GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS
CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

arXiv:1312.7406v1 [] 28 Dec 2013

Abstract. In 1988, I. Beck introduced the notion of a zero-divisor graph of a commutative
rings with 1. There have been several generalizations in recent years. In particular, in 2007
J. Coykendall and J. Maney developed the irreducible divisor graph. Much work has been
done on generalized factorization, especially τ -factorization. The goal of this paper is to
synthesize the notions of τ -factorization and irreducible divisor graphs in domains. We will
define a τ -irreducible divisor graph for non-zero non-unit elements of a domain. We show
that by studying τ -irreducible divisor graphs, we find equivalent characterizations of several
finite τ -factorization properties.
2010 AMS Subject Classification: 13A05, 13E99, 13F15, 5C25

1. Introduction
In this article, D will denote an integral domain. We will always assume that all rings
have an identity which is not zero. We will use G = (V, E) to denote a graph with V the set
of vertices and E the set of edges. In 1988, I. Beck in [8], introduced for a commutative ring
R, the notion of a zero-divisor graph Γ(R). The vertices of Γ(R) are the set of zero-divisors,
and there is an edge between a, b ∈ Z(R) if ab = 0. This has been studied and developed by
many authors including, but not limited to D.D. Anderson, D.F. Anderson, A. Frazier, A.
Lauve, P.S. Livingston, and M. Naseer in [3, 4, 5].
There have been several generalizations and extensions of this concept. In this paper, we
Date: November 21, 2017.
Key words and phrases. factorization, commutative rings, zero-divisor graphs, irreducible divisor graphs.
1

2

CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

focus on the notion of an irreducible divisor graph first formulated by J. Coykendall and J.
Maney in [9]. Instead of looking exclusively at divisors of zero in a ring, they restrict to a
domain D and choose any non-zero, non-unit x ∈ D and study the relationships between
the irreducible divisors of x. In [7, 9], M. Axtell, N. Baeth, J. Coykendall, J. Maney, and J.
Stickles present several nice results about factorization properties of domains based on their
associated irreducible divisor graphs. M. Axtell and J. Stickles have also studied irreducible
divisor graphs in commutative rings with zero-divisors in [6].
Unique factorization domains are well known and widely studied. Lesser known are other
finite factorization properties that domains might possess which are weaker than UFDs.
These come in the form of half factorization domains or half factorial domains (HFDs),
finite factorization domains (FFDs) and bounded factorization domains (BFDs). See [1] for
more information on the developments in the theory of factorization in integral domains.
More recently, these concepts have been further generalized by way of τ -factorization in
several papers, especially by D.D. Anderson and A. Frazier in [2] as well as the author in
[12, 13]. In this paper, we seek to take the notion of τ -factorization and apply it to irreducible
divisor graphs. We will find that many equivalent characterizations of τ -finite factorization
properties given in the aforementioned papers can be given by studying τ -irreducible divisor
graphs.
Section Two gives the necessary preliminary background information and definitions from
the study of irreducible and zero-divisor graphs as well as τ -factorization. In Section Three,
we define the τ -irreducible divisor graph of a domain D with a fixed relation τ . We give a few
examples of τ -irreducible divisor graphs, especially in comparison with the irreducible divisor
graphs of [6, 9]. In Section Four, we prove several theorems illustrating how τ -irreducible

GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS

3

divisor graphs give us another way to characterize various τ -finite factorization properties
domains may possess as defined in [2].

2. Preliminary Definitions
2.1. Irreducible Divisor Graph Definitions.
We begin with some definitions from J. Coykendall and J. Maney [9]. Let Irr(D) be
the set of all irreducible elements in a domain D. We will let Irr(D) be a (pre-chosen)
set of coset representatives of the collection {aU(D) | a ∈ Irr(D)}. Let x ∈ D # have a
factorization into irreducibles. The irreducible divisor graph of x ∈ D # , will be the graph
G(x) = (V, E) where V = {a ∈ Irr(D) | a | x}, i.e. the set of irreducible divisors of x up to
associate. Given a1 , a2 ∈ Irr(D), a1 a2 ∈ E if and only if a1 a2 | x. Furthermore, n − 1 loops
will be attached to a if an | x. If arbitrarily large powers of a divide x, we allow an infinite
number of loops. They define the reduced irreducible divisor graph of x to be the subgraph
of G(x) which is formed by deleting all the loops and denote it as G(x).

