Processing math: 100%

The Stacks project

[Lemma 2, Nagata-UFD]

Lemma 10.120.7 (Nagata's criterion for factoriality). Let A be a domain. Let S \subset A be a multiplicative subset generated by prime elements. Let x \in A be irreducible. Then

  1. the image of x in S^{-1}A is irreducible or a unit, and

  2. x is prime if and only if the image of x in S^{-1}A is a unit or a prime element in S^{-1}A.

Moreover, then A is a UFD if and only if every element of A has a factorization into irreducibles and S^{-1}A is a UFD.

Proof. Say x = \alpha \beta for \alpha , \beta \in S^{-1}A. Then \alpha = a/s and \beta = b/s' for a, b \in A, s, s' \in S. Thus we get ss'x = ab. By assumption we can write ss' = p_1 \ldots p_ r for some prime elements p_ i. For each i the element p_ i divides either a or b. Dividing we find a factorization x = a' b' and a = s'' a', b = s''' b' for some s'', s''' \in S. As x is irreducible, either a' or b' is a unit. Tracing back we find that either \alpha or \beta is a unit. This proves (1).

Suppose x is prime. Then A/(x) is a domain. Hence S^{-1}A/xS^{-1}A = S^{-1}(A/(x)) is a domain or zero. Thus x maps to a prime element or a unit.

Suppose that the image of x in S^{-1}A is a unit. Then y x = s for some s \in S and y \in A. By assumption s = p_1 \ldots p_ r with p_ i a prime element. For each i either p_ i divides y or p_ i divides x. In the second case p_ i and x are associates (as x is irreducible) and we are done. But if the first case happens for all i = 1, \ldots , r, then x is a unit which is a contradiction.

Suppose that the image of x in S^{-1}A is a prime element. Assume a, b \in A and ab \in (x). Then sa = xy or sb = xy for some s \in S and y \in A. Say the first case happens. By assumption s = p_1 \ldots p_ r with p_ i a prime element. For each i either p_ i divides y or p_ i divides x. In the second case p_ i and x are associates (as x is irreducible) and we are done. If the first case happens for all i = 1, \ldots , r, then a \in (x) as desired. This completes the proof of (2).

The final statement of the lemma follows from (1) and (2) and Lemma 10.120.5. \square


Comments (4)

Comment #5106 by anon on

If is prime then doesn't ideal correspondence for localizations imply is prime?

Comment #5313 by on

@#5106. I do not understand your comment.

Comment #9460 by on

The final statement should probably be: "Moreover, then is a UFD if and only if every nonzero nonunit element of has a factorization into irreducibles and is a UFD."

Comment #9461 by on

Suggestion: it would be easier to rememeber the statement if was written with the word "unit" at the same place as in i.e. if it was written:

"(2) is prime if and only if the image of in is a prime element or a unit in ."

There are also:

  • 10 comment(s) on Section 10.120: Factorization

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.