arXiv:1210.1284v1 [math.AC] 4 Oct 2012

Factorization from a poset-theoretic view I

∗†

Zike Deng

Abstract: We introduce B-ideals and based on them establish several necessary and sufficient conditions for an element of a monoid to be decomposed into a least common multiple
of infinite or a finite number of powers of prime factors. Besides, we introduce a sort of
Galois connection relating them to divisorial ideals.

1

Introduction

The objective of this treatise, which consists of two parts, is to investigate factorization
in a monoid by means of the relation of divisibility mainly, while the multiplication plays
a secondary roll. Or rather, what relates to factorization is something essentially posettheoretic, which through connection of order with operation transforms into an algebraic
result. We are partly inspired in ideas by [1,5] and in techniques by [2,6] so as to do this.
We introduce B-ideals, which connect decomposition with complete distributivity [3], as the
tool and establish a sort of Galois connection relating them to divisorial integral ideals [1].
As early as in the thirties of last century it was recognized that factorization in itself
referred to multiplication and dispensed with addition,however,factorization in a monoid is
a problem which has not yet been solved up to now because no ideal is available.Here there
is divisibility only that remains.Based on it we reduce the original problem to the posettheoretic one and solve it.Then we transform the results back into the algebraic ones.In
contrast,we view an ideal as an element of a monoid and so its decomposition also becomes
factorization.B-ideal, in case of a domain,relates to a divisorial integral ideal through a Galois
connection and hence it is in a sense a generalization of the latter to a monoid.B-ideal also
relates to the dual of a filtre in topology.Jb is the analogue of the dual of open neighborhood
base, of the kernel of a valuation restricted to its ring in the poset-theoretic setting respectively. B-ideals can avoid the same set of factors determining different ideals and different
sets of factors determining the same divisorial ideal. That is why they work in factorization.
We study arbitrary decomposition, i.e., a least common multiple of infinite or a finite
number of powers of prime factors, and lay emphasis on a unique factorization domain (taking
as a monoid the collection of equivalence classes determined by the preorder of divisibility)
and a Krull domain (taking as a monoid the collection of integral divisors).
We establish topological representation [4] to which the decomposition leads directly,
and introduce poset-theoretic constructions such as subposets of the first kind (of the second kind), internal or external (direct) products and their mutual relations, which are not
only concerned with order representation but also connect the decomposition with structure
problems of the monoid.
∗
†

Mathematics Subject Classifications(2000): Primary 06A11 Secondary 13F15.
Keywords and phases: B-ideals, divisorial ideals, a Galois connection.

1

From a poset-theoretic view arbitrary decomposition in terms of irreducible elements is
connected with topology,while its finiteness with algebra.Order,so to speak,bridges the gap
between the both. Decomposition can be rephrased as follows.Does there exist a topology
such that G is the set of closed subsets with B the set of point-closures? In finite case of order
construction a product corresponds algebraically to the same of a monoid as a semimodule
and a subposet of the first kind, of the second kind to a projective,injective semimodule
respectively. A factorial monoid G is a free semimodule on positive integers with primes as a
base, a closed-set lattice with powers of primes as point-closures and a completely distributive
complete lattice.
Through this treatment we recognize that an operation generates both a monoid and a
preorder, and this preorder is related closely to the structure of the monoid through posettheoretic constructions and under a certain condition generates a topology which associates
itself with the monoid intrinsically.
This paper is the first part, which is concerned with arbitrary decomposition. Section
2 introduces B-ideals and by using them treats the characterizations of decomposition of
an element of a monoid into an arbitrary join of powers of prime factors in terms of the
properties of B-ideals (Theorem 2.1). Besides, uniqueness of decomposition (Proposition
2.6) and its topological representation (Proposition 2.8) are also studied. In section 3, we
establish a Galois connection (Proposition 3.1) which relates integral divisors to B-ideals so
as to transform decomposition problem of the former into that of the latter. At last we
introduce poset-theoretic constructions such as subposets of the first kind or of the second
kind, internal or external products(Examples 3.2-3.7).

2

Arbitrary decomposition

Throughout this treatise R will be an integral domain, i.e., a commutative ring with identity
1 6= 0 and without zero divisors. Put R∗ = R\{0}. The relation of divisibility x|y (equivalent
to y = zx for some z ∈ R∗ ) makes R(R∗ ) into a preordered monoid, i.e. ,the preorder | is
compatible with the multiplication, and G = R/U (G∗ = R∗ /U ), where U is the set of all
units of R, is an ordered monoid. Denote an element of G by [x], the equivalence class of
x ∈ R and we have G∗ = G \ {[0]}. Put B = {[p]n | p ∈ R is prime and n = 1, 2, · · · } and
now we will consider decomposition of an element of G∗ into an arbitrary join of elements
of B. By join (meet) we mean supremum (infinimum), or least common multiple (greatest
common divisor) if the order is relation of divisibility. Denote it by ∨ (∧). We will regard
G∗ as a poset only and for brevity an element of G∗ will be denoted by a, b, c. For a ∈ G∗ ,
A ⊆ G∗ denoted by ↓ a, ↓ A the set {c ∈ G∗ | c 6 a}, ∪{↓ a | a ∈ A} respectively. A with
∗
↓ A = A is called a lower set. 2(G ) refers to the collection of all subsets of G∗ with joins
existing.
Definition 2.1 J ⊆ G∗ with J 6= ∅ is called a B-ideal if ↓ J = J and 2(G
implies ∨ ↓ a ∩ B ∈ J for each a ∈ G∗ .

∗)

∋↓ a ∩ B ⊆ J

Denote by M the collection of all B-ideals. Since G∗ ∈ M , we might as well regard G∗ as
↓ [0] and hence for each a ∈ G, ↓ a is a B-ideal and is called a principal B-ideal. Note that
↓ [1] is the least element of M and ↓ [0] = G∗ the greatest element of M .
Put ↑ a = {c | G∗ ∋ c > a} and ↑ A = ∪{↑ a | a ∈ A} for a ∈ G∗ , A ⊆ G∗ .
2

Definition 2.2 (1) A ⊆ G∗ is called a B-set if ↑ A = A and for each a ∈ A there exists
b ∈ B ∩ A such that b 6 a.
(2) A ⊆ G∗ is called a B-filter if A is a B-set satisfying that for all a, b ∈ A with a ∧ b
existing, a ∧ b ∈ A.
(3)The B-ideal J is said to be prime if for all a, b ∈ G∗ with a ∧ b existing,a ∧ b ∈ J
implies a ∈ J or b ∈ J.
Assume that P is a poset. In case of ∨A existing for any nonempty finite subset A ⊆ P ,
a ∈ P is said to be (strongly) ∨-irreducible if a = b ∨ c (a 6 b ∨ c) implies a = b or a = c
(a 6 b or a 6 c) for all a, b, c ∈ P . In case of ∨A existing for any subset A ⊆ P , a ∈ P
is said to be (strongly) completely ∨-irreducible if a = ∨A (a 6 ∨A) implies a = b (a 6 b)
for some b ∈ A. Using >, ∧ instead of 6, ∨ respectively in above-mentioned definitions we
obtain corresponding definitions of being (strongly) ∧-irreducible and (strongly) completely
∧-irreducible.
A poset P with ∨A (∧A) existing for any nonempty finite subset A ⊆ P is called a
∨-semilattice (a ∧-semilattice). A poset P is called a lattice if it is both a ∨-semilattice and
a ∧-semilattice. A poset P with ∨A, ∧A existing for any subset A ⊆ P is called a complete
lattice. A lattice P is said to be distributive if a ∧ (b ∨ c) = (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) for all a, b, c ∈ P .
A complete lattice P is said to be completely distributive if ∧t∈T ∨ At = ∨f ∈Q At ∧ f (T ) for
any {At | t ∈ T } ⊆ 2P .
Proposition 2.1 (1) If G∗ \ J is a B-set (a B-filter), then J is a B-ideal (a prime B-ideal).
(2) If J ∈ M is strongly ∧-irreducible, then J is prime.
Proof. (1) Let c 6 a ∈ J, then a ∈
/ G∗ \ J, a fortiori, c ∈
/ G∗ \ J and hence c ∈ J. Assume
∗)
(G
that 2
∋↓ a ∩ B ⊆ J. If ∨ ↓ a ∩ B ∈
/ J, then ∨ ↓ a ∩ B ∈ G∗ \ J and so b 6 ∨ ↓ a ∩ B
for some b ∈ (G∗ \ J) ∩ B, whence b 6 a because ∨ ↓ a ∩ B 6 a. Thus b ∈↓ a ∩ B ⊆ J, a
contradiction to b ∈ G∗ \ J. It follows that ∨ ↓ a ∩ B ∈ J and hence J is a B-ideal. On
the other hand, suppose G∗ \ J is a B-filter. We have already known from above that J is a
B-ideal. Let a ∧ b ∈ J for a, b ∈ G∗ with a ∧ b existing. If a, b ∈
/ J, then a, b ∈ G∗ \ J and so
∗
a ∧ b ∈ G \ J, a contradiction. Hence J is prime.
(2) Let a ∧ b exist and a ∧ b ∈ J. Then ↓ a∩ ↓ b =↓ (a ∧ b) ⊆ J and so ↓ a ⊆ J or ↓ b ⊆ J,
whence a ∈ J or b ∈ J. 
Proposition 2.2 M ordered by inclusion is a complete lattice.
Proof. Note first that M has the least element ↓ [1] and the greatest element ↓ [0] = G∗ .
Let {Jt | t ∈ T } with T 6= ∅, then ∩Jt 6= ∅ because [1] ∈ Jt for each t ∈ T . It is clear that
∩Jt ∈ M . 
Evidently, J = ∨a∈J ↓ a for each J ∈ M . For A ⊆ G∗ put J(A) = ∩{J | A ⊆ J ∈ M },
which is called the B-ideal generated by A. For any {Jt | t P
∈ T } ⊆ M we have ∨Jt = J(∪Jt ).
For b ∈ B define Jb = {a | b a ∈ G∗ } and denote by 1 the collection of all such Jb ’s.
It is trivial that Jb is the greatest in all B-ideals missing b.
Proposition 2.3 Jb ∈ M
3

