This paper investigates the algebraic structure of ideals in orders of quadratic number fields, specifically analyzing their factorization properties such as catenary degrees and sets of lengths.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive determination of the catenary degrees, distances, and unions of sets of lengths for ideals in quadratic orders, advancing understanding of their factorization behavior.
Findings
01
Determined the set of catenary degrees for ideals in quadratic orders.
02
Identified the set of distances and unions of sets of lengths.
03
Enhanced the understanding of non-unique factorization in algebraic number theory.
Abstract
We determine the set of catenary degrees, the set of distances, and the unions of sets of lengths of the monoid of nonzero ideals and of the monoid of invertible ideals of orders in quadratic number fields.
Tables2
Table 1. Table 1 . Number of nontrivial invertible 𝔭 𝔭 \mathfrak{p} -primary ideal atoms
a=p∈P∏pvp(a) with vp(a)∈N0andvp(a)=0 for almost all p∈P.
a=p∈P∏pvp(a) with vp(a)∈N0andvp(a)=0 for almost all p∈P.
π:Z(H)→Hredsatisfyingπ(u)=u for all u∈A(Hred)
π:Z(H)→Hredsatisfyingπ(u)=u for all u∈A(Hred)
ZH(a)=Z(a)
ZH(a)=Z(a)
LH(a)=L(a)
z=u1⋅…⋅uℓv1⋅…⋅vmandz′=u1⋅…⋅uℓw1⋅…⋅wn,
z=u1⋅…⋅uℓv1⋅…⋅vmandz′=u1⋅…⋅uℓw1⋅…⋅wn,
1+\bigl{|}|z|-|z^{\prime}|\bigr{|}\leq\mathsf{d}(z,z^{\prime})\text{ resp. }2+\bigl{|}|z|-|z^{\prime}|\bigr{|}\leq\mathsf{d}(z,z^{\prime})\text{ if $H$ is cancellative}
1+\bigl{|}|z|-|z^{\prime}|\bigr{|}\leq\mathsf{d}(z,z^{\prime})\text{ resp. }2+\bigl{|}|z|-|z^{\prime}|\bigr{|}\leq\mathsf{d}(z,z^{\prime})\text{ if $H$ is cancellative}
c(a)=sup{c(z,z′)∣z,z′∈Z(a)}∈N0∪{∞}is the catenary degree of a.
c(a)=sup{c(z,z′)∣z,z′∈Z(a)}∈N0∪{∞}is the catenary degree of a.
Ca(H)={c(a)∣a∈H,c(a)>0}⊂Nthe set of catenary degrees of H,
Ca(H)={c(a)∣a∈H,c(a)>0}⊂Nthe set of catenary degrees of H,
c(H)=supCa(H)∈N0∪{∞}is the catenary degree of H.
c(H)=supCa(H)∈N0∪{∞}is the catenary degree of H.
2+supΔ(H)≤c(H)if H is not factorial.
2+supΔ(H)≤c(H)if H is not factorial.
Ca(H)=i∈I⋃Ca(Hi)whencec(H)=sup{c(Hi)∣i∈I}.
Ca(H)=i∈I⋃Ca(Hi)whencec(H)=sup{c(Hi)∣i∈I}.
P={p∈X(R)∣p⊃f}andP∗=X(R)∖P.
P={p∈X(R)∣p⊃f}andP∗=X(R)∖P.
Ip∗(R)={I∈I∗(R)∣I⊃p} and Ip(R)={I∈I(R)∣I⊃p}
Ip∗(R)={I∈I∗(R)∣I⊃p} and Ip(R)={I∈I(R)∣I⊃p}
Ip(R)⊂I(R),Ip∗(R)⊂Ip(R),andIp∗(R)⊂I∗(R)
Ip(R)⊂I(R),Ip∗(R)⊂Ip(R),andIp∗(R)⊂I∗(R)
α:I(R)→p∈X(R)∐Ip(R), defined byα(I)=(Ip∩R)p∈X(R)
α:I(R)→p∈X(R)∐Ip(R), defined byα(I)=(Ip∩R)p∈X(R)
ε∈{0,1} with ε≡fdKmod2,η=4ε−f2dK,andτ=2ε+fdK.
ε∈{0,1} with ε≡fdKmod2,η=4ε−f2dK,andτ=2ε+fdK.
Of=Z⊕fωZ=Z⊕τZ
Of=Z⊕fωZ=Z⊕τZ
P∗={p∈X(Of)∣p⊃f}={pZ+fωZ∣p∈P,p∣f}.
P∗={p∈X(Of)∣p⊃f}={pZ+fωZ∣p∈P,p∣f}.
NK/Q(r+τ)=r2+εr+ηfor eachr∈Z.
NK/Q(r+τ)=r2+εr+ηfor eachr∈Z.
(O:aO)=(OK:aOK)=∣NK/Q(a)∣
(O:aO)=(OK:aOK)=∣NK/Q(a)∣
p is ⎩⎨⎧inertsplitramified if (pdK)=−1; if (pdK)=1; if (pdK)=0.and2 is ⎩⎨⎧inertsplitramified ifdK≡5mod8; ifdK≡1mod8; ifdK≡0mod2.
p is ⎩⎨⎧inertsplitramified if (pdK)=−1; if (pdK)=1; if (pdK)=0.and2 is ⎩⎨⎧inertsplitramified ifdK≡5mod8; ifdK≡1mod8; ifdK≡0mod2.
q=pℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z)
q=pℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z)
NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modpm+1.
NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modpm+1.
Pf,p=pZ+fωZ,Ip∗(Of)
Pf,p=pZ+fωZ,Ip∗(Of)
Mf,p
a=u+x+g,b=v+y+e−2g,
a=u+x+g,b=v+y+e−2g,
c=rem(h−tpgh2+εh+η,pb),g=min{v,y,vp(w+z+ε)},
e=min{g,vp(w−z),vp(w2+εw+η)−v,vp(z2+εz+η)−y},
t∈Z is such that tpgw+z+ε≡1modpmin{v,y}−g, and h={zw if y≥v if v>y.
q=pℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z)
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Full text
On monoids of ideals of orders in quadratic number fields
Johannes Brantner, Alfred Geroldinger
Institut für Mathematik und wissenschaftliches Rechnen, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, NAWI Graz, Heinrichstraße 36, 8010 Graz, Austria
We determine the set of catenary degrees, the set of distances, and the unions of sets of lengths of the monoid of nonzero ideals and of the monoid of invertible ideals of orders in quadratic number fields.
Key words and phrases:
orders, quadratic number fields, sets of lengths, sets of distances, catenary degree
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11R11, 11R27, 13A15, 13F15, 20M12, 20M13
This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWF, Project Numbers J4023-N35 and P28864-N35
1. Introduction
Factorization theory for Mori domains and their semigroups of ideals splits into two cases. The first and best understood case is that of Krull domains (i.e., of completely integrally closed Mori domains). The arithmetic of a Krull domain depends only on the class group and on the distribution of prime divisors in the classes, and it can be studied – at least to a large extent – with methods from additive combinatorics. The link to additive combinatorics is most powerful when the Krull domain has a finite class group and when each class contains at least one prime divisor (this holds true, among others, for rings of integers in number fields). Then sets of lengths, sets of distances and of catenary degrees of the domain can be studied in terms of zero-sum problems over the class group. Moreover, we obtain a variety of explicit results for arithmetical invariants in terms of classical combinatorial invariants (such as the Davenport constant of the class group) or even in terms of the group invariants of the class group. We refer to [15] for a description of the link to additive combinatorics and to the recent survey [32] discussing explicit results for arithmetical invariants.
Let us consider Mori domains that are not completely integrally closed but have a nonzero conductor towards their complete integral closure. The best investigated classes of such domains are weakly Krull Mori domains with finite v-class group and C-domains. For them there is a variety of abstract arithmetical finiteness results but in general there are no precise results. For example, it is well-known that sets of distances and of catenary degrees are finite but there are no reasonable bounds for their size. The simplest not completely integrally closed Mori domains are orders in number fields. They are one-dimensional noetherian with nonzero conductor, finite Picard group, and all factor rings modulo nonzero ideals are finite. Thus they are weakly Krull domains and C-domains. Although there is recent progress for seminormal orders, for general orders in number fields there is no characterization of half-factoriality (for progress in the local case see [26]) and there is no information on the structure of their sets of distances or catenary degrees (neither for orders nor for their monoids of ideals).
In the present paper we focus on monoids of ideals of orders in quadratic number fields and establish precise results for their set of distances Δ(⋅) and their set of catenary degrees Ca(⋅). Orders in quadratic number fields are intimately related with quadratic irrationals, continued fractions, and binary quadratic forms and all these areas provide a wealth of number theoretic tools for the investigation of orders. We refer to [25] for a modern presentation of these connections and to [9, 29] for recent progress on the arithmetic and ideal theoretic structure of quadratic orders.
Let O be an order in a quadratic number field, I∗(O) be the monoid of invertible ideals, and I(O) be the monoid of nonzero ideals (note that I(O) is not cancellative if O is not maximal). Since I∗(O) is a divisor-closed submonoid of I(O), the set of catenary degrees and the set of distances of I∗(O) are contained in the respective sets of I(O).
We formulate a main result of this paper and then we compare it with related results in the literature.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let O be an order in a quadratic number field K with discriminant dK and conductor f=fOK for some f∈N≥2.
If v2(f)∈{2,3} or dK≡1mod8, then {\rm Ca}\big{(}\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{O})\big{)}=[1,4],
{\rm Ca}\big{(}\mathcal{I}^{*}(\mathcal{O})\big{)}=[2,4], and \Delta\big{(}\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{O})\big{)}=\Delta\big{(}\mathcal{I}^{*}(\mathcal{O})\big{)}=[1,2].
2. (ii)
If v2(f)∈{2,3} and dK≡1mod8, then {\rm Ca}\big{(}\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{O})\big{)}=[1,5],
{\rm Ca}\big{(}\mathcal{I}^{*}(\mathcal{O})\big{)}=[2,5], and \Delta\big{(}\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{O})\big{)}=\Delta\big{(}\mathcal{I}^{*}(\mathcal{O})\big{)}=[1,3].
We say that a cancellative monoid H is weakly Krull if ⋂P∈X(H)HP=H and {P∈X(H)∣a∈P} is finite for each a∈H (where X(H) denotes the set of height-one prime ideals of H). Moreover, a cancellative monoid H is called weakly factorial if every nonunit of H is a finite product of primary elements of H. Let all notation be as in Theorem 1.1, and recall that I∗(O) is a weakly factorial C-monoid, and that for every atomic monoid H with Δ(H)=∅ we have minΔ(H)=gcdΔ(H).
There is a characterization (due to Halter-Koch) when the order O is half-factorial ([16, Theorem 3.7.15]). This characterization and Theorem 1.1 or [30, Corollary 4.6] show that the half-factoriality of O implies the half-factoriality of I∗(O).
Consider the case of seminormal orders whence suppose that O is seminormal. Then f is squarefree (this follows from an explicit characterization of seminormal orders given by Dobbs and Fontana in [10, Corollary 4.5]). Moreover, I∗(O) is seminormal and if I∗(O) is not half-factorial, then its catenary degree equals three by [18, Theorems 5.5 and 5.8]. Clearly, this coincides with 2.(a) of the above theorem.
Among others, Theorem 1.1 shows that the sets of distances and of catenary degrees are intervals and that the minimum of the set of distances equals 1. We discuss some analogous results and some results which are in sharp contrast to this.
If H is a Krull monoid with finite class group, then H is a weakly Krull C-monoid and if there are prime divisors in all classes, then the sets Ca(H) and Δ(H) are intervals ([23, Theorem 4.1]). On the other hand, for every finite set S⊂N with minS=gcdS (resp. every finite set S⊂N≥2) there is a finitely generated Krull monoid H such that Δ(H)=S (resp. Ca(H)=S) ([21] resp. [11, Proposition 3.2]). Just as the monoids of ideals under discussion, every numerical monoid is a weakly factorial C-monoid. However, in contrast to them, the set of distances need not be an interval ([8]), its minimum need not be 1 ([5, Proposition 2.9]), and a recent result of O’Neill and Pelayo ([28]) shows that for every finite set S⊂N≥2 there is a numerical monoid H such that Ca(H)=S.
We proceed as follows. In Section 2 we summarize the required background on the arithmetic of monoids. In Section 3 we do the same for orders in quadratic number fields and we provide an explicit description of (invertible) irreducible ideals in orders of quadratic number fields (Theorem 3.6). In Section 4 we give the proof of Theorem 1.1. Based on this result we establish a characterization of those orders O with minΔ(O)>1 (Theorem 4.14) which allows us to give the first explicit examples of orders O with minΔ(O)>1.
Our third main result (given in Theorem 5.2) states that unions of sets of lengths of I(O) and of I∗(O) are intervals.
2. Preliminaries on the arithmetic of monoids
Let N be the set of positive integers, P⊂N the set of prime numbers, and for every m∈N, we denote by
[TABLE]
For a,b∈Q∪{−∞,∞}, [a,b]={x∈Z∣a≤x≤b} denotes the discrete interval between a and b. Let L,L′⊂Z. We denote by L+L′={a+b∣a∈L,b∈L′} their
sumset. A positive
integer d∈N is called a distance of L if there
exists a k∈L such that L∩[k,k+d]={k,k+d}, and we denote by Δ(L) the set of distances of L. If ∅=L⊂N, we denote by ρ(L)=supL/minL∈Q≥1∪{∞} the elasticity of L. We set ρ({0})=1 and max∅=min∅=sup∅=0.
All rings and semigroups are commutative and have an identity element.
2.1. Monoids.
Let H be a multiplicatively written commutative semigroup. We denote by H× the group of invertible elements of H. We say that H is reduced if H×={1} and we denote by Hred={aH×∣a∈H} the associated reduced semigroup of H. An element u∈H is said to be cancellative if au=bu implies that a=b for all a,b∈H. The semigroup H is said to be
•
cancellative if every element of H is cancellative.
•
unit-cancellative if a,u∈H and a=au implies that u∈H×.
By definition, every cancellative semigroup is unit-cancellative. All semigroups of ideals, that are studied in this paper, are unit-cancellative but not necessarily cancellative.
Throughout this paper, a monoid means a
commutative unit-cancellative semigroup with identity element.
Let H be a monoid. A submonoid S⊂H is said to be
divisor-closed if a∈S and b∈H with b∣a implies that b∈S.
An element u∈H is said to be
•
prime if u∈/H× and, for all a,b∈H, u∣ab and u∤a implies u∣b.
•
primary if u∈/H× and, for all a,b∈H, u∣ab and u∤a implies u∣bn for some n∈N.
•
irreducible (or an atom) if u∈/H× and, for all a,b∈H, u=ab implies that a∈H× or b∈H×.
The monoid H is said to be atomic if every a∈H∖H× is a product of finitely many atoms. If H satisfies the ACC (ascending chain condition) on principal ideals, then H is atomic ([12, Lemma 3.1]).
2.2. Sets of lengths.
For a set P, we denote by F(P) the free abelian monoid with basis P. Every a∈F(P) is written in the form
[TABLE]
We call ∣a∣=∑p∈Pvp(a) the length of a and supp(a)={p∈P∣vp(a)>0}⊂P the support of a. Let H be an atomic monoid. The free abelian monoid Z(H)=F(A(Hred)) denotes the factorization monoid of H and
[TABLE]
denotes the factorization homomorphism of H. For every a∈H,
[TABLE]
For a divisor-closed submonoid S⊂H and an element a∈S, we have Z(S)⊂Z(H) whence ZS(a)=ZH(a), and LS(a)=LH(a). We denote by
•
L(H)={L(a)∣a∈H} the system of sets of lengths of H and by
•
Δ(H)=⋃L∈L(H)Δ(L)⊂N the set of distances of H.
The monoid H is said to be half-factorial if Δ(H)=∅ and if H is not half-factorial, then minΔ(H)=gcdΔ(H).
2.3. Distances and chains of factorizations.
Let two factorizations z,z′∈Z(H) be given, say
[TABLE]
where ℓ,m,n∈N0 and all ui,vj,wk∈A(Hred) such that vj=wk for all j∈[1,m] and all k∈[1,n]. Then d(z,z′)=max{m,n} is the distance between z and z′. If π(z)=π(z′) and z=z′, then
[TABLE]
(see [12, Proposition 3.2] and [16, Lemma 1.6.2]). Let a∈H and N∈N0. A finite sequence z0,…,zk∈Z(a) is called an N-chain of factorizations (concatenating z0 and zk) if d(zi−1,zi)≤N for all i∈[1,k]. For z,z′∈Z(H) with π(z)=π(z′), we set c(z,z′)=min{N∈N0∣z and z′ can be concatenated by an N-chain of factorizations from \mathsf{Z}\big{(}\pi(z)\big{)}\}. Then, for every a∈H,
[TABLE]
Clearly, a has unique factorization (i.e., ∣Z(a)∣=1) if and only if c(a)=0. We denote by
[TABLE]
and then
[TABLE]
We use the convention that sup∅=0 whence H is factorial if and only if c(H)=0.
