arXiv:1509.03354v3 [math.AC] 30 Mar 2017

VALUATION SEMIRINGS
PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

Abstract. The main scope of this paper is to introduce valuation semirings
in general and discrete valuation semirings in particular. In order to do that,
first we define valuation maps and investigate them. Then we define valuation
semirings with the help of valuation maps and prove that a multiplicatively
cancellative semiring is a valuation semiring if and only if its ideals are totally
ordered by inclusion. We also prove that if the unique maximal ideal of a
valuation semiring is subtractive, then it is integrally closed. We end this
paper by introducing discrete valuation semirings and show that a semiring is
a discrete valuation semiring if and only if it is a multiplicatively cancellative
principal ideal semiring possessing a nonzero unique maximal ideal. We also
prove that a discrete valuation semiring is a Gaussian semiring if and only if
its unique maximal ideal is subtractive.

In memory of Prof. Dr. Manfred Kudlek
0. Introduction
Semirings not only have significant applications in different fields such as automata theory in theoretical computer science, (combinatorial) optimization theory, and generalized fuzzy computation, but are fairly interesting generalizations
of two broadly studied algebraic structures, i.e., rings and bounded distributive
lattices. Valuation theory for rings was introduced by Krull in [18] and has been
proven to be a very useful tool in ring theory. Also valuation theory represents a
nice interplay between ring theory and ordered Abelian groups. The main purpose
of this paper is to generalize valuation theory for semirings.
In this paper, all semirings are commutative with a zero and a nonzero identity.
In the first section of the present paper, similar to the classical concept of valuations
in Bourbaki ([2, VI, 3.1]), we define the concept of valuation maps for semirings
with values in totally ordered commutative monoids (tomonoids for short). Note
that our notion for valuation maps should not to be confused with the concept of
valuation functions for semirings in [12, Definition 6.4].
By an M -valuation on S, we mean a map v : S → M∞ with the following
properties:
(1) S is a semiring and M∞ is a tomonoid with the greatest element +∞, which
has been obtained from the tomonoid M with no greatest element,
(2) v(xy) = v(x) + v(y), for all x, y ∈ S,
(3) v(x + y) ≥ min{v(x), v(y)}, for all x, y ∈ S,
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 16Y60, 13B25, 13F25, 06D75.
Key words and phrases. Semiring, Bounded distributive lattice, Semiring polynomials, Monoid
semiring, Unique factorization semiring, Valuation semiring, Valuation map, Discrete valuation
semiring, Gaussian semiring.
1

2

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

(4) v(1) = 0 and v(0) = +∞.
When there is an M -valuation v on S, it is easy to see that the set Sv = {s ∈
S : v(s) ≥ 0} is a subsemiring of S and plays an important role in our paper. If the
map v is surjective, we show that the semiring S is a semifield if and only if M is
an Abelian group and the set of units U (Sv ) of Sv is equal to {s ∈ Sv : v(s) = 0}
(See Theorem 1.8).
Let us recall that a nonempty subset I of a semiring S is said to be an ideal of
S, if a, b ∈ I implies a + b ∈ I and sa ∈ I for any s ∈ S. An ideal I of a semiring S
is said to be subtractive (in some references k-ideal), if a + b ∈ I and a ∈ I implies
b ∈ I for all a, b ∈ S. At last, an ideal I of a semiring S is said to be proper, if
I 6= S.
Let v be an M -valuation on S. We define v to have min-property, whenever
v(x) 6= v(y), then v(x + y) = min{v(x), v(y)} for any x, y ∈ S. Though this
property holds for valuation maps on rings, this is not the case for semirings (Check
Remark 1.13). We say “T is a V -semiring with respect to the triple (S, v, M )”, if
T is a semiring and there exists an M -valuation v on S such that the semiring S
contains T as a subsemiring and T = Sv = {s ∈ S : v(s) ≥ 0} (Definition 1.6).
Actually in Corollary 1.15, we show that if T is a V -semiring with respect to the
triple (K, v, M ), where K is a semifield and v is a surjective map, then the following
statements are equivalent:
(1) The valuation map v has the min-property;
(2) The maximal Kv -ideal Pv = {x ∈ Sv : v(x) > 0} is subtractive.
Similar to ring theory, an ideal A of a semiring S is said to be principal if A
is generated by one element, i.e., A = (a) = {sa : s ∈ S} for some a ∈ S. In
Proposition 1.18, we prove that if Sv is a V -semiring with respect to the triple
(K, v, M ), where K is a semifield and v is surjective, then the principal ideals of
Sv are totally ordered by inclusion. This is the base for the definition of valuation
semirings given in section 2.
Let us recall a notation. If S is a multiplicatively cancellative semiring (for short
MC semiring), we denote its semifield of fractions by F (S) (Refer to Remark 1.9).
In section 2, we define a semiring S to be a valuation semiring, if there exists an
M -valuation v on K, where K is a semifield containing S as a subsemiring, v is
surjective, and S = Kv = {s ∈ K : v(s) ≥ 0}. One of the main theorems of the
paper is the following (Theorem 2.4):
An MC semiring S is a valuation semiring, if and only if one of the following
equivalent conditions hold:
(1) For any element x ∈ F (S), either x ∈ S or x−1 ∈ S,
(2) For any ideals I, J of S, either I ⊆ J or J ⊆ I,
(3) For any elements x, y ∈ S, either (x) ⊆ (y) or (y) ⊆ (x).
Let S be an MC semiring and F (S) its semifield of fractions. The element
u ∈ F (S) is said to be integral over S if there exist a1 , a2 , . . . , an and b1 , b2 , . . . , bn
in S such that un + a1 un−1 + · · · + an = b1 un−1 + · · · + bn . The semiring S is said
to be integrally closed if the set of elements of F (S) that are integral over S is the
set S [5, p. 88].
In Theorem 2.7, we show that if S is a valuation semiring such that its unique
maximal ideal J is subtractive, then S is integrally closed.

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

3

Section 3 is devoted to discrete valuation semirings. We define a semiring S to
be a discrete valuation semiring (DVS for short), if S is a V -semiring with respect
to the triple (K, v, Z), where K is a semifield and v is surjective (Definition 3.1).
Before explaining briefly what we do in section 3, we need to recall some concepts.
A semiring is said to be quasi-local if it has only one maximal ideal. A semiring
satisfies ACCP if any ascending chain of principal ideals of S is stationary. A
semiring S is said to be a principal ideal semiring, if each ideal of S is principal.
In this section, we characterize discrete valuation semirings as follows (See Theorem 3.6): A semiring S is a discrete valuation semiring if and only if one of the
following equivalent conditions satisfies:
(1) S is a principal ideal MC semiring possessing a unique maximal ideal J =
6
(0),
(2) S is a quasi-local
T∞ MC semiring whose unique maximal ideal J 6= (0) is
principal and n=1 J n = (0),
(3) S is a quasi-local MC semiring whose unique maximal ideal J 6= (0) is
principal, which satisfies ACCP.
Let us recall that if S is a semiring, for a polynomial f ∈ S[X], the content of
f , denoted by c(f ), is defined to be the S-ideal generated by the coefficients of f .
A semiring S is called Gaussian if c(f g) = c(f )c(g) for all polynomials f, g ∈ S[X]
([22, Definition 7]). Finally in Theorem 3.8, we prove the following:
Let S be a discrete valuation semiring. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

The unique maximal ideal of S is subtractive,
The valuation map v : F (S) → Z∞ satisfies the min-property,
Each ideal of the semiring S is subtractive,
The semiring S is Gaussian.

