6
$\begingroup$

[I changed the title and the body of the question. Below I explain why I did so, and paste the previous version.]

Let (UPIF) (for "Unique Prime Ideal Factorization") be the following condition on a noetherian domain $A$:

If $\mathfrak p_1,\dots,\mathfrak p_k$ are distinct nonzero prime ideals of $A$, and if $m$ and $n$ are distinct elements of $\mathbb N^k$, then we have $$\mathfrak p_1^{m_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{m_k}\ne\mathfrak p_1^{n_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{n_k}.$$

The main question is

Do all noetherian domains satisfy (UPIF)?

Of course Dedekind domains satisfy (UPIF), but other noetherian domains $A$ also do. Indeed, as noted by user26857, if each nonzero prime ideal of $A$ is invertible or maximal, then $A$ satisfies (UPIF). To see this, assume by contradiction $$ \mathfrak p_1^{m_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{m_k}=\mathfrak p_1^{n_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{n_k}.$$ We can also assume that all the $\mathfrak p_i$ are maximal, and that $m_1>n_1$. Then $\mathfrak p_1^{m_1}$ contains $\mathfrak p_1^{n_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{n_k}$ but doesn't contain $\mathfrak p_1^{n_1}$. As $\mathfrak p_1^{m_1}$ is primary, this implies that the radical $\mathfrak p_1$ of $\mathfrak p_1^{m_1}$ contains $\mathfrak p_2^{n_2}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{n_k}$, and thus $\mathfrak p_1$ contains one of the other $\mathfrak p_i$, contradiction. In particular, one dimensional noetherian domains and domains of the form $B[X]$, $B$ principal ideal domain, $X$ an indeterminate, satisfy (UPIF).


Here are the reasons why I changed the title and the body of the question (and added the "noetherian" tag): user26857 answered the original question in a comment, but didn't want to upgrade his comment to an answer. If they had, I would have accepted the answer and asked a follow-up question, but I thought it would be better, under the circumstances, to avoid creating a new question.


Here is the previous version of the question:

Previous title: Unique non-idempotent prime ideal factorization in domains?

Previous question:

Let $A$ be a domain; let $\mathfrak p_1,\dots,\mathfrak p_k$ be distinct non-idempotent prime ideals of $A$; and let $m$ and $n$ be elements of $\mathbb N^k$ such that $$\mathfrak p_1^{m_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{m_k}=\mathfrak p_1^{n_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{n_k}.$$ Does it follow that $m=n\ ?$

[Recall that a domain is a commutative ring with one in which $0\ne1$ and $a\ne0\ne b$ implies $ab\ne0$.]

I suspect the answer is No, but I haven't been able to find a counterexample.

Edit

(1) If $A$ is a noetherian domain, then $(0)$ is the only idempotent prime ideal of $A$.

(2) Say that a domain satisfies Condition (D) (for "Dedekind") if the multiplicative monoid generated by the non-idempotent prime ideals is free (over the obvious basis).

Then the above question can be stated as: "do all domains satisfy (D)?"

Of course Dedekind domains satisfy (D), I but I know no non-Dedekind domain satisfying (D). (And, as indicated, I know no domain not satisfying (D).) For instance I'd be happy to know if $K[X,Y]$ satisfies (D). (Here $K$ is a field and $X$ and $Y$ are indeterminates.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ About your 1st comment: Thanks for your comment! Unfortunately I don't understand it. Could you give some more details? Not sure if it helps to consider the following particular case: Suppose $\mathfrak p_1^2\mathfrak p_2=\mathfrak p_1\mathfrak p_2^2$ for $\mathfrak p_i$ distinct nonzero primes of $K[X,Y]$. How do you show this is impossible? I agree that the $\mathfrak p_i^2$ are primary, but I don't see how to use it. Perhaps you use primary decompositions, but in any case I need more help. - About your 2nd comment: Awesome! Can you say more? $\endgroup$ – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 27 '18 at 20:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $p_1^2\supseteq p_1p_2^2$; $p_1\nsubseteq p_1^2$, then $p_2^2\subseteq p_1$, so $p_2\subseteq p_1$. If both have the same height we are done. Suppose $p_1$ is maximal and $p_2$ is not. Repeat the reasoning with $p_2$ instead of $p_1$. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Dec 27 '18 at 20:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $V$ is a rank one valuation ring with $m=m^2$, then set $R=V[x]$, where $x^2\in V$. Then $M=m+(x)$ satisfies the requirement. (Sorry, I was too optimistic claiming that $R$ is local.) I'd consider $V$ as the valuation ring of the unique non-discrete valuation $v:K(X,Y)\to\mathbb R$ which is trivial on $K$, $v(X)=1$ and $v(Y)=\sqrt 2$, and $x=\sqrt X$. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry but I don't see how you get $p_2^2\subseteq p_1$. $\endgroup$ – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 27 '18 at 21:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user26857 - At any rate your 2nd comment answers the question, so I must ask you if you'd consider turning your comment into an answer (even if I suspect you won't want to do this). $\endgroup$ – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 27 '18 at 21:34
2
$\begingroup$

