arXiv:1311.5107v1 [math.AC] 20 Nov 2013

FACTORIZATION IN THE SELF-IDEALIZATION OF A PID
GYU WHAN CHANG AND DANIEL SMERTNIG



a b
Abstract. Let D be a principal ideal domain and R(D) = {
|
0 a
a, b ∈ D} be its self-idealization. It is known that R(D) is a commutative
noetherian ring with identity, and hence R(D) is atomic (i.e., every nonzero
nonunit can be written as a finite product of irreducible elements). In this
paper, we completely characterize the irreducible elements of R(D). We then
use this result to show how to factorize each nonzero nonunit of R(D) into
irreducible elements. We show that every irreducible element of R(D) is a
primary element, and we determine the system of sets of lengths of R(D).

1. Introduction
Let R be a commutative noetherian ring. Then R is atomic, which means that
every nonzero nonunit element of R can be written as a finite product of atoms
(irreducible elements) of R. The study of non-unique factorizations has found
a lot of attention. Indeed this area has developed into a flourishing branch of
Commutative Algebra (see some surveys and books [3, 6, 8, 5]). However, the focus
so far was almost entirely on commutative integral domains, and only first steps
were done to study factorization properties in rings with zero-divisors (see [2, 7]).
In the present note we study factorizations in a subring of a matrix ring over a
principal ideal domain, which will turn out to be a commutative noetherian ring
with zero-divisors.
To begin with, we fix our notation and terminology. Let R be a commutative
ring with identity and U (R) be the set of units of R. Two elements a, b ∈ R are said
to be associates if aR = bR. Clearly, if a = ub for some u ∈ U (R), then a and b are
associates. An a ∈ R is said to be irreducible if a = bc implies that either b or c is
associated with a. We say that R is atomic if every nonzero nonunit of R is a finite
product of irreducible elements. It is clear that noetherian rings are atomic (cf. [2,
Theorem 3.2]) and that 0 ∈ R is irreducible if and only if R is an integral domain.
A ring R is a half-factorial ring (HFR) (resp., bounded factorization ring (BFR))
if R is atomic and two factorizations of a nonzero nonunit into irreducible elements
have the same length (resp., for each nonzero nonunit x ∈ R, there is an integer
N (x) ≥ 1 so that for any factorization x = x1 · · · xn , where each xi is a nonunit,
we have n ≤ N (x)). R is a FFR (finite factorization ring) if R is atomic and each
nonzero nonunit has only finitely many factorizations into irreducibles, up to order
and associates. A nonzero nonunit x ∈ R is said to be prime (resp., primary) if xR
Date: 24.5.2013.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13A05, 13F15, 20M13, 20M14.
Key words and phrases. non-unique factorizations, matrix ring, noetherian ring, sets of lengths.
1

2

G.W. CHANG AND D. SMERTNIG

is a prime (resp., primary) ideal. Hence a prime element is primary but not vice
versa (for example, if Z is the ring of integers, then 4 ∈ Z is primary but not prime).
We say that R is a unique factorization ring (UFR) if every nonzero principal ideal
of R can be written as a product of principal prime ideals (cf. [2, Theorem 4.9]).
Clearly, a prime element is irreducible, and so a UFR is atomic.
For x ∈ R a nonzero nonunit, its set of lengths is defined as
L(x) = { k ∈ N | there exist irreducibles u1 , . . . , uk ∈ R with x = u1 · . . . · uk }.
Clearly, x is irreducible if and only if L(x) = { 1 }. If x ∈ U (R), we set L(x) = { 0 }.
The system of sets of lengths is defined as L(R) = L(x) | x ∈ R \ { 0 } . Sets
of lengths and invariants derived from them are some of the classical invariants
considered in non-unique factorization theory (see [8, Ch. 1.4]). The reader is
referred to [8] for undefined definitions and notations.
Let M be an R-module. The idealization R(+)M of M is a ring, which is defined
as an abelian group R ⊕ M , whose ring multiplication is given by (a, b) · (x, y) =
(ax, ay + bx) for all a, x ∈ R and b, y ∈ M . It is known that R(+)M is a noetherian
ring if and only if R is noetherian and M is finitely generated [4, Theorem 4.8].
Let D be an
 integral
 domain, Mat2×2 (D) be the ring of 2 × 2 matrices over D, and
a b
R(D) = {
| a, b ∈ D}. It is easy to show that R(D) is a commutative
0 a
ring with identity under the usual matrix addition and multiplication;
 in particular,

a 0
embeds D into
R(D) is a subring of Mat2×2 (D). Clearly, the map a 7→
0 a


a b
R(D), and the map ϕ : D(+)D → R(D), given by ϕ(a, b) =
, is a ring
0 a
isomorphism. In view of this isomorphism, R(D) is called the self-idealization of D
(cf.[13]). There is also an isomorphism D[X]/hX 2 i → R(D) mapping a+bX +hX 2 i
a b
to
. Some factorization properties of R(+)M have been studied in [2,
0 a
Theorem 5.2]. For more on basic properties of R(+)M (and hence of R(D)), see
[4] or [11, Section 25].
Let D be a principal ideal domain (PID). Then R(D) is noetherian, and thus
R(D) is atomic. In Section 2, we first characterize the irreducible elements of R(D),
and we then use this result to show how to factorize each nonzero nonunit
 of R(D)

