JOURNAL OF ALGEBRA 95, 96-115 (1985)

The Rings R(X) and R(X)

D. D. ANDERSON

Department of Mathematics,
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242

DAVID F. ANDERSON

Department of Malhematics,
The University q/ Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996

AND

RAJ MARKANDA*
Department0 de Mathematics,
Universidad de Los Andes, Mbida, Venezuela

Communicated by J. Dieudonnk

Received January 15, 1984

The rings R(X) and R(X) are investigated. Of particular importance is the
question of when R(X) or R(X) is an arithmetical ring, a Priifer ring, a Hilbert
ring or a Euclidean ring. Answers are sought in terms of the base ring R. 0 1985
Academic Press. Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION

Throughout this paper R will be a commutative ring with identity and

T(R) will denote the total quotient ring of R. For f E R[X], we let Af be
the content Of f, that is, if f=a,+a,X+ ... +a,X”, then
A,= (a,,..., a,)-the ideal of R generated by the coefficients of f:
Throughout we will let U be the multiplicatively closed subset of manic
polynomials of R[X] and let S= { f~ R[X] 1A,= R}. Since S= R[X] -
(J { M[X] 1ME Max(R) 1, S is also a multiplicatively closed set. (Here
Max(R) is the set of maximal ideals of R.) We will be interested in the
following two quotient rings of R[X]: R(X) = R[X], and

* The third author is presently visiting the University of Iowa.

96
0021-8693/85 $3.00
Copyright 0 1985 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 THE RINGS R(X) AND R(X) 97

R(X)= R[X],. Observe that we always have R[X] E R(X) GR(X) E

T(NXl).
The notation R(X) and R(X) is not as standard as one would desire. As
mentioned in [27], the notation R(X) was introduced by Nagata [26].
However, authors writing about Serre’s Conjecture have consistently
denoted the ring R(X) by R(X). The notation R(X) seems to have been
introduced in [18]. To make matters worse, in [13] R(X) is used to
denote the ring R[X], where

T= {Y+a,X"+'+ ... +a,X"+,' IX"+a,X"+'+ ... +u,X"+"ER[X]~.

The ring R(X) has proved to be very useful in commutative algebra.
Since R(X) is a faithfully flat extension of R, R and R(X) share many of the
same properties. However, R(X) has three additional useful properties.
First, Pic(R(X)) = 0, second, R(X) has many units, and third, for each
maximal ideal A4 of R(X), R(X)/M is an infinite field. Results about R can
often be proved by passage to R(X). For example, the ring R(X) enters in
the standard proof [28] that a system of parameters in a local ring is
analytically independent. Ratliff [30] has studied the ring R(X) with
regard to certain chain conditions.
Recent attention given to the ring R(X) is partially due to its
appearance in the solution of Serre’s Conjecture. Horrocks [20] gave a
criterion for a vector bundle over the affine line ,4f, to be trivial, where R is
a local ring. Algebraically, this may be formulated as follows: If R is a
quasi-local ring and P is a finitely generated projective R[X]-module with
P, a free R(X)= R[X].-module, then P is a free R[X]-module. (This
result is now commonly called (the algebraic form of) Horrocks’ Theorem.)
Using Quillen’s Patching Theorem [29], the quasi-local hypothesis on R
can be removed. Actually, a somewhat stronger version, now called Afftne
Horrock’s Theorem, may be used to solve Serre’s Conjecture. For details,
the reader may consult Quillen’s solution to Serre’s Conjecture [29] or the
very readable notes by Lam [22]. Some elementary properties of the ring
R(X) may also be found there. Brewer and Costa [ 1 l] have considered
extensions of Serre’s Conjecture to non-Noetherian rings. A thorough
investigation of R(X) is carried out by Le Riche [23].
There are many other natural overrings of R[X] that may be considered.
For example, Huckaba and Papick [21] consider the ring R[X] v where
v={~cR[x]IA~I=R} and investigate when R[X] y is a B&out
domain. The rings R[X],.+, and RIXlw[Xp'] where W= {f~R[x][
f(0) = 1 } have applications in automata theory.
In Section 2 we record some known useful facts about the content of
polynomials and the rings R(X) and R(X) and prove some elementary
results that will be used throughout the remainder of the paper.
98 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

In Section 3 we determine when R(X) is an arithmetical ring.

Specifically, R(X) is an arithmetical ring if and only if R is an arithmetical
ring with dim R < 1 and whenever P $ M is a chain of two prime ideals of
R, then R, is a field. A similar characterization is given when R(X) is a
Priifer ring. We also characterize when R(X) is an arithmetical ring or
Prufer ring.
In Section 4 we determine when R(X) is a Hilbert ring. The condition
being that R(X) is a Hilbert ring if and only if R is a Hilbert ring and for
each minimal prime ideal P of R, R/P, the integral closure of R/P, is a
Priifer domain.
In the final section, we investigate when R(X) or R(X) is a Euclidean
domain, PID, UFD or x-domain. Generalizations are then given to rings
with zero divisors.
As previously mentioned, all rings will be commutative with identity. For
notation and definitions not given in the paper, the reader is referred to
Cl0

2. ELEMENTARY PROPERTIES OF R(X) AND R(X)

In this section we state some known results about the content of

polynomials and about the rings R(X) and R(X). We also prove some
elementary results that will be used throughout the paper. We begin with
the following results concerning the ring R(X), the proofs of which may be
found in [3].

THEOREM 2.1. Let R be a commutative ring and let f E R[X].

(1) If A/ is locally principal, then A, = A/A, for all g ER[X].
(2) fR(X)EA/R(X) andfR(X)&A,R(X).
(3) The following statements are equivalent.
(a) A, is locally principal.
(b) fR(W=A,NW.
(c) fR(X) = ZR(X) for some ideal I of R.
(d) A.,R(X) is principal.
(e) A/R(X) is locally principal.
(4) If I= (a,,..., a,,) is locally principal, then ZR(X) =fR(X) where
f = a, + a, X+ + a,Y.
(5) Every finitely generated locally principal ideal of R(X) is principal.
In relation to (5) of Theorem 2.1, it is known that every finitely
generated constant rank projective R(X)-module is free [ 15, 251. Hence if
 THE RINGS R(X) AND R(X) 99