A connoisseur of valuation theory in commutative algebra already have noticed
that some of the definitions and results, mentioned above, are extensions of their
ring version ones. Therefore, throughout the paper, some examples are given to
show that some objects really satisfy the hypotheses of certain definitions and
theorems, while the others are given to show that the hypotheses of certain theorems
in the paper cannot be greatly weakened.
Though we have tried our paper to be self-contained in definitions and terminology, but many of them can be found in the book [11]. One may refer to the books
[12], [11] and [23] for more on semirings.
1. Valuation Maps on Semirings
The main scope of this section is to generalize the concept of valuation maps on
rings and investigate the properties of these maps. While according to the classical
definition of valuation maps in Bourbaki ([2, VI, 3.1]), the values of the elements of a
ring belong to a totally ordered Abelian group, we define valuation maps in such way
that the values of the elements of a semiring belong to an arbitrary totally ordered
commutative monoid. We recall that by a totally ordered commutative monoid
(tomonoid for short) (M, +, 0, ≤), it is meant a commutative monoid (M, +, 0)
such that (M, ≤) is a totally ordered set and x ≤ y implies x + z ≤ y + z for any
z ∈ M . We also need to recall the following:

4

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

In monoid theory, there is a routine technique that one can obtain a monoid
with the greatest element from a monoid with no greatest element:
Let (M, +, 0, ≤) be a tomonoid with no greatest element. One can configure a
set M∞ by adjoining a new element to the monoid M , denoted by +∞, in this way
that the total order on M induces a total order on M∞ such that +∞ is the greatest
element, i.e., for all m ∈ M , we have that m < +∞ and the monoid structure on
M induces a monoid structure on M∞ with the following rule:
m + (+∞) = (+∞) + m = +∞, ∀ m ∈ M∞ .
It is immediate that M∞ is also a tomonoid with the greatest element +∞. Now
similar to the classical concept of valuations in Bourbaki ([2, VI, 3.1]), we define
the concept of valuation maps for semirings with values in tomonoids (not to be
confused with the concept of valuation functions for semirings in [12, Definition
6.4]).
Definition 1.1. By “an M -valuation on S”, we mean a map v : S → M∞ with
the following properties:
(1) S is a semiring and M∞ is a tomonoid with the greatest element +∞, which
has been obtained from the tomonoid M with no greatest element,
(2) v(xy) = v(x) + v(y), for all x, y ∈ S,
(3) v(x + y) ≥ min{v(x), v(y)}, for all x, y ∈ S,
(4) v(1) = 0 and v(0) = +∞.
When there is an M -valuation v on S, we set Sv = {s ∈ S : v(s) ≥ 0} and
Pv = {s ∈ Sv : v(s) > 0}. If M = Z, we say that v is a discrete valuation on S.
Remark 1.2. Let (S, +, ·) be a semiring and (M, ·, ≤) a tomonoid. It is possible
to give a dual definition of an M -valuation on S as follows:
We annex an element O to the tomonoid M to configure the set Mmax = M ∪{O}
and extend ordering and monoid multiplication by the rules:
O ≤ x and O · x = x · O = O, for all x ∈ Mmax .
Imagine we can define a function v : S → Mmax with following properties:
• v(x · y) = v(x) · v(y), for all x, y ∈ S,
• v(x + y) ≤ max{v(x), v(y)}, for all x, y ∈ S,
• v(1) = 1 and v(0) = O.
Then it is easy to see that v defines an M -valuation on S. On the other hand,
if v is an M -valuation on S, by reversing the ordering, one can get a function
v : S → M∞ such that the three above conditions of the current remark are
satisfied.
Remark 1.3.
(1) If, in Definition 1.1, S is a ring and M is a totally ordered
Abelian group, then our definition for valuation maps given in Definition
1.1 coincides with the definition of a Bourbaki valuation on S with values
in M∞ given in [2]. In fact, our definition for valuation maps, which is
from an arbitrary semiring into a tomonoid and is based on Bourbaki’s
classical definition, is somehow equivalent to the definition of valuation
maps defined in Definitions 2.1 and 2.3 in [13], that is from a semiring into
a so-called commutative bipotent semiring. Also note that our definition is
more general than the definition of valuation maps in [15], which is taken

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

5

from [13], but it is only from an additively idempotent semiring into R ∪
{+∞}.
(2) By considering what it has been explained in Remark 1.2, our definition for
valuation maps is more general than what is defined in Definition 1.2 in [25],
a paper on valuations over idempotent (i.e., characteristic one) semirings,
since in the same paper, by a valuation on a semiring S, it is meant a surjective map v : S → Mmax , for some totally ordered abelian group M , having
the three conditions given in Remark 1.2 plus the following extra condition:
v(x) ≤ max{v(x + y), v(y)} for all x, y ∈ S.
Before starting to investigate the properties of valuation maps on semirings, let
us give a couple of examples. Note that a semiring S is called entire if ab = 0
implies either a = 0 or b = 0 for all a, b ∈ S.
Example 1.4.
(1) Let S be an entire semiring. One can construct a trivial M valuation v on S, by defining v(s) = 0 for any s ∈ S − {0} and v(0) = +∞,
where M = {0}.
(2) Let (S, +, 0, ≤) be a tomonoid with no greatest element. Adjoin the greatest
element +∞ to S and call the new set S∞ . Define on S the two operations
a ⊕ b = min{a, b} and a ⊙ b = a + b. One can easily check that (S∞ , ⊕, ⊙)
is a semiring and v : S∞ → S∞ defined by v(s) = s, is an S-valuation on
S∞ !
(3) Let N0 denote the set of non-negative integers and p ∈ N0 be a fixed prime
number. Obviously one can uniquely write any natural number x in the
form of x = pn · y, where n ≥ 0 and y is a natural number and has no factor
of p. Now we define the map v : N0 → N0 ∪ {+∞} by v(x) = v(pn · y) = n,
if x is nonzero, and v(0) = +∞. A simple calculation shows that v is an
N0 -valuation on N0 .
(4) Let K be a semifield. By a non-archimedean absolute value on K, we mean
a function | · | : K −→ R, satisfying the following properties for all x, y ∈ K:
• |x| ≥ 0, and |x| = 0 if and only if x = 0,
• |xy| = |x||y|,
• |x + y| ≤ max{|x|, |y|}.
It is clear that the map v : K −→ R ∪ {+∞}, defined as v(x) = − ln |x|,
gives us an R-valuation on K (Refer to [7] and [14]).
Now let us bring the following straightforward proposition only for the sake of
reference. Note that an ideal P of a semiring S is said to be a prime ideal of S, if
P 6= S and ab ∈ P implies either a ∈ P or b ∈ P for all a, b ∈ S.
Proposition 1.5. Let there exist an M -valuation v on S. The following statements
hold:
(1) If s is multiplicatively invertible element of S, then v(s−1 ) = −v(s).
(2) If sn = 1, then v(s) = 0 for any s ∈ S and natural number n.
(3) The set v −1 (+∞) is a prime ideal of S.
(4) The semiring S is an entire semiring, if v(s) = +∞ implies s = 0 for all
s ∈ S.
(5) The set Sv = {s ∈ S : v(s) ≥ 0} is a subsemiring of S and Pv = {s ∈ Sv :
v(s) > 0} is a prime ideal of Sv .
(6) If s is a unit of the semiring Sv , then v(s) = 0.

6

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

The statement (5) in Proposition 1.5 suggests us to give the following definition:
Definition 1.6. We say “T is a V -semiring with respect to the triple (S, v, M )”,
if T is a semiring and there exists an M -valuation v on S such that the semiring S
contains T as a subsemiring and T = Sv = {s ∈ S : v(s) ≥ 0}. When there is no
fear of ambiguity, we may drop the expression “with respect to the triple (S, v, M )”
and simply say that T is a V -semiring.
If we denote the units of a semiring S by U (S), then U (Sv ) ⊆ {x ∈ Sv : v(x) = 0}
(Proposition 1.5). One may ask if these two sets are equal in general. In the
following, we give simple but useful examples to show that the mentioned two sets
can be sometimes different:
Example 1.7.
(1) Let S = N0 be the set of all nonnegative integers and define
v : N0 −→ {0, +∞} to be a map that sends all s > 0 to 0 and sends 0 to +∞.
Then, it is easy to check that U (Sv ) = {1}, while {s ∈ Sv : v(s) = 0} = N.
(2) Put T = N0 [X][X −1] to be the entire semiring of all Laurent polynomials
on N0 . Define the map v from T to Z∞ by v(am X m + am+1 X m+1 + · · · +
an X n ) = m, where m, n ∈ Z and m ≤ n and am 6= 0 and v(0) = +∞. It
is easy to see that v is a discrete valuation on the entire semiring T , Sv =
N0 [X] and U (Sv ) = {1}, while {f ∈ N0 [X] : v(f ) = 0} = N + X · N0 [X]!
Now the question arises under what conditions the equality U (Sv ) = {x ∈ Sv :
v(x) = 0} holds. This is what we are going to show in Theorem 1.8:
Theorem 1.8. Let T be a V -semiring with respect to the triple (S, v, M ). The
following statements hold:
(1) The set Pv = {s ∈ Sv : v(s) > 0} is the only maximal ideal of the semiring
Sv if and only if U (Sv ) = {x ∈ Sv : v(x) = 0}.
(2) If v is a surjective map, then the semiring S is a semifield if and only if M
is an Abelian group and U (Sv ) = {s ∈ Sv : v(s) = 0}.
Proof. (1): It is straightforward to see that Pv = {s ∈ Sv : v(s) > 0} is a prime
ideal of Sv (Proposition 1.5). Now assume that Pv is the only maximal ideal of
the semiring Sv . We claim that any s ∈ Sv with v(s) = 0 is a unit. In contrary,
if s is a nonunit element of Sv , then the principal ideal (s) 6= Sv is a subset of
the only maximal ideal Pv of Sv and therefore v(s) > 0. On the other hand, if
U (Sv ) = {s ∈ Sv : v(s) = 0} and I is a proper ideal of Sv , then I cannot contain a
unit and this means that v(s) > 0 for any nonzero s ∈ I and therefore I ⊆ Pv .
(2): Let M be an Abelian group and U (Sv ) = {s ∈ Sv : v(s) = 0}. Let x be
a nonzero element of S such that v(x) = g for some g ∈ M . Since v is surjective,
there exists a nonzero y ∈ S such that v(y) = −g. From this, we have v(xy) = 0
and this means that xy is unit of Sv and therefore x is multiplicatively invertible.
On the other hand, let S be a semifield. Since v is surjective, M is a homomorphic
image of S − {0}, and the monoid M is in fact a group. Also if x ∈ Sv is a unit,
then v(x) = 0 (Proposition 1.5). Now let x ∈ S and v(x) = 0. So there exists a
y ∈ S such that xy = 1. This implies that v(y) = 0 and the inverse of x is in fact
in Sv and so x ∈ U (Sv ).