A clique will refer to a simple (no loops or multiple edges), complete (all vertices are pairwise adjacent) graph. A clique on n ∈ N vertices will be denoted Kn . We will call a graph G
a pseudoclique if G is a complete graph having some number of loops (possibly zero). This
means a clique is still considered a pseudoclique.

Let G be a graph, possibly with loops, and let a ∈ V (G). We have two ways of counting
the degree of this vertex. We define deg(a) := |{a1 ∈ V (G) | a1 6= a, a1 a ∈ E(G)}|, i.e. the
number of distinct vertices adjacent to a. Suppose a vertex a has n loops. We define
degl (a) := n + deg(a), the sum of the degree and the number of loops. Given a, b ∈ V (G), we

4

CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

define d(a, b) to be the shortest path between a and b. If no such path exists, i.e. a and b are
in disconnected components of G, or the shortest path is infinite, then we say d(a, b) = ∞.
We define Diam(G) :=sup({d(a, b) | a, b ∈ V (G)}).

2.2. τ -Factorization Definitions.
Let D be a domain. Let D ∗ = D − {0}, let U(D) be the set of units of D, and let
D # = D ∗ − U(D) be the non-zero, non-units of D. We will say a and b are associates if
a = λb for some λ ∈ U(D), and denote this a ∼ b. Let τ be a relation on D # , that is,
τ ⊆ D # × D # . We will always assume further that τ is symmetric. Let a be a non-unit. A
factorization of the form a = λa1 · · · an is said to be a τ -factorization if ai ∈ D # , λ ∈ U(D)
and ai τ aj for all i 6= j. If n = 1, then this is said to be a trivial τ -factorization. Each ai is
said to be a τ -factor, or that ai τ -divides a, written ai |τ a.
We say that τ is multiplicative (resp. divisive) if for a, b, c ∈ D # (resp. a, b, b′ ∈ D # ), aτ b
and aτ c imply aτ bc (resp. aτ b and b′ | b imply aτ b′ ). We say τ is associate preserving if
for a, b, b′ ∈ D # with b ∼ b′ , aτ b implies aτ b′ . We define a τ -refinement of a τ -factorization
λa1 · · · an to be a factorization of the form

(λλ1 · · · λn ) · b11 · · · b1m1 · b21 · · · b2m2 · · · bn1 · · · bnmn

where ai = λi bi1 · · · bimi is a τ -factorization for each i. This is slightly different from the
original definition in [2] where no unit factor was allowed. One can see they are equivalent
when τ is associate preserving. We then say that τ is refinable if every τ -refinement of a
τ -factorization is a τ -factorization. We say τ is combinable if whenever λa1 · · · an is a τ factorization, then so is each λa1 · · · ai−1 (ai ai+1 )ai+2 · · · an .
We pause briefly to give some examples of particular relations τ .

GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS

5

Example 2.1. Let D be a domain and let τ = D # × D # .

This yields the usual factorizations in D and |τ is the same as the usual divides. Moreover,
τ is multiplicative and divisive (hence associate preserving).

Example 2.2. Let D be a domain and let τ = ∅.

For every a ∈ D # , there is only the trivial factorization. Furthermore, all τ -divisors of a are
associate to a. If b | τ a, then the factorization is forced to be of the form a = λb = λ(λ−1 (a))
for λ ∈ U(D). That is, a ∼ b. Again τ is both multiplicative and divisive (vacuously).

Example 2.3. Let D be a domain and let S be a non-empty subset of D # . Let τ = S × S.
Define aτ b ⇔ a, b ∈ S.

In this case, τ is multiplicative (resp. divisive) if and only if S is multiplicatively closed
(resp. closed under non-unit factors). A non-trivial τ -factorization is (up to unit factors) a
factorization into elements from S. Some examples of nice sets S might be the set of primes
or irreducibles, then a τ -factorization is a prime decomposition or an atomic factorization
respectively.