P is a finitely generated constant rank projective R-module, then

P(X) = R(X) OR P is always a free R(X)-module. But from Affine
Horrock’s Theorem it follows that P( A’) = R(X) OR P is a free R(X)-
module if and only if P is a free R-module.
The extension and contraction of ideals between R and R(X) and
between R and R(X) is well-behaved. This is due partially to the fact that
both R(X) and R(X) are faithfully flat R-algebras. Many properties follow
from this fact. The following theorem records some of the properties of
these two extensions.
THEOREM 2.2. Let R be a commutative ring and I an ideal of R.
( 1) IR( X) n R = I and IR( X) n R = I. In particular, for J an ideal of
R, ZR(X)=JR(X) (IR(X)=JR(X)) ifandonlyifI=J.
(2) I is finitely generated if and only if ZR(X) (ZR(X)) is finitely
generated.
(3) I is locally principal if and only if IR( X) (IR (X) ) is locally prin-
cipal.
(4) ZR( X) (ZR (X) ) is finitely generated locally principal if and only if
I is.
(5) ZR(X) (IR( X)) is invertible if and only tf Z is finitely generated
locally principal with 0 : I = 0. In particular, if I is regular, then I is invertible
if and only if IR(X) (IR( X)) is invertible. Moreover, IR(X) is then prin-
cipal.
(6) I principal implies that IR(X) and IR( X> are each principal. Zf R
is an integral domain, then IR(X) is principal if and only if I is principal.
Proof The proofs of (1) and (2) are straightforward and hence will be
omitted, (3) Let I be locally principal. Let M be a maximal ideal of R(X).
Let Q=MnR[X] and P=QnR. Then R(X),=R,[X],,. Since I, is
principal, ZR(X),=ZpRp[XIgp is principal. The proof for R(X) is
similar, or follows from the fact that R(X) is a localization of R(X). Con-
versely, if ZR(X) is locally principal, then ZR(X) is locally principal. Hence
for each maximal ideal M of R, I, R,,,,(X) = ZR(X),,,, is principal, and
hence I,,, is principal. Clearly (4) follows from (2) and (3). We next prove
(5). Suppose that IR(X) is invertible. Then its localization ZR(X) is also
invertible. Thus I is finitely generated and locally principal. Let
Z=(a, ,..., a,I).ThenIR(X)=fR(X)wheref=a,+a,X+... +a,X”,sofis
regular. Hence O:I= 0 :A/= 0. Conversely, suppose that I is finitely
generated locally principal with 0 = 0:Z. Then ZR(X) is finitely generated
locally principal and f = a, + . . + a,X” is a regular element of ZR( X)
since 0:I = O:A,= 0. Thus ZR( X) and hence [R(X) is invertible. The first
part of (6) is trivial. Suppose that R is an integral domain and ZR(X) is
100 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

principal. Then IR(X) =fR(X) f or some feR[X]. Let f=a,+a,X+

. . . + a,X” where a, # 0. Now f E ZR(X) implies there exists a g E U with
gf~ZR[x], so a, E I since g is manic. Hence (a,) E Z. If FEZ, then
I’EZR(X) =fR(X); so i=f(g/h) for some ge R[X], hi U. Hence ih=fg.
Since h is manic, i is the leading coefficient of ih = fg so i = anbm where b,
is the leading coefficient of g. Hence iE (a,), so I= (a,).
Le Riche [23] showed that every idempotent of R(X) lies in R. We give
a simplified proof of this fact that shows the stronger result that every
idempotent of R(X) lies in R.

LEMMA 2.3. Zf fE R[X] with A,= (a), then there is a gE R[X] with
f = ag and A, = R.
Proof Letf=a,+ ... +u,X”, a,=riu and u=s,a,+ ... +~,a,. Then
a = S& + . . . + s,u, = sOrOu+ ... +s,r,u=du where d=s,r,+ ... +
s,r,. Now u=du, so (1-d)u=O. Let g=r,+ ... +r,X”+(l-d)X”+‘.
Then ug = f and A, = R.

THEOREM 2.4. Every idempotent of R(X) (and hence R(X)) lies in R.

Proof Let f/g E R(X) be idempotent where f, g E R[X] with A, = R.
Now f/g = f ‘/g2 gives fg2 = gf2 and hence fg = f2 since g is regular. Since
A, = R, we have A,= A,A, = A, = Aj2 G AT. Hence A,-= A:. Since A, is
finitely generated and idempotent, A,-= (e) where eE R is idempotent
[ 16,6.3]. By the previous lemma, f = ef’ where f’ E R[X] with A,. = R.
Now ef ‘/g = f/g = f ‘Jg2 = e’f 12/g2 = ef “Jg’. Since f’ and g are regular,
e = ef ‘/g = f/g. Hence f/g = e E R.
It is of course well known that there is a one-to-one correspondence
between the maximal (minimal) prime ideals of R and R(X) given by
Mo MR(X) = M(X). The following fact is sometimes useful. Let P be a
prime ideal of R. Then RF(X) = RP[X]rpCX, = RIX]rCxl = R(X),(,). A
similar result holds for R(X) and any multiplicatively closed subset of R.

LEMMA 2.5. Let N be a multiplicutively closed subset of R. Then

RN(X) = R[X]r where T= { fE R[X] 1the leading coefficient off is in N}.
Hence RN(X) is a localization of R(X).
Proof A typical element of RN(X) is
u,+u,X+ ... +u,X”
s tu,+ tu1X+ ... + tu,X”
b,+b, + ... +b,pJ”-‘+tX”‘=sbo+sbIX+ ... +sb,_J’+‘+stX”

where s, t E N. It easily follows that R,,,(X) = R[N] T.

 TH!ZRINGSR(X)AND R(X) 101

A natural question is the following: When is R(X) or R(X) root closed,

integrally closed, completely integrally closed or seminormal? Our next
proposition gives a partial answer.
PROPOSITION 2.6. ( 1) If R(X) or R(X) is root closed, integrally closed,
completely integrally closed or seminormal, then so is R.
(2) Let R be an integral domain. If R is integrally closed or seminor-
mal, then R(X) and R(X) are integrally closed or seminormal.
(3 ) Let R be an integral domain. If R is completely integrally closed,
then R( X> is also completely integrally closed.
Proof (1) This follows immediately from the easily proved fact:
R(X)n T(R) = R(X) n T(R) =R. (2) This follows by passage to the
polynomial ring and localization. (3) If R is completely integrally closed,
then so is R[[X]][X-'1 [16, Exercise7, p.4151. Hence K(X)n
R[ [X]] [X-‘1 is also completely integrally closed, where K is the quotient
field of R. By [13, Corollary 5.51, K(X)nR[[X]][X-‘1 =R[X]= where
T= {f=X"+a,P+'+ ... +a,X"IfER[X]} since R is completely
integrally closed. Hence R[X] T is completely integrally closed whenever R
is. The map X + X- ’ induces an R-algebra isomorphism between R[ X] T
and R(X). Hence if R[X], is completely integrally closed, then so is
R(X).
However, if R is not an integral domain, then the situation is more com-
plicated as our next example shows.

