When Is A Öxed Ring Comparable To All

Accepted manuscript to appear in JAA
Accepted Manuscript
Journal of Algebra and its Applications
by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND on 11/02/20. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
Article Title: When is a fixed ring comparable to all overrings?
Author(s): Ahmed Ayache
DOI: 10.1142/S0219498822500505
Received: 11 March 2020
Accepted: 25 October 2020

J. Algebra Appl. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
To be cited as: Ahmed Ayache, When is a fixed ring comparable to all overrings?, Journal
of Algebra and its Applications, doi: 10.1142/S0219498822500505
Link to final version: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219498822500505
This is an unedited version of the accepted manuscript scheduled for publication. It has been uploaded
in advance for the benefit of our customers. The manuscript will be copyedited, typeset and proofread
before it is released in the final form. As a result, the published copy may differ from the unedited
version. Readers should obtain the final version from the above link when it is published. The authors
are responsible for the content of this Accepted Article.
T
Click here to access/download;Manuscript (PDF);Comparable
overring. Tex. file.pdf
IP
CR
When is a …xed ring comparable to all
overrings?
Ahmed Ayache
US
University of Bahrain, Faculty of Science, Department of Mathematics
P. O. Box: 32038, Sukhir, Kingdom of Bahrain
aaayache@uob.edu.bh or aaayache@yahoo.com
Abstract: An overring Ro of an integral domain R is said to be comparable

if Ro 6= R, Ro 6= qf (R), and each overring of R is comparable to Ro under
inclusion. We do provide necessary and su¢ cient conditions for which R has
AN
a comparable overring. Several consequences are derived, specially for minimal
overrings, or in the case where the integral closure R of R is a comparable

overring, or also when each chain of distinct overrings of R is …nite.
2010 Mathematics subject classi…cation: primary 13B02; secondary 13A18, 13A35,

13B25, 13B35, 13E05.
Keywords and phrases: comparable overring, minimal overring, valuation domain,
pseudovaluation domain, pullback ring.
DM
1 Introduction
All rings considered are assumed to be commutative (integral) domains with

identity. Throughout, R denotes a domain with quotient …eld qf (R) and integral
closure R. As usual, Spec(R) denotes the spectrum of R and dim R denotes the
(Krull) dimension of R. By an overring (resp., a proper overring) of R, we
mean a ring T such that R T qf (R) (resp., R T qf (R)). If S is an
overring of R, we denotes by (R : S) the conductor of R in S; that is the set of
all elements x of qf (R) such that xS R.
TE
Following Hedstrom and Houston [14], [15], R is called a pseudo-valuaion

domain if each prime ideal P of R is strongly prime; that is if xy 2 P , with
x 2 qf (R) and y 2 qf (R), then either x 2 P or y 2 P . It is well-known that, R
is a PVD if and only if there is a (uniquely determined) valuation overring V
of R such that Spec(R) = Spec(V ) as sets [15, Proposition 1.2]. In this case, V
is called the canonically associated valuation overring of R. Moreover, In light
of [8, Proposition 1.3], we can say that every overring of R is comparable to V
EP
under inclusion. This latter property encourages us to introduce the following

de…nition:
De…nition 1 Let R be an integral domain. An overring Ro of R is said to be

comparable if Ro 6= R, Ro 6= qf (R), and each overring of R is comparable to Ro
under inclusion.
C
1
AC
T
IP
CR
It is worth noticing that, if Ro is a comparable overring of R and there
is no intermediate domain between R and Ro , then Ro is unique, called the
minimal overring of R in the sense of [11]. For instance, if R is not a valuation
domain and has the QQR-property (i.e, each overring of R is the intersection
of localizations of R), then R is the unique minimal of R [11, Theorem 1.10].

Recently, this result has been motivated by the paper [17], where the authors
US
investigate, under some …niteness conditions, when is R a comparable overring
of R.
The primary purpose of this current paper is to explore di¤erent properties
of comparable overrings and determine under which conditions such overrings
exist. Section 2 is mostly devoted to the basic facts about a comparable over-
ring Ro of R. We realize, from Proposition 2 that, either Ro is a non-trivial
valuation overring of R or Ro is integral over R. Other obtained results such as
AN
Propositions 5, 6 & 7 treat more closely the relation between "R has a compa-
rable overring" and "R is a pseudo-valuation domain". In section 3, we provide

a general characterization of a comparable overring Ro of R when R Ro . We
…nd that (Ro ; Qo ) is a comparable overring of R if and only if Ro is a valuation
overring of R, Qo is a nonzero divided prime ideal of R and Rp is a valuation
domain for every prime ideal p Qo \ R [Theorem 13]. It results that, if Ro
exists and contains properly R, then Ro is not necessarily unique. For, if V is
a non-trivial valuation overring of R and shares its maximal ideal with R, then
each overring Ro such that V Ro qf (R) is a comparable overring of R
DM
[Corollary 14]. Section 4 is principally concerned by the case where Ro R. In

this circumstance, R is quasi-local [Proposition 3] and Ro has at most two max-
imal ideals [Proposition 19]. We distinguish three types of integral comparable
overrings of R. For the …rst type, (R; m) has a comparable overring Ro with
maximal ideal m if and only if R is a pseudo-valuation domain with associated
overring R and every intermediate …eld between R=m and R=m is comparable
to Ro =m [Theorem 20]. For the second type, (R; m) has a comparable Ro with
two maximal ideals if and only if R is a Prüfer domain, each overring of R con-
tained in R is comparable to Ro and each overring of R properly contained in
Ro is normally closed [Theorem 24]. Finally, the remaining and last type where
Ro is quasi-local with a maximal ideal Qo m raises several open questions.
TE
We have produced e¤ective answers when each chain of distinct overrings of R

is …nite [Theorem 26], or also when Qo is the radical of the conductor of R in Ro
[Proposition 27]. Since comparable overrings generalize the concept of minimal
overrings, several consequences of our study constitute signi…cant improvements
of the results that …gured in the work of Gilmer, Heinzer and Huckaba [11], [12].
We will frequently use pullback constructions in this matter. Let I be a
nonzero ideal of an integral domain S, ' : S ! S=I the canonical epimorphism,
EP
and D a subring of S=I. Then R = ' 1 (D) is a subring of S called the pullback
ring R := (S; I; D). The rings R and S share the ideal I, and there is a bijective
correspondence (preserving inclusion) between the set of prime ideals of R which
do not contain I and the set of prime ideals of S which do not contain I [5, 9].
Finally, any unexplained terminology is standard as in [10].
C
2
AC
T
IP
CR
2 Preliminary results
In this section, we shall state some needed results.
Proposition 2 If Ro is a comparable overring of R, then either Ro is a non-