Example 2.4. Let D be a domain and let aτ b if and only if (a, b) = D

In this case we get the comaximal factorizations studied by S. McAdam and R. Swan in
[11]. More generally, as in J. Juett in [10], we could let ⋆ be a star-operation on D and define
aτ b ⇔ (a, b)⋆ = D, that is a and b are ⋆-coprime or ⋆-comaximal.
Let a ∈ D # . As in [2], we will say a is τ -irreducible or a τ -atom if factorizations of the
form a = λ(λ−1 a) are the only τ -factorizations of a. Then D is said to be τ -atomic if every

6

CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

a ∈ D # has a τ -factorization a = λa1 · · · an with ai being τ -atomic for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. We
will call such a factorization a τ -atomic-factorization. We say D satisfies τ -ascending chain
condition on principal ideals (τ -ACCP) if for every chain (a0 ) ⊆ (a1 ) ⊆ · · · ⊆ (ai ) ⊆ · · ·
with ai+1 |τ ai , there exists an N ∈ N such that (ai ) = (aN ) for all i > N.
A domain D is said to be a τ -unique factorization domain (τ -UFD) if (1) D is τ -atomic
and (2) for every a ∈ D # any two τ -atomic factorizations a = λ1 a1 · · · an = λ2 b1 · · · bm have
m = n and there is a rearrangement so that ai and bi are associate for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
A domain D is said to be a τ -half factorization domain (τ -HFD) if (1) D is τ -atomic and
(2) for every a ∈ D # any two τ -atomic-factorizations have the same length. A domain D
is said to be a τ -finite factorization domain (τ -FFD) if for every a ∈ D # there are only a
finite number of τ -factorizations up to rearrangement and associate. A domain D is said
to be a τ -weak finite factorization domain (τ -WFFD) if for every a ∈ D # , there are only
finitely many b ∈ D such that b is a τ -divisor of a up to associate. A domain D is said
to be a τ -irreducible divisor finite domain (idf-domain) if for every a ∈ D # , there are only
finitely many τ -atomic τ -divisors of a up to associate. A domain D is said to be a τ -bounded
factorization domain (τ -BFD) if for every a ∈ D # , there exists a natural number N(a) such
that for any τ -factorization a = λa1 · · · an , n ≤ N(a).
We have the following set of relationships between the above finite factorization properties from [2], where ∇ indicates the relationship requires τ to be refinable and associate

GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS

7

preserving.

2:
❧❧❧
❧❧❧
❧
❧
❧❧❧
❧❧❧

τ -UFD
❘❘❘❘
❘❘❘ ∇
❘❘❘❘
❘❘❘
$,

τ -HFD ❙
❙❙❙
❙❙❙❙∇
❙❙❙
❙❙❙❙
%-

τ -FFD
KS

∇

∇

τ -BFD

19
❦❦❦
❦❦❦
❦
❦
❦
❦❦❦
❦❦❦
+3 τ -WFFD
❧
❧
❧
❧❧❧
❧❧❧
❧
❧
qy ❧❧

∇

+3

τ -ACCP
+3

τ -atomic

τ -atomic τ -idf domain
3. The τ -Irreducible Divisor Graph and Examples
Let D be a domain and let τ be a symmetric and associate preserving relation on D # . Let
Irrτ (D) be the collection of τ -irreducible elements. We will let Irrτ (D) be fixed, pre-chosen
coset representatives of the cosets {aU(D) | a ∈ Irrτ (D)}. Given an element a ∈ D # with
a τ -atomic factorization, we define the τ -irreducible divisor graph of x to be Gτ (x) = (V, E)
with V = {a ∈ Irrτ (D) | a |τ x}, and given a1 , a2 ∈ Irrτ (D), a1 a2 ∈ E if and only if
there is a τ -factorization of the form x = λa1 a2 · · · an . Furthermore, n − 1 loops will be
attached to the vertex corresponding to a if there is a τ -atomic factorization of the form
x = λa · · · aa1 · · · an where a occurs n times. Again, if this occurs for arbitrarily large powers
of a, we allow the possibility of an infinite number of loops. We then define the reduced
τ -irreducible divisor graph of x to be the subgraph of Gτ (x) formed by removing all loops,
and denote it Gτ (x). If there are no τ -atoms in D, then D is said to be a τ -antimatter
domain. In this case, we define Gτ (x) = Gτ (x) = ∅ for all x ∈ D # .

Example 3.1. Let D be a domain. Suppose τ = ∅.

8

CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

By letting τ = ∅, we have eliminated all non-trivial τ -factorizations. This has the effect of
making every non-zero, non-unit a τ -atom. This means for every x ∈ D # , Gτ (x) = ({x}, ∅).
The τ -irreducible divisor graph of x consists of the single vertex, x itself (or whichever
associate of x chosen initially in Irrτ (D)).
Example 3.2. Let D be a domain. Suppose τ = D # × D # .