EXAMPLE 2.7. Let R =/~[[a, b]]/(a, b)(a*) where a and b are power
series indeterminates over a field k. Then R is a total quotient ring and
hence completely integrally closed. However, R(X) is not even seminor-
mal.
Proof: The elementti/(i + 6X) of T(R( X) ) is nilpotent. Suppose that
a A,+A,X+ . ..A.27
T=Bo++B,X+ ... +I?-1X’-1+x”
Then (i+6X)(A,+A,X+ ... +A,X”)~(ti)R[xl, a prime ideal, so
A,+A,X+ ... +A,X"E(~~)R[X], so each Ai=tiA:. (This also follows
since A T+bx= R.) Then d3,+~B,+ ... +CB,-,X’-‘+iiX’=tiA;+
cS(A$+ A;) X+ ... +$A:-,b+A~)S”+&A:X”+‘.NowtibA:#0implies
&A: = a, a contradiction. Hence &A:= 0, so Ai is not a unit, in fact
A:~(ti). If cT(A:-, 6+ A:)#& then &=ti(A:-,b+ A:). But A:-,6+ Ai is
not a unit, so this is absurd. Hence Li(AL_ 16+ A:) = 0, so Ai _, 6+ A: E (C),
so A:- i E (a). Continuing, we get A:,..., ALE (ii), but ti = G(A;- ,6+ A:) for
some i. But Ai- 16+ A:E (ti, b), a contradiction.
102 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

Note that if R[X] is integrally closed, we must have R reduced. This is

not true for R(X) or R(X). If dim R = 0, then it is easily seen that R(X) =
R(X) = T(R[X]). (The converse is also true: If R(X)= R(X), then
dim R = 0 [ 181.) Since R(X) and R(X) are total quotient rings, they are
completely integrally closed.
Akiba [ 1] gives an example to show that if i? is the integral closure of R
in T, then R(X) need not be the integral closure of R(X) in T(X). He shows
that R(X) is the integral closure of R(X) if either T is reduced or R is
Noetherian and integrally closed in T= T(R). Note that our example
shows that Akiba’s second result does not carry over to R(X). On the
positive side, Brewer and Heinzer [ 123 show that if R E T is integral, then
R(X) !Z T(X) is also integral. Finally, Angermiiller [S] investigates when
R(X) is rooted closed or seminormal.
Our results for R(X) or R(X) are stated for a single variable. For R(X)
there is no difficulty in replacing X by any nonempty set of indeterminates.
This is due to the fact that if X= X, u X, is a nonempty set of indeter-
minates, then R(X, u X,) = R(X,)(X,) = R(X,)(X,) (see [3]). This is nor
the case for R(X). In fact, for indeterminates X and Y, R( X)( Y) #
R(Y)(X). See Gilmer and Heinzer [IS] for a discussion of this. (This
paper also determines the group of units of R(X).)

3. ARITHMETICAL RINGS AND PROOFER RINGS

An integral domain D is called a PriiLfer domain if every finitely generated

ideal of D is invertible or equivalently, if D, is a valuation domain for each
maximal ideal M of D. Arnold [9] showed that D(X) is a Priifer domain if
and only if D is a Priifer domain and that in this case D(X) = Db, the
Kronecker function’ring of D, and hence is a Bezout domain. There are
several popular generalizations of Priifer domains to rings with zero
divisors. A ring R is called an arithmetical ring if every finitely generated
ideal is locally principal or equivalently, if the ideals of R, are totally
ordered for each maximal ideal M or R. A ring R is called a Priifer ring if
every finitely generated regular ideal is invertible.
In [2] it was shown that R(X) is arithmetical if and only if R is
arithmetical. We state this as part of our next result. In [23], Le Riche
investigated the question of when R(X) is arithmetical and gave a partial
solution. We complete the investigation.

THEOREM 3.1. Let R be a commutative ring.

(1) R(X) is arithmetical if and only if R is arithmetical and, moreover,
in this case R(X) is B&out, i.e., every finitely generated ideal is principal.
 THE RINGS R(X) AND R(X) 103

(2) R(X) is arithmetical if and only if R is arithmetical with

dim R 6 1 and if P Y+ Q are prime ideals of R, then R, is a field.
Proof: The proof of the first statement may be found in [a].
Suppose that R is arithmetical with dim R 6 1 and that for primes
P, $ P, of R, R,, is a field. We show that R(X) is arithmetical. Let Q be
a prime ideal of R[X] with Q n U= a. (Recall that U is the set of manic
polynomials.) Let P = Q n R. First suppose that P is maximal. Then either
Q = P[X] or Q = (P[X], f) where f E U. Since in the second case we have
QnU#@, we must have Q=P[X]. Then R(X),,=RIXlpcx,=R,(X)
is arithmetical since R, is arithmetical. Thus we can assume that P is not
maximal. Thus by hypothesis, R, is a field. Hence R( A’),, = RIXle =
&CQ,, is a localization of the PID Rp[X] and hence is arithmetical.
Conversely, suppose that R(X) is arithmetical. It follows from Le Riche
[23, Theorem 3.81 that R is arithmetical and dim R 6 1. Let P q M be a
pair of prime ideals of R. We need to show that R, is a field. Since R,(X)
is a localization of R(X), R,,,,(X) is arithmetical and hence R, is a
valuation ring (i.e., the ideals of R, are totally ordered). Thus we can
assume that R is a valuation ring. Let m EM-P. Then tiX + i is an
irreducible element of (R/P)[ X] and hence is prime since R/P is a
valuation domain. Thus Q = (P[X], mX+ 1) is a prime ideal of R[X].
Moreover, Q contains no manic polynomial since the image of Q in
R[X]/P[X] = (R/P)[X] contains no manic polynomial. Thus RIXIQ,
being a localization of R(X), is a valuation ring. Since the ideals of
RIXla are totally ordered, it easily follows that PIXle c (mX + 1 )p. Let
p E P. Then p/l = (mX + 1) f/g where f, g E R[X] with g $ Q. Then pgh =
(mX+l)fh for some hER[X]-Q. Since Amxfl=R, A,=A,,+,A,=
A (mX+ lj,h = ApRh G (p). Thus@ =pl for some IF R[X]. Then

p (mX+ 1)f (mX+ l)fh p(mX+ 1)1

l- g = gh = gh ’

Thus (P)~ = Q&P)~, so (P)~ = 0,. Hence P[X], = 0,. Thus RIXlpcx,
and hence R, is an integral domain and hence a field since P $ M and
dim R< 1.