0 1
into irreducible elements via the factorization of D. We show that
is
0 0
the unique prime element (up to associates) of R(D). We prove that every nonzero
nonunit of R(D) can be written as a product of primary elements. Finally, in
Section 3, we completely describe the system of sets of lengths L(R(D)).
We write N = { 1, 2, 3, . . . } for the set of positive integers, and N0 = N ∪ { 0 } for
the set of non-negative integers.
2. Factorization in R(D) when D is a PID
Let D be an integral domain, and


a b
R(D) = {
| a, b ∈ D}
0 a

FACTORIZATION IN THE SELF-IDEALIZATION OF A PID

3



1 0
be the self-idealization of D. Clearly,
is the identity of R(D).
0 1


a b
If α =
∈ R(D), then nr(α) = a is the norm, and this is a ring homo0 a
morphism R(D) → D. Observe that α is a zero-divisor if and only if a = 0. We
write R(D)• for the monoid of non-zero-divisors of R(D).
We begin this paper by characterizing the units of R(D), which is very useful in
the proof of Theorem 5.
Lemma 1. (cf. [11, Theorem 25.1(6)]) If D is an integral domain, then α =

a b
∈ R(D) is a unit of R(D) if and only if a is a unit of D.
0 a

 



x y
1 0
x y
Proof. If α is a unit, then α ·
=
for some
∈ R(D).
0 x
0 1
0 x
Thus ax = 1, and
 so a∈ U (D). Conversely,
  assume
 that
 a is a unit,
 and let
a b
u −bu2
1 0
u −bu2
−1
u = a . Then
=
and
∈ R(D).
0 a
0
u
0 1
0
u
Thus α is a unit.

For an arbitrary commutative ring R, there can be two elements a, b ∈ R such
that a and b are associates but a 6= ub for all u ∈ U (R) (see, for example, [2,
Example 2.3]). This cannot happen in the self-idealization of an integral domain.
Lemma 2. Let
D
a
such that α =
0

be an integral
 domain
 and α, β ∈ R(D) and let a, b, x, y ∈ D
b
x y
and β =
. The following statements are equivalent.
a
0 x

(1) α and β are associates.
(2) There exists θ ∈ U (R(D)) such that β = θα.
(3) There exists u ∈ U (D) such that x = au and y ≡ bu mod a.

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2): If α and β are associates,
are some
so
 then there

 γ, δ ∈ R(D)

a1 b 1
x1 y1
that α = βγ and β = αδ. Hence if γ =
and δ =
, then
0 a1
0 x1
a = xa1 and x = ax1 , and
a1 , x1 ∈ U (D). Thus γ, δ ∈ U (R(D)) by Lemma 1.
 so 
u v
(2) ⇒ (3): Let θ =
. By Lemma 1, u ∈ U (D). From β = θα it follows
0 u
that x = au and y = av + bu ≡ bu mod a.


u v
(3) ⇒ (2) and (1): Let v ∈ D be such that y = bu + av. Define θ =
.
0 u
Then θ ∈ U (R(D)) by Lemma 1 and β = θα. Thus, α and β are associates.

We write α ≃ β if α, β ∈ R(D) are associates.


a b
Lemma 3. Let D be a PID and let α =
∈ R(D)• . If a = cd with coprime
0 a
c, d ∈ D, then there exist γ, δ ∈ R(D) with α = γδ and nr(γ) = c, nr(δ) = d.
This representation is unique in the sense that, if γ ′ , δ ′ ∈ R(D) with α = γ ′ δ ′ and
nr(γ ′ ) ≃ c, nr(δ ′ ) ≃ d, then γ ≃ γ ′ and δ ≃ δ ′ .

4

G.W. CHANG AND D. SMERTNIG

Proof. Existence: Since 1 ∈ 
GCD(c,
 d) and Dis a PID,
 there exist e, f ∈ D such
c e
d f
that b = cf + ed. Then γ =
and δ =
are as claimed.
0 c
0 d



 ′
d′ f ′
c e′
with c′ , e′ , d′ , f ′ ∈ D and
and δ ′ =
Uniqueness: Let γ ′ =
′
0 d′
0 c
suppose that α = γ ′ δ ′ . Let u, v ∈ U (D) such that c′ = cu and d′ = dv. Since
c′ d′ = cd, necessarily v = u−1 . Since cf + ed = c′ f ′ + e′ d′ = c(f ′ u) + d(e′ v), we
have c(f ′ u) ≡ cf mod d and f ′ u ≡ f mod d, i.e., f ′ ≡ f v mod d. Therefore
δ ′ ≃ δ and similarly γ ′ ≃ γ.

