Forum Math.

25 (2013), 565 – 596 Forum Mathematicum

DOI 10.1515 / FORM.2011.129 © de Gruyter 2013

An innocent theorem of Banaschewski,

applied to an unsuspecting theorem of De Marco,
and the aftermath thereof
Jorge Martínez
Communicated by Manfred Droste

Abstract. A theorem of G. De Marco states that, for any commutative ring R with identity
in which every prime ideal is contained in a unique maximal ideal, the lattice of pure ideals
is isomorphic to the frame of open sets of the space Max.R/ of all maximal ideals of R,
when the latter has the hull-kernel topology. Here it is shown that De Marco’s theorem is a
straightforward consequence of a rather basic theorem of B. Banaschewski about compact
normal frames; namely, that, in such a setting, the regular coreflection is isomorphic to
the saturation quotient. By restricting the conversation to frame maps that are compatible
with the saturation, called s-maps, the isomorphism under discussion is natural.
The s-maps turn out to include the closed frame homomorphisms, as well as the weakly
closed maps of recent interest. In applications to commutative rings the attention then cen-
ters on s-extensions; that is the ring extensions R  T for which the trace map m 7! R\m
carries maximal ideals to maximal ideals. This situation is examined for certain commu-
tative f -rings, and, more generally, in the context of the Going Up property.

Keywords. Frames and frame homomorphisms, natural isomorphism, s-maps vs. weakly
closed maps, radical ideals, Going Up property.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 06D22, 13B21, 18B15, 18B35.

– For Bernhard Banaschewski, on his 85th birthday

Introduction

This author has long been intrigued by a theorem of De Marco, which appears in
[10, 1.7], for rings in which every prime ideal is contained in a unique maximal
ideal. The result generalizes a folklore theorem for rings of continuous functions:
Let X be a compact Hausdorff space. The lattice of all pure ideals of C.X/ is iso-
morphic to the frame O.X/ of all open sets of X. De Marco extends this to the
space of maximal ideals, endowed with the hull-kernel topology: its frame of open
sets is isomorphic to the lattice of pure ideals of the ring in question.
566 J. Martínez

Banaschewski’s theorem ([6, 2.5]) exhibits an isomorphism, for any compact

normal frame L, between the maximum regular subframe %L of L and the satura-
tion quotient SL. We shall sketch a proof of Banaschewski’s theorem, which may
turn out to be an improvement upon his own, in the sense that the various ingredi-
ents in the discussion here are more comprehensively examined, and then blended
together with the advantage of hindsight, thanks to the work in [16], which leads
to a better understanding of the circumstances under which the isomorphism is
natural.
Applying Banaschewski’s theorem to get De Marco’s theorem is a matter of in-
terpreting the former in the frame Rad.R/ of radical ideals of a commutative ring
R with identity. All rings in this article are commutative with identity. In most sit-
uations one may assume that rings are semiprime; that is, that there are no nonzero
nilpotent elements.

The presentation is divided into five parts. Part 1 reviews the needed background
in Section 1.1. Section 1.2 re-introduces Banaschewski’s oft-visited saturation quo-
tient, and then in Section 1.3 we review its connection with semisimplicity.
Part 2 brings in the ring-theoretic side of the discussion, through the frame of
radical ideals, and we recall from [16] how to connect pure ideals to the regular
coreflection (Lemma 2.5). Here we show how Banaschewski’s theorem (Theo-
rem 1.11) is used to prove De Marco’s theorem (Theorem 2.6), in Gelfand rings.
Part 3 looks at conditions under which the isomorphism in Banaschewski’s the-
orem is natural. This involves a restriction to s-maps, and, in particular, to weakly
closed frame homomorphisms, previously introduced in [18]. With the Axiom of
Choice, these are the maps for which the right adjoint takes maximal elements to
maximal elements. Theorem 3.4 and its diagram spell out the natural transforma-
tions that are involved.
In Part 4 Rad is a functor on commutative rings with values in coherent frames,
and acting on ring homomorphisms h for which Rad.h/ is a coherent frame homo-
morphisms (Proposition 4.1). The ring R is a Gelfand ring precisely when Rad.R/
is normal. Since Rad.g/ is always weakly closed when g is surjective, the question
of when Rad.m/ is weakly closed can be reduced to embeddings. Rad.m/ then
is dense, but not necessarily one-to-one. Proposition 4.6 and its diagram collect
a number of conditions with some substantial relationship to the class of dense
s-maps. In the cusp of the picture is the classical Going Up property. It implies the
s-map condition.
Section 4.3 discusses the s-maps which arise in bounded archimedean f -rings
with bounded inversion (Lemma 4.11). Returning to the classical situation in rings
of continuous functions, one recovers De Marco’s theorem as a statement about
equivalent natural transformations (Theorem 4.12).
 An innocent theorem applied 567

Part 5 discusses a number of open questions and possible generalizations. No-

tably, in Section 5.1, there are some remarks concerning how the topics of this
paper might be approached if compactness is no longer assumed.
We proceed now to the preliminary definitions and to review the specific back-
ground information that will be needed. We assume the reader is familiar with
basic categorical principles, and refer to [12] for any unexplained concepts.

