Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We know that in a Dedekind domain, every nonzero ideal admits a unique factorization into a product of prime ideals.

I was wondering if this condition is sufficient for a domain to be Dedekind, i.e., if in a domain $D$ every non-zero ideal admits a unique factorization into a product of prime ideals, then is the domain Dedekind?

It seems that "Noetherianness" of $D$ follows (via the ascending chain condition) if we can show that every non-zero prime ideal of $D$ is maximal. But, I don't know how to prove the latter assertion.

Perhaps, one needs Noetherianness of $D$ to prove that $D$ is a dimension $1$ domain.

Any help or hint would be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
Yes, these are equivalent.… – Dane Feb 27 '12 at 5:20
Yes, that is one of the many characterizations of Dedekind domains. You can find five different characterizations in Theorem 5.1 of these notes by J.P. May – Arturo Magidin Feb 27 '12 at 5:21
Thanks for the notes. – Rankeya Feb 27 '12 at 5:25
I think you should have a look at this paper for more informations:… – Arsenaler Feb 27 '12 at 8:47
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Jacobson's Basic Algebra, volume II (second edition) has:

Definition. A domain $D$ is called a Dedekind domain if every $D$-fractional ideal of $F$ (the field of fractions of $D$) is invertible.

Theorem. (Theorem 10.6, page 630) Let $D$ be a domain. The following are equivalent:

  1. $D$ is Dedekind.
  2. $D$ is integrally closed, noetherian, and every nonzero prime ideal of $D$ is maximal.
  3. Every proper integral ideal of $D$ can be written in one and only one way as a product of prime ideals.
  4. $D$ is noetherian and $D_P$ is a discrete valuation ring for every maximal ideal $P$ in $D$.

The proof that 3 implies 1 is credited to Zariski and Samuel:

First, every invertible prime $P$ of $D$ is maximal in $D$; let $a\in D-P$, and assume that $aD+P\neq D$; then $aD+P$ can be written as a product of primes, $$aD+P = P_1\cdots P_m$$ and likewise, $a^2D+P\neq D$ so $$a^2D+P = Q_1\cdots Q_n$$ Since $P$ is property contained in both $aD+P$ and in $a^2D+P$, then $P$ is properly contained in each of the $P_i$ and each of the $Q_j$. Now look at $D/P$, which is also a domain, and in which $\overline{aD} = \overline{P_1}\cdots\overline{P_m}$ and $\overline{a^2D}=\overline{Q_1}\cdots \overline{Q_n}$. The principal ideals $\overline{aD}$ and $\overline{a^2D}$ are invertible, and $\overline{P_i}$ and $\overline{Q_j}$ are prime ideals. Since $\overline{a^2D} = \overline{a}^2\overline{D}=(\overline{aD})^2 = \overline{P_1}^2\cdots\overline{P_n}^2$, and since factorizations for invertible integral ideals are unique, $\{\overline{P_1},\overline{P_1},\ldots,\overline{P_n},\overline{P_n}\}$ is the same sequence as $\{\overline{Q_1},\ldots,\overline{Q_m}\}$, except perhaps for the order. Hence, the corresponding sequences of ideals of $D$ that contain $P$, $\{P_1,P_1,\ldots,P_n,P_n\}$ and $\{Q_1,\ldots,Q_m\}$ are the same up to order. Hence $(aD+P)^2 = a^2D+P$, so $$P\subseteq (aD+P)^2 = a^2D+aP+P^2 \subseteq aD+P^2.$$ So if $p\in P$, then $p=ax+y$ with $x\in D$ and $y\in P^2$; hence $ax\in P$, and since $a\notin D$, then $x\in P$. So $P\subseteq aP+P^2\subseteq P$, so $P=aP+P^2$. Since we are assuming $P$ is invertible, then $D = P^{-1}P = P^{-1}(aP+P^2) = aD+P$, a contradiction.

So $aD+P = D$ for every $a\notin P$, hence $P$ is maximal.

Now let $P$ be any nonzero prime ideal, and let $b\neq 0$ be an element of $P$. So $bD\subseteq P$ and $bD=P_1P_2\cdots P_m$ where the $P_i$ are prime and are invertible. So the $P_i$ are maximal. Since $P$ is prime, $P_i\subseteq P$ for some $i$; hence $P=P_i$, so $P$ is invertible.

Since every proper ideal is a product of primes, and every prime is invertible, it follows that every integral ideal is invertible.

Given a fractional ideal $I'=aI$, with $I$ integral and $a\neq 0$, we have $I'(I')^{-1}=II^{-1}=D$, so every fractional ideal is invertible. $\Box$

share|cite|improve this answer
If $P$ is prime and $b \neq 0$ is an element of $P$, then why does $bD$ factorize into a product of invertible primes? – Rankeya Feb 27 '12 at 23:19
$bD$ is principal, $b\neq 0$, so $bD$ is invertible; since the $P_i$ divide an invertible ideal, they are invertible, no? – Arturo Magidin Feb 28 '12 at 4:40
Never mind. This was quite obvious. Thanks for this detailed proof. You really did not have to go through the trouble after posting a link to J.P. May's article. – Rankeya Feb 28 '12 at 4:59

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.