Semistar dimension of polynomial rings and Prüfer-like domains

We only prove the case of dimension formula and the other case is the same.

(1)\Rightarrow(2) Let P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). Let T be a finitely generated domain over D_P. So that there exist finitely many elements \theta_1,\cdots,\theta_r\in T such that T=D_P[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_r]. Set T'=D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_r]. Then T=T'_{D\backslash P} and T' is a finitely generated domain over D. Let Q be a prime ideal of T and set qD_P:=Q\cap D_P, where q(\subseteq P) be a prime ideal of D. Thus there exists a prime ideal Q' of T' such that Q'\cap(D\backslash P)=\emptyset and Q=Q'T'_{D\backslash P}. Thus Q'\cap D=q. Since q\subseteq P, we have q is a quasi-\widetilde{\star}-prime ideal of D. Since \widetilde{\star}\text{-}\operatorname{ht}(q)=\operatorname{ht}(q), then by the hypothesis we have:

Since \operatorname{ht}(Q')=\operatorname{ht}(Q) we see that

(2)\Rightarrow(3) is trivial.

(3)\Leftarrow(1) Suppose that T is a finitely generated domain over D. Let Q\in\operatorname{Spec}(T) and set P:=Q\cap D such that P^{\widetilde{\star}}\subsetneq D^{\widetilde{\star}}. Thus P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D)\cup\{0\}. Let M be a quasi-\widetilde{\star}-maximal ideal of D containing P. Note that T_{D\backslash M} is a finitely generated domain over D_M and that Q\cap(D\backslash M)\neq\emptyset. Thus QT_{D\backslash M}\in\operatorname{Spec}(T_{D\backslash M}) and PD_M=QT_{D\backslash M}\cap D_M. Therefore by the (3), we have

Now since \widetilde{\star}\text{-}\operatorname{ht}(Q)=\operatorname{ht}(Q)=\operatorname{ht}(QT_{D\backslash M}), \operatorname{ht}(P)=\operatorname{ht}(PD_M), \operatorname{tr.deg.}_{\mathbb{K}(P)}(\mathbb{K}(Q))=\operatorname{tr.deg.}_{\mathbb{K}(PD_M)}(\mathbb{K}(QT_{D\backslash M})) and \operatorname{tr.deg.}_D(T)=\operatorname{tr.deg.}_{D_M}(T_{D\backslash M}) the proof is complete.

Let P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). Hence D_P is a universally catenarian domain by [Sah, Lemma 3.3]. Thus by [BDF, Corollary 4.8], D_P satisfies the dimension formula. Now Proposition 2.2 completes the proof.

Use [Sah, Proposition 2.5] and [Kab, Theorem 1.6] and the same argument as proof of Corollary 2.3.

We can assume that \widetilde{\star}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}_v(D) is a finite number. Suppose that n=\widetilde{\star}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}_v(D). Then there exists a \widetilde{\star}-valuation overring V, with maximal ideal N, of D such that \operatorname{dim}(V)=n. Set P:=N\cap D. So that V is a valuation overring of D_P. Hence n=\operatorname{dim}(V)\leq\operatorname{dim}_v(D_P)\leq\widetilde{\star}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}_v(D)=n, where the second inequality is true since each valuation overring of D_P is a \widetilde{\star}-valuation overring of D ([FL, Theorem 3.9]).

Let P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). Then D_P is a finite dimensional domain and satisfies the dimension inequality formula by Proposition 2.2. Consequently D_P is a Jaffard domain by [ABDFK]. Thus using Lemma 2.5, we have

Thus D is a \widetilde{\star}-Jaffard domain.

(\Rightarrow) Let P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). By [DS1, Theorem 3.2 (a)], \star/P=\widetilde{\star/P}. Hence, by [Sah, Proposition 3.2 and Lemma 3.3], D/P is (\star/P)-universally catenarian if and only if (D/P)_{\mathcal{M}} is a universally catenarian domain for each \mathcal{M} \in \operatorname{QMax}^{\star/P}(D/P), that is (by [DS1, Theorem 3.2 (b)]), if and only if D_M/PD_M is a universally catenarian domain whenever P is a subset of M \in\operatorname{QMax}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). But by [Sah, Proposition 3.2 and Lemma 3.3], D_M is a universally catenarian domain for all M \in \operatorname{QMax}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). This, in turn, is immediate since any factor domain of a universally catenarian domain must be a universally catenarian domain.

(\Leftarrow) It is enough to consider P=0, since we have \star/0=\widetilde{\star}.

(\Rightarrow) Let P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). Then D/P is (\star/P)-universally catenarian by Lemma 2.7. Hence D/P satisfies the (\star/P)-dimension formula by Corollary 2.3.