Note that c(a)=0 for all atoms a∈H. The restriction to positive catenary degrees in the definition of Ca(H) simplifies the statement of some results whence it is usual to restrict to elements with positive catenary degrees. If H is cancellative, then Equation (2.1) implies that min Ca(H)≥2 and
[TABLE]
If H=∐i∈IHi, then a straightforward argument shows that
[TABLE]
2.4. Semigroups of ideals.
Let R be a domain. We denote by q(R) its quotient field, by X(R) the set of minimal nonzero prime ideals of R, and by R its integral closure. Then R∖{0} is a cancellative monoid,
•
I(R) is the semigroup of nonzero ideals of R (with usual ideal multiplication),
•
I∗(R) is the subsemigroup of invertible ideals of R, and
•
Pic(R) is the Picard group of R.
For every I∈I(R), we denote by I its radical and by N(I)=(R:I)=∣R/I∣∈N∪{∞} its norm.
Let S be a Dedekind domain and R⊂S a subring. Then R is called an order in S if one of the following two equivalent conditions hold:
•
q(R)=q(S) and S is a finitely generated R-module.
•
R is one-dimensional noetherian and R=S is a finitely generated R-module.
Let R be an order in a Dedekind domain S=R. We analyze the structure of I∗(R) and of I(R).
Since R is noetherian, Krull’s Intersection Theorem holds for R whence I(R) is unit-cancellative ([20, Lemma 4.1]). Thus I(R) is a reduced atomic monoid with identity R and I∗(R) is a reduced cancellative atomic divisor-closed submonoid. For the sake of clarity, we will say that an ideal of R is an ideal atom if it is an atom of the monoid I(R). If I,J∈I∗(R), then I∣J if and only if J⊂I. The prime elements of I∗(R) are precisely the invertible prime ideals of R.
Every ideal is a product of primary ideals belonging to distinct prime ideals (in particular, I∗(R) is a weakly factorial monoid). Thus every ideal atom (i.e., every I∈A(I(R)) is primary, and if I=p∈X(R), then I is p-primary.
Since R is a finitely generated R-module, the conductor f=(R:R) is nonzero, and we
set
[TABLE]
Let p∈X(R). We denote by
[TABLE]
the set of invertible p-primary ideals of R and the set of p-primary ideals of R. Clearly, these are monoids and, moreover,
[TABLE]
are divisor-closed submonoids. Thus Ip∗(R) is a reduced cancellative atomic monoid, Ip(R) is a reduced atomic monoid, and
if p∈P, then Ip∗(R)=Ip(R) is free abelian. Since R is noetherian and one-dimensional,
[TABLE]
is a monoid isomorphism which induces a monoid isomorphism
[TABLE]
3. Orders in quadratic number fields
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem 3.6 which provides an explicit description of (invertible) ideal atoms of an order in a quadratic number field. These results are essentially due to Butts and Pall (see [6] where they are given in a different style), and they were summarized without proof by Geroldinger and Lettl in [19]. Unfortunately, that presentation is misleading in one case (namely, in case p=2 and dK≡5mod8). Thus we restate the results and provide a full proof.
First we put together some facts on orders in quadratic number fields and fix our notation which remains valid throughout the rest of this paper. For proofs, details, and any undefined notions we refer to [25].
Let d∈Z∖{0,1} be squarefree, K=Q(d) be a quadratic number field,
[TABLE]
Then OK=Z[ω] is the ring of integers and dK is the discriminant of K. For every f∈N, we define
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
is an order in OK with conductor f=fOK, and every order in OK has this form. With the notation of Subsection 2.4 we have
[TABLE]
If α=a+bd∈K, then α=a−bd is its conjugate, NK/Q(α)=αα=a2−b2d is its norm, and tr(α)=α+α=2a is its trace. For an I∈I(Of), I={α∣α∈I} denotes the conjugate ideal. A simple calculation shows that
[TABLE]
If O is an order and I∈I∗(O), then (OK:IOK)=(O:I) and if a∈O∖{0}, then
[TABLE]
(see [17, Pages 99 and 100] and note that the factor rings OK/IOK and O/I need not be isomorphic).
For p∈P and for a∈Z we denote by (pa)∈{−1,0,1} the Kronecker symbol of a modulo p.
A prime number p∈Z is called
•
inert if pOK∈spec(OK).
•
split if pOK is a product of two distinct prime ideals of OK.
•
ramified if pOK is the square of a prime ideal of OK.
An odd prime
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f, O=Of, and p=pZ+fωZ.
The primary ideals with radical p are exactly the ideals of the form
[TABLE]
with ℓ,m∈N0, ℓ+m≥1, 0≤r<pm and NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modpm. Moreover, N(q)=p2ℓ+m.
2. 2.
A primary ideal q=pℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z) is invertible if and only if
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let q be a p-primary ideal in O. By [25, Theorem 5.4.2] there exist nonnegative integers ℓ,m,r such that
q=ℓ(mZ+(r+τ)Z), r<m and NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modm. Since q is nonzero and proper, we have ℓm>1. We prove, that ℓm is a power of p. First observe that q⊂q=p implies that p∣ℓm. Assume to the contrary that there exists another rational prime p′=p dividing ℓm, say ℓm=p′s.
But then p′s∈q, s∈q and p′∈p=q. A contradiction to q being primary. Conversely, assume that q=pℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z) for integers ℓ,m∈N0,ℓ+m≥1,0≤r<pm and NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modpm. By [25, Theorem 5.4.2], q is an ideal of O. Since p∈q and p is the only prime ideal in O containing p we obtain that q=⋂a∈spec(O),a⊃qa=p. The nonzero prime ideal p is maximal, since O is one-dimensional. Therefore, q is p-primary. It follows from [25, Theorem 5.4.2] that N(q)=p2ℓ+m.
By [25, Theorem 5.4.2], q=pℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z) is invertible if and only if gcd(pm,2r+ε,pmNK/Q(r+τ))=1. Since p∣f and NK/Q(r+τ)=41((2r+ε)2−f2dK), this is the case if and only if p∤pmNK/Q(r+τ), that is NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modpm+1.
∎
If x∈Z and y∈N, then let rem(x,y) be the unique z∈[0,y−1] such that y∣x−z. Let p be a prime divisor of f. Note that vp(0)=∞, and if ∅=A⊆N0, then min(A∪{∞})=minA. We set
[TABLE]
Let ∗:Mf,p×Mf,p→Mf,p be defined by (u,v,w)∗(x,y,z)=(a,b,c), where
[TABLE]
Let ξf,p:Mf,p→Ip(Of) be defined by ξf,p(x,y,z)=px(pyZ+(z+τ)Z).
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f and I,J∈Ip(Of).
(Mf,p,∗)* is a reduced monoid and ξf,p is a monoid isomorphism.*
2. 2.
If w,z∈Z are such that vp(w2+εw+η)>0 and vp(z2+εz+η)>0, then vp(w+z+ε)>0 and vp(w−z)>0.
3. 3.
N(I)N(J)∣N(IJ)* and N(IJ)=N(I)N(J) if and only if I is invertible or J is invertible. If I and J are proper, then IJ⊂pOf.*
4. 4.
If I∈A(Ip(Of)), then there is some I′∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(IJ)∣N(I′J). If I∈A(Ip(Of)) is not invertible, then N(I)∣N(I′) and N(I)<N(I′) for some I′∈A(Ip∗(Of)).
5. 5.
If I∈A(Ip∗(Of)), then I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) and II=N(I)Of.
Proof.
Let (u,v,w),(x,y,z)∈Mf,p. Set g=min{v,y,vp(w+z+ε)} and e=min{g,vp(w−z),vp(w2+εw+η)−v,vp(z2+εz+η)−y}. Note that gcd(pmin{v,y},w+z+ε)=pg, and hence there are some s,t∈Z such that spmin{v,y}+t(w+z+ε)=pg. This implies that tpgw+z+ε≡1modpmin{v,y}−g. Set a=u+x+g, b=v+y+e−2g and let h=z if y≥v and h=w if v>y. Finally, set c=rem(h−tpgh2+εh+η,pb). First we show that c does not depend on the choice of t. Let t′∈Z be such that t′pgw+z+ε≡1modpmin{v,y}−g. Then pmin{v,y}−g∣t−t′. Note that min{v,y}+vp(h2+εh+η)≥v+y+e, and hence pb∣(t−t′)pgh2+εh+η. Consequently, c=rem(h−t′pgh2+εh+η,pb).
Next we show that (a,b,c)∈Mf,p. It is clear that (a,b,c)∈N03 and c<pb. It remains to show that vp(c2+εc+η)≥b. Without restriction we can assume that v≤y. Then h=z. Set k=z−tpgz2+εz+η. There is some r∈Z such that c=k+rpb. Since c2+εc+η=k2+εk+η+mpb for some m∈Z, it is sufficient to show that vp(k2+εk+η)≥b.
Observe that k2+εk+η=p2gz2+εz+η(p2g−tpg(2z+ε)+t2(z2+εz+η))=p2gz2+εz+η(spv+g+tpg(w−z)+t2(z2+εz+η)). Note that g+vp(w−z)=min{v+vp(w−z),vp(w+z+ε)+vp(w−z)}=min{v+vp(w−z),vp(w2+εw+η−(z2+εz+η))}≥min{v+vp(w−z),vp(z2+εz+η),vp(w2+εw+η)}≥v. Moreover, we have vp(z2+εz+η)≥y+e. Therefore, vp(k2+εk+η)≥vp(z2+εz+η)−2g+min{v+g,g+vp(w−z),vp(z2+εz+η)}≥y+e−2g+v=b.
Now we prove that pu(pvZ+(w+τ)Z)px(pyZ+(z+τ)Z)=pa(pbZ+(c+τ)Z). (Note that this can be shown by using [25, Theorem 5.4.6].) Set I=pu(pvZ+(w+τ)Z)px(pyZ+(z+τ)Z). Without restriction let v≤y. Note that (w+τ)(z+τ)=wz−η+(w+z+ε)τ. Set α=pv(z+τ) and β=wz−η+(w+z+ε)τ. We infer that I=pu+x(pv+yZ+py(w+τ)Z+αZ+βZ).
Moreover, py(w+τ)Z+αZ=py(w−z)Z+αZ. Observe that sα+tβ=pgz−t(z2+εz+η)+pgτ. Set k=z−tpgz2+εz+η. Then sα+tβ=pg(k+τ). We have α−pv(k+τ)=tpv−g(z2+εz+η) and (w+z+ε)(k+τ)−β=spv−g(z2+εz+η). Set r=pv−g(z2+εz+η). Consequently, αZ+βZ=srZ+trZ+pg(k+τ)Z=rZ+pg(k+τ)Z,
since gcd(s,t)=1. Putting these facts together gives us
I=pu+x(pv+yZ+py(w−z)Z+rZ+pg(k+τ)Z).
We have gcd(pv+y,py(w−z),r)=pℓ with ℓ=min{v+y,y+vp(w−z),v−g+vp(z2+εz+η)} and pv+yZ+py(w−z)Z+rZ=pℓZ. Note that ℓ=v+y−g+min{g,vp(w−z)−v+g,vp(z2+εz+η)−y} and vp(w−z)−v+g=min{vp(w−z),vp(w−z)+vp(w+z+ε)−v}=min{vp(w−z),vp(w2+εw+η−(z2+εz+η))−v}, and hence ℓ=v+y−g+min{g,vp(w−z),vp(w2+εw+η−(z2+εz+η))−v,vp(z2+εz+η)−y}.
CASE 1: vp(w2+εw+η)≥vp(z2+εz+η). Then vp(w2+εw+η)−v≥vp(z2+εz+η)−y and vp(w2+εw+η−(z2+εz+η))−v≥vp(z2+εz+η)−y.
CASE 2: vp(z2+εz+η)>vp(w2+εw+η). Then vp(w2+εw+η−(z2+εz+η))−v=vp(w2+εw+η)−v.
In any case we have min{vp(w2+εw+η−(z2+εz+η))−v,vp(z2+εz+η)−y}=min{vp(w2+εw+η)−v,vp(z2+εz+η)−y}. Obviously, ℓ=v+y+e−g and I=pu+x+g(pv+y+e−2gZ+(z−tpgz2+εz+η+τ)Z). Consequently, I=pa(pbZ+(c+τ)Z).
So far we know that ∗ is an inner binary operation on Mf,p. It follows from Proposition 3.1.1 that ξf,p is surjective. It follows from [25, Theorem 5.4.2] that ξf,p is injective. It is clear that (Ip(Of),⋅) is a reduced monoid. We have shown that ξf,p maps products of elements of Mf,p to products of elements of Ip(Of). It is clear that (0,0,0) is an identity element of Mf,p and ξf,p(0,0,0)=Of. Therefore, (Mf,p,∗) is a reduced monoid and ξf,p is a monoid isomorphism.
Let w,z∈Z be such that vp(w2+εw+η)>0 and vp(z2+εz+η)>0. Then p∣z2+εz+η=41((2z+ε)2−f2dK), and hence p∣2z+ε. Moreover p∣w2+εw+η−(z2+εz+η)=(w+z+ε)(w−z), and thus p∣w+z+ε or p∣w−z. Since p∣2z+ε, we infer that p∣w+z+ε if and only if p∣w−z. Consequently, min{vp(w+z+ε),vp(w−z)}>0.
By 1., there are (u,v,w),(x,y,z),(a,b,c)∈Mf,p such that I=pu(pvZ+(w+τ)Z), J=px(pyZ+(z+τ)Z) and IJ=pa(pbZ+(c+τ)Z) with a=u+x+g, b=v+y+e−2g, g=min{v,y,vp(w+z+ε)} and e=min{g,vp(w−z),vp(w2+εw+η)−v,vp(z2+εz+η)−y}. It follows by Proposition 3.1.1 that N(I)=p2u+v, N(J)=p2x+y and N(IJ)=p2a+b=p2(u+x)+v+y+e. It is obvious that N(I)N(J)∣N(IJ). Moreover, N(IJ)=N(I)N(J) if and only if e=0. We infer by 2. that e=0 if and only if v=0 or y=0 or vp(w2+εw+η)=v or vp(z2+εz+η)=y, which is the case if and only if I is invertible or J is invertible by Proposition 3.1.2. If I and J are proper, then u+v>0 and x+y>0, and hence a>0 by 2. This implies that IJ⊂p(pbZ+(c+τ)Z)⊂pOf.
Let I∈A(Ip(Of)). Without restriction let I be not invertible. We have I=pbZ+(r+τ)Z for some (0,b,r)∈Mf,p and b<vp(r2+εr+η). Set c=vp(r2+εr+η) and I′=pcZ+(r+τ)Z. Then I′∈A(Ip∗(Of)), N(I)∣N(I′), and N(I)<N(I′) by Proposition 3.1. There is some (x,y,z)∈Mf,p such that J=px(pyZ+(z+τ)Z). Then N(I′J)=pc+2x+y and N(IJ)=pb+2x+y+e with e=min{b,y,vp(r+z+ε),vp(r−z),c−b,vp(z2+εz+η)−y}≤c−b. Therefore, N(IJ)∣N(I′J).
Let I∈A(Ip∗(Of)). If I=pOf, then I=pOf and N(I)=p2 by Proposition 3.1.1. Therefore, II=N(I)Of. Now let I=pOf. There is some (0,m,r)∈Mf,p such that I=pmZ+(r+τ)Z. Set s=pm−r−ε. It follows that I=pmZ+(r+τ)Z=pmZ+(r+ε−τ)Z=pmZ+(s+τ)Z. Observe that s2+εs+η=r2+εr+η+pm(pm−(2r+ε)). Since p∣r2+εr+η=41((2r+ε)2−f2dK), we have vp(2r+ε)>0, and hence vp(pm(pm−(2r+ε)))>m. Since vp(r2+εr+η)=m, we infer that vp(s2+εs+η)=m, and thus (0,m,s)∈Mf,p. Therefore, I∈A(Ip∗(Of)). Note that min{m,vp(r+s+ε)}=m, and thus II=pmOf=N(I)Of by 1. and Proposition 3.1.1.
∎
Proposition 3.3**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f and f′=pvp(f). Set O=Of, O′=Of′, P=Pf,p and P′=Pf′,p. For g∈N let φg,p:Ip(Og)→I((Og)Pg,p) be defined by φg,p(I)=IPg,p and ζg,p:I((Og)Pg,p)→Ip(Og) be defined by ζg,p(J)=J∩Og.
OP=OP′′.
2. 2.
φf,p* and ζf,p are mutually inverse monoid isomorphisms.*
3. 3.
There is a monoid isomorphism δ:Ip(O)→Ip(O′) such that δ(pO)=pO′ and δ∣Ip∗(O):Ip∗(O)→Ip∗(O′) is a monoid isomorphism.
Proof.
It is clear that O⊂O′ and P′∩O=P. Therefore, OP⊂OP′′. Observe that O∖P=(Z∖pZ)+fωZ and O′∖P′=(Z∖pZ)+f′ωZ. It remains to show that {f′ω}∪{x−1∣x∈(Z∖pZ)+f′ωZ}⊂OP. Since f′ff′ω=fω∈O and f′f∈Z∖pZ⊂O∖P, we have f′ω∈OP. Therefore, O′⊂OP. Now let a∈Z∖pZ and b∈Z. Observe that a+bf′ω∈O′⊂OP. Since ω+ω,ωω∈Z, we have (a+bf′ω)(a+bf′ω)=a2+abf′(ω+ω)+b2(f′)2ωω∈Z∖pZ⊂O∖P. Therefore, a+bf′ω1=(a+bf′ω)(a+bf′ω)a+bf′ω∈OP.