Corollary 4. Let D be a PID and let α ∈ R(D)• \ U (R(D)). Then there exist
β1 , . . . , βn ∈ R(D)• of pairwise distinct prime power norm, such that α = β1 ·. . .·βn .
This representation is unique up to order and associates.
Proof. Let nr(α) = pe11 · . . . · penn with n ≥ 0, p1 , . . . , pn ∈ D pairwise distinct prime
elements and e1 , . . . , en ≥ 1. By induction on n and the previous lemma, there
exist β1 , . . . , βn ∈ R(D)• such that α = β1 · . . . · βn and nr(βi ) = pei i for all i ∈ [1, n].
′
Suppose α = β1′ · . . . βm
is another such factorization. Since D is a UFD, then
′
m = n and there exists a permutation π ∈ Sn such that nr(βπ(i)
) ≃ nr(βi ) for all
i ∈ [1, n]. The uniquenes statement of the previous lemma implies βi′ ≃ βi for all
i ∈ [1, n].

As a consequence, to study factorizations of α ∈ R(D)• , it is sufficient to study
factorizations of α ∈ R(D)• with prime power norm.
We next give the first main result of this paper, which completely characterizes
the irreducible elements of R(D) when D is a PID.


a b
Theorem 5. Let D be a PID and α =
∈ R(D). Then α is irreducible
0 a
if and only if either (i) a = 0 and b ∈ U (D), (ii) a = p or (iii) a = upn and
1 ∈ GCD(a, b) for some prime p ∈ D, u ∈ U (D), and integer n ≥ 2.




b 0
0 1
Proof. Necessity. Assume that a = 0, and let β =
and γ =
.
0 b
0 0
Then α = β · γ and αR(D)
 6= βR(D)
 because b 6= 0. Hence αR(D) = γR(D), and
x y
so γ = α · δ for some δ =
∈ R(D). Thus bx = 1.
0 x
Next, assume that a 6= 0. If a is not of the form upn , then Lemma 3 implies
that α = β · γ with nr(β) and nr(γ) nonzero nonunits. Hence α is not irreducible, a
contradiction. Thus a = upn for some prime p ∈ D, u ∈ U (D), and integer n ≥ 1.
If n = 1, then up is also a prime element of D and we have case (ii).
Finally, assume that n ≥ 2 and pk ∈ GCD(a, b) for someinteger 
k ≥ 1. Let
p
0
and ξ =
b = b1 pk , where b1 ∈ D. Then α = θ · ξ, where θ =
0 p


upn−1 b1 pk−1
, but θ, ξ 6∈ αR(D), a contradiction. This completes the proof.
0
upn−1




x2 y2
x1 y1
. We
and γ =
Sufficiency. Let α = β · γ, where β =
0 x2
0 x1
will show that β or γ is a unit, and thus α is irreducible.

FACTORIZATION IN THE SELF-IDEALIZATION OF A PID

5

Case 1. a = 0 and b ∈ U (D). Note that x1 = 0 or x2 = 0; so for convenience,
let x2 = 0. Then x1 y2 = b, and since b ∈ U (D), we have x1 ∈ U (D). Thus β is a
unit of R(D) by Lemma 1.
Case 2. a = p for a prime p ∈ D. Then α = β · γ implies that either x1 or x2 is
a unit in D. Hence β or γ is a unit in R(D) by Lemma 1.
Case 3. a = upn for a prime p ∈ D,u ∈ U (D), n≥ 2 and 1 
∈ GCD(a, b). Since p
wpn−k
y
vpk
x
and γ =
is a prime and α = β · γ, we have β =
k
0
wpn−k
0 vp
for some 0 ≤ k, n − k ≤ n, x, y ∈ D, and v, w ∈ U (D) with vw = u. Hence
b = pk vy + pn−k wx, and thus k = 0 or n − k = 0 because a and b are coprime.
Therefore β or γ is a unit in R(D) by Lemma 1.




a b
Corollary 6. Let D be a PID and α =
∈ R(D) be a nonzero nonunit
0 a
such that c ∈ GCD(a, b), a = ca1 , and b = cb1 for some c, a1 , b1 ∈ D. Let c =
km
upe11 · · · penn and a1 = q1k1 · · · qm
(when a 6= 0) be prime factorizations of c and a1 ,
respectively, where u ∈ U (D). The following is a factorization of α into irreducible
elements.



ei
0 u Qn
pi 0
(1) If a = 0, then α =
.
i=1
0 0
0 pi
!



ei
k
Qm
qj j cj
u 0 Qn
pi 0
) for some
(2) If a 6= 0, then α =
( i=1
)( j=1
k
0 u
0 pi
0 qj j
cj ∈ D with 1 ∈ GCD(cj , qj ).
Proof. (1) Clear.
(2) We first note that α =


c 0
0 c



=





c
0

u 0
0 u

0
c





a1
0

p1
0

0
p1

b1
a1



e1

···

and


pn
0

0
pn

en

.