(\Leftarrow) Let M\in\operatorname{QMax}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). It is enough to show that D_M is a universally catenarian domain. To this end let PD_M be a prime ideal of D_M. Thus P is a quasi-\widetilde{\star}-prime ideal of D. Since D/P satisfies the (\star/P)-dimension formula, then (D/P)_{M/P}=D_M/PD_M satisfies the dimension formula by Theorem 2.2. On the other hand D_M is a Noetherian domain by [EFP, Proposition 3.8] and catenary by [Sah, Proposition 3.2]. Consequently D_M is a universally catenarian domain by [M, Corollary 14.D].

(1)\Rightarrow(2) holds by [Sah, Theorem 4.1] and (2)\Rightarrow(3) is trivial. For (3)\Rightarrow(1) let P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). Then D_P is a going-down domain by [DS1, Proposition 2.5] and D_P[X] is catenarian by [Sah, Lemma 3.3]. Thus D_P is a LFD strong S-domain by [BDF1, Theorem 1]. Hence D is a \widetilde{\star}-LFD \widetilde{\star}-strong S-domain by [Sah, Proposition 2.4].

The implication (1')\Rightarrow(1) holds by [Sah, Corollary 3.6] and (1)\Rightarrow(2) is trivial. For (2)\Rightarrow(5) see proof of [Sah, Theorem 4.3] part (3)\Rightarrow(6). The implication (5)\Rightarrow(1) holds by [Sah, Corollary 2.6]. For (4)\Leftrightarrow(5)\Leftrightarrow(6) see [S, Theorem 4.14].

We only prove the equivalence of (1)\Leftrightarrow(5) and the proofs of (2)\Leftrightarrow(5), (3)\Leftrightarrow(5), and (4)\Leftrightarrow(5), are the same. The implication (5)\Rightarrow(1) holds by Theorem 3.1. For (1)\Rightarrow(5) let P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). It is enough for us to show that D_P is a quasi-Prüfer domain by [CF, Theorem 2.16]. To this end let T be an overring of D_P. Then T_{D\backslash P}=T and therefore T is (\star,d_T)-linked overring of D by [EF, Example 3.4 (1)]. Thus by the hypothesis we have T is a stably strong S-domain. Therefore D_P is a quasi-Prüfer domain by [FHP, Theorem 6.7.8].

(1)\Rightarrow(2) If D is an \widetilde{\star}-quasi-Prüfer domain and T is (\star,\star')-linked to D, then T is a \widetilde{\star'}-Jaffard domain by [S, Theorem 4.14]. Let Q\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star''}}(S) such that (Q\cap T)^{\widetilde{\star'}}\subsetneq T^{\widetilde{\star'}} and set q:=Q\cap T. Then we have q\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star'}}(T)\cup\{0\}. Set P:=q\cap D. Thus we have P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D)\cup\{0\}. Therefore D_P and hence T_q, are quasi-Prüfer domains by [CF, Theorem 1.1]. In particular T_q is a Jaffard domain. So that we have

where the first inequality holds since \operatorname{dim}(S_Q)\leq\operatorname{dim}_v(S_Q) and the second one is by [FHP, Lemma 6.7.3]. The conclusion follows easily from the fact that \operatorname{dim}(T_q)=\operatorname{dim}_v(T_q).

(2)\Rightarrow(1) Let T be an overring of D and \star' be a semistar operation on T such that T is (\star,\star')-linked to D. Let (V,N) be any \widetilde{\star'}-valuation overring of T. Then V is (\star',d_V)-linked to T by [EFP, Lemma 2.7]. Set Q:=N\cap T. Then by assumption we have

In particular \operatorname{dim}(V)\leq\operatorname{dim}(T_Q)\leq\widetilde{\star'}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(T), and hence \widetilde{\star'}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}_v(T)=\widetilde{\star'}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(T), that is T is a \widetilde{\star'}-Jaffard domain. Thus D is an \widetilde{\star}-quasi-Prüfer domain by [S, Theorem 4.14].

(1)\Rightarrow(2) holds by Theorem 3.3. For (2)\Rightarrow(1) let P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). It is enough for us to show that D_P is a quasi-Prüfer domain by [CF, Theorem 2.16]. To this end let T be an overring of D_P. Then T_{D\backslash P}=T and therefore T is (\star,d_T)-linked overring of D by [EF, Example 3.4 (1)]. If T\subseteq S is any extension of domains, then T\subseteq S satisfies the dimension inequality formula by the hypothesis. Therefore D_P is a quasi-Prüfer domain by [FHP, Theorem 6.7.4].

The implication (1)\Rightarrow(2) is trivial. For (2)\Rightarrow(1) let T be a (\star,d_T)-linked overring of D and V be a valuation overring of T. Then it is easy to see that V is (\star,d_V)-linked overring of D. Thus by [EFP, Lemma 2.7], V is an \widetilde{\star}-valuation overring of D. Hence \operatorname{dim}(V)\leq n. Consequently \operatorname{dim}(T)\leq\operatorname{dim}_v(T)\leq n as desired.

