arXiv:1708.07983v1 [math.AC] 26 Aug 2017

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS
GABRIEL PICAVET AND MARTINE PICAVET-L’HERMITTE
Abstract. We characterize pointwise minimal extensions of rings,
introduced by P.-J. Cahen, D. E. Dobbs and T. G. Lucas in a special context. We also define and characterize pointwise minimal
pairs of rings and co-pointwise minimal extensions. We examine
the links of the above notions with lattices and their atoms.

1. Introduction and Notation
We consider the category of commutative and unital rings and its
epimorphisms. A local ring is here what is called elsewhere a quasilocal ring. As usual, Spec(R) and Max(R) are the sets of prime and
maximal ideals of a ring R. The characteristic of an integral domain
k is denoted by c(k). Finally, ⊂ denotes proper inclusion, |X| the
cardinality of a set X and P the set of all prime numbers.
The conductor of a (ring) extension R ⊆ S is denoted by (R : S),
the set of all R-subalgebras of S by [R, S] and the integral closure of
R in S by R. Any writing [R, S] is relative to some extension R ⊆ S.
Clearly, ([R, S], ⊆) is a lattice since it is stable under the formation of
arbitrary intersections (meets) and compositums (joins). If [R, S] has
some property P of lattices, we say that R ⊆ S has the property P.
An extension R ⊆ S is called an afffine pair (or strongly affine) if
each R-subalgebra of S is of finite type. We say that an extension
R ⊆ S is finite if the R-module S is finitely generated.
The extension R ⊆ S is said to have FIP (or is called an FIP extension) (for the “finitely many intermediate algebras property”) if [R, S]
is finite. A chain of R-subalgebras of S is a set of elements of [R, S] that
are pairwise comparable with respect to inclusion. We say that an extension R ⊆ S has FCP (or is called an FCP extension) (for the “finite
chain property”) if each chain in [R, S] is finite. Dobbs and the authors
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary:13B02,13B21, 13B22, 06C10;
Secondary: 13B30.
Key words and phrases. FIP, FCP, minimal extension, integral extension, support of a module, lattice, algebraic field extension, pointwise minimal extension,
geometric lattices.
1

2

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

characterized FCP and FIP extensions [7]. A mighty tool is the concept of minimal (ring) extensions, introduced by Ferrand-Olivier [11].
Recall that an extension R ⊂ S is called minimal if [R, S] = {R, S}.
The key connection between the above ideas is that if R ⊆ S has
FCP, then any maximal (necessarily finite) chain of R-subalgebras of
S, R = R0 ⊂ R1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Rn−1 ⊂ Rn = S, with length n < ∞, results
from juxtaposing n minimal extensions Ri ⊂ Ri+1 , 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1. For
any extension R ⊆ S, the length of [R, S], denoted by ℓ[R, S], is the
supremum of the lengths of chains of R-subalgebras of S. It should
be noted that if R ⊆ S has FCP, then there does exist some maximal
chain of R-subalgebras of S with length ℓ[R, S] [8, Theorem 4.11].
We come now to the subject of the paper. In [4], Cahen, Dobbs
and Lucas call an extension R ⊂ S pointwise minimal if R ⊂ R[t] is
a minimal extension for each t ∈ S \ R. We study such extensions
in Section 3 and a special type of these extensions: a ring extension
R ⊂ S is called a pointwise minimal pair if T ⊂ S is pointwise minimal
for each T ∈ [R, S] \ {S}.
Clearly, the following implications hold: minimal extension ⇒ pointwise minimal pair ⇒ pointwise minimal extension. We also define a
dual notion in Section 3; that is, co-pointwise minimal extensions.
Theorem 1.1. [11, Théorème 2.2] A minimal extension A ⊂ B defines
a monogenic algebra which is either finite, or a flat epimorphism and
these conditions are mutually exclusive.
Results on flat epimorphisms are summed up in [20, Scholium A].
Knebusch and Zhang defined Prüfer extensions in [14]. Among a lot of
characterizations an extension R ⊆ S is Prüfer if and only if R ⊆ T is
a flat epimorphism for each T ∈ [R, S].
In [20], we called an extension which is a minimal flat epimorphism,
a Prüfer minimal extension. From now on, we use this terminology.
A pointwise minimal extension is either integral or integrally closed,
in which case it is Prüfer minimal. It follows that our study can be
reduced to the case of integral extensions. A pointwise minimal extension R ⊂ S has a crucial ideal M i.e. the support of the R-module
S/R is {M} and M is necessarily a maximal ideal. In case R ⊂ S
is integral and pointwise minimal, its crucial ideal is (R : S). Those
statements (appearing in [4] in a special context) are proved in Section
2 and Section 3 and are essential in this paper. We will also need the
t
canonical decomposition of an integral extension R ⊆ +
S R ⊆ S R ⊆ S,
+
t
where S R and S R are the seminormalization and the t-closure of R in
S (see Section 2 for the details). Our strategy is as follows. We first

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

3

suppose that R is a field in Section 4 and then we consider in Section 5 an integral extension, whose conductor is a maximal ideal, much
more easy to handle than a crucial ideal. Surprisingly, we are able to
classify pointwise minimal integral extensions R ⊂ S: either the semit
normalization and the t-closure coincide or R = +
S R and S R = S. Then
in Section 5 we get a complete characterization of pointwise minimal
integral extensions and pairs that are not minimal, while co-pointwise
minimal extensions are characterized in Section 3 as pointwise minimal
pairs of length 2 and more precisely at the end of Section 5. Naturally,
we consider the special case of FCP and FIP extensions. Section 6
is concerned with examples and applications. In particular, we consider Nagata extensions. To end, Section 7 deals with properties of
lattices and their atoms (in our context, they are minimal extensions),
linked to the above notions. In particular, finitely geometric lattices
are involved.
2. Some useful results and recalls
We need to give some notation and definitions.
If I an ideal of a ring R, we denote by VR (I) or (V(I)) the closed
√
subset {P ∈ Spec(R) | I ⊆ P }, by DR (I) its complement and by R I
the radical of I in R. The support of an R-module E is SuppR (E) :=
{P ∈ Spec(R) | EP 6= 0}, and MSuppR (E) := SuppR (E) ∩ Max(R).
If R ⊆ S is a ring extension and P ∈ Spec(R), then SP is both the
localization SR\P as a ring and the localization at P of the R-module
S. For a ring morphism f : R → S and Q ∈ Spec(S), we denote by
κ(P ) → κ(Q) the residual extension, where P = f −1 (Q).
Definition 2.1. We say that an extension R ⊂ S has a a crucial ideal
C(R, S) := M ∈ Spec(R) if SuppR (S/R) = {M} and in this case call
the extension M-crucial. A crucial ideal needs to be maximal because
a support is stable under specialization.
For example, a minimal extension has a crucial ideal [11, Théorème
2.2]. We will show later that a pointwise minimal extension has also a
crucial ideal. We begin by proving some results on crucial ideals.
2.1. Crucial ideals and radicial extensions. In the sequel, {Rα |
α ∈ I} is the family of all finite extensions R ⊂ Rα with Rα ∈ [R, S]
and conductor Cα .
Proposition 2.2. Let R ⊂ S be an extension, with conductor C. The
following statements hold:
(1) If R ⊂ S is M-crucial, then C ⊆ M.

4

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

(2) If R ⊂ S is integral, then R ⊂ S√has a crucial ideal if and only
√
if C ∈ Max(R), and then C(R, S) = C.
Proof. (1) If the extension is M-crucial, suppose that there is some
x ∈ C \ M, then it is easily seen that RM = SM , a contradiction.
(2) For M ∈ Spec(R), observe that M is a crucial ideal of R ⊂ S if
and only if M is a crucial ideal of each R ⊂ Rα . Then it is enough to use
the following facts: Supp(Rα /R) = V(Cα ) and C = ∩[Cα | α ∈ I]. 
An M-crucial integral extension has the following properties. If Q ∈
Spec(S) is lying over P ∈ Spec(R), then RP → SP and κ(P ) → κ(Q)
are isomorphisms if P 6= M. Moreover, κ(M) → κ(Q) is of the form
R/M → S/Q for each Q ∈ Max(S) lying over M. Observe also that
for an integral extension R ⊂ S, with C := (R : S), there is a bijection
DS (C) → DR (C) defined by Q 7→ Q ∩ R.
The Nagata ring of a ring R is R(X) := R[X]Σ , where Σ is the
multiplicatively closed subset of polynomials whose contents are R.
We compute the crucial ideal of a Nagata extension R(X) ⊂ S(X)
when R ⊂ S is M-crucial. Recall that if R ⊂ S is integral, then
S(X) ∼
= R(X) ⊗R S [8, Lemma 3.1]. The same property holds if R ⊂ S
is a flat epimorphism since the surjective map R(X) ⊗R S → S(X)
is injective. Indeed, R(X) → R(X) ⊗R S is a flat epimorphism and
R(X) → R(X) ⊗R S → S(X) is injective [20, Scholium A(3)].

∼
Lemma
N 2.3. Let R ⊂ S be an M-crucial extension such that S(X) =
R(X) R S (for example, if R ⊂ S is integral or a flat epimorphism).
Then R(X) ⊂ S(X) is MR(X)-crucial.
Proof. The extension g : R → R(X) is faithfully flat and Supp(S/R) =
{M}. Let Q ∈ Supp(S(X)/R(X)). Applying [8, Proposition 2.4
(b)], we get that Q ∈ (a g)−1(Supp(S/R)), so that a g(Q) = Q ∩ R ∈
Supp(S/R) = {M}, giving M = Q ∩ R. It follows that M ⊆ Q,
which implies MR(X) ⊆ Q and then Q = MR(X) since MR(X) ∈
Max(R(X)). Therefore, Supp(S(X)/R(X)) = {MR(X)}.

We will call in this paper radicial any purely inseparable field extension, in order to have a terminology consistent with radicial (radiciel
in French) extensions of rings. Recall that a ring morphism R → S is
called radicial if Spec(R′ ⊗R S) → Spec(R′ ) is injective for any base
change R → R′ . A ring extension R → S is radicial if and only if
Spec(S) → Spec(R) is injective and its residual extensions are radicial
[13, Proposition 3.7.1]. Also a radicial extension K ⊂ L of fields is said
to have height one if xp ∈ K for each x ∈ L, where p := c(K) ∈ P.
We say that a ring extension K ⊂ S, where K is a field, is radicial of

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

5

height one if c(K) = p ∈ P and xp ∈ K for each x ∈ S. Indeed, such
an extension is radicial, as it is easily seen.
An M-crucial extension R ⊂ S, such that M = (R : S), is called a
height one radicial extension if so is R/M ⊂ S/M. Such an extension
is again radicial, by the above considerations.
2.2. Results on minimal extensions. There are three types of minimal integral extensions, characterized by the following theorem, from
the fundamental lemma of Ferrand-Olivier.
Lemma 2.4. [11, Lemme 1.2] An extension K ⊂ A, where K is a field,
is minimal if and only if one of the following conditions is satisfied, in
which case K ⊂ A is finite:
(1) A is a field and K → A is a minimal field extension.
(2) f is the diagonal morphism K → K × K.
(3) f is the canonical morphism K → DK (K) = K[X]/(X 2 ).

Lemma 2.5. The following statement hold:
(1) Minimal field extensions coincide with minimal ring extensions
between fields.
(2) A minimal field extension is either separable or radicial.
(3) A radicial field extension K ⊂ L, with c(K) = p ∈ P, is minimal if and only if L = K[x] where xp ∈ K, and if and only if
K ⊂ L is monogenic and radicial of height one.
Proof. [17, p. 371].