Remark 1.9. Let us recall two important points:
(1.9.a) From commutative semigroup theory, we know that any cancellative monoid
M can be embedded into an Abelian group gp(M ), known as the group of

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

7

the differences of M , in this sense that there is a monoid monomorphism
ι : M → gp(M ) defined by ι(m) = [(m, 0)]∼ such that any element g ∈
gp(M ) can be written in the form of g = ι(x) − ι(y) for some x, y ∈ M
[3, p. 50]. Now let M be a cancellative tomonoid. For simplification, we
denote every element of gp(M ) by (x − y), where x, y ∈ M . The total order
on M induces a total order on gp(M ) as follows:
We define the relation ≤gp on gp(M ) by (x1 − x2 ) ≤gp (y1 − y2 ), if
x1 +y2 ≤ x2 +y1 . One can easily check that (gp(M ), ≤gp ) becomes a totally
ordered Abelian group such that its order is preserved by the monomorphism ι and particularly 0 ≤ x if and only if 0 ≤gp ι(x) for each x ∈ M .
(1.9.b) Let S be a multiplicatively cancellative semiring. The semiring S can be
embedded into a semifield F (S), known as the semifield of fractions of S.
Note that there is a semiring monomorphism ε : S → F (S) such that any
element f ∈ F (S) can be considered in the form of f = ε(a) · ε(b)−1 with
a, b ∈ S and b 6= 0 [10, p. 20]. For simplification, we denote every element
of F (S) by a/b, where a ∈ S and b ∈ S − {0}.
Now by considering Remark 1.9, we have the following:
Theorem 1.10. Let T be a V -semiring with respect to the triple (S, v, M ), where S
is an MC semiring and M is a cancellative tomonoid. Then the following statements
hold:
(1) The map v ′ : F (S) → gp(M )∞ defined by v ′ (x/y) = (v(x) − v(y)) for
nonzero elements x, y ∈ S and v ′ (0/1) = +∞ is a gp(M )-valuation on
F (S).
(2) The V -semiring Sv can be considered as a subsemiring of the V -semiring
Sv ′ .
Proof. (1): A simple calculation shows that v ′ is a well-defined map from F (S) to
gp(M )∞ such that v ′ ((a/b) · (c/d)) = v ′ (a/b) + v ′ (c/d) and v ′ (1/1) = 0.
Now consider that
v ′ ((a/b) + (c/d)) = v ′ ((ad + bc)/bd) = (v(ad + bc) − v(bd))
≥ (min{v(a) + v(d), v(b) + v(c)} − (v(b) + v(d)))
= min{(v(a) − v(b)), (v(c) − v(d))} = min{v ′ (a/b), v ′ (c/d)}.
So we have already proved that v ′ is the gp(M )-valuation on the semifield F (S).
(2): It is easy to see that the map ε|Sv : Sv → {z/1 ∈ F (S) : z ∈ Sv }, defined
by ε|Sv (z) = z/1, is the semiring isomorphism that we need. On the other hand,
{z/1 ∈ F (S) : z ∈ Sv } is a subsemiring of Sv′ , since v ′ (z/1) = v(z) ≥ 0 for
any z ∈ Sv and this means that z/1 ∈ Sv′ . Therefore Sv can be considered as a

subsemiring of Sv′ and this finishes the proof.
Remark 1.11. The reader, who is familiar with valuation ring theory, knows that
if G is a totally ordered Abelian group and κ is a field and v : κ → G∞ is a valuation
map, then v has this property that v(x) 6= v(y) implies v(x + y) = min{v(x), v(y)}
for all x, y ∈ κ ([7, Statement 1.3.4, p. 20]). Though in Remark 1.13, by giving
a suitable example, we will show that, in general, this property does not hold for
valuation maps on semirings, but later in Corollary 1.15 and Theorem 3.8, we will
see that this property holds for some important families of semirings. Therefore, it
is justifiable to give a name to this property.

8

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

Definition 1.12. Let there exist an M -valuation v on S. We define v to have minproperty, whenever v(x) 6= v(y), then v(x + y) = min{v(x), v(y)} for any x, y ∈ S.
In the following remark, we give some examples related to min-property for
valuation maps on semirings. The first example shows that a valuation map, may
not satisfy the min-property. The second and third examples are good examples of
valuation maps on entire semirings satisfying min-property.
Remark 1.13.
(1) Let T be an entire semiring. Consider the entire semiring
T [X][X −1] of Laurent polynomials and define the map deg : T [X][X −1] →
Z∞ by deg(am X m + am+1 X m+1 + · · · + an X n ) = n, where m, n ∈ Z and
m ≤ n and an 6= 0 and v(0) = +∞. It is easy to check that the map “ deg ”
is surjective with this property that deg(f g) = deg(f ) + deg(g). Let us
mention that a semiring S is called zerosumfree, if x + y = 0 implies x =
y = 0 for all x, y ∈ S. Our claim is that deg(f + g) ≥ min{deg(f ), deg(g)}
for f, g ∈ T [X][X −1] if and only if T is a zerosumfree entire semiring and
the proof is as follows:
If T is zerosumfree, then one can easily see that for all f, g ∈ T [X][X −1],
we have deg(f + g) = max{deg(f ), deg(g)} ≥ min{deg(f ), deg(g)}. And if
T is not a zerosumfree semiring, then there exists two nonzero elements
a, b ∈ T such that a + b = 0 and if one sets f = 1 + aX and g = bX, then
obviously deg(f ) = deg(g) = 1, while deg(f + g) = 0. From all we said we
get that if T is a zerosumfree entire semiring, then “ deg ” is a Z-valuation
on the entire semiring T [X][X −1], while the min-property does not hold for
“ deg ”.
Now we give two important examples of valuation maps on entire semirings satisfying the min-property:
(2) Let us recall that if M is a commutative monoid and T is a semiring, one
can define the monoid semiring T [M ] constructed from the monoid M and
the semiring T similar to the standard definition of monoid rings. We
write each element of f ∈ T [M ] as polynomials f = t1 X m1 + · · · + tn X mn ,
where t1 , . . . , tn ∈ T and m1 , . . . , mn are distinct elements of M . Note
that this representation of f is called the canonical form of f [9, p. 68].
One can easily check that if M is a tomonoid and T is an entire semiring,
then the map v : T [M ] → M defined by v(s1 X m1 + · · · + sn X mn ) =
min{m1 , . . . , mn }, if s1 X m1 + · · · + sn X mn 6= 0 and v(0) = +∞ is an
M -valuation on T [M ] satisfying the min-property. This example can be
interesting in another perspective because v(f ) = v(g) implies v(f + g) =
v(f ), for all f, g ∈ T [M ] if and only if T is a zerosumfree semiring.
(3) For any given entire semiring T , define the entire semiring of Laurent
P∞ power
series T [[X]][X −1] to be the set of all elements of the form n≥m an X n ,
whereP
m ∈ Z and ai ∈ T . It is, then, easy to check that the map v, defined
n
−1
], is the
by v( ∞
n≥m an X ) = m if am 6= 0 and v(0) = +∞ on T [[X]][X
−1
Z-valuation on the entire semiring T [[X]][X ] satisfying the min-property.
Note that v(f ) = v(g) implies v(f + g) = v(f ), for all f, g ∈ T [[X]][X −1] if
and only if T is a zerosumfree semiring.
Let S be a semiring and (M, +, 0) be a commutative additive monoid. The
monoid M is said to be an S-semimodule if there is a function, called scalar product,