1 Background information
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the rudiments of the theory of frames.
Nonetheless, we will lay out, explicitly, the elements that are needed in the context
of this work. The objective of this part of the paper is to provide enough to sketch
a proof of Banaschewski’s theorem that will be as transparent as possible.

1.1 The frames

A frame is a complete lattice in which the frame law holds:
_  _° ±
a^ S D a^x Wx 2S ;

for each S  L. Our main references for background information on frames will
be [14] and Chapter II of [23]. Here is a short catalogue containing what is essen-
tial to this exposition.

Definition 1.1. Throughout, L is a complete lattice. The top and bottom are de-
noted 1 and 0, respectively. For x 2 L, denote the set of elements of L less than
or equal to (resp. greater than or equal to) x by # x (resp. " x).
In a frame L, a? denotes the polar (elsewhere referred to as the pseudo-comple-
ment) of a 2 L, that is to say, the largest member x 2 L for which a ^ x D 0.
 In a frame, a is well below b, written a  b : b _ a? D 1.
W
 x 2 L is regular: x D ¹a 2 L W a  xº. Let Reg.L/ denote the subset of all
regular elements of L. A frame L is regular: each element of L is regular.
 A frame L is normal: whenever x _ y D 1, there exist disjoint u ^ v D 0 in L
such that 1 D x _ v D u _ y.
 Let j be a closure operator on a frame L.
– j is dense: j.0/ D 0.
– jL  ¹x 2 L W j.x/ D xº. Note that j is dense if and only if 0 2 jL.
– j is a nucleus if j.a ^ b/ D j.a/ ^ j.b/.
568 J. Martínez

We record a brief comment on frame homomorphisms and their right adjoints.

Definition & Remarks 1.2. We start in the category Frm of all frames and all
frame homomorphisms; these are the maps which preserve all suprema and all
finite infima (including the empty one). We shall, interchangeably, use the phrase
frame map as a synonym of frame homomorphism.
If h W L ! M is a Frm-morphism, then h W M ! L denotes its right ad-
joint; that is, the map defined by
x  h .y/ ” h.x/  y; for all x 2 L; y 2 M:
The following are well known or else easily derived from properties of adjoints:
(1) h preserves all infima.
(2) h is dense if h.x/ D 0 implies x D 0. Note that h is dense precisely when
h .0/ D 0.
(3) h is one-to-one if and only if h
h D 1L , and that h is surjective if and only
if h
h D 1M .
In any frame L, %L stands for the subframe generated by the regular subframes
of L; it is well known that %L is regular. For any frame map h W L ! M , onto M ,
if L is regular, then so is M .
Here is a brief account of the regular coreflection.

Definition & Remarks 1.3. Denote the inclusion of %L in L by %L , also as plain

% if there is no risk of confusion. Then % is a coreflection: for each frame map
h W A ! L, with A regular, there is a unique hN W A ! %L such that the follow-
ing commutes:
%L
%L / L
` ?

hN h
A:
The knowledgeable reader will recognize a coreflection as the left adjoint of the
functor that embeds the full subcategory Reg of regular frames in Frm.
Some additional comments for later use:
 Let Reg.L/ denote the set of regular elements of L. It is a subframe, contain-
ing %L, but it need not be regular. Reg.L/ is regular if  interpolates; that is,
if a  b, then there is a c 2 L such that a  c  b.
 If L is normal then  interpolates.
We now highlight the following, Proposition 2.8 from [16].
 An innocent theorem applied 569

Proposition 1.4. Suppose that L is a normal frame. Then .%L / preserves finite
joins, and, if L is compact, it also preserves suprema of up-directed sets, and, con-
sequently, is a frame homomorphism.
The remark which follows here is noted in [16, 4.6].

Remark 1.5. Assume that L is a compact, normal frame, and write % D %L . By

the preceding proposition, there is the frame homomorphism % , the right adjoint
of % . For each regular element x,
_® ¯
% .x/ D y 2 L W % .y/ D x ;
which is easily seen to be equivalent to
_® ¯
% .a/ D y2LWcy ” ca :
Moreover, since % is surjective, we have that % is one-to-one.

One more observation for W later use, in dealing with coherent frames. Recall that
a frame is coherent if it is -generated by its compact elements, and also the meet
of
V any finite number of compact elements is compact. A frame is spatial if it is
-generated by its prime elements. It is well known that, with Choice, every cohe-
rent frame is spatial. When dealing with coherent frames, the corresponding frame
maps will also be coherent, which is to say that they carry compact elements to
compact elements.
The proof of the following result is quite straightforward, and it is omitted. We
remind the reader that Spec.L/ stands for the set of prime elements of the frame L.
The only topology on Spec.L/ considered here is the hull-kernel topology.