Theorem 2.6. [7, Theorem 2.2] An extension R ⊂ T is minimal and
finite if and only if M := (R : T ) ∈ Max(R) and one of the following
three conditions holds:
(a) inert case: M ∈ Max(T ) and R/M → T /M is a minimal field
extension.
(b) decomposed case: There exist M1 , M2 ∈ Max(T ) such that M =
M1 ∩ M2 and the natural maps R/M → T /M1 and R/M → T /M2 are
both isomorphisms.
(c) ramified case: There exists M ′ ∈ Max(T ) such that M ′ 2 ⊆ M ⊂
M ′ , [T /M : R/M] = 2, and the natural map R/M → T /M ′ is an
isomorphism.
We give here a lemma used in earlier papers and introduce FMC
extensions. An extension R ⊂ S is said to have FMC (for a “finite
maximal chain” property) if there is a finite maximal chain of extensions going from R to S. Minimal and FCP extensions have FMC.

6

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Lemma 2.7. Let R ⊂ S be an extension and T, U ∈ [R, S] such that
R ⊂ T is a finite minimal extension and R ⊂ U is a Prüfer minimal
extension. Then, C(R, T ) 6= C(R, U), so that R is not a local ring.

Proof. Assume that C(R, T ) = C(R, U) and set M := C(R, T ) = (R :
T ) = C(R, U) ∈ Max(R). Then, MT = M and MU = U because
R ⊂ U is a Prüfer minimal extension. It follows that MUT = UT =
MT U = MU = U, a contradiction.

Lemma 2.8. Let R ⊂ S be an FMC extension. If M ∈ MSupp(S/R),
there exists T ∈ [R, S] such that R ⊂ T is minimal with C(R, T ) = M.

Proof. Let {Ri }ni=1 be a finite maximal chain such that R0 := R and
Rn := S. If C(R, R1 ) = M, then, T = R1 . So, assume that M 6=
C(R, R1 ). Let k ∈ {1, . . . n − 1} be the least integer i such that M =
C(Ri , Ri+1 ) ∩ R [7, Corollary 3.2]. For each i < k, we have M 6=
C(Ri , Ri+1 ) ∩ R, so that M ∈ Max(R) \ MSupp(Rk /R). In view of [18,
Lemma 1.10], there exists T ∈ [R, Rk+1 ] such that R ⊂ T is minimal
(of the same type as Rk ⊂ Rk+1 ) with C(R, T ) = M.

2.3. The canonical decomposition of an integral extension.

Definition 2.9. An integral extension R ⊆ S is called infra-integral
[16] (resp.; subintegral [23]) if all its residual extensions are isomorphisms (resp.; and the spectral map Spec(S) → Spec(R) is bijective). An extension R ⊆ S is called t-closed (cf. [16]) if the relations
b ∈ S, r ∈ R, b2 − rb ∈ R, b3 − rb2 ∈ R imply b ∈ R. The t-closure
t
S R of R in S is the smallest element B ∈ [R, S] such that B ⊆ S
is t-closed and the greatest element B ′ ∈ [R, S] such that R ⊆ B ′ is
infra-integral. An extension R ⊆ S is called seminormal (cf. [23]) if the
relations b ∈ S, b2 ∈ R, b3 ∈ R imply b ∈ R. If R ⊆ S is seminormal,
then (R : S) is a radical ideal of S and of R (the proof goes back to
Traverso). The seminormalization +
S R of R in S is the smallest element
B ∈ [R, S] such that B ⊆ S is seminormal and the greatest element
B ′ ∈ [R, S] such that R ⊆ B ′ is subintegral.
The canonical decomposition of an arbitrary ring extension R ⊂ S
t
is R ⊆ +
S R ⊆ S R ⊆ R ⊆ S.

Lemma 2.10. Let i : R ⊂ S be an integral extension such that +
SR =
+
t
t
Set T := S R = S R, then there is a
S R and M := (R : S) ∈ Max(R).
√
S
unique maximal ideal N := M of S lying over M, which is also the
unique maximal ideal of T lying over M, so that N = (T : S).
Proof. Since R ⊂ T is subintegral, there is a unique maximal ideal N
of T lying over M. Moreover, M = (R : S) ⊆ (T : S). But T ⊆ S is tclosed, and then seminormal. Then, (T : S) is an intersection of prime

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

7

ideals of T by [7, Lemma 4.8], which contain M, so that (T : S) = N.
Because T /N ⊂ S/N is t-closed, N is a maximal ideal of S [15, Lemme
3.10], and the only maximal ideal of S lying over M, since it is equal
√
to the only maximal ideal of T lying over M. To get that N = S M,
observe that i−1 ({M}) = VS (MS) and MS = M.

We note for further use that the classes of infra-integral and subintegral extensions are both stable under left or right divisions. The
following proposition gives the link between the elements of the canonical decomposition and minimal extensions.
Proposition 2.11. [19, Lemma 3.1] Let R ⊂ S be an integral extension
and a tower of minimal extensions R = R0 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Ri ⊂ · · · ⊂ Rn = T
in [R, S]. Then,
(1) R ⊂ T is subintegral if and only if each Ri ⊂ Ri+1 is ramified.
(2) R ⊂ T is infra-integral if and only if each Ri ⊂ Ri+1 is either
ramified or decomposed.
(3) R ⊂ T is seminormal and infra-integral if and only if each
Ri ⊂ Ri+1 is decomposed.
(4) R ⊂ T is seminormal if and only if each Ri ⊂ Ri+1 is either
decomposed or t-closed.
(5) R ⊂ T is t-closed if and only if each Ri ⊂ Ri+1 is inert.
Moreover, if R ⊂ S is subintegral, (resp.; infra-integral, seminormal,
t-closed), R ⊂ T has the same property.
Proof. We can suppose that T = S. [19, Lemma 3.1] asserts that (2)
and (5) holds. Now (1) is clear since we deal with a bijective spectral
map. If R ⊂ S is seminormal, (R : S) is a finite intersection of maximal
ideals of S (resp. Ri+1 ) by an easy generalization of [7, Proposition 4.9],
giving (3) and (4).

3. General properties on pointwise minimal extensions
3.1. First results on pointwise minimal extensions. The next
proposition generalizes to arbitrary extensions some results of [4] gotten
in the integral domains context. The proofs need only slight changes.
Proposition 3.1. An extension R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal if and
only if R ⊂ S is M-crucial and RM ⊂ SM is pointwise minimal.
Proof. We generalize [4, Theorem 4.5]. Assume that R ⊂ S is Mcrucial and RM ⊂ SM is pointwise minimal. Then RN = SN for each
N ∈ Spec(R) \ {M}. For any x ∈ S \ R, we get that RM ⊂ RM [x/1] is
minimal because x/1 6∈ RM . Then, R ⊂ R[x] is minimal [9, Proposition
4.6] and R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal.

8

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Conversely, assume that R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal. Let x, y ∈
S \ R, so that R ⊂ R[x] and R ⊂ R[y] are minimal, with respective
crucial ideals M and N. Assume that N 6= M. For any P ∈ Spec(R) \
{M, N}, we have RP = RP [x/1] = RP [y/1]. Moreover, RM = RM [y/1]
and RN = RN [x/1]. From M 6= N, we infer that R[x] 6= R[y]. Set
z := x + y. Then, z 6∈ R[x] ∪ R[y]. In particular, z 6∈ R, so that
R ⊂ R[z] is minimal. For any P ∈ Spec(R) \ {M, N}, RP = RP [x/1] =
RP [y/1] holds, so that RP = RP [z/1]. Therefore, the crucial ideal
of R ⊂ R[z] is either M or N. If it is M, then, RN = RN [z/1] =
RN [x/1], which yields y/1 = z/1 − x/1 ∈ RN , a contradiction. The
same contradiction appears if N is the crucial ideal of R ⊂ R[z]. Then,
M = N is the crucial ideal of any minimal extension R ⊂ R[x]. In
particular, Supp(S/R) = {M}.

Proposition 3.2. Let R ⊂ S be a ring extension. Then,
(1) [4, Theorem 4.6] An integral pointwise minimal extension R ⊂
S is (R : S)-crucial.
(2) [4, Proposition 4.7] If R and S share an ideal I, then R ⊂ S
is a pointwise minimal extension (resp., pair) if and only if
R/I ⊂ S/I is a pointwise minimal extension (resp., pair).
(3) [4, Proposition 4.2] If R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal extension
(resp., pair) and T ∈ [R, S] \ {R} (resp., T ⊂ T ′ a subextension
of R ⊂ S), then R ⊂ T (resp., T ⊂ T ′ ) is a pointwise minimal
extension (resp., pair).
Proof. For (1) and the parts of (2) and (3) related to pointwise minimal
extensions, use the proofs of [4, Theorem 4.6, Propositions 4.7 and
4.2]. The proofs of (2) and (3) related to pointwise minimal pairs are
obvious.

It may be asked if the trichotomy: inert, ramified, decomposed of
finite minimal extensions is still true for finite pointwise minimal extensions, in that sense: if some R[t] verifies some of these properties, all of
them verify the same property. The answer is no (see Example 6.4(5)).
Corollary 3.3. A pointwise minimal integral extension has FCP if and
only if R ⊂ S is finite, and if and only if dimR/(R:S) (S/(R : S)) < ∞.
Proof. In view of Proposition 3.2(2), M = (R : S) is a maximal ideal
of R, so that R/M is a field and R ⊂ S has FCP if and only if R ⊂ S
is finite [7, Theorem 4.2]. The last equivalence is obvious.

Proposition 3.4. A pointwise minimal extension R ⊂ S is either
integrally closed or integral. A pointwise minimal extension has FCP
if and only if it is an FMC extension.

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

9

Proof. Assume that R ⊂ S is neither integrally closed nor integral.
Pick x ∈ R \ R and y ∈ S \ R. The crucial ideal M of the extension
is also the crucial ideal of R ⊂ R[x] and R ⊂ R[y]. The first one is
minimal integral and the second one is Prüfer minimal since y 6∈ R,
which contradicts Lemma 2.7. The last equivalence comes from [7,
Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 6.3].

Remark 3.5. We can compare Proposition 3.4 with [4, Proposition
4.13] of Cahen-Dobbs-Lucas. In their result, R is a non-integrally closed
local integral domain, S is its quotient field and R ⊂ R is pointwise
minimal. Then, each minimal overring of R is contained in R.
The integrally closed case gives a simple result.
Proposition 3.6. An integrally closed extension R ⊂ S is pointwise
minimal if and only if it is (Prüfer) minimal.
Proof. One implication is obvious. Now, assume that R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal. For x ∈ S \ R, R ⊂ R[x] is minimal. But we have R ⊂
R[x2 ] ⊆ R[x], because x is not integral over R; whence R[x2 ] = R[x].
It follows that R ⊂ S is Prüfer [14, Theorem 5.2, page 47]. Therefore,
R ⊂ S has FCP [20, Proposition 1.3] since Supp(S/R) = {M}. We
deduce from [7, Theorem 6.3] that R ⊂ S has FIP. To end, we get that
ℓ[R, S] = 1, so that R ⊂ S is minimal by [7, Proposition 6.12].

Corollary 3.7. A pointwise minimal extension is either Prüfer minimal or integral and these conditions are mutually exclusive.
Proof. Let R ⊂ S be a pointwise minimal extension which is not integral. By Proposition 3.4, R ⊂ S is integrally closed. If R ⊂ S is
integrally closed, then R ⊂ S is minimal Prüfer.

In order to characterize pointwise minimal integral extensions (resp.;
pairs), next results will be useful. Recall that {Rα | α ∈ I} is the family
of all finite extensions R ⊂ Rα with Rα ∈ [R, S] and conductor Cα .
Lemma 3.8. Let R ⊂ S be an integral extension, with conductor C.
The following statements hold:
(1) If R/C is Artinian (for example, if C is a maximal ideal), the
extensions R ⊂ Rα have FCP and S = ∪[Rα | α ∈ I].
(2) If the supremum of the lengths ℓ[R, Rα ] is a finite integer n,
then R ⊂ S has FCP and ℓ[R, S] = n. In case each R ⊂ Rα is
minimal, then, R ⊂ S is itself minimal.
(3) If in addition, R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal, then it is (R : S)crucial, as well as each R ⊂ Rα .

