arXiv:1612.01477v4 [math.AC] 6 Dec 2017

DOMAINS WITH INVERTIBLE-RADICAL FACTORIZATION
MALIK TUSIF AHMED AND TIBERIU DUMITRESCU
Abstract. We study those integral domains in which every proper ideal can
be written as an invertible ideal multiplied by a nonempty product of proper
radical ideals.

In [15] Vaughan and Yeagy introduced and studied the notion of SP-domain,
i.e. an integral domain whose ideals are products of radical (also called semiprime)
ideals. They proved that an SP-domain is always almost Dedekind (i.e. every
localization at a maximal ideal is a rank one discrete valuation domain (DVR)).
They also gave an example of an SP-domain which is not Dedekind. For examples
of almost Dedekind domains which are not SP, see [16] and [6, Example 3.4.1].
The study of SP-domains was continued by Olberding (in [10]) who gave several
characterizations for SP-domains inside the class of almost Dedekind domains and
also gave a method to construct SP-domains starting from Boolean topological
spaces.
In a sequence of papers ([11], [12], [13]) Olberding introduced and studied the
concept of ZPUI (Zerlegung Prim und Umkehrbaridealen) domain, i.e. a domain
for which every proper nonzero ideal can be factored as a product of an invertible
ideal times a nonempty product of pairwise comaximal prime ideals (Olberding did
his study for commutative rings, but we are interested here only in domain case).
He showed that a domain A is ZPUI if and only if every proper nonzero ideal can be
factored as a product of a finitely generated ideal times a nonempty finite product
of prime ideals if and only if A is a strongly discrete h-local Prüfer domain [13,
Theorem 1.1]. Let A be a domain. We recall that A is h-local if the factor ring A/I
is local (resp. semilocal) for each nonzero prime ideal (resp. nonzero ideal) I of A.
Also A is a Prüfer domain if its nonzero finitely generated ideals are invertible. A
Prüfer domain is strongly discrete if it has no idempotent prime ideal except zero.
In this paper we study a new class of domains. Call a domain A an ISP-domain
(invertible semiprime domain) if each proper ideal of A is can be written as an
invertible ideal multiplied by a nonempty product of proper radical ideals. So any
SP-domain (resp. ZPUI-domain) is an ISP-domain.
In Section 1 we prove the following results. If A is an ISP-domain, then any factor
domain of A and any (flat) overring of A are also ISP-domains (Propositions 2 and
3, see also Proposition 9). Any one-dimensional ISP-domain is almost Dedekind
and, consequently, any Noetherian ISP-domain is a Dedekind domain (Corollary 4).
In Section 2 we prove that if A is an ISP-domain, then A is a strongly discrete Prüfer
domain and every nonzero prime ideal of A is contained in a unique maximal ideal
(Theorem 5). Consequently, an ISP-domain such that every ideal has finitely many
minimal prime ideals is a ZPUI-domain (Corollary 10). In Section 3 we consider
Key words and phrases. ZPUI-domain, SP-domain, Prüfer domain.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 13A15, Secondary 13F15.
1

2

MALIK TUSIF AHMED AND TIBERIU DUMITRESCU

the question whether every one-dimensional ISP-domain is an SP-domain. We
provide a positive answer for domains in which every nonzero element is contained
in at most finitely many noninvertible maximal ideals (Theorem 13). In particular,
a one-dimensional ISP-domain having only finitely many noninvertible maximal
ideals is an SP-domain (Corollary 14). In Section 4 we give an example of a twodimensional ISP-domain A which is not h-local. Hence A is neither an SP-domain
nor a ZPUI-domain.
Throughout this paper, our rings are commutative and unitary. For any undefined terminology, we refer the reader to [8] or [9].
1. Basic results
We recall the key definition of our paper.
Definition 1. We say that a domain A is an ISP-domain (invertible semiprime
domain) if every proper nonzero ideal I of A can be written as JQ1 · · · Qn where
n ≥ 1, J is an invertible ideal and each Qi is a proper radical ideal.

