THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

arXiv:1604.07986v1 [math.AC] 27 Apr 2016

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG
Abstract. The set of distances of a monoid or of a domain is the set of
property: there are irreducible elements u1 , . . . , uk , v1 , . . . , vk+d such that
but u1 · . . . · uk cannot be written as a product of l irreducible elements for
show that the set of distances is an interval for certain seminormal weakly
seminormal orders in holomorphy rings of global fields.

all d ∈ N with the following
u1 · . . . · uk = v1 · . . . · vk+d ,
any l with k < l < k + d. We
Krull monoids which include

1. Introduction and Main Result
Let H be a v-noetherian monoid (for example, a noetherian domain). Then every non-unit of H has
a factorization as a finite product of atoms (irreducible elements), and all these factorizations are unique
(i.e., H is factorial) if and only if H is a Krull monoid with trivial v-class group. Otherwise, there are
elements having factorizations which differ not only up to associates and up to the order of the factors. The
occurring phenomena of non-uniqueness are described by arithmetical invariants such as sets of lengths
and sets of distances. We recall some arithmetical concepts and then we formulate the main result of the
present paper.
For a finite non-empty set L = {m1 , . . . , mk } of positive integers with m1 < . . . < mk , we denote by
∆(L) = {mi − mi−1 | i ∈ [2, k]} the set of distances of L. Thus ∆(L) = ∅ if and only if |L| ≤ 1. If a
non-unit a ∈ H has a factorization a = u1 · . . . · uk into atoms u1 , . . . , uk , then k is called the length of
the factorization, and the set L(a) of all possible factorization lengths k is called the set of lengths of a.
In v-noetherian monoids all sets of lengths are finite. If there is an element a ∈ H with |L(a)| > 1, then
the n-fold sumset L(a) + . . . + L(a) is contained in L(an ) whence |L(an )| > n for every n ∈ N. The set of
distances ∆(H) (also called the delta set of H) is the union of all sets ∆(L(a)) over all non-units a ∈ H.
Thus, by definition, ∆(H) = ∅ if and only if |L(a)| = 1 for all non-units a ∈ H, and ∆(H) = {d} if and
only if L(a) is an arithmetical progression with difference d for all non-units a ∈ H.
The set of distances (together with associated invariants, such as the catenary degree) has found wide
interest in the literature in settings ranging from numerical monoids to Mori domains (for a sample out of
many see [11, 9, 4, 15, 16, 10, 8, 12, 21, 30]). In the present paper we focus on seminormal weakly Krull
monoids and show – under mild natural assumptions – that their sets of distances are intervals.
b its complete integral closure,
Theorem 1.1. Let H be a seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull monoid, H
b its conductor. Suppose that the localization Hp is finitely primary for each minimal
and ∅ 6= f = (H : H)
prime ideal p ∈ X(H), and that every class of the v-class group G = Cv (H) contains a minimal prime ideal
p ∈ X(H) with p 6⊃ f. Then ∆(H) = ∅ or min ∆(H) = 1. Moreover, we have
1. If |G| = 1, then ∆(H) ⊂ {1} and if G is infinite, then ∆(H) = N.
b | P ∩ H = p}| > 1
2. Suppose that G is finite. If there is at most one p ∈ X(H) such that |{P ∈ X(H)
or if G is an elementary 2-group, then ∆(H) is a finite interval.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 11R27, 13A05, 13F15, 13F45, 20M13.
Key words and phrases. sets of lengths, sets of distances, weakly Krull monoids, seminormal domains, non-principal
orders.
This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWF, Project Numbers M1641-N26 and P26036-N26.
1

2

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG

Seminormal orders in algebraic number fields satisfy all assumptions of Theorem 1.1, and more examples
will be given in Section 2. Seminormal orders have been studied by Dobbs and Fontana in [14], where they
provide, among others, a full characterization of seminormal orders in quadratic number fields. Note that
for a non-principal order R, which is not seminormal and whose Picard group has at most two elements,
it is open whether or not we have 1 ∈ ∆(R), let alone whether or not ∆(R) is an interval (e.g., [29]).
Every Krull monoid is seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull and all localizations are discrete valuation
monoids and hence finitely primary. For Krull monoids having a minimal prime ideal in each class (whence
in particular for principal orders in algebraic number fields) it is well-known that the set of distances is
an interval ([20]), and it is the goal of the present paper to generalize this result from the Krull to the
weakly Krull case. Note, that even in the case of Krull monoids, the assumption that every class contains
a minimal prime ideal is essential to obtain that the set of distances is an interval (see Examples 3.4.1).
Suppose that H is seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull monoid with finite v-class group, nontrivial
conductor, and with all localizations being finitely primary. It is well-known that the set of distances is
finite, and this result holds without the seminormality assumption. However, seminormality is crucial for
the set of distances being an interval (even in the local case, sets of distances may fail to be intervals
without assuming seminormality, see Examples 3.4). There is an ideal-theoretic characterization when the
set of distances is empty ([18, Theorem 6.2]; a necessary condition is that the v-class group has at most
two elements). However, we did not want to include this characterization into the formulation of Theorem
1.1.
Suppose that the v-class group of H is finite but not trivial and consider the assumption in Statement
2 of Theorem 1.1. For k ∈ N, let Uk (H) denote the set of all ℓ ∈ N for which there is an equation of the
form u1 · . . . · uk = v1 · . . . · vℓ where u1 , . . . , uk , v1 , . . . , vℓ are atoms (equivalently, Uk (H) is the union of all
b → X(H), defined by π(P) = P ∩ H for all P ∈ X(H),
b is
sets of lengths containing k). The map π : X(H)
surjective, and it is well-known that the unions Uk (H) are finite for all k ∈ N if and only if π is bijective.
If the unions are finite and H is seminormal, then the unions are finite intervals ([18, Theorem 5.8]).
This shows that the first assumption in Statement 2 of Theorem 1.1 is a natural one (our machinery is
strong enough so that we can handle the slightly more general situation where there is at most one prime
b
p ∈ X(H) which is not inert in H).
Suppose that this assumption on the map π does not hold. We settle the case where G is an elementary
2-group, and this allows us to show that ∆(H) = ∅ or min ∆(H) = 1 without any additional assumptions.
The proof for elementary 2-groups uses the fact that we know the maximum of the set of distances for Krull
monoids whose class groups are elementary 2-groups (this maximum is known only in very special cases;
see Proposition 2.4). We provide a detailed analysis of the case |G| = 2 and determine the maximum of
the set of distances (Theorem 3.3). In case of Krull monoids it is straightforward that the set of distances
is empty if and only if |G| ≤ 2, and Theorem 3.3 reveals the complexity of the situation in the weakly
Krull case.
The present paper is based on ideal-theoretic results for v-noetherian weakly Krull monoids, recently
established in [18]. They allow to study sets of distances in a special class of weakly Krull monoids which
are easier to handle. Furthermore, we use that sets of distances in Krull monoids are intervals ([20]). Our
machinery will be put together in Section 2. The proof of Theorems 1.1 and 3.3 will be given in Section
3, and we end with examples demonstrating the necessity of the various assumptions of Theorem 1.1.

2. Background in (weakly) Krull monoids
We denote by N the set of positive integers, and for real numbers a, b ∈ R we denote by [a, b] = {x ∈ Z |
a ≤ x ≤ b} the discrete interval between a and b. For subsets A, B ⊂ Z, let A + B = {a + b | a ∈ A, b ∈ B}
be their sumset, and let ∆(A) = {d ∈ N | d = l − k for some k, l ∈ L with [k, l] ∩ A = {k, l}} be the set of
distances of L.

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

3

By a monoid, we mean a commutative cancellative semigroup with unit element. Let H be a monoid.
We denote by A(H) the set of atoms of H, by H × the group of invertible elements of H, by q(H) the
quotient group of H, and by Hred = H/H × the associated reduced monoid of H. For a set P, we denote
by F (P) the free abelian monoid with basis P. Then every a ∈ F (P) has a unique representation of the
form
Y
a=
pvp (a) with vp (a) ∈ N0 and vp (a) = 0 for almost all p ∈ P ,
p∈P


P
and we call |a|F (P) = |a| = p∈P vp (a) the length of a. The monoid Z(H) = F A(Hred ) is called the
factorization monoid of H, and the unique homomorphism
π : Z(H) → Hred

satisfying π(u) = u for each u ∈ A(Hred )

is the factorization homomorphism of H. For a ∈ H,
ZH (a) = Z(a) = π −1 (aH × ) ⊂ Z(H) is the set of factorizations of a ,

LH (a) = L(a) = |z| z ∈ Z(a) ⊂ N0 is the set of lengths of a .

and

Thus L(a) = {0} if and only if a ∈ H × , and L(a) = {1} if and only if a ∈ A(H). The monoid H is said
to be atomic if Z(a) 6= ∅ for every a ∈ H (equivalently, every non-unit can be written as a finite product
of atoms). If H is v-noetherian (i.e., the ascending chain condition on divisorial ideals holds), then H is
atomic and all sets of lengths are finite and non-empty. Next, let
[

∆(H) =
∆ L(a)
a∈H

denote the set of distances of H. Clearly, ∆(H) = ∅ if and only if |L(a)| = 1 for each a ∈ H, and in this
case H is said to be half-factorial (for recent work on half-factorial domains see [13, 31, 32, 28]). If H is
not half-factorial, then min ∆(H) = gcd ∆(H) ([17, Proposition 1.4.4]). Thus, if there is an m ∈ N such
that m, m + 1 ∈ ∆(H), then min ∆(H) = 1.
Let z, z ′ ∈ Z(H), say
z = u1 · . . . · ul v1 · . . . · vm

and z ′ = u1 · . . . · ul w1 · . . . · wn ,

where l, m, n ∈ N0 and u1 , . . . , ul , v1 , . . . , vm , w1 , . . . , wn ∈ A(Hred ) with {v1 , . . . , vm } ∩ {w1 , . . . , wn } = ∅.
We call d(z, z ′ ) = max{m, n} ∈ N0 the distance between z and z ′ . For every N ∈ N0 ∪ {∞}, an N -chain of
factorizations of a from z to z ′ is a finite sequence (zi )i∈[0,k] of factorizations zi ∈ Z(a) such that z = z0 ,
z ′ = zk , and d(zi−1 , zi ) ≤ N for every i ∈ [1, k]. For an element a ∈ H, its catenary degree c(a) is defined
as the smallest N ∈ N0 ∪ {∞} such that for any two factorizations z, z ′ ∈ Z(a) there is an N -chain of
factorizations of a from z to z ′ . Then
c(H) = sup{c(a) | a ∈ H} ∈ N0 ∪ {∞}


denotes the catenary degree of H. If a ∈ H has at least two distinct factorizations, then 2 + sup ∆ L(a) ≤
c(a). The monoid H is factorial if and only if it is atomic and c(H) = 0. If H is atomic but not factorial,
then 2 + sup ∆(H) ≤ c(H) ([17, Theorem 1.6.3]).
Let D be a monoid such that H ⊂ D is a submonoid. We say that H ⊂ D is
• saturated if H = q(H) ∩ D,
• divisor-closed if a ∈ H, α ∈ D, and α | a imply that α ∈ H,
• cofinal if for every α ∈ D there is an a ∈ H such that α | a, and
the factor group q(D)/q(H) is called the class group of H ⊂ D.
Let X(H) denote the set of all minimal non-empty prime s-ideals of H, and for subsets A, B ⊂ q(H),
we set (A : B) = {x ∈ q(H) | xB ⊂ A}. We denote by Iv∗ (H) the monoid of v-invertible v-ideals (with
v-multiplication) and by Fv (H)× = q Iv∗ (H) its quotient group of fractional v-invertible v-ideals. The
monoid of principal ideals H = {aH | a ∈ H} is a cofinal saturated submonoid of Iv∗ (H), and the class
group of H ⊂ Iv∗ (H) is the v-class group Cv (H) = Fv (H)× /q(H) of H. We denote by

