PUISEUX MONOIDS AND TRANSFER HOMOMORPHISMS

arXiv:1709.01693v1 [] 6 Sep 2017

FELIX GOTTI
Abstract. There are several families of atomic monoids whose arithmetical invariants have received a great deal of attention during the last two decades. In particular,
the factorization theory of finitely generated monoids, Krull monoids, and C-monoids
has been systematically studied. Puiseux monoids, which are additive submonoids
consisting of nonnegative rational numbers, have only recently been investigated. In
this paper, we provide evidence that this family comprises plenty of monoids with a
basically unexplored atomic structure. We do this by showing that the arithmetical
invariants of the well-studied atomic monoids mentioned earlier can almost never be
transferred to Puiseux monoids via homomorphisms that preserve atomic configurations, i.e., transfer homomorphisms. As a result, we prove that most Puiseux monoids
are neither Krull monoids nor C-monoids.

1. Introduction
The study of the phenomenon of non-unique factorizations in the ring of integers OK
of an algebraic number field K was initiated by L. Carlitz in the 1950’s, and it was later
carried out on more general integral domains. As a result, many techniques to measure
the non-uniqueness of factorizations in several families of integral domains were systematically developed during the second half of the last century (see [2] and references
therein). However, it was not until recently that questions about the non-uniqueness
of factorizations were abstractly formulated in the context of commutative cancellative monoids. This was possible because most of the factorization-related questions
inside an integral domain are purely multiplicative in essence. The fundamental goal
of abstract (or modern) factorization theory is to measure how far is a commutative
cancellative monoid from being factorial by using different arithmetical invariants.
At this point, the arithmetical invariants of several families of atomic monoids have
been intensively studied. Finitely generated monoids, Krull monoids, finitary monoids,
and C-monoids are among the most studied. These families of monoids not only have
very diverse arithmetical properties, but also have proved to be useful in the study of the
factorization theory of less-understood atomic monoids via transfer homomorphisms.
A monoid homomorphism is said to be transfer if somehow it allows to shift the atomic
structure of its codomain back to its domain (see Definition 3.3). Therefore if one
is willing to know the factorization invariants of a given monoid, it suffices to find a
Date: September 7, 2017.
Key words and phrases. Puiseux monoids, transfer homomorphisms, Krull monoids, C-monoids,
finitely generated monoids.
1

2

F. GOTTI

transfer homomorphism from such a monoid to a better-understood monoid and carry
over the desired factorization properties.
Puiseux monoids were recently introduced as a rational generalization of numerical
monoids. Many families of atomic Puiseux monoids were explored in [18, 19, 20],
and their elasticity was studied in [21]. However, it is still unanswered whether the
non-unique factorization behavior in Puiseux monoids is somehow similar to that of
some of the monoids whose factorization properties are already well-understood. To
give a partial answer to this, we will determine which atomic Puiseux monoids can be
the domain of a transfer homomorphism to some of the monoids whose arithmetical
invariants have already been studied. In particular, we consider finitely generated
monoids, Krull monoids, and C-monoids as our transfer codomains.
The content of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we establish the
notation we shall be using later, and we formally present most of the fundamental
concepts needed in this paper. Then, in Section 3, we show that homomorphisms
between Puiseux monoids can only be given by rational multiplication, which will
allow us to characterize the transfer homomorphisms between Puiseux monoids. We
also present a family of Puiseux monoids whose members have Z as their group of
automorphisms. Section 4 is devoted to characterize the Puiseux monoids admitting
a transfer homomorphism to some finitely generated monoid. Finally, in Section 5,
we prove that the only Puiseux monoid that is transfer Krull is the additive monoid
N0 . We use this information to classify the Puiseux monoids which happen to be
C-monoids.
2. Background
To begin with let us introduce the fundamental concepts related to our exposition
as an excuse to establish the notation we need. The reader can consult Grillet [22]
for information on commutative semigroups and Geroldinger and Halter-Koch [13] for
extensive background in non-unique factorization theory of atomic monoids.
Throughout this sequel, we let N denote the set of positive integers, and we set
N0 := N ∪ {0}. For X ⊆ R and r ∈ R, we set X≤r := {x ∈ X | x ≤ r}; with a similar
spirit we use the symbols X≥r , X<r , and X>r . If q ∈ Q>0 , then we call the unique
a, b ∈ N such that q = a/b and gcd(a, b) = 1 the numerator and denominator of q and
denote them by n(q) and d(q), respectively.
As usual, a semigroup is a pair (S, ∗), where S is a set and ∗ is an associative binary operation in S; we write S instead of (S, ∗) provided that ∗ is clear from the
context. However, inside the scope of this paper, a monoid is a commutative cancellative semigroup with identity (cf. the standard definition of monoid). To comply with
established conventions, we will be using simultaneously additive and multiplicative
notations; however, the context will always save us from the risk of ambiguity. Let
M be a monoid written additively. We set M • := M \{0} and, as usual, we let M ×
denote the set of units (i.e., invertible elements) of M. The monoid M is reduced if