trivial valuation overring of R; or Ro is integral over R.
US
1
Proof. If 2 Ro or 2 Ro for every element of qf (R), then Ro is a
non-trivial valuation overring of R. Let us assume that there exists an element
of qf (R) such that 2 = Ro and 1 2 = Ro . Then Ro R[ ] and Ro R[ 1 ],
1
so Ro R[ ] \ R[ ]. But, according to [4, Exercise 5, p. 355], the overring
R[ ] \ R[ 1 ] is integral over R. Thus, Ro is integral over R.
Proposition 3 If Ro is a comparable overring of R and the extension R Ro
AN
satis…es the lying over property, then R is quasi-local.
Proof. Suppose, by way of contradiction that, R is not local, and let M and
N be two maximal ideals of R. Then there are two elements a 2 M and b 2 N
such that a + b = 1. By the lying over property, M and N can be lifted to
Ro . Therefore, a 1 2 = Ro and b 1 2 = Ro . It follows that Ro R[a 1 ] and
Ro R[b 1 ], so Ro R[a 1 ] \ R[b 1 ]. To get a contradiction, we will prove
that R[a 1 ] \ R[b 1 ] = R. Let z 2 R[a 1 ] \ R[b 1 ]. Then zan 2 R and zbm 2 R
for some positive integers n and m. Since aR and bR are comaximal ideals, then
DM
so are an R and bm R. Therefore, there are ; 2 R such that 1 = an + bm .

Thus, z = z( an + bm ) = (zan ) + (zbm ) 2 R.
Consequently, if R has a comparable overring Ro such that Ro R, then R

is quasi-local.
Lemma 4 Assume that Ro is a comparable overring of R: If T is an overring

of Ro and J is a proper ideal of T such that J 6= J \Ro , then Ro = R +(J \Ro ).
Proof. Let I = J \ Ro and let t be an element of JnI. Then Ro R[t]. If

x 2 Ro , then x = r0 + r1 t + + rn tn for some elements r0 , r1 , . . . , rn of R. We
have x r0 = r1 t + + rn tn 2 J \ Ro = I, so x 2 R + I. As x was arbitrary
TE
in Ro , then Ro R + I; that is Ro = R + I since the reverse containment is

obvious.
Recall that a prime ideal P of R is said to be divided in R in case P RP = P ;

equivalently, if each ideal of R is comparable to P under inclusion [7].
Proposition 5 Assume that Ro is a comparable overring of R.

EP
(i) If Spec(Ro ) Spec(R), then Ro is a pseudo-valuation domain.

(ii) If Spec(Ro ) = Spec(R), then R is a pseudo-valuation domain.
Proof. Let Q be a prime ideal of Ro . Then (Ro )Q is an overring of Ro such that

Q(Ro )Q \ Ro = Q. If Q(Ro )Q 6= Q, then by virtue of Lemma 4, we have Ro =
R+Q. As Q is also a prime ideal of R, then Ro = R, a contradiction. Therefore,
C
3
AC
T
IP
CR
Q(Ro )Q = Q for every prime ideal Q of Ro , and Ro is a divided domain. If m
is its maximal ideal, there is a valuation overring (V; M ) such that M \ Ro = m
[10, Theorem 19.6]. Once again, by Lemma 4, we get M = m. According to
[1, Proposition 2.3], Ro is a pseudo-valuation domain with associated valuation
overring V . If, in addition, Spec(Ro ) = Spec(R), then Spec(R) = Spec(V ) and

R is a pseudo-valuation domain with associated valuation overring V .
US
For convenience, if (R; m) is a quasi-local ring, we shall denote by
[
m = fp 2 Spec(R) : p mg
and \
R = fRp : p 2 Spec(R)nfmgg:
AN
Proposition 6 If (R; m) has a comparable overring Ro such that Ro R, then

the following assertions hold:
(i) Ro R .
(ii) If Ro is the intersection of some localizations of R, then Ro = R and
m=m .
(iii) If R and R share m and Ro is the intersection of some localizations of
R, then Ro = R.
DM
Proof. (i) Let p be a non-maximal prime ideal of R. Then Rp is comparable to

Ro under inclusion. But the inclusion Rp Ro is impossible since Rp is never
integral over R [16, Exercise 10, p 24]. It follows that Ro Rp . Thus, Ro R .
(ii) Suppose that Ro is the intersection of some localizations of R. Then
R Ro ; that is Ro = R . It remains to show that m = m . If m m, we
can always pick an element x 2 m, x 2 = m . Therefore, x 2= p for every prime
ideal p m and 1=x 2 R = Ro . However, since m can be lifted to a maximal
ideal Qo of Ro , then 1=x 2
= Ro , a contradiction.
(iii) From (ii), we have Ro = R . If m is shared by R and R, then Ro
R (R : m) = fx 2 qf (R) : xm 2 Rg. On the other hand, let x 2 (R : m).
For every prime ideal p of R such that p m, take 2 mnp, we …nd that
TE
x = r 2 R, so x = r= Rp . As p was arbitrary in Spec(R)nfmg, then

x 2 R . Thus, (R : m) R = Ro . Finally, by comparison with the previous
inclusions, we get Ro = R.
Proposition 7 If (R; m) is a divided domain and has a comparable overring

Ro such that Ro R, then m is a prime ideal of R and Ro . If, in addition,
m = m , then R is a pseudo-valuation domain.
EP
Proof. Since R is divided, then Spec(R) is totally ordered under inclusion

and m is a prime ideal of R. Let p be a non-maximal prime ideal of R. By
virtue of Proposition 6(i), Ro is contained in Rp , so pRp \ Ro is a prime ideal
of Ro . As pRp = p, then p is a prime ideal of Ro . It follows that the subset
fp 2 Spec(R) : p mg is a totally ordered subset of Spec(Ro ). Thus, m is also
C
4
AC
T
IP
CR
a prime ideal of Ro . Suppose now that m = m . Then m is a maximal ideal
of Ro since Ro is integral over R. In fact, m is the unique maximal ideal of Ro
since any other maximal ideal must have m as a contraction on R. Therefore,
Spec(R) = Spec(Ro ). In view of Proposition 5, we conclude that R is pseudo-
valuation domain.
US
Corollary 8 Suppose that (R; m) is a divided domain and has a comparable
overring Ro such that Ro R. If Ro is the intersection of some localizations of
R, then R is a pseudo-valuation domain and Ro = R.
Proof. From Proposition 6(ii) and Proposition 7, we …nd that m = m and R

is a pseudo-valuation domain. If (V; m) is the associated valuation overring of
R, then R is contained in V , so R and R have the same ideal m. According to
Proposition 6(iii), we have Ro = R.
AN
3 The case where R Ro .

