Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Now that I have your attention, here are the pertinent definitions: Let $R$ be an integral domain with field of fractions $K$. A $R$-fractional ideal of $K$ is a $R$-submodule $I$ of $K$ such that $aI\subseteq R$ for some $a\in R\setminus0$. From now on we just say that $I$ is a fractional ideal. In particular every ideal in $R$ is a fractional ideal.

Given fractional ideals $I,J$ we define the set $IJ=\{\sum i_kj_k: i_k\in I, j_k\in J\}$, which in turn is a fractional ideal, and clearly $IR=I$ for all fractional ideal $I$. We say that a fractional ideal $I\ne0$ is invertible if there is some fractional ideal $J$ such that $IJ=R$. There is only a possibility for $J$, namely $J=I^{-1}$, where $I^{-1}$ is the set defined by $I^{-1}=\{z\in K: zI\subseteq R$}. In fact, if $IJ=R$ then from the definition of $I^{-1}$ we have both $II^{-1}\subseteq R$ and $J\subseteq I^{-1}$, and so $II^{-1}J\subseteq RJ$, that is $I^{-1}(IJ)=I^{-1}\subseteq J$. It is not hard to show that $I^{-1}$ is a fractional ideal as well, even if $II^{-1}\subsetneqq R$.

Note then that $I^{-1}$ is just a notation: it denotes the potential inverse of a nonzero fractional ideal $I$.

Now my question is: given an ideal $I$ in $R$ such that $I^{-1}$ is invertible, does it follows that $I$ itself is invertible? I would like to think that this is indeed the case, but who said that life was easy? I think that there must be a counterexample. I am interested in a particular example of this situation, namely if an ideal $J$ of $R$ satisfies $J^{-1}=R$, does it follow that $J=R$? Note that for ideals $J$ in $R$ we always have $R\subseteq J^{-1}$.

UPDATE

I am very grateful to @Youngsu by her/his answer. Now I would like to know if a counterexample exists for the case dim $R=1$ and $R$ Noetherian.

share|improve this question
1  
Regarding your update, you certainly know the answer if you add in the extra condition that $R$ is normal, so that $R$ is Dedekind. Have you considered moving to the normalization of $R$? –  Alex Youcis Nov 29 '13 at 2:11
    
Hi. I believe that a Dedekind domain which is not a PID probably works. For instance, in $R = \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$ take $I = (2, -1 + \sqrt{-5})$ with the field norm $N( a + b \sqrt{-5}) = a^2 + 5b^2$ for $a,b \in \mathbb{Z}$. –  Youngsu Dec 10 '13 at 3:41
    
@Youngsu No, a Dedekind domain will never works, because for Dedekind domains every nonzero fractional ideal is invertible. –  Matemáticos Chibchas Dec 10 '13 at 4:48
    
@MatemáticosChibchas: Hi. Isn't the question if $I^{-1} = R$, then $I = R$? I think it is stronger than invertible. –  Youngsu Dec 10 '13 at 4:59
1  
@Youngsu Let $a,b\in\mathbb Q$ and let $z=a+b\sqrt{-5}$. Then $z\in I^{-1}$ iff both $2z\in R$ and $(-1+\sqrt{-5})z\in R$. Since $R=\mathbb Z[\sqrt{-5}]$, from the first equation we conclude that $2a,2b\in\mathbb Z$, and the second equation is equivalent to both $-a-5b\in\mathbb Z$ and $a-b\in\mathbb Z$. Writing $a=m/2,b=n/2$ with $m,n\in\mathbb Z$, we conclude from the last equation that $m\equiv n(\bmod\ 2)$; conversely, these conditions are sufficient, so $I^{-1}=\bigl\{\bigl(m+n\sqrt{-5}\bigr)/2: m,n\in\mathbb Z, m\equiv n(\bmod\ 2)\bigr\}$ –  Matemáticos Chibchas Dec 11 '13 at 5:19
show 3 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

One can take $R = k[x,y]$ and $I = (x,y)$, where $k$ is a field. If $a \in I^{-1}$, then we may write $a = \frac{b}{c}$ where $b,c \in R, c \neq 0$, and $\gcd (b,c) = 1$. Then $bx/c, by/c \in R$ implies that $c$ divides both $x,y$. Since $\gcd(x,y) = 1$, $c$ is a unit in $R$. Therefore, $I^{-1} = R$. However, since $I$ is not principal, $I \neq R$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.