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

9

λ : S × M −→ M , defined by λ(s, m) = sm such that the following conditions are
satisfied:
(1) s(m + n) = sm + sn for all s ∈ S and m, n ∈ M ;
(2) (s + t)m = sm + tm and (st)m = s(tm) for all s, t ∈ S and m ∈ M ;
(3) s · 0 = 0 for all s ∈ S and 0 · m = 0 and 1 · m = m for all m ∈ M .
A nonempty subset N of an S-semimodule M is said to be an S-subsemimodule
of M , if m + n ∈ N for all m, n ∈ N and sn ∈ N for all s ∈ S and n ∈ N . An
S-subsemimodule K of an S-semimodule N is said to be subtractive if x + y ∈ K
and x ∈ K imply that y ∈ K for any x, y ∈ N . For more on semimodules over
semirings, one may refer to [11, Chap. 14]. The following theorem introduces
some subtractive ideals of V -semirings. Also we will use this theorem to find some
equivalent conditions for a valuation map to satisfy the min-property.
Theorem 1.14. Let M be a tomonoid and v be an M -valuation on the semiring
T . The following statements hold:
(1) For any α ∈ M , the sets Kα = {x ∈ T : v(x) > α} and Lα = {x ∈ T :
v(x) ≥ α} are both Sv -subsemimodules of T and if v is a surjective map
and β > α is another element of M , then Kβ ⊂ Lβ ⊂ Kα ⊂ Lα .
(2) If α ≥ 0 is an element of M , then Iα = {x ∈ Sv : v(x) > α} and Jα =
{x ∈ Sv : v(x) ≥ α} are both Sv -ideals of Sv and if v is a surjective map
and β > α is another element of M , then Iβ ⊂ Jβ ⊂ Iα ⊂ Jα .
(3) For any x, y ∈ T (∈ Sv ), either Lv(x) ⊆ Lv(y) (Iv(x) ⊆ Iv(y) ) or Lv(y) ⊆
Lv(x) (Iv(y) ⊆ Iv(x) ).
(4) If the valuation map v has the min-property, then Kα and Lα (Iα and
Jα ) are both subtractive Sv -subsemimodules of T (ideals of Sv ) for any
(nonnegative) α ∈ M .
Proof. The assertions (1), (2) and (3) are straightforward.
For (4), we only prove one of the claims, since the proof of the other ones is
similar. Now let x, y ∈ T be such that x + y ∈ Kα and x ∈ Kα . If v(x) = v(y),
then from the assumption x ∈ Kα , we get that y ∈ Kα . If v(x) 6= v(y), then from
the assumptions x + y ∈ Kα and v(x + y) = min{v(x), v(y)} (min-property) and
this point that v(y) ≥ min{v(x), v(y)}, we get that again y ∈ Kα and this proves
that Kα is subtractive and the proof is complete.

Corollary 1.15. Let T be a V -semiring with respect to the triple (K, v, M ), where
K is a semifield and v is a surjective map. The following statements are equivalent:
(1) The valuation map v has the min-property;
(2) For each nonnegative element α ∈ M , the Kv -ideal Iα is subtractive;
(3) The maximal Kv -ideal Pv = {x ∈ Sv : v(x) > 0} is subtractive.
Proof. By Theorem 1.14, (1) implies (2) and obviously (2) implies (3). For proving
(3) ⇒ (1), we proceed as follows:
Since K is a semifield, by Theorem 1.8, M is an Abelian group, U (Kv ) = {x ∈
Kv : v(x) = 0}, and Pv = {x ∈ Kv : v(x) > 0} is the only maximal ideal of
Kv . Now let x, y ∈ K − {0} be such that v(x) < v(y) and g = v(y) − v(x).
Obviously g is a positive element of M and since v is a surjective map, there exists
a nonzero z ∈ Kv such that v(z) = g. This implies that v(yx−1 z −1 ) = 0 and so
yx−1 z −1 ∈ U (Kv ). Therefore there is a u ∈ U (Kv ) such that y = xzu. Now we
consider that x+y = x(1+zu). Obviously zu ∈ Pv and since Pv is subtractive, 1+zu

10

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

needs to be a unit and v(x + y) = v(x). This means that v has the min-property
and the proof is complete.

Proposition 1.16. Let T be a V -semiring with respect to the triple (S, v, M ). Then
the following statements hold:
(a) For any x ∈ S, the cyclic Sv -subsemimodule (x) of Sv -semimodule S is a
subset of Lv(x) .
(b) For any x ∈ Sv , the principal Sv -ideal (x) of the semiring Sv is a subset of
Jv(x) .
Moreover if S is a semifield and the map v is surjective, then the following
statements hold:
(c) For any x ∈ S, the cyclic Sv -subsemimodule (x) of Sv -semimodule T is
equal to Lv(x) .
(d) For any x ∈ Sv , the principal Sv -ideal (x) of the semiring Sv is equal to
Jv(x) .
Proof. The proof of (a) and (b) is straightforward. For the proof of (c), let S be
a semifield and v surjective. By Theorem 1.8, the monoid M is in fact an Abelian
group and U (Sv ) = {x ∈ Sv : v(x) = 0}. If x = 0, then there is nothing to prove.
So let x 6= 0 and y ∈ Lv(x) . So v(y) ≥ v(x). Since M is an Abelian group, we can
choose m ∈ M such that m = v(y) − v(x) and since v is a surjective map, there is
a nonzero z ∈ T such that m = v(z). From this, we get that v(y) − v(x) − v(z) = 0
and so v(yx−1 z −1 ) = 0. This means that yx−1 z −1 = u is a unit element of Sv and
y = uzx. Since v(uz) ≥ 0, we have y ∈ (x) and this completes the proof. The proof
of (d) is similar to the proof of (c) and therefore, it is omitted.

In the following example, we show that the condition of being a semifield for S
in the statements (c) and (d) in Proposition 1.16 is necessary, in this sense that if
S is not a semifield, the equality (x) = Jv (x) may not hold:
Example 1.17. Let N0 be the set of nonnegative integers. Obviously any natural
number x > 0 can be written uniquely in the form of x = 5n ·y, where n ≥ 0 and y ∈
N is relatively prime to 5. We define v5 : N0 → N0 ∪{+∞} by v5 (x) = v5 (5n ·y) = n,
if x > 0 and v(0) = +∞. It is straightforward to check that v5 is an N0 -valuation
on the semiring N0 . Obviously v(2) = 0 and Jv(2) = {y ∈ N : v(y) ≥ 0} = N0 , while
(2) = 2N0 .
Proposition 1.18. Let T be a V -semiring with respect to the triple (K, v, M ),
where K is a semifield and v is surjective. Then for the cyclic Sv -subsemimodules
L1 , L2 of the Sv -semimodule K, either L1 ⊆ L2 or L2 ⊆ L1 . In particular for the
principal Sv -ideals J1 , J2 of the semiring Sv , either J1 ⊆ J2 or J2 ⊆ J1 .
Proof. If one of the cyclic subsemimodules L1 and L2 is zero, then there is nothing to
prove. If not, then there are two nonzero elements x1 , x2 ∈ K such that L1 = (x1 )
and L2 = (x2 ). Since K is a semifield and v is surjective, by Proposition 1.16,
L1 = Lv(x1 ) and L2 = Lv(x2 ) and by Theorem 1.14, either L1 ⊆ L2 or L2 ⊆ L1 .
The same proof works for ideals and this is what we wished to prove.