Proof. Let c 6 a ∈ Jb , then b a, a fortiori, b c and hence c ∈ Jb . Besides, assume that
∗
2(G ) ∋↓ a ∩ B ⊆ Jb . If ∨ ↓ a ∩ B ∈
/ Jb , then b 6 ∨ ↓ a ∩ B 6 a, whence b ∈↓ a ∩ B and so
b ∈ Jb , a contradiction. Thus ∨ ↓ a ∩ B ∈ Jb . It follows that Jb ∈ M . 
It will be readily verified that for each b ∈ B, G∗ \ Jb =↑ b is a B-filter and by Proposition
2.1(1) Jb is a prime B-ideal.
Proposition 2.4 Jb is strongly completely ∧-irreducible.
Proof. Assume that Jb ⊇ ∩Jt for any {Jt | t ∈ T } ⊆ M . Since b ∈
/ Jb , we have b ∈
/ ∩Jt
and hence b ∈
/ Jt0 for some t0 ∈ T . Let a ∈ Jt0 , then b a because otherwise b ∈ Jt0 , hence
a ∈ Jb . Thus Jt0 ⊆ Jb . 
Put △a = {J | J ∈ M and a ∈
/ J}.
Definition 2.3 (1) By the condition D1 we mean that a = ∨ ↓ a ∩ B for each a ∈ G∗ .
(2) By the condition D2 we mean that for all a ∈ G∗ , J ∈ M, J ∈△a implies J ∈△b and
Jb ∈△a for some b ∈ B.
(3) By the condition D3 we mean that J = ∩b∈B\J Jb for each J ∈ M .
(4) By the condition D4 we mean that J = ∨b∈J∩B ↓ b for each J ∈ M .
(5) By the condition D5 we mean that every nonzero element of R can be written as a least
common multiple of infinite or a finite number of powers of prime factors of R(by convention
a unit is a least common multiple of the empty family of powers of prime factors).
(6) two ordered monoids O1 , O2 are said to be isomorphic if there exists a bijection f of
O1 onto O2 such that f preserves multiplication and that both f and f −1 are isotone (in
short, OM -isomorphic).
Evidently if O1 , O2 are OM -isomorphic, then they are, a fortiori, order-isomorphic or
monoid-isomorphic.
Example 2.1 (1) G∗ is OM -isomorphic to L∗ , the collection of all nonzero principal ideals
of R ordered by inverse inclusion.
(2) G∗ is OM -isomorphic to M ∗∗∗ = {↓ [x]|[x] ∈ G∗ } endowed with · defined by (↓ [x]) · (↓
[y]) =↓ ([x] · [y]).
Theorem 2.1 The conditions D1 , D2 , D3 and D4 are equivalent to D5 .
Proof. (D1 implies D2 ) Assume that J ∈△a . Since a = ∨ ↓ a ∩ B, there exists b ∈↓ a ∩ B
such that b ∈
/ J because otherwise ↓ a ∩ B ⊆ J would imply a ∈ J, a contradiction. Hence
J ∈△b . Besides, we have b 6 a and so a ∈
/ Jb , whence Jb ∈△a . it follows that D2 holds.
(D2 implies D3 ) We have J ∈△b for each b ∈ B \ J and hence J ⊆ Jb because Jb is
the greatest B-ideal in △b . Thus J ⊆ ∩b∈B\J Jb . On the other hand, let a ∈ ∩b∈B\J Jb .
if a ∈
/ J, then by D2 there would exist b′ ∈ B such that J ∈△b′ and Jb′ ∈△a . Since
/ ∩b∈B\J Jb , a contradiction. Thus a ∈ J,
/ Jb′ , a fortiori, a ∈
b′ ∈ B \ J, ∩b∈B\J Jb ⊆ Jb′ . But a ∈
whence ∩b∈B\J Jb ⊆ J. It follows that J = ∩b∈B\J Jb and so D3 holds.
(D3 implies D4 ) For each b ∈ J ∩ B, ↓ b ⊆ J is clear. Assume that ↓ b ⊆ J ′ ∈ M for
all b ∈ J ∩ B. If J * J ′ , then there would exist a such that a ∈ J and a ∈
/ J ′ .But by D3
′
′
′
′
J = ∩b∈B\J ′ Jb , so that a ∈
/ Jb′ for some b ∈ B \ J , whence b 6 a. Hence b′ ∈ J because
4

a ∈ J. We have b′ ∈ J ∩ B and so ↓ b′ ⊆ J ′ , whence b′ ∈ J ′ , a contradiction. Thus J ⊆ J ′ .
It follows that J = ∨b∈J∩b ↓ b and hence D4 holds.
(D4 implies D1 ) by D4 we have ↓ a = ∨b∈↓a∩B ↓ b. By Example 2.1(2) G∗ is OM isomorphic, a fortiori, order-isomorphic to M ∗∗∗ , whence a = ∨ ↓ a ∩ B, and so D4 holds.
(D1 is equivalent to D5 ) is trivial. 
Proposition 2.5 (1) Under D2 the converse of Proposition 2.1(1) is true.
(2) Under D3 the converse of Proposition 2.4 is true.
(3) Under D3 , ↓ b with b ∈ B is strongly completely ∨-irreducible. Its converse is true
under D4 .
Proof. (1) Assume that J ∈ M . Evidently we have ↑ (G∗ \ J) = G∗ \ J. Let a ∈ G∗ \ J,
then a ∈
/ J and by D2 there exists b ∈ B such that b ∈
/ J and a ∈
/ Jb , whence b ∈ (G∗ \ J) ∩ B
and b 6 a. Hence G∗ \ J is a B-set. Furthermore, suppose J is prime and a, c ∈ G∗ \ J with
a ∧ c existing. If a ∧ c ∈
/ G∗ \ J, then a ∧ c ∈ J and hence a ∈ J or c ∈ J, a contradiction.
∗
Thus a ∧ c ∈ G \ J, whence G∗ \ J is a B-filter.
(2)Suppose J ∈ M is strongly completely ∧-irreducible. By D3 we have J = ∩b∈B\J Jb ,
whence J = Jb for some b ∈ B \ J.
(3) Assume that ↓ b ⊆ ∨Jt for any b ∈ B, {Jt | t ∈ T } ⊆ M . If ↓ b * Jt for each t,
then b ∈
/ Jt and by D3 we have Jt = ∩b′ ∈B\Jt Jb′ ⊆ Jb , whence ∨Jt ⊆ Jb , a contradiction
to b ∈ ∨Jt . Thus ↓ b ⊆ Jt for some t and hence ↓ b is strongly completely ∨-irreducible.
Conversely, suppose J is strongly completely ∨-irreducible. By D4 J = ∨b∈J∩B ↓ b and so
J =↓ b for some b ∈ J ∩ B. 
Remark 2.1 D4 together with Proposition 2.5(3) is equivalent to the fact that M is orderisomorphic to a complete ring of sets, a fortiori, M is a completely distributive complete
lattice [3].
Now we will turn to uniqueness of arbitrary decomposition. let P be the set of all prime
elements of R and [P ] = {[p] | p ∈ P }, and put Ba,[p] = {[p]n | B ∋ [p]n ∈↓ a} for any
[p] ∈ [P ], a ∈ G∗ .
Remark 2.2 If we extend the relation of a|b to K ∗ = K \ {0}, where K is the quotient field
of R, then K ∗ /U , U being the set of all units in R, is an ordered group and 6 is generated
by the integral part G∗ of K ∗ /U . Hence a result in K ∗ /U also applies to G∗ if the elements
relating to it belong to G∗ or it can be expressed in terms of elements of G∗ . For example,
ab−1 ∈ G∗ with a, b ∈ G∗ can be rephrased like this, a = bc for some c ∈ G∗ . On the other
hand, a result in a lattice group holds still in G∗ if that lattice operation which is carried out
on elements in its condition exists indeed in G∗ .Say, distributive law of · respect to ∧, i.e.,
a · (b ∧ c) = (a · b) ∧ (a · c) can be said to be as follows in G∗ . If b ∧ c exists, then (a · b) ∧ (a · c)
also exists and is equal to a · (b ∧ c).
Bearing this remark on mind we will cite some results from [2] in the remaining of this
section and the next when they are needed and whilst we will always use notation of multiplication.

5

Definition 2.4 (1) By the condition B1 we mean that Ba,[p] is a finite set for all [p] ∈
[P ], a ∈ G∗ .
(2) By the condition B2 we mean that 2(B) = 2B .
We have a = ∨ ↓ a ∩ B under D1 . if B1 holds, put v[p] (a) = max{n | [p]n ∈↓ a}, if
Ba,[p] 6= ∅ and v[p] (a) = 0 if Ba,[p] = ∅ and hence a = ∨[p]∈[P ][p]v[p] (a) .
Proposition 2.6 If D1 , B1 hold, then a = ∨[p]∈[P ][p]v[p] (a) uniquely.
Proof. Since [p] is an atom in G∗ by ([2], §1, n◦ 13, Proposition 14), [p]n ∧ [q]m = [1] for
[p], [q] ∈ [P ] with [p] 6= [q] by ([2], §1, n◦ 12, Corollary 3(DIV ) to proposition 11(DIV )).
besides a = ∨[p]∈[P ][p]v[p] (a) is equivalent to ↓ a = ∨ ↓ [p]v[p] (a) by Example 2.1(2). By
Proposition 2.5(3)↓ [p]v[p] (a) is strongly completely ∨-irreducible, so is [p]v[p] (a) for A ∈ 2(B) .
Thus follows the uniqueness. 
Proposition 2.7 Under D1 , B2 holds if and only if M consists of principal B-ideals only.
Proof. Necessity. Suppose J ∈ M . Then by B2 , put a = ∨B∩J and we have B∩J ⊆ B∩ ↓ a.
Let b ∈ B∩ ↓ a. Since b 6 a = ∨B ∩ J, b 6 b′ for some b′ ∈ B ∩ J by the last part of the
proof of Proposition 2.6 and hence b ∈ J because J is a lower set, whence b ∈ B ∩ J. Thus
B∩ ↓ a ⊆ B ∩ J and so B ∩ J = B∩ ↓ a. By D1 , J = ∨b∈J∩B ↓ b = ∨b∈B∩↓a ↓ b =↓ a.
Sufficiency. Assume that M consists of principal B-ideals only, then G is order-isomorphic
to M by Example 2.1(2), letting [x] correspond to ↓ [x], in particular, [0] to ↓ [0]. By
Proposition 2.2 M is a complete lattice, so is G, whence B2 holds. 
We will need the topological representation theorem of [4], which is concerned in the
notion of generalized-continuity of a poset [5]. For convenience we give a direct proof for its
sufficiency.
Lemma 2.1 [4] If every element of a complete lattice P can be decomposed into an arbitrary
join of strongly ∨-irreducible elements of P , then P is order-isomorphic to the closed-set
lattice ordered by inclusion of some T0 -topological space.
Proof. Let X be the set of all strongly ∨-irreducible elements of P and define f : P → 2X
by f (a) =↓ a ∩ X for each a ∈ P . It will be readily verified that the following conditions
hold.
(1) f (0) = ∅ and f (1) = X, where 1 and 0 denoted the greatest element and the least
element of P respectively.
(2) f (∨S) = ∪f (S) for any finite subset S of P .
(3) f (∧S) = ∩f (S) for any S ⊆ P .
Let C = f (P ) and C satisfies the axioms for closed sets, whence X endowed with C
becomes a topological space.
Consider the corestriction f ◦ of f to C and hence f ◦ is onto. Since a = ∨ ↓ a ∩ X,
◦
f is also one-one and what is more, a 6 b is equivalent to f ◦ (a) ⊆ f ◦ (b). Thus f ◦ is an
order-isomorphism. Besides (X, C) is T0 because {x}− = f ◦ (x) for x ∈ X, where {x}− is the
closure of {x} with x ∈ X, and f ◦ is one-one. 

6

Example 2.2 let R be a commutative ring with identity and Rd(R) the collection of the
radicals of all ideals of R. Rd(R) ordered by inverse inclusion satisfies the condition of
Lemma 2.1 and hence has spec(R) with Zariski cotopology as its topological representation.
Proposition 2.8 If D1 holds, then M has a topological representation, in which ↓ b is the
point-closure for each b ∈ B and all Jb ’s with b ∈ B constitute a base for closed sets.
Proof. By Theorem 2.1 D4 holds and so J = ∨b∈B∩J ↓ b, Besides, ↓ b is strongly completely
∨-irreducible by Proposition 2.5(3),a fortiori, strongly ∨-irreducible, whence M has a topological representation by Lemma 2.1, of which the proof shows ↓ b is the point-closure for
any b ∈ B. By D3 Jb ’s constitute a base for closed sets. 
Remark 2.3 By Theorem 2.1 and Propositions 2.1(1), 2.5(1) the collection of B-sets ordered
by inclusion is order-isomorphic to the open -set lattice ordered by inclusion of some T0 topological space, in which B-filter of form Jbc , where Jbc is the complement of Jb , constitute
a base for open sets.

