Corpus ID: 237592796

Closures and co-closures attached to FCP ring extensions

  title={Closures and co-closures attached to FCP ring extensions},
  author={Gabriel Picavet and Martine Picavet-L'Hermitte},
The paper deals with ring extensions R ⊆ S and the poset [R,S] of their subextensions, with a special look at FCP extensions (extensions such that [R,S] is Artinian and Noetherian). When the extension has FCP, we show that there exists a co-integral closure, that is a least element R in [R,S] such that R ⊆ S is integral. Replacing the integral property by the integrally closed property, we are able to prove a similar result for an FCP extension. The radicial closure of R in S is well known. We… Expand


Characterizing the ring extensions that satisfy FIP or FCP
Several parallel characterizations of the FIP and FCP properties are given. Also, a number of results about FCP are generalized from domains to arbitrary (commutative) rings. Let R⊆S be rings, withExpand
On the FIP Property for Extensions of Commutative Rings
ABSTRACT A (unital) extension R ⊆ T of (commutative) rings is said to have FIP (respectively be a minimal extension) if there are only finitely many (respectively no) rings S such that R ⊂ S ⊂ T.Expand
Transfer Results for the FIP and FCP Properties of Ring Extensions
For an extension E: R ⊂ S of (commutative) rings and the induced extension F: R(X) ⊂ S(X) of Nagata rings, the transfer of the FCP and FIP properties between E and F is studied. Then F has FCP ⇔ EExpand
Catenarian FCP ring extensions
If $R\subseteq S$ is a ring extension of commutative unital rings, the poset $[R,S]$ of $R$-subalgebras of $S$ is called catenarian if it verifies the Jordan-Holder property. This property hasExpand
Weak normality and t-closedness
(a) B is integral over A. (b) Spec(B) -t Spec(A) is a bijection. (c) The residue field extensions are isomorphisms. (d) The residue field extensions are purely inseparable. First, R. G. Swan callsExpand
Étale extensions with finitely many subextensions
The aim of this paper is the characterization of finite étale (unramified) ring extensions $$R\subseteq S$$R⊆S that have finitely many R-subalgebras. It generalizes our earlier results on diagonalExpand
Manis Valuations and Pr Ufer Extensions I
We call a commutative ring extension A R Pr ufer, if A is an R-Pr ufer ring in the sense of Gri n (Can. J. Math. 26 (1974)). These extensions relate to Manis valuations in much the same way as PrExpand
Quasi-Prüfer Extensions of Rings
We introduce quasi-Prufer ring extensions, in order to relativize quasi-Prufer domains and to take also into account some contexts in recent papers. An extension is quasi-Prufer if and only if it isExpand
On seminormality
We give an elementary and essentially self-contained proof1 that a reduced ring R is seminormal if and only if the canonical map Pic R → Pic R[X] is an isomorphism, a theorem due to Swan [15],Expand
FIP AND FCP products of ring morphisms
We characterize some types of FIP and FCP ring extensions $R \subset S$, where $S$ is not an integral domain and $R$ may not be an integral domain. In this paper S is mostly a product of ringsExpand