Lemma 1.6. Let h W L ! M be a frame homomorphism. Consider the following

properties of h:
(1) h is one-to-one.
(2) h is surjective.
(3) The restriction Spec.h/ of h , from Spec.M / to Spec.L/ is surjective.
Then (1) and (2) are equivalent. If M is spatial, then (3) implies (2), and if h is a
coherent map between coherent frames, the reverse is true.

1.2 Saturation
In this section we give a proof of Banaschewski’s theorem, prefaced by a number
of remarks about the saturation nucleus. The approach is similar to that of [16];
there a slightly different argument leads to Theorem 1.11 below.
570 J. Martínez

Definition 1.7. Let L be a compact frame. For each a 2 L, consider all b 2 L such
that b _ y D 1 implies a _ y D 1. Let s.a/ denote the join of all such b. By a
standard compactness argument, s.a/ _ y D 1 implies a _ y D 1. We call s.a/
the saturation of a. Note that:
 s is a nucleus, as it preserves finite intersection.
 Thus, SL, the set of saturated elements – those for which a D s.a/ – is a frame,
in which the infima agree with those of L.

The following lemma connects two ostensibly disparate parts of a frame, and
is, therefore, interesting in its own right.

Lemma 1.8. Let L be a compact normal frame. Then the following conditions are
equivalent for x; y 2 L:
(1) a  x ” a  y.
(2) s.x/ D s.y/.
Proof. Assume (1). If x _ z D 1, there exist disjoint u; v 2 L such that x _ v D
u _ z D 1. Since u  x, it follows that u  y. In particular, u  y, whence we
have y _ z D 1. By symmetry, the reverse holds. Therefore, (1) H) (2).
Conversely, if a  x, then x _ w D 1, for some w 2 L, with a ^ w D 0. So
y _ w D 1 and also a  y. This suffices.
Now, preliminary to the theorem of Banaschewski described in the introduction,
here is an observation from [6].

Proposition 1.9. For any compact normal frame L,

(1) (with Choice) a 2 L is saturated if and only if it is an infimum of maximal
elements.
(2) SL is regular.
The last preliminary step is this.

Lemma 1.10. For any compact normal frame L, s D %
% . Thus, % is s res-
tricted to %L.
Proof. It is straightforward to show that, for any x 2 L,
x  % .% .x//  s.x/:
Now, if % .% .x// < s.x/, then we have % .s.x// > x. This implies that there
is a b  s.x/ such that b — x, and, in turn, there is a c 2 L such that b ^ c D 0
and s.x/ _ c D 1. But then x _ c D 1, and hence b  x, which is absurd.
 An innocent theorem applied 571

We have what is needed for Banaschewski’s theorem. It will be evident that

there is little difference between this proof and his. What one expects to gain here
is insight into the question of when the isomorphism below is natural.

Theorem 1.11. Let L be a compact normal frame. The map

% W %L D Reg.L/ ! SL

coincides with s, restricted to %L, and is an isomorphism onto SL.

Proof. That % D sj%L has just been shown, and it is clear that % is one-to-one.
If y is saturated, then y D % .% .y//, proving that the restriction of s to %L is
surjective.

Remark 1.12. Since %
% D 1, it is clear that the inverse map SL ! %L to

% in the theorem is % , restricted to SL.
If, in addition to being compact and normal, the frame L is algebraic, then,
applying [21, 4.2], % .x/ may be described by
_® ¯
% .x/ D c 2 k.L/ W c  x ;

where k.L/ stands for the sublattice of compact elements of L.

1.3 Semisimplicity and Choice

We need an alternate description of the saturated elements. The intuition comes
from commutative rings. The reader should keep in mind that the existence of max-
imal elements is dependent on one’s set-theoretic assumptions.

Definition 1.13. Let L be a compact frame. Call x 2 L semisimple if it is an infi-

mum of maximal elements. The following are easily verified:
(1) If s.x/ D 1, then x D 1.
(2) If m is maximal, then s.m/ D m.
(3) Every semisimple element is saturated.

With Choice one has the converse to the last item above; the proof is routine,
and is left to the reader.

Proposition 1.14 (With Choice). Every saturated element is semisimple.

Once again with Choice, we observe these items from [6].
572 J. Martínez

Remark 1.15. For any compact normal frame L, we have that SL is a regular
frame, and
Max.L/ D Spec.SL/; and SL Š O.Max.L//:
For use in Part 3, we also make the following note.

Remark 1.16. The property in Definition1.13 (1) is called codensity. Because of

this feature, we can conclude that, for any compact frame L, SL is, in fact, com-
pact. In fact, SL is (up to isomorphism over L) the only codense compact regular
frame-homomorphic image of L; this assertion can be strengthened, but the one
given here is adequate for our purposes.