3

The fundamental Galois connection

We will need some knowledge of a Galois connection which is phrased in the following.
Assume that P1 , P2 are posets and d : P1 → P2 , g : P2 → P1 isotone mappings.
Definition 3.1 [5] (g, d) is called a Galois connection between P2 and P1 if a 6 g(b) is
equivalent to d(a) 6 b for all a ∈ P1 , b ∈ P2 . And g is called the upper adjoint of d and d the
lower adjoint of g.
Lemma 3.1 [5](1) (g, d) is a Galois connection if and only if d ◦ g(b) 6 b and a 6 g ◦ d(a)
for all a ∈ P1 , b ∈ P2 .
Assume that (g, d) is a Galois connection.
(2) d is onto if and only if g is one-one, which in turn is equivalent to d ◦ g(b) = b for
any b ∈ P2 .
(3) g is onto if and only if d is one-one, which in turn is equivalent to g ◦ d(a) = a for
any a ∈ P1 .
(4) d preserves existing arbitrary joins and g existing arbitrary meets.
(5) g(P2 ) and d(P1 ) are order-isomorphic.
(6) d(a) =min g −1 (↑ a) and g(b) =max d−1 (↓ b) for all a ∈ P1 , b ∈ P2 .
Example 3.1 Assume that R1 , R2 are commutative rings with identity and f : R1 → R2 a
homomorphism preserving identity. Let Id(R1 ), Id(R2 ) be the collection of all ideals, ordered
by inverse inclusion, of R1 , R2 respectively and define e : Id(R1 ) → Id(R2 ) by e(a) = the
ideal generated by f (a) in R2 , for any a ∈ Id(R1 ). Then it will be readily verified that (e, f −1 )
is a Galois connection between Id(R1 ) and Id(R2 ).
In the following put I = the collection of all ideals of R and denote its elements by a, b.
L will be the collection of all principal ideals. Its elements will be denoted by (x), (y) with
x, y ∈ R, while elements of G by [x], [y] with x, y ∈ R. by Example 2.1(1) G is OM -isomorphic
to L ordered by inverse inclusion and G∗ to L∗ = L \ {(0)}.
7

As was done in [1], for a ∈ I ∗ = I \ {(0)}, a− will denote the divisorial ideal associated
with a, i.e., a− = ∩{(x) | (x) ⊇ a}, and div(a) the divisor of a, i.e., the equivalence class
of a (the equivalence relation is generated by the preorder ≺, which is defined as a ≺ b if
{(x) | (x) ⊇ a} ⊆ {(x) | (x) ⊇ b}). Note that in defining a− or ≺ we use principal integral
ideals only because a is an integral ideal and so we dispense with principal fractional ideals.
We use D + to denote the set of all integral divisors. Throughout this treatise we will adopt
notation of multiplication while treating the monoid structure on divisors.
Put L∗a = {(x) | L ∋ (x) ⊇ a} for any a ∈ I, and define g by g(a) = {[x] | (x) ∈ L∗a } for any
a ∈ I and d : M → I by d(J) = ∩[x]∈J (x) for any J ∈ M . We have g((0)) =↓ [0] = G∗ ∈ M
and d(↓ [0]) = (0). And what is more, we claim that for any J if d(J) = (0), then J =↓ [0].
In fact, d(J) = ∩[x]∈J (x) = (0) is equivalent to ∨[x]∈J [x] = [0], which in turn is equivalent to
J = ∨[x]∈J ↓ [x] =↓ [0]. Thus put M ∗ = M \ {↓ [0]} and d can be regarded as a mapping
M ∗ → I ∗.
Following lemma exhibits g can be also regarded as a mapping I ∗ → M ∗ .
Lemma 3.2 g(a) ∈ M ∗ for any a ∈ I ∗ .
Proof. Let [y] 6 [x] ∈ g(a), then (y) ⊇ (x) ∈ L∗a and so (y) ∈ L∗a , whence [y] ∈ g(a). Assume
∗
that 2(G ) ∋↓ [x] ∩ B ⊆ g(a). Let [z] = ∨ ↓ [x] ∩ B. Then we have (z) = ∩ ↑ (x) ∩ B ∗ , where
B ∗ = {(pn ) | [pn ] ∈ B}, and ↑ (x) ∩ B ∗ ⊆ L∗a . Thus (z) ∈ L∗a , whence [z] ∈ g(a). 
Lemma 3.3 d(J) is a divisorial ideal for any J ∈ M ∗ .
Proof. let a = d(J) = ∩[x]∈J (x) 6= (0). We have a ⊆ a− = ∩{(x) | (x) ⊇ a} ⊆ ∩[x]∈J (x) = a,
whence a− = a. Thus d(J) is a divisorial ideal. 
Let I ∼ be the dual of I, i.e., I ordered by inverse inclusion.
Proposition 3.1 (g, d) is a Galois connection between I ∼ and M .
Proof. Denote by 6 the order of I ∼ and then it will be readily verified that d ◦ g(a) 6 a
and g ◦ d(J) ⊇ J for any a ∈ I ∼ , J ∈ M . By Lemma 3.1(1), (g, d) is a Galois connection.
Definition 3.2 The Galois connection (g, d) between I ∼ and M is called the fundamental
Galois connection.
Remark 3.1 (g, d) being regarded as Galois connection between I ∗∼ and M ∗ , d(M ∗ ) is the
collection of all divisorial ideals of I ∗ (denote it by D(I ∗ )∼ ) and is order-isomorphic to g(I ∗∼ )
(denote it by M ∗∗ ) by Lemma 3.1(5). Thus D + is also order-isomorphic to M ∗∗ . We can
transport the monoid structure on D + to M ∗∗ by this isomorphism and then M ∗∗ is an
ordered monoid, whence D + and M ∗∗ are OM -isomorphic. We choose D + instead of D(I ∗ )∼
because D(I ∗ )∼ is not closed under multiplication. Besides, let i be the inclusion mapping
of M ∗∗ into M ∗ . It will be readily verified that (i, g ◦ d) is a Galois connection between M ∗∗
and M ∗ .
Lemma 3.4 (1) J = ∩J⊆↓[x] ↓ [x] for any J ∈ M ∗∗ .
(2) For each J ∈ M ∗ there exists J ′ ∈ M ∗∗ such that J ⊆ J ′ .
8

Proof. (1) J = g(a− ) for some a− ∈ I ∗ . But a− = ∨x∈a− (x) in I ∗ , i.e., a− = ∧x∈a− (x) in
I ∗∼ , and hence J = g(a− ) = ∩x∈a− g((x)) = ∩J⊆↓[x] ↓ [x] because g is ∧-preserving.
(2) J ⊆ g ◦ d(J) and g ◦ d(J) ∈ M ∗∗ . 
Now we can identify M ∗∗ with D + and study it in detail. Let D be the collection of all
divisors of R.
Lemma 3.5 M ∗∗ is a lattice monoid and the the distributive law of · with respect to ∧ holds.
Proof. By ([1], chapter VII, §1, n◦ 1, Theorem 2 (iii) and n◦ 2) D + satisfies the above
mentioned condition, so does M ∗∗ because M ∗∗ is OM -isomorphic to D + . 
Lemma 3.6 For each [p] ∈ [P ], ↓ [p] is both a prime element and an atom of M ∗∗ .
Proof. We need only to show that div(d(↓ [p])) = div((p)) is prime in D + , because M ∗∗ is
OM -isomorphic to D + . Assume that div((p)) 6 (div(a)) · (div(b)) = div(a · b) with a, b ∈ I ∗ .
Then (p) ≺ a · b, i.e., L∗(p) ⊆ L∗a·b . Since (p) ∈ L∗(p) , we have (p) ∈ L∗a·b and so a ⊆ (p)
or b ⊆ (p), whence (p) ≺ a or (p) ≺ b. We have div((p)) 6 div(a) or div((p)) 6 div(b)
and hence div((p)) is prime. Besides, let J ∈ M ∗∗ and J ⊆↓ [p]. Then there exists unique
a− ∈ D(I ∗ )∼ such that g(a− ) = J so that g(a− ) ⊆ g((p)), whence a− 6 (p) in I ∗∼ , i.e.,
a− ≺ (p). Now assume that a− ⊆ (x) for any (x) ∈ I ∗ , then (p) ⊆ (x) and so [x] 6 [p] in G∗ ,
whence [x] = [1] or [x] = [p] because [p] is an atom in G∗ by ([2], §1, n◦ 13, Proposition 14) in
notation of multiplication and noting that what its proof needs is satisfied although G∗ is the
integral part of the ordered group, K ∗ /U , where K is the quotient field of R, K ∗ = K \ {0}
and U the set of all units of R, only. Thus g(a− ) ⊆ {[1], [p]}, whence J = g(a− ) =↓ [1] or
J = g(a− ) =↓ [p]. it follows that ↓ p is an atom in M ∗∗ . 
Lemma 3.7 If B1 holds, then BJ,[p] = {↓ [p]n |↓ [p]n ⊆ J, n = 1, 2, · · · } is a finite set for
any [p] ∈ [P ], J ∈ M ∗ .
Proof. We have ∩{(p)n | n = 1, 2, · · · } = (0) because B1 holds. If BJ,[p] were an infinite set,
then J, being a lower set, would contain {↓ [p]n | n = 1, 2, · · · }, whence ∩[x]∈J (x) ⊆ ∩{(p)n |
n = 1, 2, · · · } = (0) and hence ∩[x]∈J (x) = (0), a contradiction to J ∈ M ∗ . Thus BJ,[p] is a
finite set. 
Assume that D1 , B1 hold. Put v[p] (J) = max{n |↓ [p]n ∈ BJ,[p] } if BJ,[p] 6= ∅ and
v[p] (J) = 0 if BJ,[p] = ∅. v[p](J) is well-defined and then J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]v[p] (J) for J ∈ M ∗
because D1 is equivalent to D4 by Theorem 2.1.
Proposition 3.2 If D1 , B1 hold, then J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]v[p] (J) uniquely for any J ∈ M ∗ .
Proof. ↓ [p] is an atom in M ∗∗ by Lemma 3.6 and so we have ↓ [p]n ∧ ↓ [q]m =↓ [1] in
M ∗∗ for [p] 6= [q] with [p], [q] ∈ [P ] by ([2], §1, n◦ 12, Corollary (DIV ) to Proposition 11
(DIV )) because distributive law of · with respect to ∧ holds in M ∗∗ by Lemma 3.5. Since
(i, g ◦ d) is a Galois connection between M ∗∗ and M ∗ by Remark 3.1,i preserves arbitrary
meets, whence M ∗∗ is closed under meets. Thus ↓ [p]n ∧ ↓ [q]m =↓ [1] also holds in M ∗ .
Furthermore, ↓ [p]n is strongly completely ∨-irreducible by Proposition 2.5(3). It follows
that J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]v[p] (J) uniquely. 
9

Corollary 3.1 If the conditions of Proposition 3.2 hold, then each integral divisor can be
decomposed into an arbitrary join of powers of atoms in D + .
Proof. Note first that ↓ [p] is an atom in M ∗∗ . Since D + is OM -isomorphic to M ∗∗ and
BJ,p ⊆ M ∗∗ ⊆ M ∗ , the result follows from Proposition 3.2. 
In the following we will treat poset-theoretic constructions which relate decomposition to
order representation and structure problems.
Throughout the following we will assume that D1 , B1 hold.
Definition 3.3 Let P be a poset, P ′ its subposet and i : P ′ → P the inclusion mapping.
(1) P ′ is said to be of the first kind if i is the lower adjoint of some Galois connection
between P and P ′ .
(2) P ′ is said to be of the second kind if i is the upper adjoint of some Galois connection
between P ′ and P .
◦ = {↓ [p]n | n = 0, 1, 2, · · · } for any [p] ∈ [P ]. Then B ◦ is a
Example 3.2 (1) Put B[p]
[p]
◦ → M ∗ defined by i (↓ [q]n ) = J, where v (J) = n and
subposet of M ∗ . Put i[q] : B[q]
[q]
[q]
◦ defined by r (J) =↓ [q]v[q] (J) . By Proposition
v[p] (J) = 0 for [p] 6= [q], and r[q] : M ∗ → B[q]
[q]
◦ , whence
3.2 it will be readily verified that (r[q] , i[q] ) is a Galois connection between M ∗ and B[q]
◦ is of the first kind.
B[p]
(2) M ∗∗ is a subposet of M ∗ and by Remark 3.1 i is the upper adjoint of Galois connection
(i, g ◦ d) between M ∗∗ and M ∗ , whence M ∗∗ is of the second kind. Note that (2) dispenses
with D1 , B1 .