Clearly a ZPUI-domain or an SP-domain is an ISP-domain. The well-known
Bezout domain A = Z + XQ[X] (see [4] for its basic properties) is not an ISPdomain. Indeed, consider the ideal I = XZ[1/2] + X 2 Q[X]. The radical ideals
containing I are XQ[X] and nA = nZ + XQ[X] with n a positive square-free
integer. So there is no element f ∈ A such that I ⊆ f A and If −1 is a product of
radical ideals. Note that every proper nonzero principal ideal gA can be written
in the form required by Definition 1. Indeed, if g 6∈ XQ[X], then g is a product of
principal primes and if g ∈ XQ[X], then g = 2(g/2)A. Note also that A is strongly
discrete.
In this section we prove a few basic properties of ISP-domains.
Proposition 2. If A is an ISP-domain and P a prime ideal of A, then A/P is an
ISP-domain.
Proof. Let I ⊃ P be a proper ideal of A. As A is an ISP-domain, we can write
I = JH1 · · · Hn with J an invertible ideal, n ≥ 1 and each Hi a proper radical ideal.
Since all ideals I, H1 , ..., Hn contain P , we get I/P = (J/P )(H1 /P ) · · · (Hn /P ) with
J/P invertible and each Hi /P a proper radical ideal.

Proposition 3. Let A be an ISP-domain and B a flat overring of A. Then B is
an ISP-domain.
Proof. Let H be a proper nonzero ideal of B and I = H ∩ A. By [2, Theorem 2], IB = H. As A is an ISP-domain, we can write I = JQ1 · · · Qn with J
an invertible ideal, n ≥ 1 and all Qi ’s proper radical ideals. Then H = IB =
(JB)(Q1 B) · · · (Qn B), where JB is invertible and each Qi B is a radical ideal. Indeed, since AM∩A = BM for every M ∈ M ax(B) (cf. [2, Theorem 2]), it is easy
to check locally that a radical ideal of A extends to a radical ideal of B. If every
Qi B is equal to B, then H = JB and W B = B where W = Q1 · · · Qn . Hence
J ⊆ JB ∩ A = H ∩ A = I = JW ⊆ J, so J = JW , thus W = A (because J is
invertible), a contradiction.

We give a simple application of Proposition 3.
Corollary 4. Any one-dimensional ISP-domain is almost Dedekind. Consequently,
a Noetherian ISP-domain is a Dedekind domain.

DOMAINS WITH INVERTIBLE-RADICAL FACTORIZATION

3

Proof. Let A be a one-dimensional ISP-domain. By Proposition 3, we may assume
that A is local with maximal ideal M . Let x ∈ M − {0}. Since the radical ideals
of A are 0 and M , we get xA = yM k for some y ∈ A and k ≥ 1, so M is invertible,
hence A is a DVR. For the “Consequently” part, assume, by the contrary, that A
is a Noetherian ISP-domain which is not Dedekind. By the first part, dim(A) ≥ 2,
so, using Proposition 3, we may assume that A is a two-dimensional local domain
(with maximal ideal M ). Let x ∈ M − M 2 , P a height one prime ideal containing
x and let y ∈ M − P . Since P 6⊆ M 2 , M is minimal over (P, y 2 ) and A is an
ISP-domain, we get (P, y 2 ) = M . Modding out by P , we get a contradiction.

2. ISP domains are Prüfer strongly discrete
The following theorem is the main result of this paper.
Theorem 5. If A is an ISP-domain, then
(a) A is a strongly discrete Prüfer domain, and
(b) every nonzero prime ideal of A is contained in a unique maximal ideal.
In particular, a local domain is an ISP-domain if and only if it is a strongly discrete
valuation domain.
We need a string of three lemmas.
Lemma 6. If A is an ISP-domain and P ⊂ M are nonzero prime ideals of A, then
P ⊆ M 2 AM .
Proof. By Proposition 3, we may assume that A is local with maximal ideal M .
Assume that P 6⊆ M 2 and take x ∈ M − P . Since A is an ISP-domain and P 6⊆ M 2 ,
we get that (P, x2 ) is a radical ideal, so (P, x2 ) = (P, x) which gives a contradiction
after modding out by P .