PUISEUX MONOIDS AND TRANSFER HOMOMORPHISMS

3

M × = {0}. For a, b ∈ M, we say that a divides b in M if there exists c ∈ M such that
b = a + c; in this case we write a |M b. An element a ∈ M \M × is irreducible or an
atom if whenever a = u + v for some u, v ∈ M, either u ∈ M × or v ∈ M × . Atoms are
the building blocks in factorization theory; this motivates the especial notation
A(M) := {a ∈ M | a is an atom of M}.
For S ⊆ M, we let hSi denote the smallest submonoid of M containing S, and we
say that S generates M if M = hSi. The monoid M is said to be finitely generated
if it can be generated by a finite set. On the other hand, we say that M is atomic if
M = hA(M)i. An element p ∈ M is prime if for all a, b ∈ M the fact that p |M ab
implies that either p |M a or p |M b. A monoid is factorial if every element can be
written as a sum of primes. As every prime is an atom, every factorial monoid is
atomic.
Let ρ ⊆ M × M be an equivalence relation on M, and let [a]ρ denote the equivalence
class of a ∈ M. We say that ρ is a congruence if for all a, b, c ∈ M such that (a, b) ∈ ρ
it follows that (ca, cb) ∈ ρ. Congruences are precisely the equivalence relations that
are compatible with the operation of M, meaning that M/ρ := {[a]ρ | a ∈ M} is
a commutative semigroup with identity (no necessarily cancellative). We call two
elements a, b ∈ M associates and we write a ≃ b provided that a = ub for some u ∈ M × .
Being associates defines a congruence relation ≃ on M, and Mred := M/≃ is called
the associated reduced semigroup of M. If φ : M → N is a monoid homomorphism,
then the map φred : Mred → Nred defined by φred (aM × ) = φ(a)N × is also a monoid
homomorphism.
We say that a multiplicative monoid F is free abelian with basis P ⊂ F if every
element a ∈ F can be written uniquely in the form
Y
a=
pvp (a) ,
p∈P

where vp (a) ∈ N0 and vp (a) > 0 only for finitely many elements p ∈ P . The monoid F
is determined by P up to canonical isomorphism, so we shall also denote F by F (P ).
By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, the multiplicative monoid N is free on the
set of prime numbers. In this case, we can extend vp to Q≥0 as follows. For r ∈ Q>0
let vp (r) := vp (n(r)) − vp (d(r)) and set vp (0) = ∞. The map vp : Q≥0 → Z, called the
p-adic valuation on Q≥0 , satisfies the following two conditions:
(2.1)
(2.2)

vp (rs) = vp (r) + vp (s) for all r, s ∈ Q≥0 ;
vp (r + s) ≥ min{vp (r), vp (s)} for all r, s ∈ Q≥0 .

The free abelian monoid on A(M), denoted by Z(M), is called the factorization
monoid of M, and the elements of the monoid Z(M) are called factorizations. If
z = a1 . . . an ∈ Z(M) for some n ∈ N0 and a1 , . . . , an ∈ A(M), then n is the length of

4

F. GOTTI

the factorization z; the length of z is denoted by |z|. The unique homomorphism
φ : Z(M) → M satisfying φ(a) = a for all a ∈ A(M)
is called the factorization homomorphism of M. Additionally, for x ∈ M • ,
Z(x) := φ−1 (x) ⊆ Z(M)
is the set of factorizations of x. By definition, we set Z(0) = {0}. Note that the monoid
M is atomic if and only if Z(x) is not empty for all x ∈ M. For each x ∈ M, the set
of lengths of x is defined by
L(x) := {|z| : z ∈ Z(x)}.
We say that the monoid M is half-factorial if |L(x)| = 1 for all x ∈ M. On the other
hand, if L(x) is a finite set for all x ∈ M, then we say that M is a BF-monoid. The
system of sets of lengths of M is defined by
L(M) := {L(x) | x ∈ M}.
The system of sets of lengths is an arithmetical invariant of atomic monoids that has
received significant attention in recent years (see [1, 4] and the literature cited there).
A very special family of atomic monoids is that one comprising all numerical monoids,
cofinite submonoids of the additive monoid N0 . Each numerical monoid has a unique
minimal set of generators, which is finite. Moreover, if {a1 , . . . , an } is the minimal set of generators for a numerical monoid N, then A(N) = {a1 , . . . , an } and
gcd(a1 , . . . , an ) = 1. As a result, every numerical monoid is atomic and contains only
finitely many atoms. The Frobenius number of N, denoted by F (N), is the minimum
n ∈ N such that Z>n ⊂ N. An introduction to numerical monoids can be found in [9].
An additive submonoid of Q≥0 is called a Puiseux monoid. Puiseux monoids are a
natural generalization of numerical monoids. However, the general atomic structure
of Puiseux monoids drastically differs from that one of numerical monoids. Puiseux
monoids are not always atomic; for instance, consider h1/2n | n ∈ Ni. On the other
hand, if an atomic Puiseux monoid M is not isomorphic to a numerical monoid, then
A(M) is infinite. The atomic structure of Puiseux monoids has been studied in [19]
and [20], where several families of atomic Puiseux monoids were described.