Next, assume that a1 = b2 d2 for some b2 , d2 ∈ D with 1 ∈ GCD(b2 , d2 ). Then
there are some
x, y ∈ D such
that b
2 (xb


 1 ) + d2 (yb1 ) = b1 because D is a PID,
a1 b 1
b2 yb1
d2 xb1
and hence
=
. Note that 1 ∈ GCD(a1 , b1 );
0 a1
0 b2
0 d2
hence 1 ∈ GCD(b2 , yb1 ) and 1 ∈ GCD(d
! 2 , xb1 ). So by repeating this process, we


kj
Qm
cj
q
a1 b 1
for some cj ∈ D with 1 ∈ GCD(cj , qj ). 
= j=1 j
have
k
0 a1
0 qj j
Corollary 7. If D is a PID, then
associates) of R(D).



0 1
0 0



is the unique prime element (up to

Proof. Clearly, prime elements are
and hence by Theorem 5, we have
 irreducible,

a b
three cases to consider. Let α =
∈ R(D) be irreducible.
0 a

6

G.W. CHANG AND D. SMERTNIG



0 1
Case 1. a = 0 and b ∈ U (D). Note that if we set I =
, then α =
0 0




b 0
b 0
I·
and
∈ U (R(D)) by Lemma 1; so α and I are associates.
0 b
0 b




x y
c d
Let β =
,γ =
∈ R(D). Then βγ ∈ IR(D) if and only if
0 x
0 c
xc = 0; so if x = 0 (for convenience), then β ∈ IR(D). Thus I is a prime.
Cases 2 and 3. a 6= 0. Note that

2
 2

a b−1
a 2a(b − 1)
=
0
a
0
a2



a b
a b−2
=
∈ αR(D),
0 a
0
a


a b−1
but
6∈ αR(D) because a 6∈ U (D). Thus α is not a prime.

0
a
For zero-divisors and elements with prime power norm, the following lemma
further refines Corollary 6, by giving all possible factorizations, up to order and
associates. The general case can be obtained in combination with Corollary 4.


a b
Lemma 8. Let D be a PID, and let α =
∈ R(D) \ { 0 } with a, b ∈ D.
0 a
(1) Suppose a = 0 and b = q1 · . . . · qn , with (possibly associated) prime powers
q1 , . . . , qn ∈ D. Then, for every choice of a1 , . . . , an ∈ D,

 n 

0 1 Y qi ai
α=
,
0 qi
0 0
i=1

and this is a factorization into irreducibles if and only if for all i ∈ [1, n]
either qi is prime or 1 ∈ GCD(qi , ai ).
(2) Suppose a = pn with p ∈ D a prime element and n ∈ N. For all l ∈ [1, n]
let ml ∈ N0 and for all j ∈ [1, ml ] let al,j ∈ D. Then

ml  l
n Y
Y
p al,j
α=
0 pl
l=1 j=1

Pn

Pn n−l Pml
if and only if n =
( j=1 al,j ). This is a
l=1 ml l and b =
l=1 p
product of irreducibles if and only if 1 ∈ GCD(al,j , p) for all l ∈ [2, n] and
j ∈ [1, ml ].

Up to order and associativity of the factors, all the factorizations of α are of this
form.

Proof. This is checked by a straightforward calculation. The statement about the
irreducibles follows from the characterization of the irreducible elements in Theorem
5. That every representation of α as a product of irreducibles is, up to order and
associates, one of the stated ones also follows from this characterization.

Corollary 9. Let D be a PID.
(1) R(D) is a BFR.

FACTORIZATION IN THE SELF-IDEALIZATION OF A PID

7

(2) R(D) is a FFR if and only if D/pD is finite for all prime elements p ∈ D.
(3) If D is a field, then every nonzero nonunit of R(D) is a prime, and hence
R(D) is a UFR with a unique nonzero (prime) ideal.


a b
Proof. (1) By Corollary 6, R(D) is atomic, and if α =
∈ R(D), then
0 a
the lengths of factorizations of α into irreducible elements are less than or equal to
that of the prime factorization of a or b in D, plus at most one. Thus R(D) is a
BFR.
(2) Suppose first that D/pD is finite for all prime elements p ∈ D. Then also
D/pn D is finite for all n ≥ 1 and all prime elements p ∈ D. Hence, by the Chinese
Remainder Theorem, D/cD is finite for all nonzero c ∈ D.
Let c ∈ D• . By Lemma 2(3) there exist, up to associativity, only finitely many
elements γ ∈ R(D) with nr(γ) ≃ c. If α ∈ R(D)• and γ|α, then nr(γ)| nr(α),
and therefore there are, up to associativity, only finitely many irreducibles that can
possibly divide α. Together with (1), this implies that every α ∈ R(D)• has only
finitely many
 factorizations.