It is clear that φf,p is a well-defined monoid homomorphism. Note that ζf,p is a well-defined map (since every nonzero proper ideal J of OP is PP-primary, and hence J∩O is P-primary). Moreover, ζf,p(OP)=O. Now let J1,J2∈I(OP). Observe that J1J2∩O and (J1∩O)(J2∩O) coincide locally (note that both are either P-primary or not proper). Therefore, J1J2∩O=(J1∩O)(J2∩O), and hence ζf,p is a monoid homomorphism. If J∈I(OP), then (J∩O)P=J. Therefore, φf,p∘ζf,p=idI(OP). If I is a P-primary ideal of O, then IP∩O=I. This implies that ζf,p∘φf,p=idIp(O).
Set δ=ζf′,p∘φf,p. Then δ:Ip(O)→Ip(O′) is a monoid isomorphism by 1. and 2. Furthermore, we have by 1. that δ(pO)=ζf′,p(φf,p(pO))=ζf′,p(pOP)=ζf′,p(pO′P′)=pOP′′∩O′=pO′.
Since O is noetherian, we have Ip∗(O) is the set of cancellative elements of Ip(O). It follows by analogy that Ip∗(O′) is the set of cancellative elements of Ip(O′). Therefore, δ(Ip∗(O))=Ip∗(O′), and hence δ∣Ip∗(O) is a monoid isomorphism.
∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let p be a prime number, let k∈N0, let c,n∈N be such that gcd(c,p)=1 and for each ℓ∈N let gℓ=∣{y∈[0,pℓ−1]∣y2≡cmodpℓ}∣.
If p=2, then pkc is a square modulo pn if and only if k≥n or (k<n, k is even and (pc)=1).
2. 2.
2kc* is a square modulo 2n if and only if one of the following conditions holds.*
(a)
k≥n.
2. (b)
k* is even and n=k+1.*
3. (c)
k* is even, n=k+2 and c≡1mod4.*
4. (d)
k* is even, n≥k+3 and c≡1mod8.*
3. 3.
If ℓ∈N, then gℓ=⎩⎨⎧4210ifp=2,ℓ≥3,c≡1mod8if(p=2,(pc)=1)or(p=2,ℓ=2,c≡1mod4)ifp=2,ℓ=1else.
Proof.
Note that pkc is a square modulo pn iff k≥n or (k<n, k is even and c is a square modulo pn−k).
Let p=2. It remains to show that if ℓ∈N, then c is a square modulo pℓ if and only if (pc)=1. If ℓ∈N and c is a square modulo pℓ, then c is a square modulo p, and hence (pc)=1. Now let (pc)=1. It suffices to show by induction that c is a square modulo pℓ for all ℓ∈N. The statement is clearly true for ℓ=1. Now let ℓ∈N and let x∈Z be such that x2≡cmodpℓ. Without restriction let vp(x2−c)=ℓ. Note that p∤x, and hence 2bx≡−1modp for some b∈Z. Set y=x+b(x2−c). Then y2≡cmodpℓ+1.
It remains to show that if ℓ∈N, then c is a square modulo 2ℓ if and only if ℓ=1 or (ℓ=2 and c≡1mod4) or (ℓ≥3 and c≡1mod8). Let ℓ∈N and let c be a square modulo 2ℓ. If ℓ=2, then c is a square modulo 4 and c≡1mod4. Moreover, if ℓ≥3, then c is a square modulo 8 and c≡1mod8.
Clearly, if ℓ=1 or (ℓ=2 and c≡1mod4), then c is a square modulo 2ℓ. Now let c≡1mod8. It is sufficient to show by induction that c is a square modulo 2ℓ for each ℓ∈N≥3. The statement is obviously true for ℓ=3. Now let ℓ∈N≥3 and let x∈Z be such that x2≡cmod2ℓ. Without restriction let v2(x2−c)=ℓ. Set y=x+2ℓ−1. Then y2≡cmod2ℓ+1.
Let ℓ∈N. By 1. and 2., it is sufficient to consider the case gℓ>0. Let gℓ>0. Observe that gℓ=∣{y∈[0,pℓ−1]∣y2≡1modpℓ}∣=∣{y∈(Z/pℓZ)×∣ord(y)≤2}∣. If p=2 and ℓ=1, then (Z/pℓZ)× is trivial, and hence gℓ=1. If (p=2, ℓ=2 and c≡1mod4) or (p=2 and (pc)=1), then (Z/pℓZ)× is a cyclic group of even order, and thus gℓ=2. Finally, if p=2, ℓ≥3 and c≡1mod8, then (Z/2ℓZ)×≅Z/2Z×C2ℓ−2 is the product of two cyclic groups of even order. Consequently, gℓ=4.
∎
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let p be a prime number, a,m∈N, c=pvp(a)a, M={x∈[0,pm−1]∣vp(x2−a)=m}, N=∣M∣ and for each ℓ∈N let gℓ=∣{y∈[0,pℓ−1]∣y2≡cmodpℓ}∣.
If m<vp(a), then N={φ(pm/2)0ifmisevenifmisodd.
2. 2.
Let m=vp(a).
(a)
If a is a square modulo pm+1, then N={pm/2−1(p−2)2m/2−1ifp=2ifp=2.
2. (b)
If a is not a square modulo pm+1, then N=p⌊m/2⌋.
3. 3.
If m>vp(a) and a is not a square modulo pm, then N=0.
4. 4.
If k∈N is such that m=k+vp(a) and a is a square modulo pm, then N=pvp(a)/2−1(pgk−gk+1).
Proof.
Let m<vp(a). Observe that M={x∈[0,pm−1]∣2vp(x)=m}. Clearly, if m is odd, then N=0. Now let m be even. We have M={pm/2y∣y∈[0,pm/2−1],gcd(y,p)=1}, and thus N=∣{y∈[0,pm/2−1]∣gcd(y,p)=1}∣=φ(pm/2).
Note that M={x∈[0,pm−1]∣2vp(x)≥m,x2≡amodpm+1} and ∣{x∈[0,pm−1]∣2vp(x)≥m}∣=p⌊m/2⌋. Set M′={x∈[0,pm−1]∣x2≡amodpm+1}. Then M′={x∈[0,pm−1]∣2vp(x)≥m,x2≡amodpm+1} and N=p⌊m/2⌋−∣M′∣. If a is not a square modulo pm+1, then M′=∅, and hence N=p⌊m/2⌋. Now let a be a square modulo pm+1. Then M′=∅, and thus m is even. Observe that M′={x∈[0,pm−1]∣2vp(x)=m,x2≡amodpm+1}={pm/2y∣y∈[0,pm/2−1],y2≡cmodp}. Therefore, ∣M′∣=∣{y∈[0,pm/2−1]∣y2≡cmodp}∣=pm/2−1∣{y∈[0,p−1]∣y2≡cmodp}∣.
If p=2, then N=p⌊m/2⌋−∣M′∣=pm/2−2pm/2−1=pm/2−1(p−2) by Lemma 3.4.3. Moreover, if p=2, then N=2⌊m/2⌋−∣M′∣=2m/2−2m/2−1=2m/2−1 by Lemma 3.4.3.
This is obvious.
Let k∈N be such that m=k+vp(a) and let a be a square modulo pm. It follows by Lemma 3.4 that vp(a) is even. Set r=vp(a)/2 and for θ∈{0,1} set Mθ={x∈[0,pm−1]∣2vp(x)=vp(a),x2≡amodpm+θ}. Then M={x∈[0,pm−1]∣vp(x)=r,vp(x2−a)=m}=M0∖M1. Since {x∈[0,pm−1]∣vp(x)=r}={pry∣y∈[0,pk+r−1],gcd(y,p)=1}, we infer that Mθ={pry∣y∈[0,pk+r−1],y2≡cmodpk+θ}. Therefore, ∣Mθ∣=∣{y∈[0,pk+r−1]∣y2≡cmodpk+θ}∣=pr−θ∣{y∈[0,pk+θ−1]∣y2≡cmodpk+θ}∣=pr−θgk+θ. This implies that N=∣M0∣−∣M1∣=prgk−pr−1gk+1=pr−1(pgk−gk+1).
∎
Theorem 3.6**.**
Let O be an order in a quadratic number field K with conductor f=fOK for some f∈N≥2, p be a prime divisor of f, and p=Pf,p.
The primary ideals with radical p are exactly the ideals of the form
[TABLE]
with ℓ,m∈N0, ℓ+m≥1, 0≤r<pm, and NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modpm. Moreover, N(q)=p2ℓ+m.
2. 2.
A primary ideal q=pℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z) is invertible if and only if
[TABLE]
3. 3.
A primary ideal q with radical p is an ideal atom if and only if q=pO or q=pmZ+(r+τ)Z with
m∈N and pm∣NK/Q(r+τ).
4. 4.
Table 1 gives the number of invertible ideal atoms of the form pmZ+(r+τ)Z with norm pm; this number is [math] if m is not listed in the table.
The number of ideal atoms with radical p is finite if and only if the number of invertible ideal atoms with radical p is finite if and only if p does not split.
Proof.
and 2. are an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.1.
In 1. we have seen, that all p-primary ideals of O are of the form
q=pℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z). If both ℓ and m are greater than [math], then q is not an ideal atom. Indeed, q=(pO)ℓ(pmZ+(r+τ)Z) is a nontrivial factorization. It remains to be proven, that pO and pmZ+(r+τ)Z are ideal atoms.
Assume that there exist proper ideals a1,a2 of O such that pO=a1a2. Since pO is p-primary, we have a1 and a2 are p-primary. Using this information, we deduce, that pO⊂p2, implying
[TABLE]
Therefore, 1∈p, a contradiction.
Assume that there exist proper ideals a1,a2 of O such that pmZ+(r+τ)Z=a1a2. Note that a1 and a2 are p-primary. By Proposition 3.2.3, it follows that pmZ+(r+τ)Z⊂pO, a contradiction to r+τ∈pO.
By 1. and 3., the nontrivial p-primary ideal atoms of norm pm are all q=pmZ+(r+τ)Z with m∈N, 0≤r<pm and NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modpm. By 2., an ideal of this form is invertible if and only if NK/Q(r+τ)≡0modpm+1.
Thus if we want to count the number of invertible p-primary ideal atoms of the form q=pmZ+(r+τ)Z we have to count the number of solutions r∈[0,pm−1] of the equation
[TABLE]
Set N=∣{r∈[0,pm−1]∣vp(NK/Q(r+τ))=m}∣ and a={(2f)2dKf2dKif p=2if p=2. Next we show that N=∣{r∈[0,pm−1]∣vp(r2−a)=m}∣. Note that NK/Q(r+τ)=4(2r+ε)2−f2dK for each r∈[0,pm−1]. If p=2, then ε=0, and hence NK/Q(r+τ)=r2−a. Now let p=2. Then vp(NK/Q(r+τ))=vp((2r+ε)2−a) for each r∈[0,pm−1]. Let f:{r∈[0,pm−1]∣vp(r2−a)=m}→{r∈[0,pm−1]∣vp((2r+ε)2−a)=m} and g:{r∈[0,pm−1]∣vp((2r+ε)2−a)=m}→{r∈[0,pm−1]∣vp(r2−a)=m} be defined by f(r)={2r−ε2r+pm−εif r−ε is evenif r−ε is odd and g(r)=rem(2r+ε,pm) for each r∈[0,pm−1]. Observe that f and g are well-defined injective maps. Therefore, N=∣{r∈[0,pm−1]∣vp(r2−a)=m}∣ in any case. Set c=pvp(a)a and for ℓ∈N set gℓ=∣{y∈[0,pℓ−1]∣y2≡cmodpℓ}∣. If m<vp(a), then the statement follows immediately by Lemma 3.5.1. Therefore, let m≥vp(a). In what follows we use Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5 without further citation.
CASE 1: p=2 and 2 is inert. We have v2(a)=2v2(f)−2, c≡dK≡5mod8, g1=1, g2=2 and g3=0. If m=v2(a), then a is a square modulo 2m+1, and hence N=2m/2−1=φ(2m/2). If m=v2(a)+1, then a is a square modulo 2m, and thus N=2v2(a)/2−1(2g1−g2)=0. If m=v2(a)+2, then a is a square modulo 2m, whence N=2v2(a)/2−1(2g2−g3)=2v2(a)/2+1=2v2(f). Finally, let m≥v2(a)+3. Then a is not a square modulo 2m, and hence N=0.
CASE 2: p=2 and 2 is ramified. Note that v2(a)∈{2v2(f),2v2(f)+1}. First let v2(a)=2v2(f). Then a=f2d with c≡d≡3mod4, g1=1 and gℓ=0 for each ℓ∈N≥2. If m=v2(a), then a is a square modulo 2m+1, and thus N=2m/2−1=2v2(f)−1=φ(2v2(f)). If m=v2(a)+1, then a is a square modulo 2m, and hence N=2v2(a)/2−1(2g1−g2)=2v2(f). Finally, let m≥v2(a)+2. Then a is not a square modulo 2m, and thus N=0.
Now let v2(a)=2v2(f)+1. If m=v2(a), then a is not a square modulo 2m+1, and hence N=2⌊m/2⌋=2v2(f). If m>v2(a), then a is not a square modulo 2m, and thus N=0.
CASE 3: p=2 and 2 splits. Observe that v2(a)=2v2(f)−2, c≡dK≡1mod8, g1=1, g2=2 and gℓ=4 for each ℓ∈N≥3. If m=v2(a), then a is a square modulo 2m+1, and hence N=2m/2−1=φ(2m/2). Now let m>v2(a) and set k=m−v2(a). Note that a is a square modulo 2m, and hence N=2v2(a)/2−1(2gk−gk+1). If m<v2(a)+3, then N=0. Finally, let m≥v2(a)+3. Then N=2v2(a)/2+1=2v2(f)=2φ(2v2(f)).
CASE 4: p=2 and p is inert. We have vp(a)=2vp(f), (pc)=(pdK)=−1 and gℓ=0 for each ℓ∈N. If m=vp(a), then a is not a square modulo pm+1, and hence N=p⌊m/2⌋=pvp(f). If m>vp(a), then a is not a square modulo pm, and thus N=0.
CASE 5: p=2 and p is ramified. It follows that vp(a)=2vp(f)+1. If m=vp(a), then a is not a square modulo pm+1, and thus N=p⌊m/2⌋=pvp(f). If m>vp(a), then a is not a square modulo pm, and thus N=0.
CASE 6: p=2 and p splits. Note that vp(a)=2vp(f), (pc)=(pdK)=1 and gℓ=2 for each ℓ∈N. If m=vp(a), then a is a square modulo pm+1, and hence N=pm/2−1(p−2)=pvp(f)−1(p−2). If m>vp(a), then a is a square modulo pm, and thus N=pvp(a)/2−1(pgk−gk+1)=2pvp(f)−1(p−1)=2φ(pvp(f)).
It is an immediate consequence of 4. that the number of invertible ideal atoms with radical p is finite if and only if p does not split. It remains to show that A(Ip(O)) is finite if and only if A(Ip∗(O)) is finite. It follows from [1, Theorem 4.3] that I(Op) is a finitely generated monoid if and only if I∗(Op) is a finitely generated monoid. Therefore, Proposition 3.3.2 implies that Ip(O) is a finitely generated monoid if and only if Ip∗(O) is a finitely generated monoid. Observe that Ip(O) and Ip∗(O) are atomic monoids. Therefore, A(Ip(O)) is finite if and only if Ip(O) is a finitely generated monoid if and only if Ip∗(O) is a finitely generated monoid if and only if A(Ip∗(O)) is finite.
∎
4. Sets of distances and sets of catenary degrees
The goal in this section is to prove Theorem 1.1. The proof is based on the precise description of ideals given in Theorem 3.6. We proceed in a series of lemmas and propositions and use all notation on orders as introduced at the beginning of Section 3. In particular, O=Of is an order in a quadratic number with conductor fOK for some f∈N≥2.
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let H be a reduced atomic monoid and suppose there is a cancellative atom u∈A(H) such that for each a∈H∖H× there are n∈N0 and v∈A(H) such that a=unv.
For all n,m∈N0 and v,w∈A(H) such that unv=umw, it follows that n=m and v=w.
2. 2.
For all n∈N0 and v∈A(H), it follows that maxL(unv)=n+1.
3. 3.
c(H)=sup{c(w⋅y,un⋅v)∣n∈N* and v,w,y∈A(H) such that wy=unv}.*
4. 4.
If H is half-factorial, then c(H)≤2.
5. 5.
supΔ(H)=sup{ℓ−2∣ℓ∈N≥3* such that L(vw)∩[2,ℓ]={2,ℓ} for some v,w∈A(H)}.*
Proof.
Let n,m∈N0 and v,w∈A(H) be such that unv=umw. Without restriction let n≤m. Since u is cancellative, we infer that v=um−nw. Since v∈A(H), we have n=m, and thus v=w.
It is clear that n+1∈L(unv) for all n∈N0 and v∈A(H). Therefore, it is sufficient to show by induction that for all n∈N0 and v∈A(H), maxL(unv)≤n+1. Let n∈N0 and v∈A(H). If n=0, then the assertion is obviously true. Now let n>0 and z∈Z(unv). Then there are some z′,z′′∈Z(H)∖{1} such that z=z′⋅z′′. There are some m′,m′′∈N0 and w′,w′′∈A(H) such that π(z′)=um′w′ and π(z′′)=um′′w′′. There are some ℓ∈N and y∈A(H) such that w′w′′=uℓy. We infer that unv=um′+m′′+ℓy, and thus n=m′+m′′+ℓ by 1. Since m′,m′′<n, it follows by the induction hypothesis that ∣z′∣≤m′+1 and ∣z′′∣≤m′′+1. Consequently, ∣z∣≤m′+m′′+2≤m′+m′′+ℓ+1=n+1.