3. Homomorphisms Between Puiseux Monoids
In this section we present characterizations of homomorphisms and transfer homomorphisms between Puiseux monoids.
Proposition 3.1. The homomorphisms of Puiseux monoids are precisely those given
by rational multiplication.

PUISEUX MONOIDS AND TRANSFER HOMOMORPHISMS

5

Proof. It is clear that if a map P → P ′ between two Puiseux monoids is multiplication
by a rational number, then it is a monoid homomorphism. Thus, it suffices to verify that
the only homomorphisms of Puiseux monoids are those given by rational multiplication.
To do this, consider the Puiseux monoid homomorphism ϕ : P → P ′. Because the
trivial homomorphism is multiplication by 0, there is no loss in assuming that P 6= {0}.
Let {n1 , . . . , nk } be a minimal set of generators for the additive monoid N = P ∩ N0 .
Notice that N 6= {0} and, therefore, k ≥ 1. The fact that ϕ is nontrivial implies that
ϕ(nj ) 6= 0 for some j ∈ {1, . . . , k}. Now we set q = ϕ(nj )/nj and take r ∈ P • and
c1 , . . . , ck ∈ N0 satisfying that n(r) = c1 n1 + · · · + ck nk . For each i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, one
has ni ϕ(nj ) = ϕ(ni nj ) = nj ϕ(ni ). Therefore
k

k

1
1 X
ϕ(nj )
1 X
ϕ(r) =
ci ϕ(ni ) =
ci ni
= rq.
ϕ(n(r)) =
d(r)
d(r) i=1
d(r) i=1
nj
As a result, the homomorphism ϕ is just multiplication by q ∈ Q>0 , which completes
the proof.

Remark 3.2. A Puiseux monoid M is said to be increasing (resp., decreasing) if M can
be generated by an increasing (resp., decreasing) sequence of rational numbers. Also,
we say that M is bounded if M can be generated by a bounded sequence of rational
numbers, and it is said to be strongly bounded if it can be generated by a sequence
of rational numbers whose associated numerator sequence is bounded. Finally, M is
called dense if it contains 0 as a limit point. Although the definitions just given are not
algebraic in nature, we should notice that they are all preserved by Puiseux monoid
isomorphisms. This explains why all of them have been useful in the study of the
atomic structure of Puiseux monoids (see [19] and [20]).
Let us now refine the concept of monoid homomorphism by introducing transfer
homomorphisms, which are central objects in this paper.
Definition 3.3. A monoid homomorphism θ : M → N is said to be a transfer homomorphism if the following conditions hold:
(T1) N = θ(M)N × and θ−1 (N × ) = M × ;
(T2) if θ(a) = b1 b2 for a ∈ M and b1 , b2 ∈ N, then there exist a1 , a2 ∈ M such that
a = a1 a2 and θ(ai ) = bi for i ∈ {1, 2}.
With notation as in the above definition, when M and N are reduced, we can restate
the first condition above as
(T1’) θ is surjective and θ−1 (1) = 1.
We have already mentioned that a transfer homomorphism allows us to shift the
atomic structure and the arithmetic of length of factorizations from its codomain to
its domain. This property is formally described in the following proposition.

6

F. GOTTI

Proposition 3.4. [12, Proposition 1.3.2] If θ : M → N is a transfer homomorphism
of atomic monoids, then the following conditions hold:
(1) a ∈ A(M) if and only if θ(a) ∈ A(N);
(2) M is atomic if and only if N is atomic;
(3) LM (x) = LN (θ(x)) for all x ∈ M;
(4) L(M) = L(N), and so M is a BF-monoid if and only if N is a BF-monoid.
The next corollary immediately follows from Proposition 3.1.
Corollary 3.5. A homomorphism between Puiseux monoids is a transfer homomorphism if and only if it is surjective.
For a Puiseux monoid M, let Aut(M) denote the group of automorphisms of M. As
we have seen in Proposition 3.1, the set of homomorphisms between Puiseux monoids
is very exclusive. In particular, we might wonder whether Aut(M) is always trivial.
However, it is not hard to verify, for instance, that when M1 = h1/2n | n ∈ Ni,
multiplication by 1/2 is in Aut(M1 ). This example might not be the most desirable
because M1 fails to be atomic; in fact, M1 does not contain any atoms. The next
proposition exhibits a family of atomic monoids whose groups of automorphisms are
nontrivial. First, let us introduce a family of atomic Puiseux monoids whose atomicity
is used in the proof.
For r ∈ Q>0 , the monoid Mr = hr n | n ∈ Ni is the multiplicatively r-cyclic Puiseux
monoid. If n(r), d(r) > 1, then Mr is atomic with A(Mr ) = {r n | n ∈ N} (see [20,
Theorem 6.2]).
Proposition 3.6. Let r ∈ Q>0 such that n(r), d(r) > 1. If M = hr n | n ∈ Zi, then
Aut(M) ∼
= Z.
Proof. Set A = {r n | n ∈ Z}. For n ∈ Z, the fact that r n A = A implies that
multiplication by r n is an endomorphism of M whose inverse is given by multiplication
by r −n . Thus, multiplication by any integer power of r is an automorphism of M. To
prove that these are the only elements of Aut(M), let us first argue that M is atomic
with A(M) = A.
Assume first that r < 1. Fix k ∈ Z, and let us check that r k ∈ A(M). To do this
notice that the monoid hr n | n ≥ ki is the isomorphic image (under multiplication by
r k−1 ) of the multiplicatively r-cyclic Puiseux monoid Mr , which is atomic with set of
atoms A = {r n | n ∈ N}. Since r ∈ A(Mr ), it follows that r ∈
/ hr n | n > 1i. Then
rk ∈
/ hr n | n > ki. As r < 1, no atom in {r n | n < k} divides r k . Hence r k ∈
/ hA \ {r k }i
k
and, therefore, r ∈ A(M). As a result, A(M) = A.
Now suppose that r > 1. As before, fix k ∈ Z. Because r > 1, proving that
r k ∈ A(M) amounts to showing that r k ∈
/ hr n | n < ki. Let us assume, by way
of contradiction, that this is not the case. Then r k = a1 r n1 + · · · + at r nt for some
a1 , . . . , at ∈ N and n1 , . . . , nt ∈ N with k > n1 > · · · > nt . As a consequence,