Let us recall that an integral domain D is said to be a valuation ring, if every
element x of its field of fractions K satisfies this property: x ∈
/ D implies x−1 ∈ D
([21, Chap. 4]). This is equivalent to this statement that all ideals of D are totally

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

11

ordered by inclusion ([19, Proposition 5.2]). Theorem 1.18 states that if T is a
V -semiring with respect to the triple (K, v, M ), where K is a semifield and v is
surjective, then the principal ideals of Sv (= T ) are totally ordered by inclusion.
The question arises if this causes all ideals of Sv to be totally ordered. As we will
see in Theorem 2.4, the answer to this question is affirmative. Now we pass to the
next section to define valuation semirings and investigate their properties.
2. Valuation Semirings
The main task of this section is to define the concept of valuation semirings,
which is an extension of the concept of valuation rings, and show that similar
facts for valuation rings hold for valuation semirings. A classical result in valuation
theory shows that D is a valuation ring if and only if D is a V -semiring with respect
to the triple (F (D), v, G∞ ), where F (D) is the field of fractions of the domain D,
G is the quotient group of F (D)∗ modulo U (D) and v : F (D) → G∞ is defined by
v(x) = xU , if x 6= 0, and v(0) = +∞ ([19, Definition 5.12 and Proposition 5.13]).
Before giving our definition for valuation semirings, we need to explain one more
point: From ring theory, we know that a ring D is said to be an integral domain if
one of the following equivalent conditions hold:
(1) The multiplication of the ring D has cancelation property, i.e., if ab = ac
and a 6= 0, then b = c for all a, b, c ∈ D,
(2) The ring D is entire, i.e., if ab = 0, then either a = 0 or b = 0.
In semiring theory, these two statements are not equivalent. In fact, if S is an
MC semiring, then S is an entire semiring but the inverse is not true. For instance,
the semiring (L = {0, 1, . . . , n}, max, min) for n ≥ 2 is not an MC semiring, since
if u ∈ L − {0, 1}, then min{u, u} = min{u, 1}, but u 6= 1, while obviously it is an
entire semiring.
Now imagine T is a V -semiring with respect to the triple (S, v, M ). The question
is: Does the assumption T is entire imply that the ideals of Sv are totally ordered
by inclusion? The following interesting example shows that this is not the case:
Example 2.1. Let B = {0, 1} be the Boolean semiring and B[X][X −1 ] the entire
semiring of Laurent polynomials. Define the surjective map v : B[X][X −1 ] → Z∞
by v(am X m + · · · + an X n ) = m, when m ≤ n are integer numbers and am 6= 0
and v(0) = +∞. Obviously B[X] is a V -semiring with respect to the triple
(B[X][X −1 ], v, Z), while even its principal ideals are not totally ordered under inclusion, since the ideals (X) and (X + 1) of B[X] are not comparable.
According to this introductory note and all we have seen in Theorem 1.10, Corollary 1.15, and Proposition 1.16, it seems the assumptions “K is a semifield” and “v
is a surjective map” are useful in defining valuation semirings. Therefore, we give
the following definition:
Definition 2.2. We define a semiring S to be a valuation semiring, if there exists
an M -valuation v on K, where K is a semifield containing S as a subsemiring, v is
surjective, and S = Kv = {s ∈ K : v(s) ≥ 0}.
Remark 2.3.
(1) In Definition 2.2, according to Theorem 1.8, M has to be an
Abelian group and S needs to be an MC semiring, since it is a subsemiring
of the semifield K.

12

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

(2) In Definition 2.2, K needs to be isomorph to the semifield of fractions of
S. Define ϕ : F (S) → K by ϕ(a/b) = a · b−1 . An easy calculation shows
that ϕ is a semifield monomorphism. We only prove that ϕ is surjective.
Let x ∈ K. If v(x) ≥ 0, then x ∈ S and therefore ϕ(x/1) = x. If v(x) < 0,
then v(x−1 ) = −v(x) > 0 and x−1 ∈ S and obviously ϕ(1/(x−1 )) = x.
(3) Any valuation semiring is a quasi-local semiring (Theorem 1.8). Note that
a semiring is called to be quasi-local if it has only one maximal ideal ([11,
Example 6.1]).
(4) Let T be a V -semiring with respect to the triple (S, v, M ), where S is an
MC semiring and M is a cancellative tomonoid. Then Sv can be embedded
into a valuation semiring (Theorem 1.10).
While the proof of the following important theorem is somehow similar to its
ring version, we bring its proof here only for the completeness of the paper:
Theorem 2.4. For an MC semiring S, the following statements are equivalent:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

S is a valuation semiring,
For any element x ∈ F (S), either x ∈ S or x−1 ∈ S,
For any ideals I, J of S, either I ⊆ J or J ⊆ I,
For any elements x, y ∈ S, either (x) ⊆ (y) or (y) ⊆ (x).

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2): Let S be a valuation semiring. According to Definition 2.2,
S = Kv = {s ∈ K : v(s) ≥ 0}. Now take x ∈ F (S). By considering the point (2)
mentioned in Remark 2.3, if x ∈
/ S, then v(x) < 0 and so v(x−1 > 0 and this means
−1
that x ∈ S.
(2) ⇒ (3): Imagine I * J and choose a ∈ I − J. Take b ∈ J − {0}. So a/b ∈
/ S,
because if a/b ∈ S, then (a/b) · b ∈ B, which is in contradiction with a ∈
/ J. So by
(2), b/a ∈ S and (b/a) · a ∈ I. Thus J ⊆ I.
(3) ⇒ (4): Obvious.
(4) ⇒ (1): Let U be the units of the semiring S. Definitely U is a subgroup
of F (S)∗ , the multiplicative group of nonzero elements of fraction semifield of S.
Define G = F (S)∗ /U to be the quotient group of F (S)∗ modulo U and write the
operation on G additively, i.e., aU +bU = (ab)U . Define a relation on G by yU ≤ xU
if for the cyclic S-subsemimodules (x), (y) of F (S), we have (x) ⊆ (y). It is obvious
that this is an order on G. On the other hand the cyclic S-subsemimodules of
F (S) are totally ordered, for the principal ideals of S are totally ordered and this
causes ≤ to be a totally order on G. Now we prove that G with the order ≤ is in
fact a totally ordered Abelian group. Let yU ≤ xU . So (x) ⊆ (y) and obviously
(zx) ⊆ (zy) and this means that zU + yU ≤ zU + xU .
Finally define v : F (S) → G∞ by v(x) = xU , for x 6= 0 and v(0) = +∞. From
the definition of G and v, it is clear that v(xy) = (xy)U = xU + yU = v(x) + v(y)
and so v(1) = U , the neutral element of the group G.
Also let x ∈ K. So x ∈ S if and only if (x) = (1) and this implies that x ∈ S
if and only if U ≤ xU , which means that x ∈ S if and only if U ≤ v(x). Now
we use this to prove that v(x + y) ≥ min{v(x), v(y)}. If either x = 0 or y = 0,
the inequality holds vividly. So let x, y are both nonzero element of F (S) and
v(y) ≤ v(x). From this, we get that yU ≤ xU and according to the definition of
order, (x) ⊆ (y). So there exists a nonzero s ∈ S such that x = sy and therefore
x/y ∈ S. Obviously this implies that x/y + 1 ∈ S and v(x/y + 1) ≥ U . At last

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

13

we get that v(x + y) = v(y(x/y + 1) = v(y) + v(x/y + 1) ≥ v(y) and the proof is
finished.