Set k=sup{c(w⋅y,un⋅v)∣n∈N0 and v,w,y∈A(H) such that wy=unv}. Since c(H)=sup{c(z,z′)∣a∈H,z,z′∈Z(a)}, it is obvious that k≤c(H). It remains to show by induction that for all n∈N0 and v∈A(H), it follows that c(unv)≤k. Let n∈N0 and v∈A(H). Since c(v)=0, we can assume without restriction that n>0. Since c(unv)=sup{c(z,un⋅v)∣z∈Z(unv)}, it remains to show that c(z,un⋅v)≤k for all z∈Z(unv). Let z∈Z(unv).
CASE 1: For all w,y∈A(H)∖{u}, we have w⋅y∤z. There are some m∈N and w∈A(H) such that z=um⋅w. We infer by 1. that z=un⋅v, and thus c(z,un⋅v)=0≤k.
CASE 2: There are some w,y∈A(H)∖{u} such that w⋅y∣z. Set z′=w⋅yz. There exist m∈N and a∈A(H) such that wy=uma. We infer that m≤n and unv=π(z)=π(w⋅y)π(z′)=umaπ(z′), and thus aπ(z′)=un−mv. Observe that c(z,um⋅a⋅z′)≤c(w⋅y,um⋅a)≤k. Since n−m<n, it follows by the induction hypothesis that c(um⋅a⋅z′,un⋅v)≤c(a⋅z′,un−m⋅v)≤k, and hence c(z,un⋅v)≤k.
Let H be half-factorial, n∈N and v,w,y∈A(H) be such that wy=unv. We infer that n=1, and thus c(w⋅y,un⋅v)≤d(w⋅y,u⋅v)≤2. Therefore, c(H)≤2 by 3.
Set N=sup{ℓ−2∣ℓ∈N≥3 such that L(vw)∩[2,ℓ]={2,ℓ} for some v,w∈A(H)}. It is obvious that N≤supΔ(H). It remains to show that k≤N for each k∈Δ(H). Let k∈Δ(H). Then there are some a∈H and r,s∈L(a) such that r<s, L(a)∩[r,s]={r,s}, and k=s−r. Let z∈Z(a) with ∣z∣=r be such that vu(z)=max{vu(z′)∣z′∈Z(a)with∣z′∣=r}. Since r<maxL(a), it follows by 2., that there are some v,w∈A(H)∖{u} such that v⋅w∣z. There are some n∈N and y∈A(H) such that vw=uny. Since vu(z) is maximal amongst all factorizations of a of length r, we have n≥2. Consequently, there is some ℓ∈L(vw) such that 2<ℓ≤n+1 and L(vw)∩[2,ℓ]={2,ℓ}. Note that r+ℓ−2∈L(a), and thus s≤r+ℓ−2. This implies that k≤ℓ−2≤N.
∎
Theorem 3.6 implies that, for all prime divisors p of f, Ip∗(Of) and Ip(Of) are reduced atomic monoids satisfying the assumption in Proposition 4.1.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f.
Z(pPf,p)={A⋅Pf,p∣A=Pf,p* or A∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(A)=p2} and 1∈Ca(Ip(Of)).*
2. 2.
If I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) are such that N(I)=p2 and N(J)>p2, then IJ=pL for some L∈A(Ip∗(Of)).
3. 3.
2∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)).
Proof.
Note that {I∈Ip(Of)∣N(I)=p}={Pf,p}. First we show that Z(pPf,p)={A⋅Pf,p∣A=Pf,p or A∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(A)=p2}.
Let z∈Z(pPf,p). It follows from Proposition 4.1.2 that ∣z∣≤2, and hence ∣z∣=2. Consequently, z=A⋅B for some A,B∈A(Ip(Of)). By Proposition 3.2.1 there are some (u,v,w),(x,y,t)∈Mf,p such that A=pu(pvZ+(w+τ)Z) and B=px(pyZ+(t+τ)Z). Set g=min{v,y,vp(w+t+ε)} and e=min{g,vp(w−t),vp(w2+εw+η)−v,vp(t2+εt+η)−y}. We infer by Proposition 3.2.1 that u+x+g=1 and v+y+e−2g=1. Note that g∈{0,1}. If g=0, then u+x=v+y=1, and thus (A=pOf and B=Pf,p) or (A=Pf,p and B=pOf). Now let g=1. Then u=x=0, v,y≥1, v+y+e=3, and e∈{0,1}. If e=1, then v=y=1, and thus A=B=Pf,p. Now let e=0. Then (v=1 and y=2) or (v=2 and y=1). Without restriction let v=2 and y=1. Then B=Pf,p, N(A)=pv=p2, and N(A)N(B)=p3=N(pPf,p)=N(AB). Since B is not invertible, it follows by Proposition 3.2.3 that A is invertible.
To prove the converse inclusion note that Pf,p=pZ+(r+τ)Z for some (0,1,r)∈Mf,p. By Proposition 3.2.1 we have Pf,p2=pa(pbZ+(c+τ)Z with (a,b,c)∈Mf,p, a=min{1,vp(2r+ε)} and b=2+e−2a with e=min{a,vp(r2+εr+η)−1}. By Proposition 3.2.3 we have a>0, and thus a=b=e=1. Consequently, Pf,p2=pPf,p. Now let A∈A(Ip∗(Of)) be such that N(A)=p2. It follows by Proposition 3.2.3 that N(APf,p)=N(A)N(Pf,p)=p3 and APf,p=pI for some I∈Ip(Of). We infer that N(I)=p, and hence I=Pf,p.
Observe that d(z′,z′′)≤1 for all z′,z′′∈Z(pPf,p) and (pOf)⋅Pf,p and Pf,p2 are distinct factorizations of pPf,p. Therefore, 1=c(pPf,p)∈Ca(Ip(Of)).
Let I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) be such that N(I)=p2 and N(J)>p2. Without restriction we can assume that I=pOf. There are some (0,2,r),(0,k,s)∈Mf,p such that I=p2Z+(r+τ)Z and J=pkZ+(s+τ)Z. Since I and J are invertible, we have vp(r2+εr+η)=2 and vp(s2+εs+η)=k>2. Therefore, vp(r+s+ε)+vp(r−s)=vp(r2+εr+η−(s2+εs+η))=2, and thus vp(r+s+ε)=1, by Proposition 3.2.2. Therefore, min{2,k,vp(r+s+ε)}=1, and hence IJ=pL for some L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) by Proposition 3.2.1.
We distinguish two cases.
CASE 1: p=2 or vp(f)≥2 or d≡1mod8. It follows from Theorem 3.6 that there is some I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(I)=p2 and I=pOf. We have II=(pOf)2, and hence L(II)={2}. Since I⋅I and (pOf)⋅(pOf) are distinct factorizations of II, we have 2=c(II)∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)).
CASE 2: p=2, vp(f)=1 and d≡1mod8. By Proposition 3.3.3 we can assume without restriction that f=2. By Theorem 3.6 there is some I∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that N(I)=8. There is some (0,3,r)∈Mf,2 such that I=8Z+(r+τ)Z. We have v2(r2−d)=3, and hence v2(r)=0. Therefore, min{3,v2(2r)}=1, and thus I2=2J for some J∈A(I2∗(Of)). Consequently, L(I2)={2}. Since I⋅I and (2Of)⋅J are distinct factorizations of I2, it follows that 2=c(I2)∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)).
∎
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let p be an odd prime divisor of f such that vp(f)≥2.
There is a C∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that L(C2)={2,3} whence 1∈Δ(Ip∗(Of)) and 3∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)). Moreover, if (p=3 or d≡2mod3 or vp(f)>2), then there are I,J,L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that I2=p2J and J2=p2L.
2. 2.
If ∣Pic(Of)∣≤2 and (p=3 or d≡2mod3 or vp(f)>2), then there is a nonzero primary a∈Of such that 2,3∈L(a) whence 1∈Δ(Of).
Proof.
By Proposition 3.3.3 there is a monoid isomorphism δ:Ip∗(Of)→Ip∗(O2v2(f)f) such that δ(pOf)=pO2v2(f)f. Therefore, we can assume without restriction that f is odd.
CLAIM: L(I2)={2,3} for some I∈A(Ip∗(Of)), 1∈Δ(Ip∗(Of)), 3∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)) and if vp(p4+f2d)=4, then I2=p2J and J2=p2L for some I,J,L∈A(Ip∗(Of)).
For r∈N0 set k=vp(NK/Q(r+τ)) and I=pkZ+(r+τ)Z. Let k>0 and r<pk. Then I∈A(Ip∗(Of)). Moreover, I2=pa(pbZ+(c+τ)Z) with a=min{k,vp(2r+ε)}, b=2(k−a) and c=rem(r−tpaNK/Q(r+τ),pb) for each t∈Z with tpa2r+ε≡1modpk−a. Set J=pbZ+(c+τ)Z. Then I2=paJ and if b>0, then J∈A(Ip∗(Of)). In particular, if a=2 and b>0, then I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) and L(I2)={2,3}, and hence 1∈Δ(I2)⊆Δ(Ip∗(Of)) and 3=c(I2)∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)). Observe that J2=pa′(pb′Z+(c′+τ)Z) with a′=min{b,vp(2c+ε)}, b′=2(b−a′) and c′∈N0 such that c′<pb′. Set L=pb′Z+(c′+τ)Z. Then J2=pa′L and if b′>0, then L∈A(Ip∗(Of)).
CASE 1: d≡1mod4. Set r=p2. We have NK/Q(r+τ)=p4−f2d, k≥4, a=2, b=2(k−2)>0, r<pk, and t=2pk−2+1 satisfies the congruence. Therefore, c=rem(p2−2p2(pk−2+1)(p4−f2d),p2(k−2))=2p2p4+f2d+pk−2f2d−pk+2+2ℓp2(k−1) for some ℓ∈Z. For the rest of this case let vp(p4+f2d)=4. It follows that vp(c)=2, and hence a′=min{2(k−2),vp(2c)}=2 and b′=4(k−3)>0.
CASE 2: d≡1mod4. Set r=2p2−1. Observe that NK/Q(r+τ)=4p4−f2d, k≥4, a=2, b=2(k−2)>0, r<pk, and t=1 satisfies the congruence. Consequently, 2c+ε=2rem(2p2−1−4p2p4−f2d,p2(k−2))+1=2p2p4+f2d+4ℓp2(k−1) for some ℓ∈Z. For the rest of this case let vp(p4+f2d)=4. We infer that a′=min{2(k−2),vp(2c+ε)}=2. Moreover, b′=4(k−3)>0. This proves the claim.
Note that if g∈N with vp(g)=vp(f), then there is a monoid isomorphism α:Ip∗(Of)→Ip∗(Og) such that α(pOf)=pOg by Proposition 3.3.3. By the claim it remains to show that if (p=3 or d≡2mod3 or vp(f)>2), then there is some odd g∈N such that vp(g)=vp(f) and vp(p4+g2d)=4.
Let (p=3 or d≡2mod3 or vp(f)>2). Furthermore, let vp(p4+f2d)>4. This implies that vp(f)=2 and p∤d. Without restriction we can assume that vp(p4+(p2)2d)>4. We have vp(1+d)>0, and hence p=3. Set g=(p−2)p2. Then vp(g)=vp(f). Assume that vp(p4+g2d)>4. Then p5∣p4+(p−2)2p4d−p4(1+d), and thus p∣(p−2)2−1=p2−4p+3. It follows that p=3, a contradiction.
Let ∣Pic(Of)∣≤2 and let p=3 or d≡2mod3 or vp(f)>2. By 1. there are some I,J,L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that I2=p2J and J2=p2L. We infer that I2 is principal, and hence J and L are principal. Consequently, there are some u,v∈A(Of) such that J=uOf, L=vOf and u2=p2v. Note that u2 is primary. Since p∈A(Of), we have 2,3∈L(u2). Therefore, 1∈Δ(Of).
∎
Proposition 4.4**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f such that vp(f)≥2. Then there are I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that L(IJ)={2,4} whence 2∈Δ(Ip∗(Of)) and 4∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)).
Proof.
CASE 1: p=2 or vp(f)>2 or d≡1mod8. By Theorem 3.6 there is some I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(I)=p4. Set J=I. We infer that IJ=(pOf)4, and hence {2,4}⊂L(IJ)⊂{2,3,4}. Assume that 3∈L(IJ). Then there are some A,B,C∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that IJ=ABC and N(A)≤N(B)≤N(C). Again by Theorem 3.6 we have N(L)∈{p2}∪{pn∣n∈N≥4} for all L∈A(Ip∗(Of)). This implies that N(A)=N(B)=p2 and N(C)=p4. It follows by Lemma 4.2.2 that ABC=p2L for some L∈A(Ip∗(Of)). Consequently, L=p2Of, a contradiction. We infer that L(IJ)={2,4} whence 2∈Δ(I2∗(Of)) and 4∈Ca(I2∗(Of)).
CASE 2: p=2, vp(f)=2 and d≡1mod8. Since I2∗(O4)≅I2∗(Of) by Proposition 3.3.3, we can assume without restriction that f=4. We set
[TABLE]
In any case, we have v2(NK/Q(w+τ))=5 and v2(NK/Q(z+τ))=6. Set I=32Z+(w+τ)Z and J=64Z+(z+τ)Z. Then I,J∈A(I2∗(O4)) and Proposition 3.2.1 implies that IJ=2a(2bZ+(c+τ)Z) with a=min{5,6,v2(w+z)}, b=5+6−2a and c∈N0 such that c<2b. Observe that v2(w+z)=3, and thus a=3 and b=5. Set L=32Z+(c+τ)Z. Then L∈A(I2∗(O4)) and IJ=(2O4)3L. We infer that {2,4}⊂L(IJ)⊂{2,3,4}, by Proposition 4.1.2.
Assume that 3∈L(IJ). Then there are some A,B,C∈A(I2∗(O4)) such that IJ=ABC and N(A)≤N(B)≤N(C). It follows by Theorem 3.6 that N(U)∈{4}∪{2n∣n≥5} for all U∈A(I2∗(O4)). Since N(A)N(B)N(C)=N(I)N(J)=2048, we infer that N(A)=N(B)=4 and N(C)=128. It follows by Lemma 4.2.2 that ABC=4D for some D∈A(I2∗(O4)). This implies that D=2L, a contradiction. Consequently, L(IJ)={2,4}, and thus 2∈Δ(I2∗(O4)) and 4=c(IJ)∈Ca(I2∗(O4)).
∎
Proposition 4.5**.**
Suppose that one of the following conditions hold :**
(a)
v2(f)≥5* or (v2(f)=4 and d≡1mod4).*
2. (b)
v2(f)=3* and d≡2mod4.*
3. (c)
v2(f)=2* and d≡1mod4.*
Then there are I,J∈A(I2∗(Of)) with L(IJ)={2,3} whence 1∈Δ(I2∗(Of)) and 3∈Ca(I2∗(Of)). If ∣Pic(Of)∣≤2, then there is a nonzero primary a∈Of with 2,3∈L(a) whence 1∈Δ(Of).
Proof.
CASE 1: v2(f)≥5 or (v2(f)=4 and d≡1mod4). We show that there are some A,B,I,J,L∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that A2=32I, B2=16J and IJ=4L. Set k=v2(NK/Q(16+τ)) and A=2kZ+(16+τ)Z. Then k≥8, A∈A(I2∗(Of)) and A2=32(22k−10Z+(c+τ)Z) with (5,2k−10,c)∈Mf,2 and v2(c)≥3. Set I=22k−10Z+(c+τ)Z. Then I∈A(I2∗(Of)). Set B=64Z+(8+τ)Z. Then B∈A(I2∗(Of)) and B2=16(16Z+(4+τ)Z). Set J=16Z+(4+τ)Z. Then B2=16J, J∈A(I2∗(Of)) and IJ=4L with L∈A(I2∗(Of)).
CASE 2: v2(f)=3 and d≡2mod4. We show that AB=2I, AC=2I′, BC=8I′′, B2=16J, IJ=4L, I′J=4L′, I′′J=4L′′ for some A,B,C,I,I′,I′′,J,L,L′,L′′∈A(I2∗(Of)). By Proposition 3.3.3, we can assume without restriction that f=8. Set A=4Z+(2+τ)Z, B=64Z+(8+τ)Z and C=128Z+τZ. Then A,B,C∈A(I2∗(Of)), AB=2(64Z+(40+τ)Z), AC=2(128Z+(64+τ)Z), B2=16(16Z+(12+τ)Z) and BC=8(128Z+(c+τ)Z) with (3,7,c)∈Mf,2 and v2(c)=4. Furthermore, (64Z+(40+τ)Z)(16Z+(12+τ)Z)=4(64Z+(56+τ)Z), (128Z+(64+τ)Z)(16Z+(12+τ)Z)=4(128Z+(r+τ)Z) with (2,7,r)∈Mf,2 and (128Z+(c+τ)Z)(16Z+(12+τ)Z)=4(128Z+(s+τ)Z) with (2,7,s)∈Mf,2. Set J=16Z+(12+τ)Z. In particular, if I∈{64Z+(40+τ)Z,128Z+(64+τ)Z,128Z+(c+τ)Z}, then I,J∈A(I2∗(Of)) and IJ=4L for some L∈A(I2∗(Of)).
