$\newcommand{\p}{\mathfrak{p}}$ $\newcommand{\a}{\mathfrak{a}}$ Let $A$ be a one-dimensional Noetherian domain. I am thinking about this claim:

If all prime ideals of $A$ are invertible, then $A$ is a Dedekind domain.

Is that true?

I tried to show a unique factorization into prime ideals. Indeed, an integral domain is a Dedekind domain, iff all nonzero ideals admit a unique prime factorization.

To show this, I'm going to show following two lemmas. If it is proved, we can prove a unique factorization by the same way as a Dedekind domain (cf. Neukirch, Algebraic Number Theory).

Let $\a \neq 0$ be an ideal of $A$. I proved the first lemma:

There exists prime ideals $\p_1, \dots, \p_r$ such that $$ \a \supseteq \p_1\dots \p_r $$

by the same way as a Dedekind domain, because it is not used that $A$ is integrally closed.

But I can't show the second lemma:

$$\a\p^{-1} \supsetneq \a.$$

I found that to show the second lemma, it is sufficient to show that $$ \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty \p^n = 0. \label{a}\tag{1}$$ We assume that it is proved. If $\a\p^{-1} = \a$, $\a = \a\p$. By induction, we get $\a = \a\p^n$ for $\forall n > 0$. We use $\eqref{a}$, then we get $\a = 0$. It is a contradiction.

However, I can't prove $\eqref{a}$.

  • $\begingroup$ How do you define invertible ideal? $\endgroup$ – oxeimon Nov 21 '15 at 7:40
  • $\begingroup$ @oxeimon $\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{a}^{-1} = 1$ for $\mathfrak{a}^{-1} = \{x \in \mathrm{Frac}(A) \mid x\mathfrak{a} \subset A \}$. $\endgroup$ – nohm Nov 21 '15 at 7:53
  • $\begingroup$ Though it is a different way from my thought, what I want to show is proved in linked question. $\endgroup$ – nohm Nov 23 '15 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ Closely related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/607305/… $\endgroup$ – user26857 Nov 26 '15 at 9:42
  • $\begingroup$ @nohm Ask proving (1) as a different question. The present question is more or less settled by my answer. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Nov 26 '15 at 11:49

If $\mathfrak a\mathfrak p^{-1}=\mathfrak a$, then $\mathfrak a\mathfrak p=\mathfrak a$. Moreover $(\mathfrak aA_{\mathfrak p})(\mathfrak pA_{\mathfrak p})=\mathfrak aA_{\mathfrak p}$. By Nakayama lemma we get $\mathfrak aA_{\mathfrak p}=0$, so $\mathfrak a=0$ which I suppose you don't want.

  • $\begingroup$ Why Nakayama's lemma can be applied? As $\mathbb{Z}$-module? $\endgroup$ – nohm Nov 23 '15 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ @nohm Can you see a maximal ideal in my answer? And what about a finitely generated module? $\endgroup$ – user26857 Nov 23 '15 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ I see that $\mathfrak{p}A_\mathfrak{p}$ is a maximal ideal of $A_\mathfrak{p}$. I can't see a finitely generated module. $\endgroup$ – nohm Nov 23 '15 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ @nohm What about $\mathfrak aA_{\mathfrak p}$ (as an $A_{\mathfrak p}$-module)? (Since $\mathfrak a$ is finitely generated as an $A$-module, then...) $\endgroup$ – user26857 Nov 23 '15 at 14:11
  • $\begingroup$ I see $\mathfrak{a}A_\mathfrak{p}$ is a finitely generated module, but I think Statement 3 of this link can't be applied. $\endgroup$ – nohm Nov 23 '15 at 14:18

The proof I know for the second lemma also assumes that $A$ is integrally closed: since $1\in \mathfrak{p}^{-1}$ we have $\mathfrak{a}\subseteq \mathfrak{ap}^{-1}$. So we have to show that the inclusion is strict. Assume that $\mathfrak{a}= \mathfrak{ap}^{-1}$. Let $a\in \mathfrak{p}^{-1}$. Then $a$ is integral over $A$ iff there is a finitely-generated $A$-module $N$ with $Na\subseteq N$. But $\mathfrak{a}$ is such an $A$-module, so that $a$ is indeed integral. Since $A$ is integrally closed, we must have $a\in A$, i.e., $\mathfrak{p}^{-1}\subseteq \mathfrak{a}$. Since $\mathfrak{p}$ is maximal, and $A$ is a Noetherian domain of dimension $1$, we obtain $A\subsetneq \mathfrak{p}^{-1}\subseteq \mathfrak{a}$, a contradiction.

  • $\begingroup$ Should the last containment say $A \subseteq \mathfrak{p}$ instead? $\endgroup$ – Barry Smith Nov 21 '15 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ No, the results is that a maximal Ideal $M$ in a Dedekind ring $A$ satisfies $A\subsetneq M^{-1}$. $\endgroup$ – Dietrich Burde Nov 21 '15 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, your additional edit clarifies. With your original wording, I thought that was supposed to be the contradiction. It makes sense now. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Barry Smith Nov 21 '15 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ @DietrichBurde This proof seems to be using that A is a Dedekind domain, but we only assume that A is a one-dimensional Noetherian domain and all prime ideals are invertible. $\endgroup$ – nohm Nov 22 '15 at 1:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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