Lemma 7. Let A be an ISP-domain, P ⊂ M prime ideals and x ∈ M − P such
that M is minimal over (P, x). Then M AM is a principal ideal.
Proof. By Proposition 3, we may assume that A is local with maximal ideal M .
2
We show first
p that M is not idempotent. On contrary assume that M = M .
Note that (P, x) = M is the only radical ideal containing (P, x). As A is an
ISP-domain and M = M 2 , we get (P, x) = yM for some y ∈ A. As P ⊆ yM ,
we get y ∈
/ P (otherwise P = yA ⊆ yM ), hence P = P y. From x ∈ yM , we get
x = yz for some z ∈ M . Now from (P y, yz) = yM , we get (P, z) = M , so M/P is
a principal idempotent nonzero maximal ideal of A/P , a contradiction. Thus M is
not idempotent and let us pick w ∈ M − M 2 . By Lemma 6, M is the only prime
ideal containing w, so wA = M because A is an ISP-domain.

Lemma 8. If A is an ISP-domain and I an invertible radical proper ideal of A,
then A/I is zero-dimensional.
Proof. On contrary assume that dim(A/I) ≥ 1. Then there exist two prime ideals
P ⊂ M and x ∈ M − P such that I ⊆ P and M is minimal over (P, x). By Lemma
7, M AM is principal. Localizing at M , we may assume that A is local with maximal
2
ideal M . Then I = yA and
√ M = zA for some y, z ∈2A. As I ⊂ M , we get y = az
for some a ∈ A, so az ∈ yA = yA, hence y = az ∈ yzA, thus 1 ∈ zA = M , a
contradiction.


4

MALIK TUSIF AHMED AND TIBERIU DUMITRESCU

Proof of Theorem 5. (a) By [13, Lemma 3.2], it suffices to show that P AP is
a principal ideal for every nonzero prime ideal P of A. Set B = AP and M =
P AP . By Proposition 3, B is an ISP-domain. Given x ∈ M − {0}, we write
xB = yH1 · · · Hn with y ∈ B, n ≥ 1 and Hi a proper radical ideal for i = 1 to n.
Then each Hi is invertible hence principal,√because B is local. By Lemma 8, we
have Spec(B/H1 ) = {M/H1 }, hence H1 = H1 = M .
(b) By Proposition 3, we may assume that A is semilocal. Indeed, if M1 and
M2 are two distinct maximal ideals containing a nonzero prime ideal, then (b)
fails for AS , where S = A − (M1 ∪ M2 ). Now let I be a nonzero radical ideal.
Since A is a semilocal Prüfer domain, it follows that I has finitely many minimal
primes, say P1 ,...,Pn . Then I = P1 ∩ · · · ∩ Pn = P1 · · · Pn because P1 ,..,Pn are
incomparable prime ideals in a Prüfer domain, hence pairwise comaximal. Since
A is an ISP-domain and every nonzero radical ideal is a product of primes, A is a
ZPUI-domain. By [13, Theorem 1.1], A is h-local, so (b) holds. The “in particular”
assertion follows from [13, Theorem 1.1].

We give two corollaries of Theorem 5.
Corollary 9. Any overring of an ISP-domain is also an ISP-domain.
Proof. Let A be an ISP-domain and B an overring of A. By Theorem 5, A is a
Prüfer domain, so B is A-flat, cf. [14, page 798]. Apply Proposition 3.

Corollary 10. For a domain A, the following are equivalent.
(a) A is a ZPUI-domain.
(b) A is an h-local strongly discrete Prüfer domain.
(c) A is an h-local ISP-domain.
(d) A is a generalized Dedekind ISP-domain.
(e) A is an ISP-domain such that M in(I) is finite for each ideal I.
Proof. (a) ⇔ (b) is a part of [13, Theorem 1.1]. Implications [(a) and (b)] ⇒ (c)
⇒ (d) ⇒ (e) are well-known. For (e) ⇒ (a), repeat the second half of the proof of
Theorem 5 part (b).

