element ω ∈ K that satisfies
a monic irreducible polynomial f ∈ R[x] of degree ≥ 2. Since ω is a root of f , the
division algorithm in K[x] implies that f = (x − ω)g, where g is a polynomial in
K[x] of degree ≥ 1. Hence f is irreducible over R but reducible over K. This is a
contradiction.
Next, we assume R does not have the PSP-property. Let y0 + y1 x + · · · + yn xn
be a primitive polynomial and let z ∈ K be such that z ∈ (y0 , y1 , · · · , yn )−1 but
z∈
/ R. In the collection of all primitive polynomials that are not superprimitive, we
assume that I := y0 + y1 x + · · · + yn xn is one of minimal degree. In K[x] we have
the factorization yn xn+1 + (yn−1 + zyn)xn + · · · + (y0 + zy1 )x + zy0 = (x + z)(yn xn +
yn−1 xn−1 + · · · + y1 x + y0 ) where the polynomial f on the left hand side belongs to
R[x]. We claim that f is irreducible over R. If f = gh for some g, h ∈ R[x] then x+z
divides g or h in K[x], say g = (x + z)p(x). Since R is integrally closed, p(x) ∈ R[x]
(see [G, Theorem 10.4]), say p(x) = ak xk + ak−1 xk−1 + · · · + a1 x + a0 . Then g(x) =
ak xk+1 +(ak−1 +zak )xk +· · ·+(a0 +za1 )x+za0 , so that za0 , za1 , · · · , zak ∈ R, and
hence p(x) is not superprimitive. But p(x) is a factor of the primitive polynomial
I. Hence p(x) is primitive, so that the minimality assumption on I implies that
k = n. It follows that h is a unit so that f is irreducible over R, but not over K,
the desired contradiction.

Thus in our search for the domains satisfying property (P), we may restrict our
attention to integrally closed domains having the PSP-property.
To show that a particular domain actually has property (P), one would probably
employ the following strategy: Suppose f ∈ R[x] is a nonconstant polynomial that
is irreducible over R, but fails to be irreducible over the field of fractions K, say
f = gh in K[x]. Now “clear the denominators,” that is, choose nonzero b, d ∈ R
such that bdf = (bg)(dh) and bg, dh ∈ R[x]. At this point in the proof, we would
probably need to find some way to cancel out b and d to get a contradiction, namely,
that f = g ′ h′ for some g ′ , h′ ∈ R[x]. It turns out that if R has the PSP-property,
then we can assert, after clearing denominators, that the greatest common divisor
of the coefficients of bdf exists and is equal to bd, as shown by the following.
Proposition 3.3. Let R be a domain. The following are equivalent.
a) R has the PSP-property.
b) Whenever the elements a1 , a2 , · · · , an ∈ R have a greatest common divisor
and 0 6= b ∈ R, then [ba1 , ba2 , · · · , ban ] = b[a1 , a2 , · · · , an ].
Proof. Assume R has the PSP-property and [a1 , a2 , · · · , an ] = g. Given b ∈ R, it is
clear that bg is a common divisor of ba1 , ba2 , · · · , ban . If x is some other common
a1 a2
an −1
. This implies bg
divisor, then bg
x ∈ ( g , g ,··· , g )
x ∈ R since R is PSP. In other
words, x|bg so that [ba1 , ba2 , · · · , ban ] = bg

ELASTICITY IN POLYNOMIAL-TYPE EXTENSIONS

7

Conversely, assume b) holds and rs ∈ (a1 , a2 , · · · , an )−1 , where a0 + a1 x + · · · +
an xn is some primitive polynomial over R. Then s|rai for all i, so b) implies that

s|r. Thus rs ∈ R, so that R is PSP.
Proposition 3.4. Let R be an integrally closed PSP-domain. The following are
equivalent.
a) Every nonconstant irreducible polynomial f ∈ R[x] is irreducible in K[x]
b) Whenever f = gh in R[x] and the greatest common divisor of the coefficients
of f exists, then the greastest common divisor of the coefficients of g exists
Proof. b) =⇒ a). Assume b) holds. Let f ∈ R[x] be a nonconstant irreducible
polynomial (hence the greatest common divisor of the coefficients is 1). Suppose
f = gh, where g, h ∈ K[x] have degrees > 1. Choose nonzero b, d ∈ R such that
bg, dh ∈ R[x]. Then we have the equation bdf = (bg)(dh) in R[x], and since R is
PSP, Proposition 3.3 implies that the greatest common divisor of the coefficients of
bdf exists and is equal to bd. Hence the greatest common divisor of the coefficients
of bg exists, say u, and the greatest common divisor of the coefficients of dh exists,
bd
say v. Note that uv divides the coefficients of bdf . Hence uv
f = g1 h1 , where g1 , h1
bd
bd
is a unit. But
are primitive. Since R has the GL-property, uv f is primitive, so uv
then f is reducible over R, a contradiction.
a) =⇒ b). Assume a) holds. Suppose f = gh in R[x] and the greatest common
divisor of the coefficients of f exists, say s. We can assume deg f > 1. Then f = sf ′ ,
where f ′ is primitive. Since f ′ is primitive, f ′ is the product of irreducibles, say
f ′ = f1 f2 · · · fk . By unique factorization in K[x], g = uf1 f2 · · · fr for some r 6 k
(without loss of generality) and some u ∈ K. Since R is PSP, u ∈ R and the
greatest common divisor of the coefficients of g equals u.