10

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Proof. Since R ⊂ S is integral, S is the union of the above upward
directed family F := {Rα | α ∈ I}. From C ⊆ Cα , we deduce that
R/Cα is Artinian and then it is enough to use [7, Theorem 4.2].
Assume that the supremum of the lengths ℓ[R, Rα ] is a finite integer
n. Then, there clearly exists some Rβ such that ℓ[R, Rβ ] = n. Assume
now that Rβ 6= S, and let x ∈ S \ Rβ . Then, x is in some Rγ and
there exists some Rδ ∈ F such that Rβ , Rγ ⊆ Rδ with Rβ ⊂ Rδ . This
implies that ℓ[R, Rδ ] > n, a contradiction. It follows that S = Rβ , so
that R ⊂ S has FCP and ℓ[R, S] = n. The last result is obvious.

In Section 4, we reduce our proofs to the case of fields. The following
is enlightening. Consider a field extension K ⊂ L, which is pointwise
minimal. This extension is necessarily algebraic, because a flat epimorphism whose domain is a field is surjective [20, Scholium A]. We will
see later in Proposition 4.4 that K ⊂ L is either minimal separable
or radicial of height one. Complexity of proofs relies heavily on this
dichotomy.
3.2. Co-pointwise minimal extensions. We are going to consider
a property dual from the property of pointwise minimal extensions.
Definition 3.9. An extension R ⊂ S is called a co-pointwise minimal
extension if R[x] ⊂ S is a minimal extension for each x ∈ S \ R. In
particular, R[x] is a co-atom for each x ∈ S \ R (see Section 7).
We can remark that the above definition without “x ∈ S \ R” is
uninteresting because ipso facto this would mean that R ⊂ S is minimal. The next proposition shows that our definition of a co-pointwise
minimal extension leads to a special case of pointwise minimal pairs.
Proposition 3.10. Let R ⊂ S be a ring extension. The following
conditions are equivalent:
(1) R ⊂ S is a co-pointwise minimal extension;
(2) R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair such that ℓ[R, S] = 2;
(3) R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair and the R-algebra S has a
minimal system of generators whose cardinality is 2.
In particular, a co-pointwise minimal extension has FCP.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) Assume that R ⊂ S is co-pointwise minimal. Let
T ∈ [R, S] \ {R, S} and x ∈ S \ T, y ∈ T \ R. Consider the tower
R[y] ⊆ T ⊂ T [x] ⊆ S. Since R[y] ⊂ S is minimal, R[y] = T and T [x] =
S, so that T ⊂ T [x] is minimal. If T = R, assume that R ⊂ R[x] is not
minimal, for some x 6∈ R, so that there is T ′ ∈ [R, R[x]] \ {R, R[x]}.
Let y ∈ T ′ \ R. Then R[y] ⊆ T ′ ⊂ R[x] ⊂ S is absurd since R[y] ⊂ S

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

11

is minimal. Hence, R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair. Moreover, for
any x ∈ S \ R, we get that R ⊂ R[x] and R[x] ⊂ S are minimal, giving
ℓ[R, S] = 2. In particular, a co-pointwise minimal extension has FCP.
(2) ⇒ (3) Assume that R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair and
ℓ[R, S] = 2. Then any maximal chain from R to S has length 2 and is
of the form R ⊂ T ⊂ S, where R ⊂ T and T ⊂ S are minimal, whence
monogenic. Pick x, y ∈ S such that T = R[x] and S = T [y], so that
S = R[x, y]. Moreover, S 6= R[x], R[y] and R[x] 6= R[y], since R ⊂ S is
not minimal.
(3) ⇒ (1) Assume now that R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair and
S = R[x, y] for some x, y ∈ S such that S 6= R[x], R[y] and R[x] 6= R[y].
Then R ⊂ R[x] and R[x] ⊂ R[x, y] = S are minimal. Let z ∈ S \ R. If
z ∈ R[x], then R[z] = R[x] implies R[z] ⊂ S is minimal. If z 6∈ R[x],
then R[x] ⊂ R[x, z] is minimal, giving S = R[x, z], which implies that
R[z] ⊂ R[x, z] = S is minimal since R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair.
Then, R ⊂ S is co-pointwise minimal.


In [10] and [6], Dobbs and Shapiro studied extensions of the form
R ⊂ T ⊂ S, where R ⊂ T and T ⊂ S are minimal. Since a copointwise minimal extension has length 2, we may use their results.
We will have more details about the connection with these papers after
having characterized co-pointwise minimal extensions in Section 5.
Characterizations for arbitrary integral extensions will surprisingly
lead to three special cases of the canonical decomposition.
4. The case of an integral extension over a field

For an ideal I of a ring and a positive integer n, we set I [n] := {xn |
x ∈ I}. In this section, k ⊂ S is an integral extension and k is a field
are the riding hypotheses. If k ⊂ L is an algebraic field extension and
y ∈ L, the minimal polynomial of y over k is denoted by Pk,y (X).
Proposition 4.1. If k ⊂ S is subintegral, then S is a local ring with
maximal ideal N. Moreover, the following statements hold:
(1) k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal if and only if N [2] = 0.
(2) k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair if and only if N 2 = 0.
Proof. Since k ⊂ S is subintegral, its spectal map is a homeomorphism
so that S is a zero-dimensional local ring, with maximal ideal N. Then,
k∼
= S/N gives S = k + N (⋆).
(1) Assume that k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal and let x ∈ N \ {0} so
that x 6∈ k. Then, k ⊂ k[x] is necessarily minimal ramified because it
is subintegral. Let N ′ be the maximal ideal of k[x], which implies that
x ∈ N ′ = N ∩ k[x]. Moreover, N ′2 = 0, gives x2 = 0.

12

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

Conversely, assume that N [2] = 0. Then, k ⊂ k[x] is minimal ramified when x ∈ N \ {0} by Lemma 2.4. Let y ∈ S \ k, such that
y = a + x′ , for some a ∈ k and x′ ∈ N \ {0}, by (⋆), whence k[y] = k[x′ ]
and k ⊂ k[y] is minimal. To conclude, k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal.
(2) Assume that k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair and let x, y ∈ N
be two different elements. Then x2 = 0 = y 2 by (1). Since k ⊂ k[x]
is minimal ramified, kx = N ∩ k[x] is the maximal ideal of k[x]. If
y ∈ k[x], then xy = 0, because y ∈ kx. If not, then k[x] 6= k[y] and
{x, y} is free over k. Moreover, k[x] ⊂ k[x, y] is minimal ramified with
conductor kx. Then, xy ∈ kx gives that there is some a ∈ k such that
xy = ax. The same reasoning gives some b ∈ k such that xy = by, so
that ax = by which implies a = b = 0 = xy. Then, N 2 = 0.
Conversely, assume that N 2 = 0. Let T ∈ [k, S] and x ∈ S \ T . Set
′
N := N ∩T , which is the maximal ideal of T . As in (1), we can assume
that x ∈ N, so that x2 = 0 ∈ N ′ and T [x] = T + T x. Since k ⊂ S is
subintegral, so is k ⊂ T . In particular, T = k + N ′ . From N 2 = 0, we
deduce N ′ x ⊆ N 2 = 0 ⊆ N ′ , so that T ⊂ T [x] is minimal ramified. 
Lemma 4.2. If k ⊂ S is finite, seminormal and infra-integral, there
exists an integer n such that S ∼
= kn.
Proof. k ⊂ S is étale by [21, Lemma 5.6] and then S ∼
= k n for some
integer n by [21, Theorem 3.4].


Proposition 4.3. If k ⊂ S is seminormal and infra-integral, the following statements hold:
(1) Assume that |k| =
6 2. Then, k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair
if and only if k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal extension and, if
and only if k ⊂ S is a minimal extension.
(2) Assume that |k| = 2. Then k ⊂ S is always a pointwise minimal
extension, and is a pointwise minimal pair if and only if S ∼
= kn
with n ≤ 3 and, if and only if ℓ[k, S] ≤ 2.

Proof. (1) We have the following implications: k ⊂ S is minimal ⇒
k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair ⇒ k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal.
Now, assume that k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal and |k| =
6 2. By
Lemma 3.8, S is the union of an upward directed family F of FCP
extensions Rα . For each α, there exists an integer nα 6= 0, 1 such that
Rα ∼
= k nα , since k ⊂ Rα is a finite seminormal infra-integral extension
by Lemma 4.2. We are going to show that nα = 2. Deny. Let e and
f be two elements of the standard basis of the k-vector space k nα , so
that e2 = e, f 2 = f and ef = 0. It follows that {1, e, f } is free because
nα > 2. Let λ 6= 0, 1 in k and set x = e + λf . Then, k ⊂ k[x] is
minimal decomposed by Proposition 2.11 since x 6∈ k. It follows that

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

13

{1, x} is a basis of k[x] over k since dimk (k[x]) = 2. Then, there exist
a, b ∈ k such that x2 = a + bx, giving a + b(e + λf ) = e + λ2 f , so that
λ2 = λ, a contradiction since λ 6= 0, 1. To conclude, we have nα = 2
and then k ⊂ Rα is minimal and k ⊂ S is minimal by Lemma 3.8.
(2) Assume that |k| = 2 and let x ∈ S \ k. Since k ⊂ S is seminormal
infra-integral and x is integral over k, we get that k ⊂ k[x] has FCP [7,
Theorem 4.2] and k[x] ∼
= k n , for some integer n by Lemma 4.2, from
which we infer that x = (xi )ni=1 , where xi ∈ {0, 1} for each i. Then,
x2 = x gives that k ⊂ k[x] is minimal decomposed by Lemma 2.4, so
that k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal extension.
Assume that k ⊂ S is also a pointwise minimal pair. In view of
Lemma 3.8, S is the union of an upward directed family F of FCP
integral extensions Rδ such that Rδ ∼
= k nδ for some integer nδ , for
each δ (see (1)). Assume that there exists some δ such that nδ ≥ 4,
and let eα , eβ and eγ be distinct elements of the standard basis of the
k-vector space Rδ . Set e := eα + eβ , f := 1 + e and x := eα + eγ .
Let T := k[e] = k + ke, so that x 6∈ T . Then, k ⊂ T is minimal
decomposed and Max(T ) = {ke, kf } because e2 = e. Although x2 = x
and T ⊂ T [x] is seminormal infra-integral, T ⊂ T [x] is not minimal,
because ex = eα 6∈ T and f x = eγ 6∈ T , a contradiction since k ⊂ S
is a pointwise minimal pair. Hence, nδ ≤ 3 for each Rδ ∈ F. Set
n := sup{nδ | Rδ ∈ F}. There is some Rδ ∈ F with n = nδ . For
Ri ∈ F, there is Rj ∈ F such that Ri , Rδ ⊆ Rj . Therefore, Rδ = Rj
and Ri ⊆ Rδ for each Ri ∈ F, giving S = Rδ ∼
= k n , with n ≤ 3.
Conversely, assume that S ∼
= k2
= k n , with n ≤ 3. If n = 2, then S ∼
and k ⊂ S is minimal and so a pointwise minimal pair. If n = 3, then
S∼
= k 3 and ℓ[k, S] = 2, so that k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair. The
last equivalence is then obvious.

Proposition 4.4. [4, Proposition 4.16] If k ⊂ S is t-closed, then S is
a field and the following statements are equivalent:
(1) k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal extension;
(2) k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair;
(3) k ⊂ S is either a minimal separable field extension, or a height
one radicial extension.
Proof. In view of [15, Lemme 3.10], S is a field. Then, [4, Proposition
4.16] shows that (1) ⇔ (3). A pointwise minimal pair is pointwise
minimal. To end, assume that (3) holds. If k ⊂ S is minimal, we
are done. Assume that k ⊂ S is a height one radicial extension where
c(k) = p and xp ∈ k for each x ∈ S. Let T ∈ [k, S] and x ∈ S \ T .
Then, T is a field and xp ∈ k ⊆ T implies that [T [x] : T ] = p. Hence,
T ⊂ T [x] is minimal and k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair.