0 b
If α =
∈ R(D) is a zero-divisor, then every factorization has exactly one
0 0


0 1
factor associated to
and if γ is any other factor in the factorization then
0 0
nr(γ) | b (cf. Lemma 8(1)). By the same argument as before, α has only finitely
many factorizations.
For the converse, suppose that p ∈ D is a prime element and |D/pD| = ∞. Since
 2
 


p
0
p a
p −a
=
,
0 p2
0 p
0 p
 2

p
0
for all a ∈ D,
has infinitely many (non-associated) factorizations in
0 p2
R(D).


a b
(3) Let α =
∈ R(D) be a nonzero nonunit. Since D is a field, by
0 a


0 1
Lemma 1, a = 0 and b ∈ U (D). Hence α is associated with I :=
, and
0 0
so α is a prime by the proof of Corollary 7. Thus R(D) is a UFR and IR(D) is a
unique nonzero (prime) ideal of R(D).

If D is a PID but not a field, we will see in Corollary 15 that R(D) is not a UFR,
even when D is the ring of integers.
We next prove that every nonunit of R(D) can be written as a (finite) product
of primary elements.
√
Lemma 10. Let R be a commutative ring. If a ∈ R is such that aR is a maximal
ideal, then aR is primary.
√
√
Proof. Let x, y ∈ R be such
√
√ that xy ∈ aR but x√ 6∈ aR. Note that aR (
aR + xR; so aR + xR = aR + xR = R because aR is a maximal ideal. Hence
1 = as + xt for some s, t ∈ R. Thus y = y(as + xt) = a(ys) + (xy)t ∈ aR.


8

G.W. CHANG AND D. SMERTNIG

Corollary 11. If D is a PID, then every irreducible element of R(D) is primary.
In particular, each nonzero nonunit of R(D) can be written as a finite product of
primary elements.


a b
Proof. Let α =
∈ R(D) be irreducible. By Theorem 5, there are three
0 a
cases that we have to consider.
Case 1. a = 0 and b ∈ U (D). By Corollary 7, α is a prime, and hence a primary
element.
Cases 2 and 3. a = upn for some prime
pelement p ∈ D, u ∈ U (D), and n ∈ N.
By Lemma 10, it suffices to show that αR(D) is a maximal ideal. Let β =




p
0 d
x y
∈ R(D), then δ 2 = 0,
∈ R(D) \ αR(D). Note that if δ =
0 0
0 x




p
p
x 0
upn
0
6∈ αR(D) and
∈
and hence δ ∈ αR(D). Hence
0 x
0
upn


p
p
p 0
αR(D). But then
∈
αR(D). Note also that if x ∈ pD, then
0 p

 


p
x 0
p 0
x1 0
x = px1 for some x1 ∈ D, and so
=
∈ αR(D),
0 x
0 p
0 x1
a contradiction.
So
x
∈
6
pD,
and
hence
xz
+
pz
=
1
for
some
z1 , z
1
2
2 ∈ D. Thus



 
 
z1 0
1 0
z2 0
p 0
0 −yz1
=β·
+
+
∈ βR(D) +
0 z1
0 1
0 z2
0 p
0
0
p
p
αR(D). Therefore αR(D) is maximal.


Remark 12. In view of Corollary 11, Corollary 4 in fact corresponds to the (unique)
primary decomposition of αR(D), as every prime ideal of R(D), except for 0(+)D,
is maximal (cf. [4, Theorem 3.2]).
Associativity is a congruence relation on (R(D)• , ·), and we denote by R(D)•red
the corresponding quotient monoid. Corollary 4 may also be viewed as a monoid
`
isomorphism R(D)•red ∼
= p R(D(p) )•red , where the coproduct is taken over all associativity classes of prime elements p of D, and D(p) is the localization at pD.
3. The sets of lengths in R(D) when D is a PID


a b
Let D be an integral domain and R(D) = {
| a, b ∈ D}. In this
0 a
section, we characterize the sets of lengths in R(D) when D is a PID.
Lemma 13. Let D be a PID and α, β ∈ R(D).

(1) If αβ 6= 0, then L(α) + L(β) ⊂ L(αβ).
(2) If nr(α) and nr(β) are coprime, then L(α) + L(β) = L(αβ).

