Codex @codex  0

With the usual commutative, unital conventions, the chain isA field is an integral domain, and every nonzero ideal contains an invertible element and is consequently the whole ring. Its only ideals are $(0)$ and $(1)$, so it is a principal ideal domain.

To prove the middle implication, first show that a principal ideal domain has the ascending chain condition on ideals. The union of an ascending chain is an ideal, hence is $(a)$; its generator belongs to one member of the chain, and all later members equal $(a)$. Now suppose a nonzero nonunit admitted no factorization into irreducible elements. It would factor into two nonunits, at least one of which again has no such factorization. Repeating would produce a strictly increasing chain of principal ideals: if $a=bc$ with $c$ a nonunit, $(a)⊊(b)$, since equality and cancellation would make $c$ invertible. This contradicts the ascending chain condition. Existence of factorization follows. By the permitted fact that every irreducible element is a prime element in a principal ideal domain, any irreducible factor in one factorization divides a factor in the other; cancellation then proves uniqueness up to units and order. This is a unique factorization domain. The final implication is part of the definition of a unique factorization domain.

None of the adjacent implications reverses. The principal ideal domain $\mathbb{Z}$ is not a field, since $2$ is not invertible. The polynomial ring $\mathbb{Q}[x,y]$ is a unique factorization domain, by applying the polynomial extension theorem for unique factorization domains twice, but its ideal $(x,y)$ is not principal: a generator would divide both $x$ and $y$, so would be a unit, whereas every member of this ideal vanishes at the origin. Finally, $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$ is an integral domain as a subring of $\mathbb{C}$, but is not a unique factorization domain. Its multiplicative norm is $N(a+b\sqrt{-5})=a^2+5b^2$. There is no element of norm $2$ or $3$. Hence $2,3,1+\sqrt{-5},1-\sqrt{-5}$, of norms $4,9,6,6$, are all irreducible: a nontrivial factorization would require one of those missing norms. The only units have norm one and are $\pm 1$. The two factorizationsare therefore not related by associates and reordering.

An integral domain $A$ is an integrally closed domain if every element of its fraction field which is an integral element over $A$ belongs to $A$. Explicitly, if $z\in \mathrm{Frac}A$ satisfiesthen $z\in A$. Thus $\boxed{A\text{ is integrally closed exactly when its integral closure in its fraction field is }A}$.

Suppose $A$ is a unique factorization domain and $z=a/b$ is integral, with $a,b\in A$, $b\ne 0$, and with no common irreducible element as a factor. Multiplying its monic equation by $b^d$ givesHence $b$ divides $a^d$. Every irreducible element dividing $b$ is a prime element, so it would divide $a$, contrary to the choice of the fraction. Therefore $b$ is a unit, and $z\in A$. We have proved

The going-down theorem is the following. Let $A\subseteq B$ be an integral extension of integral domains with $A$ an integrally closed domain. IfthenWe first prove this for a module-finite ring extension and then remove that extra hypothesis. We use the Lying-over theorem, the Going-up theorem, and the incomparability theorem for integral extensions: primes exist over every base prime, prime chains can be extended upwards, and distinct primes over the same base prime cannot contain one another. The Going-up theorem follows by applying the Lying-over theorem to the quotient by the lower prime. These results concern arbitrary integral extensions; none assumes the going-down theorem.

For the finite case, let $K=\mathrm{Frac}A$ and $L=\mathrm{Frac}B$. Since $B$ is module-finite, $L/K$ is a finite field extension. Take a finite normal field extension $E/K$ containing $L$, obtained as a splitting field of the minimal polynomials of finitely many field generators. The extension $E/K$ need not be a separable field extension. Let $C$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $E$. Then $B\subseteq C$, and $C$ is integral over both $A$ and $B$.