The equivalence (1)\Leftrightarrow(2) follows from [S, Theorem 4.5], and (3)\Rightarrow(2) is trivial. For (1)\Rightarrow(3) suppose that \widetilde{\star}-\operatorname{dim}_v(D)=n. Then For all r\geq n we have \star[r]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[r])=\star[r]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}_v(D[r])=r+\widetilde{\star}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}_v(D)=r+n, by [S, Corollary 4.7 and Theorem 4.8]. Now assume that r=n-1. Since \widetilde{\star}-\operatorname{dim}_v(D)=n, there exists a quasi-\widetilde{\star}-prime ideal M of D such that n=\operatorname{dim}_v(D_M), by Lemma 2.5. So that by [A, Theorem 6] we have \operatorname{dim}(D_M[r])=r+n. Let \mathcal{P}\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\star[r]}(D[r]) be such that \star[r]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[r])=\operatorname{ht}(\mathcal{P}). Set P:=\mathcal{P}\cap D. Then by [S, Remark 2.3] we have P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D)\cup\{(0)\}. Thus

where the first inequality holds by [S, Theorem 3.1]. Hence \star[r]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[r])=r+n for all r\geq n-1.

The equivalence (1)\Leftrightarrow(4) follows from Lemma 4.1.

If P is a quasi-\widetilde{\star}-prime ideal of D, and if QD_P[n] is a non-zero prime ideal of D_P[n](=D[n]_{D\backslash P}), then Q\cap D\subseteq P and hence Q\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\star[n]}(D[n]) by [S, Remark 2.3]. So that the inequality \geq is true. Now let Q\in\operatorname{QMax}^{\star[n]}(D[n]) be such that \star[n]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[n])=\operatorname{ht}(Q), and set P:=Q\cap D. Then by [S, Remark 2.3] we have P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D)\cup\{0\}. So that

Therefore the proof is complete.

By Lemma 4.4 there exists a quasi-\widetilde{\star}-maximal ideal M of D such that \star[n]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[n])=\operatorname{dim}(D_M[n]). Thus there exists a prime ideal Q of D[n] such that Q\cap(D\backslash M)=\emptyset, \operatorname{dim}(D_M[n])=\operatorname{ht}(QD_M[n]) and that QD_M[n] is a maximal ideal of D_M[n]. Since Q\cap D\subseteq M we have Q is a quasi-\star[n]-prime of D[n] by [S, Remark 2.3], and since \star[n]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[n])=\operatorname{ht}(Q), we have Q is a quasi-\star[n]-maximal ideal of D[n]. Set PD_M:=QD_M[n]\cap D_M for some P\in\operatorname{QSpec}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D). Then by [AG, Corollary 2.9] we have \operatorname{ht}(QD_M[n])=n+\operatorname{ht}(PD_M[n]) and that PD_M is a maximal ideal of D_M. Thus we have P=M and

which ends the proof.

Let M\in\operatorname{QMax}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D) and \{\theta_i\}_1^n\subseteq K. Let Q be a maximal ideal of D_M[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n] such that \operatorname{dim}(D_M[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n])=\operatorname{ht}(Q). Let Q_0 be a prime ideal of D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n] such that Q_0\cap(D\backslash M)=\emptyset and Q=Q_0D_M[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n]. Thus Q_0 is a quasi-\widetilde{\star}_{\iota}-prime ideal of D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n] since Q_0\cap D\subseteq M ([S, Remark 2.3]). Hence we obtain that \operatorname{dim}(D_M[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n])=\operatorname{ht}(Q)=\operatorname{ht}(Q_0)\leq \widetilde{\star}_{\iota}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n]). Using Lemma 4.4 and Arnold’s formula [A, Theorem 5], we have

where the supremum is taken over M\in\operatorname{QMax}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D) and \{\theta_i\}_1^n\subseteq K. So that \star[n]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[n])\leq n+\sup\{\widetilde{\star}_{\iota}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n])| \{\theta_i\}_1^n\subseteq K\}. Now choose M\in\operatorname{QMax}^{\widetilde{\star}}(D) and \{\theta_i\}_1^n\subseteq K such that \star[n]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[n])=n+\operatorname{dim}(D_M[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n]). Let Q' be a quasi-\widetilde{\star}_{\iota}-prime ideal of D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n] such that \widetilde{\star}_{\iota}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n])=\operatorname{ht}(Q') and set P':=Q'\cap D. Thus

Hence by the first part of the proof \operatorname{dim}(D_M[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n])= \widetilde{\star}_{\iota}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n]). Thus we have \star[n]\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[n])=n+\widetilde{\star}_{\iota}\text{-}\operatorname{dim}(D[\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_n]) to complete the proof.