Pairs of Rings with the Same Prime Ideals

Anderson, David F. ; Dobbs, David E.

Canadian journal of mathematics, Tome 32 (1980) no. 2, pp. 362-384

Résumé

There are numerous instances in which the partners in an extension of commutative rings R ⊂ T have the same prime ideals, i.e., in which Spec(R) = Spec(T). Although this equality is intended to be taken set-theoretically, the identification easily extends to the corresponding spaces endowed with their Zariski topologies (see Proposition 3.5(a)), but of course need not extend to an identification of Spec(R) and Spec(T) as affine schemes. Perhaps the most striking recent illustration of this phenomenon arises from the work of Hedstrom and Houston [14] in which R is a pseudo-valuation domain and T is a suitable valuation overring. Other examples may be found by means of the D + M construction, either in its traditional form [12, p. 560] or in the generalized situation introduced by Brewer and Rutter [5].

Détail

DOI : 10.4153/CJM-1980-029-2

Bibliographie

[1] 1. Akiba, T., Remarks on generalized quotient rings, Proc. Japan Acad. 40 (1964), 801–806. Google Scholar

[2] 2. Bastida, E. and Gilmer, R., Overrings and divisorial ideals of rings of the form D -f- M, Michigan Math. J. 20 (1973), 79–95. Google Scholar

[3] 3. Beauregard, R. A. and Dobbs, D. E., On a class of Archimedean integral domains, Can. J. Math. 28 (1976), 365–375. Google Scholar

[4] 4. Bourbaki, N., Commutative algebra (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1972). Google Scholar

[5] 5. Brewer, J. W. and Rutter, E. A., D + M constructions with general overrings, Michigan Math. J. 23 (1976), 33–42. Google Scholar

[6] 6. Dawson, J. and Dobbs, D. E., On going down in polynomial rings, Can. J. Math. 26 (1974), 177–184. Google Scholar

[7] 7. Dobbs, D. E., Divided rings and going down, Pac. J. Math. 67 (1976), 353–363. Google Scholar

[8] 8. Dobbs, D. E., Coherence, ascent of going down and pseudo-valuation domains, Houston J. Math. 4 (1978), 551–567. Google Scholar

[9] 9. Dobbs, D. E., On the weak global dimension of pseudo-valuation domains, Can. Math. Bull. 21 (1978), 159–164. Google Scholar

[10] 10. Dobbs, D. E. and Papick, I. J., When is D -\- M coherent?, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 56 (1976), 51–54. Google Scholar

[11] 11. Eakin, P. M., Jr., The converse to a well known theorem on Noetherian rings, Math. Ann. 177 (1968), 278–282. Google Scholar

[12] 12. Gilmer, R. W., Multiplicative ideal theory, Queen's Papers in Pure and Applied Alathematics 12 (1968) Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. Google Scholar

[13] 13. Greenberg, B., Coherence of Cartesian squares, J. Algebr. 50 (1978), 12–25. Google Scholar

[14] 14. Hedstrom, J. R. and Houston, E. G., Pseudo-valuation domains, Pac. J. Math. 75 (1978), 137–147. Google Scholar

[15] 15. Hedstrom, J. R. and Houston, E. G., Pseudo-valuation domains, II, Houston J. Math. 4 (1978), 199–207. Google Scholar

[16] 16. McAdam, S., Two conductor theorems, J. Algebr. 23 (1972), 239–240. Google Scholar

[17] 17. Ohm, J., Some counterexamples related to integral closure in D[[x]], Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 122 (1966), 321–333. Google Scholar

[18] 18. Papick, I. J., Topologically defined classes of going down rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 219 (1976), 1–37. Google Scholar

[19] 19. Richman, F., Generalized quotient rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (1965), 794–799. Google Scholar

[20] 20. Sheldon, P. B., Prime ideals in GCD-domains, Can. J. Math. 26 (1974), 98–107. Google Scholar

[21] 21. Vasconcelos, W. V., The local rings of global dimension two, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 35 (1972), 381–386. Google Scholar