Proof. (1) Clear.
(2) Let n ∈ L(αβ). Then there exist irreducible γ1 , . . . , γn ∈ R(D)• such
that αβ = γ1 · . . . · γn . Then also nr(α) nr(β) = nr(γ1 ) · . . . · nr(γn ). Since
1 ∈ GCD(nr(α), nr(β)), we may without loss of generality assume nr(α) ≃ nr(γ1 ) ·
. . . · nr(γk ) and nr(β) ≃ nr(γk+1 ) · . . . · nr(γn ) for some k ∈ [0, n]. By Lemma 3,
therefore α ≃ γ1 ·. . .·γk and β ≃ γk+1 ·. . .·γn , and n = k+(n−k) ∈ L(α)+L(β). 

FACTORIZATION IN THE SELF-IDEALIZATION OF A PID

9

For a prime element p ∈ D we denote by vp : D → N0 ∪ { ∞ } the corresponding
valuation, i.e., vp (0) = ∞ and vp (apk ) = k if k ∈ N0 and a ∈ D• is coprime to p.


a b
Theorem 14. Let D be a PID, α ∈ R(D) and suppose α =
with a, b ∈ D.
0 a
(1) If a = 0, and b = pe11 · . . . · penn with pairwise non-associated prime elements
p1 , . . . , pn ∈ D and e1 , . . . , en ∈ N, then L(α) = [1 + n, 1 + e1 + . . . + en ].
(2) Let p ∈ D be a prime element, n ∈ N and suppose a = pn and vp (b) = k ∈
N0 ∪ { ∞ }. Then L(α) = { 1 } if and only if k = 0 or n = 1. If k ≥ n − 1,
then
[3, n − 2] ∪ { n } ⊂ L(α) ⊂ [2, n − 2] ∪ { n },
and if k ∈ [1, n − 2], then

[3, k + 1] ⊂ L(α) ⊂ [2, k + 1].
Moreover, if k ≥ 1, then 2 ∈ L(α) if and only if n is even or k <

n
2.

Proof. (1) This is clear from Lemma 8(1), as every factorization of b into prime
powers gives a factorization of α (choose ai = 1), and conversely.
(2) The cases k = 0 and n = 1 are clear from Theorem 5, so from now on we
assume k ≥ 1 and n > 1. Let b = upk with u ∈ D and 1 ∈ GCD(u, p). We
repeatedly make use of Lemma 8(2), and the notation used there to describe a
factorization, without explicitly mentioning this fact every time.
Claim A: L(α) ⊂ [2, min{ k + 1, n }].
Proof. Because α is not an atom, 1 6∈ L(α). Any factorization of α is associated to
one in Lemma 8(2); we fix a factorization of α with notation as in the lemma. The
P
P
length of the factorization is then t = nl=1 ml . Since nl=1 ml l = n, clearly t ≤ n.
Pn
P ml
Moreover, necessarily ml = 0 for all l > n−(t−1). Since b = l=1 pn−l ( j=1
al,j ),
therefore k = vp (b) ≥ vp (pn−(n−t+1) ) = t − 1, i.e., t ≤ k + 1.
Claim B: 2 ∈ L(α) if and only if n is even or k <

n
2.

Proof. Suppose 2 ∈ L(α) and n is odd. Then n = l + (n − l) and b = pn−l al,1 +
pl an−l,1 with 1 ∈ GCD(al,1 , p) and 1 ∈ GCD(an−l,1 , p). Since n is odd, then
n − l 6= l and therefore k = vp (b) = min{ n − l, l } < n2 .
For the converse suppose first 1 ≤ k < n2 . Then n = k + (n − k), n − k > k and
b = pn−k · 1 + pk (u − pn−2k ) with 1 ∈ GCD(u − pn−2k , p). If n is even and k ≥ n2 ,
n
n
n
then n = n2 + n2 and b = p 2 (1 + (upk− 2 − 1)) with 1 ∈ GCD(upk− 2 − 1, p).
Claim C: If n − 1 ∈ L(α), then k = n − 2.
Proof. For a corresponding factorization we must have m1 = n − 2, m2 = 1,
and ml = 0 for all l > 2. Then b = pn−1 (a1,1 + . . . + a1,n−2 ) + pn−2 a2,1 with
1 ∈ GCD(a2,1 , p), whence k = vp (b) = n − 2.
Claim D: Let n ≥ 3 and k ≥ 2. If either k = 2 or n 6= 4, then 3 ∈ L(α).
Proof. Suppose first that n

p
(1)
α=
0

is odd and set b′ = b/p. Then

 n−1

0
p
b′
α′ with α′ =
,
p
0
pn−1

10

G.W. CHANG AND D. SMERTNIG

and, by Claim B, 2 ∈ L(α′ ). Therefore 3 ∈ L(α).
If n is even, n ≥ 6, and k ≥ 3, then
 2
p
α=
0

u
p2

  n−2
p
0


u(pk−2 − pn−4 )
,
pn−2

where the first factor is irreducible and the second has a factorization of length 2
by Claim B.
If k = 2, then

2  n−2

p 0
p
u
α=
0 p
0
pn−2
is a factorization of length 3.
Claim E: If k ≥ n − 1, then n ∈ L(α).