CASE 3: v2(f)=2 and d≡1mod4. We show that A2=4I and I2=4L for some A,I,L∈A(I2∗(Of)). By Proposition 3.3.3, we can assume without restriction that f=4. First let d≡1mod8. If d≡1mod16, then set A=32Z+(6+τ)Z and if d≡9mod16, then set A=32Z+(2+τ)Z. In any case, we have A∈A(I2∗(Of)) and A2=4(64Z+(c+τ)Z) with (2,6,c)∈Mf,2 and v2(c)=1. Set I=64Z+(c+τ)Z. Then I∈A(I2∗(Of)), A2=4I and I2=4(256Z+(r+τ)Z) with (2,8,r)∈Mf,2.
Now let d≡5mod8. Set A=16Z+(2+τ)Z. Then A∈A(I2∗(Of)) and A2=4(16Z+(c+τ)Z) with (2,4,c)∈Mf,2 and v2(c)=1. Set I=16Z+(c+τ)Z. Then A2=4I and I2=4(16Z+(z+τ)Z) with (2,4,z)∈Mf,2.
Using the case analysis above we can find I,J,L∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that IJ=4L. In particular, L(IJ)={2,3}, 1∈Δ(Ip∗(Of)) and 3=c(IJ)∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)). Now let ∣Pic(Of)∣≤2. Observe that if A,B,C∈A(I2∗(Of)), then A2 is principal and {AB,AC,BC} contains a principal ideal of Of. In any case we can choose I,J,L to be principal. There are some u,v,w∈A(Of) such that I=uOf, J=vOf, L=wOf and uv=4w. Note that uv is primary. Since 2∈A(Of), we have 2,3∈L(uv), and thus 1∈Δ(Of).
∎
Proposition 4.6**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f. Then the following statements are equivalent :**
(a)
Ip∗(Of)* is half-factorial.*
2. (b)
Ip(Of)* is half-factorial.*
3. (c)
c(Ip∗(Of))=2.
4. (d)
c(Ip(Of))=2.
5. (e)
vp(f)=1* and p is inert.*
Proof.
(a) ⇒ (e) If vp(f)>1 or p is not inert, then there is some I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(I)>p2 by Theorem 3.6.4. Set k=vp(N(I)). Then k≥3 and II=(pOf)k by Proposition 3.2.5. Since I∈A(Ip∗(Of)), we have 2,k∈L(II).
(e) ⇒ (b) Observe that N(A)∈{p,p2} for each A∈A(Ip(Of)), and thus A(Ip(Of))={Pf,p}∪{A∈A(Ip∗(Of))∣N(A)=p2}. Let I∈Ip(Of)∖{Of}. There are some k∈N0 and J∈A(Ip(Of)) such that I=pkJ. Let z∈Z(I). Then z=(∏i=1nIi)⋅Pf,pℓ with ℓ,n∈N0 and Ii∈A(Ip∗(Of)) for each i∈[1,n]. Note that ∣z∣=n+ℓ. It is sufficient to show that n+ℓ=k+1.
CASE 1: I is invertible. Then J is invertible and ℓ=0. It follows that p2n=N(∏i=1nIi)=N(I)=N(pkJ)=p2k+2 by Proposition 3.2.3, and thus n+ℓ=n=k+1.
CASE 2: I is not invertible. Then J=Pf,p and ℓ>0. It follows from Lemma 4.2 that Pf,pℓ=pℓ−1Pf,p. Consequently,
(b) ⇒ (d) Since Ip∗(Of) is a cancellative divisor-closed submonoid of Ip(Of) and not factorial, we infer by Proposition 4.1.4 that
[TABLE]
(d) ⇒ (c) Note that Ip∗(Of) is a divisor-closed submonoid of Ip(Of), and thus c(Ip∗(Of))≤c(Ip(Of))=2. Since Ip∗(Of) is not factorial, we infer that c(Ip∗(Of))=2.
(c) ⇒ (a) Since Ip∗(Of) is cancellative and not factorial, it follows that 2+supΔ(Ip∗(Of))≤c(Ip∗(Of))=2, and thus supΔ(Ip∗(Of))=0. Consequently, Δ(Ip∗(Of))=∅, and hence Ip∗(Of) is half-factorial.
∎
Lemma 4.7**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f, ∣Pic(Of)∣≤2, I,J,L∈A(Ip∗(Of)).
If J is principal and IJ=p2L, then 1∈Δ(Of).
2. 2.
If I and J are not principal and IJ=pL, then 1∈Δ(Of).
Proof.
Note that if ∣Pic(Of)∣>1, then it follows from [16, Corollary 2.11.16] that there is some invertible prime ideal P of Of that is not principal. Observe that p∈A(Of). Also note that if I is not principal, then PI is principal, and hence PI is generated by an atom of Of, since PI has no nontrivial factorizations in I∗(Of).
Let J be principal and IJ=p2L. There is some v∈A(Of) such that J=vOf.
CASE 1: I is principal. Then L is principal, and hence there are some u,w∈A(Of) such that I=uOf, L=wOf and uv=p2w. We infer that 2,3∈L(uv), and thus 1∈Δ(Of).
CASE 2: I is not principal. Then L is not principal and ∣Pic(Of)∣>1, and thus there are some u,w∈A(Of) such that PI=uOf, PL=wOf and uv=p2w. It follows that 2,3∈L(uv), and thus 1∈Δ(Of).
Let I and J not be principal and IJ=pL. Then L is principal and ∣Pic(Of)∣>1, and hence there are some u,v,w,y∈A(Of) such that PI=uOf, PJ=vOf, P2=wOf, L=yOf and uv=pwy. Therefore, 2,3∈L(uv), and hence 1∈Δ(Of).
∎
Proposition 4.8**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f.
If vp(f)≥2 or p is not inert, then there are I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that L(IJ)={2,3} whence 1∈Δ(Ip∗(Of)) and 3∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)).
2. 2.
Suppose that Of is not half-factorial and that one of the following conditions holds :**
(i)
∣Pic(Of)∣≥3* or vp(f)≥2 or p does split.*
2. (ii)
p* is inert and there is some C∈A(Ip∗(Of)) that is not principal.*
3. (iii)
p* is ramified and there is some principal C∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(C)=p3.*
4. (iv)
f* is a squarefree product of inert primes.*
Then 1∈Δ(Of).
Proof.
We prove 1. and 2. simultaneously. Set G=Pic(Of). Let B(G) be the monoid of zero-sum sequences of G. It follows by [16, Theorem 6.7.1.2] that if ∣G∣≥3, then 1∈Δ(B(G)). We infer by [16, Proposition 3.4.7 and Theorems 3.4.10.3 and 3.7.1.1] that there exists an atomic monoid B(Of) such that Δ(B(Of))=Δ(Of) and B(G) is a divisor-closed submonoid of B(Of). In particular, if ∣G∣≥3, then 1∈Δ(Of). Thus, for the second assertion we only need to consider the case ∣G∣≤2. By Propositions 4.3 and 4.5 we can restrict to the following cases.
CASE 1: p=2 and ((v2(f)∈{3,4} and d≡1mod4) or (v2(f)∈{2,3} and d≡3mod4)). If (v2(f)=4 and d≡1mod4) or (v2(f)=3 and d≡3mod4), then set I=16Z+(4+τ)Z. If v2(f)=3 and d≡1mod4, then set I=16Z+τZ. Finally, if v2(f)=2 and d≡3mod4, then there is some I∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that N(I)=32 by Theorem 3.6. In any case, it follows that I∈A(I2∗(Of)).
It is a consequence of Proposition 3.2.1 and Theorem 3.6 that there are some A,J∈A(I2∗(Of)) and ℓ∈N such that A2=ℓJ with values according to the following table. Let k∈{1,3,5,7} be such that d≡kmod8. Note that I=2aZ+(r+τ)Z and J=2bZ+(s+τ)Z with (0,a,r),(0,b,s)∈Mf,2.
Since v2(r+s)=2 in any case, we infer that IJ=4L for some L∈A(I2∗(Of)). Now let ∣G∣≤2. We have J is principal, and hence 1∈Δ(Of) by Lemma 4.7.1.
CASE 2: p=2, v2(f)=2 and d≡2mod4. Set A=32Z+τZ and B=32Z+(8+τ)Z. Then A,B∈A(I2∗(Of)) and AB=8I for some I∈A(I2∗(Of)) with I=16Z+(r+τ)Z, (0,4,r)∈Mf,2, and v2(r)=2. Therefore, we have AI=4J and BI=4L for some J,L∈A(I2∗(Of)). Now let ∣G∣≤2. Since {A,B,I} contains a principal ideal of Of, we infer by Lemma 4.7.1 that 1∈Δ(Of).
CASE 3: p=3, v3(f)=2 and d≡2mod3. First let d≡1mod4. Set I=81Z+τZ and J=81Z+(9+τ)Z. Then I,J∈A(I3∗(Of)) and IJ=9L for some L∈A(I3∗(Of)) with L=81Z+(r+τ)Z, (0,4,r)∈Mf,3, and v3(r)=2. It follows that IL=9A for some A∈A(I3∗(Of)).
Now let d≡1mod4. By Proposition 3.3.3 we can assume without restriction that f is odd. Set I=81Z+(4+τ)Z and J=81Z+(13+τ)Z. Then I,J∈A(I3∗(Of)) and IJ=9L for some L∈A(I3∗(Of)). There is some (0,4,r)∈Mf,3 such that L=81Z+(r+τ)Z. Since v3(2r+1)≥2, we have IL=9A for some A∈A(I3∗(Of)) or JL=9A for some A∈A(I3∗(Of)).
In any case if ∣G∣≤2, then {I,J,L} contains a principal ideal of Of, and hence 1∈Δ(Of) by Lemma 4.7.1.
CASE 4: vp(f)=1 and p splits. By Theorem 3.6 there is some I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(I)=p3. There is some (0,3,r)∈Mf,p such that I=p3Z+(r+τ)Z. Observe that vp(2r+ε)=1. We infer that I2=pJ for some J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) and II=p2L with I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) and L=pOf∈A(Ip∗(Of)). Now let ∣G∣≤2. We infer by Lemma 4.7 that 1∈Δ(Of).
CASE 5: vp(f)=1 and p is ramified. By Theorem 3.6 there is some C∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(C)=p3. Note that CC=p3Of and C∈A(Ip∗(Of)). Now let C be principal. It follows by Lemma 4.7.1 that 1∈Δ(Of).
Cases 1-5 show that there are some I,J,L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that IJ=p2L. In particular, L(IJ)={2,3}, 1∈Δ(Ip∗(Of)) and 3=c(IJ)∈Ca(Ip∗(Of)). This proves 1. For the rest of this proof let Of be not half-factorial and ∣G∣≤2.
CASE 6: vp(f)=1, p is inert and there is some C∈A(Ip∗(Of)) that is not principal. We have C2=pL for some L∈A(Ip∗(Of)), and thus 1∈Δ(Of) by Lemma 4.7.2.
CASE 7: f is a squarefree product of inert primes. Then Ip∗(Of) is half-factorial by Proposition 4.6. If G is trivial, then Of is half-factorial, a contradiction. Note that Of is seminormal by [10, Corollary 4.5]. It follows from [18, Theorem 6.2.2.(a)] that 1∈Δ(Of).
∎
Lemma 4.9**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f, k∈N≥2, and N=sup{vp(N(A))∣A∈A(Ip∗(Of))}. If ℓ∈N and A∈Ip(Of)) is both a product of k atoms and a product of ℓ atoms, then ℓ≤2kN.
Proof.
Let ℓ∈N and suppose that a product of k atoms can be written as a product of ℓ atoms and set P=Pf,p. There are some a,b∈N0, Ii∈A(Ip(Of))∖{P} for each [1,b] and Jj∈A(Ip(Of)) for each j∈[1,k] such that ℓ=a+b and ∏j=1kJj=Pa∏i=1bIi. Note that p2∣N(Ii) for each i∈[1,b].
CASE 1: a=0. Then b=ℓ. It follows by induction from Proposition 3.2.4 that there are Jj′∈A(Ip∗(Of)) for each j∈[1,k] such that N(∏j=1kJj)∣N(∏j=1kJj′). Set M=lcm{N(Jj′)∣j∈[1,k]}. Then p2ℓ∣∏i=1ℓN(Ii)∣N(∏i=1ℓIi)=N(∏j=1kJj)∣N(∏j=1kJj′)=∏j=1kN(Jj′)∣Mk. This implies that 2ℓ≤kvp(M)≤kN, and thus ℓ≤2kN.
CASE 2: a>0. By Lemma 4.2 we have Pa=pa−1P, and thus N(Pa)=p2a−1. Note that ∏j=1kJj is not invertible, and hence one member of the product, say J1, is not invertible. Observe that vp(N(J1))≤N−1 by Proposition 3.2.4. We infer by induction from Proposition 3.2.4 that there are Jj′∈A(Ip∗(Of)) for each j∈[2,k] such that N(∏j=1kJj)∣N(J1∏j=2kJj′). Set M=lcm{N(Jj′)∣j∈[2,k]}. Then p2ℓ−1∣N(Pa)∏i=1bN(Ii)∣N(Pa∏i=1bIi)=N(∏j=1kJj)∣N(J1∏j=2kJj′)=N(J1)∏j=2kN(Jj′)∣N(J1)Mk−1. This implies that 2ℓ−1≤vp(N(J1))+(k−1)vp(M)≤kN−1, and hence ℓ≤2kN.
∎
Lemma 4.10**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f. For every I∈A(Ip∗(Of)), we set vI=vp(N(I)), and let B={vA∣A∈A(Ip∗(Of))}.
For all I∈A(Ip∗(Of)), we have c(I⋅I,(pOf)vI)≤2+supΔ(B).
2. 2.
Let p=2, d≡1mod8, and vp(f)≥4. Then c(I⋅I,(pOf)vI)≤4 for all I∈A(Ip∗(Of)).
Proof.
It is sufficient to show by induction that for all n∈N≥2 and I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) with vI=n, it follows that c(I⋅I,(pOf)n)≤2+supΔ(B). Let n∈N≥2 and I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) be such that vI=n. If n=2, then c(I⋅I,(pOf)2)≤d(I⋅I,(pOf)2)≤2≤2+supΔ(B). Now let n>2. Note that 2=vpOf∈B, and hence there is some k∈B such that 2≤k<n and B∩[k,n]={k,n}. Observe that n−k∈Δ(B). Furthermore, there is some J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that k=vJ. Note that JJ=(pOf)k, and thus II=(pOf)n−kJJ. By the induction hypothesis, we infer that c((pOf)n−k⋅J⋅J,(pOf)n)≤c(J⋅J,(pOf)k)≤2+supΔ(B). Since d(I⋅I,(pOf)n−k⋅J⋅J)≤2+(n−k)≤2+supΔ(B), it follows that c(I⋅I,(pOf)n)≤2+supΔ(B).
By Proposition 3.3.3 we can assume without restriction that f=2v2(f). We show by induction that for all n∈N≥2 and I∈A(I2∗(Of)) with vI=n, we have c(I⋅I,(2Of)n)≤4. Let n∈N≥2 and I∈A(I2∗(Of)) be such that vI=n. If n=2, then c(I⋅I,(2Of)2)≤d(I⋅I,(2Of)2)≤2≤2+supΔ(B). Next let n>2. Observe that 2=v2Of∈B, and hence there is some k∈B such that 2≤k<n and B∩[k,n]={k,n}. There is some J∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that k=vJ. Note that JJ=(2Of)k, and hence II=(2Of)n−kJJ. By the induction hypothesis, we have c((2Of)n−k⋅J⋅J,(2Of)n)≤c(J⋅J,(2Of)k)≤4.
CASE 1: n=2v2(f)+1. It follows from Theorem 3.6 that n−k≤2. Since d(I⋅I,(2Of)n−k⋅J⋅J)≤4, we infer that c(I⋅I,(2Of)n)≤4.
CASE 2: n=2v2(f)+1. By Theorem 3.6 we have n−k=3. Set A=16Z+(4+τ)Z, B=2n−3Z+(2n−5+τ)Z, and C=2n−3Z+(2n−4+τ)Z. Then A,B,C∈A(I2∗(Of)) and ABC=2n−5A(16Z+(12+τ)Z)=(2Of)n−1. Observe that d(I⋅I,(2Of)⋅A⋅B⋅C)≤4 and d((2Of)⋅A⋅B⋅C,(2Of)n−k⋅J⋅J))≤4. Therefore, c(I⋅I,(2Of)n)≤4.
∎
Proposition 4.11**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f and set B={vp(N(A))∣A∈A(Ip∗(Of))}.
supΔ(Ip(Of))≤supΔ(B)* and c(Ip(Of))≤2+supΔ(B).*
2. 2.
Let p=2, d≡1mod8, and vp(f)≥4. Then supΔ(I2(Of))≤2 and c(I2(Of))≤4.
Proof.
First we consider the case that vp(f)=1 and p is inert. It follows from Theorem 3.6 that supΔ(B)=0. Proposition 4.6 implies that supΔ(Ip(Of))=0 and c(Ip(Of))=2. Now let vp(f)≥2 or p not inert. Observe that supΔ(B)≥1 by Theorem 3.6. Let I,J∈A(Ip(Of)). There are some n∈N and L∈A(Ip(Of)) such that IJ=pnL.