After seeing this theorem, the reader may ask if there is a semiring, which is neither a ring nor an MC semiring, but still its ideals are totally ordered by inclusion.
In the following, we show that the fuzzy semiring has this property:
Example 2.5. Let (I = [0, 1], max, min) be the fuzzy semiring and A an ideal of
I. It is easy to see that a ∈ A if and only if [0, a] ⊆ A for any a ∈ I. Therefore if
sup(A) ∈ A, then A = [0, sup(A)]. Now let sup(A) ∈
/ A. Obviously A ⊆ [0, sup(A)).
Our claim is that [0, sup(A)) ⊆ A. In order to prove the claim, we assume that x ∈
/
A. Then [x, 1] ∩ A = ∅, because if y ∈ [x, 1] ∩ A, then x ≤ y and x = min{x, y} ∈ A.
On the other hand
S we know that a ∈ A if andSonly if [0, a] ⊆ A for any a ∈ I.
This S
means that a∈A [0, a] ⊆ A and so [x, 1] ∩ ( a∈A [0, a]) = ∅. From this, we get
that a∈A ([0, a] ∩ [x, 1]) = ∅, which implies that [0, a] ∩ [x, 1] = ∅ for any a ∈ A.
Consequently a < x for any a ∈ A and this means that x ∈
/ [0, sup(A)). Hence, we
have already proved that if A is any ideal of I, then either A = [0, a] for some a ∈ A
or A = [0, b) for some b ∈ A. Finally an easy case-by-case discussion shows that all
ideals of I are totally ordered. Note that I is an entire semiring, while it is not an
MC semiring.
We finalize this section by generalizing another important classical result in
valuation ring theory, which states that any valuation ring is integrally closed ([19,
Proposition 5.5]). Actually, we prove that if the only maximal ideal of a valuation
semiring S is subtractive, then S is integrally closed in the sense of the following
definition borrowed from the paper [5, p. 88]. Note that if S is a ring, then the
following definition is equivalent to the standard definition of integrally closed rings
given in Definition 4.2 in the book [19] (For more on this, also check Remark 2.8).
Definition 2.6. Let S be an MC semiring and F (S) its quotient semifield. The
element u ∈ F (S) is said to be integral over S if there exist a1 , a2 , . . . , an and
b1 , b2 , . . . , bn in S such that un + a1 un−1 + · · · + an = b1 un−1 + · · · + bn . The
semiring S is said to be integrally closed, if the set of elements of F (S) that are
integral over S is the set S [5, p. 88].
Proposition 2.7. Let S be a valuation semiring such that its unique maximal ideal
J is subtractive. Then S is integrally closed.
Proof. Clearly any element of S is integral over S. Now let u ∈ F (S) be integral
over S. By Definition 2.6, there exist a1 , a2 , . . . , an and b1 , b2 , . . . , bn in S such that
un + a1 un−1 + · · · + an = b1 un−1 + · · · + bn .

(E1 )

Our claim is that u ∈ S. In contrary, suppose that u ∈
/ S. By Theorem 2.4,
u−1 ∈ S. On other hand, u−1 ∈
/ U (S), since if u−1 ∈ U (S), then u ∈ U (S). This
means that u−1 ∈ J. By multiplying the both sides of the equation E1 by u−n , we
get
1 + a1 u−1 + · · · + an u−n = b1 u−1 + · · · + bn u−n .
(E2 )
Obviously a1 u−1 +· · ·+an u−n , b1 u−1 +· · ·+bn u−n ∈ J and since J is subtractive,
we have 1 ∈ J, a contradiction. Therefore, u ∈ S and this finishes the proof.

Remark 2.8. For more on the notions “integral elements”, “integral closure”,
and “integrally closed rings or ideals” in commutative algebra, one can refer to

14

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

[26, Definition 5.1.1]), [26, Definition 5.1.24], [1, p. 63], [24, Definition 1.1.1], [4,
Definition 10.2.1], and [6, Exercise 4.14].
Also in the paper [20], the concept of integral closure for elements and ideals
in idempotent semirings is introduced, and how it corresponds to its namesake in
commutative algebra is established. Finally the term “integrally closed ideals for
semirings” in Definition 1.4 of the paper [20] is used, but the relationship of these
notions in semirings to the notion of “integrally closed MC-semirings” given in page
88 of the paper [5] is unclear for the author.
3. Discrete Valuation Semirings
Let us recall that in Definition 1.1, we defined an M -valuation v on S to be
discrete, if M = Z. We start this section by defining discrete valuation semirings.
Definition 3.1. We define a semiring S to be a discrete valuation semiring (DVS
for short), if S is a V -semiring with respect to the triple (K, v, Z), where K is a
semifield and v is surjective.
Now we go further to give some examples for discrete valuation semirings that
are not rings. For this, we need to bring some concepts and definitions.
Recall that if S is a semiring, for a, b ∈ S, it is written a | b and said that “a
divides b”, if b = sa for some s ∈ S. This is equivalent to say that (b) ⊆ (a). Also
it is said that a and b are associates if a = ub for some unit u ∈ U (S) and if S is
an MC semiring, then this is equivalent to say that (a) = (b). A nonzero, nonunit
element s of a semiring S is said to be irreducible if s = s1 s2 for some s1 , s2 ∈ S,
then either s1 or s2 is a unit. This is equivalent to say that (s) is maximal among
proper principal ideals of S. An element p ∈ S − {1} is said to be a prime element,
if the principal ideal (p) is a prime ideal of S, which is equivalent to say if p | ab,
then either p | a or p | b.
An MC semiring S is called a unique factorization (or sometimes factorial) semiring if the following conditions are satisfied:
UF1 Each irreducible element of S is a prime element of S.
UF2 Any nonzero, nonunit element of S is a product of irreducible elements of
S.
First we construct a nice and general example of a discrete valuation semiring
as follows:
Example 3.2. Let S be a factorial semiring and K = F (S) its semifield of fractions.
Let p ∈ S be a fixed prime element of S. According to the definition of factorial
semirings, any nonzero x ∈ S can be uniquely written in the form of x = pn · x1 ,
where n ≥ 0 and x1 is a nonzero element of S such that it has no factor of p.
Therefore, any nonzero x/y ∈ K, can be uniquely written in the form of x/y =
pm · x1 /y1 , where m ∈ Z and x1 and y1 are nonzero elements of S, which have no
factor of p. Now we define a map vp : K → Z∞ with vp (x/y) = vp (pm · x1 /y1 ) = m,
when x/y is a nonzero element of K, and vp (0) = +∞. Obviously vp (1) = 0 and
vp (x/y · z/t) = vp (x/y) + vp (z/t). Now let x/y = pm · x1 /y1 and z/t = pn · z1 /t1 ,
where m, n ∈ Z and x1 , y1 , z1 and t1 all have no factor of p. Without loss of
generality, we can suppose that m ≤ n. Now consider the following:
vp (x/y + z/t) = vp (pm ((x1 t1 + pn−m y1 z1 )/y1 t1 ) =
m + vp (x1 t1 + pn−m y1 z1 ) ≥ m = min{vp (x/y), vp (z/t)}.

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

15

From all we said, we get that Sp = {x/y ∈ K : vp (x/y) ≥ 0} = {x/y ∈ K : p ∤ y}
is a discrete valuation semiring. Now the question arises if there are factorial
semirings, which are not rings. The first example that may come to one’s mind
is N0 . In Proposition 3.10, we also prove that if D is a Dedekind domain, then
(Id(D), +, ·) is a factorial semiring, where by Id(D), we mean the set of all ideals
of D. Obviously (Id(D), +, ·) is not a ring.
Lemma 3.3. If S is a discrete valuation semiring, then there exists a nonzero and
nonunit element t ∈ S such that any nonzero ideal I of S is of the form I = (tn )
for some n ≥ 0.
Proof. Let S be a discrete valuation semiring. By definition, S is a V -semiring with
respect to a suitable triple (K, v, Z), where K is a semifield and v is surjective. Now
let t ∈ S such that v(t) = 1. Our claim is that if I is a nonzero proper ideal of S,
then there exists a natural number n such that I = (tn ). Put n = min{v(s) : s ∈ I}.
Obviously n is a positive integer. Now let s ∈ I such that v(s) = n. It is clear that
v(s · t−n ) = 0 and by Theorem 1.8, s · t−n is a unit and (tn ) ⊆ I. On the other
hand, if s ∈ I − {0}, then v(s) ≥ n by choice of n and therefore s = utm , where
u is a unit and m ≥ n. This causes s ∈ (tn ). So we have already proved that any
nonzero proper ideal of S is of the form (tn ).

Before bringing the first important theorem of this section, which characterizes
discrete valuation semirings, we prove the following useful lemma. Let us recall
that, similar to ring theory, we say a semiring S satisfies ACCP if any ascending
chain of principal ideals of S is stationary.
Lemma 3.4. Let S beTan MC semiring, which satisfies ACCP. Then t ∈ S is a
∞
nonunit if and only if n=1 (tn ) = (0).
T∞
Proof. If t is a unit element of
S, then obviously n=1 (tn ) = S. Now let t be a
T∞
nonunit element of S and s ∈ n=1 (tn ). So for each natural number n, there exists
an sn ∈ S such that s = sn tn . This gives us the ascending chain (s1 ) ⊆ (s2 ) ⊆
· · · ⊆ (sn ) ⊆ · · · , which must stop somewhere, because S satisfies ACCP. Therefore
there is a natural number m such that (sm ) = (sm+1 ). This means that there is
an r ∈ S such that sm+1 = rsm and so we have s = sm+1 tm+1 = r(sm tm )t = rts.
Obviously this implies that s = 0, since if s 6= 0, then t is a unit and the proof is
finished.