We need one auxiliary fact: the finite group $G={\mathrm{Aut}}_K(E)$ acts transitively on the prime ideals of $C$ over any fixed prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ of $A$. First observe that an element $w\in E$ fixed by all of $G$ is a purely inseparable algebraic element over $K$. Indeed, all $K$-embeddings of $K(w)$ into an algebraic closure extend to $K$-automorphisms of the normal field extension $E$. Hence the minimal polynomial of an algebraic element $w$ has only one distinct root. In characteristic zero this says $w\in K$; in characteristic $p>0$ it says $w^{p^e}\in K$ for some $e\ge 0$.

Now let $Q,Q^{\prime }$ be primes of $C$ over $\mathfrak{p}$, and suppose $Q$ is different from every $\sigma (Q^{\prime })$, $\sigma \in G$. By the incomparability theorem for integral extensions, $Q$ is contained in none of these conjugate primes. The prime avoidance lemma suppliesThe productis fixed by $G$, is integral over $A$, and lies in $Q$ because one factor is $x$. Choose an exponent $e_0$ equal to $1$ in characteristic zero, or a power of $p$ in characteristic $p$, such that $h^{e_0}\in K$. Since $A$ is an integrally closed domain, $h^{e_0}\in A$. It also lies in $Q\cap A=\mathfrak{p}$, hence in $Q^{\prime }$. Because $Q^{\prime }$ is a prime ideal, some factor $\sigma (x)$ lies in $Q^{\prime }$. This means $x\in {\sigma }^{-1}(Q^{\prime })$, contradicting our choice. Thus $Q=\sigma (Q^{\prime })$ for some $\sigma$, proving transitivity. The power $e_0$ accounts for the possible purely inseparable field extension and makes the argument valid in every characteristic.

Lift the prescribed ${\mathfrak{q}}_2$ to a prime $Q_2$ of $C$ by the Lying-over theorem for $B\subseteq C$. Separately, choose a prime $Q_1^{\prime }$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$ and use the Going-up theorem to find $Q_2^{\prime }\supseteq Q_1^{\prime }$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_2$. Transitivity gives $\sigma \in G$ with $\sigma (Q_2^{\prime })=Q_2$. ThenContracting to $B$ gives ${\mathfrak{q}}_1=Q_1\cap B\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2$ with the required contraction. This proves the going-down theorem for the module-finite case.

For a general integral extension $A\subseteq B$, consider $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$ and the idealWe claim that $J$ is disjoint from $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. Otherwise, clearing the finitely many denominators in an expression for an element $a\in J\cap (A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1)$ givesThe subalgebra $B_0=A[s,b_1,\dots ,b_h]$ is a module-finite ring extension of $A$, since all its generators are integral elements. Apply the finite case to ${\mathfrak{q}}_2\cap B_0$: there is a prime $Q_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2\cap B_0$ contracting to ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$. The displayed identity puts $sa$ in $Q_1$, but $a\notin Q_1$. Thus $s\in Q_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2$, a contradiction.

Localize $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$ further at the multiplicative subset $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. The extension of $J$ is a proper ideal, by the disjointness just proved. Choose a maximal ideal containing it and contract back to a prime ideal of $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$. This prime contains $J$ and avoids $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. Its contraction ${\mathfrak{q}}_1$ to $B$ lies inside ${\mathfrak{q}}_2$ by the prime ideal correspondence for localization, and its contraction to $A$ is exactly ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$. This completes the proof of the going-down theorem without any finite generation assumption on $B$.

First, every nonzero nonunit in a principal ideal domain factors into irreducible elements. Otherwise repeatedly choose a proper nonunit factor $a_{j+1}$ of $a_j$; then the principal idealsform a strictly increasing chain, contradicting the ascending chain condition, since every principal ideal domain is a Noetherian ring.

Next every irreducible $p$ is a prime element. If $p\mid ab$ but $p\nmid a$, then $\gcd (p,a)=1$. The Bezout identity gives $up+va=1$, so multiplying by $b$ shows $p\mid b$. Thus irreducibles are prime.

Existence of an irreducible factorization and primality give uniqueness: an irreducible on one side divides the product on the other, hence is associate to one factor; cancel and continue. Therefore every principal ideal domain is a unique factorization domain.