14

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

We now intend to characterize pointwise minimal extensions k ⊂ S,
where k is a field, that do not satisfy the conditions of Propositions
4.1, 4.3 and 4.4. The following lemma gives a necessary condition on
the seminormalization and the t-closure.
Lemma 4.5. If k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal such that tS k 6= +
S k, then,
k ⊂ S is seminormal and infra-integral.
Proof. In order to show that k ⊂ S is seminormal infra-integral, it is
t
enough to show that k = +
S k and S = S k (Definition 2.9). So, deny
that these two equations hold.
+
Assume first that k 6= +
S k. Then, there exist x ∈ S k \ k and y ∈
+
t
S k \ S k. We now observe that k ⊂ k[x] is minimal ramified and k ⊂
k[y] is minimal decomposed. Indeed, x ∈ +
S k shows that k ⊂ k[x]
is minimal ramified by Proposition 2.11(1). Moreover, y 6∈ +
S k shows
that k ⊂ k[y] is not ramified and then is decomposed since y ∈ tS k,
+
by Proposition 2.11(2). Set z := x + y. Then, z 6∈ +
S k since y 6∈ S k,
so that z 6∈ k[x], but z ∈ tS k because x, y ∈ tS k. This implies that
k ⊂ k[z] is minimal and infra-integral, necessarily decomposed, because
not ramified. Moreover, k[z, y] = k[x, y] = k[x]k[y] = k[y]k[z]. We first
get that k ⊂ k[x, y] is the composite of a minimal ramified extension
k ⊂ k[x] and a minimal decomposed extension k ⊂ k[y]. It follows
from [9, Proposition 7.6], that k[y] ⊂ k[x, y] is either ramified, or a
tower of two ramified extensions. Now, since k ⊂ k[z, y] = k[x, y] is
the composite of two minimal decomposed extensions k ⊂ k[y] and
k ⊂ k[z], from [9, Proposition 7.6], we deduce that k[y] ⊂ k[x, y] =
k[z, y] is either decomposed, or a tower of two decomposed extensions,
a contradiction. Then k = +
S k and k ⊂ S is seminormal.
Assume now that S 6= tS k. Then, there exist x ∈ tS k\k and y ∈ S \ tS k.
We intend to prove that k ⊂ k[x] is minimal decomposed and k ⊂ k[y] is
minimal inert. To begin with, x ∈ tS k shows that k ⊂ k[x] is minimal,
seminormal and infra-integral, and then decomposed by Proposition
2.11(3). Moreover, y 6∈ tS k shows that k ⊂ k[y] is not infra-integral
and then cannot be decomposed (Proposition 2.11(3)). Then, k ⊂ k[y]
is inert. There is no harm to choose x such that x2 = x (∗) because
k ⊂ k[x] is decomposed (Lemma 2.4). The maximal ideals of k[x] are
M1 := kx and M2 := k(1 − x) and there exist M1′ , M2′ ∈ Max(k[x, y])
such that Mi′ lies over Mi for i = 1, 2. In particular, x ∈ M1′ \ M2′
because 1 − x ∈ M2 ⊆ M2′ . Now, k ⊂ k[y] is a field extension because
k ⊂ k[y] is inert, giving that y is a unit in k[y], and also in k[x, y].
Set z := xy ∈ k[x, y]. Then, z ∈ M1′ \ M2′ (∗∗) because x ∈ M1′ and
if z ∈ M2′ , then, y ∈ M2′ since x 6∈ M2′ , a contradiction. In particular,
z 6∈ k, since z ∈ k would imply z ∈ M1′ ∩ k = 0. Moreover, k ⊂ k[z] is

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

15

minimal and seminormal. We claim that k ⊂ k[z] is not inert. Deny.
Then, k[z] is a field, so that z is a unit in k[z], and also in k[x, y],
implying that x is also a unit in k[x, y], a contradiction with (∗). It
follows that k ⊂ k[z] is decomposed. Hence, k[z] has two maximal
ideals N1 and N2 . Using (∗∗) and setting Ni := Mi′ ∩ k[z] we get
that z ∈ N1 \ N2 . Indeed, z ∈ M1′ ∩ k[z] and z 6∈ M2′ ∩ k[z]. In
particular, there exists t ∈ N1 such that N1 = kt, N2 = k(1 − t),
with t2 = t (∗ ∗ ∗) since k ⊂ k[z] is decomposed. Then, z = at, for
some a ∈ k \ {0}. Set b := a−1 6= 0 so that t = bz = bxy. By
(∗ ∗ ∗), we have b2 x2 y 2 = bxy = b2 xy 2 , by (∗), giving x = bxy, that is
x(1−by) = 0 ∈ M2′ in k[x, y]. This implies that 1−by ∈ M2′ ∩k[y] = {0}
because x 6∈ M2′ and k[y] is a field. Hence, y ∈ k, a contradiction. Then,
S = tS k and k ⊂ S is infra-integral.

The last case to consider is an extension of the form k ⊂ T ⊂ S,
where k ⊂ T is subintegral and T ⊂ S is t-closed.

Proposition 4.6. If k ⊂ S is such that k 6= tS k = +
S k 6= S, then
T := tS k and S are both local rings sharing a same maximal ideal N.
Moreover, k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal extension if and only if the
following conditions are satisfied:
(1) N [2] = 0.
(2) k ⊂ S is radicial of height one, whence also k ⊂ S/N.
Such an extension is never a pointwise minimal pair.

Proof. We get that (k : S) = 0 since k is a field. By Lemma 2.10,
it follows that N := (T : S) is the only maximal ideal of T and S.
Assume that k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal. Then so is k ⊂ T and (1)
holds, since it satisfies the conditions of Proposition 4.1.
We now show (2). Fix some x ∈ N \ k , so that x2 = 0 by (1). Then,
k ⊂ k[x] is minimal ramified by Proposition 2.11(1) because x ∈ +
S k.
Let y ∈ S \ T . It follows that k ⊂ k[y] is a minimal extension, which
is neither ramified nor decomposed, since y 6∈ tS k. So, k ⊂ k[y] is
minimal inert and then t-closed, whence k[y] is a field by Proposition
4.4. Now set z := x + y. We get that z 6∈ tS k since x ∈ tS k and
y 6∈ tS k. Then, k ⊂ k[z] is minimal inert by the same proof used for
k ⊂ k[y] and then a field extension by Proposition 4.4. Let P (X) =
Pk,z (X) ∈ k[X], with derivative P ′ (X). From P (x + y) = 0, we deduce
that P (y) + xP ′ (y) = 0. Since {1, x} is a basis of k[x, y] over the field
k[y], we get P (y) = P ′ (y) = 0, from which we infer that P ′ (X) = 0,
because P (X) is irreducible and P (y) = 0 shows that P (X) = Pk,y (X).
In particular, P (X) is not separable. Hence, k ⊂ k[y] is radicial by
Lemma 2.5 and c(k) = p ∈ P. Now, k ∼
= T /N ⊂ S/N is a field

16

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

extension. If ȳ is the class of y in S/N, P (X) = Pk,ȳ (X) and then ȳ
is a radicial element. Now from T = k + N (k ⊂ T is subintegral), we
deduce that each t ∈ T is of the form t = b + m, for some b ∈ k and
m ∈ N. Then, tp = bp + mp = bp ∈ k by (1). If y belongs to S \ T , the
above proof shows that the minimal extension k ⊂ k[y] is radicial and
y p ∈ k by Lemma 2.5. Then, k ⊂ S is radicial of height one, whence
also k ⊂ S/N. The proof of (2) is now complete.
Conversely, assume that (1) and (2) hold. Proposition 4.1(1) entails
that k ⊂ k[x] is minimal for each x ∈ T \ k. Let y ∈ S \ T and ȳ its
class in S/N. By (2), we get that y p = a ∈ k, giving ȳ p = a ∈ k. From
(2) we deduce that k ⊂ k[ȳ] is radicial and necessarily Pk,ȳ = X p − a.
It follows that X p − a = Pk,y (X) and then k[y] ∼
= k[X]/(X p − a).
Therefore, k[y] is a field such that [k[y] : k] = p and then k ⊂ k[y] is a
minimal field extension. The proof is complete.
We claim that under these conditions, k ⊂ S is not a pointwise
minimal pair. Take again x ∈ T \ k and y ∈ S \ T . Then k ⊂ k[x] is
minimal ramified, and k ⊂ k[y] is minimal inert, but k[x] ⊂ k[x, y] is
not minimal [9, Proposition 7.4].


Remark 4.7. We exhibit an extension k ⊂ S which satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 4.6, such that N [2] = 0 and such that k ⊂ S/N
is radicial of height one, but which is not pointwise minimal.
Let k be a field with c(k) = 2 and such that k 6= k [2] . Set R :=
k[T ]/(T 2) = k[t] = k + kt, where t, the class of T , satisfies t2 = 0.
Then, k ⊂ R is minimal ramified, so that R is a zero-dimensional local
ring with maximal ideal M := kt. Pick some a ∈ k \ k [2] and set
S := R[X]/(X 2 − a − t) = R[x] = R + Rx = k + kt + kx + ktx, where
x, the class of X satisfies x2 = a + t. Then, k ⊂ S is an integral
extension. Set R′ := R[tx] = R + Rtx = k + kt + ktx. Then R′
is a zero-dimensional local ring with maximal ideal N := kt + ktx,
satisfying N [2] = 0 and R ⊂ R′ is a minimal ramified extension such
that M = (R : R′ ) and R′ /N ∼
= k. It is easy to check that N is an
ideal of S, such that S/N ∼
= k + kx, where x is the class of x in S/N,
and N = (R′ : S). Moreover, x satisfies x2 = a = a ∈ k, so that
S/N ∼
= k[x] ∼
= k[Y ]/(Y 2 − a). Therefore, N ∈ Max(S) and k ⊂ S/N
is minimal radicial of height one. Then, R′ ⊂ S is minimal inert and
t
(S, N) is local. We infer that R′ = +
S k = S k. But, k ⊂ S is not
pointwise minimal. Indeed, t ∈ k[x], so that S = k[x, t] = k[x] is such
that k ⊂ k[x] is not minimal.

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

17

5. Arbitrary integral extension
Gathering results of Propositions 4.1, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.6, we are now
able to characterize pointwise minimal extensions and pointwise minimal pairs. We first give a statement for an integral extension k ⊂ S,
where k is a field, and then for an arbitrary integral extension. As we
saw in the previous sections, some pointwise minimal extensions are
minimal. We first get rid of these cases in the next result.
Proposition 5.1. Let R ⊂ S be an M-crucial extension, satisfying
one of the following mutually exclusive conditions:
(1) R ⊂ S is integrally closed.
(2) R ⊂ S is seminormal infra-integral such that |R/M| =
6 2.
(3) R/M ⊂ S/M is a separable field extension.

Then, R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal if and only if R ⊂ S is minimal.
Proof. Use Propositions 3.6 for (1), 4.3 (1) for (2) and 4.4 for (3).



In the next result, we use Lemma 2.10 in conditions (1) and (2),
because k ⊂ S is of the form k ⊆ T ⊆ S, where k ⊆ T is subintegral
and T ⊆ S is t-closed.
Theorem 5.2. Let k ⊂
S be a non-minimal integral extension, where
√
S
k is a field, and N := 0. Consider the following conditions:
[2]
(1) tS k = +
= 0 and if tS k ⊂ S, then k ⊂ S is a height one
S k, N
radicial extension.
(2) k ⊂ S is subintegral and N 2 = 0.
(3) |k| = 2 and k ⊂ S is a seminormal infra-integral extension.
(4) |k| = 2, k ⊂ S is a seminormal infra-integral extension and
S∼
= k n with n ≤ 3 (equivalently ℓ[k, S] ≤ 2).