We next determine when R(X) and R(X) are Priifer rings. We define a
ring R to be strongly Prtifer if every finitely generated ideal I of R with
O:I= 0 is locally principal. Clearly an arithmetical ring is strongly Pri.ifer
and a strongly Priifer ring is Priifer. Any zero-dimensional ring is strongly
Priifer (for any finitely generated ideal has nonzero annihilator). However,
it is easy to construct a one-dimensional total quotient ring which is
necessarily Priifer, but is not strongly Priifer. Le Riche [23] and Brewer
and Costa [l 11 independently showed that for an integral domain R,
104 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

R(X) is a Priifer (Bezout) domain if and only if R is a Priifer (Bezout)

domain and dim R = 1. Le Riche also showed that if R is a one-dimen-
sional reduced Noetherian Priifer ring, then R(X) is a Prtifer ring.

THEOREM 3.2. Let R be a commutative ring with 1.

(1) R(X) is a Priifer ring if and only if R is strongly Priifer.
(2) R( X> is a Priifer ring if and only if R is strongly Priifer,
dimR<l,andifPq Q are prime ideals of R, then R, is a field.

Proof: (1) Suppose that R is strongly Prtifer. Let J be a finitely

generated regular ideal of R(X). Then J= I, where Z is a finitely generated
regular ideal of R[X], say, Z=(fi,...,f,). Let g=f, +f2Xml+‘+ ... +
fllx” 1+“‘+mn~1+(“~1)wheremiisthedegreeoff,.ThenA,=A~,+ ... +A,
is a finitely generated ideal of R and 0: A, = 0 since Z contains a regular
element. Thus A, is locally principal. Thus A,R(X) =gR(X). But clearly
gR( X) G ZR(X) = J E A, R(X), so J = gR( X) is principal.
Conversely, suppose that R(X) is a Priifer ring. Let Z be a finitely
generated ideal of R with O:Z=O, say, Z= (a,,..., a,). Let f =a,+a,X+
. . . + a, x”, so f is regular. Thus ZR(X) is a finitely generated regular ideal
of R(X) and hence is invertible. It follows that Z is locally principal
(Theorem 2.2).

(2)( G ) Let J be a finitely generated regular ideal of R(X). We need

to show that J is invertible. It suffices to show that if A42 J is a maximal
ideal, then J, is principal. Now J= I, where Z is a finitely generated
regular ideal of R[ X] and A4 = Q, where Q is a prime ideal of R[X]. Let
P = Q n R. We show that J, = I, is principal. If P is not maximal, then R,
is a field and hence lo is a principal ideal in the DVR R[X] e = RP[ Xl,,.
Suppose that P is maximal. Then either Q = P[X] or Q = (P[X], f) where
f is manic. However, since Q n U= 0, we must have Q = P[X]. Hence
W-1, = NM.,,, = Rp(X). Let Z=(fi,...,fn) and g=fi+f2X”‘1+1+
. . . +fnXml+“‘+m”-l+(n~l) where mi is the degree of fi. Then as in the
proof of (1 ), Za = ZR,(X) = gRp(X) is principal. ( =- ) Suppose that R(X)
is a Priifer ring. Then R(X), being a localization of R(X), is also a Priifer
ring. It follows from (1) that R is strongly Priifer. Let P,, $ P, be prime
ideals of R. Let p E PO and m E P, - P,. Then Z= (p, mX + 1) is a ftnitely
generated regular ideal of R[X]. Hence ZR( X) is invertible. Now (POIX],
mX+ 1)n U=@, so there is a prime ideal Qz(P,[X],mX+ 1) with
Qn U=Qr. Then Z,=ZR(X),, is principal since ZR( X) is invertible.
Thus Zg=(mX+ l)o since we cannot have (~)~z(rnX+ l)e. It now
follows as in (2) of Theorem 3.1 that R, is a field. This shows that both
dim R < 1 and R, is a field if P $ Q are prime ideals of R.
 THE RINGS R(X)AND R(X) 105

The proof of the previous theorem actually shows that if R is strongly

Priifer, then R( (Xx}) is Priifer for any nonempty set of indeterminates.
Hence if R(X) is Priifer, it is actually strongly Priifer.
Let Y(R) and Y(R(X)) denote the lattices of ideals of R and R(X),
respectively. We have a map

0: Y(R) + 9( R(X))
I+ ZR(X).

Clearly 6 is injective, for ZR(X) = JR(X) implies Z= .Z. Also, clearly 9

preserves arbitrary joins and arbitrary meets as well as products. This
raises the question of when 8 is onto. We will call an ideal Z of R
semiregular if there is a finitely generated ideal JE Z with 0: J= 0.

THEOREM 3.3. Let R be a commutative ring and 0: 9(R) + .Y(R(X)) be

the map O(Z) = ZR(X).
(1) The following are equivalent.
(a) R is arithmetical.
(b) 8 is onto.
(c) 9 is a multiplicative lattice isomorphism.
(2) The following statements are equivalent.
(a) R is strongly Prtifer.
(b) The regular ideals of R(X) are a subset of the image of 0.
(c) 8 is a multiplicative lattice isomorphism between the sublattice of
semiregular ideals of R and the sublattice of regular ideals of R(X).
Proof (1) This is Theorem 8 of [2]. We offer an alternate proof. Let
f = a, + a, X+ * ** + a,X”. From Theorem 2.1 it follows that
fR(X) = ZR(X) for some ideal Z of R if and only if Z = A, and A, is locally
principal. Thus 0 is onto if and only if R is arithmetical.
(2)(a) * (b) Suppose that R is strongly Priifer and let J be a regular
ideal of R(X). Let f E Jn R[X] be regular. For g E J, (g, f) is a finitely
generated regular ideal of R(X) and hence is invertible since R(X) is a
Priifer ring. But every invertible ideal of R(X) is principal, so (g,f) =
hR(X) for some h E R[X]. Then h is regular, so A, is a finitely generated
ideal with 0: A, = 0 and hence A,, is locally principal, so hR(X) = A, R(X).
It follows that every regular ideal of R(X) is an extension of an ideal of R.
(b) * (a) Conversely, suppose that every regular principal ideal of R(X) is
the extension of an ideal of R. Let Z be a finitely generated ideal of R with
0: Z=O, say, Z= (a0 ,..., a,). Then f=a,+a,X+ ... +a,X” is a regular
106 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