In the paper [AS], Arnold and Sheldon proved the following theorem.
Theorem 3.5. Let R be a domain with quotient field K. The following are equivalent.
1) R[x] is an AP-Domain
2) R[x] is a GL-Domain
3) Each of the following holds:
(α) R has the PSP-property
(β) R is integrally closed, and
(γ) Whenever B, C are finitely generated fractional ideals of R such that
(BC)v = R, then Bv is principal
Condition (γ) clearly has a resemblance to condition b) of the proposition we
just proved. In fact, we have the following theorem.
Proposition 3.6. Let R be an integrally closed PSP-domain. The following are
equivalent.
a) Every nonconstant irreducible polynomial f ∈ R[x] is irreducible in K[x]
b) Whenever f = gh in R[x] and the greatest common divisor of the coefficients
of f exists, then the greatest common divisor of the coefficients of g exists
c) Whenever B, C are finitely generated fractional ideals of R such that (BC)v =
R, then Bv is principal
Proof. We already proved the equivalence of a) and b).

8

MARK BATELL AND JIM COYKENDALL

b) =⇒ c). Suppose (BC)v = R. Let g be a polynomial whose coefficients are
the generators of B (if generators of B are chosen in order B = (b0 , b1 , · · · , bn ) we
will define, g = b0 + b1 x + · · · + bn xn ) and let h be defined similarly with respect to
chosen generators of C. Choose nonzero b, c ∈ R such that bg, ch ∈ R[x]. Since R
is integrally closed, (Agh )v = (Ag Ah )v [G, Proposition 34.8], so that (Agh )v = R.
Since (bcAgh )v = bc((Agh )v ) [G, Proposition 32.1(1)], we therefore have (bcAgh )v =
bcR. This implies that the greatest common divisor of the coefficients of bcgh equals
bc. Since bcgh = (bg)(ch), it follows by assumption that the greatest common
divisor of the coefficients of bg exists, so that (Abg )v = (bB)v is principal [AQ,
Theorem 3.3]. Hence Bv is principal.
c) =⇒ b). Suppose f = gh in R[x] and the greatest common divisor of the
coefficients of f exists, say s. Let f1 = fs and h1 = hs . Then (Ag Ah1 )v = (Agh1 )v =
(Af1 )v , so (Ag Ah1 )v = R. Hence (Ag )v is principal. Hence the greatest common
divisor of the coefficients of g exists.

Putting together the results of this section we obtain our main result, which is
the following.
Theorem 3.7. Let R be a domain with quotient field K. The following are equivalent.
1) Every nonconstant irreducible polynomial f ∈ R[x] is irreducible in K[x]
2) R[x] is an AP-Domain
3) R[x] is a GL-Domain
4) Each of the following holds:
(α) R has the PSP-property
(β) R is integrally closed, and
(γ) Whenever B, C are finitely generated fractional ideals of R such that
(BC)v = R, then Bv is principal
We close with a few observations. First, it is of note that if R[x] is atomic,
then R[x] is an AP-domain if and only if R is a UFD. Also we note that our main
theorem of the previous section has its resolution in this stronger result. Indeed, if
we have the hypothesis of Theorem 2.9, then R[x] is an AP-domain. Hence R is an
AP-domain. If R has at least one atom then ρ(R) = ρ(R[x]) = 1.
Finally, if R is a Prüfer domain satisfying property (P) then since every finitely
generated ideal is invertible we must have Bv principal for each B. Hence R is
a GCD-domain. And if [a0 , · · · , an ] = 1, then (a0 , · · · , an )−1 = R. Hence there
exist r0 , · · · , rn ∈ R such that r0 a0 + · · · + rn an = 1. We conclude that the
greatest common divisor of a finite set of elements is a linear combination of that
set, and so R is a Bezout domain. Thus we obtain [G, Theorem 28.8], which says
(paraphrasing) that a Prüfer domain R has property (P) iff R is Bezout.
References
[AQ]
[AS]
[Ca]
[Co]
[C1]

D.D. Anderson and R.O. Quintero, Some generalizations of GCD-domains, Lecture Notes
in Pure and Appl. Math., 189, Marcel Dekker, 1997, 189–195.
J. Arnold and P. Sheldon, Integral domains that satisfy Gauss’s lemma, Michigan Math.
J. 22 (1975), 39–51.
L. Carlitz, A characterization of algebraic number fields with class number two, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 11 (1960), 391–392.
H. Cohn, “Advanced Number Theory,” Dover Publications, New York, 1980.
J. Coykendall, Half-factorial domains in quadratic fields, J. Algebra, 235 (2001), 417–430.

ELASTICITY IN POLYNOMIAL-TYPE EXTENSIONS

[C2]
[CM]
[CZ]
[G]
[T]
[Za]

9

J. Coykendall, A characterization of polynomial rings with the half-factorial property,
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 189, Marcel Dekker, 1997, 291–294.
J. Coykendall and B. Mammenga, An embedding theorem, J. Algebra, 325 (2011), 177–
185.
J. Coykendall and M. Zafrullah, AP-domains and unique factorization, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra, 189 (2004), 27–35.
R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory, Marcel Dekker, 1972.
H. Tang, Gauss’ lemma, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 35 (1972), 372–376.
A. Zaks, Half-factorial domains, Israel J. Math., 37 (1980), 281–302.

Department of Mathematics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108
E-mail address: mark.batell@ndsu.edu
Department of Mathematics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108
E-mail address: jim.coykendall@ndsu.edu