4

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG

• H ′ = {x ∈ q(H) | there exists some N ∈ N such that xn ∈ H for all n ≥ N } the seminormal
closure (also called the seminormalization) of H, and by
b = {x ∈ q(H) | there exists some c ∈ H such that cxn ∈ H for all n ∈ N} the complete integral
• H
closure of H .
b resp.), and (H : H)
b is
We say that H is seminormal (completely integrally closed resp.) if H = H ′ (H = H
called the conductor of H. The localization Dp of any monoid D is a primary monoid for each p ∈ X(D).
We will mainly be concerned with a special class of primary monoids. A monoid D is called finitely
primary if there exist s, α ∈ N such that D is a submonoid of a factorial monoid F = F ××[q1 , . . . , qs ] with
s pairwise non-associated prime elements q1 , . . . , qs satisfying
(2.1)

D \ D× ⊂ q1 · . . . · qs F

and (q1 · . . . · qs )α F ⊂ D .

b |X(D)|
b = s is called the rank of D, and D is seminormal if and
If this holds, then D is primary, F = D,
only if
D = q1 · . . . · qs F ∪ D× .
Lemma 2.1. Let D ⊂ F = F × ×[q1 , . . . , qs ] be a seminormal finitely primary monoid of rank s. Then
1. A(D) = {ǫq1k1 · . . . · qsks | ǫ ∈ F × and min{k1 , . . . , ks } = 1}.
2. If s = 1, then c(D) ≤ 2 and D is half-factorial.
3. If s ≥ 2, then min L(a) = 2 for all a ∈ D \ (D× ∪ A(D)). In particular, c(D) = 3.
Proof. See [18, Lemma 3.6].



A monoid H is called a weakly Krull monoid ([25, Corollary 22.5]) if
\
Hp and {p ∈ X(H) | a ∈ p} is finite for all a ∈ H .
H=
p∈X(H)

A domain R is weakly Krull if and only if its multiplicative monoid R• = R \ {0} of nonzero elements is
weakly Krull. Weakly Krull domains were introduced by Anderson, Anderson, Mott, and Zafrullah [1, 2],
and a divisor theoretic characterization was first given by Halter-Koch [24]. For seminormal v-noetherian
domains (i.e., seminormal Mori domains) we refer to the survey by Barucci [5]. The ideal theory of
(general) weakly Krull monoids is presented in [25, Chapters 21 – 24], and for seminormal v-noetherian
weakly Krull monoids we refer to [18, Section 5]. A monoid H is said to be Krull if it is weakly Krull
and Hp is a discrete valuation monoid for all p ∈ X(H) (equivalently, H is v-noetherian and completely
integrally closed).
Let H be a weakly Krull monoid. Then H is v-noetherian (seminormal resp.) if and only if all
localizations Hp are v-noetherian (seminormal resp.) for each p ∈ X(H). Let H be a seminormal vb ( H. Then H
b is Krull and for each p ∈ X(H), Hp is
noetherian weakly Krull monoid with ∅ 6= f = (H : H)
seminormal v-noetherian primary, and if H is the multiplicative monoid of nonzero elements of a domain,
then Hp is even finitely primary.
Noetherian domains are weakly Krull if and only if every prime ideal of depth one has height one, which
holds in particular for all one-dimensional noetherian domains. Let R be a one-dimensional noetherian
domain such that its integral closure R is a finitely generated R-module. Then the integral closure coincides
with the complete integral closure, the conductor f = (R : R) is nonzero, and the v-class group is the usual
Picard group. If R is an order in an algebraic number field or an order in a holomorphy ring of an algebraic
function field, then the v-class group is finite and every class contains infinitely many prime ideals. We
refer to [26, 3, 7, 27] for more on weakly Krull domains and to the extended list of further examples in
[18, Examples 5.7].
We continue with weakly Krull monoids of a combinatorial flavor which are used to model general
weakly Krull monoids. Let G be an additive abelian group, G0 ⊂ G a subset, T a reduced monoid and

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

5

ι : T → G a homomorphism. Let σ : F (G0 ) → G be the unique homomorphism satisfying σ(g) = g for all
g ∈ G0 . Then
B = B(G0 , T, ι) = {S t ∈ F (G0 )×T | σ(S) + ι(t) = 0 } ⊂ F (G0 )×T = F
is called the T -block monoid over G0 defined by ι .
Proposition 2.2. Let D = F (P)×T be a reduced atomic monoid, where P ⊂ D a set of primes and T ⊂ D
is a submonoid, and let H ⊂ D be an atomic saturated submonoid with class group G = q(D)/q(H), and
GP = {[p] | p ∈ P} ⊂ G the set of classes containing primes. Let ι : T → G be defined by ι(t) = [t],
e : D → F be the unique homomorphism satisfying
F = F (GP ) × T , B = B(GP , T, ι) ⊂ F , and let β
e
e
β(p) = [p] for all p ∈ P and β | T = idT .
e | H : H → B is a transfer homomorphism satisfying c(H, β) ≤ 2. In
1. The restriction β = β
particular, we have ∆(H) = ∆(B) and c(H) = c(B) (provided that H is not factorial).
2. If H ⊂ D is cofinal, then B ⊂ F is cofinal, and there is an isomorphism ψ : q(F )/q(B) → G, by
which we will identify these groups.
3. If T = D1 × . . . × Dn , D1 , . . . , Dn are seminormal finitely primary, and G is a torsion group, then
H and B are seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull monoids with nontrivial conductors.

Proof. See [17, Proposition 3.4.8] and [18, Lemma 5.2].



Next we consider monoids of zero-sum sequences which are well-studied submonoids of T -block monoids.
As before, let G be an additively written abelian group and G0 ⊂ G a subset. In combinatorial number
theory the elements of F (G0 ) are called sequences over G0 and
B(G0 ) = {S ∈ F (G0 ) | σ(S) = 0} ⊂ F (G0 )
is the monoid of zero-sum sequences over G0 ([19, 23]). If T and B are as above, then B(G0 ) ⊂ B is
a divisor-closed submonoid whence ZB (A) = ZB(G0 ) (A) and LB (A) = LB(G0 ) (A) for all A ∈ B(G0 ). If
T = {1}, then B(G0 ) = B. As usual, we set



A(G0 ) := A B(G0 ) , ∆(G0 ) := ∆ B(G0 ) , and c(G0 ) := c B(G0 ) .

The atoms of B(G0 ) are also called minimal zero-sum sequences over G0 . If G0 is finite, then the set A(G0 )
is finite, and
D(G0 ) = max{|U | | U ∈ A(G0 )}
is the Davenport constant of G0 . Suppose
that G ∼
= Cn1 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Cnr , where r, n1 , . . . , nr ∈ N with
Pr
1 < n1 | . . . | nr , and set D∗ (G) = 1 + i=1 (ni − 1). Then D∗ (G) ≤ D(G), and equality holds for p-groups,
groups of rank at most two, and others ([17, Chapter 5]). It can be easily verified that ∆(G) = ∅ if and
only if |G| ≤ 2.
Proposition 2.3. Let G be a finite abelian group with |G| ≥ 3. Then ∆(G) is a finite interval with
min ∆(G) = 1.
Proof. See [20, Theorem 1.1].



Since B(G) ⊂ B = B(G, T, ι) is divisor-closed, ∆(B) contains the interval ∆(G) = [1, max ∆(G)].
We will provide examples showing that in general (under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1) we have
max ∆(G) < max ∆(B) (see Theorem 3.3 and Examples 3.4.4). The groups occurring in Statements 2
and 3 of Proposition 2.4 are the only groups at all for which the precise value of max ∆(G) is known.
Proposition 2.4. Let G = Cn1 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Cnr , where r, n1 , . . . , nr ∈ N with 1 < n1 | . . . | nr , be a finite
abelian group with |G| ≥ 3.

6

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG

1.
max
2. The
(a)
(b)
(c)
3. The
(a)
(b)
(c)

n

exp(G) − 2,

r
X
ni o
⌊ ⌋ ≤ max ∆(G) ≤ c(G) − 2 ≤ D(G) − 2 .
2
i=1

following statements are equivalent :
c(G) = D(G).
max ∆(G) = D(G) − 2.
G is either cyclic or an elementary 2-group.
following statements are equivalent :
c(G) = D(G) − 1.
max ∆(G) = D(G) − 3.
G is isomorphic to C2r−1 ⊕ C4 for some r ≥ 1 or to C2 ⊕ C2n for some n ≥ 2.

Proof. 1. See [17, Theorem 6.7.1].
2. The equivalence of (a) and (c) follows from [17, Theorem 6.4.7] (and this is easy to prove). Statement
1. shows that (b) is equivalent to (a) and (c).
3. The equivalence of (a) and (c) follows from [22, Theorem 1.1] (and this requires some effort). Again
Statement 1. shows that (b) is equivalent to (a) and (c).

3. Arithmetic of weakly Krull monoids
We fix our notation for the present section. Let
B = B(G, T, ι) ⊂ F = F (G)×T ,
where G is an additively written finite abelian group with |G| > 1, n ∈ N, T = D1 ×. . .×Dn , D1 , . . . , Dn
are reduced seminormal finitely primary monoids, and ι : T → G be a homomorphism. Clearly,
n
[
A(Di ) ,
A(F ) = G ∪
i=1

Since G is finite, B ⊂ F is a cofinal saturated submonoid with class group q(F )/q(B) ∼
= G ([17, Proposition
3.4.7]), and we identify the groups. For every a ∈ q(F ), we denote by [a] = aq(B) the class containing a,
and since B ⊂ F is saturated, we have a ∈ B if and only if [a] = 0 ∈ G. In particular, we have aexp(G) ∈ B
×
ci = D
ci × [qi,1 , . . . , qi,si ] with si ∈ N, and we have
for every a ∈ F . For every i ∈ [1, n], we set Di ⊂ D
×

ks
k1
ci , min{k1 , . . . , ksi } = 1} by Lemma 2.1. Every A ∈ F has a unique
· . . . · qi,sii | ǫ ∈ D
A(Di ) = {ǫqi,1
product decomposition of the form

A = g 1 · . . . · g k a1 · . . . · an ,

where k ∈ N0 , g1 , . . . , gk ∈ G, and ai ∈ Di for every i ∈ [1, n]. For the set of factorizations of A we observe
that
n
Y
ZF (ai ) .
ZF (A) = g1 · . . . · gk
i=1

We define a norm

k · k : F (G) × T

→

(N0 , +)

A = g 1 · . . . · g k a1 · . . . · an

7→

k+2

n
X

max LDi (ai ) = k + 2 max LF (a1 · . . . · an ) .

i=1

Obviously, k S k = |S|F (G) for all S ∈ F (G), and k A k = 0 if and only if A = 1 ∈ F . For each i ∈ [1, n],
let pi : F (G) × D1 × . . . × Dn → Di denote the projection.

