2

Let $R$ be an integral domain with fraction field $K$, and let $\mathcal{T}$ be the set of subrings $T$ of $K$ such that $R\subseteq T$.

Call $R\;$unit-complete$\;$if for all $T\in \mathcal{T}$, either $T=R$ or $T$ has a unit element which is not in $R$.

Call $R\;$strongly unit-complete$\;$if for all $T\in \mathcal{T}$, either $T=R$ or $T$ contains ${\large{\frac{1}{r}}}$ for some non-unit element $r\in R$.

It's immediate that strongly unit-complete implies unit-complete.

It's easily shown that if $R$ is a $\text{PID}$, then $R$ is strongly unit-complete.

Proof:

Let $R$ be a PID with fraction field $K$, and let $T$ be a subring of $K$ with $R\subset T$ (proper inclusion).

Fix $t\in T{\setminus}R$, and write $t={\large{\frac{a}{b}}}$, where $a,b\in R$ are such that $b$ is a non-unit of $R$ and $\gcd(a,b)=1$.

From ${\large{\frac{a}{b}}}\in T$, we get $1-{\large{\frac{a}{b}}}\in T$, so ${\large{\frac{b-a}{b}}}\in T$.

From $\gcd(a,b)=1$, we get $\gcd(a,b-a)=1$.

Then since $R$ is a $\text{PID}$, there exist $u,v\in R$ such that $ua+v(b-a)=1$, so $$ \frac{a}{b},\frac{b-a}{b}\in T \implies u\Bigl(\frac{a}{b}\Bigr)+v\Bigl(\frac{b-a}{b}\Bigr)\in T \implies \frac{1}{b}\in T $$ hence $R$ is strongly unit-complete.

Some questions:

$(1)\;$If a noetherian integral domain $R$ is strongly unit-complete, must $R$ be a $\text{UFD}$?

$(2)\;$Is there an integral domain $R$ which is unit-complete but not strongly unit-complete?

quasi
  • 58,772
  • You did not include a proof of $R = $ PID $\Rightarrow R$ is strongly unit-complete. Does it genuinely need $R$ to be a PID or might it hold for other integrally closed domains (UFDs, Dedekind domains,...)? – KCd Nov 16 '20 at 21:27
  • @KCd: I'll edit in a proof for the case where $R$ is a PID. – quasi Nov 16 '20 at 21:36
  • 1
    See the papers linked here (they are excerpted from a post in an old sci.,math thread which you may recall). There has been much work done on related matters (chase citations of those papers). – Bill Dubuque Nov 16 '20 at 21:58
  • Your proof works for Bezout domains, so any non-Noetherian Bezout domain provides an example of a non-UFD that is strongly unit-complete. – Lukas Heger Nov 16 '20 at 22:18
  • Yes, from Bill Dubuques references and your comment, I realized that. Does that also answer the revised version of question $(1)$? – quasi Nov 16 '20 at 22:21
  • @quasi I think from the references that Bill Dubuque gave, any Dedekind domain with torsion class group that's not a PID e.g. $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{-5}]$ will answer your revised question in the negative. – Lukas Heger Nov 16 '20 at 22:30
  • Are you saying that $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{-5}]$ ia strongly unit-complete? If so, is that easy to see? – quasi Nov 16 '20 at 22:34
  • I don't know a self-contained proof off the top of my head, but from it follows from the abstract in the post linked by Bill Dubuque: $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{-5}]$ has the QR property, i.e. every overring $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{-5}] \subset R \subset \Bbb Q(\sqrt{-5})$ is a localization. This implies that $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{-5}]$ is strongly unit-complete. – Lukas Heger Nov 16 '20 at 22:37
  • Yes, I see. Thanks. And thanks very much to Bill Dubuque for the references. – quasi Nov 16 '20 at 22:47
  • @quasi I've added a self-contained proof. – Lukas Heger Nov 16 '20 at 22:58

1 Answers1

3

Here's a proof that if $R$ is a Dedekind domain with torsion class group, then $R$ is strongly unit-complete. This shows that the answer to question (1) is no, as there are Dedekind domains with torsion class group which are not UFDs, e.g. $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{-5}]$.
Let $K$ be the fraction field of $R$. Let $K \supset T \supsetneq R$ be an overring, then we can find $\frac{a}{b} \in T \setminus R, a,b \in R$ so that $b$ is not a unit in $R$. As the class group of $R$ is torsion, we can find some $n$ such that $(a,b)^n=(c)$. Write $c=\sum_{i=0}^nc_ia^ib^{n-i}$ for some $c_i \in R$, divide by $b^n$ and we get $$\frac{c}{b^n}=\sum_{i=0}^n c_i (\frac{a}{b})^i \in T.$$ Because $b^n \in (a,b)^n=(c)$, we get $b^n=tc$ for some $t \in R$, so we get $$T \ni \frac{c}{b^n}=\frac{1}{t}$$

So it remains to show that $t$ is not a unit in $R$. Suppose $t\in R^\times$, then $(b)^n=(c)=(a,b)^n$. By unique factorization of ideals into prime ideals in $R$, this implies $(a,b)=(b)$, i.e. $b \mid a$, contradicting $\frac{a}{b} \notin R$.

user26857
  • 52,094
Lukas Heger
  • 20,801
  • Thank you, it's very nice! – quasi Nov 16 '20 at 23:27
  • @quasi In fact I showed this in said old sci.math post (iirc it was one of those old JSH threads on attempts at FLT, but good luck finding it nowadays!). I think I also linked some other papers too, but they are probably easier to find by chasing citations. They go much further than these obvious initial observations. – Bill Dubuque Nov 17 '20 at 00:06