In this case, we are looking at the usual factorizations in D. This means a | b if and only
if a |τ b. Every τ -factorization is a usual factorization and conversely. Moreover, x ∈ D #
is τ -atomic if and only if x is atomic. This results in the irreducible divisor graphs being
identical. Hence, we have Gτ (x) = G(x) and Gτ (x) = G(x) as defined in Coykendall and
Maney [9].
Example 3.3. (Inspired by [9, Example 2.4]) Let D = Q[x2 , x3 ] and let f (x) = x8 − x9 and
consider the relation τ defined by g(x)τ g ′ (x) if and only if deg(g(x)) = deg(g ′(x)).

The irreducible factorizations of f (x) are
f (x) = x8 − x9 = x2 · x2 · x2 · (x2 − x3 ) = (x3 − x4 ) · x2 · x3 = (x2 − x3 ) · x3 · x3 .
It is clear that only the last factorization above is a τ -factorization. It is the only factorization
in which all of the factors have the same degree. Every irreducible is certainly τ -irreducible,
but the question is: are there any additional τ -atomic elements which τ -divide f (x)? For
instance, g(x) = x5 is τ -atomic since the only non-trivial factorization up to associates and
rearrangement is g(x) = x2 · x3 is thrown out due to the factors having different degrees.
Any τ -factorization of f (x) must have τ -factors of the same degree. This amounts to finding
a proper partition of deg(f (x)) = 9 into parts of equal size. This is done only by nine degree

GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS

9

1 parts, or three degree 3 parts. Since all non-units in D have degree at least 2, the former is
not possible in this ring. This leaves only one possible τ -atomic factorization up to associates
and rearrangement:
f (x) = (x2 − x3 ) · x3 · x3 .
We show both G(f (x)) and Gτ (f (x)) below in Figure 1 for the sake of comparison.
x3

x3
x3-x2

x4-x3
x2

x3-x2

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. (a) G(f (x)), (b) Gτ (f (x))

This yields the following corresponding reduced irreducible divisor graphs G(f (x)) and
Gτ (f (x)) in Figure 2.
x3

x3
x3-x2

x4-x3
x2
(a)

x3-x2
(b)

Figure 2. (a) G(f (x)), (b) Gτ (f (x))

Remark. This above partition argument shows that any polynomial of prime degree p is a
τ -atom. The only way to non-trivially partition a prime integer p into equal parts is p parts
of degree 1 each. But all non-unit elements have degree at least 2. Hence there can only be
the trivial factorization. Thus we know the τ -irreducible divisor graph of any polynomial of
prime degree, p(x) consists of the single vertex, p(x) (or possibly whichever associate of p(x)

10

CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

was taken in Irrτ (D)). It is perhaps worth noting that the converse is false as conveniently
demonstrated above by x4 − x3 being irreducible and hence τ -irreducible, despite having
composite degree.

4. The τ -Irreducible Divisor Graph and τ -Finite Factorization Properties
We first observe that the τ -irreducible divisor graph yields a new equivalent characterization of a τ -irreducible element of [2]. This formalizes something we observed in Example
3.1.

Theorem 4.1. Let D be a domain and τ a symmetric, associate preserving relation on D # .
If D is τ -atomic, then a non-unit x is τ -irreducible if and only if Gτ (x) ∼
= K1 , the complete
graph on a single vertex which is some associate of x.

Proof. If x is τ -irreducible, then the only τ -factorizations are of the form x = λ(λ−1 x), hence
the only τ -divisors of x are associates of x. Moreover, x is a non-zero, non-unit, so x2 does
not divide x, hence there are no loops. Thus, Gτ (x) is a single isolated vertex generated by
whichever associate of x was chosen in Irrτ (D). Conversely, suppose x ∈ R is a non-unit such
that Gτ (x) ∼
= K1 . We suppose x were not τ -irreducible. Then there is a non-trivial τ -atomic
factorization of the form x = λa1 · · · an with n ≥ 2. This yields a1 , a2 ∈ V (Gτ (x)), but there
is only one vertex and no loops in Gτ (x), contradicting the hypothesis and completing the
proof.



Theorem 4.2. Let D be a domain and τ a symmetric, refinable and associate preserving
relation on D # . If D is τ -atomic such that for all x ∈ D # , and for all a ∈ V (Gτ (x)),
degl(a) < ∞, then D satisfies τ -ACCP.

GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS

11

Proof. Suppose D did not satisfy τ -ACCP. Then there exists a chain of principal ideals
(x1 ) ( (x2 ) ( (x3 ) ( · · · such that xi+1 |τ xi . Say

xi = λi xi+1 · ai1 · · · aini

(1)

is a τ -factorization for each i. Because D is τ -atomic and τ is refinable and associate
preserving, we may replace each aij with a τ -atomic factorization. This allows us to assume
each factor in Equation (1) is a τ -atom. Since τ is associate preserving, we may assume
further that each aij ∈ Irrτ (D). Because τ is refinable,

(2)

x1 = λ1 x2 · a11 · · · a1n1 = (λ1 λ2 )x3 · a21 · · · a2n2 · a11 · · · a1n1 = · · ·

are all τ -factorizations with aij τ -atomic. Because xi ( xi+1 , we must have in Equation
(1) that ni ≥ 1 or else xi ∼ xi+1 . This means the factorizations in each iteration of Equation
(2) increase in length. If {aij } is infinite, then a11 has an infinite number of adjacent vertices
in Gτ (x1 ), i.e degl(a11 ) ≥ deg(a11 ) = ∞. Otherwise, if {aij } is finite, then one of the ai0 j0
for some i0 and j0 occurs an infinite number of times. Hence degl(ai0 j0 ) = ∞ in Gτ (x1 )
since arbitrarily high powers of ai0 j0 τ -divide x1 . This is a contradiction and D must satisfy
τ -ACCP as desired.



Theorem 4.3. Let D be a domain and τ a symmetric and associate preserving relation on
D # . If D is τ -atomic, then the following are equivalent.
(1) D is a τ -UFD.
(2) Gτ (x) is a pseudoclique for every x ∈ D # .
(3) Gτ (x) is a clique for every x ∈ D # .

12

CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

(4) Gτ (x) is connected and Diam(Gτ (x)) = 1 for every x ∈ D # .
(5) Gτ (x) is connected and Diam(Gτ (x)) = 1 for every x ∈ D # .
(6) Gτ (x) is connected for every x ∈ D # .
(7) Gτ (x) is connected for every x ∈ D # .

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) Let x ∈ D # . Let x = λa1 · · · am be the unique τ -atomic factorization of
x up to rearrangement and associates. Because τ is associate preserving, one may adjust
the unit factor in front if necessary, to assume without loss of generality ai ∈ Irr(D) for
each i. After rearrangement, we may take the first n τ -factors to be distinct up to associate,
and assume the last m − n τ -factors are repeated associates of a1 , . . . , an . Since these are
the only irreducible τ -divisors of x, V (Gτ (x)) = {a1 , . . . , an }. It is clear that given any
two vertices, ai , aj ∈ V (Gτ (x)), ai aj ∈ E(Gτ (x)), because ai τ aj and ai aj |τ x. If there are
repeated associates in the τ -factorization, say x = λae11 · · · aenn with n ≤ m is a factorization
with e1 + e2 + . . . + en = m. Then if ei > 1, we have ai τ ai and ai ai |τ x, so we have ei − 1
loops attached to ai . Hence Gτ (x) is a pseudoclique.
It is immediate from the definition of the reduced τ -irreducible divisor graph that (2) ⇔
(3) and (6) ⇔ (7). Furthermore, (2) ⇔ (4) and (3) ⇔ (5) respectively since a connected
graph is complete if and only if the diameter is 1.
If Gτ (x) is complete it is certainly connected, so (2) ⇒ (6). It now suffices to show that (6)
⇒ (1). The following is a modification of the proof of [6, Theorem 2.1]. Let A be the set of all
non-zero, non-units which admit at least two distinct τ -atomic factorizations. We show A =
∅. Suppose otherwise and let n := minx∈A {k | x = λa1 · · · ak is a τ -atomic factorization}.
Clearly, n ≥ 2. Let y ∈ A such that y = λa1 · · · an . Then there is a distinct τ -atomic
factorization y = µb1 · · · bt with t ≥ n. There is a path in Gτ (x) connecting b1 and a1 ,

GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS

13

so without loss of generality we may as well have picked at τ -atomic factorization such
that b1 and a1 are actually adjacent in Gτ (x). If ai and bj were associates for any 1 ≤
i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ t, then

y
ai

= λ′ a1 · · · abi · · · an = µ′ b1 · · · bbk · · · bt provides two distinct τ -

atomic factorizations of a non-zero, non-unit but contradicts the minimality of n. Since
we chose a1 and b1 to be adjacent, we know there is a τ -atomic factorization of the form
y = γa1 b1 c1 · · · cm = λa1 · · · an . But this again yields two distinct τ -atomic factorizations of
y
:
a1

y
= γb1 c1 · · · cm = λa2 · · · an
a1
again contradicting the minimality of n. Hence, A must be empty as desired, completing
the proof.