In this section, we will provide a characterization of comparable overrings Ro
of an integral domain R such that R Ro . We start by the case where R is
integrally closed.
Proposition 9 Let R be an integrally closed domain Then Ro is a comparable

DM
overring of R if and only if Ro is a proper valuation overring of R and its

maximal ideal Qo is a nonzero divided prime ideal of R.
Proof. Suppose that Ro is a comparable overring of R. Then Ro is a proper val-

uation overring of R [Proposition 2], say with maximal ideal Qo . Let
\ f(V ; Q ) :
2 Ig be the set of valuation overrings of R. Then R = V . Since
2I
R Ro and each valuation overring of R is comparable to Ro\
, there is a
valuation overring V such that R V Ro . Thus R = V . As
Qo Q
\
R \ Qo = V \ Qo = Qo , then Qo is a prime ideal of R. Furthermore, we
TE
Qo Q
have Qo RQo Qo (Ro )Qo = Qo ; that is Qo RQo = Qo . Conversely, assume that
Ro is a proper valuation domain with maximal ideal Qo , a divided prime ideal
of R. Let T be an overring of R such
\ that Ro " T . We shall prove that T Ro .
To this end, notice that T = TP , so Ro " TP for some prime ideal P
P 2Spec(T )
of T . Set p := P \ R, then p is comparable to Qo because Qo is a divided prime
EP
ideal of R. Two cases may happen:

Case 1: p Qo . Then RQo Rp TP . As RQo is a quasi-local domain with
maximal ideal Qo and Ro is a valuation overring of RQo with the same maximal
ideal, then RQo is a pseudo-valuation domain with associated valuation overring
Ro [1, Proposition 2.3]. Moreover, RQo 6= Ro since RQo TP while Ro " TP ,
so RQo is not a valuation domain. In light of [8, Proposition 1.3 (a)], every
C
5
AC
T
IP
CR
overring of RQo is comparable to Ro . In particular, as Ro * TP and TP is an
overring of RQo , then TP Ro Thus, T Ro .
Case 2: Qo p. Then there is a valuation overring (V; Q) of T such that
Q \ T = P [10, Theorem 19.6]. Form the inclusions Qo p P Q, we get
T V Ro .
US
Corollary 10 In each of the following case, an integral domain R has no com-
parable overring Ro such that R Ro :
(i) R is completely integrally closed.
(ii) R is Noetherian.
(iii) R is 1-dimensionnal and R is not quasi-local.
Proof. (i) In this case, we have R = R. Suppose that R has a comparable

overring (Ro ; Qo ). Take a nonzero element a of Ro nR, we …nd that xan 2 Qo
AN
R for every positive integer n and x 2 R. Thus, a is almost integral over R, and
R is not completely integrally closed.

(ii) Since R is Noetherian, then R is a Krull domain [18, Theorem 33.10],
and R is completely integrally closed. Hence R has no comparable overring. It
follows that R has no comparable overring Ro properly containing R.
(iii) We shall prove that, if R has a comparable overring, then dim R 2.
Note that Ro is a comparable overring of R, so its maximal ideal Qo is a nonzero
divided prime ideal of R. As Qo is comparable to every prime ideals of R and
DM
R is not quasi-local, then Qo can not be a maximal ideal of R. Therefore,
(0) Qo M for some maximal ideal M of R, and dim R = dim R 2.
Corollary 11 Let R be a Prüfer domain. The comparable overrings of R are

the localization RQo of R at nonzero divided prime ideals Qo of R.
Recall that a prime ideal Q of an integral domain R is said to be unibranched

if Q is the only Q-primary ideal of R [10]. It is shown in [10, Theorem 17.3],
that a prime ideal Q of a valuation domain is unibranched if and only if Q is the
union of all prime ideals properly contained in it. The following result contains
useful information about comparable overrings of R that properly contain R.
TE
Proposition 12 Let Ro be a comparable overring of R such that R Ro . If

Qo is the maximal ideal of Ro and po = Qo \ R, let = fp 2 Spec(R) : p po g
and o = fQ 2 Spec(Ro ) : Q Qo g. Then the following assertions hold:
(i) There is a bijective correspondence preserving the inclusion order be-
tween o and .
(ii) fRp : p\2 g is the set of all proper valuation overrings of Ro .
EP
(iii) Ro = Rp if and only if Qo is unibranched.

p2
Proof. Note …rst, in view of Proposition 9, that Ro is a proper valuation

overring of R and that Qo is a nonzero divided prime ideal of R.
C
6
AC
T
IP
CR
(i) Let ' : o ! be the function that assigns to Q its contraction P =
Q \ R on R.
- ' is well-de…ned: Let Q 2 o , then Q Qo , so P = Q \ R Q Qo . As
R R is an integral extension, then p = P \ R Qo \ R = po , and p 2 .
- ' is one-to-one: Let Q and Q0 be two elements of o such that Q \ R =