element of R(X), so there is an ideal A of R with AR(X) =fR(X), However,

then A = A,= Z is locally principal, so R is strongly Prufer. Clearly
(c) + (b). It remains to show that (a) * (c). If J is a semiregular ideal of R,
then there is a finitely generated ideal Z= (a,,..., a,) 5 J with 0: Z= 0. Let
f= a, + . . . + a,X”. Then fE JR(X) IS . regular, so JR(X) is a regular ideal of
R(X). If A is a regular ideal of R(X), then by (a)*(b), A =JR(X) for
some ideal J of R. Since A is regular, there is an f~ A n R[X] that is
regular. Then fR(X) = ZR(X) for some ideal Z of R and hence Z= A,. Then
0: Z= 0 since f is regular; so Z is a finitely generated ideal with 0: Z= 0 and
ZG J. Hence J is semiregular.
A ring R is said to satisfy condition (A) if every finitely generated ideal Z
of R with 0: Z= 0 is regular. Equivalently, R satisfies condition (A) if and
only if every semiregular ideal is regular. Noetherian rings, or more
generally, rings in which 0 has a primary decomposition, satisfy condition
(A). The following corollary is now immediate.

COROLLARY 3.4. For a commutative ring R with 1 the following con-

ditions are equivalent.
(1) R is a Prtifer ring satisfying condition (A).
(2) The map 6: 9(R) + 5?(R(X)) gives a multiplicative lattice
isomorphismbetween the sublattices of the regular ideals of R and R(X).
(3) The set of the regular principal ideals of R(X) is contained in the
image under 8 of the set of regular ideals of R.
Corollary 3.4 contradicts Remark 7 of [24]. The difficulty in Remark 7 is
due to the reference to [ 171 (Ref. [ 31 of [ 241). The first sentence on page
224 of [17] is incorrect as stated. In the reprint [ 171, the author has
changed the first sentence to read, “Consequently, { YmR,};= 1 is the set of
proper ideals of R, generated by a set of regular elements of R,, and each
ideal of ROgenerated by a set of regular elements of RO is principal, hence
invertible.” The point is that R, has regular ideals that are not generated
by regular elements.
We have studied the ring R(X), for R Priifer, using ideal-theoretic techni-
ques. In [9], Arnold used valuation theory and Kronecker function rings.
Using Manis valuations, the results of [9] have been extended to rings
with zero divisors by Hinkle and Huckaba [19] and Matsuda [24].

4. HILBERT RINGS

It is well known that R is a Hilbert ring if and only if R[X] is a Hilbert

ring. In [12] Brewer and Heinzer show that if R is any Noetherian ring,
 THE RINGS R(X) AND R(X) 107

then R(X) is a Hilbert ring. In contrast, we show that for R Noetherian,

R(X) is a Hilbert ring if and only if R is a Hilbert ring and dim R < 1. The
main result of this section, Theorem 4.3, is that R(X) is a Hilbert ring if
and only if R is a Hilbert ring and for each minimal prime ideal P of R,
R/P, the integral closure of R/P, is a Priifer domain.

LEMMA 4.1. For a commutative ring R, the following are equivalent.

(1) R(X) is a Hilbert ring.
(2) R is a Hilbert ring and every prime ideal of R(X) is the extension
of a @rime) ideal of R.

Proof. (1) * (2) Suppose that R(X) is a Hilbert ring. Let P be a prime
ideal of R. Then P(X) is a prime ideal of R(X), so there is a set of maximal
ideals (M,j of R with P(X) = n, M,(X). Then P= P(X) n R =
(n, M,(X)) n R = n, (M,(X) A R) = n, ME-an intersection of maximal
ideals of R. Thus R is a Hilbert ring. Let Q be a prime ideal of R(X). Then
Q = n, M,(X) for some collection of maximal ideals {M, } of R. But then
Q = (n, M,)(X) and n, M, = Q n R is a prime ideal of R.
(2) = ( 1) Let Q be a prime ideal of R(X). Then Q = P(X) for some
prime ideal P of R. Now R is a Hilbert ring, so P = n, M, for some set
{M, > of maximal ideals of R. Hence Q = P(X) = n, M,(X) is an intersec-
tion of maximal ideals.
We say that a ring R satisfies (*) if for each prime ideal P of R[X] with
P E M[X] for some maximal ideal M of R, we have P = Q[X] for some
prime ideal Q of R (necessarily Q = Pn R). Clearly R satisfies (*) if and
only if every prime ideal of R(X) is the extension of a prime ideal of R.
Thus Lemma 4.1 may be rephrased as follows: R(X) is a Hilbert ring if and
only if R is a Hilbert ring and R satisfies (*).

LEMMA 4.2. Let R be a commutative ring and let i? be the integral

closure of R. Then R satisfies (*) if and only if R satisfies (*).
Prooj ( 3 ) Suppose that R satisfies (*). Let P be a prime ideal of
R[X] with P c M[X] where A4 is a maximal ideal of 8. Then Pn R[X] s
M[X]n R[X]= (Mn R)[X], so PnR[X]=P,[X] where P,=PnR.
Let Q= Pni?, so Q[X] c P and both contract to Po[X]. Since
R[X] E RCA’] is an integral extension, Q[X] = P.
( = ) Conversely, suppose that R satisfies (*). Let A4 be a maximal
ideal of R and let P be a prime ideal of R[X] with PcM[X]. Since
RCA'] c R[X] is an integral extension, by the Going Up Theorem, there
are prime ideals PC Q in R[X] with PnR[X]=P and
QnR[X]=M[XJ Note that QnR=(QnR[X])nR=M[X]nR=M.
108 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

Let Q’=QnR, so Q’nR=QnR=M. Now Q’[X]&Q and

Q’[X] n R[X] = (Q’n R)[X] = M[X], so by INC, Q’[X] = Q. Now
FE Q’[X], so since i? satisfies (*), we have is= (BnR)[X]. Thus
P= Pn RCA’] = (PnR)[X] n R[X] = (Pn R)[X].