The next observation is recorded here for later use.

Lemma 1.17. Let h W L ! M be a codense frame map of compact frames. Then

for each a 2 L, s.h .s.h.a//// D s.a/.

Proof. Suppose h .s.h.a/// _ y D 1. Then

1 D s.h.a// _ h.y/ D s.h.a// _ s.h.y// D s.h.a/ _ h.y//;
so that h.a/ _ h.y/ D 1, as s is codense. Since h is assumed to be codense, it fol-
lows that a _ y D 1.

Finally, in this section, we remind the reader of the discussion in [16, §4].

Remark 1.18. A frame L is joinfit if for each a > 0 in L there is a b 2 L, b < 1,

such that a _ b D 1. It is shown in [16, §4] that, for compact frames, the saturation
nucleus s is the joinfit nucleus; that is, s.x/ is the meet of all y 2 L, with y  x,
such that " y is joinfit.
In particular, x 2 L is saturated if and only if " x is joinfit.

2 Commutative rings
Now we proceed to apply Banaschewski’s theorem to the setting of commutative
rings with 1, to derive De Marco’s theorem. The place to begin is with the frame
of radical ideals.

2.1 Radical ideals

Throughout this section R denotes a commutative ring with identity. As explained
in the introduction, there is no loss of generality in assuming that R is semiprime,
and we will do just that.
 An innocent theorem applied 573

Definition & Remarks 2.1. An ideal a of R is a radical ideal if x 2 2 a implies

that x 2 a. With Choice, it is well known that a is a radical ideal precisely when
it is an intersection of prime ideals. The set Rad.R/ of all radical ideals is a frame
in which the infimum is set-theoretic intersection.
In detail, here are some of the basic features of Rad.R/.
p
 For any ideal a of R, a D ¹x 2 R W 9 n 2 N; x n 2 aº is the least radical
ideal of R containing a.
p
 for any radical ideals a and b of R, ab D a \ b.
 The intersection of any two finitely generated radical ideals of R is finitely
generated.
 Rad.R/ is distributive, and since it is also an algebraic lattice, the finite dis-
tributive law implies the frame law.
Although the result will not be used here, it should be noted that Rad.R/ is a co-
herent frame. Conversely, by Hochster’s theorem ([13]), Choice free in [2], every
coherent frame is isomorphic to Rad.R/, for a suitable ring R.
We have to identify the rings R for which Rad.R/ is a normal frame. Several
of the comments in 2.2 may be found in [5].

Remark 2.2. A ring R is a Gelfand ring if whenever 1 D x C y in R, there exist

r; s 2 R such that .1 rx/.1 sy/ D 0. With Choice, these are the rings for which
every prime ideal is contained in a unique maximal ideal. In [10], and elsewhere,
rings with this property are called pm-rings.
It is well known that in a coherent, normal frame every prime element is below
at most one maximal element. With Choice, and for any coherent frame, if every
prime is beneath a unique maximal element, then the frame is normal. (The reader
is referred to [6, Remark 2], and a proof is given in [5, Proposition 1].)

2.2 Pure ideals

In this section, R stands for a fixed ring. The modules considered here are modules
over R. We assume that the reader is acquainted with the basic properties of the
tensor product of modules.

Definition 2.3. Let A be a submodule of B. Then A is a pure submodule of B if

the induced map on the tensor product

A˝M !B ˝M

is one-to-one, for every module M .

574 J. Martínez

The following, taken from [10], describes the basic properties of a pure ideal –
that is to say, one which is a pure submodule of R over itself.

Theorem 2.4. Suppose that a is an ideal of R. Then the following are equivalent
statements.
(1) a is pure in R.
(2) a \ b D ab, for each ideal b of R.
(3) For each a 2 a there exists an element c 2 a such that .1 c/a D 0.
If R is semiprime, then every pure ideal is radical. In fact, (with Choice) it is an in-
tersection of minimal prime ideals.
The final ingredient we need to derive De Marco’s theorem from that of Bana-
schewski is [16, Lemma 6.5], reproduced here. The reader should notice that the
lemma is obtained Choice free.

Lemma 2.5. For any semiprime commutative ring with identity R, a 2 Rad.R/ is
a pure ideal if and only if a is regular.
The reader will note that, for any ring T , Rad.T / is joinfit if and only if the
Jacobson radical of T is zero. Thus, a radical ideal a is saturated precisely when
R=a has zero Jacobson radical. We refer to a radical ideal a such that R=a has
zero Jacobson radical as a Jacobson ideal.
The reader is reminded of the point-free definition of the Jacobson radical,
J .R/ D ¹r 2 R W 1 rx is invertible for all x 2 Rº:
Thus a is a Jacobson ideal if and only if the assumption that 1 rx has an inverse
modulo a for each x 2 R implies that r 2 a.
Here and in a number of other places in the following, the reader would be well
served by a reading of [7]. There a Jacobson ideal is referred to as a Jacobson radi-
cal ideal. The author thanks Themba Dube for pointing out this reference.
And so we have De Marco’s theorem, giving the point-free formulation first.