Let us recall that a semiring is called to be quasi-local if it has only one maximal
ideal ([11, Example 6.1]).
Proposition 3.5. Let S be a semiring. Then the following statements hold:
S
(1) The set of all units U (S) of the semiring S is equal to S − m∈Max(S) m,
where by Max(S), we mean the set of all maximal ideals of S.
(2) The semiring S is quasi-local if and only if S − U (S) is an ideal of S.
Proof. (1) : Let S be a semiring and take U (S) to be the set of all units of S. If
s ∈ U (S), then s cannot be an element of a maximal ideal of S. On the other hand,
if s is not invertible, then the principal ideal (s) of S is proper and by Proposition
6.59 in [11], (s) is contained in a maximal ideal m of S and therefore s ∈ m.
(2) : If S is quasi-local and m is its unique maximal ideal, then by (1), S −U (S) =
m. On the other hand, if S − U (S) is an ideal of S, then any proper ideal of S is

16

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

contained in S − U (S), since all elements of a proper ideal cannot be unit. This
implies that S−U (S) is the unique maximal ideal of S and the proof is complete. 
Theorem 3.6. The following statements for a semiring S are equivalent:
(1) S is a discrete valuation semiring,
(2) S is a principal ideal MC semiring possessing a unique maximal ideal J 6=
(0),
(3) S is a unique factorization semiring with a unique (up to associates) irreducible element t,
(4) S is a quasi-local
T∞ MC semiring whose unique maximal ideal J 6= (0) is
principal and n=1 J n = (0),
(5) S is a quasi-local MC semiring, which satisfies ACCP and its unique maximal ideal J 6= (0) is principal.
(6) S is an MC semiring and there exists a nonzero and nonunit element t ∈ S
such that any nonzero ideal I of S is of the form I = (tn ) for some n ≥ 0.
Proof. First we prove (1) ⇒ (4) ⇒ (2) ⇒ (3) ⇒ (1).
(1) ⇒ (4): Let S be a discrete valuation semiring. It is clear that S is an MC
semiring. Also by Lemma 3.3, we know that S is quasi-local and its unique maximal
ideal J is nonzero and principal generated by an element t ∈ S such that v(t) = 1.
On the other hand, any ideal of S is principal. So by [11, Proposition 6.16], S is
Noetherian and in particular
T∞ it satisfies ACCP. Now since t is nonunit (because
v(t) = 1), by Lemma 3.4, n=1 J n = (0).
(4) T
⇒ (2): Let J = (t) be the maximal ideal of S and I its nonzero proper ideal.
n
n
Since ∞
n=1 J = (0), there exists a nonnegative number n such that I ⊆ J , but
n+1
n
n+1
I *J
. Our claim is that J ⊆ I. Let a ∈ I − J
. So we can suppose that
a = u · tn for some u ∈ S, where u ∈
/ J. By Proposition 3.5, u is a unit of S. This
means that (a) = (tn ) = J n for any a ∈ I − J n+1 . Now let x ∈ J n = (a). So
x = s · a. But a ∈ I, so x ∈ I. This means that all nonzero proper ideals of S are
in the form of J n = (tn ), where n ≥ 1.
(2) ⇒ (3): Let S be a principal ideal MC semiring such that the nonzero ideal
J = (t) is its unique maximal ideal. First we prove that t is an irreducible element
of S. On contrary, let t be reducible, then t = s1 s2 , where both s1 and s2 are
nonunit and this causes (t) ⊂ (s1 ) ⊂ S, which contradicts the maximality of J.
Now let t′ be another irreducible element of S and I = (m) be an arbitrary ideal
of S that contains (t′ ). So t′ = s · m for some s ∈ S and by definition either s or m
is a unit and this means that either (t′ ) = (m) or (m) = S. From this, we get that
(t′ ) is also a maximal ideal of S and by hypothesis, (t′ ) = (t), which means that S
has a unique (up to associates) irreducible element t. Since S is a principal ideal
semiring, it is Noetherian. So S satisfies ACCP. Now let s ∈ S be nonzero and
nonunit. Therefore by Lemma 3.4, there is a natural number n such that s ∈ (tn ),
while s ∈
/ (tn+1 ). Obviously this implies that s = utn , where u is a unit element of
S. So S is a unique factorization semiring.
(3) ⇒ (1): Let S be a unique factorization semiring with a unique (up to associates) irreducible element t. So any element of S can be written uniquely in the
form of utn for a unit u and a nonnegative integer n. This means that any element
of the fraction semifield F (S) of S can be written uniquely in the form of utn ,
where u is a unit and n is an integer number. Now define a map v : F (S) → Z∞
by v(utn ) = n for any n ∈ Z and v(0) = +∞. It is a routine discussion that S is a

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

17

V -semiring with respect to the triple (F (S), v, Z).
Now we show (4) ⇔ (5) ⇔ (6).
(4) ⇒ (5): It is clear that (2) implies (5) and since (4) is equivalent to (2), it
means that (4) implies (5).
(5) ⇒ (4): Let J = (t)
of S. Since t is
T∞be the nonzero unique maximalTideal
∞
nonunit, by Lemma 3.4, n=1 (tn ) = (0) and it means that n=1 J n = (0).
(5) ⇒ (6): By Lemma 3.3, (1) implies (6) and since (5) is equivalent to (1), it is
clear that (5) implies (6).
(6) ⇒ (5): Straightforward.

Let us recall that a semiring S is called an Euclidean semiring if there is a
function δ : S − {0} → N0 ∪ {+∞} satisfying the following condition:
For a, b ∈ S with b 6= 0, there exist q, r ∈ S satisfying a = qb + r with r = 0 or
δ(r) < δ(b) [11, Chap. 12, p. 136].
Proposition 3.7. Any discrete valuation semiring is an Euclidean semiring.
Proof. Let S be a V -semiring with respect to the triple (K, v, Z), where K is a
semifield and v is a surjective map. Define δ : S − {0} → N0 ∪ {+∞} by δ(s) = v(s)
for any nonzero s ∈ S and suppose that a, b ∈ S and b 6= 0. If δ(a) < δ(b), then
a = 0 · b + a. If δ(a) ≥ δ(b) then q = ab−1 ∈ S and therefore a = qb + 0 and this
completes the proof.

Now we are ready to prove another important theorem of this section. Before that
we need to recall the concept of Gaussian semirings, introduced in [22, Definition
7]: Let S be a semiring. For f ∈ S[X], the content of f , denoted by c(f ), is defined
to be the S-ideal generated by the coefficients of f . A semiring S is called Gaussian
if c(f g) = c(f )c(g) for all polynomials f, g ∈ S[X]. Also note that a semiring S is
called a subtractive semiring if each ideal of the semiring S is subtractive.
Theorem 3.8. Let S be a discrete valuation semiring. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(1) The unique maximal ideal of S is subtractive,
(2) The valuation map v : F (S) → Z∞ satisfies the min-property,
(3) S is a subtractive semiring,
(4) S is a Gaussian semiring.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2): This is obvious by Corollary 1.15.
(2) ⇒ (3): Let the valuation map v : F (S) → Z∞ satisfy the min-property. Let
I be a nonzero proper ideal of S. By Lemma 3.3, there exists a t ∈ S with v(t) = 1
and n ∈ N such that I = (tn ) = {x ∈ S : v(x) ≥ n} and by Theorem 1.14, I is
subtractive. So we have already proved that each ideal of S is subtractive.
(3) ⇒ (4): Let S be a subtractive semiring and f, g ∈ S[X] be two arbitrary polynomials. By Dedekind-Mertens lemma for semirings ([22, Theorem 3]),
c(f )m+1 c(g) = c(f )m c(f g), where m = deg(g). If f = 0, then there is nothing to
prove. So suppose f 6= 0. Our claim is that c(f ) is a nonzero principal ideal of S.
In fact, since in valuation semirings principal ideals are totally ordered by inclusion
(Theorem 2.4), each finitely generated ideal has to be principal. But S is an MC
semiring, so c(f ) is a cancelation ideal of S and c(f )c(g) = c(f g) ([22, Proposition
15]).

18

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

(4) ⇒ (1): If S is a Gaussian semiring, then by [22, Theorem 3], S is a subtractive
semiring. Therefore any ideal of S, in particular the unique maximal ideal of S is
subtractive and this finishes the proof.