As user26857 answered the question in a comment, and prefers not to post it as an answer, I'll try to write the answer myself. I think I've understood user26857's argument, but I may be wrong. So, in the lines below, everything that's true is due to user26857, and everything that's false is due to me.

The answer is Yes.

More precisely:

If $A$ is a noetherian integral domain, if $\mathfrak p_1,\dots,\mathfrak p_k$ are distinct nonzero prime ideals of $A$, and if $m$ and $n$ are distinct elements of $\mathbb N^k$, then we have $$\mathfrak p_1^{m_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{m_k}\ne\mathfrak p_1^{n_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{n_k}.$$

Proof. In the setting of the question, suppose by contradiction that we have $$ \mathfrak p_1^{m_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{m_k}=\mathfrak p_1^{n_1}\cdots\mathfrak p_k^{n_k} $$ with $m\ne n$.

Enumerate the $\mathfrak p_i$ in such a way that each $\mathfrak p_i$ is a minimal element of the set $\{\mathfrak p_i,\dots,\mathfrak p_k\}$, and write $\mathfrak p_{ij}$ for the localization of $\mathfrak p_i$ at $\mathfrak p_j$.

For all $i$ we get $$ (\mathfrak p_{1i})^{m_1}\cdots(\mathfrak p_{ii})^{m_i}=(\mathfrak p_{1i})^{n_1}\cdots(\mathfrak p_{ii})^{n_i}.\quad(1) $$ Note the following consequence of the determinant trick, or Nakayama's Lemma:

$(2)$ If $\mathfrak a$ and $\mathfrak b$ are ideals of $A$, then the equality $\mathfrak a\mathfrak b=\mathfrak b$ holds only if $\mathfrak a=(1)$ or $\mathfrak b=(0)$.

Let's prove $m_i=n_i$ by induction on $i$:

Case $i=1$: We have $(\mathfrak p_{11})^{m_1}=(\mathfrak p_{11})^{n_1}$ by $(1)$. If we had $m_1\ne n_1$ we could assume $m_1<n_1$, and would get $$ (\mathfrak p_{11})^{n_1-m_1}(\mathfrak p_{11})^{m_1}=(\mathfrak p_{11})^{m_1}, $$ contradicting $(2)$.

From $i-1$ to $i$: We have $$ (\mathfrak p_{1i})^{m_1}\cdots(\mathfrak p_{i-1,i})^{m_{i-1}}(\mathfrak p_{ii})^{m_i}=(\mathfrak p_{1i})^{m_1}\cdots(\mathfrak p_{i-1,i})^{m_{i-1}}(\mathfrak p_{ii})^{n_i}.\quad(3) $$ If we had $m_i\ne n_i$ we could assume $m_i<n_i$ and we could write $(3)$ as $$ (\mathfrak p_{ii})^{n_i-m_i}\mathfrak b=\mathfrak b $$ with $(\mathfrak p_{1i})^{n_i-m_i}\ne(1)$ and $\mathfrak b\ne(0)$, contradicting $(2)$. (Here $\mathfrak b$ is the left side of $(3)$, and we assume $2\le i\le k$.) $\square$

Note that the argument still works if $A$ is not noetherian, but the $\mathfrak p_i$ are finitely generated.

$\endgroup$

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.