By Proposition 4.1, it remains to show that c(I⋅J,(pOf)n⋅L)≤2+supΔ(B) and if ℓ∈N≥3 is such that L(IJ)∩[2,ℓ]={2,ℓ}, then ℓ−2≤supΔ(B). Set N=supB. Since a product of two atoms of Ip(Of) can be written as a product of n+1 atoms, Lemma 4.9 implies that n+1≤N. If n=1, then d(I⋅J,(pOf)⋅L)≤2≤2+supΔ(B) and there is no ℓ∈N≥3 with L(IJ)∩[2,ℓ]={2,ℓ}. Now let n≥2 and ℓ∈N≥3 be such that L(IJ)∩[2,ℓ]={2,ℓ}.
CASE 1: n∈B. Then AA=(pOf)n for some A∈A(Ip∗(Of)). Therefore, c(A⋅A⋅L,(pOf)n⋅L)≤c(A⋅A,(pOf)n)≤2+supΔ(B) by Lemma 4.10.1. Moreover, d(I⋅J,A⋅A⋅L)≤3≤2+supΔ(B), and thus c(I⋅J,(pOf)n⋅L)≤2+supΔ(B) and ℓ−2=1≤supΔ(B).
CASE 2: n∈B. Note that n≥3. It follows by Theorem 3.6 that vp(f)≥2 and supΔ(B)≥2.
CASE 2.1: p=2 or d≡1mod8 or n=2vp(f). Since n≤N, it follows from Theorem 3.6 that n−1=N(A) for some A∈A(Ip∗(Of)), and hence AA=(pOf)n−1. We infer that c((pOf)⋅A⋅A⋅L,(pOf)n⋅L)≤c(A⋅A,(pOf)n−1)≤2+supΔ(B) by Lemma 4.10.1. Moreover, we have d(I⋅J,A⋅A⋅(pOf)⋅L)≤4≤2+supΔ(B), and thus c(I⋅J,(pOf)n⋅L)≤2+supΔ(B) and ℓ−2≤2≤supΔ(B).
CASE 2.2: p=2, d≡1mod8 and n=2vp(f). We infer by Theorem 3.6 that supΔ(B)=3. By Theorem 3.6 there is some A∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that n−2=N(A), and thus AA=(2Of)n−2. This implies that c((2Of)2⋅A⋅A⋅L,(2Of)n⋅L)≤c(A⋅A,(2Of)n−2)≤2+supΔ(B) by Lemma 4.10.1. Observe that d(I⋅J,A⋅A⋅(2Of)2⋅L)≤5=2+supΔ(B), and hence c(I⋅J,(2Of)n⋅L)≤2+supΔ(B) and ℓ−2≤3=supΔ(B).
By Proposition 3.3.3 we can assume without restriction that f=2v2(f). Let I,J∈A(I2(Of)). There are some n∈N and L∈A(I2(Of)) such that IJ=2nL. It follows from Lemma 4.9 that n+1≤supB. By Proposition 4.1, it is sufficient to show that c(I⋅J,(2Of)n⋅L)≤4 and if ℓ∈N≥3 is such that L(IJ)∩[2,ℓ]={2,ℓ}, then ℓ−2≤2. The assertion is trivially true for n=1. Let n≥2 and let ℓ∈N≥3 be such that L(IJ)∩[2,ℓ]={2,ℓ}.
CASE 1: n∈B. There is some A∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that AA=(2Of)n. It follows by Lemma 4.10.2 that c(A⋅A⋅L,(2Of)n⋅L)≤c(A⋅A,(2Of)n)≤4. Furthermore, d(I⋅J,A⋅A⋅L)≤3, and thus c(I⋅J,(2Of)n⋅L)≤4 and ℓ−2≤1.
CASE 2: n∈B and n=2v2(f). It follows by Theorem 3.6 that there is some A∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that AA=(2Of)n−1. We infer by Lemma 4.10.2 that c((2Of)⋅A⋅A⋅L,(2Of)n⋅L)≤c(⋅A⋅A,(2Of)n−1)≤4. Furthermore, d(I⋅J,(2Of)⋅A⋅A⋅L)≤4, and thus c(I⋅J,(2Of)n⋅L)≤4 and ℓ−2≤2.
CASE 3: n=2v2(f). By Theorem 3.6 there is some D∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that DD=(2Of)n−2. Set A=16Z+(4+τ)Z, B=2n−2Z+(2n−4+τ)Z and C=2n−2Z+(2n−3+τ)Z. Then A,B,C∈A(I2∗(Of)) and ABC=2n−4A(16Z+(12+τ)Z)=(2Of)n. This implies that c((2Of)2⋅D⋅D⋅L,(2Of)n⋅L)≤c(D⋅D,(2Of)n−2)≤4 by Lemma 4.10.2. Moreover, d(A⋅B⋅C⋅L,(2Of)2⋅D⋅D⋅L)≤4 and d(I⋅J,A⋅B⋅C⋅L)≤4. Consequently, c(I⋅J,(2Of)n⋅L)≤4 and ℓ−2≤2.
∎
Proposition 4.12**.**
Let v2(f)∈{2,3} and d≡1mod8. Then 3∈Δ(I2∗(Of)) and 5∈Ca(I2∗(Of)).
Proof.
We distinguish two cases.
CASE 1: v2(f)=2. By Theorem 3.6 there is some I∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that N(I)=32. Set J=I. Then IJ=32Of, and hence {2,5}⊂L(IJ)⊂[2,5]. Again by Theorem 3.6 we have N(L)∈{4}∪{2n∣n∈N≥5} for all L∈A(I2∗(Of)). Note that if A,B,C,D∈A(I2∗(Of)), then N(ABCD)∈{256}∪N≥2048. Since N(IJ)=1024, we have 4∈L(IJ). Assume that 3∈L(IJ). Then there are some A,B,C∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that IJ=ABC and N(A)≤N(B)≤N(C). Therefore, N(A)=N(B)=4 and N(C)=64. We infer by Lemma 4.2.2 that ABC=4L for some L∈A(I2∗(Of)), and hence L=8Of, a contradiction. We have L(IJ)={2,5}, and thus 3∈Δ(I2∗(Of)) and 5=c(IJ)∈Ca(I2∗(Of)).
CASE 2: v2(f)=3. By Proposition 3.3.3 we can assume without restriction that f=8. By Theorem 3.6 there are some I,J∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that N(I)=128 and N(J)=16. We have II=128Of and JJ=16Of, and hence II=8JJ. This implies that {2,5}⊂L(II). It follows from Theorem 3.6 that N(L)∈{4,16}∪{2n∣n∈N≥7} for all L∈A(I2∗(Of)).
First assume that 3∈L(II). Then there exist A,B,C∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that II=ABC, and N(A)≤N(B)≤N(C). Therefore, (N(A),N(B),N(C))∈{(4,16,256),(4,4,1024)}. If (N(A),N(B),N(C))=(4,16,256), then it follows by Lemma 4.2.2 that AB=2D for some D∈A(I2∗(Of)) with N(D)=16. We infer that DC=64Of, and hence C=4D, a contradiction. Now let (N(A),N(B),N(C))=(4,4,1024). Then ABC=4D for some D∈A(I2∗(Of)) by Lemma 4.2.2, and thus D=32Of, a contradiction. Consequently, 3∈L(II).
Next assume that 4∈L(II). Then there exist A,B,C,D∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that II=ABCD, and N(A)≤N(B)≤N(C)≤N(D).
Then (N(A),N(B),N(C),N(D))∈{(4,4,4,256),(4,16,16,16)}.
If (N(A),N(B),N(C),N(D))=(4,4,4,256), then ABCD=8E for E∈A(I2∗(Of)) by Lemma 4.2.2, and hence E=16Of, a contradiction. Now let (N(A),N(B),N(C),N(D))=(4,16,16,16). By Lemma 4.2.2 there is some E∈A(I2∗(Of)) with N(E)=16 such that AB=2E. Therefore, ECD=64Of, and hence CD=4E. There are some (0,4,r),(0,4,s)∈Mf,2 such that C=16Z+(r+τ)Z and D=16Z+(s+τ)Z. We have v2(r2−16d)=v2(s2−16d)=4. Since d≡1mod8, this implies that v2(r),v2(s)≥3. Therefore, min{4,v2(r+s+ε)}∈{3,4}, and hence CD=8F for some F∈A(I2∗(Of)). We infer that E=2F, a contradiction. Consequently, 4∈L(II).
Therefore, 2 and 5 are adjacent lengths of II, and hence 3∈Δ(I2∗(Of)). Note that c(I2∗(Of))≤5 by Proposition 4.11.1 and Theorem 3.6. Moreover, since I2∗(Of) is a cancellative monoid, we have 5≤2+supΔ(L(II))≤c(II)≤5, and thus 5=c(II)∈Ca(I2∗(Of)).
∎
Lemma 4.13**.**
Let H∈{I(Of),I∗(Of)}. For every prime divisor p of f, we set Hp=Ip(Of) if H=I(Of) and Hp=Ip∗(Of) if H=I∗(Of).
H* is half-factorial if and only if Hp is half-factorial for every p∈P with p∣f.*
2. 2.
If H is not half-factorial, then supΔ(H)=sup{supΔ(Hp)∣p∈P with p∣f}.
3. 3.
This is an immediate consequence of Proposition 4.6 and Lemma 4.13.
First, suppose that f is squarefree. By 1., we have f is not a product of inert primes. It follows from Lemma 4.13, Proposition 4.11.1 and Theorem 3.6 that c(I∗(O))≤c(I(O))≤3 and supΔ(I∗(O))≤supΔ(I(O))≤1. By Lemma 4.2 and Proposition 4.8.1, it follows that 1∈Δ(I∗(O)), 1∈Ca(I(O)) and [2,3]⊂Ca(I∗(O)), and thus Ca(I(O))=[1,3], Ca(I∗(O))=[2,3], and Δ(I(O))=Δ(I∗(O))={1}.
Now we suppose that f is not squarefree and we distinguish two cases.
CASE 1: v2(f)∈{2,3} or dK≡1mod8. By Lemma 4.13, Proposition 4.11 and Theorem 3.6 it follows that c(I∗(O))≤c(I(O))≤4 and supΔ(I∗(O))≤supΔ(I(O))≤2. We infer by Lemma 4.2 and Propositions 4.4 and 4.8 that [1,2]⊂Δ(I∗(O)), 1∈Ca(I(O)), and [2,4]⊂Ca(I∗(O)), and hence Ca(I(O))=[1,4], Ca(I∗(O))=[2,4], and Δ(I(O))=Δ(I∗(O))=[1,2].
CASE 2: v2(f)∈{2,3} and dK≡1mod8. We infer by Lemma 4.13, Proposition 4.11.1 and Theorem 3.6 that c(I∗(O))≤c(I(O))≤5 and supΔ(I∗(O))≤supΔ(I(O))≤3. Lemma 4.2 and Propositions 4.4, 4.8 and 4.12 imply that [1,3]⊂Δ(I∗(O)), 1∈Ca(I(O)) and [2,5]⊂Ca(I∗(O)). Consequently, Ca(I(O))=[1,5], Ca(I∗(O))=[2,5], and Δ(I(O))=Δ(I∗(O))=[1,3].
∎
Based on the results of this section we derive a result on the set of distances of orders. Let O be a non-half-factorial order in a number field. Then the set of distances Δ(O) is finite. If O is a principal order, then it is easy to show that minΔ(O)=1 (indeed much stronger results are known, namely that sets of lengths of almost all elements – in a sense of density – are intervals, see [16, Theorem 9.4.11]). The same is true if ∣Pic(O)∣≥3 or if O is seminormal ([24, Theorem 1.1]). However, it was unknown so far whether there exists an order O with minΔ(O)>1. In the next result of this section we characterize all non-half-factorial orders in quadratic number fields with minΔ(O)>1 which allows us to give the first explicit examples of orders O with minΔ(O)>1. A characterization of half-factorial orders in quadratic number fields is given in [16, Theorem 3.7.15].
Let O be an order in a quadratic number field K with conductor f∈N≥2. Then the class numbers ∣Pic(OK)∣ and ∣Pic(O)∣ are linked by the formula ([25, Corollary 5.9.8])
[TABLE]
and ∣Pic(O)∣ is a multiple of ∣Pic(OK)∣.
Since the number of imaginary quadratic number fields with class number at most two is finite (an explicit list of these fields can be found, for example, in [31]), (4.1) shows that the number of orders in imaginary quadratic number fields with ∣Pic(O)∣=2 is finite. The complete list of non-maximal orders in imaginary quadratic number fields with ∣Pic(O)∣=2 is given in [27, page 16]. We refer to [25] for more information on class groups and class numbers and end with explicit examples of non-half-factorial orders O satisfying minΔ(O)>1.
Theorem 4.14**.**
Let O be a non-half-factorial order in a quadratic number field K with conductor fOK for some f∈N≥2. Then the following statements are equivalent :**
(a)
minΔ(O)>1.
(b)
∣Pic(O)∣=2, f is a nonempty squarefree product of ramified primes times a (possibly empty) squarefree product of inert primes, and for every prime divisor p of f and every I∈A(Ip∗(O)), I is principal if and only if N(I)=p2.
If these equivalent conditions are satisfied, then K is a real quadratic number field and minΔ(O)=2.
Proof.
CLAIM: If ∣Pic(O)∣=2, p is a ramified prime with vp(f)=1, and every I∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(I)=p3 is not principal, then every L∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(L)=p2 is principal.
Let ∣Pic(O)∣=2, let p be a ramified prime with vp(f)=1, and suppose that every I∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(I)=p3 is not principal. By Theorem 3.6 we have {N(J)∣J∈A(Ip∗(O))}={p2,p3}. There is some I∈A(Ip∗(O)) such that N(I)=p3. If J∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(J)=p3, then IJ=p2L for some L∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(L)=p2 (since there are no atoms with norm bigger than p3). It follows by Theorem 3.6 that ∣{J∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(J)=p3}∣=∣{L∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(L)=p2}∣=p (note that N(pO)=p2). Let g:{J∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(J)=p3}→{L∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(L)=p2} be defined by g(J)=L where L∈A(Ip∗(O)) is such that N(L)=p2 and IJ=p2L. Then g is a well-defined bijection. Now let L∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(L)=p2. There is some J∈A(Ip∗(O)) such that N(J)=p3 and IJ=p2L. Since ∣Pic(O)∣=2 and I and J are not principal, we have IJ is principal, and hence L is principal. This proves the claim.
(a) ⇒ (b) Observe that if p is an inert prime such that vp(f)=1, then {N(J)∣J∈A(Ip∗(O))}={p2} by Theorem 3.6. Also note that if p is a ramified prime such that vp(f)=1, then {N(J)∣J∈A(Ip∗(O))}={p2,p3} by Theorem 3.6. The assertion now follows by the claim and Proposition 4.8.2.
(b) ⇒ (a) Assume to the contrary that minΔ(O)=1. Let H be the monoid of nonzero principal ideals of O. There is some minimal k∈N such that ∏i=1kUi=∏j=1k+1Uj′ with Ui∈A(H) for each i∈[1,k] and Uj′∈A(H) for each j∈[1,k+1].
Set Q1={P∈X(O)∣P is principal}, Q2={P∈X(O)∣P is invertible and not principal}, L={p∈P∣p∣f,p is ramified} and K={{p,q}∣p,q∈L,p=q}. For every prime divisor p of f set Ap={V∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(V)=p2}, ap=∣{i∈[1,k]∣Ui∈Ap}∣ and ap′=∣{j∈[1,k+1]∣Uj′∈Ap}∣. For p∈L set Dp={V∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(V)=p3}, Bp={PV∣P∈Q2 and V∈Dp}, bp=∣{i∈[1,k]∣Ui∈Bp}∣ and bp′=∣{j∈[1,k+1]∣Uj′∈Bp}∣. Set C={PQ∣P,Q∈Q2}, c=∣{i∈[1,k]∣Ui∈C}∣ and c′=∣{j∈[1,k+1]∣Uj′∈C}∣. If z∈K is such that z={p,q} with p,q∈L and p=q, then set Ez={VW∣V∈Dp,W∈Dq}, ez=∣{i∈[1,k]∣Ui∈Ez}∣ and ez′=∣{j∈[1,k+1]∣Uj′∈Ez}∣.
Since ∣Pic(O)∣=2, we have A(H)⊂(A(I∗(O))∩H)∪{VW∣V,W∈A(I∗(O)),V and W are not principal}. As shown in the proof of the claim, VW∈A(H) for all p∈L and V,W∈Dp. We infer that A(H)=Q1∪⋃p∈P,p∣fAp∪⋃p∈LBp∪C∪⋃z∈KEz.
Since k is minimal, we have Ui,Uj′∈Q1 for all i∈[1,k] and j∈[1,k+1]. Again since k is minimal and Ip∗(O) is half-factorial for all inert prime divisors p of f by Proposition 4.6, we have ap=ap′=0 for all inert prime divisors p of f. Therefore,
[TABLE]
If i∈[1,k], then ∑P∈Q2vP(Ui)=⎩⎨⎧210 if Ui∈C if Ui∈⋃p∈LBp else. This implies that ∑P∈Q2vP(∏i=1kUi)=∑i=1k∑P∈Q2vP(Ui)=∑p∈Lbp+2c. It follows by analogy that ∑P∈Q2vP(∏j=1k+1Uj′)=∑p∈Lbp′+2c′. Therefore, ∑p∈Lbp+2c=∑p∈Lbp′+2c′. Let r∈L.