PUISEUX MONOIDS AND TRANSFER HOMOMORPHISMS

7

r k−nt +1 ∈ hr n1−nt +1 , r n2 −nt +1 , . . . , ri, which contradicts the fact that r k−nt +1 ∈ A(Mr ).
As in the previous case, we conclude that A(M) = A.
By Proposition 3.1, any automorphism of M is given by rational multiplication. Take
s ∈ Q>0 such that φs ∈ Aut(M), where φs consists in left multiplication by s. Because
φs must send atoms to atoms, it follows that sr = φs (r) ∈ A. Therefore s must be
an integer power of r. Hence Aut(M) is precisely A when seen as a multiplicative
subgroup of Q. As A is the infinite cyclic group, the proof follows.

4. Finite Transfer Puiseux Monoids
Now we turn to characterize the transfer homomorphisms from Puiseux monoids to
finitely generated monoids.
Definition 4.1. We say that a Puiseux monoid M is transfer finite if there exists a
transfer homomorphism from M to a finitely generated monoid.
By the fundamental structure theorem of finitely generated abelian groups, it immediately follows that every finitely generated monoid F is a submonoid of a group
T × Zβ for some finite abelian group T and β ∈ N0 . In case of F being reduced, it can
be thought of as a submonoid of T × Nβ0 .
Condition (T2) in the definition of a transfer homomorphism θ : M → F is crucial
to transfer the factorization behavior of F to M. However, the reader might wonder
how much the set Hom(M, F ) will increase if we drop condition (T2). Surprisingly, the
set of homomorphisms will remain the same as long as we impose F to be reduced.
Theorem 4.2. Let M be a nontrivial Puiseux monoid, and let F be a finitely generated
(additive) monoid. If θ : M → F is a homomorphism satisfying θ−1 (0) = {0}, then M
is isomorphic to a numerical monoid.
Proof. It is easy to see that θred : Mred = M → Fred is also a transfer homomorphism.
So we can assume, without loss of generality, that F is reduced. Suppose that F is a
submonoid of T × Nβ0 , where T is a finite abelian group and β ∈ N0 . First, assume,
by way of contradiction, that β = 0. In this case, it is not hard to verify that θ(M)
must be a subgroup of T . If α = |θ(M)| and r ∈ M • , then θ(αr) = αθ(r) = 0. This
contradicts that θ−1 (0) = {0}. Thus, β ≥ 1.
Define π : T × Nβ0 → Nβ0 by π(t, v) = v for all t ∈ T and v ∈ Nβ . Let us verify that
π(θ(M)) is a finitely generated monoid. To do so, take x = (x1 , . . . , xβ ) ∈ π(θ(M))• ,
and let d = gcd(x1 , . . . , xβ ). We will argue that π(θ(M)) ⊆ hx/di. Consider the
element y = (y1 , . . . , yβ ) ∈ π(θ(M))• , and choose r, s ∈ M • such that π(θ(r)) = x and
π(θ(s)) = y. Then take m, n ∈ N satisfying that gcd(m, n) = 1 and mr = ns. Because
mx = π(θ(mr)) = π(θ(ns)) = ny,

8

F. GOTTI

one finds that mxi = nyi for i = 1, . . . , β. As gcd(m, n) = 1, it follows that n divides
each xi , i.e., d/n ∈ N. As a result,


