Two counterexamples in abstract factorization (Q2453636)

The author is able to answer several open questions posed in [\textit{D. D. Anderson} and \textit{A. M. Frazier}, Rocky Mt. J. Math. 41, No. 3, 663--705 (2011; Zbl 1228.13001)] by way of providing counter-examples. Along the way, author also supplies a simplified proof of a theorem from the same article that for \(\tau\)-divisive a UFD is a \(\tau\)-UFD. Moreover, there is a construction of an integral domain with no pseudo-irreducible elements. Let \(D\) be an integral domain and \(\tau\) is a symmetric relation on \(D^{\#}\), the non-zero, non-units of \(D\). The relation \(\tau\) is said to be divisive if whenever \(a, a', b, b' \in D^{\#}\), \(a' \mid a\) and \(b' \mid b\), we have \(a \tau b \Rightarrow a' \mid b'\). A \(\tau\)-factorization is a factorization of the form \(a=\lambda a_1 \cdots a_n\) where \(a, a_i \in D^{\#}\) and \(\lambda\) is a unit and \(a_i \tau a_j\) for all \(i \neq j\). Then \(a\in D^{\#}\) is said to be \(\tau\)-atomic if the only \(\tau\)-factorizations have length \(1\). A non-zero, non-unit is said to be \(\tau\)-prime if when it divides a \(\tau\)-factorization, it divides one of the \(\tau\)-factors. A domain \(D\) is said to be \(\tau\)-atomic if every non-zero, non-unit has a factorization into \(\tau\)-atomic elements. \(D\) is said to be a \(\tau\)-UFD if (1) \(D\) is \(\tau\)-atomic and (2) any two \(\tau\)-atomic factorizations of a non-zero, non-unit must be the same up to rearrangement and associate. When \(\tau_d\) is defined by \(a \tau_d b\) if \((a,b)=D\) i.e. when \(a\) and \(b\) are co-maximal, then \(\tau_d\)-atoms are precisely the pseudo-irreducible elements studied in [\textit{S. McAdam} and \textit{R. G. Swan}, J. Algebra 276, No. 1, 180--192 (2004; Zbl 1081.13008)]. In this case, a co-maximal factorization domain is precisely a \(\tau_d\)-atomic domain. Now that we have defined the terms, we can say the main purpose of the article is to demonstrate the following: (1) an atomic domain need not be \(\tau\)-atomic, even when \(\tau\) is divisive, (2) an atomic domain need not be a co-maximal factorization domain and (3) with \(\tau\) being divisive in a \(\tau\)-UFD, a non-zero, non-unit need not have a \(\tau\)-factorization into \(\tau\)-prime elements. Along the way to constructing counter-examples to demonstrate these three statements, there is a construction of integral domains with no pseudo-irreducible elements. This is an interesting analogue of the anti-matter domains, where there are no irreducible elements studied in [\textit{J. Coykendall} et al., Commun. Algebra 27, No. 12, 5813--5831 (1999; Zbl 0990.13015)].