Proof. We use Lemma 8(2). Set m1 = n, a1,1 = upk−(n−1) and a1,2 = . . . = al,n =
0. Then pn−1 (upk−(n−1) + 0 + . . . + 0) = b.
Claim F: If k ∈ [1, n − 2], then [3, k + 1] ⊂ L(α).
Proof. If n ≤ 3 or k = 1, then the claim is trivially true, so we may assume k ≥ 2.
We proceed by induction on n. Suppose n ≥ 4, and that the claim is true for n − 1.
Let b′ = b/p and let α′ be as in (1). We have vp (b′ ) = k − 1 ≥ 1.
′
If k = 2, then 1 = k − 1 < n−1
2 , and hence 2 ∈ L(α ) (by Claim B). Therefore
′
{ 3 } = [3, k + 1] ⊂ { 1 } + L(α ) ⊂ L(α).
If k ≥ 3, then by induction hypothesis, [3, k] ⊂ L(α′ ), and thus [4, k + 1] =
{ 1 } + L(α′ ) ⊂ L(α), and by Claim D, also 3 ∈ L(α).
Claim G: If k ≥ n − 1, then [3, n − 2] ⊂ L(α).
Proof. If n ≤ 4, then the claim is trivially true. We again proceed by induction on
n. Suppose n ≥ 5 (then k ≥ 4), and that the claim is true for n − 1.
Let b′ = b/p and let α′ be as in (1). Again, vp (b′ ) = k − 1 ≥ 3 and by induction
hypothesis [3, n − 3] ⊂ L(α′ ). Therefore [4, n − 2] ⊂ L(α) and by Claim D also
3 ∈ L(α).
If k ≥ n − 1, then the claim of the theorem follows from claims A, B, C, E and
G. If k ∈ [2, n − 2], then the claim of the theorem follows from claims A, B and
F.

If α ∈ R(D) is a nonzero nonunit, and L(α) = { l1 , l2 , . . . , lk }, then theset
of distances of α is defined as ∆(α) = { li − li−1 | i ∈ [2, k] }, and ∆ R(D) =
S
 ∆(α). For k ∈ N≥2 , set Uk R(D) = S
α∈R(D),k∈L(α) L(α).
α∈R(D)\ { 0 }∪U(R(D))



Corollary 15. If D is a PID, but not a field, then U2 R(D) = N≥2 and ∆ R(D) =
{ 1, 2 }.

Proof. This follows directly from Theorem 14.



FACTORIZATION IN THE SELF-IDEALIZATION OF A PID

11

Corollary 16. Suppose D is a PID that has infinitely many pairwise non-associated
prime elements. Then
n
o
n
o
L(R(D)) = { 0 }, { 1 } ∪ [m, n] | m ∈ [2, n]
n
o
∪ [m, n] ∪ { n + 2 } | m ∈ [2, n] and n even
n
o
∪ [m, n] ∪ { n + 2 } | m ∈ [3, n] and n odd
n
∪ m + 2[0, n] | with m ∈ N≥2n and n ∈ N }.

Proof. The sets { 0 } and { 1 } correspond to units and irreducibles. For zerodivisors, the sets of lengths are discrete intervals and completely described in Theorem 14(1). By Corollary 4 and Lemma 13(2), the sets of lengths of nonunit
non-zero-divisors are arbitrary sumsets of sets as in Theorem 14(2), i.e., of sets of
the form { 1 }, [2, n] (for n ≥ 2), [3, n] (for n ≥ 3), [2, n] ∪ { n + 2 } for even n ≥ 2,
and [3, n] ∪ { n + 2 } for odd n ≥ 3.

Finally, we remark that other important invariants of factorization theory (their
definitions readily generalize to the zero-divisor case) are easily determined for
R(D) using the characterization of sets of lengths and Corollary 4.
Corollary 17. Let D be
ring with
 a PID but not a field. R(D)
 is a locally tame

catenary degree c R(D) = 4. In particular, ∆ R(D) = [1, c R(D) − 2].