Theorem 4.4. Let D be a domain and τ a symmetric, refinable and associate preserving
relation on D # . If D is τ -atomic, then consider the following statements.
(1) Gτ (x) is finite for every x ∈ D # .
(2) Gτ (x) is finite for every x ∈ D # .
(3) D is a τ -irreducible divisor finite domain.
(4) D is a τ -weak finite factorization domain.
(5) D is a τ -finite factorization domain.
(6) For all x ∈ D # , degl(a) < ∞ for all a ∈ V (Gτ (x)).
(7) For all x ∈ D # , deg(a) < ∞ for all a ∈ V (Gτ (x)).
We have (1)-(5) are equivalent, (3) ⇒ (6) ⇒ (7), and if we assume further that τ is reflexive,
then (7) ⇒ (3) and all are equivalent.
Proof. We begin by showing (1)-(5) are equivalent. (1) ⇔ (2) and (3) ⇔ (1) are immediate
from the definitions. (5) ⇒ (4) is clear since every every τ -divisor up to associate must

14

CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

appear as a τ -factor in one of the finitely many τ -factorizations. (4) ⇒ (3) every τ -atomic
divisor up to associate is certainly among the τ -divisors.
We need only prove (3) ⇒ (5). We modify the proof of [1, Theorem 5.1]. Let a ∈ D # .
Let a1 , a2 , . . . an be the collection of all non-associate τ -irreducible divisors of a. Because D
is τ -atomic and τ is refinable and associate preserving, given any τ -factorization, we could
τ -refine it into a τ -atomic factorization. In this way, every τ -factorization corresponds to a
τ -factorization of the form
a = λas11 · · · asnn
with 0 ≤ si . If we can show that the set of factorizations of this form is finite, then every
τ -factorization occurs as some grouping of these τ -atomic factors.
We suppose first that for each i, there is a bound Ni such that every τ -refinement of a
τ -factorization as above has 0 ≤ si ≤ Ni . Then this set is finite, with N1 · N2 · · · Nn elements
in it. So now we must have some si which is unbounded, say s1 is unbounded. Then for each
k ≥ 1, we can write
x = λk as1k1 · · · asnkn
τ -factorizations with sk1 < sk2 < sk3 < · · · . Suppose that in the set of factorizations, {ski }
is bounded for 1 < i ≤ n. Then there are only finitely many choices for sk2 , . . . , skn , we must
have sk2 = sj2 , sk3 = sj3, . . . , skn = sjn for some j > k. But then we have
s

x = λj a1j1 · · · asnjn = λk as1k1 · · · asnkn .
s

Since D is a domain, we can cancel leaving λj a1j1 = λk as1k1 with sj1 > sk1 , a contradiction.
This means some set {ski } is unbounded for a fixed i with 1 < i ≤ n. Without loss of
generality suppose it is i = 2. We continue in this manner until we get subsequences with

GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS

15

s11 < s21 < s31 < · · · and s21 < s22 < s32 < · · · . But this means we have

x = λ1 as111 · · · asn1n = λ2 as121 · · · asn2n

with s1i < s2i for each i, a contradiction. Thus this set must be finite, and the proof is
complete.
(5) ⇒ (6) ⇒ (7) is immediate.
We now suppose in addition that τ is reflexive and show (7) ⇒ (3). Suppose there is a
a ∈ D # such that {ai }i∈I is an infinite collection of non-associate τ -atomic divisors of a.
Suppose for each i ∈ I, that a = λi ai ai1 · · · aini are the given τ -factorizations showing ai is a
τ -atomic divisor of a. But then since τ is reflexive, we have aτ a, so

a2 = a · a = (λi ai ai1 · · · aini ) λj aj aj1 · · · ajnj



is a τ -factorization for any choice of i, j ∈ I. Because τ -is refinable and associate preserving,
we have
a2 = (λi λj )ai aj ai1 · · · aini aj1 · · · ajnj
is a τ -factorization, showing ai and aj are adjacent in Gτ (a2 ), for any choice of i, j ∈ I.
Thus when we fix i = i0 , and let j range over all possible choices of aj ∈ {ai }i∈I , we see
ai0 aj ∈ E(Gτ (a2 )) for all j ∈ I, j 6= i0 . Hence deg(ai0 ) = ∞ in Gτ (a2 ).