 
m
md x
x
y= x=
.
∈
n
n d
d
Hence π(θ(M)) ⊆ hx/di. Because hx/di is isomorphic to N0 , it follows that π(θ(M))
is finitely generated.
We show now that M is also finitely generated, which amounts to proving that
π ◦ θ : M → Nβ0 is injective. First, let us verify that π is injective when restricted to
θ(M). As θ(M) is a submonoid of the reduced monoid F , it is also reduced. Suppose
that (t1 , v), (t2 , v) ∈ θ(M), and let us check that t1 = t2 . If v = 0, then t1 = t2 = 0
because θ(M)× is trivial. Otherwise, there exist r, s ∈ M • such that θ(r) = (t1 , v) and
θ(s) = (t2 , v). Take m, n ∈ N such that mr = ns. Since
m(t1 , v) = mθ(r) = nθ(s) = n(t2 , v)
and v 6= 0, one finds that m = n and, therefore, r = s. This, in turn, implies that
t1 = t2 . Hence the restriction of π to θ(M) is injective.
Finally, we show that θ is also injective. Let r, s ∈ M such that θ(r) = θ(s) =
6 0.
Taking m, n ∈ N satisfying mr = ns, we have
mθ(r) = θ(mr) = θ(ns) = nθ(s).
Since θ(M) is reduced, the element θ(r) must be torsion-free in T × Nβ0 . Thus, m = n,
which implies that r = s. As θ−1 (0) = {0}, it follows that |θ−1 (a)| = 1 for all
a ∈ θ(M). Therefore θ is injective, leading us to the injectivity of π ◦ θ. Now that fact
that π(θ(M)) is finitely generated implies that M is also finitely generated. Hence M
must be isomorphic to a numerical monoid.

Imposing the homomorphism θ : M → F in Theorem 4.2 to satisfy θ−1 (0) = {0} is
not superfluous even if M is atomic. Then next example sheds some light upon this
observation.
Example 4.3. Let p1 , p2 , . . . , be an enumeration of the odd prime numbers, and let
M = h1/pn | n ∈ Ni. It is not hard to verify that A(M) = {1/pn | n ∈ N}. This
implies that M is atomic. Now define θ : M → Z2 by setting θ(0) = 0, θ(r) = 0 if n(r)
is even, and θ(r) = 1 if n(r) is odd. It follows immediately that θ is a surjective monoid
homomorphism. However, M is not isomorphic to any numerical monoid because it
contains infinitely many atoms.
Theorem 4.2 also allows us to classify the Puiseux moniods that happen to be transfer
finite.
Corollary 4.4. A nontrivial Puiseux monoid is transfer finite if and only if it is
isomorphic to a numerical monoid.

PUISEUX MONOIDS AND TRANSFER HOMOMORPHISMS

9

Proof. For the direct implication, let P be a transfer finite Puiseux monoid, and let
θ : P → F be a transfer homomorphism, where F is a reduced finitely generated
monoid. As both M and F are reduced, condition (T1’) yields θ−1 (0) = {0}. Now
Theorem 4.2 ensures that P is isomorphic to a numerical monoid. For the reverse
implication, just take θ to be the identity map.

5. Puiseux Monoids Are Almost Never Transfer Krull
We dedicate this section to show that the atomic structure of Puiseux monoids almost
never can be obtained by transferring back that one of Krull monoids; specifically we
shall prove that the existence of a transfer homomorphism from a nontrivial Puiseux
monoid to a Krull monoid forces the domain to be isomorphic to (N0 , +). The we use
this information to show that only finitely generated Puiseux monoids admit transfer
homomorphisms to C-monoids. Let us start by giving the definition of a Krull monoid.
Definition 5.1. A monoid K is called a Krull monoid if there is a monoid homomorphism ϕ : K → D, where D is a free abelian monoid and ϕ satisfies the following two
conditions:
(1) if a, b ∈ K and ϕ(a) |D ϕ(b), then a |K b;
(2) for every d ∈ D there exist a1 , . . . , an ∈ K with d = gcd{ϕ(a1 ), . . . , ϕ(an )}.
With notation as in Definition 5.1, it is easy to see that K is a Krull monoid if and
only if Kred is a Krull monoid. The basis elements of D are called the prime divisors
of K. The abelian group Cl(K) := D/ϕ(K) is called the class group of K (see [13,
Section 2.3]). As Krull monoids are isomorphic to submonoids of free abelian monoids,
Krull monoids are atomic.
The factorization theory of Krull monoids has been significantly studied (see [5, 16]
and references therein). The class of Krull monoids contains many well-studied types
of monoids, including the multiplicative monoid of the ring of integers of an algebraic
number, the Hilbert monoids, and the regular congruence monoids. These and further
examples of Krull monoids are presented in [12, Section 5] and [13, Section 2.3].
From the point of view of factorization theory, perhaps the most important family of
Krull monoids is that one consisting of block monoids, which we are about to introduce.
This is because block monoids capture the essence of the arithmetic of lengths of
factorizations in Krull monoids. Let G be an abelian group and F (G) the free abelian
monoid on G. An element X = g1 . . . gl ∈ F (G) is called a sequence over G. The
length of X is defined as
X
|X| = l =
vg (X).
g∈G

Q

For every I ⊆ [1, l], the sequence Y = i∈I gi is called a subsequence of X. The
subsequences are precisely the divisors of X in the free abelian monoid F (G). The

10

F. GOTTI

submonoid
B(G) :=



X ∈ F (G)