Definition 3.4 Let P be a poset with the least element 1, and {Pt | t ∈ T } a family of
subposets of the first kind of P such that each contains 1 and that ∨at exists uniquely for any
{at | t ∈ Pt }, and assume that P = {∨at | at ∈ Pt }. Then P is called the internal product of
the family. Denote it by P = Πi Pt .
Let it′ be the inclusion mapping of Pt′ . Evidently we have it′ (at′ ) = ∨bt , where bt′ = at′
and bt = 1 for t 6= t′ .
Since it′ is a lower adjoint, its upper adjoint rt′ satisfies that rt′ (∨at ) = max i−1
t′ (↓
(∨at )) = at′ by lemma 3.1 (6), whence (rt′ , it′ ) is a Galois connection between Πi Pt and Pt′ .
It is trivial that the following result holds.
Lemma 3.8 rt′ is onto and a = ∨t∈T it ◦ rt (a) for any t′ ∈ T, a ∈ Πi Pt .
◦ is a subposet of the first kind of M ∗ . By Proposition
Example 3.3 By Example 3.2(1) B[p]
◦ . And
3.2 for every J ∈ M ∗ we have J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]v[p] (J) uniquely. Thus M ∗ = Πi[p]∈[P ]B[p]
◦
◦
what is more, B[p] ∩ B[q] =↓ [1] for [p] 6= [q].

Definition 3.5 Let {Pt | t ∈ T } be a family of posets containing the least element 1t . The
Cartesian product ΠPt ordered by the product order is called the external product of the family.
Denote it by Πe Pt .
10

Define rt∗′ : Πe Pt → Pt′ by rt∗′ ((at )) = at′ and i∗t′ : Pt′ → Πe Pt by i∗t′ (at′ ) = (bt ), where
bt′ = at′ and bt = 1t for t 6= t′ .
Lemma 3.9 (rt∗ , i∗t ) is a Galois connection, rt∗ is onto and a = ∨i∗t ◦ rt∗ (a) for any a ∈ Πe Pt .
Proof. It will readily verified that rt∗ ◦ i∗t (at ) = at and i∗t ◦ rt∗ (a) 6 a, whence (rt∗ , i∗t ) is a
Galois connection, rt∗ is onto. It is trivial that a = ∨i∗t ◦ rt∗ (a). 
Proposition 3.3 Πi Pt is order-isomorphic to Πe Pt .
Proof. Define f : Πi Pt → Πe Pt by f (∨at ) = (rt (∨at )) for each ∨at ∈ Πi Pt . Assume that
(at ) ∈ Πe Pt , then a = ∨at ∈ Πi Pt with rt (a) = at and so f (a) = (rt (a)) = (at ), whence f
is onto. Furthermore, a 6 b is equivalent to rt (a) 6 rt (b) for each t ∈ T , which in turn is
equivalent to (rt (a)) 6 (rt (b)), i.e., f (a) 6 f (b). It follows that f is an order-isomorphism.

◦ , which follows from Example 3.3 and PropoExample 3.4 M ∗ is order-isomorphic to Πe B[p]
sition 3.3.

Example 3.5 (Order representation) Let N[p] = N = {0, 1, 2, · · · } for each [p] ∈ [P ].
Then N[p] ordered by the order defined by addition is a totally ordered monoid. Put f :
n[p]
◦ → Πe N
Πe B[p]
)) = (n[p] ), then f is a bijection and both f and f −1 are
[p] by f ((↓ [p]
◦ and Πe N
isotone, whence two ordered monoids Πe B[p]
[p] are order-isomorphic. From Example
∗
3.4 it follows that M is order-isomorphic to Πe N[p] , which is the order representation of M ∗
under D1 , B1 .
◦ is a totally ordered
Example 3.6 (Algebraic interpretation) As is easily known, B[p]
◦
◦ endowed with
monoid and the order of B[p] is defined by the multiplication. Now Πe B[p]
componentwise multiplication is an ordered monoid, of which the product order is also defined
◦ , which follows
by this multiplication. Through the order-isomorphism of M ∗ onto Πe B[p]
◦ to M ∗ and hence M ∗
from Example3.4, we can transport the monoid structure on Πe B[p]
∗
becomes an ordered monoid and ⊆ in M is defined by this multiplication. Thus M ∗ is OM ◦ and the multiplication induced on M ∗∗ by this multiplication overlaps
isomorphic to Πe B[p]
with the original one transported from D + by g of the fundamental Galois connection (g, d).
◦ , which is the product of a family of
M ∗ as a monoid is monoid-isomorphic to Πe B[p]
monoids in algebraic sense.

Example 3.7 (Topological interpretation) By Proposition 2.8 M has a T0 -topological
representation. From the proof of Lemma 2.1 B can be taken as the space X and {↓ b | b ∈ B}
is the collection of all point-closures. Now we consider △b and put △cb = {J c | J ∈ △b },
where we use J c to denote the complement of J, whence J c is an open set in X.
Since J ∈ △b is equivalent to b ∈ J c , △cb is the open neighborhood base of b and Jbc is the
least of all J c ’s of △cb . Furthermore, D2 signifies that for any J c ∈ △cb there exist b′ such
that Jbc′ ⊆ J c and Jbc′ ∈ △cb . That is just the most important one of neighborhood axioms,
i.e., for any neighborhood N of a point x there exists neighborhood U of x with U ⊆ N such
that N is a neighborhood of each y ∈ U . Here Jb is an important tool to study decomposition
as is done by neighborhoods in studying topological local properties.
11

Remark 3.2 From Example 3.4 we know that if J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]v[p] (J) uniquely for each
J ∈ M ∗ , then M ∗ is OM -isomorphic to Πe N[p] . The converse is true. Let 1[p] ∈ Πe N[p]
∗ (1 ) = 1 for [q] = [p] and r ∗ (1 ) = 0 for [q] 6= [p]. Evidently 1
such that r[q]
[p]
[p] is both
[q] [p]
e
∗
∗
∗
prime and an atom. For any a ∈ Π N[p] , we have i[p] ◦ r[p] (a) = r[p] (a) · 1[p] . By lemma 3.9
∗ (a) = ∨r ∗ (a) · 1 . Let f be the OM -isomorphism and J ∈ M ∗ then J = f (a)
a = ∨i∗[p] ◦ r[p]
[p]
[p]
∗ (a)
r[p]

for unique a ∈ Πe N[p] and we have J = f (a) = ∨f (1[p])

. Uniqueness is clear.

References
[1] N. Bourbaki, Commutative algebra(Chapters 1-7), Elements of Math., Spring-Verlag,
Berlin, 1989.
[2] N. Bourbaki, Algèbra(Chapitre VI),Elèments de Math. Hermann, Paris, 1952.
[3] Z. Deng, Quasi-atoms and complete distributivity, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 103(1988),
365-370.
[4] Z. Deng, Topological representation for generalized-algebraic lattices, in: W. Holland(ed.), ordered algebraic structures, Algebra, Logic and Applications series, vol. 16,
gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, 2001, pp. 45-55.
[5] D. Novak, Generalization of continuous posets, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 272(1982),
645-667.
[6] J. Martinez, Unique factorization in partially ordered sets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
33(1972), 213-220.
College of Mathematics and Econometrics,
Hunan University, Changsha 410082, Hunan, China.

12

arXiv:1210.1284v1 [math.AC] 4 Oct 2012

Factorization from a poset-theoretic view II

∗†

Zike Deng

Abstract: We give several necessary and sufficient conditions for an element of a monoid to
be decomposed (uniquely) into a product of powers of prime factors in terms of the properties
of B-ideals (as well as the properties of powers of prime factors themselves). As monoids are
included a domain and the collection of integral divisors of a domain.

1

introduction

This paper, as the second part of the treatise, continues the study of [1] and is concerned
with finite decomposition. In §2 several necessary and sufficient conditions for finite decomposition and its uniqueness are obtained (Theorem 2.1, Proposition 2.13). Internal and
external direct products are introduced. §3 gives several characterizations of a Krull domain
(Theorem 3.1). The mutual relations among principal ideal domains, unique factorization
domains, Dedekind domains and Krull domains are established (Theorem 3.2, Corollary 3.1).
Besides, the relation of internal direct products to subposets of the second kind as well as
order representation and algebraic or topological interpretation relating to poset-theoretic
constructions are obtained in §2 and §3 separately (Remarks 2.1, 3.2, 3.3).

2

Finite decomposition

We continue the study of ([1], §2). G∗ , B are defined as before and we use a, b to denote
elements of G∗ for brevity. For other notations the reader is referred to [1].
In this section and the next we will cite some results in multiplication notation on lattice
group from [3] in case of ordered group (in this section) or lattice monoid (in the next).
Hence those results must be weakened and will be marked with an asterisk. They need either
the weak form of distributive law of · with respect to ∧ (by a · (b ∧ c) = (a · b) ∧ (a · c) we
mean that if either side exists, so does the other and both are equal. Denote it by Dist) or
the fact that 6 is defined by · (i.e., a 6 b is equivalent to b = a · c for some c. Denote it by
Def i). Both Dist and Def i can be implied by the fact that 6 is generated by the integral
part (that part P of a group G such that G = P · P −1 ).
Now we take some which will be used as examples. In the following X will be an ordered
monoid containing the least element 1.
Example 2.1 ([3], §1, n◦ 12, Proposition 11)∗ Assume that Dist holds in X.
∗
†

Mathematics Subject Classifications(2000): Primary 06A11 Secondary 13A15.
Keywords and phases: B-ideals, divisorial ideals, a Galois connection.

1

(1) If x ∧ y = 1, then x ∧ z = x ∧ (y · z) for any x, y, z ∈ X (i.e., if either side exists, so
does the other and both are equal).
(2) (id. Corollary 1)∗ If x ∧ y = 1, and x 6 y · z, then x 6 z.
(3) (id. Corollary 3)∗ If xi ∧ yj = 1 for i = 1, 2, · · · , n and j = 1, 2, · · · , m, then (πxi ) ∧
(πyj ) = 1.
Proof. (1) Suppose x ∧ y = 1, then by Dist we have z = z · (x ∧ y) = (z · x) ∧ (z · y). If x ∧ z
exists, then x ∧ z is a lower bound of {x, y · z} because 1 6 y, z 6 z implies z 6 y · z. Assume
that w 6 x, w 6 y · z. Then we have w 6 x · z from what has just been proved and hence
w 6 z, whence w 6 x ∧ z. Thus x ∧ z = x ∧ (y · z). Similarly for case of x ∧ (y · z) existing.
(2) We have x ∧ (y · z) = x and by (1) x ∧ z = x, whence x 6 z.
(3) First we claim that x ∧ y = 1, x ∧ z = 1 imply x ∧ (y · z) = 1. In fact, by (1), we have
x ∧ z = x ∧ (y · z), whence x ∧ (y · z) = 1. Then by induction on m. 
Example 2.2 ([3], §1, n◦ 12, Proposition 12)∗ Assume that Dist holds in X.
(1) If x ∧ y = 1 and x ∨ y exists, then x ∨ y = x · y.
(2) If Def i holds in X and x ∧ y = 1, then x ∨ y exists and is equal to x · y.
Proof. (1) By Dist we have x∨y = (x∨y)·(x∧y) = [(x∨y)·x]∧[(x∨y)·y] > (y·x)∧(x·y) = x·y.
Besides, x ∨ y 6 x · y as was done in Example 2.1 (1). Hence x ∨ y = x · y.
(2) x·y is an upper bound of x, y as we did in Example 2.1 (1). Assume that x 6 w, y 6 w.
Then w = x · z for some z by Def i. Since y 6 w and x ∧ y = 1, we have y 6 z by Example
2.1 (2). Thus x · y 6 x · z = w and hence x ∨ y = x · y. 
Example 2.3 ([3], §1, n◦ 13, Proposition 14)∗ (1) If Dist holds and X is a ∧-semilattice,
then each atom is prime.
(2) If cancellation law (i.e., xz = yz implies x = y) and Def i holds, then each prime
element is an atom.
(3) If cancellation law holds and x < y, then xz < yz.
Proof. (1) Suppose x is an atom and x 6 y · z. If x y, then x ∧ y = 1 because x ∧ y exists.
By Example 2.(1) we have x ∧ z = x ∧ (y · z). Since x ∧ (y · z) exists and is equal to x, x ∧ z
also exists and is equal to x, whence x 6 z. It follows that x is prime.
(2) Assume that x is prime and y 6 x. Then by Def i we have x = y · z for some z and
hence x 6 y or x 6 z, whence in the former case x = y and in the latter case z = x because
z 6 x as we did in Example 2.1(1), and so x = y · x, which implies y = 1 by cancellation law.
Thus x is an atom.
(3) Assume that x < y. Then we have xz 6 yz. If xz = yz, by cancellation law x = y, a
contradiction. Hence xz < yz. 
Now we turn to the properties of B. G∗ is the integral part of ordered group K ∗ /U
and 6 is generated by G∗ so that Def i, Dist and cancellation law in Examples 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
all hold. By Example 2.3 (2), [p] ∈ B with p ∈ P is an atom. A finite set of B as such
{[qi ]ni | [qi ] 6= [qj ] for i 6= j and i = 1, 2, · · · , m} is called a condensed set. Any finite set A of
B can be reduced to a condensed set A∗ such that A∗ ⊆ A by combining powers of the same
base (taking maximum of the indexes). It is trivial that if ∨A∗ exists, then ∨A exists and is
equal to ∨A∗ .
2