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

7

Lemma 3.1. Let B be as above and A ∈ B be an atom.
1. If q is atom of T such that q | A (in F ) and g = [q] ∈ G, then gq −1 A is also an atom of B.
×

ci , and q = ǫqi,1 · . . . · qi,si be an atom of T such that g | A where g = [q] ∈ G.
2. Let i ∈ [1, n], ǫ ∈ D
Then qg −1 A is either an atom of B or a product of two atoms of B.

Proof. 1. Obvious.

ks
k1
ci ×
· . . . · qi,sii with ǫ1 ∈ D
2. If pi (A) = 1, then qg −1 A is obviously an atom. Suppose that pi (A) = ǫ1 qi,1
and kj ≥ 1 for all j ∈ [1, si ]. Let A′ = qg −1 A = W1 · . . . · Wt with Wi ∈ A(B) for all i ∈ [1, t]. Assume to
the contrary that t ≥ 3. If pi (W1 ) = 1 or pi (W2 ) = 1, then W1 | A or W2 | A, a contradiction. Otherwise
×
rs
ci and rj ≤ kj − 1
pi (W1 ) 6= 1 and pi (W2 ) 6= 1 which implies that pi (W3 ) = ǫ2 q r1 · . . . · q i with ǫ2 ∈ D
i,1

for all j ∈ [1, si ]. Hence pi (W3 ) | pi (A) and W3 | A, a contradiction.

i,si




Proposition 3.2. Let B be as above and A ∈ B with max ∆ L(A) ≥ max ∆(G) + 2. Suppose that
|{i ∈ [1, n] | si > 1}| ≤ 1 or that G is an elementary
2-group. Then there exists an A′ ∈ B with

′
′
k A k < k A k and max ∆ L(A ) ≥ max ∆ L(A) − 1.

Proof. Suppose that

A = U1 · . . . · Uk = V1 · . . . · Vl ,

where U1 , . . . Uk , V1 , . . . , Vl ∈ A(B), [k + 1, l − 1] ∩ LB (A) = ∅, and l − k = max ∆ L(A) ≥ max ∆(G) + 2 ≥
exp(G) (for the last inequality we use Proposition 2.4.1). We distinguish several cases.
CASE 1: There exist i ∈ [1, k] and g1 , g2 ∈ G such that g1 g2 | Ui , say i = 1.
Let U1′ = U1 (g1 g2 )−1 (g1 + g2 ) and A′ = AU1−1 U1′ . Then k A′ k < k A k , U1′ is also an atom of B, and k ∈
LB (A′ ). After renumbering if necessary we may assume that g1 g2 | V1 V2 . Let V ′ = V1 V2 (g1 g2 )−1 (g1 + g2 ).
Then A′ = V ′ V3 ·. . . · Vl and there exists m0 ≥ l − 1 > k such that m0 ∈ LB (A′ ). Choose m =
min LB (A′ ) \ [1, k] . We only need to prove that m ≥ l − 1. Assume to the contrary that k < m < l − 1.
Then let A′ = W1 ·. . .·Wm with Wi ∈ A(B) for all i ∈ [1, m] and g1 +g2 | W1 . Let W1′ = W1 (g1 +g2 )−1 g1 g2 .
Then A = W1′ W2 · . . . · Wm and W1′ is an atom or a product of two atoms. Hence m or m + 1 ∈ LB (A), a
contradiction to [k + 1, l − 1] ∩ LB (A) = ∅.
ci × , and j ∈ [1, k] such that q = ǫqi,1 · . . . · qi,si divides Uj , say
CASE 2: There exist i ∈ [1, n], ǫ ∈ D
i = j = 1.
Let U1′ = U1 q −1 [q] and A′ = AU1−1 U1′ . Then k A′ k < k A k , U1′ is an atom of B by Lemma 3.1.1,
and k ∈ LB (A′ ). After renumbering if necessary we may assume that q | V1 V2 . Let V ′ = V1 V2 q −1 [q]. Then

A′ = V ′ V3 ·. . .·Vl and there exists m0 ≥ l−1 > k such that m0 ∈ LB (A′ ). Choose m = min LB (A′ )\[1, k] .
We only need to prove that m ≥ l−1. Assume to the contrary that k < m < l−1. Then let A′ = W1 ·. . .·Wm
with Wi ∈ A(B) for all i ∈ [1, m] and [q] | W1 . Let W1′ = W1 [q]−1 q. Then A = W1′ W2 · . . . · Wm and W1′
is an atom or a product of two atoms by Lemma 3.1.2. Hence m or m + 1 ∈ LB (A), a contradiction to
[k + 1, l − 1] ∩ LB (A) = ∅.

CASE 3: There exists an i ∈ [1, n] such that pi (A) 6= 1 and max LF pi (A) ≤ 2.
Without loss of generality, we assume that pi (U1 ) 6= 1. Let U1′ = U1 pi (U1 )−1 [pi (U1 )] and A′ = AU1−1 U1′ .
Then k A′ k < k A k , U1′ is also an atom of B, and k ∈ LB (A′ ). Since max LF pi (A) ≤ 2, we
may assume, after renumbering if necessary, that pi (U1 ) | pi (A) | V1 V2 . Let V ′ = V1 V2 pi (U1 )−1 [pi (U1 )].
′
Then A′ = V ′ V3 · . . . · Vl and there exists m0 ≥ l − 1 > k such
 that m0 ∈ LB (A ). We suppose that
′
′
A = W1 ·. . .·Wm with [pi (U1 )] | W1 and m = min LB (A )\[1, k] , where Wi ∈ A(B) for each i ∈ [1, m]. Let
W1′ = W1 [pi (U1 )]−1 pi (U1 ) and hence W1′ is an atom or a product of two atoms by max LF pi (A) ≤ 2. Since

A = W1′ W2 ·. . .·Wm , it follows that m ≥ l−1, whence max ∆ L(A′ ) ≥ m−k ≥ l−1−k = max ∆ L(A) −1.
We summarize what we know so far. If A ∈ F (G), then CASE 1 holds. After renumbering and replacing
n by some n′ ∈ [1, n] if necessary we may suppose that pi (A) 6= 1 for each i ∈ [1, n]. By CASE 3, we

8

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG


may suppose that max LF pi (A) ≥ 3 for each i ∈ [1, n]. If there is some i ∈ [1, n] with si = 1, then
CASE 2 holds (see Lemma 2.1). Thus we may suppose that si > 1 for each i ∈ [1, n]. Then the inequality
|{i ∈ [1, n] | si > 1}| ≤ 1 made in the assumption of the proposition implies that n = 1. Again by CASE
2, we infer that pi (Uj ) ∈ A(Di ) ∪ {1} for each i ∈ [1, n] and each j ∈ [1, k]. Now we continue with further
case distinctions.
CASE 4: k ≥ 3.
After renumbering if necessary we may suppose that p1 (U1 ) ∈ A(D1 ) and p1 (U2 ) ∈ A(D1 ). If
min LB (U1 U2 ) \ {2} ≥ l − k + 2, then A′ = U1 U2 satisfies k A′ k < k A k and max ∆ L(A′ ) ≥
max ∆ L(A) − 1. If r = min LB (U1 U2 ) \ {2} ∈ [3, l − k + 1], say U1 U2 = W1 · . . . · Wr with atoms
W1 , . . . , Wr , then A = W1 · . . . · Wr U3 · . . . · Uk and k + 1 ≤ r + k − 2 ≤ l − 1, a contradiction to
[k + 1, l − 1] ∩ LB (A) = ∅.
Now suppose that LB (U1 U2 ) = {2}. Since p1 (U1 ) 6= 1 and p1 (U2 ) 6= 1, we infer that q = q1,1 · . . . ·
q1,s1 | p1 (U1 U2 ), and we set U ′ = U1 U2 q −1 [q] and A′ = U ′ U3 · . . . · Uk . Clearly, we have k A′ k < k A k .
Suppose that U ′ = W1 · . . . · Wt with t ≥ 3 and atoms W1 , . . . , Wt . After renumbering if necessary we
suppose that [q] | W1 , and then W1′ = W1 [q]−1 q is an atom or a product of two atoms by Lemma 3.1.2.
Therefore U1 U2 = W1′ W2 · . . . · Wt and t or t + 1 ∈ LB (U1 U2 ), a contradiction. Hence U ′ is an atom or a
product of two atoms which implies that k or k − 1 ∈ LB (A′ ).
After renumbering if necessary, we may assume that q | V1 V2 , and we set V ′ = V1 V2 q −1 [q]. Then A′ =
′
V V3 · . . . · Vl and there exists m0 ≥ l − 1 > k such that m0 ∈ LB (A′ ). We choose m = min LB (A′ ) \ [1, k]
and need to prove that m ≥ l − 1. Assume to the contrary that k < m < l − 1. Then A′ = W1 · . . . · Wm
with Wi ∈ A(B) for all i ∈ [1, m] and [q] | W1 . Let W1′ = W1 [q]−1 q. Then A = W1′ W2 · . . . · Wm and W1′
is an atom or a product of two atoms by Lemma 3.1.2. Hence m or m + 1 ∈ LB (A), a contradiction to
[k + 1, l − 1] ∩ LB (A) = ∅.
CASE 5: k = 2.
We suppose that none of the previous cases holds. Therefore, after a suitable renumbering if necessary,
we have A = U1 U2 with U1 = S1 a1 · . . . · an ∈ A(B), U2 = S2 b1 · . . . · bn ∈ A(B), where S1 , S2 ∈ F (G) with
|S1 | ≤ 1, |S2 | ≤ 1, and for each i ∈ [1, n],
k

ki,s

ai = ǫi qi,1i,1 · . . . · qi,si i ∈ Di with ki,1 = 1 and ki,si > 1 ,
t

ti,s

i,1
ci
· . . . · qi,sii ∈ Di with ti,1 > 1 and ti,si = 1 , where ǫi , ǫ′i ∈ D
bi = ǫ′i qi,1

×

.

First, we suppose that there exists i ∈ [1, n] such that max LF (ai bi ) ≥ exp(G) + 2, say i = n.
After renumbering if necessary there is a λ ∈ [1, sn ] such that kn,1 = . . . = kn,λ = 1 and kn,ρ > 1 for all
ρ ∈ [λ + 1, sn ]. Then tn,ρ ≥ exp(G) + 1 for each ρ ∈ [1, λ]. It follows that U1 U2 = U1′ U2′ where


kn,sn
1+exp(G)
1+exp(G) kn,λ+1
∈ B and
U1′ = U1 a−1
ǫi qn,1
· . . . · qn,λ
qn,λ+1 · . . . · qn,s
n
n


tn,1 −exp(G)
tn,λ −exp(G) tn,λ+1
tn,sn
∈ A(B) .
ǫ′i qn,1
· . . . · qn,λ
qn,λ+1 · . . . · qn,s
U2′ = U2 b−1
n
n

Otherwise, set
If U1′ ∈ A(B), then qn,1 · . . . · qn,sn | U1′ and hence the assumption of CASE 2 is satisfied.