Q \R. As Ro is a valuation domain, then Q and Q0 are comparable. But Q and
0
US
Q0 are both contained in Qo , so Q and Q0 are also two comparable prime ideals
of R. Using the fact R R is an integral extension, we deduce that Q = Q0 .
- ' is onto: Let p be an element of . Since R R is an integral extension,
there is a prime ideal P of R such that P \ R = p. As Qo is a divided prime
ideal of R, then P is comparable to Qo . A fortiori, P Qo since p po . Now,
R and Ro share the same prime ideal Qo . Therefore, because of Qo " P , there
is a prime ideal Q of Ro such that Q \ R = P [5, Proposition 4]. We necessarily
AN
have Q Qo and Q \ R = p. Hence, Q 2 o and '(Q) = p.
Finally, the fact that ' preserves the inclusion order is straightforward.
(ii) Let p 2 . Then Rp and Ro are comparable. But, the inclusion Rp Ro
infers Qo \ Rp pRp , which by contraction to R leads to the contradiction
po p. Thus, Rp is a proper valuation overring of Ro . Consider now a proper
valuation overring (V; Q) of Ro . Then Q Qo and p = Q \ R po by (i).
Therefore, p 2 and Rp is a proper valuation overring of Ro . Since Rp and
V are both two valuation overrings of Ro with the same center p on R, then
V = Rp . \
DM
(iii) Set W := Rp . Then W is a valuation overring of Ro by the second

p2
[
point. Let M be the maximal ideal of W . We claim that M = pRp is the
p2
[
maximal ideal of W . Indeed, W Rp for all p 2 imply pRp M . For
p2
the reverse containment, let z 2 M , then z is a non-unit element
[ of W and
1 1
z 2
= W . There is p 2 such that z 2
= R p . Thus z 2 pR p pR p as desired.
p2
[
In light of (i) and (ii), we deduce that M = Q. Therefore, it is now clear
TE
Q2
[ o
that Ro = W if and only if Qo = Q; equivalently if and only if Qo is

Q2 o
unibranched.
We are now ready to provide a general characterization of a comparable

overring for an integral domain R that properly contains R.
EP
Theorem 13 An integral domain R has a comparable overring Ro such that

R Ro if and only if
(i) Ro is a proper valuation overring of R, and its maximal ideal Qo is a
nonzero divided prime ideal of R, and
(ii) Rp is a valuation domain for every prime ideal p po = Qo \ R.
C
7
AC
T
IP
CR
Proof. If R has a comparable overring Ro such that R Ro , then Ro is also a
comparable overring of R. From Proposition 9, we can say that Ro is a valuation
overring of R, and its maximal ideal Qo is a divided prime ideal of R. In view
of Proposition 12(ii), we conclude that Rp is a valuation domain for all prime
ideal p po .
Conversely, suppose that (i) and (ii) are satis…ed. Then (i) ensures that
US
Ro is a comparable overring of R [Proposition 9]. Let T be an overring of R.
Obviously, if R T , then T is comparable to Ro . Let us assume that R " T .
Then R T and T is comparable to Ro . Therefore, we have either T Ro , so
T T Ro ; or Ro T , so T is a valuation overring of R. We shall prove, in
this last case, that Ro T To this end, let Q be the maximal ideal of T . Then
Q Qo is a chain of prime ideals of R and T is a quasi-local ring with maximal
ideal Q \ T . Set p := Q \ R, then p po and Rp is a valuation overring of Ro
AN
[Proposition 12]. As Rp T T , then T = T and Ro T .
The following result improves [8, Proposition 1.3].

Corollary 14 Let R be an integral domain. If Ro 6= R is a non-trivial valuation
overring of R and shares its maximal ideal Qo with R, then each overring T 6=
qf (R) of Ro is a comparable overring to R.
Proof. First, we shall prove that Ro is a comparable overring of R. Two cases
have to be considered:
DM
Case 1: R Ro . Since Ro is a valuation domain, then Qo is a divided prime

ideal of Ro . Because of Qo RQo Qo (Ro )Qo = Qo , we can say that Qo is also
a divided prime ideal of R. Let p be a prime ideal of R such that p Qo .
As R and Ro share Qo , there is a prime ideal P of Ro lying over p such that
Rp = (Ro )P . Thus, Rp is a valuation domain. Consequently, Ro satis…es the
conditions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 13 , and Ro is a comparable overring of R.
Case 2: R = Ro . Then R is a quasi-local ring with maximal ideal Qo . As Ro
is a valuation overring of R with Qo as its maximal ideal, then R is a pseudo-
valuation domain with associated valuation overring Ro . Finally, according to
[8, Proposition 1.3], Ro is a comparable overring of R.
Now, if T 6= qf (R) is an overring of Ro , then T is a non-trivial valuation
TE
overring of R with maximal ideal Q Qo . Finally, because of Q is shared by R

and T , then case 1 ensures that T is a comparable overring of R.
Corollary 15 If R is a pseudo-valuation domain and V 6= R is its associated
valuation domain, then each overring T 6= qf (R) of V is a comparable overring
of R.
The following result is a companion of Corollary 11, but for an integral

EP
domain R that is not necessarily integrally closed.

Corollary 16 Suppose that R is a Prüfer domain. Then R has a comparable
overring Ro such that R Ro if and only if
(i) Ro = RQo for a nonzero divided prime ideal Qo of R, and.
(ii) Rp = Rp for every prime ideal p po = Qo \ R.
C
8
AC
T
IP
CR
Proof. Assume that Ro is a comparable overring of R such that R Ro . Then
Ro is a valuation overring of R and its maximal ideal Qo is a nonzero divided
prime ideal of R [Theorem 13]. As Ro has center Qo on R, then Ro = RQo . Set
po := Qo \R, then for every prime ideal p of R such that p po , the localization
Rp is a proper valuation overring of Ro [Theorem 13]. So pRp Qo and pRp

is a prime ideal of R. In fact, pRp is the center of Rp on R. Thus Rp = RpRp .
US
Therefore, Rp Rp (= RRnp ) RpRp = Rp and Rp = Rp . Conversely, if (i)
and (ii) hold, then all the conditions of Theorem 13 are satis…ed, and we can
say that Ro is a comparable overring of R.
Corollary 17 Let R be an integrally closed domain. Then Ro is the minimal

overring R if and only if R is a branched valuation domain with maximal m
and Ro is the localization of R at Qo = m .
AN
Proof. Suppose that Ro is the minimal overring of R. From the fact that an
integral domain is the intersection of the localizations taken with respect to its
set of maximal ideals, we deduce that R is quasi-local. Since R is integrally
closed, then R is the intersection of valuation overrings, so R is necessarily a
valuation domain, say with maximal ideal m. Finally, as there is no domain
properly between R and Ro , then Ro is a valuation domain with maximal ideal
Qo such that Qo m are consecutive. Thus Qo = m . The converse is clear.
DM
Remark 18 If Ro is a comparable overring of R such that R Ro , it is not
true in general that R is quasi-local or that Ro is unique. To see that, let (V; Q)
be a valuation domain of the form V = L + Q with Spec(V ) = f(0) Q1
Q2 Qn = Qg and residue …eld L. Let D be a subring of L with (s > 1)
maximal ideals fPi : 1 i sg and quotient …eld L. Then R = D + Q has s
maximal ideals, namely fPi + Q : 1 i sg. As Q is a divided prime ideal of
R, then Corollary 14 enables us to con…rm that VQi is a comparable overring of
R for each i 2 f1; 2; : : : ; ng.
4 The case where Ro R.