THEOREM 4.3. Let R be a commutative ring. Then R(X) is a Hilbert ring

if and only if R is a Hilbert ring and for each minimal prime ideal P of R,
R/P is a Prfifer domain.
Prooj ( = ) Suppose that R(X) is a Hilbert ring. By Lemma 4.1, R is
also a Hilbert ring. Let P be a minimal prime ideal of R. Then (R/P)(X) =
R(X)/P(X) is a Hilbert domain. By Lemma 4.1, R/P satisfies (*). Hence by
Lemma 4.2, R/P satisfies (*). It then follows from [9, Theorem 41 that R/P
is a Priifer domain.
( = ) It suffices to show that for each minimal prime ideal Q of R(X),
R(X)/Q is a Hilbert domain. Now Q = P(X) where P = Q n R is a minimal
prime ideal of R. Hence it suffices to show that (R/P)(X) = R(X)/P(X) is a
Hilbert domain for each minimal prime ideal P of R. Now by hypothesis R
- .
and hence R/P is a Hilbert ring. Since R/P is a Priifer domain, RIP satisfies
(*). Hence R/P satisfies (*). Again by Lemma 4.1, (R/P)(X) is a Hilbert
domain.

COROLLARY 4.4. (1) Let R be an integral domain. Then R(X) is a

Hilbert domain if and only if R is a Hilbert Priifer domain.
(2) Let R be a Noetherian ring. Then R(X) is a Hilbert ring if and
only tf R is a Hilbert ring with dim R d 1.
Proof: (1) This follows immediately from the previous theorem and
the easily proved fact that R is a Hilbert ring if and only if i? is a Hilbert
ring.
(2) This follows immediately from the previous theorem and the
easily proved fact that a Noetherian ring R has dim R 6 1 if and only if for
-.
each minimal prime P of R, R/P is a Priifer domain

5. DIVISIBILITY PROPERTIES OF R(X) AND R(X)

In this section we begin with a review of some known results on divisibility

for integral domains. Basically, an integral domain R has a certain
divisibility property if and only if R(X) does. In contrast, R(X) has a cer-
tain divisibility property if and only if R has the divisibility property “with
respect to invertible ideals.”
 THE RINGS R(X) AND R(X) 109

An integral domain R is called a generalized GCD domain (G-GCD

domain) if the intersection of two nonzero principal ideals is invertible.
Equivalently, R is a G-GCD domain if every u-ideal of finite type is inver-
tible. For the development of G-GCD domains, the reader is referred to
[5]. An integral domain R is called a n-domain if every nonzero principal
ideal of R is a product of prime ideals (necessarily invertible). Many
characterizations of n-domains are given in [4], for example, R is a rc-
domain if and only if R is a locally factorial Krull domain (i.e., R is a Krull
domain and R,,, is factorial for each maximal ideal M of R).

THEOREM 5.1. Let D be an integral domain.

(1) The following statements are equivalent.
(a) D is a G-GCD domain.
(b) D(X) is a G-GCD domain.
(c) D(X) is a G-GCD domain.
(d) D(X) is a GCD domain.
(2) The following statements are equivalent.
(a) D is a GCD domain.
(b) D(X) is a GCD domain.

Proof. (1) In [5] it is shown that if D is a G-GCD domain then so is

any localization and that the following three statements are equivalent: D
is a G-GCD domain, D[X] is a G-GCD domain and D(X) is a GCD
domain. Since every invertible ideal of D(X) is principal, the result follows.
(2) This is proved by Le Riche [23, Proposition 1.11. We offer an
alternative proof to (b)*(a). Let a, be D. Then ((a)n (b)) D(X) =
(a) D(X) n (b) D(X) is principal. Hence by Theorem 2.2 (a) n (6) is prin-
cipal. Thus D is a GCD domain.
For a Krull domain R, we denote the divisor class group of R by Cl(R);
so Cl(R) is the group of divisorial ideals of R modulo the principal ideals.
The subgroup of the invertible ideals modulo the principal ideals is called
the Picard group and is denoted by Pit(R).

THEOREM 5.2. (1) For an integral domain R the following statements

are equivalent.
(a) R is a Krull domain.
(b) R(X) is a Krull domain.
(c) R(X) is a Krull domain.
110 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

(2) Let R be a Krull domain. Then the natural maps Cl(R) -+

Cl(R(X)) and Pit(R) + Pic(R(X)) are isomorphismsand the natural map
Cl(R) -+ Cl(R(X)) is an epimorphism with kernel Pit(R).
Proof (1) If R is a Krull domain, then so is R[X] and hence its
localization R(X) is also a Krull domain. If R(X) is a Krull domain,
then so is its localization R(X). If R(X) is a Krull domain, then
R = R(X) n K is a Krull domain, where K is the quotient field of R.
(2) That the map Cl(R) + Cl(R(X)) is an epimorphism with kernel
Pit(R) is essentially given by [lo, Corollary 6-J. The map Cl(R) +
Cl( R[X]) is an isomorphism and hence by Nagata’s Theorem Cl(R) +
Cl(R[X]) -+Cl(R(X)) is an epimorphism. The fact that this map is an
injection is given by (6) of Theorem 2.2. By similar reasoning, the map
Pic( R) + Pic( R( X)) is also an isomorphism.

THEOREM 5.3. For an integral domain R the following are equivalent.

(1) R is a x-domain.
(2) R(X) is a x-domain.
(3) R(X) is a x-domain.
(4) R(X) is a UFD.
Moreover, R is a UFD if and only if R (A’> is a UFD.

Proof. The equivalence of (l)-(4) follows from Theorem 5.1,

Theorem 5.2 and the fact that R is a rc-domain if and only if R is both a
Krull domain and a G-GCD domain [S, Theorem 3-J.
The second statement which is proved by Le Riche [23, Proposition 1.23
also follows from the above equivalence and the fact that Cl(R)r
CUR(X) ).