ℓ = min LB (U1′ ) and hence ℓ ∈ [2, exp(G) + 1]. If ℓ ∈ [2, exp(G)],
then
max
∆
L(A)
=
l
−
2
≤ℓ+1−2<

exp(G), a contradiction. Thus ℓ = exp(G) + 1, max ∆ L(A) = exp(G), and hence kn,ρ ≥ exp(G) + 1 for
all ρ ∈ [λ + 1, sn ]. Since


kn,λ+1 −exp(G)
kn,sn −exp(G)
U1 a−1
ǫ
q
·
.
.
.
·
q
q
·
.
.
.
·
q
∈ A(B) ,
n,s
i
n,1
n,λ
n
n
n,λ+1


exp(G)
exp(G)
= {exp(G)}. We set
· . . . · qn,sn
we obtain that LB qn,1
exp(G)+1

A′ = qn,1

exp(G)+1

exp(G)+2
· (−[qn,sn ])
· . . . · qn,sn −1 qn,s
n

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

9


and observe that k A′ k < k A k . Since LB (A′ ) = {2, exp(G) + 1}, it follows that max ∆ L(A′ ) =
exp(G) − 1 ≥ max ∆ L(A) − 1 = exp(G) − 1.

From now on we suppose that max LF (ai bi ) ≤ exp(G) + 1 for each i ∈ [1, n], and distinguish two cases.

CASE 5.1: n = 1 (recall all the reductions made before CASE 4).

Then U1 = S1 a1 and
 U2 = S2 b1 with |S1 | ≤ 1 and |S2 | ≤ 1. Since max ∆ L(A) ≥ exp(G), we have
that min LB (A) \ {2} ≥ exp(G) + 2. By max
 LF (a1 b1 ) ≤ exp(G) + 1, we obtain that |S1 = |S2 | = 1,
S1 S2 ∈ A(B), a1 a2 ∈ B, min LB (A) \ {2} = exp(G) + 2, max LF (a1 b1 ) = exp(G) + 1 and hence
exp(G)
exp(G)
exp(G)
exp(G)
· . . . · q1,s1 )−1 is an
LB (A) = {2, exp(G) + 2}. Since q1,1
· . . . · q1,s1 | a1 b1 , we have that a1 b1 (q1,1


exp(G)
exp(G)
= {exp(G)}.
· . . . · q1,s1
atom and LB q1,1
We set
exp(G)+1
exp(G)+1 exp(G)+2
· (−[q1,s1 ])
A′ = q1,1
· . . . · q1,s1 −1 q1,s1
and observe that k A′ k = 1 + 2(exp(G) + 1) < 2 + 2(exp(G) + 1) = k A k . Since LB (A′ ) = {2, exp(G) + 1},
it follows that max ∆ L(A′ ) = exp(G) − 1 ≥ max ∆ L(A) − 1 = exp(G) − 1.
CASE 5.2: G is an elementary 2-group, say G ∼
= C2r .

We may assume that n ≥ 2. Since l − 2 = max ∆ L(A) ≥ max ∆(C2r ) + 2 = r + 1 (where the last
equation follows from Proposition 2.4), we have that l ≥ r + 3 ≥ 4.
Since 3 ≤ max LF (pi (A)) = max LF (ai bi ) ≤ exp(G) + 1 = 3 for each i ∈ [1, n], we may assume that
k

k

n,sn
n,2
an = ǫn qn,1 qn,2
· . . . · qn,s
with kn,2 > 1
n

bn =

tn,3
2
ǫ′n qn,1
qn,2 qn,3

·... ·

tn,sn
qn,s
n

where

and ,

ǫn , ǫ′n

cn
∈D

×

and kn,j + tn,j ≥ 3 for each j ∈ [3, n] .

CASE 5.2.1: l = 4.
×
cn } = {0}, then
Then r = 1 and G ∼
= C2 . If [qn,1 ] = e, [qn,k ] = 0 for each k ∈ [2, sn ], and {[η] | η ∈ D
U2 = bn and hence n = 1, a contradiction. Thus we may suppose that [qn,1 ] = [qn,k ] for some k ∈ [2, sn ]
×
cn because [1 × ] = 0. Let
or [qn,1 ] = [η0 ] for some η0 ∈ D
d
Dn

b′n

=

tn,3
ǫ′n ηqn,1 qn,2 qn,3

· ...·

tn,sn
qn,s
n ,

where η =

(

qn,k

if [qn,1 ] = [qn,k ] for some k ∈ [2, sn ],

η0

cn .
otherwise [qn,1 ] = [η0 ] for some η0 ∈ D

×

′
′
′
′
and hence U2′ = U2 b−1
n bn is an atom. We set A = U1 U2 and observe that k A k < k A k . After
renumbering if necessary we may assume that qn,1 · . . . · qn,sn | V1 V2 . Let
x

sn
x1 x2
qn,2 · . . . · qn,s
pn (V1 V2 ) = ǫ1 qn,1
n with xk > 1 for each k ∈ [1, sn ]

and
x

x1 −1 x2
sn
d = ǫ1 ηqn,1
qn,2 · . . . · qn,s
n .

Then
A′ = V1 V2 pn (V1 V2 )−1 dV3 V4 ,


′
′
which implies
 that there is a k ∈ N such that k ≥ 3 and k ∈ LB (A ). Then max ∆ L(A ) ≥ 1 = l − 3 =
max ∆ L(A) − 1.
CASE 5.2.2: l ≥ 5.
Then U1′ = U1 a−1
n [an ] ∈ A(B), and after renumbering if necessary we may assume that an | V1 V2 V3 . We
set
A′ = U1′ U2 = V1 V2 V3 an−1 [an ] · V4 · . . . · Vl ,

and observe that k A′ k < k A k and there is a k ∈ N such that k ≥ l − 2 ≥ 3 and k ∈ LB (A′ ). Suppose
that m = min LB (A′ ) \ {2} and A′ = W1 · . . . · Wm with [an ] | W1 , where Wi is an atom for each i ∈ [1, m].

10

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG

If bn ∤ W1 , then W1′ = W1 [an ]−1 an is an atom and U1 U2 = W1′ W2 · . . . · Wm . Therefore m ≥ l which
implies that max ∆ L(A′ ) ≥ max ∆ L(A) . Thus we assume that bn | W1 . Let W1′ = W1 [an ]−1 an and
2
2
2
| an bn | W1′ . Therefore W1′ q −1 is an atom and q is an atom or a product of
hence q = qn,1
qn,2
· . . . · qn,s
n


two atoms. If q is an atom, then m + 1 ≥ l and hence max ∆ L(A′ ) ≥ max ∆ L(A) − 1.
cn × such that ǫqn,1 qn,2 · . . . · qn,sn is
Suppose that q is a product of two atoms. Then there exists ǫ ∈ D
t

+1

t

+1

n,3
n,sn
2
an atom. Let b′n = ǫ′n ǫqn,1 qn,2
qn,3
· . . . · qn,s
n
generality, we assume that bn | V1 V2 V3 . Therefore

′
and hence U2′ = U2 b−1
n bn is an atom. Without loss of

A′′ = U1 U2′ = V1 V2 V3 bn−1 b′n V4 · . . . · Vl ,
which implies that k A′′ k < k A k and there
is a k ∈ N such that k ≥ l − 2 ≥ 3 and k ∈ LB (A′′ ).

′′
Suppose that m = min LB (A ) \ {2} and A′′ = X1 · . . . · Xm with Xi is an atom for each i ∈ [1, m]. If
pn (A′′ ) = pn (Xi ) for some i ∈ [1, m], then ǫqn,1 ·. . .·qn,sn | an b′n | Xi , a contradiction to that ǫqn,1 ·. . .·qn,sn ∈
A(B). Therefore we may assume that pn (A′′ ) = pn (X1 X2 ), pn (X1 ) 6= 1, and that pn (X2 ) 6= 1. Let
s2
sn
and pn (X2 ) = ǫ2 qn,1 qn,2
· . . . · qn,s
n

r2
rn
pn (X1 ) = ǫ1 qn,1 qn,2
· . . . · qn,s
n

with ri + si ≥ 4 for each i ∈ [2, n]. Let
r′

r′

′
2
n
cn = ǫ1 qn,1 qn,2
· . . . · qn,s
n , with ri =



ri

if ri ≤ 2 ,

for each i ∈ [2, n] ,
ri − 2 if ri ≥ 3 ,

si − 1 if ri ≤ 2 ,
s′2
s′n
′
−1 2
dn = ǫ2 ǫ qn,1 qn,2 · . . . · qn,sn , with si =
for each i ∈ [2, n] .
si + 1 if ri ≥ 3 ,
Therefore cn dn = an bn . Let X1′ = X1 pn (X1 )−1 cn and X2′ = X2 pn (X2 )−1 dn . Then X1′ is an atom, X2 is
′ ′
an atom or a product of two atoms, and A = X
 1 X2 X3 · . . . · Xm which implies that m ≥ l − 1 and hence
′′
max ∆ L(A ) ≥ m − 2 ≥ l − 3 = max ∆ L(A) − 1.

Recall that for an atomic but non-factorial monoid H we have 2 + sup ∆(H) ≤ c(H). In general, this
inequality can be strict (even for numerical monoids; see Examples 3.4.2). Suppose H is a Krull monoid
with finite class group G and suppose that every class contains a minimal prime ideal. Then ∆(H) = ∅ if
and only if |G| ≤ 2, and if G is nontrivial with D(G) = D∗ (G), then 2 + max ∆(H) = c(H) ([16, Corollary
4.1]).
Now let H be a weakly Krull monoid as in Theorem 1.1 but not Krull, whence H is seminormal vnoetherian with nontrivial conductor, all localizations Hp are finitely primary, and every class of the v-class
group contains a minimal prime ideal p ∈ X(H) with p 6⊃ f. If G is trivial, then Hred is isomorphic to the
monoid Iv∗ (H) of v-invertible v-ideals and 2 + max ∆(H) = c(H) ∈ {2, 3} (this will be outlined in detail
in the proof of Theorem 1.1). The next theorem provides a detailed analysis of the case where |G| = 2.
b its complete integral closure,
Theorem 3.3. Let H be a seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull monoid, H
∗
b
∅ 6= f = (H : H) ( H its conductor, P = {p1 , . . . , pn } = {p ∈ X(H) | p ⊃ f}, and P = X(H) \ P ∗ . Suppose
that Hpi is finitely primary of rank si for all i ∈ [1, n], that the v-class group G = Cv (H) has two elements,
and that each class contains some p ∈ P.
Then ∆(H) is an interval with 2+max ∆(H) = c(H), and either ∆(H) = ∅ or min ∆(H) = 1. Moreover,
setting G = {0, e},
Dν = (Hpν )red ,
we have

×

cν = D
cν ×[qν,1 , . . . , qν,sν ] ,
D

and

×

cν }
Gν = {[ǫ] | ǫ ∈ D

for all

max ∆(H) = max {dν + dν ′ | ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] with ν 6= ν ′ } ∪ {|dν | | ν ∈ [1, n]}



ν ∈ [1, n] ,

where

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS


2,







 0,
dν = −1,




1,





11

if Gν = {0} and sν = |{i ∈ [1, sν ] | [qν,i ] = e}| = 2 ,
×

cν | > 1, since Dν is not factorial,
if Gν = {0} and sν = 1; note that [qν,1 ] = e or |D
if Gν = {0}, sν ≥ 2, and |{i ∈ [1, sν ] | [qν,i ] = e}| = 0 ,


if Gν 6= {0}, or sν ≥ 2 and |{i ∈ [1, sν ] | [qν,i ] = e}| = 1 ,

or sν ≥ 3 and |{i ∈ [1, sν ] | [qν,i ] = e}| ≥ 2 .