Lemma 2.1 B satisfies the conditions. (1) ↓ b ∩ B is finite set for any b ∈ B. (Denote it
B3 ).
Q
(2) ∨A exists for any finite set of B and if A is condensed, then ∨A = A.
(3) a 6 ∨A implies a 6 b for some b ∈ A, for any a ∈ B, a finite set A with ∨A existing
and A ⊆ B. (Denote it B4 ).
Proof. (1) Let b = [p]n . Since q ∈ B is both prime and an atom, [q]m 6 [p]n imolies q = p
and m 6 n, whence ↓ b ∩ B is a finite set.
(2) Assume first that A = {[qi ]ni | [qi ] 6= [qj ] for i 6= j and i = 1, 2, · · ·Q
, m} is a condensed
n
n
n
i
j
i
set. By Example 2.1(3) we have [qi ] ∧ [qj ] = [1], whence ∨[qi ] = [qi ]ni by Example
2.2(2) and by induction on m noting Example 2.1(3). Next suppose A is any finite set of
B. Then
there is a condensed set A∗ such that A∗ ⊆ A. We have already proved that
Q
∗
∨A∗ = A, and hence ∨A exists and is equal
Q to ∨A .
(3)
A. Since [p] ∈ B is both prime and an atom,
Q If A is condensed, by (2) ∨A =
a 6 A implies a 6 b for some b ∈ A. Now suppose A is a finite set of B. Then ∨A = ∨A∗
for some condensed set A∗ and so a 6 b for some b ∈ A∗ , a fortiori, b ∈ A because A∗ ⊆ A.

Now we start to study finite decomposition. For any C ⊆ G∗ we use C (f ) to denote the
collection {A | A is a finite subset of C such that ∨A exists }.
Definition 2.1 (1) By the condition F1 we mean that for each a ∈ G∗ there exists A ∈ (↓
a ∩ B)(f ) such that a = ∨A.
(2) By the condition F2 we mean that for any a, b ∈ G∗ , ↓ b ∩ B ∈ 2(B) , a 6 ∨ ↓ b ∩ B
implies a 6 ∨A for some A ∈ (↓ b ∩ B)(f ) .
(3) By DCC we mean that for any descending chain a1 > a2 > · · · > an > · · · in G∗
there exists m such that ai = am for i > m + 1.
Proposition 2.1 (1) F1 is equivalent to F2 and D1 .
(2) Under B3 F1 is equivalent to DCC and ir(G∗ ) ⊆ B, where ir(G∗ ) is the set {a | a ∈ G∗
such that a = ∨A with A ∈ G∗(f ) implies a = b for some b ∈ A}.
Proof. (1) (F2 and D1 imply F1 ) By D1 we have a = ∨ ↓ a ∩ B. By F2 a 6 ∨A for some
A ∈ (↓ a ∩ B)(f ) but ∨A 6 ∨ ↓ a ∩ B = a, whence a = ∨A.
(F1 implies F2 and D1 ) We have a = ∨A for some A ∈ (↓ a ∩ B)(f ) by F1 . Since
A ⊆↓ a ∩ B, ∨ ↓ a ∩ B exists and is equal to a, whence D1 holds. Furthermore, let a 6 ∨ ↓
b ∩ B ∈ 2(B) , then ∨ ↓ b ∩ B = b = ∨A for some A ∈ (↓ b ∩ B)(f ) and hence a 6 ∨A. Thus
F2 holds.
(2) (F1 together with B3 implies DCC and irr(G∗ ) ⊆ B) Assume that a1 > a2 >
· · · > an > · · · is a strictly descending chain in G∗ . By F1 we have an = ∨An for some
An ∈ (↓ an ∩ B)(f ) . Let a1 = b1 ∨ b2 ∨ · · · ∨ bm with {bi | i = 1, 2, · · · , m} = A1 ∈ (↓ a1 ∩ B)(f ) .
Since an < a1 for n > 1, by [1,Proposition 2.5(3) and Example 2.1(2)] for any b ∈ An with
n > 1 there exists j such that b 6 bj and hence b ∈↓ bj ∩ B ⊆ ∪{↓ bi ∩ B | i = 1, 2, · · · , m},
which is a finite set by B3 . Thus An ⊆ ∪ ↓ bi ∩ B for each n. Furthermore we have
An 6= Am for n 6= m so that this chain must terminate at some n. On the other hand,
suppose a ∈ ir(G∗ ), then by F1 we have a = ∨A for some A ∈ (↓ a ∩ B)(f ) and so a = b for
some b ∈ A, whence a ∈ B. Thus ir(G∗ ) ⊆ B.
3

(DCC and irr(G∗ ) ⊆ B imply F1 ) Put X = {a ∈ G∗ | a can not be decomposed into a
finite join of elements ∈ ir(G∗ )}. If X 6= ∅, then there exists minimal m ∈ X. Evidently
m∈
/ ir(G∗ ) and hence m = ∨ai for some {ai | i = 1, 2, · · · , n} ∈ G∗(f ) with ai < m. We have
ai ∈
/ X, whence ai = ∨bij for some {bij | j = 1, 2, · · · , ni } ∈ (ir(G∗ ))(f ) . Thus ∨i,j bij exists
and is equal to m, a contradiction. It follows that X = ∅ and hence each a ∈ G∗ can be
decomposed into a finite join of elements of ir(G∗ ), which together with ir(G∗ ) ⊆ B implies
that F1 holds. 
Example 2.4 Let R be a Noetherian ring and Id(R) the collection of ideals of R, ordered
by inverse inclusion. As is well known, DCC holds in Id(R) and any ∨-irreducible ideal
is primary. Hence each ideal can be decomposed into a finite join of primary ideals by
Proposition 2.1(2).
Definition 2.2 By the condition F3 we mean that for any a ∈ G∗ , {Jt | t ∈ T } ⊆ M ,
↓ a ⊆ ∨Jt implies ↓ a ⊆ ∨Jti for some {ti | i = 1, 2, · · · , n} ⊆ T .
Proposition 2.2 D1 and F3 are equivalent to F1 .
Proof. (D1 and F3 imply F1 ) Assume that a ∈ G∗ . By ([1], Theorem 2.1) D1 implies D4
and hence ↓ a = ∨b∈↓x∩B ↓ b, whence ↓ a 6 ∨ ↓ bi , where {bi | i = 1, 2, · · · , n} ⊆↓ a ∩ B, by
F3 . Since ∨ ↓ bi 6 ∨ ↓ b =↓ a, ↓ a = ∨ ↓ bi , whence by ([1], Example 2.1(2)) we have a = ∨bi
and hence F1 holds.
(F1 implies D1 and F3 ) For any a ∈ G∗ we hace a = ∨bi for some {bi | i = 1, 2, · · · , n} ∈
(↓ a ∩ B)(f ) by F1 , whence ∨ ↓ a ∩ B exists and is equal to a. Thus D1 holds. Furthermore,
assume that ↓ a ⊆ ∨Jt for {Jt | t ∈ T } ⊆ M . From above we know that a = ∨bi and by
([1], Example 2.8 (2)) ↓ a = ∨ ↓ bi . Thus we have ↓ bi ⊆ ∨Jt and by ([1], Theorem 2.1 and
Proposition 2.5(3)) ↓ bi ⊆ Jti for some ti , whence ↓ bi ⊆ ∨{Jtj | j = 1, 2, · · · , n} for each i.
Hence ↓ a ⊆ ∨{Jtj | j = 1, 2, · · · , n} and so F3 holds. 
Proposition 2.3 If F3 holds, then for all a ∈ G∗ , J ∈ ∆a there exists K ∈ ∆a such that
J ⊆ K and K is maximal in ∆a .
Proof. Let J ∈ ∆a and put ∆ = {J ′ | J ′ ∈ ∆a and J ⊆ J ′ }. then ∆ 6= ∅ because J ∈ ∆.
Suppose {Jt′ | t ∈ T } ⊆ ∆ is a chain. We claim that ∨Jt′ ∈ ∆. In fact, J ⊆ ∨Jt′ is trivial. If
a ∈ ∨Jt′ , then ↓ a ⊆ ∨Jt′ and by F3 ↓ a ⊆ ∨Jt′i = max {Jt′i } for some {ti | i = 1, 2, · · · , n} ⊆ T ,
whence a ∈ max {Jt′i } ∈ ∆a , a contradiction. Hence ∨Jt′ ∈ ∆a . It follows that ∨Jt′ ∈ ∆. By
Zorn’s LemmaP
there exists a maximal K ∈ ∆ and K is clearly maximal in ∆a . 
′
Denote by 2 the collection
/J
P of all such K s. From above we know that for each a, J, a ∈
implies J ⊆ K for some K ∈ 2 and denote such a K by KJ,a .
Proposition 2.4 If F3 holds, then J = ∩a∈J
/ KJ,a for each J ∈ M and
of all completely ∧-irreducible B-ideals.

P

2

= the collection

Proof. Given J ∈ M and by Proposition 2.3 for each a ∈
/ J there exists KJ,a such that
J ⊆ KJ,a . We claim that J = ∩a∈J
K
.
In
fact,
J
is
a
lower
bound of {KJ,a | a ∈
/ J}.
J,a
/
′
′
′
Suppose J ⊆ KJ,a for all a ∈
/ J. If J * J, there would exist b ∈ J \ J and so b ∈ J ′ ⊆
′
∩a∈J
/ KJ,a ⊆ KJ,b , a contradiction. Thus J ⊆ J, whence J = ∩a∈J
/ KJ,a .
4

On the other hand, suppose {Jt | t ∈ T } ⊆ M and KJ,a = ∩Jt . Since a ∈
/ KJ,a , we
have a ∈
/ Jt0 for some t0 ∈ T and hence Jt0 ∈ ∆a , whence KJt0 ,a ⊇ Jt0 . But KJ,a ⊆ Jt0 so
that KJ,a ⊆ KJt0 ,a . By maximality of KJ,a in ∆a we have KJ,a = KJt0 ,a , whence Jt0 = KJ,a .
Thus KJ,a is completely ∧-irreducible. Conversely let J be completely ∧-irreducible.
we have
P
J = ∩a∈J
K
and
hence
J
=
K
for
some
a
∈
/
J.
It
follows
that
J
∈
.