THEOREM 5.4. (1) For an integral domain R the following are

equivalent.
(a) R is a Dedekind domain.
(b) R(X) is a Dedekind domain.
(c) R(X) is a Dedekind domain.
(d) R(X) is a PID.
(e) R(X) is a Euclidean domain.
(2) R is a PID if and only ifR(X) is a PID.
(3) R is a Euclidean domain if and only if R( X> is a Euclidean
domain.
 THE RINGS &(a%-) AND R(X) 111

Proof: (1) The equivalence of (a) and (b) is given by Le Riche [23,
Proposition 2.31. The equivalence of (a), (c) and (d) is given by Arnold
[9]. The fact that (a) * (e) is remarked in [2].
Statement (2) is given by Le Riche.
The proof of (3) will require some preliminary remarks. For a com-
mutative ring R let T={X”+a,X”+‘+ ... +a,X”+“Ia,,...,a,~~R,s~01.
We denote the ring R[X] T by R{ X}. The map X + X- i induces an R-
algebra isomorphism between R(X) and R(X). Notice that
R(X) E R[[X]][X-‘I. For O#~ER[[X]][X-‘1, let Ii/(f) be the coef-
ficient of the term off of lowest degree. It suffices to show that R is
Euclidean if and only if R{ X} is Euclidean. Suppose that R is Euclidean
with algorithm cp. For f~ R[ [X]][X-‘1 define q’(f) = q(ll/(f)). Samuel
[31, Proposition 81 shows that R[ [X]][X-‘1 is a Euclidean domain with
algorithm cp’. Let s, 1 E R(X) with t # 0. Following Samuel’s proof, we see
that either s = tb + r where 6, r E R{ X} with q’(r) < p’(t) or s = tu where
UER[[X]][X~~]. But then u=~/~EK(X)~R[[X]][X-‘1 where K is
the quotient field of R. Since R is a PID and hence completely integrally
closed, it follows from [ 13, Corollary 5.51 that K(X) n R[[X]] [X-l] =
R(X). Thus s = t(s/t) where S/ZE R(K).
Conversely, suppose that R(X) is a Euclidean domain with algorithm cp.
For rE R, define X(r) =min{cp(f)lf~ R(X), $(f)~ Rr). A straightforward
modification of the result of Dress [ 141 shows that x is an algorithm for R.

Suppose that cp is a Euclidean algorithm for R. Then q* defined as

follows gives an algorithm for R(X): for f = h/uE R(X) where
h, u E R[X] with u manic, q*(f) = q(a) where a is the leading coefficient
of J: Conversely, if cp is an algorithm for R(X), then for r E R,
x(r) = min{cp(f) Ife R(.O,S= h/u, h, UE R[X] with u manic and the
leading coefficient a of h satisfies a E Rr} is an algorithm for R. If cp is the
smallest algorithm on R, then cp’ defined for R(X) or (p* defined for R(X)
is the smallest algorithm for R{ X} or R(X), respectively.
We next extend some of the results of this section to rings with zero
divisors. Suppose that a ring R may be written as a direct product
R = R, x . . ’ x R, of subrings. This leads to the decompositions
R[X] = R,[X] x ... x R,[X], R(X) = R,(X) x ... x R,(X) and
R(X) = R,(X) x . . x R,,(X). Conversely, suppose that R(X) = T, x . . . x
T,,, a direct product of subrings. Let 1 = (e, ,..., e,) where e, is the identity of
Ti. Now e,~ R(X) is idempotent, so by Theorem 2.4 each eiE R. Setting
Ri = Re, leads to the decomposition R = RI x ... x R, and T, = R(X) ei=
Ri( X), so R(X) = R,(X) x . . x R,(X). A similar statement holds for R[X]
and R(X).
A ring R is called a n-ring if every principal ideal is a product of prime
ideals. R is a n-ring if and only if R is a finite direct product of rc-domains
112 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

and special principal ideal rings (SPIRS) [ 16, 46.1 l]. If every ideal of R is
a product of prime ideals, R is called a ZPZ-ring. It is known that R is a
ZPI-ring if and only if R is a finite direct product of Dedekind domains
and SPIRS [16, 39.21. Corollaries of this result are that a principal ideal
ring is a finite direct product of PIDS and SPIRS and that R is a Euclidean
ring if and only if R is a finite direct product of Euclidean domains and
SPIRS [31]. Finally, R is called a unique factorization ring (UFR) if every
principal ideal of R is a product of principal prime ideals or equivalently if
R is a finite direct product of UFDS and SPIRS. (See [IS].)

THEOREM 5.5. For a commutative ring R the following are equivalent.

(1) R is a x-ring.
(2) R(X) is a n-ring.
(3) R(X) is a x-ring.
(4) R(X) is a UFR.

Moreover, R(X) is a UFR if and only if R is a UFR.

ProoJ Since a SPIR is an arithmetical ring, it follows from Theorem 3.3
that R and R(X) are simultaneously SPIRS. Moreover, since for dim R = 0,
R(X) = R(X), it is easily seen that R, R(X) and R(X) are simultaneously
SPIRS. The result now follows from Theorem 5.3 and the previous remarks
about direct product decompositions.

THEOREM 5.6. For a commutative ring R the following are equivalent.

(1) R is a ZPZ-ring.
(2) R(X) is a ZPZ-ring.
(3) R(X) is a ZPZ-ring.
(4) R(X) is a principal ideal ring.
(5) R(X) is a Euclidean ring.
Moreover, R(X) is a principal ideal ring (Euclidean ring) if and only if R is
a principal ideal ring (Euclidean ring).
Proof The proof is similar to that of the previous theorem with
Theorem 5.4 now replacing Theorem 5.3.
A commutative ring R is called a Krull ring if R is a locally finite inter-
section of discrete rank one Manis valuation rings (or R is a total quotient
ring) or equivalently if R is completely integrally closed and has the
ascending chain condition on divisorial ideals. R is called a factorial ring if
every regular element is a product of (regular) principal prime elements. A
UFR is factorial, but not conversely. R is a factorial ring if and only if R is
 THE RINGS R(X) AND R(X) 113

a Krull ring with Cl(R) = 0. For facts on Krull rings, UFRS, and factorial
rings, see [6]. We investigate to what extent theorems such as Theorem 5.2
or Theorem 5.5 carry over to Krull rings or factorial rings.