Proof of Theorem 1.1 and of Theorem 3.3. Let H be a v-noetherian weakly Krull monoid as in the formulation of Theorem 1.1 and of Theorem 3.3. We proceed in five steps. First, we show that it is sufficient
to consider a special class of weakly Krull monoids. Second, we handle the special cases where the v-class
group is either trivial or infinite, which settles the first statement of Theorem 1.1. In the third step we prove
the second statement of Theorem 1.1, and in the fourth step we show that ∆(H) = ∅ or min ∆(H) = 1.
Finally we prove Theorem 3.3. We use all the notation introduced at the beginning of this section.
1. Reduction to a special case. Let H = {aH | a ∈ H} be the monoid of principal ideals, Iv∗ (H) be
the monoid of v-invertible v-ideals of H, δH : Hred → Iv∗ (H) be the canonical monomorphism satisfying

b P ∗ = {p ∈ X(H) |
δH (Hred ) = H, and Cv (H) = q Iv∗ (H) /q(H) be the v-class group. We set f = (H : H),
b is Krull, and all
p ⊃ f}, and P = X(H) \ P ∗ . By assumption, we have f 6= ∅. If f = H, then H = H
statements of Theorem 1.1 hold by Proposition 2.3. Thus we suppose that f ( H whence P ∗ is finite and
non-empty, say P ∗ = {p1 , . . . , pn } with n ∈ N. By [18, Theorem 5.5], there exists an isomorphism
χ : Iv∗ (H) → D = F (P)×(Hp1 )red ×. . .×(Hpn )red
where χ | P = idP and, for all i ∈ [1, n], Di := (Hpi )red is a reduced seminormal finitely primary monoid,
say of rank si , which is not factorial. Hence χ ◦ δH : Hred → H = {aH | a ∈ H} ֒→ Iv∗ (H) → D induces
an isomorphism Hred → H ∗ , where H ∗ ⊂ D is a cofinal saturated submonoid, and there is a natural
isomorphism χ : Cv (H) → q(D)/q(H ∗ ) = G mapping classes of primes onto classes of primes (use [18,
Lemma 4.1]). Thus we may assume from now on that H = H ∗ ⊂ D is a cofinal saturated submonoid with
class group G = q(D)/q(H).
By Proposition 2.2, it is sufficient to prove the assertion for the associated T -block monoid
B = B(G, T, ι) ⊂ F = F (G)×T ,
where T = D1 × . . .× Dn and ι : T → G is defined by ι(t) = [t] for all t ∈ T (note that, again by Proposition
2.2, B is seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull with non-trivial conductor and class group isomorphic to
G). Since B(G) ⊂ B is a divisor-closed submonoid, it follows that ∆(G) ⊂ ∆(B), and in case |G| ≥ 3,
Proposition 2.3 implies that ∆(G) is an interval with min ∆(G) = 1.
2. Proof of Theorem 1.1.1.
Suppose that |G| = 1. Then B = F and c(B) = c(F ) = max{c(D1 ), . . . , c(Dn }. Thus Lemma 2.1
implies that c(B) ≤ 3 and hence ∆(B) ⊂ {1}.
Suppose that G is infinite. Then ∆(G) = N by [17, Theorem 7.4.1] and hence N ⊂ ∆(G) ⊂ ∆(B) ⊂ N.
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1.2.
Suppose that G is finite with |G| > 1, and that either |{i ∈ [1, n] | si > 1}| ≤ 1 or that G is an elementary
2-group. Lemma 2.1 implies that c(F ) = max{c(D1 ), . . . , c(Dn )} ≤ 3. Since B ⊂ F is cofinal saturated
with finite class group, the finiteness of c(F ) implies that c(B) < ∞ by [17, Theorems 3.6.4 and 3.6.7].
Therefore ∆(B) is finite and it is sufficient to show that [1, max ∆(B)] ⊂ ∆(B). We set m = max ∆(B),
and we use the convention that max ∆(G) = 0 if ∆(G) = ∅ (which is the case for |G| = 2).

12

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG

We assert that
 for each d ∈ [max ∆(G)+1, m], there are Ad , . . . , Am ∈ B such that k Ad k < . . . < k Am k ,
max ∆ L(Ai ) = i for each i ∈ [d, m], and that k Ai k is minimal among all k A′i k with A′i ∈ B and
max ∆ L(A′i ) = i. This implies that [d, m] ⊂ ∆(B) for each d ∈ [max ∆(G) + 1, m], and hence
∆(B) = ∆(G) ∪ [max ∆(G) + 1, max ∆(B)]

is an interval with min ∆(B) = 1.
We proceed by induction on d. Clearly, the assertion holds for d = m. Suppose it holds for some
d ∈ [max ∆(G) + 2,max ∆(B)]. By Proposition
3.2 there is an Ad−1 ∈ B with k Ad−1 k < k Ad k

and max ∆ L(Ad−1 ) ≥ max ∆ L(Ad ) − 1. The minimality of k Ad k , . . . , k Am k implies that
max ∆ L(Ad−1 ) = max ∆ L(Ad ) − 1 = d − 1, and hence the assertion follows.

4. Suppose that ∆(B) 6= ∅. We have to verify that min ∆(B) = 1. If G is trivial or infinite, then this
follows from 2. If G is finite with |G| ≥ 3, then 1 ∈ ∆(G) ⊂ ∆(B) by Proposition 2.3. If |G| = 2, then G
is an elementary 2-group and the assertion follows from 3.

5. Proof of Theorem 3.3.
Suppose that |G| = 2, say G = {0, e}, and, as in the formulation of Theorem 3.3, we set Gν = {[ǫ] | ǫ ∈
cν × } for all ν ∈ [1, n]. Note that max LF (A) ≤ 2 for all A ∈ A(B). By definition of the catenary degree,
D
there are A ∈ B with c(A) = c(B) and two factorizations
z1 = U1 · . . . · Uk ∈ ZB (A)

and z2 = V1 · . . . · Vl ∈ ZB (A) ,

where k ≤ l and U1 , . . . , Uk , V1 , . . . Vl ∈ A(B) such that there is no (c(B) − 1)-chain between z1 and z2 .
First we choose an element A ∈ B such that k A k is minimal with respect to this property, and then we
choose factorizations z1 , z2 ∈ ZB (A) such that |z1 | + |z2 | = k + l is maximal with the property that there
is no (c(B) − 1)-chain between z1 and z2 . Since B(G) is factorial and B is not factorial, it follows that
c(G) = 0 < c(B). Thus A ∈
/ B(G), |ZB (A)| > 1, and hence there exists an i ∈ [1, n] such that pi (A) 6= 1,
say i = 1.
We start with three assertions A1, A2, A3, and then distinguish five cases.
A1. k = 2.
Proof of A1.
Assume to the contrary that k ≥ 3. After renumbering if necessary, we may suppose
×
ks1
k1
kr kr+1
c1 , r ∈ [0, s1 ], [q1,1 ] = . . . [q1,r ] = e, and [q1,r+1 ] =
p1 (A) = ǫq1,1 · . . . · q1,r
, where ǫ ∈ D
q1,r+1 · . . . · q1,s
1
. . . [q1,s1 ] = 0.
Q
Suppose that there exist an atom W ∈ A(B), i0 ∈ [1, k], and j0 ∈ [1, l] such that W | i6=i0 Ui and
Q
W | j6=j0 Vj . Let A = W Ui0 X1 ·. . .·Xm1 = W Vj0 Y1 ·. . .·Ym2 , where X1 , . . . , Xm1 , Y1 , . . . , Ym2 ∈ A(B). By
Q
the minimality of k A k , we obtain that there are (c(B) − 1)-chains between i6=i0 Ui and W X1 · . . . · Xm1 ,
Q
between Ui0 X1 · . . . · Xm1 and Vj0 Y1 · . . . · Ym2 , between W Y1 · . . . · Ym2 and j6=j0 Vj . Then there is an
(c(B) − 1)-chain between z1 and z2 , a contradiction.
Therefore we only need to find such a W to get a contradiction.
In fact, if p1 (A) is an atom of D1 , then A′ = A(p1 (A))−1 [p1 (A)] has the definining properties of A but
k A′ k < k A k , a contradiction to the minimality of k A k . Therefore max LF (p1 (A)) ≥ 2. If there exists an
×
c1 such that ǫ′ q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 ∈ A(B), then there exist distinct i1 , i2 ∈ [1, k] and distinct j1 , j2 ∈ [1, l]
ǫ′ ∈ D
such that ǫ′ q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 | Ui1 Ui2 and ǫ′ q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 | Vj1 Vj2 , and the atom W = ǫ′ q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 has the
required property.
Thus we may suppose that G1 = {0} and [q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 ] = e which implies that r ≥ 1. We distinguish
two cases.
CASE 1: max LF (p1 (A)) = 2 .
After renumbering if necessary we may suppose that p1 (A) | U1 U2 and p1 (A) | V1 V2 . If there exists
i ∈ [1, r] such that q1,i q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 | p1 (A), then we choose W = q1,i q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 . Otherwise, it follows
that k1 = . . . = kr = 2, hence p1 (A) ∈ A(B), and we choose W = p1 (A).