J,a
j,a
/
2
P
P
Proposition 2.5 Under F3 , D1 is equivalent to 2 ⊆ 1 .
P
P
P
Proof. (D1 implies 2 ⊆ 1 ) Assume that D1 holds and K ∈ 2 . Then K ∈ ∆a for
some a ∈ G∗ and so there exits Jb with b ∈ B such that K ⊆ Jb ∈ ∆a by D2 because D1 is
equivalent
to
P
PD2 by ([1], Theorem 2.1). Thus K = Jb by maximality of K in ∆a . It follows
that P 2 ⊆ P 1 .
( 2 ⊆ 1 implies D1 ) P
Suppose
/ J. by Proposition 2.3 we have J ⊆ K ∈ ∆a for K
Pa∈
maximal in ∆a . Since K ∈ 2 ⊆ 1 , K = Jb for some b ∈ B and hence J ⊆ Jb ∈ ∆a , which
implies J ∈ ∆b . Thus D2 holds, and so D1 also holds because D1 is equivalent to D2 by ([1].
Theorem 2.1). 
Definition 2.3 (1) a, b ∈ G∗ with a 6= b are said to be incomparable if neither a < b nor
b < a.
(2) A ⊆ G∗(f ) is said to be pairwise incomparable if for all distinct a, b ∈ A, a, b are
incomparable.
Lemma 2.2 Let a = ∨A with A ∈ G∗(f ) . Then there exists a pairwise incomparable C ⊆ A
such that ∨A = ∨C.
Proof. The verification will be easily completed. 
P
P
Proposition 2.6 Assume that F3 holds and 2 ⊆ 1 . Then every a ∈ G∗ can be decomposed into a finite join of pairwise incomparable elements of B.
Proof. Given a ∈ G∗ . By Proposition 2.5 D1 holds and by D1 we have ↓ a = ∨b∈B∩↓a ↓ b,
whence ↓ a 6 ∨ ↓ bi for some {bi | i = 1, 2, · · · , n} ⊆ B∩ ↓ a by F3 . Since ∨ ↓ bi 6 ∨ ↓ b =↓ a,
↓ a = ∨ ↓ bi . Besides, ↓ bi 6↓ a and so bi 6 a, which implies a ∈
/ Jbi . We claim that for
any Jb with b ∈ B, a ∈
/ Jb implies bi ∈
/ Jb for some i. In fact, if bi ∈ Jb for each i, then
a ∈ ∨ ↓ bi ⊆ Jb , a contradiction.
We will use the following fact, which is easily verified. For any P
a, b ∈ B,
P a 6 b is equivalent
to ∆a ⊆ ∆b , which in turn is equivalent to Ja ⊆ Jb . Now since 2 ⊆ 1 ,for each KJ,a we
have KJ,a = Jb for some b ∈ B, whence a ∈
/ Jb . Then bi ∈
/ Jb for some i and hence b 6 bi ,
which is equivalent to Jb ⊆ Jbi . Thus KJ,a ⊆ Jbi and by maximality of KJ,a in ∆a we have
KJ,a = Jbi .
Put L = {bi | Jbi = KJ,a for some KJ,a ∈ ∆a }. Evidently L ⊆ {bi | i = 1, 2, · · · , n}. Now
we show that a = ∨bi ∈L bi . a is clearly an upper bound of L. Suppose bi 6 c for each bi ∈ L,
then ∆bi ⊆ ∆c . We claim that KJ,a ∈ ∆c for any KJ,a ∈ ∆a . In fact, since KJ,a = Jbi for
some bi ∈ L, we have KJ,a ∈ ∆bi and hence KJ,a ∈ ∆c . Consequently ∆a ⊆ ∆c because for
any J ∈ ∆a we have J ⊆ KJ,a and KJ,a ∈ ∆c , a fortiori, J ∈ ∆c , whence a 6 c. It follows
that a = ∨bi ∈L bi .
On the other hand, if bi , bj ∈ L with bi 6= bj , then Jbi = KJ,a , Jbj = KJ ′ ,a are maximal in
∆a . Hence they are incomparable, so are bi , bj . 
5

Definition 2.4 By uniqueness of finite decomposition we mean that ∨A = ∨C implies that
A = C for all pairwise incomparable A, C ∈ B (f ) .
Proposition 2.7 Uniqueness of finite decomposition is equivalent to B4 .
Proof. (Uniqueness of finite decomposition implies B4 ) Assume that a 6 ∨A for a ∈ B,
A ∈ B (f ) . Then by Lemma 2.2 there exists a pairwise incomparable A∗ ⊆ A such that
∨A∗ = ∨A. Suppose that a b for every b ∈ A∗ . If a, b are incomparable for each b ∈ A∗ ,
then {a} ∪ A∗ is pairwise incomparable and ∨({a} ∪ A∗ ) = ∨A∗ and hence by uniqueness
of finite decomposition {a} ∪ A∗ = A∗ , whence a ∈ A∗ , a contradiction. If a > b for some
b ∈ A∗ , then delete all those b′ s and denote by C the set of remaining elements of A∗ so that
{a}∪ C is pairwise incomparable. We have ∨({a}∪ C) = ∨A∗ and hence {a}∪ C = A∗ , which
implies a ∈ A∗ , another contradiction. Therefore a 6 b for some b ∈ A∗ ⊆ A. It follows that
B4 holds.
(B4 implies uniqueness of finite decomposition) Suppose ∨A = ∨C for pairwise incomparable A, C ∈ B (f ) . Let a ∈ A, then a 6 ∨C and hence a 6 b for some b ∈ C. For this b in
turn there is c ∈ A such that b 6 c, whence a 6 c. By incomparability of a, c we have a = c.
Hence a = b ∈ C. The converse inclusion can be proved similarly. 
Lemma 2.3 If F1 holds, then G∗ is a lattice.
Proof. Let {ai | i = 1, 2, · · · , n} ⊆ G∗ and we claim that ∨ai exists. In fact, for each ai we
have ai = ∨Ai for some Ai ∈ (↓ ai ∩ B)(f ) by F1 and ∨(∪Ai ) exists by Lemma 2.1(2) so that
∨ai exists and is equal to ∨(∪Ai ). We know that ∧ai also exists from the proof of ([3], §1,
n◦ 9, Proposition 8) in notation of multiplication and noting that K ∗ /U is an ordered group.

Theorem 2.1 The following conditions except (4) are equivalent.
(1) Each a ∈ G∗ can be decomposed uniquely into the product of powers of atoms in G∗ .
(2) F1 holds.
(3) F2 and one of Di , i = 1, 2, 3, 4 hold.
(4) DCC and ir(G∗ ) ⊆ B imply F1 , and F1 together with B3 implies DCC and ir(G∗ ) ⊆
B.
(5) F3 and one ofP
Di , i P
= 1, 2, 3, 4 hold.
(6) F3 holds and 2 ⊆ 1 .
(7) R is a unique factorization domain.
Proof. (1) implies (2). This follows from Lemma 2.1 (2).
(2) is equivalent to (3). This follows from Proposition 2.1 (1) and ([1], Theorem 2.1).
(4) follows from the proof of the Proposition 2.1 (2).
(2) is equivalent to (5). This follows from Proposition 2.2 and ([1], Theorem 2.1).
(5) is equivalent to (6). This follows from Proposition 2.5 and ([1], Theorem 2.1).
(6) implies (1). This follows from Propositions 2.6, 2.7 and Lemmas 2.1(2)(3), 2.3.
(7) is equivalent to (1). This is trivial, noting that a unit is the product of empty family
of powers of atoms. 

6

Proposition 2.8 If F1 holds, then G∗ is a distributive lattice and B = the set of all strongly
∨-irreducible elements of G∗ .
Proof. By Lemma 2.3, G∗ is a lattice. Since a ∧ (b ∨ c) > (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) is trivial, we need
only to show that a ∧ (b ∨ c) 6 (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c). For each d ∈ B∩ ↓ (a ∧ (b ∨ c)) we have
d 6 a, and d 6 b ∨ c, whence by Lemma 2.1 (3) d 6 b or d 6 c. Thus d 6 a ∧ b or d 6 a ∧ c,
so that d 6 a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c). Since F1 holds, a fortiori, D1 also holds, a ∧ (b ∨ c) = ∨B∩ ↓
(a ∧ (b ∨ c)) 6 (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c).
On the other hand, suppose b 6 a ∨ c for any b ∈ B, a, c ∈ G∗ . By F1 a = ∨A with
A ∈ (↓ a ∩ B)(f ) and c = ∨C with C ∈ (↓ c ∩ B)(f ) and from the proof of Lemma 2.3 we
know that a ∨ c = ∨(A ∪ C). By Lemma 2.1 (3), b 6 d for some d ∈ A ∪ C, whence b 6 a
or b 6 c. Thus b is strongly ∨-irreducible. Furthermore, let a be strongly ∨-irreducible. By
F1 we have a = ∨A for some A ∈ (↓ a ∩ B)(f ) , whence a 6 b foe some b ∈ A. Since b 6 a is
clear, a = b ∈ B. 
Proposition 2.9 If F1 holds, then M is the collection of all lattice ideals of G∗ .
∗

Proof. Suppose J is a lattice ideal and 2(G ) ∋↓ a ∩ B ⊆ J. By F1 a = ∨ ↓ a ∩ B = ∨A,
where A ∈ (↓ a ∩ B)(f ) because, a fortiori, D1 also holds. Since A ⊆↓ a ∩ B ⊆ J, a = ∨A =
∨ ↓ a ∩ B ∈ J, whence J ∈ M . Conversely assume that J ∈ M and {a1 , a2 } ⊆ J, by F1 we
have a1 = ∨A1 with A1 ∈ (↓ a1 ∩ B)(f ) and a2 = ∨A2 with A2 ∈ (↓ a2 ∩ B)(f ) .From the proof
of Lemma 2.3 we know that a1 ∨ a2 = ∨(A1 ∪ A2 ) = ∨ ↓ (a1 ∨ a2 ) ∩ B. Since A1 ∪ A2 ⊆ J
because J is a lower set, we have a1 ∨ a2 ∈ J. Hence J is a lattice ideal. 
Now we turn to the continuing study of ([1], §3) Assume that F1 holds, then by Theorem
2.1 (1) and Lemma 2.1 (3) for any a ∈ G∗ we have a = ∨[p]∈[P ][p]v[ p](a) uniquely with all
v[p] (a) = 0 except for a finite number of them, where v[ p](a) = n with [p]n ∈ A, the pairwise
incomparable subset of B (f ) corresponding to a and v[ p](a) = 0 if [p] is not a base of any
power of A, if we use join instead of product.
Q
Definition 2.5 (1) The subposet of the internal product i Pt of {Pt | t ∈ T } such that for
each ∨at with at ∈ Pt , all at are the common least element 1 except
Qidfor a finite number of
Pt .
them is called internal direct product of {Pt Q
| t ∈ T }. Denote it by
(2) The subposet of the external product e Pt of {Pt | t ∈ T } such that for each (at ) with
at ∈ Pt , all at are the least elements 1′t s except
Qedfor a finite number of them is called external
Pt .
direct product of {Pt | t ∈ T }. Denote it by
Note that it (at ) ∈

Qid

Pt and i∗t (at ) ∈

Qed

Pt for any at ∈ Pt .