TE
Contrary to the case where R Ro , if Ro is a comparable overring of R such

that Ro R, then R is quasi-local [Proposition 3]. Moreover, Ro may have two
maximal ideals, as it is shown in the following result.
Proposition 19 If Ro is a comparable overring of (R; m) such that Ro R,

then Ro has at most two maximal ideals.
EP
Proof. Assume that Ro is not quasi-local, and let Po and Qo be two maximal
ideals of Ro . By the lying over property, there are two maximal ideals M and
N of R such that M \ Ro = Po and N \ Ro = Qo . Set S := Rn(M [ N ),
then RS is a quasi-semi-local ring with two maximal ideals MS and NS . Let
I := MS \ NS and let R1 := R + I be the pullback ring (RS ; I; R=m). Then R1
is a quasi-local overring of R with maximal ideal I. Moreover, R1 is comparable
C
9
AC
T
IP
CR
to Ro . If Ro R1 , then Po = MS \ Ro = MS \ R1 \ Ro = I \ Ro and
Qo = NS \ Ro = NS \ R1 \ Ro = I \ Ro , a contradiction. So R1 Ro RS .
Therefore, Ro has exactly two maximal ideals. Indeed, let Q be a maximal ideal
of Ro . If I " Q, then Q can be lifted to a maximal ideal of RS which does
not contains I. But this is impossible since MS and NS are the maximal ideals
of RS and both contain I. Therefore, I = MS \ NS Q, and this implies
US
Q = MS \ Ro = Po or Q = NS \ Ro = Po .
Consequently, there are three types of integral comparable overrings Ro of

a quasi-local (R; m) such that Ro R:
(Type 1) Ro is quasi-local with maximal ideal Qo = m.
(Type 2) Ro is quasi-semi-local with two maximal ideals Po and Qo .
(Type 3) Ro is quasi-local with maximal ideal Qo m.
AN
We start by characterizing the …rst type of comparable overrings.
Theorem 20 Let (R; m) be a quasi-local domain. Then Ro is a comparable

overring of R such that Ro R and Ro is quasi-local with maximal ideal m if
and only if
(i) R is a pseudo-valuation domain with associated valuation overring R,
and
(ii) Every intermediate …eld between R=m and R=m is comparable to Ro =m.
DM
Proof. Since R and Ro have the same maximal ideal, then Spec(Ro ) = Spec(R)
[1, Theorem 3.10], so R is a pseudo-valuation domain [Proposition 5]. Let M
be a maximal ideal of R. Then M \ Ro = m. If M 6= m, then Ro = R + m = R
[Lemma 4] , a contradiction. Thus M = m, and R is quasi-local with maximal
ideal m. We shall prove that R is a valuation domain. Assume that there
exists a valuation domain V of R and two prime ideals P Q of V with the
same contraction p on R. Then p is a prime ideal of R and Ro . If P 6= p or
Q 6= p, then Ro = R + p = R [Lemma 4], but this is absurd. Thus Q = P = p.
According to [10, Theorem 19.15], R is a valuation overring of R with maximal
ideal m, and it is precisely the associated valuation overring of R. Furthermore,
as every intermediate ring between R and R is comparable to Ro , it is obvious
TE
that every intermediate …eld between R=m and R=m is comparable to Ro =m.
Conversely, suppose that (i) and (ii) are satis…ed, and let T be an overring
of R. As R is a pseudo-valuation domain with associated valuation overring R,
then T is comparable to R [8, Proposition 1.3]. If R T , then Ro R T.
If T R, then T is quasi-local with maximal ideal m. Finally, because every
intermediate …eld between R=m and R=m is comparable to Ro =m, then T =m is
comparable to Ro =m. It follows that T is comparable to Ro .
EP
Corollary 21 Let (R; m) be a quasi-local domain. Then R is a comparable

overring of R with maximal ideal m if and only if R is a pseudo-valuation
domain with associated valuation overring R.
The following result improves [11, Proposition 2.6].

C
10
AC
T
IP
CR
Corollary 22 Let (R; m) be a quasi-local domain. Then Ro is the minimal
overring of R with maximal ideal m if and only if
(i) R is a pseudo-valuation domain with associated valuation overring R,
and
(ii) each sub…eld of R=m di¤ erent from R=m must contain Ro =m.
US
Now, we will study the second type, where Ro is semi-local with two maximal
ideals Po and Qo . We begin by collecting some important facts.
Proposition 23 Let (R; m) be a quasi-local domain, and suppose that Ro is a

comparable overring of R such that Ro R and Ro has two maximal ideals Po
and Qo . Set I := Po \ Qo and R1 := R + I, then
(i) R is a Prüfer domain with two maximal ideals M and N such that
M \ N = I.
AN
(ii) R1 is the pullback ring (R; I; R=m).

(iii) Ro is the minimal overring of R1 .
(iv) for each overring H of R contained in R, either H Ro and H is
quasi-local; or Ro H R and H is semi-local with two maximal ideals.
(v) If I 6= m, then R1 is also a comparable overring of R.
Proof. (i), (ii) and (iii): Po is not divided because it is not comparable under
inclusion to Qo . Then Po 6= Po RPo . As (Ro )P o is an overring of Ro and
DM
Po (Ro )Po \ Ro = Po Po (Ro )Po , then Ro = R + Po and Ro =Po = R=m [Lemma

