Unique factorization property of non-unique factorization domains. II (Q2220180)

Let \(D\) be an integral domain with quotient field \(K\). A nonzero non unit \(a\) of \(D\) is called a valuation element if there is a valuation ring \(V\) with \( D\subseteq V\subseteq K\) such that \(aV\cap D=aD\). Call \(D\) a valuation factorization domain(VFD) if each nonzero non unit of \(D\) can be written as a finite product of valuation elements. The authors of the paper under review promise to study the ring-theoretic properties. Relevant parts of Proposition 1.1 of the paper under review say: ``Let \(D\) be an integral domain, let \(D^{\prime }\) be an overring of \(D\) and let \(a,b\in D \) be such that \(a\neq 0\) and \(aD\cap D=aD\). (1) If \(bD^{\prime }\cap D=bD\), then \(abD\cap D=abD.\) (2) If\(b|_{D}a\), then \( bD\cap D=bD\).'' Next, relevant part of Corollary 1.2 of the same paper says: ``Let \(D\) be an integral domain and let \(a\in D\) be a valuation element. (2) Each two principal ideals of \(D\) that contain \(a\) are comparable.'' Based on these and some other results, the authors amass quite a few properties of VFDs, such as a VFD is integrally closed and that a VFD is a so called Schreier domain. Then they decide to look into VFDs with \(t\) -dimension one. It turns out that, according to Corollary 1.9, of their paper: Let \(D\) be an integral domain that is not a field. Then \(D\) is a VFD with \(t\)-\(\dim(D)=1\) if and only if \(D\) is a weakly factorial GCD-domain. Well, it so happens that Theorem 10 of \textit{D. D. Anderson} et al. [Boll. Unione Mat. Ital., VII. Ser., A 9, No. 2, 401--413 (1995; Zbl 0919.13001)] lists fourteen equivalent conditions to characterize the domains that they dismiss without adequate description, laying bare the fact that there were once serious studies of ``Unique factorization property of non-unique factorization domains'', called GUFDs (generalized UFDs), which the authors are trying to hide. Then there's the ``innocent'' question (question 4.13) towards the end: Let \(D\) be a VFD. Is \(D\) a weakly Matlis GCD-domain? The authors define a weakly Matlis domain as: (i) \(D\) is of finite \(t\)-character and (ii) \(D\) is independent, i.e., no two distinct maximal \(t\)-ideals of \(D\) contain a common nonzero prime ideal. Now as the GCD property is involved, a weakly Matlis GCD domain is just an independent GCD ring of Krull type. It was shown in Theorem 5 of \textit{M. Zafrullah} [Manuscr. Math. 17, 55--66 (1975; Zbl 0318.13022)] that a GCD domain each of whose nonzero non unit is expressible as a product of finitely many rigid elements was an independent ring of Krull type. But what is a rigid element? To see that, note that Part (2) of Corollary 1.2 can be translated into: ``If \(a\) is a valuation element, then for all \(x,y|a\) we have \(x|y\) or \(y|x\).'' Thus a valuation element is what was called a rigid element by \textit{P. M. Cohn} [Am. Math. Mon. 80, 1--18 (1973; Zbl 0256.13011)]. An element expressible as a product of finitely many rigid elements was termed as semirigid in the reviewer's paper cited above. Now let's go back to the original definition of a valuation element in the paper under review and translate Proposition 1.1, taking \(D^{\prime }\) to be a valuation domain. Then Part (1) of Proposition 1.1 says: The product of every pair of noncoprime valuation elements is again a valuation element and part (2) of Proposition 1.1 says that every non unit factor of a valuation element is a valuation element. Looking at it from this angle the reviewer wrote [``Semirigid GCD domains. II'', J. Algebra Appl. (online first) (2021; \url{doi:10.1142/S0219498822501614})] showing: Let \(D\) be an integral domain each of whose nonzero non-unit is semirigid. Then \(D\) is a semirigid GCD domain if and only if the product of every pair of non-\(v\)-coprime rigid elements of \(D\) is again a rigid element. In this paper, it was gently pointed out that the notions introduced as ``new'', in the paper under review, had already been studied. Not so gently, the reviewer wrote \url{https://lohar.com/mithelpdesk/hd2004.pdf} exposing the culture of changing terminology an recycling old results as new. Now it is up to the authors and their supporters to produce a single example of a VFD, that is not a Semirigid GCD domain.