X

vg (X)g = 0

g∈G



of F (G) is called the block monoid on G, and its elements are referred to as zerosum sequences or blocks over G ([13, Section 2.5] is a good general reference on block
monoids). Furthermore, if G0 is a subset of G, then the submonoid
B(G0 ) := {X ∈ B(G) | vg (X) = 0 if g ∈
/ G0 }
of B(G) is called the restriction of the block monoid B(G) to G0 . For X ∈ B(G0 ), the
support of X in G0 is defined to be
suppG0 (X) := {g ∈ G0 | vg (X) > 0}.
As mentioned before, the relevance of block monoids in the theory of non-unique factorizations lies in the next result.
Proposition 5.2. [13, Theorem 3.4.10.3] Let K be a Krull monoid with class group G
and let G0 be the set of classes of G which contain prime divisors. Then
L(K) = L(B(G0 )).
As a consequence, understanding the arithmetic of lengths of factorizations in Krull
monoids amounts to understanding the same in block monoids.
Definition 5.3. A Puiseux monoid M is transfer Krull if there exist an abelian group
G, a subset G0 of G, and a transfer homomorphism θ : M → B(G0 ).
Remark: Our definition of a transfer Krull monoid coincides with the definition given
in [11, Section 4]; this is because in the present setting the concepts of a transfer
homomorphism and the concept of a weak transfer homomorphism coincide by [3,
Lemma 2.3.(3)].
We denote the field of fractions of an integral domain R by q(R). For subsets
X, Y of q(R) we set (X : Y ) := {x ∈ q(R) | xY ⊆ X}. In addition, R is called
a Krull domain if R• is a Krull monoid. In this case, the divisor class group of R,
denoted by C(R), measures the extent to which factorizations in R fail to be unique
(see [13, Section 2.10]). Unlike Krull domains/monoids, which have been central objects
in commutative algebra since mid-nineteenth century, transfer Krull monoids (which
generalize the concept of Krull monoids) were introduced more recently. Let us proceed
to present a few examples of transfer Krull monoids.
Examples of transfer Krull monoids:
(1) Let H be a half-factorial monoid, and let θ : H → B({0}) be the map defined
by θ(h) = 0 if h ∈ A(H) and θ(h) = 1 if h ∈ H × . As the map θ is a transfer
homomorphism, it follows that H is a transfer Krull monoid.

PUISEUX MONOIDS AND TRANSFER HOMOMORPHISMS

11

(2) Let R be a Krull domain, and let K be a subring of R with the same field of
fractions. Suppose, in addition, that the following three conditions hold:
(a) R = KR× ;
(b) K ∩ R× = K × ;
(c) (K : R) is a maximal ideal of K (see [13, Proposition 3.7.5]).
Then the inclusion map K • ֒→ R• is a transfer homomorphism and, therefore,
K • is a transfer Krull monoid.
(3) Transfer Krull monoids can also be defined in a non-commutative context (see,
for instance, [3]). Let R be a bounded HNP (hereditary Noetherian prime) ring.
If every stably free left R-ideal is free, then R• is a transfer Krull monoid (see
[24, Theorem 4.4] for details).
The following proposition, which is an immediate consequence of [17, Theorem 5.5],
will be used in the proof of Theorem 5.6.
Proposition 5.4. Every nontrivial numerical monoid fails to be transfer Krull.
We will also need the next lemma.
Lemma 5.5. If {an } is an infinite sequence of positive integers, then there exists m ∈ N
such that am+1 ∈ ha1 , . . . , am i.
Proof. If {an } is bounded there is a term that repeats infinitely many times, making
the conclusion of the lemma obvious. Thus, suppose that {an } is not bounded. Let
{anj } be a subsequence of {an } satisfying that
(5.1)

anj+1 >

j
Y

ani

i=1

for every j ∈ N. Now, for each natural number j, set dj = gcd(an1 , . . . , anj ), and notice
that dj+1 | dj for every j ∈ N. Therefore dk+1 = dk must hold for some k. In particular,
dk | ank+1 . On the other hand, condition (5.1) ensures that ank+1 /dk is greater than
the Frobenius number of the numerical monoid han1 /dk , . . . , ank /dk i. This implies that
ank+1 ∈ han1 , . . . , ank i. The lemma follows by taking m = nk+1 − 1.

Now we are in a position to prove that atomic Puiseux monoids are almost never
transfer Krull.
Theorem 5.6. If a nontrivial Puiseux monoid is transfer Krull, then it must be isomorphic to (N0 , +).
Proof. Let M be a nontrivial Puiseux monoid that happens to be transfer Krull. As
Krull monoids are atomic, M is atomic by Proposition 3.4. Let G be an abelian
group, and let θ : M → B(G0 ) be a transfer homomorphism, where G0 is a subset
of G. Because both M and B(G0 ) are reduced, θ−1 (∅) = {0}. Assume, by way of