If i∈[1,k], then vr(N((Ui)Pf,r∩O))=⎩⎨⎧320 if Ui∈Br∪⋃q∈L∖{r}E{r,q} if Ui∈Ar else. Consequently,
[TABLE]
By analogy we have vr(N((∏j=1k+1Uj′)Pf,r∩O))=2ar′+3br′+3∑q∈L∖{r}e{r,q}′. This implies that 2ar+3br+3∑q∈L∖{r}e{r,q}=2ar′+3br′+3∑q∈L∖{r}e{r,q}′. We infer that
[TABLE]
Note that ∑p∈L∑q∈L∖{p}(e{p,q}′−e{p,q})=2∑z∈K(ez′−ez), and hence ∑p∈L(ap′−ap)=3(c′−c)−3∑z∈K(ez′−ez). Consequently,
[TABLE]
a contradiction.
Now let the equivalent conditions be satisfied. Assume to the contrary that K is an imaginary quadratic number field. Since O is a non-maximal order with ∣Pic(O)∣=2, it follows from [27, page 16] that (f,dK)∈{(2,−8),(2,−15),(3,−4),(3,−8),(3,−11),(4,−3),(4,−4),(4,−7),(5,−3),(5,−4),(7,−3)}.
Since f is squarefree and divisible by a ramified prime, we infer that f=2 and dK=−8. Therefore, O=Z+2−2Z. Set I=8Z+2−2Z. Observe that I∈A(I2∗(O)) and N(I)=8. Moreover, I=2−2O is principal, a contradiction. Consequently, K is a real quadratic number field.
It remains to show that minΔ(O)=2. There is some ramified prime p which divides f and there is some J∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(J)=p3. As shown in the proof of the claim, J2=p2L for some L∈A(Ip∗(O)). By [16, Corollary 2.11.16], there is some invertible prime ideal P of O that is not principal. Observe that J is not principal. We have PJ, P2 and L are principal, and hence there are some u,v,w∈A(O) such that PJ=uO, P2=vO, L=wO, and u2=p2vw. Therefore, {2,4}⊆L(u2), and since minΔ(O)>1, we infer that minΔ(O)=2.
∎
Proposition 4.15**.**
Let O be an order in the quadratic number field K with conductor fOK for some f∈N≥2 such that minΔ(O)>1, let g be the product of all inert prime divisors of f and let O′ be the order in K with conductor gOK. Then O′ is half-factorial and, in particular, g∈{1}∪P∪{2p∣p∈P∖{2}}.
Proof.
Set Q1={P∈X(O′)∣P is principal} and Q2={P∈X(O′)∣P is invertible and not principal}. Observe that N(I)=∣O/I∣=∣O′/IO′∣=N(IO′) for all I∈I∗(O). Note that for all inert prime divisors p of f and all I∈A(Ip∗(O)) and J∈A(Ip∗(O′)), we have N(I)=N(J)=p2. Moreover, for all ramified prime divisors p of f, we have {N(I)∣I∈A(Ip∗(O))}={p2,p3}. In this proof we will use Theorem 4.14 without further citation.
CLAIM 1: For all prime divisors p of g and all I∈A(Ip∗(O′)), it follows that I is principal. Let p be a prime divisor of g and let I∈A(Ip∗(O′)). Set P=Pf,p and P′=Pg,p. It follows by Proposition 3.3 that OP=OP′′ and that δ:Ip∗(O)→Ip∗(O′) defined by δ(J)=JP∩O′ for all J∈Ip∗(O) is a monoid isomorphism. In particular, we have A(Ip∗(O′))={JP∩O′∣J∈A(Ip∗(O))}. Therefore, there is some J∈A(Ip∗(O)) such that JP∩O′=I. Note that N(I)=p2=N(J)=N(JO′). Since JO′⊆JOP′′∩O′=JOP∩O′=I, we infer that I=JO′. Since J is a principal ideal of O, it follows that I is principal. This proves Claim 1.
CLAIM 2: If P∈Q2, p is a ramified prime divisor of f such that P∩Z=pZ and I∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(I)=p3, then P2 is principal and IO′=P3. Let P∈Q2, p a ramified prime divisor of f such that P∩Z=pZ and I∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(I)=p3. Since p is ramified, there is some A∈X(OK) such that pOK=A2. Observe that N(A2)=p2, and thus N(A)=p. We have A∩O′=P, POK=A and N(P)=N(A)=p. Note that since P is invertible, it follows that every P-primary ideal of O′ is a power of P. Therefore, pO′=Pk for some k∈N, and hence pk=N(Pk)=N(pO′)=p2. Consequently, k=2 and P2 is principal. Clearly, IO′ is a P-primary ideal of O′, and thus IO′=Pm for some m∈N. We infer that pm=N(Pm)=N(IO′)=N(I)=p3, and thus m=3 and IO′=P3. This proves Claim 2.
CLAIM 3: PQ is principal for all P,Q∈Q2. Let P,Q∈Q2.
CASE 1: P∩O and Q∩O are invertible. Note that P=(P∩O)O′, Q=(Q∩O)O′ and P∩O and Q∩O are not principal. Since ∣Pic(O)∣=2, we have (P∩O)(Q∩O) is a principal ideal of O, and thus PQ=(P∩O)(Q∩O)O′ is principal.
CASE 2: (P∩O is invertible and Q∩O is not invertible) or (P∩O is not invertible and Q∩O is invertible). Without restriction let P∩O be invertible and let Q∩O be not invertible. Observe that P=(P∩O)O′. Moreover, there is some ramified prime q that divides f such that Q∩Z=qZ and there is some J∈A(Iq∗(O)) with N(J)=q3. Observe that P∩O and J are not principal. Since ∣Pic(O)∣=2, it follows that (P∩O)J is a principal ideal of O. Note that PQ3=(P∩O)JO′ by Claim 2, and thus PQ3 is principal. Since Q2 is principal by Claim 2, we infer that PQ is principal.
CASE 3: P∩O and Q∩O are not invertible. There are ramified primes p and q that divide f such that P∩Z=pZ and Q∩Z=qZ. There are some I∈A(Ip∗(O)) and J∈A(Iq∗(O)) with N(I)=p3 and N(J)=q3. Since ∣Pic(O)∣=2 and I and J are not principal, we have IJ is a principal ideal of O. It follows that P3Q3=IJO′ by Claim 2, and hence P3Q3 is principal. Since P2 and Q2 are principal by Claim 2, we have PQ is principal. This proves Claim 3.
Finally, we show that O′ is half-factorial. Set C={PQ∣P,Q∈Q2} and let H denote the monoid of nonzero principal ideals of O′. It is an immediate consequence of Claim 1 and Claim 3 that A(H)=Q1∪C∪⋃p∈P,p∣gA(Ip∗(O′)).
Let k,ℓ∈N and Ii,Ij′∈A(H) for each i∈[1,k] and j∈[1,ℓ] be such that ∏i=1kIi=∏j=1ℓIj′. It remains to show that k=ℓ. Set b=∣{i∈[1,k]∣Ii∈Q1}∣, b′=∣{j∈[1,ℓ]∣Ij′∈Q1}∣, c=∣{i∈[1,k]∣Ii∈C}∣, c′=∣{j∈[1,ℓ]∣Ij′∈C}∣ and for each prime divisor p of g set ap=∣{i∈[1,k]∣Ii∈A(Ip∗(O′))}∣ and ap′=∣{j∈[1,ℓ]∣Ij′∈A(Ip∗(O′))}∣. If p is a prime divisor of g, then Ip∗(O′) is half-factorial by Proposition 4.6, and hence ap=ap′ by Claim 1. We have b=∑i=1k∑P∈Q1vP(Ii)=∑P∈Q1vP(∏i=1kIi)=∑P∈Q1vP(∏j=1ℓIj′)=∑j=1ℓ∑P∈Q1vP(Ij′)=b′.
The remaining assertion follows from [16, Theorem 3.7.15].
∎
Remark 4.16**.**
Let O be an order in the quadratic number field K with conductor fOK for some f∈N such that ∣Pic(O)∣=2 and let p be an odd ramified prime such that vp(f)=1 and I∈A(Ip∗(O)) such that N(I)=p3 and I not principal. Then every J∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(J)=p3 is not principal.
Proof.
Set L={J∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(J)=p3} and K={L∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(L)=p2}. It follows by the claim in the proof of Theorem 4.14 that for all J∈L and L∈K, there is a unique A∈L such that AJ=p2L. By Theorem 3.6 we have ∣L∣=∣K∣=p, and hence ∣{(A,J)∈L2∣AJ=p2L}∣=p for all L∈K. Since p is odd, we infer that for each L∈K there is some A∈L such that A2=p2L. Consequently, every L∈K is principal. Now let J∈L. There is some B∈K such that IJ=p2B, and thus IJ is principal. Therefore, J is not principal.
∎
Next we show that the assumption that p is odd in Remark 4.16 is crucial.
Example 4.17**.**
Let O=Z+2−2Z be the order in the quadratic number field K=Q(−2) with conductor 2OK. Let I=8Z+2−2Z and J=8Z+(4+2−2)Z. Then 2 is ramified, ∣Pic(O)∣=2, I,J∈A(I2∗(O)), N(I)=N(J)=8, I is principal and J is not principal.
Proof.
It is clear that J∈A(I2∗(O)) and N(J)=8. By the proof of Theorem 4.14, it remains to show that J is not principal. Assume that J is principal. Then there are some a,b∈Z such that J=(8a+4b+2−2b)O, and hence 8=N(J)=∣NK/Q(8a+4b+2−2b)∣=∣(8a+4b)2+8b2∣. Therefore, 2(2a+b)2+b2=1. It is clear that ∣b∣≤1. If b=0, then 8a2=1, a contradiction. Therefore, ∣b∣=1 and 2a+b=0, a contradiction.
∎
Lemma 4.18**.**
Let d∈N≥2 be squarefree, let K=Q(d), let O be the order in K with conductor fOK for some f∈N≥2, and let p be a ramified prime with vp(f)=1. If (p≡1mod4 and (pd/p)=−1) or ((qp)=−1 for some prime q with q≡1mod4 and q∣df), then each I∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(I)=p3 is not principal.
Proof.
Note that if p is odd, then {I∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(I)=p3}={p3Z+(p2k+2εp2+fdK)Z∣k∈[0,p−1]}. Moreover, if p=2 and d is odd, then {I∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(I)=p3}={8Z+(2k+fd)Z∣k∈{1,3}}. Furthermore, if p=2 and d is even, then {I∈A(Ip∗(O))∣N(I)=p3}={8Z+(2k+fd)Z∣k∈{0,2}}.
CASE 1: p≡1mod4 and (pd/p)=−1. Let I∈A(Ip∗(O)) be such that N(I)=p3. Since p is odd, we have I=p3Z+(p2k+2εp2+fdK)Z for some k∈[0,p−1]. Assume that I is principal. Then there are some a,b∈Z such that I=(p3a+p2bk+2εp2+fdKb)O. We infer that p3=N(I)=∣NK/Q(p3a+p2bk+2εp2+fdKb)∣=41∣p4(2pa+2bk+εb)2−f2b2dK∣, and hence p2f2b2pdK≡4βmodp for some β∈{−1,1}. Since p≡1mod4, we have (p−1)=1, and thus (pd/p)=(pdK/p)=(pf2b2dK/p3)=(p4β)=1, a contradiction.
CASE 2: There is some prime q such that q≡1mod4, q∣df and (qp)=−1. Let I∈A(Ip∗(O)) be such that N(I)=p3. First let p be odd. Then I=p3Z+(p2k+2εp2+fdK)Z for some k∈[0,p−1]. Assume that I is principal. Then there are some a,b∈Z such that I=(p3a+p2bk+2εp2+fdKb)O. This implies that p3=N(I)=∣NK/Q(p3a+p2bk+2εp2+fdKb)∣=41∣p4(2pa+2bk+εb)2−f2b2dK∣, and thus ℓ2≡4βp3modq for some ℓ∈Z and β∈{−1,1}. Since q≡1mod4, we have (q−1)=1, and hence (qp)3=(q4βp3)=1. Therefore, (qp)=1, a contradiction.
Now let p=2. Then I=8Z+(2k+fd)Z for some k∈[0,3]. Assume that I is principal. Then there are some a,b∈Z such that I=(8a+2bk+bfd)O. Consequently, 8=N(I)=∣(8a+2bk)2−b2f2d∣, and thus ℓ2≡8βmodq for some ℓ∈Z and β∈{−1,1}. This implies that (q2)3=(q8β)=1. Therefore, (q2)=1, a contradiction.
∎
Proposition 4.19**.**
Let d∈N≥2 be squarefree, let K=Q(d), and let O be the order in K with conductor fOK such that f is a nonempty squarefree product of ramified primes times a squarefree product of inert primes and ∣Pic(O)∣=∣Pic(OK)∣=2. If for every ramified prime divisor p of f, we have (p≡1mod4 and (pd/p)=−1) or ((qp)=−1 for some prime q with q≡1mod4 and q∣df), then minΔ(O)=2.
Proof.
It follows by Lemma 4.18 that for every ramified prime divisor p of f and every I∈A(Ip∗(O)) with N(I)=p3, we have I is not principal. It follows by the claim in the proof of Theorem 4.14 that I∈A(Ip∗(O)) is principal if and only if N(I)=p2. Now let p be an inert prime divisor of f and let J∈A(Ip∗(O)). Since ∣Pic(O)∣=∣Pic(OK)∣, it follows that the group epimorphism θ:Pic(O)→Pic(OK) defined by θ([L])=[LOK] for all L∈I∗(O) is a group isomorphism. Set P=pOK. Then JOK is a P-primary ideal of OK, and hence JOK is a principal ideal of OK. Since θ is an isomorphism, we infer that J is a principal ideal of O. Now it follows by Theorem 4.14 that minΔ(O)=2.
∎
Next we provide two counterexamples that show that the additional assumption on the ramified prime divisors of f in Proposition 4.19 is important.
Example 4.20**.**
There is some real quadratic number field K and some order O in K with conductor pOK for some ramified prime p such that p≡1mod4, ∣Pic(O)∣=∣Pic(OK)∣=2, and minΔ(O)=1.
Proof.
Let O=Z+530Z be the order in the real quadratic number field K=Q(30) with conductor 5OK. Observe that 5 is ramified, 5≡1mod4, ∣Pic(OK)∣=2 and α=11+230 is a fundamental unit of OK. Since α∈O and (OK×:O×)∣5, we infer that (OK×:O×)=5, and hence ∣Pic(O)∣=∣Pic(OK)∣(OK×:O×)5=2. Let I=125Z+530Z. Then I∈A(I5∗(O)) with N(I)=125. Since I=(12625+230530)O is principal, we infer by Theorem 4.14 that minΔ(O)=1.
∎
Example 4.21**.**
There is some real quadratic number field K=Q(d) with d∈N≥2 squarefree and some order O in K with conductor pOK for some odd ramified prime p such that (pd/p)=−1, ∣Pic(O)∣=∣Pic(OK)∣=2, and minΔ(O)=1.
Proof.
Let O=Z+742Z be the order in the real quadratic number field K=Q(42) with conductor 7OK. Note that 7 is an odd ramified prime, (742/7)=−1, ∣Pic(OK)∣=2 and α=13+242 is a fundamental unit of OK. We have α∈O and (OK×:O×)∣7. Therefore, (OK×:O×)=7, and thus ∣Pic(O)∣=∣Pic(OK)∣(OK×:O×)7=2. Set I=343Z+742Z. Then I∈A(I7∗(O)), N(I)=343, and I=(825601+12739342)O is principal. Consequently, minΔ(O)=1 by Theorem 4.14.
∎
Finally, we provide the examples of orders O in quadratic number fields with minΔ(O)=2.
Example 4.22**.**
Let K be a quadratic number field and O the order in K with conductor fOK such that (f,dK)∈{(2,60),(3,60),(5,60),(6,60),(10,60),(15,60),(30,60),(10,85),(35,40),(195,65),(30,365)}.
If (f,dK)∈{(2,60),(3,60),(5,60)}, then f is a ramified prime.
2. 2.
If (f,dK)∈{(6,60),(10,60),(15,60)}, then f is the product of two distinct ramified primes.
3. 3.
If (f,dK)=(30,60), then f is the product of three distinct ramified primes.
4. 4.
If (f,dK)∈{(10,85),(35,40)}, then f is the product of an inert prime and a ramified prime.
5. 5.
If (f,dK)=(195,65), then f is the product of an inert prime and two distinct ramified primes.
6. 6.
If (f,dK)=(30,365), then f is the product of two distinct inert primes and a ramified prime.
7. 7.
minΔ(O)=2.
Proof.
It is straightforward to prove the first six assertions. We prove the last assertion in the case that dK=60 and f∈N≥2 is a divisor of 30. The remaining cases can be proved in analogy by using Proposition 4.19. It is clear that 2, 3, and 5 are ramified primes. Note that ∣Pic(OK)∣=2 (e.g., [25, page 22]) and α=4+15 is a fundamental unit of OK.
We have α2=31+815, α3=244+6315, and α5=15124+390515. Moreover, α6=119071+3074415, α10=457470751+11811844015, and α15=13837575261124+357284656921515. Set k=(OK×:O×). Then k is a divisor of f by (4.1). Observe that α∈Z+215Z, α∈Z+315Z, α∈Z+515Z, α2,α3∈Z+615Z, α2,α5∈Z+1015Z, α3,α5∈Z+1515Z, and α6,α10,α15∈Z+3015Z. This implies that k=f, and hence ∣Pic(O)∣=kf∣Pic(OK)∣=∣Pic(OK)∣=2 by (4.1). We have 5≡1mod4 and (515/5)=(53)=(52)=−1. We infer by Proposition 4.19 that minΔ(O)=2.