Then, k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal if and only if one of the mutually
exclusive conditions (1) or (3) holds and k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal
pair if and only if one of the mutually exclusive conditions (1) with
t
S k = k, (2) or (4) holds.
Proof. Assume that one of conditions (1) or (3) holds (resp.; (1)) with
t
S k = k, (2) or (4)), then, k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal extension
(resp. pair) in view of Propositions 4.1, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.6, excluding the
minimal cases.
Conversely, assume that k ⊂ S is pointwise minimal. If tS k 6= +
S k,
then k ⊂ S is seminormal infra-integral by Lemma 4.5 and satisfies (3)
by Proposition 4.3. In particular, if k ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair,
Proposition 4.3 shows also that k ⊂ S satisfies (4).

18

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

+
t
Assume now that tS k = +
S k. If k 6= S k = S k 6= S, then k ⊂ S satisfies
(1) by Proposition 4.6. Moreover, Proposition 4.6 says that k ⊂ S is
not a pointwise minimal pair.
Two cases are remaining. The first one is when k = tS k = +
S k 6= S,
that is k ⊂ S is t-closed, and Proposition 4.4 gives (1) for both a
pointwise minimal extension and a pointwise minimal pair. The second
case is when k 6= tS k = +
S k = S, that is k ⊂ S is subintegral, and
Proposition 4.1 gives (1) for a pointwise minimal extension and (2) for
a pointwise minimal pair.


Using the four conditions of Theorem 5.2, we are now able to give a
complete characterization of pointwise minimal extensions and pairs.
Theorem 5.3. Let R ⊂ S be a non-minimal integral extension with
M := (R : S) ∈ Max(R). Consider the following conditions:
√
[2]
S
(1) tS R = +
M ⊆ M and, if tS R ⊂ S, then R ⊂ S is a height
S R,
one radicial extension. √
2
(2) R ⊂ S is subintegral and S M ⊆ M.
(3) |R/M| = 2 and R ⊂ S is seminormal and infra-integral.
(4) |R/M| = 2, R ⊂ S is seminormal and infra-integral and S/M ∼
=
(R/M)n with n ≤ 3 (equivalently ℓ[R, S] ≤ 2)..

Then, R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal if and only if one of the mutually
exclusive conditions (1), (3) holds and is a pointwise minimal pair if
and only if one of the mutually exclusive conditions (1) with tS R = R,
(2), (4) holds.
Proof. We can reduce to the case where R is a field by using R/(R :
S) ⊂ S/(R : S), Proposition 3.2(2) and Theorem 5.2.
First, we can remark that tS/M (R/M) = (tS R)/M and +
S/M (R/M) =
+
(S R)/M [15, Proposition 2.10] for the t-closure. For the seminormalization, a straightforward proof shows that R/M ⊆ (+
S R)/M is subintegral
and (+
R)/M
⊆
S/M
is
seminormal.
It
follows
that
the properties of
S
subintegrality, infra-integrality, seminormality and t-closedness are the
same for the extensions R ⊂ S and R/M ⊂ S/M. A similar result
holds for the minimality of R ⊂ S and R/M ⊂ S/M, the cases we have
to exclude.

Corollary 5.4. Let R ⊂ S be a non-minimal pointwise minimal integral extension and M = (R : S). The following cases occur:
(a) R ⊂ S is subintegral;
(b) R ⊂ S is infra-integral and seminormal;
(c) R ⊂ S is t-closed and radicial of height one;

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

19

(d) R ⊂ S is radicial of height one and of the form R ⊂ T ⊂ S,
where R ⊂ T is infra-integral and T ⊂ S is t-closed. In this case,
T ⊂ S is pointwise minimal.
For each N ∈ Max(S) above M, if (a) or (b) holds R/M ⊆ S/N is
an isomorphism and pointwise minimal if (c) or (d) holds.
Proof. Following the different cases of Theorem 5.3, we get (1) ⇒ either
(a) or (c) or (d), and (3) ⇒ (b).
We now prove the last part of the Corollary. Since R ⊂ S is infraintegral if (a) or (b) holds, R/M ⊆ S/N is an isomorphism.
Suppose that (c) holds. As we already observed in the proof of
Theorem 5.3, R/M ⊂ S/M is t-closed, so that M is the only maximal
ideal of S lying over M (Lemma 2.10). Then, R/M ⊂ S/M is pointwise
minimal by Proposition 3.2 (2).
Suppose
that (d) holds and set T := tS R = +
S R. By Lemma 2.10,
√
S
N := M is the unique maximal ideal of S lying over M, so that
N = (T : S) and also the only maximal ideal of T lying over M. By
subintegrality of R ⊂ T , we get R/M ∼
= T /N. For x ∈ S, let x be the
class of x in S/N and x̃ the class of x in S/M. In view of Proposition
3.2, R/M ⊂ S/M is pointwise minimal, with T /M 6= R/M, S/M, so
that the extension R/M ⊂ S/M satisfies the case (1) of Theorem 5.2.
Then, x̃p ∈ R/M for each x̃ ∈ S/M, where p := c(R/M). Therefore,
there are a ∈ R and m ∈ M ⊆ N such that xp = a + m, giving
(x)p = xp = a ∈ R/M ∼
= T /N in S/N. Then, R/M ∼
= T /N ⊂ S/N is a
height one radicial extension, so that R/M ⊂ S/N is pointwise minimal
by Theorem 5.3 (1). To end, under this condition, T /N ⊂ S/N is
pointwise minimal, and so is T ⊂ S.

If the pointwise minimal integral extension R ⊂ S has FCP, we can
improve Corollary 3.3 by using Theorem 5.3.
Corollary 5.5. Let R ⊂ S be an FCP pointwise minimal integral
extension with conductor M ∈ Max(R) and set k := R/M and p :=
c(k). Only the following three case can occur:
(1) R ⊂ S is infra-integral. Then, dimk (S/M) = 1 + ℓ[R, S].
(2) R ⊂ S is t-closed. Then, either ℓ[R, S] = 1 when R ⊂ S is
minimal, or p ∈ P and dimk (S/M) = pℓ[R,S] .
√
t
(3) R 6= +
P. Then, dimk ( S M /M)
=
S R = S R 6= S and p ∈ √
√
S
ℓ[R,S]−dimk ( S M /M )
t
ℓ[R, S R] and dimk (S/M) = dimk ( M /M)+p
.
Proof. A quick look at Theorem 5.3 shows that each of its statements
meets one of the conditions of the corollary. We use the characterization
of a pointwise minimal extension of Theorem 5.2. Setting S ′ := S/M,

20

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

we get that ℓ[R, S] = ℓ[k, S ′ ]. Moreover, the extensions R ⊂ S and
k ⊂ S ′ have the same properties with respect to the canonical decomposition, and there is a bijection [R, S] → [k, S ′ ] given by U 7→ U/M.
(1) Assume that k ⊂ S ′ is subintegral. Then, S ′ is a zero-dimensional
local ring with maximal L
ideal N ′ . It follows that ℓ[k, S ′ ] = dimk (N ′ ) [7,
′
Lemma 5.4] and S = k N ′ combine to yield dimk (S ′ ) = 1 + ℓ[k, S ′ ],
so that dimR/M (S/M) = 1 + ℓ[R, S].
Assume that k ⊂ S ′ is seminormal infra-integral. If k ⊂ S ′ is minimal, then S ′ ∼
= k 2 and dimk (S ′ ) = 2 = 1 + ℓ[k, S ′ ]. If k ⊂ S ′ is not
minimal, by Theorem 5.2 (3) S ′ ∼
= k n for some integer n, giving that
dimk (S ′ ) = n, with ℓ[k, S ′ ] = n − 1. We still get dimk (S ′ ) = 1 + ℓ[k, S ′ ],
so that dimR/M (S/M) = 1 + ℓ[R, S].
(2) Assume that k ⊂ S ′ is t-closed. Then, either k ⊂ S ′ is a minimal
separable field extension, giving ℓ[k, S ′ ] = ℓ[R, S] = 1 or k ⊂ S ′ is a
height one radicial extension with c(k) =: p. Hence, there exists an
integer m such that [S ′ : k] = pm . It follows that ℓ[k, S ′ ] = m and
′
dimk (S ′ ) = pm , so that dimk (S ′ ) = pℓ[k,S ] and dimR/M (S/M) = pℓ[R,S] .
′
t
(3) In the last case, set T ′ := +
S ′ k = S ′ k. Let N be the maximal ideal
of T ′ . Since T ′ ⊂ S ′ is t-closed, N ′ is also the maximal ideal of S ′ by
Proposition 4.6, and then N ′ = (T ′ : S ′ ). We may use case (1) for the
extension k ⊂ T ′ , so that dimk (T ′) = 1+ℓ[k, T ′] = 1+dimk (N ′ ). Moreover, k ∼
= T ′ /N ′ ⊂ S ′ /N ′ is a height one radicial extension with c(k) =:
p. Then, there exists an integer m such that [S ′ /N ′ : k] = pm . It follows
that ℓ[T ′ , S ′ ] = ℓ[T ′ /N ′ , S ′/N ′ ] = m and dimk (S ′ /N ′ ) = dimk (S ′ ) −
dimk (N ′ ) = pm . But
S ′ ] = ℓ[k, T ′ ] + ℓ[T ′ , S ′ ] (∗) by [19, Lemma
L ℓ[k,
′
′
1.5]. Now, T = k N gives that dimk (N ′ ) = dimk (T ′) − 1 = ℓ[k, T ′ ].
By (∗), we get ℓ[k, S ′ ] = dimk (N ′ )+m, so that m = ℓ[k, S ′ ]−dimk (N ′ ).
′
′
To end, dimk (S ′ ) = dimk (N ′ ) + pm = dimk (N ′ ) + pℓ[k,S ]−dimk (N ) , giving
dimR/M (S/M) = dimR/M (N/M) + pℓ[R,S]−dimR/M (N/M ) . In particular,
dimR/M (N/M) = ℓ[R, tS R].

Theorem 5.3 allows us to characterize co-pointwise minimal extensions via Proposition 3.10.
Corollary 5.6. An extension R ⊂ S is co-pointwise minimal if and
only if M := (R : S) ∈ Max(R) and one of the conditions below holds:
√
(1) R ⊂ S is subintegral and for N := S M , then dimR/M (N/M) =
2 and N 2 ⊆ M.
(2) |R/M| = 2 and S/M ∼
= (R/M)3 .
(3) R/M ⊂ S/M is a height one radicial field extension of degree
p2 , where p := c(R/M).

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

21

Proof. Proposition 3.10 tells us that R ⊂ S is co-pointwise minimal
if and only if it is a pointwise minimal pair such that ℓ[R, S] = 2.
In particular, under these conditions, R ⊂ S has FCP. Then, it is
enough to consider the following conditions of Theorem 5.3: (2), (4)
and (1) with tS R = R, and then use Corollary 5.5. Indeed, R ⊂ S
needs to be integral because of Proposition 3.6 and Corollary 3.7. If
R ⊂ S is subintegral and a pointwise minimal pair, we have ℓ[R, S] =
dimR/M (N/M), (Condition (1) of Corollary 5.5). Then, if R ⊂ S is
co-pointwise minimal and subintegral, ℓ[R, S] = dimR/M (N/M) = 2,
because R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal and N 2 ⊆ M. Conversely,
if
√
S
R ⊂ S is subintegral with (R : S) = M and if N := M is such
that dimR/M (N/M) = 2 and N 2 ⊆ M, there exist x, y ∈ N \ M such
that N = M + Rx + Ry, and S = R + Rx + Ry, with x, y 6∈ R,
because S/N ∼
= R/M. Then, R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair
by Theorem 5.3 (2) and dimR/M (S/M) ≤ 3, so that ℓ[R/M, S/M] ≤
2. Since it cannot be minimal (if not, dimR/M (N/M) = 1), then,
ℓ[R/M, S/M] = 2, which implies ℓ[R, S] = 2 and R ⊂ S is co-pointwise
minimal. Assume that R ⊂ S is seminormal infra-integral. Then,
R ⊂ S is co-pointwise minimal if and only if it is a pointwise minimal
pair such that ℓ[R, S] = 2 if and only if |R/M| = 2 and S/M ∼
= (R/M)3
by Theorem 5.3 (4). At last, under condition (1) of Theorem 5.3 with
t
2
S R = R, then c(R/M) = p ∈ P and ℓ[R, S] = 2 ⇔ [S/M : R/M] = p ,
because ℓ[R, S] = ℓ[R/M, S/M].