12

F. GOTTI

contradiction, that M is not isomorphic to a numerical monoid. Take X ∈ B(G0 )• and
r, s ∈ M • such that θ(r) = θ(s) = X. Taking m, n ∈ N such that mr = ns, one obtains
Y
Y
g nvg (X) .
g mvg (X) = θ(r)m = θ(s)n =
(5.2)
g∈G0

g∈G0

Since |X| ≥ 1 and mvg (X) = nvg (X) for every g ∈ G0 , it follows that m = n, which
yields r = s. Hence the preimage under θ of each element of B(G0 )• is a singleton.
This, along with the fact that θ−1 (∅) = {0}, implies that θ is injective. In addition,
the same equality (5.2) implies that
suppG0 (θ(a)) = suppG0 (θ(a′ ))
for all a, a′ ∈ A(M). Hence any two elements of θ(M • ) have the same support, and we
can assume, without loss of generality, that G0 is finite. Let G0 =: {g1 , . . . , gt } be the
common support. List the set A(M) as a sequence {an }, and let An = θ(an ) for each
n ∈ N. Because θ is injective, Ai 6= Aj when i 6= j. Now, for any pair (i, j) ∈ N2 , there
exist ci , cj ∈ N such that ci ai = cj aj . For each n ∈ {1, . . . , t}, we can apply vgn ◦ θ to
the equality ci ai = cj aj to get ci vgn (Ai ) = cj vgn (Aj ). After rewriting this equality, one
obtains that
vgn (Ai )
vg (Ai )
cj
(5.3)
= 1
=
vgn (Aj )
ci
vg1 (Aj )
for each n ∈ {1, . . . , t}. On the other hand, notice that Lemma 5.5 guarantees the
existence of m ∈ N and α1 , . . . , αm ∈ N0 such that
(5.4)

vg1 (Am+1 ) =

m
X

αi vg1 (Ai ).

i=1

By (5.3), it follows that the equality (5.4) holds when we replace g1 by any other
element of G0 (exactly with the same αi ’s). As a result, we obtain
αi Y
|G0 | m
|G0 |
|G0 |
m Y
m
Y Y αi vg (Ai ) Y
Y
vgj (Am+1 )
vgj (Ai )
j
gj
gj
=
=
Am+1 =
gj
Aαi i .
=
j=1

j=1 i=1

i=1

j=1

i=1

This contradicts the fact that Am+1 is an atom of the block monoid B(G0 ). Therefore
M must be isomorphic to a numerical monoid. Now the direct implication of the
proof follows by Proposition 5.4. For the reverse implication, it suffices to notice that
θ : 1 7→ [1G ] is an isomorphism from (N0 , +) to the block monoid B(G), where G is the
trivial group.

Corollary 5.7. A Puiseux monoid is a Krull monoid if and only if it can be generated
by one element.

PUISEUX MONOIDS AND TRANSFER HOMOMORPHISMS

13

Perhaps the second most-systematically studied family of atomic monoids is that one
comprising the C-monoids. We would like to know under which conditions a Puiseux
monoid happens to be a C-monoid.
Any monoid M can be embedded into a quotient group g(M), which is unique up to
canonical isomorphism. Let D be a multiplicative monoid with quotient group g(D),
and let M be a submonoid of D. Two elements x, y ∈ D are said to be M-equivalent
provided that x−1 M ∩D = y −1M ∩D. It can be easily checked that being M-equivalent
defines a congruence relation on D. For each x ∈ D, let [x]D
M denote the congruence
class of x. The set

×
C ∗ (M, D) := [x]D
M | x ∈ (D \ D ) ∪ {1}
is a commutative semigroup with identity, which is called the reduced class semigroup
of M in D.

Definition 5.8. A monoid M is called a C-monoid if it is a submonoid of a factorial
monoid F such that F × ∩ M = M × and C ∗ (M, F ) is finite.
With notation as in Definition 5.8, we say that M is a C-monoid defined in F .
A C-monoid can be defined in more than one factorial monoid F ; however, there is
a canonical way of choosing F (see [12, Theorem 5.6.A.3]). Because C-monoids are
submonoids of factorial monoids, they are atomic. The family of C-monoids allows us
to study the arithmetic of non-integrally closed Noetherian domains.
Given a multiplicative monoid M with quotient group g(M), we say that x ∈ g(M)
is almost integral over M if there exists c ∈ M such that cxn ∈ M for every n ∈ N.
c
The subset of g(M) consisting of all almost integral elements over M is denoted by M
and called the complete integral closure of M.
Let R be an integral domain with field of fractions q(R). An ideal I of R is divisorial
if (R : (R : I)) = I. The domain R is called a Mori domain if it satisfies the ascending
b=R
c• ∪ {0},
chain condition on divisorial ideals. Finally, for the domain R we set R
where R• is the multiplicative monoid of R.
b is a Krull domain. Moreover, if
Example 5.9. If A is a Mori domain, then R = A
f = (A : R) is nonzero and both the quotient ring R/f and the class group C(R) are
finite, then A• is a C-monoid (see [13, Theorem 2.11.9]). More examples of C-monoids
can be found in [14] and [23].
The next theorem is used in the proof of Proposition 5.11.
Theorem 5.10. [13, Theorem 2.9.11(2)] The complete integral closure of a C-monoid
is a Krull monoid.
Proposition 5.11. A nontrivial Puiseux monoid is a C-monoid if and only if it is
isomorphic to a numerical monoid.

