Hereditary properties between a ring and its maximal subrings (Q399633)

To avoid unnecessary trivialities let's assume that a ring in this review means a commutative ring with \(1\neq 0\) and that the modules are all unital. We say \(S\subseteq R\) is an extension of rings to mean that \(S\) is a subring of the ring \(R\); \(R\) is called an extension of \(S.\) Indeed \(S\) being\ a subring of another ring \(R\) entails \(1_{R}\in S,\) in the set up of the paper under review. A subring \(S\) of a ring \(R\) is called a maximal subring if there is no ring properly between \(S\) and \(R\) as a subring of \(R.\) The authors call a ring \(R\) submaximal if \(R\) contains a maximal subring. Looking at the definition provided by \textit{D. E. Dobbs} and \textit{J. Shapiro} [J. Algebra 305, No. 1, 185--193 (2006; Zbl 1107.13010)] \(R\) is submaximal if \(R\) has a subring \(S\) such that \(S\subseteq R\) is a minimal extension. Now there is quite a bit of literature on minimal extensions and one may question the value of studying maximal subrings. But it's a matter of direction, in the study of minimal extensions we start with a ring \(S\) and look for a minimal extension \(R\) and always find one (Dechene [Adjacent extensions of rings, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside]). On the other hand the authors start with a ring \(R\) and see if there is a subring \(S\) such that \(S\subseteq R\) is minimal, and there are rings, that are not submaximal, algebraic closure of a finite field is such an example (see Corollary 2.7 of \textit{J. V. Brawley} and \textit{G. E. Schnibben} [Infinite algebraic extensions of finite fields. Contemporary Mathematics, 95. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS). XV, 104 p. {\$} 24.00 (1989; Zbl 0674.12009)]. In the paper under review the authors continue the study of maximal subrings started by the first author in [Far East J. Math. Sci. (FJMS) 32, No. 1, 107--118 (2009; Zbl 1164.13004)], their focus being on the proofs of existence of maximal subrings and what they call the hereditary properties between a ring and its maximal subrings. (The hereditary properties are the properties of maximal subrings induced on the extensions and vice versa, albeit under some conditions in some cases. For instance if a maximal subring of \(R\) is finite then \(R\) must be finite, as shown in Theorem 8 of \textit{H. E. Bell} and \textit{F. Guerriero} [Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 13, No. 3, 535--544 (1990; Zbl 0711.16011)]. Also, as was shown in Theorem 3.6 of [Algebra Colloq. 19, 1125--1138 (2012; Zbl 1294.13007)] by the first two authors, if \(S\) is a maximal subring of a ring \(R,\) then \(S\) is Artinian if and only if \(R\) is Artinian and integral over \(S.)\) The authors derive various proofs of existence of maximal subrings from the following Theorem on G-domains: Let \(R\) be a G-domain with \(F=qf(R)\neq R.\) Then any algebraic extension \(K\) of \(F\) is the quotient field of a nontrivial G-domain. One of the consequences is that if \(F\) is a field with a nonfield maximal subring then any \(F\)-algebra is submaximal. They use module theoretic considerations to prove several results on the existence of maximal subrings. Using them to (a) characterize maximal subrings and (b) decide when certain direct products of rings are submaximal. One result stands out: A ring \(R\) that has an uncountable Artinian \(R\)-module is submaximal. On the ``hereditary properties'' front the authors show that if \(S\) is a maximal subring of \(R,\) \ then the following hold: (1) if \(S\) is Hilbert then so is \(R\) and (2) if \(R\) is Hilbert and integral over \(S\) then \( S\) is Hilbert. Moreover, if \(R\) is an integral domain and \(S\) a maximal subring of \(R\) then the following hold: (1) \(\dim (R)=1\) \(\Rightarrow \dim (S)=1\) if and only if \((S:R)=0\) and (2) \(\dim (S)=1\Rightarrow \dim (R)=1\) if and only if \((S:R)=0\). Other (possibly conditionally) induced properties such as semiprimality, semisimplicity and regularity are also discussed.