Example 3.9. Let Q≥0 be the semifield of all nonnegative rational numbers. Every
nonzero element a/b ∈ Q≥0 can be written uniquely in the form of pn · a1 /b1 , where
n ∈ Z and a1 , b1 are both natural numbers and relatively prime to the given prime
number p. Now we define vp (a/b) = pn · a1 /b1 = n (Refer to Example 3.2). It is,
then, easy to see that vp is a discrete valuation on Q≥0 satisfying the min-property.
≥0
Therefore the semiring Q≥0
: p ∤ b} is a simple but good example for
p = {a/b ∈ Q
a subtractive discrete valuation semiring.
Now we bring the following proposition which gives us a general example for
subtractive discrete valuation semirings.
Proposition 3.10. Let D be a Dedekind domain and m an arbitrary maximal ideal
of D. Then the following statements hold:
(1) The semiring Id(D) is a Gaussian factorial semiring;
(2) The subsemiring {I/J ∈ F (Id(D)) : m ∤ J} of the semifield of fractions
F (Id(D)) is a subtractive discrete valuation semiring.
Proof. (1): Let D be a Dedekind domain. Then by [19, Theorem 6.16], every
nonzero proper ideal of D can be written as a product of prime ideals of D in
one and only one way, expect for the order of the factors. Also by [19, Corollary
6.17], every nonzero prime ideal of S is a maximal ideal. On the other hand, by
[19, Theorem 6.19], every nonzero ideal of D is invertible. From all we said we get
that (Id(D), +, ·) is a factorial semiring. Now we prove that Id(D) is a Gaussian
semiring. Let I, J ∈ Id(D). Since D is a Dedekind domain, any nonzero ideal of
D is invertible. Also since I ⊆ I + J, by [19, Theorem 6.20 (8)], there exists an
ideal K of D such that I = K(I + J). So I belongs to the principal ideal of the
semiring Id(D), generated by I + J, i.e., I ∈ (I + J). Similarly it can be proved
that J ∈ (I + J). So we have (I, J) = (I + J) and by [22, Theorem 8], Id(D) is a
Gaussian semiring.
(2): By considering the Example 3.2 and Theorem 3.8, the semiring Sm =
{I/J ∈ F (Id(D)) : m ∤ J} is a discrete valuation semiring and so we only need
to prove that the valuation map vm : F (Id(D)) → Z∞ has min-property. So let
I/J = mp I1 /J1 and K/L = mq K1 /L1 be arbitrary elements of F (Id(D)) such that
m ∤ I1 , J1 , K1 , L1 . Without loss of generality one may assume that p < q. Therefore
we have: vm (mp ((I1 L1 + m(q−p) J1 K1 )/J1 L1 ) = p + vm (I1 L1 + m(q−p) J1 K1 ). Our
claim is that m ∤ I1 L1 + m(q−p) J1 K1 . In contrary, if m | I1 L1 + m(q−p) J1 K1 , so
I1 L1 + m(q−p) J1 K1 is an element of the principal ideal (m). But we have proved
in above that Id(D) is a Gaussian semiring and by [22, Theorem 3], Id(D) is a
subtractive semiring and in particular (m) is a subtractive ideal of Id(D) and this
implies that I1 L1 ∈ (m), which contradicts our assumption that m ∤ I1 , L1 . So
vm (I1 L1 + m(q−p) J1 K1 ) = 0 and vm (I/J + K/L) = min{vm (I/J), vm (K/L)} and
the proof is complete.

Remark 3.11. Let Λ be a nonempty set. The set of all functions f : Λ → N0
L
(Λ)
(Λ)
with finite support is denoted by N0 (= λ∈Λ N0 ). We put SΛ = N0 ∪ {+∞}
(Λ)
and define the operations “min” and “+” on N0 componentwise and extend these
operations on SΛ as follows:

VALUATION SEMIRINGS

19

• min{f, +∞} = min{+∞, f } = f , for all f ∈ SΛ ,
• f + (+∞) = (+∞) + f = +∞, for all f ∈ SΛ .
It is easy to verify that (SΛ , min, +) is a semiring such that +∞ is its zero and
the constant zero function, i.e., f (λ) = 0 for all λ ∈ Λ, its 1SΛ . Our claim is that
if D is a Dedekind domain, then (Id(D), +, ·) and (SΛ , min, +) are isomorphic as
semirings for Λ = Max(D) and the routine proof is based on an interesting result
αn
1
mentioned in Proposition 6.8 in [17], which states that if I = mα
1 · · · mn and
min{α1 ,β1 }
min{αn ,βn }
β1
βn
J = m1 · · · mn , then I + J = m1
· · · mn
, where αi , βi are nonnegative integers, {mi } are distinct maximal ideals of D, and m0i is taken to be the
ideal D.
The question may arise if Proposition 3.11 can be generalized for the semiring
(Λ)
(SΛ , min, +), where SΛ = N0 ∪{+∞} and Λ is an arbitrary nonempty set. In fact,
a wonderful result by Luther Claborn, mentioned and proved in Theorem 15.18 in
[8], states that if Λ is an arbitrary nonempty set, then there is a Dedekind domain
D with a bijection σ : Max(D) → Λ.
Acknowledgements
The author was partly supported by Department of Engineering Science at University of Tehran and wishes to thank the anonymous referee for an extensive list
of comments and suggestions, which greatly helped to improve the paper. This
paper is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Dr. Manfred Kudlek, since he was the
professor who introduced the algebraic structure of semiring to me during my stay
in Tarragona, Spain.
References
[1] M. F. Atiyah and I. G. Macdonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Massachusetts, 1969.
[2] N. Bourbaki, Commutative Algebra. Chapters 1–7, Elements of Mathematics, Springer, 1998.
[3] W. Bruns and J. Gubeladze, Polytopes, Rings, and K-Theory, Springer, Dordrecht, 2009.
[4] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay Rings, 2nd edn., Cambridge studies in advanced
mathematics: Vol. 39, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[5] D. J. Dulin and J. R. Mosher, The Dedekind property for semirings, J. of Aust. Math. Soc.,
14 (1972), 82–90.
[6] D. Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1995.
[7] A. J. Engler and A. Prestel, Valued Fields, Springer, Berlin, 2005.
[8] R. M. Fossum, The Divisor Class Group of a Krull Domain, Ergebnisse der Mathematik
und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 74, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973.
[9] R. Gilmer, Commutative Semigroup Rings, The University of Chicago Press, 1984.
[10] J. S. Golan, Power Algebras over Semirings, Springer, 1999.
[11] J. S. Golan, Semirings and Their Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
1999.
[12] U. Hebisch and H. J. Weinert, Semirings - Algebraic Theory and Applications in Computer
Science, World Scientific, Singapore, 1998.
[13] Z. Izhakian, M. Knebusch, and L. Rowen, Supertropical semirings and supervaluations, J.
Pure Appl. Algebra 215, No. 10 (2011), 2431–2463.
[14] N. Jacobson, Basic Algebra II, 2nd ed., W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1989.
[15] J. Jun, Valuations of Semirings, arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.01392 (2015).
[16] I. Kaplansky, Commutative Rings, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1970.
[17] G. Karpilovsky, Topics in Field Theory, North-Holland Mathematics Studies Vol. 155, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1989.

20

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

[18] W. Krull, Beiträge zur Arithmetik kommutativer Integrittsbereiche. VI. Der allgemeine
Diskrimminantensatz. Unverzweigte Ringerweiterungen, Math. Z., Vol. 45 (1939), 1–19.
[19] M. D. Larsen and P. J. McCarthy, Multiplicative Theory of Ideals, Academic Press, New
York, 1971.
[20] A. W. Macpherson, On the difference between tropical functions and real-valued functions,
Preprint, arXiv:1507.00545, 2015.
[21] H. Matsumura, Commutative Ring Theory, 2nd ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[22] P. Nasehpour, On the content of polynomials over semirings and its applications, J. Algebra
Appl., 15, No. 5 (2016), 1650088 (32 pages).
[23] G. Pilz, Near-Rings, The Theory and Its Aplications, Revised edition, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, 1983.
[24] I. Swanson and C. Huneke, Integral Closure of Ideals, Rings, and Modules, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 336, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
[25] J. Tolliver, Extension of valuations in characteristic one, Preprint, arXiv:1605.06425, 2016.
[26] F. Wang and H. Kim, Foundations of Commutative Rings and Their Modules, Algebra and
Applications: Vol. 22, Springer Nature, Singapore, 2016.
Peyman Nasehpour, Department of Engineering Science, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
E-mail address: nasehpour@gmail.com

