On finiteness of chains of intermediate rings (Q836919): Difference between revisions

From MaRDI portal
RedirectionBot (talk | contribs)
Changed an Item
ReferenceBot (talk | contribs)
Changed an Item
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Property / MaRDI profile type
 
Property / MaRDI profile type: MaRDI publication profile / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / full work available at URL
 
Property / full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00605-008-0090-y / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / OpenAlex ID
 
Property / OpenAlex ID: W2071978702 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q2716461 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Residually algebraic pairs of rings / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Couples d'anneaux partageant un idéal. (Couples of rings sharing an ideal) / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Overrings of Commutative Rings. III: Normal Pairs / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Some finiteness conditions on the set of overrings of an integral domain / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q2719787 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q4049183 / rank
 
Normal rank

Latest revision as of 22:30, 1 July 2024

scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
On finiteness of chains of intermediate rings
scientific article

    Statements

    On finiteness of chains of intermediate rings (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    9 September 2009
    0 references
    Let \(R\subseteq S\) be an extension of integral domains. This extension is said to have the ``finite length of intermediate chains of domains'' property (FICP) if each chain of intermediate rings between \(R\) and \(S\) is finite. Let \(T\) be a ring between \(R\) and \(S\). Certainly if \(R\subseteq S\) has FICP, so do the extensions \(R\subseteq T\) and \(T\subseteq S\). The converse is false as \( \mathbb{Z}\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\) and \(\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\subseteq \mathbb{ Q}\) both have FICP for any nonzero prime \(p\), but \(\mathbb{Z}\subseteq \mathbb{Q}\) certainly does not. Now \textit{R. Gilmer} [Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 131, No. 8, 2337--2346 (2003; Zbl 1017.13009)] showed that for \(D\) an integral domain with quotient field \(K\), \(D\subseteq K\) has FICP if and only if \(D\subseteq D^{\prime }\) and \(D^{\prime }\subseteq K\) have FICP (where \(D^{\prime }\) is the integral closure of \(D\)\ in \(K\)) if and only if \(D^{\prime }\) is a Prüfer domain with a finite number of prime ideals. The main result of the paper under review is the following generalization of Gilmer's result. Theorem: Let \( R\subseteq S\) be an extension of integral domains and let \(R^{\ast }\) be the integral closure of \(R\) in \(S\). Suppose that \(R^{\ast }\) is finite dimensional semiquasilocal. If \(R\subseteq R^{\ast }\) and \(R^{\ast }\subseteq S\) have FICP, then so does \(R\subseteq S\). An example using pullbacks is given where \(R\subset S\) has FICP, but \(R^{\ast }\) is not a Prüfer domain.
    0 references
    ring extension
    0 references
    intermediate chain of domains
    0 references
    normal pair
    0 references
    valuation domain
    0 references

    Identifiers

    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references