6. Applications and examples
6.1. Some theoretical results. In view of Theorem 5.3, we can complete the results of [4, Theorem 4.9 and Proposition 4.11].
Proposition 6.1. Let (R, M) be a local ring, R ⊂ S an integral extension with conductor M and let J be the Jacobson radical of S.
(1) If R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal extension, then, J [2] ⊆ M.
(2) Conversely, if J is an ideal of S, such that J * R and J [2] ⊆ M,
then R ⊂ R+J is a pointwise minimal extension which satisfies
condition (1) of Theorem 5.3.
Proof. (1) Since M = (R : S) is the maximal ideal of R, M is contained
in any maximal ideal of S, so that M ⊆ J and J/M is the Jacobson
radical of S/M. If R ⊂ S is a non-minimal pointwise minimal extension, R ⊂ S satisfies one of the conditions (1) or (3) of Theorem 5.3. In
case (3), R ⊂ S is a seminormal extension with conductor M, which is
a radical ideal in S, and actually the intersection of the maximal ideals
of S, since M is maximal in R, whence, J = M. In case (1), S is a

22

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

local ring. It follows that its maximal ideal is J giving x2 ∈ M for each
x ∈ J. The same holds if R ⊂ S is minimal.
(2) Conversely, let J be an ideal of S such that J * R and J [2] ⊆ M.
Set T := R + J and let z ∈ T \ R. There exist some a ∈ R, y ∈ J
such that z = a + y. Moreover R[z] = R[y] and M = (R : R[y]). Now,
y 2 ∈ M and My ⊆ M gives that R ⊂ R[y] = R[z] is minimal ramified
by Lemma 2.4 (consider the extension R/M ⊂ R[y]/M). Then, R ⊂ T
is pointwise minimal. We are going to show that T is a local ring.
Deny. There exist two maximal ideals M1 and M2 of T satisfying
Mi ∩ R = M since R ⊂ T is integral. Since M1 + M2 = T , there exist
xi ∈ Mi \ Mj , for {i, j} = {1, 2}, i 6= j such that x1 + x2 = 1 (∗). In
particular, xi 6∈ R. But R ⊂ R[xi ] is ramified for each i and R[xi ] has
a unique maximal ideal Mi′ = Mi ∩ R[xi ]. Moreover, xi ∈ Mi′ leads to
x2i ∈ M. Then, (∗) gives (x1 + x2 )2 = x21 + x22 + 2x1 x2 = 1, so that
2x1 x2 ∈ R ∩ Mi = M, which implies 1 ∈ M, a contradiction. Then, T
is a local ring with a maximal ideal N such that N [2] ⊆ M. Indeed, for
each x ∈ N, the local ring R[x] has N ∩ R[x] for unique maximal ideal
and (N ∩ R[x])2 ⊆ M since R ⊂ R[x] is minimal ramified. Moreover,
since R + J ⊆ R + N ⊆ T = R + J, we get that T = R + N, so
that (R + N)/N ∼
= R/(R ∩ N) ∼
= R/M, which shows that R ⊂ T is
subintegral, and satisfies condition (1) of Theorem 5.3.

An extension R ⊆ S is termed a quadratic extension if St := R+Rt ∈
[R, S] (whence St = R[t]), for each t ∈ S.
Proposition 6.2. A quadratic seminormal infra-integral FCP extension R ⊂ S, where (R, M, k := R/M) is a local ring, is a pointwise
minimal extension, and is minimal if and only if |k| > 2.
Proof. Since R ⊂ S is quadratic, St = R[t] for each t ∈ S\R. Moreover,
Ct := (R : St ) is a radical ideal of St and R, and R/Ct is Artinian by
[7, Lemma 4.8, Theorem 4.2], so that Ct = M. From dimk (St /M) ≤ 2,
we deduce that k ⊂ St /M is minimal, and so is R ⊂ St . Hence R ⊂ S
is a pointwise minimal extension.
If |k| > 2, then, k ⊂ S/M, and R ⊂ S are minimal extensions by
Proposition 4.3 (1). If |k| = 2, the proof of Proposition 4.3 (2) shows
that k ⊆ k n is quadratic for any integer n > 1.

An integral extension R ⊂ S has FIP as soon as M := (R : S) ∈
Max(R) is such that R/M ⊂ S/M satisfies condition (4) of Theorem
5.3. The next proposition shows that in many cases, a pointwise minimal FIP integral extension is actually a minimal extension, completing
Proposition 5.1.

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

23

Proposition 6.3. Let R ⊂ S be an integral FIP extension with conductor M. Assume that either |R/M| = ∞ or R ⊂ S is t-closed. Then,
R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal extension if and only if it is minimal.
Proof. One implication is obvious. Assume that R ⊂ S is pointwise
minimal. In view of Proposition 3.2(1), M is a maximal ideal of R.
Assume first that R/M is a infinite field. There exists α ∈ S such that
S = R[α] [1, Theorem 3.8], so that R ⊂ S is minimal. Assume now
that R ⊂ S is t-closed. Then, M is a maximal ideal of S [15, Lemme
3.10]. It follows that R/M ⊂ S/M is an FIP field extension, for which
the Primitive Element Theorem holds. Therefore, S = R[α] for some
α ∈ S, so that R ⊂ S is minimal.

6.2. Examples and counterexamples. The following examples illustrate Theorem 5.3 and Corollary 5.6 in connection with the FCP or
FIP properties, for non minimal extensions.
Example 6.4. In the sequel {Xi }i∈I is a set of indeterminates over a
field k with c(k) = 2.
(1) There exists a pointwise minimal extension k ⊂ S which is
neither a pointwise minimal pair nor an FCP extension. Set S :=
k[{Xi }i∈I ]/({Xi2}i∈I ). For each i ∈ I, let xi be the class of Xi in S.
Then, S is a zero-dimensional local ring with maximal ideal M :=
({xi }i∈I ) and k ⊂ S is subintegral.
Let x ∈ M, there exists a finite set
P
J ⊂ I, such that x = i∈J ai xi , with ai ∈ k for each i ∈ J. Then,
x2 = 0, so that k ⊂ k[x] is minimal ramified, and k ⊂ S is pointwise
minimal but is not a pointwise minimal pair by Theorem 5.2(1) (2),
because xi xj 6= 0 for i, j ∈ I, i 6= j. If |I| = ∞, then k ⊂ S has not
FCP by [7, Theorem 4.2] and if |I| < ∞, then k ⊂ S has FCP by the
same reference. Moreover, if |k| = ∞ and |I| > 2, then k ⊂ S has not
FIP by Proposition 6.3 since k is infinite and k ⊂ S is not minimal. Indeed, if k ⊂ S has FIP, there exists some y ∈ S such that S = k[y] ([1,
Theorem 3.8], which would imply that k ⊂ S is minimal. If |k| < ∞
and |I| = 2, then k ⊂ S is an FIP pointwise minimal extension which
is not a pointwise minimal pair.
(2) There exists a pointwise minimal pair k ⊂ T which is neither
a co-pointwise minimal extension nor an FCP extension. Set T :=
k[{Xi }i∈I ]/({Xi2, Xi Xj }i,j∈I ). For each i ∈ I, let xi be the class of
Xi in T . Then, T is a zero-dimensional local ring with maximal ideal
M := ({xi }i∈I ) and k ⊂ TPis subintegral. For x ∈ M, there is a finite
set J ⊂ I such that x = i∈J ai xi , with ai ∈ k for each i ∈ J. Then,
x2 = 0, so that k ⊂ k[x] is minimal ramified, and k ⊂ T is a pointwise
minimal pair by Theorem 5.2 (2), because xi xj = 0 for i, j ∈ I. If

24

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

|I| = ∞, then k ⊂ S has not FCP [7, Theorem 4.2]. If |I| < ∞, then
k ⊂ S has FCP by the same reference. If |k| = ∞ and |I| > 2, then
k ⊂ S has not FIP (same reason as in (1)).
If |k| < ∞ and |I| = 3, then k ⊂ S is an FIP pointwise minimal pair,
but is not co-pointwise minimal by Corollary 5.6 because dimk (M) = 3
P
since M = 3i=1 kxi .
(3) There exists a co-pointwise minimal extension which is not an FIP
extension. Here, k is an infinite field. Let S := k(X1 , X2 ) be the field of
rational functions over k, where X1 , X2 are two indeterminates and set
R := k(X12 , X22 ). Then, R ⊂ S is a height one radicial field extension
of degree 4 because [S : R] = [k(X1 , X2 ) : k(X12 , X2 )][k(X12 , X2 ) :
k(X12 , X22 )] = 4. Moreover, f 2 ∈ R for each f ∈ S. In view of Corollary
5.6, R ⊂ S is a co-pointwise minimal extension. But R ⊂ S has not
FIP by Proposition 6.3 since k is infinite and R ⊂ S is not minimal,
for if not its degree would be 2.
(4) An FIP co-pointwise minimal extension exists by Corollary 5.6(2).
(5) We give a last example, showing that condition (1) of Theorem
5.2 with k 6= tS k = +
S k 6= S may occur. Here k is an infinite field
and k ⊂ K is a minimal radicial field extension of degree 2. For any
y ∈ K \ k, we have K = k[y] = k + ky, with y 2 ∈ k. Fix such an
y and set S := K[X]/(X 2 ), where X is an indeterminate, and let x
be the class of X in S. Then, K ⊂ S is minimal ramified by Lemma
2.4, so that S is a local ring with maximal ideal M = Kx = kx + kxy
satisfying S/M ∼
= K, and S = k[x, y] = k + kx + ky + kxy. Set
T := k + M = k + kx + kxy, so that S = T [y] = T + T y = K + M. It
is easy to see that (T, M) is a zero-dimensional local ring. Moreover,
k ⊂ T is subintegral and T ⊂ S is inert since k ∼
= T /M ⊂ S/M ∼
=K
is a minimal radicial field extension. To end, k ⊂ S/M is a height
one radicial extension as well as k ⊂ S, M [2] = 0 and t2 ∈ k for each
t ∈ S (to see this, write t = a + by + x(c + dy), with a, b, c, d ∈ k; then,
t2 = a2 + b2 y 2 ∈ k). Hence, k ⊂ S satisfies Theorem 5.2(1). Moreover,
since x2 = 0, we get that k ⊂ k[x] is minimal ramified and k ⊂ k[y] is
minimal inert.
Remark 6.5. We may remark that an extension k ⊂ S, satisfying
Theorem 5.2(1), with k 6= tS k = +
S k 6= S, has not FIP. Indeed, since
k ⊂ S/N is radicial, k needs to be an infinite field because any finite
extension of a finite field is separable. Then, k ⊂ S has to be minimal
in view of Proposition 6.3, a contradiction. Moreover, Example 6.4(5)
shows that there exists a pointwise minimal extension k ⊂ S with
x, y ∈ S \ k such that k ⊂ k[x] and k ⊂ k[y] are minimal, with different
types. In particular, in this example, ℓ[k, S] > 2 [9, Proposition 7.4].

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

25

We end this section by considering a special situation. Let R ⊂ S
be a co-pointwise minimal extension. It follows from Proposition 3.10
that ℓ[R, S] = 2. Therefore, R ⊂ T and T ⊂ S are minimal, for
any T ∈ [R, S] \ {R, S}, a situation studied by D. E. Dobbs and J.
Shapiro ([6] and [10]). So, let R ⊂ T and T ⊂ S be two minimal
extensions. Then [10, Theorem 4.1] provides us 13 conditions in order
that R ⊂ S has FIP and [6, Theorem 2.2] gives 2 conditions among
these 13 conditions in order that |[R, S]| = 3. Rather than working
with these 13 conditions, we only write in the following proposition the
conditions we need in our context.
Proposition 6.6. Let R ⊂ T and T ⊂ S be two minimal extensions.
The following statements are equivalent:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

R ⊂ S is an FIP pointwise minimal extension;
R ⊂ S is an FIP pointwise minimal pair;
R ⊂ S is an FIP co-pointwise minimal extension;
M := (R : S) ∈ Max(R), |R/M| < ∞ and either S/M ∼
=
(R/M)[X, Y ]/(X 2 , Y 2 , XY ), or |R/M| = 2 and S/M ∼
= (R/M)3 .