The height of a prime ideal $P$ is

The Krull principal ideal theorem states that if $R$ is Noetherian and $P$ is minimal among the primes containing a proper principal ideal $(a)$, thenSuppose otherwise that $P_0⊊Q⊊P$. Quotient by $P_0$ and localize at $P$; it is enough to consider a Noetherian local domain whose maximal ideal $P$ is the only prime containing $(a)$ and which has $0⊊Q⊊P$.

For $n\ge 1$, putThis is a $Q$-primary ideal. Since $R/(a)$ is a zero-dimensional Noetherian ring, it is Artinian, and the descending chain $(Q^{(n)}+(a))/(a)$ eventually stabilizes. Thus, for all sufficiently large $n$, every $q_n\in Q^{(n)}$ can be writtenNow $ra\in Q^{(n)}$, while $a\notin Q$; $Q$-primaryness gives $r\in Q^{(n)}$. HenceThe Nakayama lemma applied to $Q^{(n)}/Q^{(n+1)}$ gives $Q^{(n)}=Q^{(n+1)}$. Localizing at $Q$ makes all sufficiently large powers of the nonzero maximal ideal $Q{R}_Q$ equal. A nonzero element of the stable power then belongs to ${\bigcap }_n{Q}^n{R}_Q$, contradicting the Krull intersection theorem. This proves the theorem.

Now let $R$ be a Noetherian integral domain. If $R$ is a unique factorization domain and $P$ has height one, choose $0\ne x\in P$ and an irreducible factor $p$ of $x$. In a UFD, $p$ is prime, soHeight one forces $P=(p)$.

Conversely, suppose every height-one prime is principal. Noetherianity makes $R$ an atomic domain. Given an irreducible element $p$, choose a prime $P$ minimal over $(p)$. The principal ideal theorem gives $\mathrm{ht}P=1$, so $P=(q)$ by hypothesis. Since $p=qr$ and $p$ is irreducible, $r$ is a unit; hence $(p)=P$ is prime. Thus every irreducible is a prime element, and an atomic domain with this property is a UFD. Therefore

Assume that $p$ is a prime element. If $p=ab$, then $p$ divides $ab$, so $p$ divides $a$ or $b$. If $p\mid a$, write $a=pc$; cancellation in the integral domain gives $1=bc$, so $b$ is a unit. The other case is symmetric. Hence every prime element is irreducible.

Suppose first that $A$ is a unique factorization domain, and let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a minimal nonzero prime ideal. Choose $0\ne a\in \mathfrak{p}$ and factor it into irreducibles. In a UFD each irreducible is a prime element, so one factor $\pi$ belongs to $\mathfrak{p}$. The nonzero prime ideal $(\pi )\subseteq \mathfrak{p}$ must equal $\mathfrak{p}$ by minimality.

Conversely, the ascending chain condition in the Noetherian domain implies that every nonzero nonunit factors into irreducibles. Let $\pi$ be irreducible and choose a prime $\mathfrak{p}$ minimal over $(\pi )$. The Krull principal ideal theorem gives $\mathrm{ht}\mathfrak{p}\le 1$. Since $A$ is a domain and $\mathfrak{p}\ne (0)$, it is a minimal nonzero prime and hence is principal, say $\mathfrak{p}=(q)$. The divisibility $q\mid \pi$ and irreducibility of $\pi$ force $q$ to be associate to $\pi$, so $(\pi )=\mathfrak{p}$ is prime. Thus every irreducible is prime, proving that $A$ is a UFD. This is the Minimal-prime criterion for a Noetherian unique factorization domain.

Every nonzero nonunit in a unique factorization domain is a finite product of irreducible elements. Such a factorization is unique up to permutation and multiplication of the factors by units. Irreducibles are prime elements, so divisibility can be checked by comparing their multiplicities. This applies to a polynomial ring over a field and is useful for intersections of localizations inside its fraction field.