4]. Likewise, we can show that Ro =Qo = R=m. Note that R1 is a quasi-local ring
with maximal ideal I. Since Ro =I = Ro =Po Ro =Qo = R=m R=m is a minimal
extension of R1 =I = R=m [19, Theorem 3.3], then there is no intermediate rings
between R1 and Ro . Moreover, as Ro is a comparable overring of R1 , then
Ro is the minimal overring of R1 By application of [11, Proposition 2.5], we
deduce that R is a Prüfer domain with two maximal ideals M and N such that
M \ N = I, and R1 is the pullback ring (R; I; R=m).
(iv) Let H be an overring of R such that H R. Then H is comparable to
Ro . If H Ro , then Ro is a comparable overring of H such that H Ro is an
integral extension, so H is quasi-local with maximal I \ H [Proposition 3]. If
TE
Ro H R, then H share I = M \ N with Ro and R, so H is semi-local with

maximal ideal M \ H and N \ H.
(v) If I 6= m, then R1 6= R. Let T be an overring of R. Then T is comparable
to Ro . If Ro T , then R1 T by (iii). Suppose that T Ro . Let be the set
of all overrings A of R such that T A Ro . Then 6= ? since T 2 , and
each element of is a quasi-local ring by (iv). Let f(H[ i ; mi ) : i 2 Ig be a totally
ordered subset (under inclusion) of , and set H = Hi . We have H Ro .
EP
i2I
We claim that H is a quasi-local ring. Deny, we necessarily have H = Ro . If
Po and Qo are the maximal ideals of Ro , there is x 2 Po and y 2 Qo such that
x+y = 1. There are j; k 2 I such that x 2 Hj and y 2 Hk . However, Hj and Hk
are comparable, say Hj Hk , then x; y 2 Hk . As Po \Hk = Qo \Hk = mk , then
x; y 2 mk , so 1 = x+y 2 mk , a contradiction. We can say that f(Hi ; mi ) : i 2 Ig
C
11
AC
T
IP
CR
has a greatest element. By Zorn’s Lemma, has a maximal element T 0 . If Q0
is the maximal ideal of T 0 , then Po \ T 0 = Qo \ T 0 = Q0 . Because there is no
domain properly between T 0 and Ro , then I = Po \ Qo = Po \ T 0 = Q0 [11,
Lemma 2.1], and I is the maximal ideal of T 0 . Thus, R1 = R + I T0 Ro ,
0
and a fortiori T = R1 . Hence, T R1 .
US
Normal pairs and residually algebraic pairs will arise naturally in the proof
of Theorem 24, and so we next recall some background on these concepts. Let
R S be an extension of integral domains.
- We say that (R; S) is a normal pair if every intermediate ring T between
R and S is integrally closed in S [6]. A ring R is said to be normally closed if
the sole overring T of R such that (R; T ) is a normal pair is R itself [3].
- We say that (R; S) is a residually algebraic pair if, every intermediate ring
T between R and S and for every prime ideal Q of T , the extension R=(Q\R)
AN
T =Q is algebraic [2].
It is well-known that, if R is integrally closed, then (R; S) is a normal pair
if and only if (R; S) is a residually algebraic pair [2, Theorem 2.10].
With these facts recorded, we are ready to provide a characterization of the
comparable overrings of the second type.
Theorem 24 Let (R; m) be a quasi-local domain. Then Ro is a comparable

overring of R such that Ro R and Ro has two maximal ideals if and only if
DM
(i) R is a Prüfer domain,
(ii) Each overring T of R such that T R is comparable to Ro , and
(iii) Each overring T of R such that T Ro is normally closed.
Proof. Assume that Ro is a comparable overring of R. Obviously, (ii) is

satis…ed and (i) results from Proposition 23. To show that (iii) holds, let T
be an overring of R such that T Ro , and consider an overring T 0 of T such
that (T; T ) is a normal pair. Then T 0 is comparable to Ro . If Ro
0
T 0 , then
T is integrally closed in Ro . But, T Ro is an integral extension, so T = Ro ,
a contradiction. Therefore, T 0 Ro and T T0 Ro . Thus, T T 0 is an
integral extension. Finally, because T is integrally closed in T 0 , we have T 0 = T .
Conversely, assume that (i); (ii); and (iii) are satis…ed and let H be an overring
TE
of R. Set T := H \ R, then T is comparable to Ro by (ii). If Ro T , then

Ro H. Let us suppose that T Ro . We claim that (T; H) is a normal pair.
Let z be an element of H that is integral over T . Since R T is an integral
extension, then z is integral over R, so z 2 R. Thus, z 2 H \ R = T , and T is
integrally closed in H. Because of R is a Prüfer domain by (i), then (R; qf (R))
is a residually algebraic pair [2, Corollary 2.8]. It easily follows that (T; H) is a
residually algebraic pair, so (T; H) is a normal pair [2, Theorem 2.10]. As T is
EP
by assumption normally closed by (iii), then T = H Ro .
The following result is a signi…cant improvement of [11, Proposition 2.5].
Theorem 25 Let (R; m) be a quasi-local domain. The following conditions are

equivalent:
C
12
AC
T
IP
CR
(i) R has a non quasi-local minimal overring Ro ,
(ii) R is a Prüfer domain with two maximal ideals M and N such that
M \ N = m, and there is no …eld properly between R=m and R=m,
(iii) R is a Prüfer domain with two maximal ideals M and N such that
M \ N = m, and there is no proper quasi-local overring of R properly contained

in R.
US
Proof. (i) ) (ii) If Ro is a minimal overring of R, then there is no domain
between R and Ro . As Ro is assumed to be non quasi-local, then R is a semi-
local Prüfer domain with two maximal ideals M and N [Proposition 23 and
Theorem 24]. Set I := M \ N and R1 := R + I, then R1 is quasi-local. As
R R1 Ro , then R1 = R, I = m and R is the pullback ring (R; I; R=m). Let
L be a …eld such that R=m L R=m. Then L = T =m for some intermediate
domain T between R and R. Note that T is quasi-local with maximal ideal
AN
m. Indeed, if P is a prime ideal of T di¤erent of m, then P can be lifted to a
prime ideal Q of R, and Q must be contained in M or in N , so P is certainly