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

13

CASE 2: max LF (p1 (A)) ≥ 3 .
Then p1 (A) 6= p1 (Ui ) for any i ∈ [1, k] because D(G) = 2. Without loss of generality, we may suppose
that p1 (U1 ) 6= 1 and p1 (U2 ) 6= 1. We assert that L(U1 U2 ) = {2}, and assume to the contrary that
U1 U2 = W1 · . . . · Wx where x ≥ 3 and Wi ∈ A(B) for each i ∈ [1, x]. Then there are (c(B) − 1)-chains
between U1 · . . . · Uk−1 and W1 · . . . · Wx U3 · . . . · Uk−1 by the minimality of k A k and there is a (c(B) − 1)chains between W1 · . . . · Wx U3 · . . . · Uk and z2 by the maximality of k + l. It follows that there is a
(c(B) − 1)-chain between z1 and z2 , a contradiction. Thus L(U1 U2 ) = {2}.
If U1 6= p1 (U1 ) and U2 6= p1 (U2 ), then p1 (U1 )p1 (U2 ) ∈ A(B) by L(U1 U2 ) = {2}. Let U1 U2 = W1 W2
with W1 = p1 (U1 )p1 (U2 ). Then there is no (c(B) − 1)-chain between W1 W2 U3 · . . . · Uk and V1 · . . . · Vl .
Thus we always may suppose that U1 = p1 (U1 ) and hence there exists i ∈ [1, r], say i = 1, such that
2
q1,2 · . . . · q1,s1 | U1 p1 (U2 ) | U1 U2 .
vq1,1 (U1 ) ≥ 2 by G1 = {0} and [q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 ] = e. Therefore W ′ = q1,1
With the same reason and without loss of generality, we always may suppose that V1 = p1 (V1 ) and
p1 (V2 ) 6= 1. Then there exists j ∈ [1, r] such that W ′′ = q1,j q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 | V1 p1 (V2 ) | V1 V2 . If j = 1, then
W ′ = W ′′ ∈ A(B) and we are done by choosing W = W ′ . Thus we assume that j 6= 1. After renumbering
if necessary we may suppose that p1 (Ui ) 6= 1 for each i ∈ [1, k0 ] and p1 (Ui ) = 1 for each i ∈ [k0 + 1, k]
where k0 ∈ [2, k]. After renumbering if necessary we may suppose that p1 (Vi ) 6= 1 for each i ∈ [1, l0 ] and
p1 (Vi ) = 1 for each i ∈ [l0 + 1, l] where l0 ∈ [2, l]. If there exist distinct j1 , j2 ∈ [1, l0 ] such that W ′ | Vj1 Vj2 ,
then we are done by choosing W = W ′ . Otherwise l0 ≥ k0 . Then there must exist distinct i1 , i2 ∈ [1, k0 ]
(Proof of A1)
such that W ′′ | Ui1 Ui2 and we are done by choosing W = W ′′ .
If L(A) = {2}, then max ∆(B) + 2 ≤ c(B) = c(A) = 2 whence ∆(B) = ∅ and max ∆(B) = 0 = c(B) − 2.
Suppose that L(A) 6= {2}, say
(3.1)



A = U1 U2 = W1 · . . . · Wm

where m = min L(A) \ {2} and W1 , . . . , Wm ∈ A(B). Since m + l > 2 + l, we obtain that there is an
(c(B) − 1)-chain between z2 and W1 · . . . · Wm . Therefore there is no (c(B) − 1)-chain between U1 U2 and
W1 · . . . · Wm . It follows that max ∆(B) + 2 ≥ m ≥ c(B) ≥ max ∆(B) + 2 and hence max ∆(B) = m − 2 =
c(B) − 2. Since G is an elementary 2-group, Theorem 1.1.2 implies that ∆(B) is an interval.
We set m = 2 in case L(A) = {2}, and then it remains to prove that

(3.2)
m − 2 = max {dν + dν ′ | ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] with ν 6= ν ′ } ∪ {|dν | | ν ∈ [1, n]} .

For every j ∈ [1, n] we may suppose, after renumbering if necessary, that [qj,i ] = e for each i ∈ [1, s′j ]
and [qj,i ] = 0 for each i ∈ [s′j + 1, sj ] where s′j ∈ [0, sj ].
A2. Let j ∈ [1, n].
cj × such that b = ǫa.
1. If sj = 1, a, b ∈ Dj ∩ A(B), then there exists ǫ ∈ D
2. If sj ≥ 2 and a ∈ Dj ∩ B, then
(
3,
if sj = s′j = 2 and Gj = {0} i.e. dj = 2 ,
min L(a) ≤
2,
otherwise.
Proof of A2.

We prove the assertion for j = 1 and set s′ = s′1 .
×

c1 and hence the assertion follows. Thus
1. If [q1,1 ] = 0, then a = ǫ1 q1,1 , b = ǫ2 q1,1 , where ǫ1 , ǫ2 ∈ D
2
2
we assume that [q1,1 ] = e. If G1 = {0}, then a = ǫ1 q1,1
, b = ǫ2 q1,1
, where [ǫ1 ] = [ǫ2 ] = 0 and hence the
assertion follows. If G1 6= {0} , then a = ǫ1 q1,1 , b = ǫ2 q1,1 , where [ǫ1 ] = [ǫ2 ] = e and hence the assertion
follows.
2. Suppose s′ = 2 and G1 = {0}. If s1 = 2, we assume to the contrary that min L(a) ≥ 4 and
k1 k2
k2 −1
let a = ǫq1,1
q1,2 with ki ≥ 4 for each i ∈ [1, 2]. Then k1 + k2 is even. If k1 is even, then ǫq1,1 q1,2
and
k1 −1
k2 −2
q1,1 q1,2 are two atoms of B. Thus min L(a) ≤ 2, a contradiction. If k1 is odd, then ǫq1,1 q1,2 , q1,1 q1,2 and
k

s1
k1 −2
k1
q1,1
with
q1,2 are three atoms of B. Thus min L(a) ≤ 3, a contradiction. If s1 ≥ 3, we let a = ǫq1,1
·. . .·q1,s
1

14

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG
k

−1

s1
k3 −1
ki ≥ 2 for each i ∈ [1, s1 ]. Then k1 +k2 is even. Since ǫq1,1 q1,2 q1,3
·. . .·q1,s
1
are two atoms of B. Thus min L(a) ≤ 2.
For the other cases, we have that G1 6= {0}, or s′ ≥ 3, or s′ ≤ 1.

k1 −1 k2 −1
and q1,1
q1,2 q1,3 ·. . .·q1,s1

ks
k1
c1
If G1 6= {0}, then let a = ǫq1,1
· . . . · q1,s11 with ki ≥ 2 for each i ∈ [1, s1 ]. There exists ǫ′ ∈ D
′

k2 −1
q1,1 q1,2

ks1 −1
. . . · q1,s
1

×

such

k1 −1
ǫǫ′ q1,1
q1,2

that ǫ
and
·
· . . . · q1,s1 are two atoms of B and hence min L(a) ≤ 2. Then
we always assume that G1 = {0}.
ks1
k1
with ki ≥ 3 for
If s′ ≥ 3, we assume to the contrary that min L(ab) ≥ 3 and let a = ǫq1,1
· . . . · q1,s
1
k

−1

s1
k2 −1 δ
k4 −1
is an atom of B and hence
each i ∈ [1, s1 ]. We choose δ ∈ [1, 2] such that q1,1 q1,2
q1,3 q1,4
· . . . · q1,s
1
k1 −1
k3 −δ
ǫq1,1 q1,2 q1,3 q1,4 · . . . · q1,s1 is also an atom of B. Therefore min L(a) ≤ 2, a contradiction.

k

s1
k1
with ki ≥ 2 for each i ∈ [1, s1 ].
Now we assume that s′ ≤ 1 (note s1 ≥ 2) and a = ǫq1,1
· . . . · q1,s
1
Suppose that s′ = 1. Then k1 is even. If k1 = 2, then a is an atom of B. Otherwise k1 ≥ 4. It
ks1 −1
k2 −1
k1 −2
2
follows that q1,1
q1,2
and ǫq1,1
· . . . · q1,s
q1,2 q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 are two atoms of B. Hence min L(a) ≤ 2.
1

ks −1

k2 −1
Suppose that s′ = 0. Then ǫq1,1 q1,2
· . . . · q1,s11
min L(a) ≤ 2.

k1 −1
and q1,1
q1,2 q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 are two atoms of B. Thus
(Proof of A2)

A3. Let a, b ∈ A(B).
1. Suppose that there exists i ∈ [1, n] such that a ∈ Di and pi (b) 6= 1. If si = 1, then L(ab) = {2}. If
L(ab) 6= {2}, then

4, if di = 2,

min L(ab) \ {2} ≤
3, if di 6= 2.

2. Suppose that a = a1 a2 and b = b1 b2 with a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 are atoms of F , that there exists i ∈ [1, n]

such that pi (a) = a1 , pi (b) = b1 , and that a2 = e or a2 ∈ Dj and b2 6∈ Dj where j ∈ [1, n] \ {i} .
Then di 6= −1. If di = 0, then L(ab) = {2}. If L(ab) 6= {2}, then

4, if di = 2,

min L(ab) \ {2} ≤
3, if di = 1.
3. Suppose that a = a1 a2 and b = b1 b2 with a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 are atoms of F and there exist distinct
i, j ∈ [1, n] such that pi (a) = a1 , pj (a) = a2 , pi (b) = b1 , and pj (b) = b2 . Then di 6= −1 and
dj 6= −1. If di + dj = 0, then L(ab) = {2}. If L(ab) 6= {2}, then

6, if di + dj = 4,




5, if di + dj = 3,

min L(ab) \ {2} ≤

4, if di + dj = 2,



3, if di + dj = 1.

Proof of A3. 1. If si = 1, we assume to the contrary that ab = x1 · . . . · xµ with µ ≥ 3 and xk ∈ A(B) for
each k ∈ [1, µ]. Then there exists k ∈ [1, µ], say k = 1, such that x1 ∈ Di and hence x1 = ǫa where [ǫ] = 0
by A2.1. Therefore ǫ−1 b = x2 · . . . · xµ is also an atom of B, a contradiction.
Suppose that L(ab) 6= {2} and ab = x1 ·. . .·xµ with µ ≥ 3 and xk ∈ A(B) for each k ∈ [1, µ]. Let b = b1 b2
with b1 = pi (b). Then there must exist k ∈ [1, µ], say k = 1, such that b2 | x1 . Therefore abx−1
1 ∈ Di and
abx−1
∈
6
A(B).
Then
by
A2
1

4, if di = 2,

−1
min L(ab) \ {2} ≤ 1 + min L(abx1 ) ≤
3, otherwise.
2. By definition of di and the existence of a, we have that di 6= −1. If di = 0, then L(ab) = {2}
is obvious by definition. Suppose L(ab) 6= {2} and ab = a1 b1 · a2 b2 = x1 · . . . · xµ with µ ≥ 3 and
xk ∈ A(B) for each k ∈ [1, µ]. Then there exist distinct k, j ∈ [1, µ], say k = 2, j = 3, such that a2 | x2

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

15

and b2 | x3 which implies that x1 | a1 b1 . By our assumption, a2 b2 ∈ A(B) and hence a1 b1 6= x1 . Therefore
min L(ab) \ {2} ≤ min L(a1 b1 ) + min L(a2 b2 ) ≤ di + 2 by A2.

3. By definition of di and the existence of a, we have that di 6= −1 and dj 6= −1. If di + dj = 0, then
di = dj = 0 and hence L(ab) = {2}. Suppose that L(ab) 6= {2} and ab = x1 · . . . · xµ with µ ≥ 3 and
xk ∈ A(B) for each k ∈ [1, µ]. If a1 b1 , a2 b2 ∈ A(B), then xk ∤ a1 b1 and xk ∤ a2 b2 for each k ∈ [1, µ].
Thus a1 b1 = pi (x1 ) . . . pi (xµ ) with pi (xν ) 6= 1 for each ν ∈ [1,µ], a contradiction to D(G) = 2. Therefore
a1 b1 6∈ A(B) or a2 b2 6∈ A(B). It follows that min L(ab) \ {2} ≤ min L(a1 b1 ) + min L(a2 b2 ) ≤ di + dj + 2
by A2.
(Proof of A3)
Note, if (pi (U1 ) = 1 or pi (U2 ) = 1) for every i ∈ [1, n], then L(A) = {2}. Therefore L(A) 6= {2} implies
that there exists i0 ∈ [1, n] such that pi0 (U1 ) 6= 1 and pi0 (U2 ) 6= 1.
Now we distinguish five cases depending on the size of the right hand side of Equation 3.2.