Proof. We first observe that the catenary degree (see [8, Chapter 1.6] for the definition in the non-zero-divisor case) of R(D) is 4: Let first α ∈ R(D) with nr(α) 6= 0.
Using Corollary 4, we can reduce to the case where nr(α) is a prime power. Since
then min L(α) ≤ 3, we can argue as in bifurcus semigroups (cf. [1, Theorem 1.1]),
to find c(α) ≤ 4. In view of Lemma 8(1), and with a similar argument, the catenary
degree of a zero-divisor is at most 2. Together this gives c(R(D)) ≤ 4. Since there
exists an element with set of lengths { 2, 4 }, also c(R(D)) ≥ 4.
We still have to show that R(D) is locally tame (see [8, Chapter 1.6] or [10] for
definitions). For this we have to show t(R(D), γ) < ∞ for all irreducible γ ∈ R(D).
Let α ∈ R(D) and γ ∈ R(D) be irreducible. If γ is prime, then t(R(D), γ) = 0,
hence we may suppose that γ is associated to one of the non-prime irreducibles
from Theorem 5, and hence there exist a prime element p ∈ D and n ∈ N such
that nr(γ) = pn . If α ∈ R(D) is a zero-divisor, then t(α, γ) = n follows easily from
Lemma 8(1).
A standard technique allows us to show t(R(D)• , γ) < ∞: By [10, Proposition
3.8], it suffices to show that two auxiliary invariants, ω(R(D)• , γ) and τ (R(D)• , γ)
are finite.
Suppose I ⊂ (R(D)• , ·) is a divisorial ideal. If we denote by R(D) hIi the ideal
of R(D) generated by I, one checks that R(D) hIi ∩ R(D)• = I. Since R(D) is
noetherian, R(D)• is therefore v-noetherian. By [10, Theorem 4.2], ω(R(D)• , γ) is
finite.
Recalling the definition of τ (α, γ) (from [10, Definition 3.1]), it is immediate from
Theorem 14 together with Corollary 4, that τ (R(D)• , γ) ≤ 3. Altogether, therefore
t(R(D), γ) < ∞.


12

G.W. CHANG AND D. SMERTNIG

Remark 18. Suppose D is a PID but not a field.
(1) Trivially, Theorem 14(2) holds true for R(D)• .
(2) Let K be the quotient field of D, and H = R(D)• . We have
n a b 
o
| b ∈ D, a ∈ D• ,
H=
0 a

and the complete integral closure of H is equal to
o
n a b 
b=
H
| b ∈ K, a ∈ D•
0 a

n  n

a b
a
nan−1 b
because
for all a, b ∈ K and n ∈ N. This shows
=
0 a
0
an
b and even more we have f = (H : H)
b = ∅ (note that (D : K) = ∅).
H 6= H,
Thus the monoid under discussion is neither a Krull nor a C-monoid, which
have been extensively studied in recent literature (see [8, Chapters 2.9, 3.3,
and 4.6], [9], [12]).

Acknowledgements. The first author’s work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2010-0007069). The second
author was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): W1230. We thank
the anonymous referee for his/her careful reading and all the helpful comments, in
particular on the concept of self-idealization.
References
[1] D. Adams, R. Ardila, D. Hannasch, A. Kosh, H. McCarthy, V. Ponomarenko, and R. Rosenbaum, Bifurcus semigroups and rings, Involve 2 (2009) 351–356.
[2] D.D. Anderson and S. Valdes-Leon, Factorization in commutative rings with zero divisors,
Rocky Mountain J. Math. 26 (1996) 439–480.
[3] D.D. Anderson (ed.), Factorization in Integral Domains, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math., vol.
189, Marcel Dekker, 1997.
[4] D.D. Anderson and M. Winders, Idealization of a Module, J. Commutative Algebra 1 (2009)
3–56.
[5] N.R. Baeth and R.A. Wiegand, Factorization theory and decomposition of modules, Am.
Math. Mon. 120 (2013), 3–34.
[6] S.T. Chapman (ed.), Arithmetical Properties of Commutative Rings and Monoids, Lect.
Notes Pure Appl. Math., vol. 241, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2005.
[7] C. Frei and S. Frisch, Non-unique factorization of polynomials over residue class rings of the
integers, Comm. Algebra 39 (2011) 1482–1490.
[8] A. Geroldinger and F. Halter-Koch, Non-unique factorizations, vol. 278 of Pure and Applied Mathematics (Boca Raton), Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2006. Algebraic,
combinatorial and analytic theory.
[9] A. Geroldinger and W. Hassler, Arithmetic of Mori domains and monoids, J. Algebra 329
(2008) 3419–3463.
[10] A. Geroldinger and W. Hassler, Local tameness of v-noetherian monoids, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 212 (2008) 1509–1524.
[11] J. Huckaba, Commutative rings with zero divisors, Dekker, New York, 1988.
[12] A. Reinhart, On integral domains that are C-monoids, Houston J. Math., to appear.
[13] L. Salce, Transfinite self-idealization and commutative rings of triangular matrices, in Commutative algebra and its applications, 333–347, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2009.

FACTORIZATION IN THE SELF-IDEALIZATION OF A PID

13

(Chang) Department of Mathematics, University of Incheon, Incheon 406-772, Korea.
E-mail address: whan@incheon.ac.kr
(Smertnig) Institut für Mathematik und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen, Karl-FranzensUniversität Graz, Heinrichstraße 36, 8010 Graz, Austria
E-mail address: daniel.smertnig@uni-graz.at