Moreover, if these conditions hold, then |[R, S]| > 3.

Proof. We have the following implications: (2) ⇒ (1) is clear and
(3) ⇒ (2) by Proposition 3.10. We also have (4) ⇒ (3) by Corollary 5.6. Indeed, the condition |R/M| = 2 and S/M ∼
= (R/M)3
is Corollary 5.6(2). Now, assume that |R/M| < ∞ and S/M ∼
=
2
2
′
(R/M)[X, Y ]/(X , Y , XY ). Set k := R/M and S := S/M, so that
S ′ = k[X, Y ]/(X 2 , Y 2 , XY ). If x and y are the classes of X and Y in
S ′ , we get that S ′ is a zero-dimensional local ring with maximal ideal
N := kx + ky such that S ′ = k + N. It follows that k ⊂ S ′ is subintegral since k ∼
= S ′ /N. Moreover, N 2 = 0 and dimk (N) = 2 imply that
′
k ⊂ S is co-pointwise minimal by Corollary 5.6(1), and so is R ⊂ S.
It remains to show (1) ⇒ (4).
Assume that (1) holds. Since R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal, then
R ⊂ S is either integrally closed, or integral by Proposition 3.4. In the
first case R ⊂ S is minimal by Proposition 3.6, an absurdity. Then,
R ⊂ S is integral. Let M and N be the respective crucial maximal
ideals of R ⊂ T and T ⊂ S. Now, M = N ∩ R by Proposition 3.2
(1), because M ⊆ N is a consequence of M = (R : S), N = (T : S)
and N lies over a maximal ideal of R which is in Supp(S/R) = {M}.
Moreover, since R ⊂ S has FIP and is not minimal, it follows by
Proposition 6.3 that R/M is a finite field and R ⊂ S is not a t-closed
extension. Let p := c(R/M). Therefore, we have to exclude condition
(1) of Theorem 5.3, when R ⊂ S is not subintegral.

26

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

The remaining conditions of Theorem 5.3 are (1), where R ⊂ S is
subintegral and (3). In case (1), R ⊂ S is subintegral and in case (3),
R ⊂ S is seminormal infra-integral, so that R ⊂ T and T ⊂ S have to
be of the same type by Proposition 2.11. Hence, we have to consider
the conditions of [10, Theorem 4.1], where M = N ∩ R, with R ⊂ T
and T ⊂ S either both ramified or both decomposed, that is to say,
conditions (vii) and (xiii) of [10, Theorem 4.1].
Set k := R/M, T ′ := T /M, N ′ = N/M and S ′ := S/M. If R ⊂
T and T ⊂ S are both ramified, with R ⊂ S a pointwise minimal
extension, then k ⊂ T ′ and T ′ ⊂ S ′ are both ramified, k ⊂ S ′ is a
pointwise minimal FIP extension and Theorem 5.2(1) holds. There
exists x ∈ T ′ such that T ′ = k[x] is a local ring with maximal ideal
N ′ := kx and such that x2 = 0. Moreover, there exists y ∈ S ′ \ T ′, such
that S ′ = T ′ [y] is a local ring with maximal ideal P = kx + ky, with
y 2, xy ∈ N ′ . Then, S ′ = k + kx + ky and y ∈ P . It follows that y 2 = 0
by Theorem 5.2 (1), and xy ∈ N ′ , which gives that xy = ax, for some
a ∈ k. Hence x(y − a) = 0 in S ′ . If a 6= 0, then y − a is a unit in S ′ , and
x = 0, a contradiction. This implies that a = 0 since {1, x, y} is a free
system over k and S ′ ∼
= k[X, Y ]/(X 2 , Y 2 , XY ) (there is a surjective
k-algebra morphism k[X, Y ]/(X 2 , Y 2 , XY ) → S ′ between two vector
spaces whose dimensions are equal).
If R ⊂ T and T ⊂ S are both decomposed and R ⊂ S is pointwise
minimal, then k ⊂ T ′ and T ′ ⊂ S ′ are both decomposed, and k ⊂ S ′
is a pointwise minimal FIP extension. It follows that condition (3) of
Theorem 5.2 is satisfied. By [7, Lemma 5.4], S ′ has 3 maximal ideals,
whose intersection is (0) and S ′ ∼
= k 3 , which gives in fact condition (4)
of Theorem 5.2 since |k| = 2.
None of the conditions of [6, Theorem 2.2] holds for a pointwise
minimal FIP extension, so that |[R, S]| > 3. This can be easily seen:
for each t ∈ S \ T , R ⊂ R[t] is minimal, with R[t] 6= T, S, R.

6.3. Transfer properties with respect to Nagata extensions.
We are now looking at the transfer properties of pointwise minimal
extensions (resp. pairs) with respect to Nagata rings. To get new
results, we consider only non-minimal extensions R ⊂ S since R ⊂ S
is minimal if and only if R(X) ⊂ S(X) is minimal by [8, Theorem 3.4].
Proposition 6.7. A non-minimal ring extension R ⊂ S with M :=
(R : S) ∈ Max(R) is a pointwise minimal extension (resp. pair, copointwise minimal extension) if and only if R(X) ⊂ S(X) is a pointwise minimal extension (resp. pair, co-pointwise minimal extension),
except for the case where |R/M| = 2 and R ⊂ S is a seminormal
infra-integral extension.

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

27

Proof. Observe that R ⊂ S is integral (resp. integrally closed) if and
only if so is R(X) ⊂ S(X) [8, Proposition 3.8]. Since a pointwise
minimal extension (resp. pair, co-pointwise minimal) is either integral
or integrally closed by Proposition 3.4, it is enough to assume that
R ⊂ S is either integral or integrally closed. In the same way, R ⊂ S
is minimal if and only if so is R(X) ⊂ S(X) [8, Theorem 3.4]. Since
a pointwise minimal integrally closed extension is minimal, we delete
this condition.
Now, assume that R ⊂ S is integral with M := (R : S) ∈ Max(R).
Then MR(X)S(X) ⊆ R(X) and MR(X) ∈ Max(R(X)) give that
(R(X) : S(X)) = MR(X). Assume also that we have either |R/M| =
6 2
or R ⊂ S is not a seminormal infra-integral extension (see Remark 6.8).
We infer from Theorem 5.3 that R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal if and
only if R ⊂ S satisfies Theorem 5.3(1). In the same way, R(X) ⊂ S(X)
is pointwise minimal if and only if R(X) ⊂ S(X) satisfies Theorem
5.3(1) since |R(X)/(MR(X))| =
6 2. Call (C) one of the conditions (1)
or (2) of Theorem 5.3. Then R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair if
and only if R ⊂ S satisfies (C) =(1) with tS R = R or (C)=(2). In the
same way, R(X) ⊂ S(X) is a pointwise minimal pair if and only if
R(X) ⊂ S(X) satisfies (C) =(1) with tS(X) R(X) = R(X) or (C)=(2).
We are going to show that R ⊂ S satisfies condition (C) if and only
if so does R(X) ⊂ S(X). Set k := R/M and T := S/M. Then,
k(X) = R(X)/(MR(X)) and T (X) = S(X)/(MR(X)).
(C)=(2): The equivalence of condition
(2) for R ⊂ S and R(X) ⊂
√
S
S(X)
is
immediate.
Indeed,
N
:=
M
∈
Max(S) implies NS(X) =
p
S(X)
MR(X) ∈ Max(S(X)). Then, for (C)=(2), R ⊂ S is a pointwise
minimal pair if and only if R(X) ⊂ S(X) is a pointwise minimal pair.
+
t
(C)=(1): Set U := tS R = +
S R. Then, U(X) = S(X) R(X) = S(X) R(X)
by [8, Lemma 3.15] and tS R ⊂ S if and only if tS(X) R(X) ⊂ S(X).
Now R ⊂ U is subintegral if and only if so is R(X) ⊂ U(X) [8,
Lemma 3.15]. If these conditions hold, let N be the maximal ideal of
S, which is also the maximal ideal of U so that NS(X) is the maximal ideal of S(X). Any element of S(X) (resp. NS(X)) is of the
form f (X) = P (X)/Q(X), where P (X) ∈ S[X] (resp. NS[X]) and
[2]
Q(X) ∈ Σ. If R ⊂ S satisfies (C), then
P N i ⊆ M. Let f (X) =
P (X)/Q(X) ∈ NS(X), P
with P (X) P
=
ai X , where ai ∈ N for
each i. Then, P (X)2 =
a2i X 2i + 2 ai aj X i+j . From (ai + aj )2 =
a2i + a2j + 2ai aj ∈ M, with a2i , a2j ∈ M, we deduce 2ai aj ∈ M, so that
f (X)2 ∈ MR(X). The converse is obvious.
The properties of being a height one radicial field extension and of
being of characteristic p are transmitted to Nagata rings. At last, if

28

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

c(k) =: p , then N [p] ⊆ k if and only if NT (X)[p] ⊆ k(X), in a similar
way as it was proved just before. Then U ⊂ S is a height one radicial
extension if and only if so is U(X) ⊂ S(X).
To conclude, R ⊂ S satisfies (C) if and only if R(X) ⊂ S(X) satisfies (C). Then we have the equivalence of pointwise minimal extension
(resp. pair) for R ⊂ S and R(X) ⊂ S(X).
At last, in view of Proposition 3.10, R ⊂ S is a co-pointwise minimal
extension if and only if R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair such that
ℓ[R, S] = 2. Since ℓ[R, S] = ℓ[R(X), S(X)] for an FCP extension
R ⊂ S by [19, Theorem 3.3] and R(X) ⊂ S(X) is a co-pointwise
minimal extension if and only if R(X) ⊂ S(X) is a pointwise minimal
pair such that ℓ[R(X), S(X)] = 2, we get that R ⊂ S is a co-pointwise
minimal extension if and only if so is R(X) ⊂ S(X).

Remark 6.8. In the previous proposition, we had to exclude the cases
(3) and (4) of Theorem 5.3 where |R/M| = 2 and R ⊂ S is a seminormal infra-integral extension. Indeed, in these cases, R(X)/(M(X)) ∼
=
(R/M)(X) has infinitely many elements, so that R(X) ⊂ S(X) cannot
satisfy conditions (3) or (4) of Theorem 5.3.
7. Lattices properties of pointwise minimal extensions
We introduce here FMC pairs since we will use them.
7.1. FMC pairs. An extension R ⊂ S is called an FMC pair if R ⊂ T
has FMC for each T ∈ [R, S]. We intend to show that FMC pairs are
nothing but FCP extensions. For some results already known, we give
shorter proofs.
We temporarily introduce a definition. An extension U ⊆ V is called
F MC ⋆n if there is a finite maximal chain from U to V with length ≤ n
and U ⊆ U has FCP (or equivalently, has FMC).

Theorem 7.1. Let R ⊆ S be a ring extension. The following conditions are equivalent:
(1) R ⊆ S has FCP;
(2) There exists a finite maximal chain C from R to S with R ∈ C;
(3) R ⊂ S is an FMC pair;
(4) R ⊂ S and R ⊆ R have FMC.

Proof. Obviously, (1) ⇒ (2) ⇒ (4) and (1) ⇒ (3) ⇒ (4). It remains to
show that (4) ⇒ (1).
So, assume that (4) holds. Then, R ⊆ R has FCP [7, Theorem 4.2].
We are going to show by induction on n that R ⊆ S has FCP, under
the above assumption. The induction hypothesis is: F MC ⋆n ⇒ F CP .
If n = 1, then R ⊆ S is minimal and has FCP.