CASE 1 : max {dν + dν ′ | ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] with ν 6= ν ′ } ∪ {|dν | | ν ∈ [1, n]} = 4.
Then there exist distinct ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] such that dν = dν ′ = 2, say d1 = d2 = 2. We define U1′ =
2
2
2
2
q1,1 q1,2
q2,1 q2,2
and U2′ = q1,1
q1,2 q2,1
q2,2 . Then U1′ , U2′ ∈ A(B) and L(U1′ U2′ ) = {2, 6} which implies that

4 ∈ ∆(B). By A3, we know that min ∆ L(U1 U2 )\{2} ≤ 6. Thus max ∆(B) ≤ 4 and hence max ∆(B) = 4.


CASE 2 : max {dν + dν ′ | ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] with ν 6= ν ′ } ∪ {|dν | | ν ∈ [1, n]} = 3.
Then there exist distinct ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] such that dν = 2, dν ′ = 1, and dλ ≤ 1 for each λ ∈ [1, n] \ {ν, ν ′ },
say d1 = 2 and d2 = 1. Since d2 = 1, we set

a1 =

a2 =


ǫq2,1 · . . . · q2,s2




 q2,1 q2,2 · . . . · q2,s2 ,
δ


 q2,1 q2,2 q2,3

· . . . · q2,s2 ,



a1 ,


 3

 q q2,2 · . . . · q2,s ,
2
2,1
3
δ


 q2,1 q2,2 q2,3




· . . . · q2,s2 ,

with [ǫ] + [q2,1 · . . . · q2,s2 ] = e, if G2 6= {0}
if G2 = {0}, s2 ≥ 2, and [q2,1 ] = e, [q2,j ] = 0 for each j ∈ [2, s2 ]
δ
with δ ∈ [1, 2] such that [q2,2
] = [q2,3 · . . . · q2,s2 ],

if G2 = {0}, s2 ≥ 3, and [q2,1 ] = [q2,2 ] = e
if G2 6= {0}
if G2 = {0}, s2 ≥ 2, and [q2,1 ] = e, [q2,j ] = 0 for each j ∈ [2, s2 ]
δ
with δ ∈ [1, 2] such that [q2,2
] = [q2,3 · . . . · q2,s2 ],

if G2 = {0}, s2 ≥ 3, and [q2,1 ] = [q2,2 ] = e

2
2
and define U1′ = a1 · q1,1 q1,2
and U2′ = a2 · q1,1
q1,2 . Then U1′ , U2′ ∈ A(B) and L(U1′ U2′ ) = {2, 5} which

implies that 3 ∈ ∆(B). By A3, we know that min ∆ L(U1 U2 ) \ {2} ≤ 5. Thus max ∆(B) ≤ 3 and hence
max ∆(B) = 3.


CASE 3 : max {dν + dν ′ | ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] with ν 6= ν ′ } ∪ {|dν | | ν ∈ [1, n]} = 2.
Then there exist distinct ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] such that dν = dν ′ = 1, and dλ ≤ 1 for each λ ∈ [1, n] \ {ν, ν ′ }, or
there exists ν ∈ [1, n] such that dν = 2 and dλ ≤ 0 for each λ ∈ [1, n] \ {ν} .

16

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG

We start with the first case and,


 ǫq1,1 · . . . · q1,s1


 q1,1 q1,2 · . . . · q1,s1 ,
a1 =
δ

q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 ,
q1,1 q1,2





a ,

 1


 q 3 q1,2 · . . . · q1,s ,
1
1,1
a2 =
3
δ

q1,1 q1,2 q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 ,





b1 =

b2 =


ǫq2,1 · . . . · q2,s2




 q2,1 q2,2 · . . . · q2,s2 ,
δ


 q2,1 q2,2 q2,3

· . . . · q2,s2 ,



a1 ,



 3

q2,1 q2,2 · . . . · q2,s2 ,
3
δ


 q2,1 q2,2 q2,3




· . . . · q2,s2 ,

after renumbering if necessary, we suppose that d1 = d2 = 1. We set
with [ǫ] + [q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 ] = e, if G1 6= {0}
if G1 = {0}, s1 ≥ 1, and [q1,1 ] = e, [q1,j ] = 0 for each j ∈ [1, s1 ]
δ
with δ ∈ [1, 2] such that [q1,2
] = [q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 ],

if G1 = {0}, s1 ≥ 3, and [q1,1 ] = [q1,2 ] = e
if G1 6= {0}
if G1 = {0}, s1 ≥ 1, and [q1,1 ] = e, [q1,j ] = 0 for each j ∈ [1, s1 ]
δ
with δ ∈ [1, 1] such that [q1,2
] = [q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 ],

if G1 = {0}, s1 ≥ 3, and [q1,1 ] = [q1,2 ] = e

with [ǫ] + [q2,1 · . . . · q2,s2 ] = e, if G2 6= {0}
if G2 = {0}, s2 ≥ 2, and [q2,1 ] = e, [q2,j ] = 0 for each j ∈ [2, s2 ]
δ
] = [q2,3 · . . . · q2,s2 ],
with δ ∈ [1, 2] such that [q2,2

if G2 = {0}, s2 ≥ 3, and [q2,1 ] = [q2,2 ] = e
if G2 6= {0}
if G2 = {0}, s2 ≥ 2, and [q2,1 ] = e, [q2,j ] = 0 for each j ∈ [2, s2 ]
δ
with δ ∈ [1, 2] such that [q2,2
] = [q2,3 · . . . · q2,s2 ],

if G2 = {0}, s2 ≥ 3, and [q2,1 ] = [q2,2 ] = e

and define U1′ = a1 b1 and U2′ = a2 b2 . Then U1′ , U2′ ∈ A(B) and L(U1′ U2′ ) = {2, 4} which implies that
2 ∈ ∆(B).
Now we consider the second case and suppose that there exists ν ∈ [1, n] such that dν = 2 and dλ ≤ 0
2
2
q1,2 . Then U1′ , U2′ ∈ A(B)
and U2′ = e · q1,1
for each λ ∈ [1, n] \ {ν}, say ν = 1. We define U1′ = e · q1,1 q1,2
′ ′
and L(U1 U2 ) = {2, 4} which implies that 2 ∈ ∆(B).

Therefore in both cases, we have that 2 ∈ ∆(B). By A3, we know that min ∆ L(U1 U2 ) \ {2} ≤ 4.
Thus max ∆(B) ≤ 2 and hence max ∆(B) = 2.

CASE 4 :
max {dν + dν ′ | ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] with ν 6= ν ′ } ∪ {|dν | | ν ∈ [1, n]} = 1.
Then there exists ν ∈ [1, n] such that dν = 1 and dλ ≤ 0 for each λ ∈ [1, n]\ {ν}, or there exists ν ∈ [1, n]
such that dν = −1 and dλ = 0 for each λ ∈ [1, n] \ {ν} .
We start with the first case and, after renumbering if necessary, we suppose that d1 = 1. We set

with [ǫ] + [q1,1 · . . . · q1,s1 ] = e, if G1 6= {0}
ǫq1,1 · . . . · q1,s1




 q1,1 q1,2 · . . . · q1,s1 ,
if G1 = {0}, s1 ≥ 1, and [q1,1 ] = e, [q1,j ] = 0 for each j ∈ [1, s1 ]
a1 =
δ
δ

] = [q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 ],
q1,1 q1,2 q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 , with δ ∈ [1, 2] such that [q1,2




if G1 = {0}, s1 ≥ 3, and [q1,1 ] = [q1,2 ] = e

a1 ,
if G1 6= {0}




 q 3 q1,2 · . . . · q1,s ,
if G1 = {0}, s1 ≥ 1, and [q1,1 ] = e, [q1,j ] = 0 for each j ∈ [1, s1 ]
1
1,1
a2 =
δ
3
δ

] = [q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 ],
q1,1 q1,2 q1,3 · . . . · q1,s1 , with δ ∈ [1, 1] such that [q1,2




if G1 = {0}, s1 ≥ 3, and [q1,1 ] = [q1,2 ] = e

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

17

and define U1′ = e · a1 and U2′ = e · a2 . Then U1′ , U2′ ∈ A(B) and L(U1′ U2′ ) = {2, 3} which implies that
1 ∈ ∆(B).
Now we consider the second case and suppose there exists ν ∈ [1, n] such that dν = −1 and dλ = 0 for
2
2
2
. Then
· . . . · q1,s
each λ ∈ [1, n] \ {ν}, say ν = 1. We define U1′ = q1,1
q1,2 · . . . · q1,s1 and U2′ = q1,1 q1,2
1
′
′
′ ′
U1 , U2 ∈ A(B) and L(U1 U2 ) = {2, 3} which implies that 1 ∈ ∆(B).

Therefore in both cases, we have that 1 ∈ ∆(B). By A3, we know that min ∆ L(U1 U2 ) \ {2} ≤ 3.
Thus max ∆(B) ≤ 1 and hence max ∆(B) = 1.

CASE 5 : max {dν + dν ′ | ν, ν ′ ∈ [1, n] with ν 6= ν ′ } ∪ {|dν | | ν ∈ [1, n]} = 0.
Then dν = 0 for each ν ∈ [1, n]. We have U1 = pi0 (U1 ) = ǫpδi0 ,1 = ǫ′ U2 = ǫ′ pi0 (U2 ), where δ ∈ [1, 2] and
×
ci , which implies that L(U1 U2 ) = {2}, a contradiction.
ǫ, ǫ′ ∈ D


We provide a list of v-noetherian weakly Krull monoids having nontrivial conductor and finite v-class
group. However, they are either not seminormal or they miss the assumption on the prime ideals in the
classes, and the statements of Theorem 1.1 fail (i.e., min ∆(H) > 1 or ∆(H) is not an interval).
Examples 3.4.