Corollary 4.5. Let D be a domain and τ a symmetric, refinable and associate preserving
relation on D # . If D is τ -atomic and if Gτ (x) (resp. Gτ (x)) is connected for every x ∈ D # ,
then Gτ (x) (resp. Gτ (x)) is a finite pseudoclique for every x ∈ D # . Furthermore, Gτ (x) =
Kn for some finite n.

16

CHRISTOPHER PARK MOONEY

Proof. If Gτ (x) is connected for every x ∈ D # , then by Theorem 4.3 D is a τ -UFD which
implies D is a τ -atomic τ -irreducible divisor finite ring. Theorem 4.4 shows Gτ (x) has a finite
number of vertices. Moreover, by Theorem 4.3, each of these vertices is adjacent to every
other vertex, i.e. Gτ (x) is a finite a pseudoclique. The last statement is immediate.



The following result is well known and was proven in [2], but we include it since the
τ -irreducible divisor graph results yield a nice proof.

Corollary 4.6. Let D be a domain and τ a symmetric, refinable and associate preserving
relation on D # . If D is a τ -atomic, τ -irreducible divisor finite domain, then D satisfies
τ -ACCP.

Proof. Theorem 4.4 shows for an associate preserving and refinable τ , a τ -atomic τ -idf domain has the property that for all x ∈ D # , degl(a) < ∞ for any vertex a ∈ V (Gτ (x)). By
Theorem 4.2, this shows D satisfies τ -ACCP.



Acknowledgment
I would like to thank the referee for their helpful comments and careful reading which
have improved the quality of this article. This research was conducted as a research fellow
under the supervision of Professor Daniel D. Anderson while at The University of Iowa.
References
[1] D.D. Anderson, D.F. Anderson, and M. Zafrullah, Factorization in Integral Domains, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra., 69 (1990), 1-19.
[2] D. D. Anderson and Andrea M. Frazier, On a general theory of factorization in integral domains, Rocky
Mountain J. Math., 41 (2011), 663–705.
[3] D.D. Anderson and M. Naseer, Beck’s coloring of a commutative ring, J. Algebra, 159 (1993), 500–514.

GENERALIZED IRREDUCIBLE DIVISOR GRAPHS

17

[4] D.F. Anderson, A. Frazier, A. Lauve, and P.S. Livingston, The zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring.
II, Ideal theoretic methods in commutative algebra (Columbia,MO, 1999), Lecture Notes in Pure and
Appl. Math., 220, Dekker, New York, (2001), 61–72.
[5] D.F. Anderson and P.S. Livingston, The zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, J. Algebra, 217 (1999),
434–447.
[6] M. Axtell, N. Baeth, and J. Stickles, Irreducible divisor graphs and factorization properties of domains,
Comm. Algebra, 39 (2011), 4148–4162.
[7] M. Axtell and J. Stickles, Irreducible divisor graphs in commutative rings with zero-divisors, Comm.
Algebra, 36 (2008), 1883–1893.
[8] I. Beck, Coloring of commutative rings, J. Algebra, 116 (1988), 208–226.
[9] J. Coykendall and J. Maney, Irreducible divisor graphs, Comm. Algebra, 35 (2007), 885–895.
[10] J. Juett, Generalized comaximal factorization of ideals, J. Algebra, 352 (2012), 141–166.
[11] S. McAdam and R. Swan, Unique comaximal factorization, J. Algebra, 276 (2004), 180–192.
[12] C.P. Mooney, Generalized factorization in commutative rings with zero-divisors, Houston J. Math., to
appear.
[13] C.P. Mooney, Generalized u-factorization in commutative rings with zero-divisors, Rocky Mountain J.
Math., to appear.

Reinhart Center, Viterbo University, 900 Viterbo Drive, La Crosse, WI 54601
E-mail address: cpmooney@viterbo.edu