Theorem 2.6. Suppose that R is a semiprime Gelfand ring. Then we have:

(1) Saturation maps the frame P .R/ of pure ideals of R isomorphically onto the
frame J.R/ of Jacobson ideals.
(2) The inverse map carries the Jacobson ideal r to ¹a 2 R W a? C r D Rº, where
a? D ¹x 2 R W xa D 0º.
(3) (With Choice) Max.R/ is a compact Hausdorff space, Max.R/ D Spec.J.R//
and O.Spec.J.R/// Š P .R/.
 An innocent theorem applied 575

Proof. (1) This is a straightforward application of Theorem 1.11, noting that the
Jacobson ideals are exactly the saturated ones, by Remark 1.18 and in the preamble
to this theorem.
(2) Interpreting Remark 1.12, one easily sees that ¹a 2 R W a? C r D Rº is the
largest regular ideal contained in r.
(3) Apply Proposition 1.9 and the comments in Remark 1.15.

3 Functorial properties
In [6, Proposition 2.2], Banaschewski observes that saturation is functorial, and
then, in [6, 2.5], a simple example points out that the situation is not natural. One
has to place conditions on the maps of the category, and the condition we will
introduce is precisely what fails in the example.
Let us rephrase the issue here, in the broadest terms: When is the isomorphism
in Theorem 1.11 natural?

3.1 When saturation is natural

Put another way, making the question less precise, but also more ambitious: What
does it take to make maps such as s, % , and % natural transformations? This
kind of question came up in [18], in a different context, and the material fits into
the general framework of [19].
In this part of the paper L will denote a compact frame.

Definition & Remarks 3.1. We consider the frame maps h W L ! M between

compact frames for which there is a frame homomorphism S.h/ W SL ! SM ,
obviously unique, making the square below commute:
sL
L / SL

h S.h/ (3.1.1)

 sM 
M / SM:

It is easy to see that S.h/ exists if and only if sL .x/ D sL .y/ in L implies that
sM .h.x// D sM .h.y//, and then, necessarily, S.h/.sL .x// D sM .h.x//, for each
x 2 L.
These are the s-natural maps of [19]. In this paper we shall call them s-maps.
Observe that, if h is an s-map, then S.h/ D h jSM .
576 J. Martínez

In the proof of Theorem 3.4 it will be necessary to prove that several maps are
s-maps. The next lemma addresses some of this.

Lemma 3.2. Suppose h
m D 1, for two frame homomorphisms m and h, and, in

addition, m.h.x///  x, for all x. Then both m and h are s-maps.
Proof. For m: assume that s.a/ D s.b/ in the domain of m, and m.a/ _ y D 1.
Apply h, and a _ h.y/ D 1; this means that b _ h.y/ D 1, and applying m, one
gets
1 D m.b/ _ m.h.y//  m.b/ _ y;
proving that m.b/ _ y D 1. Reversing the steps, we see that s.m.a// D s.m.b//.
The proof for h is similar.
Appealing to Lemma 1.8, we have the following observation about s-maps. (The
% s occurring below are not subscripted.)

Proposition 3.3. The frame map h W L ! M between compact normal frames is

an s-map if and only if the diagram below commutes,
%
L / %L

h %.h/ (3.3.1)

 % 
M / %M:

Proof. Lemma 1.8 guarantees that a frame map t exists carrying %.x/ to %.h.x//,
thus making the diagram commute. On the other hand, if x 2 %L, we also have
%.t .x// D t.x/ D % .h.x// D h.x/ D h.%.x//;
making the diagram below commute,
%
%L / L

t h (3.3.2)

 % 
%M / M:

However, since % is a coreflection, and %.h/ in place of t also makes the diagram
(3.3.2) commute, we conclude that %.h/ D t .
 An innocent theorem applied 577

There should be very few surprises in the next theorem. There are several details
to check, and we will verify some, and invite the reader to take care of the others.

Theorem 3.4. For any s-map h W L ! M between compact normal frames, all
faces of the prism below commute – the top face and two triangles commuting in
both directions,

%
u
%L % 6 L h

%.h/ %
t %
Š . %M 5 M
% s %
(3.4.1)
 
Š
SL % s

S.h/  
*
SM:

Further,
(1) S defines an epireflection of the category KNs of compact normal frames and
s-maps in the full subcategory KRegs of compact regular frames.
(2) % and s are natural transformations (in KNs ), and the functor % (regarded
as a reflection) is naturally equivalent to S.