Q
Proposition 2.10 Assume that F1 holds. Then G∗ = id Q[p] , where Q[p] = {[p]n | n =
Qed
Qid
Q[p] .
Q[p] is order-isomorphic to
0, 1, 2, · · · }, and
Q
Q
proof. G∗ ⊆ id Q[p] by what has just been said above and id Q[p] ⊆ G∗ by Lemma 2.1
(2). The proof of the last phrase is similar to that of ([1], Proposition 3.3). As for Q[p] being
a subposet of the first kind, refer to ([1], Example 3.2 (1)). 

7

Q
Since each Q[p] is an submonoid of G∗ , we can endow id Q[p] with multiplication defined
Q
Q
by a · b = ∨i[p] (r[p] (a) · r[p] (b)) for any a, b ∈ id Q[p] and it is trivial that id Q[p] is an
ordered monoid. Then G∗ as a monoid is the internal direct product of monoids Q′[p]s. The
Q
same is also true for ed Q[p] if we endow it with componentwise multiplication. Thus it is
Q
Q
easily verified that id Q[p] is OM -isomorphic to ed Q[p] . Furthermore, N = {0, 1, 2, · · · }
regarded as a monoid of addition is a totally ordered monoid Q
if it is ordered by the order
defined by addition. Put N[p] = N for each [p] ∈ [P ] and then ed N[p] becomes an ordered
monoid.
Proposition 2.11 If F1 holds, then
(1) G∗ is a lattice.
Q
(2) G∗ is OM -isomorphic to ed N[p]
Proof. (1) This is another proof of a part of Lemma 2.3. We still denote the Galois
connection between G∗ and Q[p] by (r[p] , i[p] ). Each Q[p] is a totally ordered set and so is
a lattice. Besides, we have a = ∨i[p] ◦ r[p] (a). As is easily verified, for a, b ∈ G∗ we have
a ∨ b = ∨i[p] (r[p] (a) ∨ r[p] (b)) and a ∧ b = ∨i[p] (r[p] (a) ∧ r[p] (b)), see ([1], lemma 3.8).
(2) Because Q[p] = {[p]n | n = 0, 1, 2, · · · } isOM -isomorphic to N[p] = {0, 1, 2, · · · },
Q
Q
we have that id Q[p] is OM -isomorphic to ed Q[p] , which in turn is OM -isomorphic to
Qed
N[p] . 
Now we turn to finite decomposition and its uniqueness under F1 in M ∗ . Recall that D +
is OM -isomorphic to M ∗∗ . As before, suppose Bp◦ = {↓ [p]n | n = 0, 1, 2, · · · } and (g, d) the
fundamental Galois connection between I ∼ and M . Put v[p] (J) = sup{n |↓ [p]n ⊆ J} for any
J ∈ M ∗.
Lemma 2.4 Under F1 , v[p] (J) exists for any J ∈ M ∗ and all v[p] (J) are zero except for a
finite number of them. In this case we have J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]v[p] (J) .
Proof. Assume that J ∈ M ∗ . By ([1], Lemma 3.9 (1), (2)) J ⊆ J ′ ⊆↓ [x] for some
J ′ ∈ M ∗∗ , [x] ∈ G∗ and hence J ⊆↓ [x]. Let ↓ [p]n ⊆ J. Then [p]n ∈ J, whence [p]n 6 [x].
Thus we have v[p] ([x]) as an upper bound of {n |↓ [p]n ⊆ J} owing to the fact that v[p] ([x]) is
the greatest of n such that [p]n 6 [x]. Thus sup{n |↓ [p]n ⊆ J} exists. And what is more, all
v[p] ([x]) are zero except for a finite number of them, so are v[p] (J) because v[p] (J) 6 v[p] ([x])
for all [p] ∈ [P ]. 
Lemma 2.5 Assume that F1 holds. Then J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]v[p] (J) with all v[p] (J) = 0 except
for a finite number of them is unique for any J ∈ M ∗ .
Proof. Let [p] ∈ [P ]. By ([1], Lemma 3.6) ↓ [p] is both a prime element and an atom of
M ∗∗ . From ([1], lemma 3.5) we know that distributive law of · with respect to ∧ holds.
Thus by Example 2.1 (3) ↓ [p]n ∧ ↓ [q]m =↓ [1] in M ∗∗ for [p] 6= [q] with [p], [q] ∈ [P ]. But
↓ [p]n ∧ ↓ [q]m =↓ [1] also holds in M ∗ because by ([1], Remark 3.1). i in Galois connection
(i, g◦d) between M ∗∗ and M ∗ is ∧-preserving. On the other hand, ↓ [p]n is strongly completely
∨-irreducible by ([1], Proposition 2.5 (3)), a fortiori, strongly ∨-irreducible. Thus follows
uniqueness of J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]v[p] (J) . 
8

Proposition 2.12 Assume that F1 holds, then each J ∈ M ∗∗ is a principal B-ideal.
Proof. Let J ∈ M ∗∗ . We have J = ∨[p]∈[P ] ↓ [p]vp (J) with all v[p] (J) = 0 except for a
finite number of them. hence J = ∨ ↓ [pi ]v[pi ] (J) with v[pi ] (J) 6= 0 for i = 1, 2, · · · , n. But
Q
Q
↓ [pi ]vpi (J) =↓ [pi ]vpi (J) ,
J, ↓ [pi ]vpi (J) ∈ M ∗∗ and by Example 2.2 (1) ∨ ↓ [pi ]vpi (J) =
which is a principal B-ideal. Thus J is a principal B-ideal. 
Proposition 2.13 (Supplement to Theorem 2.1) The following conditions are equivalent.
(1) F1 holds.
(2) each J ∈ M ∗ can be decomposed
Qed into a finite join of ↓ b with b ∈ B.
∗
N[p].
(3) G is OM -isomorphic to
Proof. (1) is equivalent to (2). That (1) implies (2) follows from Lemma 2.5. Conversely
by hypothesis for any a ∈ G∗ we have↓ a = ∨ ↓ bi for some Ba = {bi | i = 1, 2, · · · , n} ⊆ B.
Evidently Ba ∈ (↓ a ∩ B)(f ) . Since M ∗∗∗ = {↓ a | a ∈ G∗ } is order-isomorphic to G∗ by ([1],
Example 2.1 (2)), we have a = ∨bi , whence F1 holds.
(1) is equivalent to (3). We know that (1) implies (3)Qfrom Proposition 2.11 (2). Coned
∗ , i∗ ) between
N[p] and N[p] ([1], Definition
versely, recall the Galois connection (r[p]
[p]
Qed
N[p] such that r[q] (b[p] ) = 1 for [q] = [p] and r[q] (b[p] ) = 0 for [q] 6= [p] is
3.5).b[p] ∈
Q
Q
clearly a prime element of ed N[p] for any [p] ∈ [P ]. For each a ∈ ed N[p] , we have
∗ (a) ([1], Lemma 3.9). But i∗ ◦ r ∗ (a) = r ∗ (a)b , whence a = ∨r ∗ (a)b . By
a = ∨i∗[p] ◦ r[p]
[p]
[p]
[p]
[p]
[p]
[p]
Qed
N[p] into multiplication of G∗ , (1)
the OM -isomorphism which transforms addition of
follows. 
Remark 2.1 Proposition 2.13 (3) can be consideredQas order Q
representation theorem of
id ◦
◦ .
B[p] endowed with the
G∗ under F1 . By ([1], Example 3.3) we have M ∗ = id B[p]
Q
multiplication defined by a · b = ∨i[p](r[p] (a) · r[p] (b)) for any a, b ∈ id Q◦[p] , becomes an
Q
◦ , which
ordered monoid, so does M ∗ . Thus M ∗ as a monoid is monoid-isomorphic to id B[p]
◦ ’s in algebraic sense. If we adopt the notation
is the internal direct product of monoids B[p]
of join, then J = (↓ [p1 ])v[p1 ] (J) ∨ · · · ∨ (↓ [pn ])v[pn ] (J) , which means that in the T0 -topological
space X = {[p]n | [p] ∈ [P ]} (see [1], Proposition 2.8) each closed set J which is neither empty
nor the space itself can be written uniquely as a join of a finite number of point-closures in
case of M .
Remark 2.2 In view of Proposition 2.8, 2.9 the main result of [8]([8], Theorem 2.17) is a
special case of equivalence of (6) to (2) in Theorem 2.1, and ([7], Theorem 6.5) is a special
case of equivalence of F2 and D4 of (3) to (2) in Theorem 2.1.

3

Krull domains

We use D, D(I ∗ ) to denote the collection of all divisors, the collection of all divisorial ideals
associated with I ∗ respectively.
Definition 3.1 By the condition D6 we mean that each J ∈ M ∗∗ can be decomposed into a
join of a finite number of powers of atoms.
9

Lemma 3.1 R is a Krull domain if and only if D6 holds.
Proof. From ([2], Chapter VII, §1, n◦ 3, Theorem ) and its proof we know that R is a Krull
domain if and only if each element of D + can be decomposed into a product of a finite number
of powers of atoms. From ([2], Chapter VII, §1, n◦ 1, n◦ 2) we know that D + is a lattice monoid
and distributive law of · with respect to ∧ holds. Hence by Example 2.1 (3), Example 2.2
(1), a product can be reduced to a join and conversely, since D + is OM -isomorphic to M ∗∗ ,
we can identify D + with M ∗∗ , i.e., we regard g(a− ) as div(a− ) for each a− ∈ D(I ∗ ). Thus
D6 holds. 
Now we study decomposition problem in M ∗∗ , as lattice monoid, and put At = the set
of all atoms of M ∗∗ .
From above mentioned we know that in M ∗∗ , as a lattice monoid, distributive law of
· with respect to ∧ holds. By Example 2.3 (1) e ∈ At is a prime element of M ∗∗ . hence
E = {en | n = 1, 2, · · · and e ∈ At } has the same properties as B in Lemma 2.1.
If D6 holds,
Qed
∗∗
Ee , where
then as we did in Proposition 2.11 we can show that M is OM -isomorphic to
Ee = {en | n = 1, 2, · · · }. We have the following
Lemma 3.2 If D6 holds, then M ∗∗ is OM -isomorphic to

Qed

Ee .

Lemma 3.3 Assume that D6 holds. Then
(1) ⊆ in M ∗∗ is defined by ·.
(2) Cancellation law and distributive law of · with respect to ∨ hold in M ∗∗ .
(3) DCC holds in M ∗∗ .
Q
Q
Proof.Q
(1) and (2). As is easily known, ed Ee is OM -isomorphic to ed Ne , where Ne = N
and in ed Ne 6 is defined by addition and cancellation law with respect to addition holds.
Besides in N distributive law of + with respect to ∨Qis n + max{m1 , m2 } = max{n, m1 } +
max{n, m2 }, which is trivial. Hence it also holds in ed Ne . Through the OM -isomorphism
∗∗ .
the same is true in M Q
(3) DCC holds in ed Ne from the proof of necessity of ([3], §1, n◦ 13, Theorem 2). DCC
also holds in M ∗∗ by the OM -isomorphism. 
Lemma 3.4 Suppose the conditions (1), (2) and (3) in Lemma 3.3 are all true, then every
∨-irreducible element of M ∗∗ ∈ E.
Proof. Put C = {J ∈ M ∗∗ | J is ∨-irreducible but is not an element of E}. Suppose C 6= ∅.
Then by (3) there exists a minimal J ∗ in C. From the proof of ([3], §1, n◦ 13, Lemma ) it
follows that J ⊆ J ∗ for some J ∈ At and J ⊂ J ∗ because otherwise J = J ∗ would contradict
to J ∗ ∈ C. By (1) J ∗ = J · J ′ for some J ′ ∈ M ∗∗ and we have J ′ ⊂ J ∗ because J ′ = J ∗
would lead to J =↓ [1] by cancellation law, a contradiction. Thus J ′ ∈
/ C, whence either J ′
′
is not ∨-irreducible or J ∈ E.
In the former case J ′ = J1 ∨J2 with J1 ⊂ J ′ , J2 ⊂ J ′ and J ∗ = J ·(J1 ∨J2 ) = (J ·J1 )∨(J ·J2 )
by the distributive law of · with respect to ∨ and we have J ·J1 ⊂ J ∗ , J ·J2 ⊂ J ∗ by cancellation
law, a contradiction. In the latter case J ∗ = J ′ or J ∗ = J ∨ J ′ according as J ′ is a power of
the same atom as J or not, another contradiction. It follows that C = ∅. 
10