3. Almost Dedekind ISP-domains
In this section, we consider the question whether any one-dimensional ISPdomain is an SP-domain. First, we recall some terminology from [10]. Let A
be an almost Dedekind domain. The maximal ideals of A containing a radical invertible ideal are called non-critical, while the others are called critical. Given I
an ideal of A and n ≥ 1, we set Vn (I) = {M ∈ M ax(A) | I ⊆ M n }. Note that
Vn+1 (I) ⊆ Vn (I) and V1 (I) is the usual Zariski closed set V (I). Next, we recall [10,
Theorem 2.1] and add a new assertion (g).
Theorem 11. ([10, Theorem 2.1]) For an almost Dedekind domain A, the following
assertions are equivalent.
(a) A is an SP-domain.
(b) A has no critical maximal ideals.
(c) The radical of an invertible ideal is invertible.
(d) Ever principal ideal is a product of radical ideals.
(e) For every nonzero proper (principal) ideal I and n ≥ 1, the set Vn (I) is
(Zariski) closed in Spec(A) and Vm (I) is empty for some large m.

DOMAINS WITH INVERTIBLE-RADICAL FACTORIZATION

5

(f ) Every nonzero proper ideal I can be factorized (uniquely) as I = J1 J2 · · · Jn
with radical ideals J1 ⊆ J2 ⊆ · · · ⊆ Jn .
√
(g) For every nonzero proper ideal I, we have I = IH for some ideal H.
Proof. Since only (g) is new,
the equivalence of (f ) and (g).
√ it suffices to prove
√
(g) ⇒ (f )√We have I = IH1 and H1 = H1 H2 for some ideals H1 and H2 .
√
Set J1 = I and J2 = H1 , so I = J1 J2 H2 . From I ⊆ H1 , we get J1 ⊆ J2 .
Repeating, we get I = J1 J2 · · · Jn Hn with radical ideals J1 ⊆ · · · ⊆ Jn . If some
Hn is A, we are done. If not, let M be a maximal ideal containing all Ji ’s. Then
I = J1 J2 · · · Jn Hn ⊆ M n for each n ≥ 1, which is a contradiction because AM is
a√ DVR. Conversely, from I = J1 · · · Jn with J1 ⊆ · · · ⊆ Jn radical ideals, we get
I = J1 , so we are done.

In the next lemma, we recall two known facts.
Lemma 12. If A is an almost Dedekind domain which is not Dedekind, then:
(a) Every noninvertible nonzero ideal of A is contained in some noninvertible
maximal ideal.
(b) Every infinite closed subset of M ax(A) contains some noninvertible maximal
ideal.
Proof. (a) is a well-known application of Zorn’s Lemma (every non finitely generated ideal is contained in a non finitely generated prime ideal). (b) Let I be a
nonzero ideal such that V (I) is infinite. By (a), we may assume that I is invertible,
so the assertion follows from [6, Proposition 3.2.2]. We give an alternative proof.
nP
For each P ∈ V (I), we have
P IAP = (P AP ) for some (unique) positive integer nP .
Consider the ideal H = P ∈V (I) IP −nP . It suffices to show that H is not finitely
generated, because I ⊆ H implies V (H) ⊆ V (I), so part (a) applies. Suppose that
H is finitely generated. Then there exist distinct ideals P1 , ..., Pk+1 ∈ V (I) such
P
−n
that IPk+1k+1 ⊆ ki=1 IPi−ni where nj = nPj . Since the ideals Pj are mutually
−n
comaximal, we have IPk+1k+1 ⊆ I(∩ki=1 Pini )−1 , cf. [11, Lemma 5.1]. We cancel I

and get ∩ki=1 Pini ⊆ Pk+1 , which is a contradiction.
Recall that a domain A has weak factorization, if every nonzero nondivisorial
ideal I can be factored as the product of its divisorial closure Iν and a finite product of maximal ideals; i.e., I = Iν M1 M2 · · · Mn where M1 ,M2 ,...,Mn are maximal
ideals, cf. [5]. By [6, Proposition 4.2.14], an almost Dedekind domain A has weak
factorization if and only if every nonzero element of A is contained in at most
finitely many noninvertible maximal ideals.
Now let A be an almost Dedekind domain A which has weak factorization. Denote by Z the set of noninvertible maximal ideals of A. We introduce an ad-hoc
concept: call an ideal H of A a clean ideal, if H is invertible, V (H) ∩ Z = {M }
and H 6⊆ M 2 . Let M ∈ Z and f ∈ M − {0}. By our hypothesis V (f ) ∩ Z is finite,
say equal to {M, M1 , ..., Mn }. By Prime Avoidance Lemma (e.g. [8, Proposition
4.9]), we can pick an element g ∈ M − (M 2 ∪ M1 ∪ · · · ∪ Mn ), so (f, g) is clean.
Hence every M ∈ Z contains a clean ideal. With terminology and notation above,
we have:
Theorem 13. For an almost Dedekind domain A which has weak factorization,
the following assertions are equivalent.
(a) A is an SP-domain.