1. (Krull monoids) By definition, every Krull monoid is a seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull monoid.
Let H be a Krull monoid with class group G and let GP ⊂ G denote the set of classes containing minimal
prime ideals. If GP = G, then ∆(H) is an interval (Proposition 2.3). Suppose that GP 6= G. Then, in
general, the set of distances ∆(H) need not be an interval. There is an abundance of natural examples, and
all these phenomena already occur in Dedekind domains (see [20, Remark 3.1] and [17, Theorem 3.7.8]).
2. (Weakly factorial monoids) A monoid is weakly factorial if every non-unit is a finite product of
primary elements (equivalently, if it is weakly Krull with trivial t-class group, see [25, Exercise 22.5]). In
particular, primary monoids are weakly factorial. To recall the connection between ring theoretical and
monoid theoretical concepts, let R be a domain. Then its multiplicative monoid R• is primary if and only
b 6= {0},
if R is one-dimensional and local and, if R is a one-dimensional local Mori domain with (R : R)
•
•
then R is finitely primary; furthermore, R is seminormal finitely primary if and only if R is a seminormal
one-dimensional local Mori domain ([17, Proposition 2.10.7] and [18, Lemma 3.4]).
The following examples are v-noetherian weakly Krull monoids with nontrivial conductor and trivial
v-class group. However, they fail to be seminormal and their sets of distances are not intervals.
2.(a) (Numerical monoids) Numerical monoids are finitely generated (and hence v-noetherian) finitely
primary monoids of rank one, and hence they are weakly Krull with nontrivial conductor and trivial
v-class group. Let H be a numerical monoid. Then, in general, we have 2 + max ∆(H) < c(H) (see,
for example, [17, Example 3.1.6]). Sets of distances of numerical monoids (and in particular, gaps in
their sets of distances) have found wide interest in the literature. To mention an explicit example, if
H = hn, n + 1, n2 − n − 1i with n ≥ 3, then ∆(H) = [1, n − 2] ∪ {2n − 5} by [6, Proposition 4.9].
Furthermore, each set of the form {d, td} with d, t ∈ N occurs as a set of distances of a numerical monoid
([12]).
2.(b) (Finitely primary monoids of higher rank) For each d ∈ N there is a v-noetherian finitely primary
monoid of rank two with min ∆(H) = d ([17, Example 3.1.9]).
3. (Seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull monoids with nontrivial conductor) Consider the seminormal
v-noetherian finitely primary monoid
b = F ({p1 , p2 }) ,
D = {pk11 pk22 | k1 , k2 ∈ N} ∪ {1} ⊂ D

a finite cyclic group G of order |G| = n ≥ 3, and an element e ∈ G with ord(e) = n. We define a
homomorphism ι : D → G by setting ι(p1 ) = e and ι(p2 ) = −e.

18

ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG

3.(a) Then H = Ker(ι) ֒→ D is a cofinal saturated submonoid ([17, Proposition 2.5.1]) and it is a
b 6= ∅ by [18, Lemma 5.2]. We assert that
seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull monoid with (H : H)
min ∆(H) = n.
Clearly, H = {pk11 pk22 | k1 , k2 ∈ N, k1 ≡ k2 mod n} ∪ {1} and
A(H) = {p1 pk22 | k2 ∈ 1 + nN0 } ∪ {pk11 p2 | k1 ∈ 1 + nN0 } .
Thus, if u1 · . . . · uk = v1 · . . . · vℓ , where k, ℓ ∈ N and u1 , . . . , uk , v1 , . . . , vℓ ∈ A(H), then k ≡ ℓ mod n and
hence n divides gcd ∆(H) = min ∆(H). To show that n ∈ ∆(H), consider the element a = pn+2
pn+2
∈ H.
1
2
n+1 n+1
n+1
n+1
Clearly, {p1 p2 , p1 p2 , p1 p2 } is the set of atoms of H dividing a, a = (p1 p2 )(p1 p2 ) = (p1 p2 )n+2 ,
and hence LH (a) = {2, n + 2}.
3.(b) If the above monoid occurs as the primary component of a T -block monoid, then the situation is
different. To show this, let us consider the monoid
B = B(G, T, ι) ⊂ F (G) × D ,
where G, ι, and D are as at the beginning of 3. Then B satisfies all assumptions of Theorem 1.1, B(G) ⊂ B
and H ⊂ B are divisor-closed submonoids. We assert that ∆(B) = [1, n]. Since ∆(G) = [1, n − 2] by
Propositions 2.3 and 2.4, it follows that [1, n − 2] ⊂ ∆(B). Furthermore, a = pn+2
pn+2
∈ H ⊂ B, LH (a) =
1
2
n+1 n+2
LB (a) = {2, n + 2}, and hence n ∈ ∆(B). The element b = p1 p2 e ∈ B, {p1 p2 , p1 pn+1
, ep1 p22 , epn1 p2 }
2
n+1
n
n
2
is the set of atoms of B dividing b, b = (p1 p2 )(ep1 p2 ) = (p1 p2 ) (ep1 p2 ), LB (b) = {2, n + 1}, and hence
n − 1 ∈ ∆(B). It can be checked that max ∆(B) ≤ n, and then the assertion follows.
4. We provide an example of a weakly Krull monoid B with v-class group G satisfying all assumptions
of Theorem 1.1 where
max ∆(B) > D(G) − 2 > max ∆(G)
(confer the bounds given in Proposition 2.4). Since D(G) − 2 > max ∆(G), Proposition 2.4.2 implies that
G can neither cyclic nor be an elementary 2-group. We set G = C3r with r ≥ 2, choose a basis (e1 , . . . , er )
of G with ord(e1 ) = . . . = ord(er ) = 3, and set e0 = e1 + . . . + er . Then D(G) = D∗ (G) = 2r + 1. For
i ∈ [0, r], we define a seminormal v-noetherian finitely primary monoid
ci = F ({pi , qi }) ,
Di = {pki i qili | ki , li ∈ N} ∪ {1} ⊂ D

and we define a homomorphism ι : T = D0 × . . . × Dr → G by ι(pi ) = ei , ι(qi ) = −ei for every i ∈ [0, r].
Then B = B(G, T, ι) is a seminormal v-noetherian weakly Krull monoid with nontrivial conductor and
v-class group isomorphic to G (see Proposition 2.2). The elements
U1 = p1 q12 · . . . · pr qr2 · p20 q0 , U2 = p21 q1 · . . . · p2r qr · p0 q02 ,

and Vi = pi qi

for every i ∈ [0, r]

are atoms of B, U1 U2 = (V0 · . . . · Vr )3 , and LB (U1 U2 ) = {2, 3(r + 1)}.
References
[1] D.D. Anderson, D.F. Anderson, and M. Zafrullah, Atomic domains in which almost all atoms are prime, Commun.
Algebra 20 (1992), 1447 – 1462.
[2] D.D. Anderson, J. Mott, and M. Zafrullah, Finite character representations for integral domains, Boll. Unione Mat.
Ital. 6 (1992), 613 – 630.
[3] D.F. Anderson, Gyu Whan Chang, and J. Park, Weakly Krull and related domains of the form D + M , A + XB[X]
and A + X 2 B[X], Rocky Mountain J. Math. 36 (2006), 1 – 22.
[4] P. Baginski, S.T. Chapman, R. Rodriguez, G.J. Schaeffer, and Y. She, On the delta set and catenary degree of Krull
monoids with infinite cyclic divisor class group, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010), 1334 – 1339.
[5] V. Barucci, Seminormal Mori domains, Commutative Ring Theory, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math., vol. 153, Marcel
Dekker, 1994, pp. 1 – 12.
[6] C. Bowles, S.T. Chapman, N. Kaplan, and D. Reiser, On delta sets of numerical monoids, J. Algebra Appl. 5 (2006),
695 – 718.
[7] Gyu Whan Chang, Semigroup rings as weakly factorial domains, Commun. Algebra 37 (2009), 3278 – 3287.
[8] S.T. Chapman, M. Corrales, A. Miller, Ch. Miller, and Dh. Patel, The catenary and tame degrees on a numerical monoid
are eventually periodic, J. Australian Math. Soc. 97 (2014), 289 – 300.

THE SET OF DISTANCES IN SEMINORMAL WEAKLY KRULL MONOIDS

19

[9] S.T. Chapman, P.A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, and D. Llena, The catenary and tame degree of numerical monoids, Forum Math.
21 (2009), 117 – 129.
[10] S.T. Chapman, F. Gotti, and R. Pelayo, On delta sets and their realizable subsets in Krull monoids with cyclic class
groups, Colloq. Math. 137 (2014), 137 – 146.
[11] S.T. Chapman, W.A. Schmid, and W.W. Smith, On minimal distances in Krull monoids with infinite class group, Bull.
Lond. Math. Soc. 40 (2008), 613 – 618.
[12] S. Colton and N. Kaplan, The realization problem for delta sets of numerical monoids, arXiv:1503.08496.
[13] J. Coykendall, Extensions of half-factorial domains : a survey, Arithmetical Properties of Commutative Rings and
Monoids, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math., vol. 241, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2005, pp. 46 – 70.
[14] D.E. Dobbs and M. Fontana, Seminormal rings generated by algebraic integers, Mathematika 34 (1987), 141 – 154.
[15] A. Geroldinger, D.J. Grynkiewicz, G.J. Schaeffer, and W.A. Schmid, On the arithmetic of Krull monoids with infinite
cyclic class group, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010), 2219 – 2250.
[16] A. Geroldinger, D.J. Grynkiewicz, and W.A. Schmid, The catenary degree of Krull monoids I, J. Théor. Nombres Bordx.
23 (2011), 137 – 169.
[17] A. Geroldinger and F. Halter-Koch, Non-Unique Factorizations. Algebraic, Combinatorial and Analytic Theory, Pure
and Applied Mathematics, vol. 278, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2006.
[18] A. Geroldinger, F. Kainrath, and A. Reinhart, Arithmetic of seminormal weakly Krull monoids and domains, J. Algebra
444 (2015), 201 – 245.
[19] A. Geroldinger and I. Ruzsa, Combinatorial Number Theory and Additive Group Theory, Advanced Courses in Mathematics - CRM Barcelona, Birkhäuser, 2009.
[20] A. Geroldinger and P. Yuan, The set of distances in Krull monoids, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 44 (2012), 1203 – 1208.
[21] A. Geroldinger and Qinghai Zhong, The set of minimal distances in Krull monoids, Acta Arith., to appear.
, The catenary degree of Krull monoids II, J. Australian Math. Soc. 98 (2015), 324 – 354.
[22]
[23] D.J. Grynkiewicz, Structural Additive Theory, Developments in Mathematics, Springer, 2013.
[24] F. Halter-Koch, Divisor theories with primary elements and weakly Krull domains, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. B 9 (1995), 417
– 441.
[25]
, Ideal Systems. An Introduction to Multiplicative Ideal Theory, Marcel Dekker, 1998.
[26] W. Hassler, Arithmetic of weakly Krull domains, Commun. Algebra 32 (2004), 955 – 968.
[27] Jung Wook Lim, Weakly Krull domains and the composite numerical semigroup ring D + E[Γ∗ ], Pacific J. Math. 257
(2012), 227 – 242.
[28] P. Malcolmson and F. Okoh, Half-factorial subrings of factorial domains, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 220 (2016), 877 – 891.
[29] A. Philipp, A precise result on the arithmetic of non-principal orders in algebraic number fields, J. Algebra Appl. 11,
1250087, 42pp.
[30] A. Plagne and W.A. Schmid, On congruence half-factorial Krull monoids with cyclic class group, submitted.
, On large half-factorial sets in elementary p-groups : maximal cardinality and structural characterization, Isr.
[31]
J. Math. 145 (2005), 285 – 310.
, On the maximal cardinality of half-factorial sets in cyclic groups, Math. Ann. 333 (2005), 759 – 785.
[32]
University of Graz, NAWI Graz,, Institute for Mathematics and Scientific Computing, Heinrichstraße 36,
8010 Graz, Austria
E-mail address: alfred.geroldinger@uni-graz.at, qinghai.zhong@uni-graz.at