contained in m. Finally, because T is comparable to Ro and T is quasi-local,
we necessarily have T Ro , that is T = R and L = R=m.
(ii) ) (iii) It su¢ ces to demonstrate that every domain T such that R
T R is not quasi-local. But this statement results directly from the fact that
R=m T =m R=m and T =m is not a …eld.
(iii) ) (i) Let R1 be the pullback ring (R; m; R=m). Because of R1 is quasi-
DM
local and R R1 R, then R1 = R. We shall use the same argument as in
the proof of [11, Theorem 2.4]. Set F := R=M , L = R=N , K := R=m, and let
' : R ! R=m be the canonical epimorphism. Then the inclusions
K K K R=m = F L;
permit us to consider the intermediate ring Ro := ' 1 (K K) between R and
R. Clearly, Ro is semi-local with two maximal ideals M \ Ro and N \ Ro . We
shall prove that Ro is a minimal overring of R. Let T be a proper overring of
R. Two cases have to be considered:
Case 1: T R. In this case T has exactly two maximal ideals M1 = M \ T
and N1 = N \ T such that R=m = K T =M1 and R=m = K T =N1 . From
TE
the inclusions
K K K T =m = T =M1 T =N1 ;
we deduce that Ro = ' 1 (K K) ' 1 (T =m) = T .
Case 2: T * R. Since R = RM \RN is a Prüfer domain, then RM and RN are
valuation rings. For t 2 T nR, we have t 2
= RM or t 2
= RN . Assume that t 2
= RM ,
then 1=t 2 M RM . There are 2 M and 2 RnM such that 1=t = = .
Take an element 2 N nM , then 1=t = ( )=( ), where 2 RnM and
EP
2 M \N = m R. Thus, t= 2 RnR (in fact, 2 R yields the

contradiction 2 N \R = m M ). Therefore, R R[ ] R, and so
Ro R[ ], by case 1. Hence, Ro R[ ] R[t] T .
Unfortunately, we could not …nd a characterization of comparable overrings

Ro of the third type. In fact, this problem has been unsolved since 1967 in
C
13
AC
T
IP
CR
the particular case where Ro is a minimal overing of R with maximal ideal
Qo m [11, p 141]. However, this type exists, for instance, let X be an
indeterminate over a …eld K. Then K[[X]] is a valuation domain with maximal
ideal Qo = XK[[X]]. Set R := K + X n K[[X]] for some integer n 2, then R is
quasi-local with maximal ideal m = X n K[[X]] and integral closure R = K[[X]]

such that m Qo . From [12, Proposition 8], we can say that R is a comparable
US
overring of R.
The following results shed some light on this last type.
Recall [13] that an integral domain R is a FC-domain if each chain of distinct

overrings of R is …nite. In [3, Theorem 27], [17, Corollary 2.14], the authors
investigate when is R a comparable overring of R. The following Theorem
generalizes these results to comparable overrings Ro R of any type.
AN
Theorem 26 Let (R; m) be a FC quasi-local domain. Then Ro is a comparable

overring of R such that Ro R if and only if
(i) Each overring T of R such that T R is comparable to Ro , and
(ii) Each overring T of R such that T Ro is quasi-local.
Proof. Notice …rst that R is a Prüfer domain [13, Theorem 2.14]. If Ro is a

comparable overring of R, then (i) is obviously satis…ed, and (ii) results directly
from Proposition 3. Conversely, assume that the conditions (i) and (ii) hold,
DM
and let us prove that Ro is a comparable overring of R. Let H be an overring

of R. Set T := H \ R, then T is comparable to Ro by (i). If Ro T , then
Ro H. Let us suppose that T Ro . Then (T; H) is a normal pair (exactly
as it is explained in the proof of Theorem 24). Since T is a quasi-local by (ii),
T Ro is integral and (T; H) is a normal pair, then T = H by virtue of [3,
Lemma 3] and H Ro .
The following result generalizes [12, Proposition 8], where Ro = R was sup-
posed to be a valuation overring over R and equal to Ro .
Proposition 27 Let (R; m) be a quasi-local domain, and let (Ro ; Qo ) be a

TE
quasi-local overring of R such that Ro R. If

(i) R is a Prüfer domain,
(ii) Each overring T of R such that T R is comparable to Ro , and
(iii) Qo is the radical of the conductor of R in Ro ,
then Ro is a comparable overring of R.
Proof. Let H be an overring of R. Set T := H \R, then T is comparable to Ro .

EP
If Ro T , then Ro H. Let us suppose that T Ro . We shall demonstrate,

via the proof of [12, Proposition 8] that H Ro . If H " Ro , there is h 2 HnRo .
We necessarily have h 2 = T . But, as it is previously mentioned in the proof of
Theorem 24, we can use the fact that R is a Prüfer domain to see that (T; H)
is a normal pair. Since T is quasi-local [Proposition 3], then h 1 2 T Ro
[2, Theorem 2.5]. Thus, h 1 2 Qo . On the other hand, Qo is, by assumption,
C
14
AC
T
IP
CR
the radical of the conductor of R in Ro , then (h 1 )n 2 (R : Ro ) for some
positive integer n. Consequently, for every x 2 Ro , we have (h 1 )n x 2 R; that
is x 2 Rhn R[h] H. Hence, Ro H. But this leads to the contradiction
Ro H \ R = T .
The following result improves [11, Theorem 2.4], where Ro = R was the
US
minimal overring of R.
Corollary 28 Let (R; m) be a quasi-local domain, and let (Ro ; Qo ) be a quasi-

local overring of R such that Ro R. If R is a Prüfer domain, then the following
conditions are equivalent
(i) Ro is the minimal overring of R.
(ii) Every overring T of R such that R T R contains Ro .
AN
Proof. We need to show that (ii) ) (i) Obviously, there is no domain properly
between R and Ro . So, by virtue of [11, Lemma 2.3], we have m = (R : Ro )

As Qo is the unique prime ideal of Ro containing m, then Qo is the radical of
m in Ro . By application of Proposition 27, we deduce that Ro is the minimal
overring of R.
Finally, we want to share the following open conjectures that can be derived
from our study:
DM
Problem 29 In Theorem 24 (iii), can we replace "normally closed" by "quasi-

local".
Problem 30 Assume that (R; m) has a comparable overring Ro of the third

type. Is R a Prüfer domain?
References
1. D. F. Anderson and D. E. Dobbs, Pairs of rings with the same prime ideals,
Canad. J. Math. 32 (1980) 362–384.
TE
2. A. Ayache and A. Jaballah, Residually algebraic pairs of rings, Math. Z. 225

(1997) 49–65.
3. A. Ayache, A constructive study about the set of intermediate rings, Comm.

Algebra, 41 (1913), 4637-4661.
4. N. Bourbaki, Commutative Algebra, Addison-Welsy, 1972.