6

MALIK TUSIF AHMED AND TIBERIU DUMITRESCU

(b) A is an ISP-domain.
(c) For every clean ideal H, the set V2 (H) is finite.
(d) Every M ∈ Z contains a clean ideal H such that V2 (H) is finite.
Proof. We may assume that A is not a Dedekind domain. Set F = M ax(A) − Z.
(a) ⇒ (b) is obvious. (b) ⇒ (c) Assume, to the contrary, that H is a clean ideal
and V2 (H) contains an infinite
set {Pn | n ≥ 1} ⊆ F . Set V (H) ∩ Z = {M }. Let
P
−1
. Since H ⊆ I and V (H) ∩ Z = {M }, we
I be the (integral) ideal n≥0 HP2n+1
−1
−1
get V (I) ∩ Z = {M }, because M ⊇ H = P2n+1 HP2n+1
implies M ⊇ HP2n+1
. As
A is an ISP-domain, we can write I = JQ with J an invertible ideal and Q 6= A
a product of radical ideals. Since M ∈ V (I) − V2 (I), we have one of the two cases
below.
Case 1: M ⊇ J and M 6⊇ Q. Then V (Q) ∩ Z is empty, so Q is invertible, cf.
−1
Lemma 12. So I = JQ is invertible, hence finitely generated. Then HP2n+1
⊆
−1
−1
HP1 + · · · + HP2n−1 for some n ≥ 1. Since H can be cancelled and the other
−1
ideals involved are invertible and comaximal, we get P2n+1
⊆ (P1 ∩ · · · ∩ P2n−1 )−1
(cf. [11, Lemma 5.1]), hence P2n+1 ⊇ P1 ∩ · · · ∩ P2n−1 , which is a contradiction.
Case 2: M 6⊇ J and M ⊇ Q. Since H ⊆ Q and H 6⊆ M 2 , we have that
V2 (Q) ∩ Z = ∅. As Q is a product of radical ideals, [1, Lemma 1.10] shows that
V2 (Q) is closed, so V2 (Q) is finite, cf. Lemma 12. Note that P2n ∈ V2 (I) for every
n ≥ 1. Consequently, there exists some m ≥ 1 such that P2n ∈ V (J) for each
n ≥ m. By Lemma 12 and the fact that H ⊆ J, we get V (J) ∩ Z = {M }, which is
a contradiction.
(c) ⇒ (d) is clear. (d) ⇒ (a) By [10, Theorem 2.1], it suffices to show that each
M ∈ Z contains an invertible radical ideal. By (d), M contains a clean ideal H
such that V2 (H) is finite, say equal to {P1 , ..., Pn }. For each i between 1 and n,
we have HAPi = Piki APi for some ki ≥ 2. Then HP1−k1 · · · Pn−kn is an invertible
radical ideal contained in M .

The SP-domain A constructed in [10, Example 4.3] has nonzero Jacobson radical
and no M ∈ M ax(A) finitely generated. Thus A does not have weak factorization.
Corollary 14. Let A be almost Dedekind domain having only finitely many noninvertible maximal ideals. Then A is an ISP-domain if and only if A is an SP-domain.
Corollary 15. Let A be an ISP-domain which has weak factorization and B a
one-dimensional overring of A. Then B is an SP-domain.
Proof. By Theorem 5, A is a strongly discrete Prüfer domain, so B has weak
factorization, cf. [6, Corollary 4.3.3]. Now apply Corollary 9 and Theorem 13. 
The following question remains.
Question 16. Is every one-dimensional ISP-domain an SP-domain ?
4. An example
In this final section we give an example of a two-dimensional ISP-domain A
which is not h-local. Hence A is neither an SP-domain nor a ZPUI-domain.
Proposition 17. Let C be an SP-domain but not Dedekind, M = qC a maximal
principal ideal of C and D a DVR with quotient field C/M . Assume there exists a
unit p of C such that π(p) generates the maximal ideal of D, where π : C → C/M