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

29

Assume that the induction hypothesis holds for n − 1. Let C :=
{Ri }ni=0 be a finite maximal chain with length n such that R0 = R
and Rn = S. Then, R ⊂ R1 is minimal and C1 := {Ri }ni=1 is a finite
maximal chain with length n − 1.
If R ⊂ R1 is minimal integral, then R1 ⊆ R, so that R is also the
integral closure of R1 ⊆ S. Moreover, R1 ⊆ R has FCP. The induction
hypothesis gives that R1 ⊆ S has FCP, and so has R ⊆ S. To conclude,
R ⊆ S has FCP by [7, Theorem 3.13].
If R ⊂ R1 is Prüfer minimal, set N := C(R, R1 ). Then, N 6∈
SuppR (R/R) in view of Lemmata 2.8 and 2.7. Let M ∈ SuppR (R/R).
Then, M 6= N gives that RM = (R1 )M and (R)M = (RM ). Set
CM := {(Ri )M }ni=0 . Then, ℓ(CM ) ≤ n − 1 giving that RM ⊆ SM
has FCP. Let M 6∈ SuppR (R/R). Then, (R)M = RM and RM ⊆ SM
is an FMC integrally closed extension. It follows that RM ⊆ SM has
FCP by [7, Theorem 6.3]. Now from |SuppR (S/R)| < ∞ [7, Corollary
3.2], we infer that R ⊆ S has FCP [7, Proposition 3.7 (a)].

Remark 7.2. In the above proposition, (1) ⇔ (2) is proved by Ayache
[2, Theorem 24] and (1) ⇔ (4) is proved by Ayache and Dobbs [3,
Theorem 4.12] in a different way.
We are now going to look at the lattice properties of pointwise minimal extensions or pairs. Before, we give the following lemma.
Lemma 7.3. An FMC pair is an affine pair.
Proof. Obvious, since an FMC extension is of finite type.



7.2. Lattice properties of [R, S]. In the context of a lattice [R, S],
some definitions and properties of lattices have the following formulations.
(1) If R ⊆ S has FCP, then [R, S] is a complete Noetherian Artinian
lattice for intersection and compositum, whose least element is
R and S is its largest element. For lattice properties, we use
the definitions and results of [24].
(2) An element T of [R, S] is an atom (resp.; co-atom) if and only
if R ⊂ T (resp.; T ⊂ S) is a minimal extension.
Now R ⊂ S is called:
(a) semimodular if, for each T1 , T2 ∈ [R, S] such that T1 ∩ T2 ⊂ Ti is
minimal for i = 1, 2, then Ti ⊂ T1 T2 is minimal for i = 1, 2.
(b) atomistic if each element of [R, S] is the join (or the least upper
bound) of a set of atoms (see [22, page 80]). In fact, this is equivalent
to each T ∈ [R, S] is the compositum of the atoms contained in T .

30

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

(c) finitely atomistic if, for each T ∈ [R, S] there exists a finite set
{A1 , . . . , An } of atoms such that T = A1 · · · An .
(d) (finitely) geometric if it is semimodular and (finitely) atomistic
(see [5, Ex. 7.16, p. 274]). A geometric lattice is sometimes called a
matroid lattice. In another paper to be submitted, we examine the link
between geometric extensions and matroids.
Remark 7.4. i) If R ⊂ S has FIP and is geometric, all maximal chains
between two comparable elements have the same length (the JordanHölder chain condition) [12, Theorem 1, p. 172].
ii) If R ⊂ S is finitely atomistic, then R ⊆ S is an affine pair.
Proposition 7.5. Let R ⊂ S be a pointwise minimal extension whose
set of atoms is A. Then,
(1) R ⊂ S is an affine pair if and only if R ⊂ S is finitely atomistic.
(2) R ⊂ S has FIP if and only if |A| < ∞.
(3) R ⊂ S is an affine pair and a pointwise minimal pair if and
only if R ⊂ S is a finitely geometric FCP extension.
Proof. (1) Assume first that R ⊂ S Q
is an affine pair. Any T ∈ [R, S]
is of the form T = R[x1 , . . . , xn ] = ni=1 R[xi ], where each R ⊂ R[xi ]
is minimal, that is, R[xi ] is an atom. Therefore, R ⊂ S is finitely
atomistic. The converse is obvious.
(2) Clearly, if R ⊂ S has FIP, |A| < ∞. Conversely, assume that
|A| < ∞ and set A := {A1 , . . . , An }. For each i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, there
exists xi ∈ Ai such that Ai = R[xi ]. For T ∈ [R, S] and x ∈ T \ R, the
extension R ⊂ R[x] is minimal, and
Q then R[x] ∈ A. Setting I := {i ∈
{1, . . . , n} | xi ∈ T }, we get T = i∈I R[xi ].
(3) If R ⊂ S is an affine pair, R ⊂ S is finitely atomistic by (1).
Hence, R ⊂ S is finitely geometric if and only if [R, S] is semimodular.
Assume that R ⊂ S is also a pointwise minimal pair, and let T1 , T2 ∈
[R, S] be such that T := T1 ∩ T2 ⊂ Ti is minimal for i = 1, 2. Let
xi ∈ Ti \ T be such that Ti = T [xi ] for i = 1, 2. Fix some i = 1, 2 and
let j ∈ {1, 2} \ {i}. Then T1 T2 = Ti Tj = Ti T [xj ] = Ti [xj ], giving that
Ti ⊂ T1 T2 = Ti [xj ] is minimal for i = 1, 2, since xj 6∈ Ti and R ⊂ S
is a pointwise minimal pair. Then, [R, S] is semimodular, and finitely
geometric. Any T ∈ [R, S] can be written T = R[x1 , . . . , xn ] by (1).
Setting R0 := R and Ri := R[x1 , . . . , xi ], we can reorder the xi s so that
xi+1 6∈ Ri for each i ∈ {0, . . . , n−1} and then each Ri ⊂ Ri+1 = Ri [xi+1 ]
is minimal. It follows that there exists a maximal finite chain of Rsubalgebras of T , R = R0 ⊂ R1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Rn−1 ⊂ Rn = T . Finally,
[R, S] is an FMC pair, and then an FCP extension by Proposition 7.1.

POINTWISE MINIMAL EXTENSIONS

31

Conversely, assume that R ⊂ S is a finitely geometric FCP extensions, so that [R, S] is semimodular. Let T ∈ [R, S] and x ∈ S\T . Since
R ⊂ S has FCP, there exists a maximal finite chain of R-subalgebras
of T , R = R0 ⊂ R1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Rn−1 ⊂ Rn = T , where each Ri ⊂ Ri+1 is
minimal and of course, x 6∈ Ri . We are going to show by induction on i
that Ri ⊂ Ri [x] is minimal for each i ∈ {0, . . . , n}. The property holds
for i = 0 since R ⊂ S is pointwise minimal. Assume that Ri ⊂ Ri [x] is
minimal for some i ∈ {0, . . . , n − 1}. Then, Ri = Ri [x] ∩ Ri+1 , because
x∈
/ Ri+1 , implies that Ri+1 ⊂ Ri+1 Ri [x] = Ri+1 [x] is minimal. Since
this property holds for each i, we get that T = Rn ⊂ T [x] = Rn [x]
is minimal, and R ⊂ S is a pointwise minimal pair and an affine pair
since R ⊂ S is finitely atomistic.

Q For a set X of atoms of a geometric extension [R, S], we set TX :=
Rα ∈X Rα . A subset I ⊆ [R, S] is called independent ([12, Definition
9, p.167]) if, for any finite subsets J, K of I, we have TJ ∩ TK = TJ∩K .
Proposition 7.6. A pointwise minimal pair R ⊂ S has FCP if and
only if R ⊂ S is an affine pair and there exists a finite independent set
I of atoms such that S = TI . If these conditions hold, ℓ[R, S] = |I|.
Proof. When R ⊂ S is an affine pair and a pointwise minimal pair,
[R, S] is semimodular since geometric by Proposition 7.5 (3).
Assume first that R ⊂ S has FCP. Then, R ⊂ S is an affine pair
by Lemma 7.3 and there is a finite independent set I of atoms such
that S = TI by Proposition 7.5 (1) and [12, Theorem 4, p.174] (take a
minimal set I of atoms such that S = TI ).
Conversely, assume that there is a finite independent set I of n atoms
with S = TI and that R ⊂ S is an affine pair. Since R ⊂ S is an affine
pair and a pointwise minimal pair, [R, S] is semimodular. By [12,
Theorem 4, p.174], ℓ[R, S] = n is finite and then R ⊂ S has FCP. 
References
[1] D. D. Anderson, D. E. Dobbs and B. Mullins, The primitive element theorem for commutative algebras, Houston J. Math., 25, (1999), 603–623.
[2] A. Ayache, Some finiteness chain conditions on the set of intermediate
rings, J. Algebra, 323 (2010), 3111–3123.
[3] A. Ayache and D. E. Dobbs, Finite maximal chains of commutative rings,
JAA, 14, (2015), 14500751–1450075-27.
[4] P.-J. Cahen, D. E. Dobbs and T.G. Lucas, Valuative domains, J. Algebra
Appl., 9 (2010), 43–72.
[5] N. Caspard, B. Leclerc and B. Monjardet, Ensembles ordonnés finis: concepts, résultats et usages, Springer, New York, 2007.

32

G. PICAVET AND M. PICAVET

[6] D. E. Dobbs, When the Juxtaposition of Two Minimal Ring Extensions
Produces No New Intermediate Rings, Palestine J. of Maths 6 (2017), 31–
44.
[7] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Characterizing the
ring extensions that satisfy FIP or FCP, J. Algebra, 371 (2012), 391–429.
[8] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Transfer results for
the FIP and FCP properties of ring extensions, Comm. Algebra, 43 (2015),
1279–1316.
[9] D. E. Dobbs, G. Picavet, M. Picavet-L’Hermitte and J. Shapiro, On intersections and composites of minimal ring extensions, JPJANTA, 26 (2012),
103–158.
[10] D. E. Dobbs and J. Shapiro, When Only Finitely Many Intermediate Rings
Result from Juxtaposing Two Minimal Ring Extensions, Palestine J. of
Maths 5 (2016), 13–31.
[11] D. Ferrand and J.-P. Olivier, Homomorphismes minimaux d’anneaux, J.
Algebra, 16 (1970), 461–471.
[12] G. Grätzer, General Lattice Theory, Academic Press, New York (1978)
[13] A. Grothendieck and J. A. Dieudonné, Eléments de Géométrie Algébrique
I, Springer, Berlin (1971).
[14] M. Knebusch and D. Zhang, Manis Valuations and Prüfer Extensions I,
Springer, Berlin (2002).
[15] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Morphismes t-clos, Comm. Algebra,
21 (1993), 179–219.
[16] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, T-Closedness, pp. 369–386, in: NonNoetherian Commutative Ring Theory, Math. Appl. 520, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000.
[17] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, About minimal morphisms, pp.
369–386, in: Multiplicative Ideal Theory in Commutative Algebra, Springer,
New York, 2006.
[18] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Prüfer and Morita hulls of FCP
extensions, Comm. Algebra, 43 (2015), 102–119.
[19] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Some more combinatorics results
on Nagata extensions, Palestine J. of Maths, 5 (2016), 49–62.
[20] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Quasi-Prüfer extensions of rings, to
appear in: Rings, Polynomials and Modules, Springer.
[21] G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte, Étale extensions with finitely many
subextensions, : Boll. Unione Mat. Ital., DOI 10.1007/s40574-016-0088-7,
June 2016, 25 p.
[22] S. Roman, Lattices and ordered sets, Springer, New York, 2008.
[23] R. G. Swan, On seminormality, J. Algebra, 67 (1980), 210–229.
[24] D. J. A. Welsh, Matroid theory, Academic Press, London, New York, San
Francisco, 1976.
Université Blaise Pascal, Laboratoire de Mathématiques, UMR6620
CNRS, 24, avenue des Landais, BP 80026, 63177 Aubière CEDEX, France
E-mail address: Gabriel.Picavet@math.univ-bpclermont.fr
E-mail address: picavet.gm(at)wanadoo.fr