∎
5. Unions of sets of lengths
The goal of this section is to show that all unions of sets of lengths of the monoid of (invertible) ideals in orders of quadratic number fields are intervals (Theorem 5.2).
To gather the background on unions of sets of lengths, let H be an atomic monoid with H=H× and k∈N0. Then
[TABLE]
Then, for the elasticityρ(H) of H, we have ([12, Proposition 2.7]),
[TABLE]
Clearly, U0(H)={0}, U1(H)={1} and Uk(H) is the set of all ℓ∈N0 with the following property:
There are atoms u1,…,uk,v1,…,vℓ in H such that u1⋅…⋅uk=v1⋅…⋅vℓ.
Let d∈N and M∈N0. A subset L⊂Z is called an AAP (with difference d and bound M) if
[TABLE]
where y∈Z, L∗ is a non-empty arithmetical progression with difference d and minL∗=0, L′⊂[−M,−1], and L′′⊂supL∗+[1,M] (with the convention that L′′=∅ if L∗ is infinite).
We say that H satisfies the Structure Theorem for Unions if there are d∈N and M∈N0 such that Uk(H) is an AAP with difference d and bound M for all sufficiently large k∈N. If Δ(H) is finite and the Structure Theorem for Unions holds for some parameter d∈N, then d=minΔ(H) ([12, Lemma 2.12]).
The Structure Theorem for Unions holds for a wealth of monoids and domains (see [2, 13, 34] for recent contributions and see [12, Theorem 4.2] for an example where it does not hold). Since it holds for C-monoids ([14]), it holds for the monoid of invertible ideals of orders in number fields. In some special cases (including Krull monoids having prime divisors in all classes) all unions of sets of lengths are intervals, in other words the Structure Theorem for Unions holds with d=1 and M=0 ([15, Theorem 3.1.3], [18, Theorem 5.8], [33]). In Theorem 5.2 we show that the same is true for the monoids of (invertible) ideals of orders in quadratic number fields.
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let p be a prime divisor of f and let N=sup{vp(N(A))∣A∈A(Ip∗(Of))}.
If p splits, then Uℓ(Ip(Of))=Uℓ(Ip∗(Of))=N≥2 for all ℓ∈N≥2.
2. 2.
If p does not split, then Uℓ(Ip(Of))∩N≥ℓ=Uℓ(Ip∗(Of))∩N≥ℓ=[ℓ,⌊2ℓN⌋] for all ℓ∈N≥2.
Proof.
We prove 1. and 2. simultaneously. By Proposition 3.3.3 we can assume without restriction that f=pvp(f). First we show that both assertions are true for ℓ=2. It follows from Theorem 3.6 that [2,N]=[2,2vp(f)]∪{vp(N(A))∣A∈A(Ip∗(Of))}. It is obvious that U2(Ip∗(Of))⊂U2(Ip(Of)). It follows from Lemma 4.9 that U2(Ip(Of))⊂[2,N].
Let k∈[2,N]. It remains to show that k∈U2(Ip∗(Of)). If k>2vp(f), then there is some I∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that N(I)=pk. It follows by Proposition 3.2.5 that II=(pOf)k, and hence k∈U2(Ip∗(Of)). Now let k≤2vp(f). By Proposition 4.8.1 we can assume without restriction that vp(f)≥2 and k≥4.
CASE 1: d≡1mod4 or (d≡1mod4, p=2 and k≤2(v2(f)−1)). We set a=vp(NK/Q(pk−2+τ)) and b=vp(NK/Q(pk−2(p−1)+τ)). Observe that if d≡1mod4, then a,b≥min{2k−4,2vp(f)}≥k. Moreover, if d≡1mod4, p=2 and k≤2(v2(f)−1), then a,b≥min{2k−4,2(v2(f)−1)}≥k. Set I=paZ+(pk−2+τ)Z and J=pbZ+(pk−2(p−1)+τ)Z. Then I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)), min{a,b,vp(pk−2+pk−2(p−1)+ε)}=k−1, and a+b−2(k−1)>0. Therefore, there is some L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that IJ=pk−1L, and hence k∈L(IJ)⊂U2(Ip∗(Of)).
CASE 2: d≡1mod4 and p=2. We set a=vp(NK/Q(2pk−2−1+τ)) and b=vp(NK/Q(2pk−2(p2+p−1)−1+τ)). Note that a,b≥min{2k−4,2vp(f)}≥k. Set I=paZ+(2pk−2−1+τ)Z and J=pbZ+(2pk−2(p2+p−1)−1+τ)Z. Then I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)), min{a,b,vp(2pk−2−1+2pk−2(p2+p−1)−1+ε)}=k−1, and a+b−2(k−1)>0. Consequently, there is some L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that IJ=pk−1L, and thus k∈L(IJ)⊂U2(Ip∗(Of)).
CASE 3: d≡1mod8, p=2 and k∈{2v2(f)−1,2v2(f)}. Set h=v2(f). If h=2, then k=4, and hence k∈U2(I2∗(Of)) by Proposition 4.4. Now let h≥3. Note that 2 splits. By Theorem 3.6 there are some I,J,L∈A(I2∗(Of)) such that N(I)=22h+1, N(J)=22h+2 and N(L)=16. By Proposition 3.2.5 we have LL=16Of, II=22h+1Of=22h−3LL and JJ=22h+2Of=22h−2LL. We infer that k∈{2h−1,2h}⊂U2(I2∗(Of)).
CASE 4: d≡5mod8, p=2 and k∈{2v2(f)−1,2v2(f)}. Set h=v2(f). If h=2, then k=4, and thus k∈U2(I2∗(Of)) by Proposition 4.4. Now let h≥3. Set A=22hZ+(2h−1+τ)Z, B=22hZ+(22h−2−2h−1+τ)Z, and C=22hZ+(22h−1−2h−1+τ)Z. Then A,B,C∈A(I2∗(Of)), AB=22h−2I and AC=22h−1J for some I,J∈A(I2∗(Of)). Therefore, k∈{2h−1,2h}⊂U2(I2∗(Of)).
So far we have proved that both assertions are true for ℓ=2. If p splits, then we have N=∞ by Theorem 3.6, and hence U2(Ip(Of))=U2(Ip∗(Of))=N≥2. The first assertion now follows easily by induction on ℓ. Now let p not split. Then N<∞. Next we show that 2. is true for ℓ=3.
Since [3,N+1]={1}+U2(Ip∗(Of))⊂U3(Ip∗(Of))∩N≥3⊂U3(Ip(Of))∩N≥3⊂[3,⌊23N⌋] by Lemma 4.9 and N∈{2vp(f),2vp(f)+1}, it remains to show that N+m∈U3(Ip∗(Of)) for all m∈[2,vp(f)]. Let m∈[2,vp(f)]. It is sufficient to show that there are some I,J,L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) such that IJ=pmL and N(L)=pN, since then IJL=pN+mOf by Proposition 3.2.5, and thus N+m∈U3(Ip∗(Of)).
CASE 1: p is inert. Observe that N=2vp(f) by Theorem 3.6. Let m∈[2,vp(f)]. First let p=2. If d≡1mod4, then set I=p2mZ+(pm+τ)Z and J=p2vp(f)Z+(p2vp(f)−m+τ)Z. If d≡1mod4, then set I=p2mZ+(2pm−1+τ)Z and J=p2vp(f)Z+(2p2vp(f)−m−1+τ)Z. In any case we have I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) and IJ=pmL for some L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) with N(L)=pN.
Next let p=2. Since 2 is inert, it follows that d≡5mod8. If m<v2(f)−1, then set I=22mZ+(2m+τ)Z. If m=v2(f)−1, then set I=22mZ+τZ. Finally, if m=v2(f), then set I=22mZ+(2m−1+τ)Z. Set J=22v2(f)Z+(2v2(f)−1+τ)Z. Observe that I,J∈A(I2∗(Of)) and IJ=2mL for some L∈A(I2∗(Of)) with N(L)=2N.
CASE 2: p is ramified. It follows that N=2vp(f)+1 by Theorem 3.6. Let m∈[2,vp(f)]. First let p=2. Since p is ramified, we have p∣d. If d≡1mod4, then set I=p2mZ+(pm+τ)Z and J=p2vp(f)+1Z+(pvp(f)+1+τ)Z. If d≡1mod4, then set I=p2mZ+(2pm−1+τ)Z and J=p2vp(f)+1Z+(2pvp(f)+1−1+τ)Z. We infer that I,J∈A(Ip∗(Of)) and IJ=pmL for some L∈A(Ip∗(Of)) with N(L)=pN in any case.
Now let p=2. Since 2 is ramified, we have d≡1mod4. If d is even or m<v2(f), then set I=22mZ+(2m+τ)Z. If d is odd and m=v2(f), then set I=22mZ+τZ. If d is even, then set J=22v2(f)+1Z+τZ. If d is odd, then set J=22v2(f)+1Z+(2v2(f)+τ)Z. In any case we have I,J∈A(I2∗(Of)) and IJ=2mL for some L∈A(I2∗(Of)) with N(L)=2N.
Finally, we prove the second assertion by induction on ℓ. Let ℓ∈N≥2 and let H∈{Ip(Of),Ip∗(Of)}. Without restriction we can assume that ℓ≥4. We infer by the induction hypothesis that (Uℓ−2(H)∩N≥ℓ−2)+U2(H)=[ℓ−2,⌊2(ℓ−2)N⌋]+[2,N]=[ℓ,⌊2ℓN⌋]. Observe that (Uℓ−2(H)∩N≥ℓ−2)+U2(H)⊂Uℓ(H)∩N≥ℓ. It follows by Lemma 4.9 that Uℓ(H)∩N≥ℓ⊂[ℓ,⌊2ℓN⌋], and thus Uℓ(H)∩N≥ℓ=[ℓ,⌊2ℓN⌋].
∎
Theorem 5.2**.**
Let O be an order in a quadratic number field K with conductor fOK for some f∈N≥2.
If f is divisible by a split prime, then Uk(I(O))=Uk(I∗(O))=N≥2 for all k∈N≥2.
2. 2.
Suppose that f is not divisible by a split prime and set M=max{vp(f)∣p∈P}. Then Uk(I(O))=Uk(I∗(O)) is a finite interval for all k∈N≥2, and for their maxima we have :**
(a)
If vq(f)=M for a ramified prime q, then ρk(I(O))=ρk(I∗(O))=kM+⌊2k⌋ for all k∈N≥2 and ρ(I(O))=ρ(I∗(O))=M+21.
2. (b)
If vq(f)<M for all ramified primes q, then ρk(I(O))=ρk(I∗(O))=kM for all k∈N≥2 and ρ(I(O))=ρ(I∗(O))=M.
Proof.
Let f be divisible by a split prime p and let k∈N≥2. Since Ip∗(O) is a divisor-closed submonoid of I∗(O) and Ip(O) is a divisor-closed submonoid of I(O), it follows from Proposition 5.1.1 that Uk(I(O))=Uk(I∗(O))=N≥2.
Let k∈N≥2 and ℓ∈Uk(I(O)). There are Ii∈A(I(O)) for each i∈[1,k] and Jj∈A(I(O)) for each j∈[1,ℓ] such that ∏i=1kIi=∏j=1ℓJj. Note that Ii,Jj∈X(O) for all i∈[1,k] and j∈[1,ℓ]. For P∈X(O) set kP=∣{i∈[1,k]∣Ii=P}∣ and ℓP=∣{j∈[1,ℓ]∣Jj=P}∣. If p is a prime divisor of f, then set kp=kPf,p and ℓp=ℓPf,p. Observe that k=∑P∈X(O)kP and ℓ=∑P∈X(O)ℓP. Recall that the P-primary components of ∏i=1kIi are uniquely determined, and thus ℓP∈UkP(IP(O)) for all P∈X(O). If P∈X(O) does not contain the conductor, then IP(O) is factorial, and hence ℓP=kP. Also note that if P∈X(O) and kP≤1, then ℓP=kP. If p is an inert prime that divides f, then it follows from Proposition 5.1.2 and Theorem 3.6 that ρr(Ip(O))=ρr(Ip∗(O))=rvp(f) for all r∈N≥2. We infer again by Proposition 5.1.2 and Theorem 3.6 that ρr(Ip(O))=ρr(Ip∗(O))=rvp(f)+⌊2r⌋ for all ramified primes p that divide f and all r∈N≥2.
CASE 1: vq(f)=M for some ramified prime q. If P∈X(O), then ℓP≤kPM+⌊2kP⌋.
Consequently, ℓ=∑P∈X(O)ℓP≤(∑P∈X(O)kP)M+∑P∈X(O)⌊2kP⌋≤kM+⌊2k⌋. In particular, ρk(I(O))≤kM+⌊2k⌋=max{ρk(Ip∗(O))∣p∈P,p∣f}≤ρk(I∗(O))≤ρk(I(O)). This implies that ρk(I(O))=ρk(I∗(O))=max{ρk(Ip∗(O))∣p∈P,p∣f}=kM+⌊2k⌋.
CASE 2: vq(f)<M for all ramified primes q. Note that ℓp≤kpvp(f)+⌊2kp⌋≤kpM for all ramified primes p that divide f. Therefore, ℓP≤kPM for all P∈X(O). This implies that ℓ=∑P∈X(O)ℓP≤(∑P∈X(O)kP)M=kM. We infer that ρk(I(O))≤kM=max{ρk(Ip∗(O))∣p∈P,p∣f}≤ρk(I∗(O))≤ρk(I(O)), and thus ρk(I(O))=ρk(I∗(O))=max{ρk(Ip∗(O))∣p∈P,p∣f}=kM.
By Proposition 5.1.2, we obtain that Uk(I(O))∩N≥k=Uk(I∗(O))∩N≥k is a finite interval. Since the last assertion holds for every k∈N≥2, we infer that Uk(I(O))=Uk(I∗(O)) is a finite interval for all k∈N≥2. If vq(f)=M for some ramified prime q, then
[TABLE]
Finally, let vq(f)<M for all ramified primes q. Then
[TABLE]
In a final remark we gather what is known on further arithmetical invariants of monoids of ideals of orders in quadratic number fields.
Remark 5.3**.**
Let O be an order in a quadratic number field K with conductor fOK for some f∈N≥2.
The monotone catenary degree of I∗(O) is finite by [20, Corollary 5.14]. Precise values for the monotone catenary degree are available so far only in the seminormal case ([18, Theorem 5.8]).
The tame degree of I∗(O) is finite if and only if the elasticity is finite if and only if f is not divisible by a split prime. This follows from Equations 2.3 and 2.4, Theorem 5.2, and from [16, Theorem 3.1.5]. Precise values for the tame degree are not known so far.
For an atomic monoid H, the set {ρ(L)∣L∈L(H)}⊂Q≥1 of all elasticities was first studied by Chapman et al. and then it found further attention by several authors (e.g., [4, 7], [22, Theorem 5.5], [23, 35]). We say that H is fully elastic if for every rational number q with 1<q<ρ(H) there is an L∈L(H) with ρ(L)=q. Since I∗(O) is cancellative and has a prime element, it is fully elastic by [3, Lemma 2.1]. Since I∗(O)⊂I(O) is divisor-closed and ρ(I(O))=ρ(I∗(O)) by Theorem 5.2, it follows that I(O) is fully elastic.
For an atomic monoid H, let
[TABLE]
By definition, we have ℸ∗(H)⊂2+Δ(H) and in [11, 23] the invariant ℸ∗(H) was used as a tool to study Δ(H). Proposition 4.1.4 shows that, both for H=I(O) and for H=I∗(O), we have maxℸ∗(H)=2+maxΔ(H).
Acknowledgements. We would like to thank the referee for carefully reading the manuscript and for many suggestions and comments that improved the quality of this paper and simplified the proof of Theorem 3.6.
Bibliography35
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] D.D. Anderson and J.L. Mott, Cohen-Kaplansky domains : integral domains with a finite number of irreducible elements , J. Algebra 148 (1992), 17 – 41.
2[2] N.R. Baeth and D. Smertnig, Arithmetical invariants of local quaternion orders , Acta Arith. 186 (2018), 143 – 177.
3[3] P. Baginski, S.T. Chapman, C. Crutchfield, K.G. Kennedy, and M. Wright, Elastic properties and prime elements , Result. Math. 49 (2006), 187 – 200.
4[4] T. Barron, C. O’Neill, and R. Pelayo, On the set of elasticities in numerical monoids , Semigroup Forum 94 (2017), 37 – 50.
5[5] C. Bowles, S.T. Chapman, N. Kaplan, and D. Reiser, On delta sets of numerical monoids , J. Algebra Appl. 5 (2006), 695 – 718.
6[6] H.S. Butts and G. Pall, Ideals not prime to the conductor in quadratic orders , Acta Arith. 21 (1972), 261 – 270.
7[7] S.T. Chapman, M. Holden, and T. Moore, Full elasticity in atomic monoids and integral domains , Rocky Mt. J. Math. 36 (2006), 1437 – 1455.
8[8] S. Colton and N. Kaplan, The realization problem for delta sets of numerical monoids , J. Commut. Algebra 9 (2017), 313 – 339.