DOMAINS WITH INVERTIBLE-RADICAL FACTORIZATION

7

is the canonical map. Then the pull-back domain A = π −1 (D) is a two-dimensional
ISP-domain which is not h-local.
Proof. As π(M p−1 ) = 0, it follows that M ⊆ pA, so A/pA is the residue field of D,
because A/M = D and π(p) generates the maximal ideal of D. Also, the only prime
ideal of A strictly containing M is the maximal ideal pA. By standard pull-back
arguments (see for instance [7, Lemma 1.1.4]), the map P 7→ P ∩ A is a bijection
from Spec(C) − V (M ) to Spec(A) − V (M ) and AP ∩A = CP . By [7, Corollary
1.1.9], A is a two-dimensional Prüfer domain. Also, by [7, Lemma 1.1.6], we have
A[p−1 ] = C[p−1 ] = C. Roughly speaking, Spec(A) is obtained from Spec(C) by
adding the maximal ideal pA ⊇ M . Since C is an almost Dedekind domain which
is not Dedekind, there exists a nonzero element z ∈ A belonging to infinitely many
maximal ideals of A, so A is not h-local. By [7, Proposition 5.3.3], B = ApA is a
two-dimensional strongly discrete valuation domain. It follows that ∩t≥1 pt A = M .
Let I be an ideal of A. We observe that I = IB ∩ IC. Indeed, if N ∈ M ax(A) −
{pA}, then I ⊆ ICA−N = IAN , so IB ∩ IC ⊆ ∩Q∈Max(A) IAQ = I. In particular,
we have A = B ∩ C. Since C is almost Dedekind and M = qC, we can write
IC = M i J where J is an ideal of C with M +J = C and i ≥ 0, so IC = M i ∩J. We
also see that H := J ∩ A 6⊆ M . As ∩t≥1 pt A = M , we can write H = pj L = pj A ∩ L
where L is an ideal of A with L 6⊆ pA and j ≥ 0. Consequently we get
IC ∩ A = M i ∩ J ∩ A = M i ∩ H = M i ∩ pj A ∩ L
which equals either M i ∩ L if i ≥ 1 or pj A ∩ L if i = 0. Using basic facts on
valuation domains (see [8, Section 17]), it suffices to consider the following three
cases. Each time we use the equality I = (IB ∩ A) ∩ (IC ∩ A).
Case 1: IB = pn B for some n ≥ 0. We have IB ∩ A = pn A. If i ≥ 1, we
get I = pn A ∩ M i ∩ L = M i L. If i = 0, we get I = pn A ∩ pj A ∩ L = pk L with
k = max(n, j).
Case 2: IB = M n for some n ≥ 1. If i ≥ 1, we get I = M n ∩ M i ∩ L = M k L
with k = max(n, i). If i = 0, we get I = M n ∩ pj A ∩ L = M n L.
Case 3: IB = pn q m A for some m ≥ 1 and n ∈ Z. We have IB ∩ A = pn q m A,
because pA is the only maximal ideal containing q. If i > m ≥ 1, we get I =
pn q m A ∩ M i ∩ L = M i L. If m ≥ i ≥ 1, we get I = pn q m A ∩ M i ∩ L = pn q m L. If
i = 0, we get I = pn q m A ∩ pj A ∩ L = pn q m L.
Consequently, to complete our proof, it suffices to show that L is a product of
radical ideals. Since C is an SP-domain, we can write LC = H1 · · · Hn with each Hi
a radical ideal of C. Then each Ji = Hi ∩ A is a radical ideal of A. Note that none
of ideals Ji is contained in pA, since L 6⊆ pA. Set R = J1 · · · Jn . Then R + pA = A
and L + pA = A, so R : p = R and L : p = L. Since RC = H1 · · · Hn = LC, we get
L = LC ∩ A = RC ∩ A = R.