Proof. There are three issues that form the essence of a sketch of this proof:
 the commutativity of the faces of the prism,
 verifying that all the maps in the diagram (3.4.1) are s-maps, and
 showing that all the objects are compact and normal.
Regarding the commutativity:
(a) The front and back triangles commute, by Lemma 1.10 in the % direction,
and in the % direction too, as

s
% D %
%
% D % :

(b) The top face commutes in the % direction by Proposition 3.3. In the % direc-
tion the commutativity is obvious.
578 J. Martínez

(c) The “back” face commutes by definition of s-maps. As to the “front” face, to
show that %
%.h/ D S.h/
% , observe that

%
%.h/
% D %
%
h D s
h D S.h/
s D S.h/
%
% ;

and since % is surjective, we are done.

Regarding the maps in (3.4.1), we note that
(d) % and % are s-maps, by Lemma 3.2.
(e) The claim is trivial for s – which has stronger properties, as we will see.
(f) Since the composite of s-maps is an s-map, and we have that

%.h/ D %
%
%.h/ D %
h
%;

it follows that %.h/ is an s-map.

(g) It is trivial that S.h/ is an s-map since elements with the same saturation in
SL and SM are equal.
As far as the objects are concerned, the only question is whether SL is compact
and normal. That is settled by [3, 1.2], with the observation in Remark 1.16.

3.2 A closer look at s-maps

We discuss two types of s-maps in this section. For proofs of the claims made in
the upcoming lemma – except for the last one – we refer the reader to [18, 3.2].
Suppose that for each x 2 L and u 2 M

h.x/ _ u D 1 H) x _ h .u/ D 1;

then h is an s-map. These maps are said to be weakly closed. (We will explain why
one might use such a name.)

Lemma 3.5. Let h W L ! M denote a frame homomorphism.

(1) The composite of two weakly closed maps is weakly closed.
(2) The frame map h is weakly closed if and only if for each x 2 L and u 2 M

h.x/ _ u D 1 ” x _ h .u/ D 1:

(3) The saturation s is weakly closed.

(4) If h is any weakly closed frame homomorphism between frames, then S.h/ is
also weakly closed.
 An innocent theorem applied 579

Proposition 3.6. Let h W L ! M denote a frame homomorphism between com-

pact frames. Regarding the three conditions listed below,
 (a) implies (b);
 with Choice, (b) implies (c), and if L is also normal, then the reverse is true;
 if both L and M are normal, then (c) implies (a), and thus all three are equiv-
alent.
(a) h is weakly closed.
(b) h maps maximal elements of M to maximal elements of L.
(c) h is an s-map.
Proof. (a) implies (b): Suppose that m 2 Max.M /, and a — h .m/. Then we
have h.a/ — m, whence h.a/ _ m D 1, which implies that a _ h .m/ D 1, which
is enough to establish that h .m/ is maximal.
Next, assume the Axiom of Choice. If (b) holds, and if a and b have the same
saturation, the goal is to show that the images h.a/ and h.b/ do too, by proving
that any maximal m 2 M exceeding h.a/ also exceeds h.b/, and vice versa. If not
and m  h.b/, while h.a/ — m, then a — h .m/, while b  h .m/. Since, by
the hypothesis, h .m/ is maximal, we have arrived at a contradiction, and so (b)
implies (c).
Conversely, assume (c). If m 2 Max.M /, then h .m/ is prime, and so since L
is compact and normal, h .m/ is majorized by a single maximal n. Observe that
n is, perforce, s.h .m//. Thus,

s.h.n// D s.h.h .m///  s.m/ D m;

whence h.n/  m, which in turn implies that n  h .m/. The conclusion is n D

h .m/, and hence (c) implies (b).
Finally, assume both frames are normal, and that h is an s-map. Bearing in mind
that under these assumptions the induced map S.h/ is closed, as it is a frame map
between regular frames, observe that if h.a/ _ y D 1, then

S.h/.sL .a// _ sM .y/ D sM .h.a// _ sM .y/ D 1;

with suprema being formed in SM . But then S.h/.sL .a//_sM .y/ D 1, computed
in M , because s is codense. From this it follows that S.h/.sL .a// _ y D 1, and
the composite of weakly closed frame maps being weakly closed,

a _ h .y/ D a _ .S.h/
sL / .y/ D 1;

which proves that h is weakly closed.

580 J. Martínez

In the previous proposition one cannot, in attempting to prove that condition

(c) implies (a), dispense with normality on either of the frames. We illustrate that
in Example 3.7, where the codomain is normal, but the domain is not. One can
produce a frame embedding of a (necessarily non-normal) frame into a normal one
– both being compact – which is an s-map, but not weakly closed. The examples
we know are complicated, and involve introducing much additional material, in an
already expansive presentation, and we therefore chose to omit it.

Example 3.7. An s-map which is not weakly closed.