14

F. GOTTI

c be the
Proof. Let M be a nontrivial Puiseux monoid that is also a C-monoid. Let M
complete integral closure of M. Observe first that if x ∈ g(M) ∩ Q<0 , then
Sx,r := {r + nx | n ∈ N}

contains only finitely many positive rational numbers for all r ∈ M. As a result,
|Sx,r ∩ M| < ∞ for all r ∈ M, which implies that no negative element of g(M) is
c is a monoid and it is contained in Q≥0 , it must be
almost integral over M. Because M
c is a Krull monoid; in particular,
a Puiseux monoid. By Theorem 5.10, the monoid M
c is isomorphic to (N0 , +). Finally,
it is transfer Krull. Now Theorem 5.6 ensures that M
c forces M to be isomorphic to a numerical monoid.
the fact that M is a submonoid of M
For the reverse implication, it suffices to note that for every nontrivial numerical
monoid N, any two natural numbers greater than the Frobenius number of N are Nequivalent, which implies that C ∗ (N, N0 ) is finite. As N0 is also a C-monoid, the proof
follows.


6. Acknowledgements
I want to thank Alfred Geroldinger not only for proposing the main questions motivating this paper but also for many helpful suggestions.
References
[1] J. Amos, S. T. Chapman, N. Hine, and J. Paixao: Sets of lengths do not characterize numerical
monoids, Integers 7 (2007) A50.
[2] D. F. Anderson: Elasticity of factorizations in integral domains: a survey, Factorization in Integral Domains, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math. Vol. 189, Marcel Dekker (1997) 1–29.
[3] N. Baeth and D. Smertnig: Factorization theory: From commutative to noncommutative settings,
J. Algebra 441 (2015) 475–551.
[4] S. T. Chapman, P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, D. Llena, and J. Marshall: Elements in a numerical
semigroup with factorizations with the same length, Canadian Math. Bull. 54 (2011) 39–43.
[5] S. T. Chapman, F. Gotti, and R. Pelayo: On delta sets and their realizable subsets in Krull
monoids with cyclic class groups, Colloq. Math. 137 (2014) 137–146.
[6] Y. Fan and S. Tringali: Power monoids: A bridge between factorization theory and arithmetic
combinatorics. [arXiv:1701.09152v4]
[7] S. Frisch: A construction of integer-valued polynomials with prescribed sets of lengths of factorizations, Monatsh. Math. 171 (2013) 341–350.
[8] P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez and J. C. Rosales: Finitely Generated Commutative Monoids, Nova Science
Publishers, New York, 1999.
[9] P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez and J. C. Rosales: Numerical Semigroups, Developments in Mathematics
Vol. 20, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2009.
[10] A. Geroldinger: Additive group theory and non-unique factorizations, Combinatorial Number
Theory and Additive Group Theory (A. Geroldinger and I. Ruzsa, eds.), Advanced Courses in
Mathematics CRM Barcelona, Birkhäuser (2009) 1–86.

PUISEUX MONOIDS AND TRANSFER HOMOMORPHISMS

15

[11] A. Geroldinger: Sets of lengths, Amer. Math. Monthly 123 (2016) 960–988.
[12] A. Geroldinger and F. Halter-Koch: Non-unique factorizations: a survey in: Multiplicative Ideal
Theory in Commutative Algebra, Springer, New York (2006) 207–226.
[13] A. Geroldinger and F. Halter-Koch: Non-unique Factorizations: Algebraic, Combinatorial and
Analytic Theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics Vol. 278, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton,
2006.
[14] A. Geroldinger, S. Ramacher, and A. Reinhart: On v-Marot Mori rings and C-rings, J. Korean
Math. Soc. 52 (2015) 1–21.
[15] A. Geroldinger and E. D. Schwab: Sets of lengths in atomic unit-cancellative finitely presented
monoids. [arXiv:1706.03180v1]
[16] A. Geroldinger and W. Schmid: The system of sets of lengths in Krull monoids under set addition,
Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 32 (2016) 571–588.
[17] A. Geroldinger, W. Schmid, and Q. Zhong: Systems of sets of lengths: transfer Krull monoids
versus weakly Krull monoids. [arXiv:1606.05063v2]
[18] F. Gotti: Increasing positive monoids of ordered fields are FF-monoids. [arXiv:1610.08781]
[19] F. Gotti: On the atomic structure of Puiseux monoids, J. Algebra Appl. 16 (2017) 20pp.
[20] F. Gotti and M. Gotti: Atomicity and boundedness of monotone Puiseux monoids, to appear in
Semigroup Forum. [arXiv:1608.04044]
[21] F. Gotti and C. O’Neil: The elasticity of Puiseux monoids. [arXiv:1703.04207]
[22] P. A. Grillet: Commutative Semigroups, Advances in Mathematics Vol. 2, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, 2001.
[23] A. Reinhart: On integral domains that are C-monoids, Houston J. Math. 39 (2013) 1095–1116.
[24] D. Smertnig, Factorizations in bounded hereditary noetherian prime rings. [arXiv:1605.09274]
[25] D. Smertnig: Sets of lengths in maximal orders in central simple algebras, J. Algebra 390 (2013)
1–43.
Department of Mathematics, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720
E-mail address: felixgotti@berkeley.edu