Finally, we construct a specific domain satisfying the hypothesis of Proposition
17. We modify appropriately [6, Example 3.4.1]. If A is a domain and P1 ,...,Pn are
prime ideals of A, we denote by AP1 ∪···∪Pn the fraction ring of A with denominators
in A − (P1 ∪ · · · ∪ Pn ). Let y and (xn )n≥1 be indeterminates over the rational field
Q. Consider the domain
[
C=
Q[x1 , ..., xn , y/(x1 · · · xn )](x1 )∪···∪(xn )∪(y/(x1 ···xn )) .
n≥1

8

MALIK TUSIF AHMED AND TIBERIU DUMITRESCU

As C is a union of an ascending chain of (semi-local) PID’s, it is a one-dimensional
Bezout domain. Adapting
P the proof of [6, Example 3.4.1], we see that the maximal
ideals of C are N = n≥1 (y/(x1 · · · xn ))C and the principal ideals (xn C)n≥1 . As
yCM = M CM for each M ∈ M ax(C), it follows that yC is a radical ideal, hence N is
non-critical. By [10, Corollary 2.2], C is an SP-domain. The residue field C/x1 C is
isomorphic to K(y/x1 ) where K = Q(xn ; n ≥ 2). Then D = K[y/x1 ](y/x1 ) is a DVR
with quotient field C/x1 C. Note that x1 + y/x1 is a unit of Q[x1 , y/x1 ](x1 )∪(y/x1 ) ,
hence a unit of C. Moreover, the canonical map C → C/x1 C sends x1 + y/x1 to
y/x1 which is a generator of the maximal ideal of D. Thus C satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 17.
Acknowledgements. The first author is highly grateful to Abdus Salam School
of Mathematical Sciences Govt. Coll. University Lahore in supporting and facilitating this research. The second author gratefully acknowledges the warm hospitality
of the same institution during his visits in the period 2006-2016.
References
[1] M.T. Ahmed and T. Dumitrescu, SP-rings with zero-divisors, Comm. Algebra 45 (2017),
4435-4443.
[2] T. Akiba, Remarks on generalized quotient rings, Proc. Japan Acad. 40 (1964), 801-806.
[3] D.D. Anderson, Non-finitely generated ideals in valuation domains, Tamkang J. Math. 18
(1987), 49-52.
[4] D. Costa, J. Mott and M. Zafrullah, The construction D + XDS [X], J. Algebra 53 (1978),
423-439.
[5] M. Fontana, E. Houston and T. Lucas, Factoring ideals in Prüfer domains, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 211 (2007), 1-13.
[6] M. Fontana, E. Houston and T. Lucas, Factoring Ideals in Integral Domains, Springer
2013.
[7] M. Fontana, J. Huckaba and I. Papick, Prüfer Domains, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1997.
[8] R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1972.
[9] I. Kaplansky, Commutative Rings, rev. ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1974.
[10] B. Olberding, Factorization into radical ideals, in Arithmetical Properties of Commutative
Rings and Monoids (S. Chapman, editor), Lect. Notes in Pure Appl. Math. 241, Chapman
& Hall, 363-377, 2005.
[11] B. Olberding, Globalizing local properties of Prüfer domains, J. Algebra 205 (1998), 480504.
[12] B. Olberding, Factorization into prime and invertible ideals, J. London Math. Soc. 62
(2000), 336-344.
[13] B. Olberding, Factorization into prime and invertible ideals II, J. London Math. Soc. 80
(2009), 155-170.
[14] F. Richman, Generalized quotient rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (1965), 794-799.
[15] N. Vaughan and R. Yeagy, Factoring ideals into semiprime ideals, Can. J. Math. 30 (1978),
1313-1318.
[16] R. Yeagy, Semiprime factorizations in unions of Dedekind domains, J. Reine Angew. Math.
310 (1979), 182-186
Abdus Salam School of Mathematical Sciences GCU Lahore, Pakistan
E-mail address: tusif.ahmed@sms.edu.pk, tusif.ahmad92@gmail.com (Ahmed)
Facultatea de Matematica si Informatica,University of Bucharest,14 Academiei Str.,
Bucharest, RO 010014,Romania
E-mail address: tiberiu@fmi.unibuc.ro, tiberiu dumitrescu2003@yahoo.com (Dumitrescu)