EP
5. P. J. Cahen. Couple d’anneaux partageant un ideal, Arch. Math, 51 (1988)

505-514.
6. E. D. Davis, Overrings of commutative rings. III. Normal pairs, Trans. Amer.

Math. Soc. 182 (1973) 175–185.
C
15
AC
T
IP
CR
7. Dobbs, D.E.: Divided rings and going down domains. Pac. J. Math. 67, 353–363
(1976)
8. M. Fontana, Carrés cartésiens et anneaux de pseudo-valuation, Pub. Math.Univ.

Lyon, 17 (1980), 57-95.
9. M. Fontana, Topologically de…ned classes of commutative rings, Ann. Mat.
US
Pura. Appl, 123 (1980), 331-355.
10. R. Gilmer, Multiplicative ideal theory, Dekker, New York, 1972.

11. R. Gilmer and W. J. Heinzer, Intersections of quotient rings of an integral do-
main, J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 7 (1967) 133-150.
12. R. Gilmer and J. A. Huckaba, -rings, J. Algebra, 28 (1974) 414-432.
AN
13. R. Gilmer, Some …niteness conditions on the set of overrings of an integral

domains, Proc. Amer. soc, 131 (8) (2003) 2337-2346.
14. J. R. Hedstrom and E. G. Houston, Pseudo-valuation domains, Pac. J. Math.,

75 (1978), 137-147.
15. J. R. Hedstrom and E. G. Houston, Pseudo-valuation domains II, Houston. J.

Math., 4 (1978), 199-207.
DM
16. I. Kaplansky, Commutative Rings, rev. edn. (University of Chicago Press,

Chicago,1974).
17. M. Mabroukm and N. Zaidi, When is integral closure comparable to all inter-
mediate rings, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc, 95 (1917), 14-21.
18. M. Nagata, Local rings, Interscience, New York, 1962.

19. G. Picavet and M. Picavet-L’Hermitte. About minimal morphisms, In: Multi-
plicative Ideal Theory in Commutive Algebra:Springer-Verlag, (2006) 369-386.
TE
EP
C
16
AC

When Is A Öxed Ring Comparable To All

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

When Is A Öxed Ring Comparable To All

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted manuscript to appear in JAA

Article Title: When is a fixed ring comparable to all overrings?

Author(s): Ahmed Ayache

Received: 11 March 2020

Accepted: 25 October 2020

Link to final version: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219498822500505

Abstract: An overring Ro of an integral domain R is said to be comparable

overrings, or in the case where the integral closure R of R is a comparable

2010 Mathematics subject classi…cation: primary 13B02; secondary 13A18, 13A35,

All rings considered are assumed to be commutative (integral) domains with

Following Hedstrom and Houston [14], [15], R is called a pseudo-valuaion

under inclusion. This latter property encourages us to introduce the following

De…nition 1 Let R be an integral domain. An overring Ro of R is said to be

of localizations of R), then R is the unique minimal of R [11, Theorem 1.10].

rable overring" and "R is a pseudo-valuation domain". In section 3, we provide

[Corollary 14]. Section 4 is principally concerned by the case where Ro R. In

We have produced e¤ective answers when each chain of distinct overrings of R

Proposition 2 If Ro is a comparable overring of R, then either Ro is a non-

trivial valuation overring of R; or Ro is integral over R.

Proposition 3 If Ro is a comparable overring of R and the extension R Ro

so are an R and bm R. Therefore, there are ; 2 R such that 1 = an + bm .

Consequently, if R has a comparable overring Ro such that Ro R, then R

Lemma 4 Assume that Ro is a comparable overring of R: If T is an overring

Proof. Let I = J \ Ro and let t be an element of JnI. Then Ro R[t]. If

in Ro , then Ro R + I; that is Ro = R + I since the reverse containment is

Recall that a prime ideal P of R is said to be divided in R in case P RP = P ;

Proposition 5 Assume that Ro is a comparable overring of R.

(i) If Spec(Ro ) Spec(R), then Ro is a pseudo-valuation domain.

Proof. Let Q be a prime ideal of Ro . Then (Ro )Q is an overring of Ro such that

overring V . If, in addition, Spec(Ro ) = Spec(R), then Spec(R) = Spec(V ) and

Proposition 6 If (R; m) has a comparable overring Ro such that Ro R, then

Proof. (i) Let p be a non-maximal prime ideal of R. Then Rp is comparable to

x = r 2 R, so x = r= Rp . As p was arbitrary in Spec(R)nfmg, then

Proposition 7 If (R; m) is a divided domain and has a comparable overring

Proof. Since R is divided, then Spec(R) is totally ordered under inclusion

Proof. From Proposition 6(ii) and Proposition 7, we …nd that m = m and R

3 The case where R Ro .

Proposition 9 Let R be an integrally closed domain Then Ro is a comparable

overring of R if and only if Ro is a proper valuation overring of R and its

Proof. Suppose that Ro is a comparable overring of R. Then Ro is a proper val-

ideal of R. Two cases may happen:

Proof. (i) In this case, we have R = R. Suppose that R has a comparable

R is not completely integrally closed.

Corollary 11 Let R be a Prüfer domain. The comparable overrings of R are

Recall that a prime ideal Q of an integral domain R is said to be unibranched

Proposition 12 Let Ro be a comparable overring of R such that R Ro . If

(iii) Ro = Rp if and only if Qo is unibranched.

Proof. Note …rst, in view of Proposition 9, that Ro is a proper valuation

- ' is one-to-one: Let Q and Q0 be two elements of o such that Q \ R =

(iii) Set W := Rp . Then W is a valuation overring of Ro by the second

that Ro = W if and only if Qo = Q; equivalently if and only if Qo is

We are now ready to provide a general characterization of a comparable

Theorem 13 An integral domain R has a comparable overring Ro such that

The following result improves [8, Proposition 1.3].

Case 1: R Ro . Since Ro is a valuation domain, then Qo is a divided prime

overring of R with maximal ideal Q Qo . Finally, because of Q is shared by R

The following result is a companion of Corollary 11, but for an integral

domain R that is not necessarily integrally closed.

Rp is a proper valuation overring of Ro [Theorem 13]. So pRp Qo and pRp

Corollary 17 Let R be an integrally closed domain. Then Ro is the minimal

4 The case where Ro R.

Contrary to the case where R Ro , if Ro is a comparable overring of R such

Proposition 19 If Ro is a comparable overring of (R; m) such that Ro R,