By ([2], Chapter VII, §1, n◦ 1, Proposition 2) D + is closed under arbitrary meets and
under those joins whose associated divisorial ideals are not (0), whence M ∗∗ ∪ {↓ [0]} is a
complete lattice.
Proposition 3.1 If R is a Krull domain, then M ∗∗ ∪{↓ [0]} has a topological representation,
in which J ∈ M ∗∗ is a closed set of some topological T0 -space and en with n > 0 its pointclosures.
Proof. By Lemma 3.1 D6 holds in M ∗∗ . From Proposition 2.8 taking E as B we know that
en is strongly ∨-irreducible. The result follows from ([1], Lemma 2.1). 
Theorem 3.1 The following conditions are equivalent.
(1) R is a Krull domain.
(2) D6 holds in M ∗∗ .
(3) DCC holds in M ∗∗ and each ∨-irreducible element of M ∗∗ ∈ E
(4) Distributive law of · with respect to ∨ and cancellation law hold in M ∗∗ and ⊆ is
∗∗ .
defined by ·, and DCC holds in MQ
(5) M ∗∗ is OM -isomorphic to ed Ne .
Proof. That (1) is equivalent to (2) follows from Lemma 3.1. By Lemma 3.3, (2) implies
(4). By the proof of Lemma 3.3 (2) implies (5). That (4) implies (2) follows from Lemma
3.4 and Proposition 2.1 (2) taking E as B.
(2)is equivalent to (3) This follows from Proposition 2.1(2) because take E as B and in
this case lemma 2.1 (1) (3) taking E as B hold still.
That (5) implies (2) follows from Proposition
2.13 (3) by using At as the index set instead
Qed
Ne . 
of [P ] and noting that be is an atom of
Now we turn to the mutual relations among Krull domains, Dedekind domains, unique
factorization domains and principal ideal domains.
In the following (g, d) will denote the fundamental Galois connection between I ∼ and M .
Lemma 3.5 D(I ∗ ) = I ∗ if and only if d is onto.
Proof. Note that d(↓ [0]) = (0). Assume that D(I ∗ ) = I ∗ and a ∈ I ∗ . Then we have
g(a) ∈ M ∗∗ and d(g(a)) = a, whence d is onto.
Conversely let a ∈ I ∗ . Since d is onto, there exists J ∈ M ∗ such that d(J) = a. But
d(J) ∈ D(I ∗ ) because J 6=↓ [0] and hence a ∈ D(I ∗ ). Thus I ∗ ⊆ D(I ∗ ) and so I ∗ = D(I ∗ ).

Lemma 3.6 If each integral divisor is principal, then g is onto.
Proof. Note that g((0)) =↓ [0]. Let J ∈ M ∗ , then ∩[x]∈J (x) = (y) and hence ↓ [y] = ∨[x]∈J ↓
[x] = J by [1, Example 2.1(1)(2)]. Thus g((y)) =↓ [y] and so g is onto. 
Theorem 3.2 (1) R is a Dedekind domain if and only if R is a Krull domain and D(I ∗ ) =
I ∗.
(2) R is a unique factorization domain if and only if R is a Krull domain and each integral
divisor is principal.
11

Proof. (1) Necessity. Suppose R is a Dedekind domain, then each a ∈ I ∗ is inversible and
hence is divisorial by ([2], Chapter VII, §1, n◦ 2), whence D(I ∗ ) = I ∗ . Furthermore, from
([1], Remark 3.1) we know that D(I ∗ ) ordered by inverse inclusion is OM -isomorphic to M ∗∗
because in this case D(I ∗ ) is closed under ·, whence D6 holds. It follows that R is a Krull
domain by Lemma 3.1.
Sufficiency. By Lemma 3.5 d is onto and so M ∗∗ is OM -isomorphic to I ∗ . Since D6 holds
in M ∗∗ , R is a Dedekind domain.
(2) necessity. By Lemma 2.5 and its proof , D6 holds , whence R is a Krull domain by
Lemma 3.1. Besides, that each J ∈ M ∗∗ is a principal B-ideal follows Proposition 2.12.
Sufficiency. In this case M ∗∗ is OM -isomorphic to G∗ , whence D6 in M ∗∗ is reduced to
F1 in G∗ . Hence R is a unique factorization domain. 
Corollary 3.1 R is a principal ideal domain if and only if R is both a Dedekind domain and
a unique factorization domain.
Proof. Sufficiency. By Theorem 3.1 (1)(2) each ideal is divisorial, which is principal. Thus
R is a principal ideal domain.
Necessity. We have I ∗ = D(I ∗ ) = L∗ and R is a unique factorization domain (see Remark
3.1 below), whence R is a Krull domain by Theorem 3.2 (2), which together with D(I ∗ ) = I ∗
implies that R is a Dedekind domain by Theorem 3.2(1). 
Remark 3.1 Any principal ideal domain is a unique factorization domain. In fact, as is well
known, DCC holds in I ∗ and I ∗ is a lattice, so DCC holds in G∗ and G∗ is a lattice because
I ∗∼ is OM -isomorphic to G∗ . Besides, G∗ is the integral part of lattice group K ∗ /U ([3], §1,
n◦ 9, Proposition 8) in notation of multiplication and so the conditions (1)(2) of Lemma 3.3
are satisfied, whence each ∨-irrducible element of G∗ belongs to B by Lemma 3.4 applied to
G∗ with B instead of Q. It follows that F1 holds by Proposition 2.1 (2).
Note that in case of R being a Dedekind domain or a unique factorization domain or a
principal ideal domain, g is injective or surjective or bijective.
Remark 3.2 We have already known from Remark 2.2 that Proposition 2.13 (3) can be
viewed as the order representation of G∗ under F1 .
(1)(topological representation of G = G∗ ∪ {[0]} under F1 ) Assume that F1 holds. By
Theorem 3.2 (2) each integral divisor is principal, whence g is onto by Lemma 3.6, whose
proof shows each J ∈ M ∗ is a principal B-ideal. Thus by ([1], Proposition 2.7), which is true
under F1 because F1 implies D1 , B2 holds. We claim that G is a complete lattice. In fact,
∗
let {at | t ∈ T } ⊆ 2G . We have at = ∨At for some At ∈ (↓ at ∩ B)(f ) by F1 and ∨ ∪ At exists
by B2 so that ∨at exists and is equal to ∨ ∪ At . Thus G is a complete lattice. By Proposition
2.8 each b ∈ B is strongly ∨-irreducible and hence by ([1], Lemma 2.1) G has a topological
representation.
Q
(2)(algebraic interpretation of G∗ under F1 ) By proposition 2.10 G∗ = id Q[p] , which
Q
is OM -isomorphic to ed Q[p] . For the Latter G∗ , as a monoid, is the direct product of
monoids Q[p] ’s in a algebraic sense. For the former if notation of addition is adopted, for
each [x] ∈ G∗ we have [x] = v[p1 ] ([x]) · [p1 ] + · · · + v[pn] ([x]) · [pn ], whence G∗ is an analogue
of a module for the background of N with [P ] as a base. If we adopt notation of join, then
12

[x] = [p1 ]v[p1 ] ([x]) ∨ · · · ∨ [pn ]v[pn ] ([x]) , which according to (1) means any closed set [x], which
is neither empty nor the space itself, can be written uniquely as a join of a finite number of
point-closures.
(3)(algebraic interpretation of a subposet of the first kind or of the second kind under F1 ).
Note first that Q[p] is a B-ideal, which is a subposet of the first kind of G∗ , as can be easily
Q
Q
verified. Now consider G∗ = id Q[p] . We have G∗ =↓ [0] ∈ M and id Q[p] = ∨(∪Q[p]) =
∨Q[p] (see [1], remarks below Proposition 2.2). Evidently Q[p] ∩ Q[q] =↓ [1] for [p] 6= [q].
Put P[q] = ∨[p]6=[q]Q[p] and we claim that ∩P[q] =↓ [1], P[p] ∨ P[q] =↓ [0] for [p] 6= [q]
and P[ q] is of the second kind. In fact, let A[q] = {Q[p] | [p] 6= [q]} for [q] ∈ [P ]. We
have ∩P[q] = ∩ ∨
2.7) is equal to
QA[q] , which by complete distributivity ([1], Proposition
∗
∨{∩f ([P ]) | f ∈ A[q] } = ∨{[1]} =↓ [1]. And P[p] ∨ P[q] = ∨Q[p] = G =↓ [0] for [p] 6= [q].
At last, since P[q] is closed under ∧, it is of the second kind.
On the other hand, it will be easily verified that P[q] = J[q] , whence J[q] is of the second
kind. We have J[q] = {[x] | v[q] ([x]) = 0}, which by ([1], Proposition 2.1(1)) is a prime B-ideal
because G∗ \ J[q] is clearly a B-filter.
Remark 3.3 (order or algebraic or Q
topological interpretation of M ∗∗ under
QD6 ) By Lemma
∗∗
3.2 and remarks above it, QM = ed Ee , which is OM -isomorphic to ed Ee , which in
turn is OM -isomorphic to ed Ne , where Ne = {0,Q1, 2, · · · } ordered by the order defined by
addition. M ∗∗ , as a poset, is order-isomorphic to ed Ne , which can be viewed
Q as the order
representation of M ∗∗ . Besides, M ∗∗ , as a monoid, is monoid-isomorphic to ed Ee and so
M ∗∗ is the direct product
of monoids Ee ’s in algebraic sense. If we adopt notation of addition
Q
in case of M ∗∗ = id Ee , then for each J ∈ M ∗∗ we have J = ve1 (J) · e1 + · · · + ven (J) · en ,
whence M ∗∗ is an analogue of a module for the background of N with At as a base. Finally
by Proposition 3.1 M ∗∗ ∪ {↓ [0]} has a topological representation with E as the space X and
ve (J)
v (J)
we have J = e1 1 ∨ · · · ∨ enen , which means any closed set J of X which is neither empty
nor the space itself can be written uniquely as a join of a finite number of point-closures.
Remark 3.4 Each element of L∗ is regular in [4]. By symmetrization ([4], §1, n◦ 4, Theorem
1) we extend I ∗ to the collection F of fractional ideals, in which each element of L∗ is
inversible. Completely integral closeness means each divisor being inversible ([2], Chapter
VII, §1, n◦2, Theorem 1), while a Dedekind domain is equivalent to each element of F being
inversible. Thus in Lemma 3.3 cancellation law can deduce (1) and the remaining part of
(2).

References
[1] Z. Deng, Factorization from a poset-theoretic view I.
[2] N. Bourbaki, Commutative algebra(Chapters 1-7), Elements of Math., Spring-Verlag,
Berlin, 1989.
[3] N. Bourbaki, Algèbra(Chapitre VI),Elèments de Math. Hermann, Paris, 1952.
[4] N. Bourbaki, Algèbra(Chapitre I),Elèments de Math. Hermann, Paris, 1951.
[5] Z. Deng, Quasi-atoms and complete distributivity, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 103(1988),
365-370.
13

[6] Z. Deng, Topological representation for generalized-algebraic lattices, in: W. Holland(ed.), ordered algebraic structures, Algebra, Logic and Applications series, vol. 16,
gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, 2001, pp. 45-55.
[7] D. Novak, Generalization of continuous posets, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 272(1982),
645-667.
[8] J. Martinez, Unique factorization in partially ordered sets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
33(1972), 213-220.
College of Mathematics and Econometrics,
Hunan University, Changsha 410082, Hunan, China.

14