THEOREM 5.7. Let R be a commutative ring. Then REX] is a Krull ring if

and only tf R is a finite direct product of Krull domains.
Proof (c=) If R=D,x ... x D, where each Di is a Krull domain,
then each D,[X] is a Krull domain and hence R[X] = D,[X] x
x D,[X] is a product of Krull domains and hence is a Krull ring.
( 3 ) Suppose that R[X] is a Krull ring. If r E R is nilpotent, then
r/X is (almost) integral over RCA’]. Since a Krull ring is completely
integrally closed, R must be reduced. Since (X) is a regular principal ideal,
it has a primary decomposition (X) = Pyl’ n . . n P!?) where P, ,..., P, are
the prime ideals minimal over (X). Thus in R = R[X]/(X), 0 has a primary
decomposition, so R has few zero divisors. Since R is reduced and has few
zero divisors, R has only a finite number of minimal primes, say, Q i ,..., Q,
and O=Q,n ... n Q,. But then R G R/Q, x . x R/Q, c T(R) and since
R/Q, x x R/Q, is a finitely generated R-module and R is integrally
closed, R= R/Q1 x ... x R/Q,-a finite product of integral domains. Since
R is a Krull ring, each R/Qi is a Krull ring and hence a Krull domain.
As a corollary to Theorem 5.7 we get the following result that is proved
in [6].

COROLLARY 5.8. For a commutative ring R the following are equivalent.

(1) R is a finite direct product of UFDS.
(2) R[X] is a UFR.
(3) RCA’] is factorial.

Thus if we let R be a SPIR that is not a field, say, R = Z/(4), then R,

R(X) and R(X) are all SPIRS and hence are Krull rings, UFRS and fac-
torial rings. Hcwever R[X] is not a Krull ring, a UFR or a factorial ring.
Let V be a rank two discrete valuation domain, i.e., the value group of V
is the lexicographic direct sum Z@Z. Let (p) be the maximal ideal of V
and Q the rank one prime ideal of V. Then R= V/Q* is a one-dimensional
valuation ring that is a rank one discrete Manis valuation ring. The only
regular ideals of R are (p”), hence R is a factorial ring. It follows from
Theorem 3.3 that R(X) is also factorial. However, by Theorem 5.7 R[X] is
not even a Krull ring. Also, R(X) is not a Krull ring since it is not com-
pletely integrally closed. For, let q E Q - Q*. Then S/( 1 +pX) is nilpotent
and hence integral over R(X), but in a manner similar to Example 2.7,
one can show that q//(1 +pX) &R(X).
114 ANDERSON, ANDERSON, AND MARKANDA

The question remains as to when R(X) or R(X) is a Krull ring or fac-

torial ring. Clearly since R(X) is a localization of R(X), if R(X) is a
Krull ring or factorial ring so is R(X). If R(X) or R(X) is a Krull ring,
then so is R. However, R and R(X) may be Krull rings without R(X)
being a Krull ring, as the previous example shows.

REFERENCES

1. T. AKIBA, On the normality of R(X), J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 20 (1980), 749-752.

2. D. D. ANDERSON,Multiplication ideals, multiplication rings and the ring R(X), Canad. J.
Math. 28 (1976), 7-768.
3. D. D. ANDERSON,Some remarks on the ring R(X), Comment. Math. Uniu. St. Paul. 26(2)
(1977), 137-140.
4. D. D. ANDERSON,Globalization of some local properties in Krull domains, Proc. Amer.
Math. Sot. 85 (1982), 141-145.
5. D. D. ANDERSONAND D. F. ANDERSON, Generalized GCD domains, Commenr. Math.
Univ. St. Paul. 28 (1979), 215-221.
6. D. D. ANDERWN AND R. MARKANDA, Unique factorization rings with zero divisors,
Houston J. Math. 11 (1985), 15-30.
7. D. D. ANDERSONAND J. MATIJEVIC, Graded n-rings, Canad. J. Math. 31 (1979), 449457.
8. G. ANGERM~LLER, Root closure, J. Algebra 90 (1984), 189-197.
9. J. T. ARNOLD, On the ideal theory of the Kronecker function ring and the domain D(X),
Canad. J. Math. 21 (1969), 558-563.
10. A. BOUVIER, The local class group of a Krull domain, Canad. Math. Bull. 26(l) (1983),
13-19.
11. J. W. BREWER AND D. L. COSTA, Projective modules over some non-Noetherian
polynomial rings, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 13 (1978), 157-163.
12. J. W. BREWERAND W. HEINZER, R Noetherian implies R(X) is a Hilbert ring, J. Algebra
67 (1980), 204-209.
13. P.-J. CAHEN AND J.-L. CHABERT, Eliments quasi-entier et extensions de Fatou, J. Algebra
36 (1975), 185-192.
14. F. DRESS,Stathmes euclideiens et series formelles, Acta A&h. 19 (1971), 261-265.
15. D. FERRAND, Trivialisation des modules projectifs. La methode de Kronecker, J. Pure
Appl. .4lgebra 24 (1982), 261-264.
16. R. GILMER, “Multiplicative Ideal Theory,” Dekker, New York, 1972.
17. R. GILMER, On Priifer rings, Bull. Amer. Math. Sot. 78 (1972), 223-224.
18. R. GILMER AND W. HEINZER, On the divisors of manic polynomials over a commutative
ring, Pacific J. Math. 78 (1978), 121-131.
19. G. HINKLE AND J. HUCKABA, The generalized Kronecker function ring and the ring R(X),
J. Reine Angew. Math. 292 (1977), 25-36.
20. G. HORROCKS,Projective modules over polynomial rings, Proc. London Math. Sot. 14
(1964), 714-718.
21. J. HUCKABA AND I. PAPICK, A localization of R[X], Cunad. J. Murh. 33 (1981), 103-l 15.
22. T. Y. LAM, “Serre’s Conjecture,” Lecture Notes in Mathematics No. 635, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin/New York/Heidelberg, 1978.
23. L. R. LE RICHE, The ring R(X), J. Algebra 67 (1980), 327-341.
24. R. MATSUDA, On Hinkle-Huckaba question, Math. Jupon. 28 (1983), 535-539.
25. B. R. MCDONALD AND W. C. WATERHOUSE,Projective modules over rings with many
units, Proc. Amer. Math. Sot. 83 (1981), 455458.
 THE RINGS R(X) AND R(X) 115

26. M. NAGATA, A general theory of algebraic geometry over Dedekind domains, I, Amer. .I.
Math. 78 (1956), 78-116.
27. M. NAGATA, “Local Rings,” Interscience, New York, 1962.
28. D. G. NORTHCOTT, “Ideal Theory,” Cambridge Univ. Press, London/New York, 1953.
29. D. QUILLEN, Projective modules over polynomial rings, Invent. Mafh. 36 (1976), 167-171.
30. L. J. RATLIFF, JR., A(X) and GB-Noetherian rings, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 9 (1979),
337-353.
31. P. SAMUEL, About Euclidean rings, J. AIgebra 19 (1971), 282-301.