Consider the embedding of the ring of integers Z in the localization Z.2/ of all
rational numbers with odd denominator. The latter is local, and the lone maximal
ideal, namely the ideal n of all rational numbers in Z.2/ having an even numerator,
contracts to Z as the ideal 2Z of all even integers, which is maximal.
Let e denote the map which assigns to a radical ideal of Z the radical ideal it
generates in Z.2/ ; and note that e is the trace map a 7! Z \ a.
All of the following are easy to see, either because of elementary facts from
commutative algebra, or because they are easy: e is an s-map and surjective, but
not weakly closed; in fact, e embeds the two-element frame in the frame of radical
ideals of Z, which is not normal.

Remark 3.8. The following facts are easy to check and we leave them to the reader.
(1) If m W L ! M is a frame embedding, and the right adjoint is a frame homo-
morphism – in fact, if m merely preserves finite suprema –, then m is weakly
closed.
(2) Any codense frame surjection is weakly closed.
(3) Any dense weakly closed frame map is codense.

With Lemma 3.5, it makes sense to talk about KNw , the category of compact
normal frames with weakly closed maps. We also have most of what is required
for a proof of a second version of Theorem 3.4. It should also be noted that the
first numbered assertion in the following proposition already appears as Proposi-
tion 3.2.4 of [18], albeit for joinfit frames.

Proposition 3.9. In the diagram (3.4.1), all maps are weakly closed, provided that
h W L ! M is weakly closed. Thus,
(1) S defines an epireflection of KNw in the full subcategory KRegw of compact
regular frames.
(2) % and s are natural transformations (in KNw ), and the functor % is naturally
equivalent to S .
 An innocent theorem applied 581

Proof. Items (d) through (g) of the proof of Theorem 3.4 must be checked. The
reader will note that (e) and (g) are established by Lemma 3.5, (3) and (4), respec-
tively. Further, (f) follows from (d) and (1) of the aforementioned lemma.
The frame map % is weakly closed because any codense surjective frame map
is weakly closed (see Remark 3.8 (2)). As for % itself, if %.a/ _ y D 1, then, since
the frame L in question is compact, and a is regular, there is a c 2 L, c  a such
that c _ y D 1; that is, we also have d 2 L, such that c ^ d D 0 and a _ d D 1.
Since d  % .y/, we have a _ % .y/ D 1.
This suffices to prove the proposition.

Weakly closed maps are so named because they are defined by relaxing the con-
dition that describes closed maps. Here is a brief review of that.

Definition & Remarks 3.10. First, we refer to a map of the form x 7! x _ a from
L onto " a as a closed quotient. Next, suppose that h W L ! M is a frame ho-
momorphism, and let q W M ! F be a frame surjection. Factor q
h D m
e
through the image, as indicated in the square below:
h
L / M

e q (3.10.1)

 m

E / F:

The frame homomorphism h is closed if for each closed quotient q, e too is a

closed quotient.
It is shown in [23, Chapter II, §5] that h W L ! M is closed if and only if

h.b/  h.a/ _ y H) b  a _ h .y/:

It should be clear why one might decide to call weakly closed maps by that name.
Further, the following should be noted:
(1) Any frame map between compact regular frames is closed ([17, Lemma 4.2]).
In particular, the two full subcategories of regular frames in Theorem 3.4 and
Proposition 3.9 coincide; it is simply the category of compact regular frames
and all frame maps.
(2) One cannot formulate a result like Proposition 3.9 for closed maps. The dia-
gram (3.4.1) does not lie in the category KNc of compact normal frames and
closed maps: the reader will note that if L is an KN-object which is joinfit,
582 J. Martínez

then the saturation map is dense, and any closed dense frame map is one-to-
one. Thus, unless L is already regular, s is not closed.
The definition of a closed frame map is motivated by the notion of a closed
continuous map. Curiosity alone should make one wonder about the relationship
between a closed frame map h W L ! M and its associated map Spec.h/ between
the spectra, which is continuous with respect to the hull-kernel topologies.
We do not know whether the converse of the next lemma is true; we doubt it.

Lemma 3.11. Suppose that h W L ! M is a frame homomorphism, and assume

L is spatial. If Spec.h/ is a closed mapping, then h is closed.

Proof. To say that Spec.h/ is closed is to say that, for each y 2 M , the prime p
satisfies p  h .y/ if and only if p D h .q/, for some prime q  y.
So suppose now that h.a/  h.b/ _ x, yet a 6 b _ h .x/. Since L is spatial,
we must have a prime p in L such that a 6 p, yet b _ h .x/  p. Since Spec.h/
is closed, p D h .q/, for a suitable prime q of M , with x  q. But then we have
h.b/ _ x  q, whence h.a/  q and a  h .q/ D p, a contradiction.

The following corollary is left as an exercise. We will not need it in this paper.

Corollary 3.12. Every frame homomorphism h W L ! M with L compact regu-

lar and M compact and normal is weakly closed.
We conclude this section by highlighting the particular behavior of s-maps bet-
ween Yosida frames. These were introduced in [20]. The appeal of these frames
to this author stems from the way that the concept seems to capture abstractly the
frame of z-ideals of a ring of continuous functions.

Definition 3.13. Throughout these remarks it is assumed that L is a coherent frame.

The frame homomorphisms to be considered are also coherent. We call L a Yosida
frame if each compact element is saturated. (The definition given in [20] is formu-
lated differently, but agrees with this one on coherent frames.)

Recall diagram (3.1.1), defining s-maps, and that h jSM coincides with S.h/ .

Proposition 3.14. Suppose that h W L ! M is a dense weakly closed frame map

between compact frames. Then we have the following:
(1) The map h jSM W SM ! SL is surjective, and, therefore, S.h/ is one-to-
one.
(2) If, in addition, L is a coherent Yosida frame and h too is coherent, then h is
one-to-one.
 An innocent theorem applied 583

Proof. Since h is both dense and weakly closed, it is also codense. Applying Lem-
ma 1.17, we have that, whenever x 2 SL, x D h .s.h.x///. This tells us that h ,
restricted to SM , is surjective, and (since h jSM D S.h/ ) S.h/ is one-to-one.
This proves (1).
Regarding (2), as the map h is now coherent, S.h/ is h, restricted to the compact
elements of L. By (1), h is one-to-one on the subframe generated by the compact
elements, that is to say, on L.

One immediately gets the following.

Corollary 3.15. Any dense coherent s-map between two coherent normal Yosida
frames is one-to-one.

4 Ring homomorphisms that induce s-maps

One is easily tempted by a natural curiosity to interpret the s-maps of the previous
part in any number of situations, such as in lattice-ordered groups and f -rings.
However, considering where this investigation began, it seems more sensible to
restrict our applications to commutative rings with identity.
First, a covariant functor should be defined linking the category of commutative
rings with identity, CR, together with ring homomorphisms which preserve the
identity, with the category Coh of coherent frames and coherent maps. There is an
obvious candidate, and the account of it that follows is, surely, frame-folklore.

4.1 The Rad functor

To recall, Rad.R/ denotes the coherent frame of radical ideals of the ring R. (As
before in this narrative, all rings are assumed to be commutative and possess an
identity.)
Now consider a ring homomorphism g W R ! T , and for each radical ideal a
p
of R, recall that a stands for the radical ideal of T generated by a. Now define
Rad.g/ as follows: p
Rad.g/.a/ D g.a/;
that is, y 2 T lies in Rad.g/.a/ if and only if there is a natural number m such that
y m D s1 g.a1 / C


C sk g.ak /, for suitable sj 2 T and ai 2 a. (We shall refrain
p
from adding decorative subscripts or superscripts to the -symbol to indicate in
which ring the radical ideal is being generated. This, to a careful reader, will be
clear from context.)
Now, here is the principal observation in this section, the proof of which is quite
straightforward, and so a sketch of it suffices.
584 J. Martínez

Proposition 4.1. For each morphism g W R ! T of CR, Rad.g/ is a coherent

frame map. Moreover,
(1) The right adjoint of Rad.g/ is the map b 7! g 1 .b/.

(2) Rad is a covariant functor from CR to Coh.

(3) For each surjective CR-morphism g W R ! Y , Rad.g/ is closed and surjec-
tive.

Proof. Observe that y 2 T is in Rad.g/._i ai / if and S only if some power y k D

s1 g.aW1 / C


C sm g.am /, for some sj 2 T and aj 2 i ai . On the other hand,
l
y 2 i Rad.g/.ai / if and only if y is a power which S can be written as a linear
combination with W coefficients
W in T of members of i g.ai /. This should make it
clear that Rad.g/. i ai /  i Rad.g/.ai /. Since the reverse inclusion is always
true, this suffices to show that Rad.g/ preserves suprema. We leave it to the reader
to verify that it preserves finite infima.
If a is the radical ideal of R generated by X D ¹r1 ; : : : ; rn º, then Rad.g/.a/ is
the radical ideal of T generated by X. Thus, the map Rad.g/ is coherent.
By the definition of inverse images, we have that g.a/  b – and, equivalently,
Rad.g/.a/  b – precisely when a  g 1 .b/. This proves (1).
For each a 2 Rad.R/, we have, for any CR-morphism h W T ! W ,
h.g.a//  h.Rad.g/.a//  Rad.h/Rad.g/.a/;
whence Rad.h
g/  Rad.h/
Rad.g/, the maps being pointwise ordered. On the
other hand, if the radical ideal b of T contains h.g.a//, then it contains all h.y/,
with y ranging over all linear combinations of elements of g.a/ with coefficients
in T . Hence, h.Rad.g/.a//  b, and it is clear that Rad.h/.Rad.g/.a//  b, prov-
ing that Rad.h/
Rad.g/  Rad.h
g/, and so (2) follows.
As for (3), observe that the image of an ideal under any surjective ring homo-
morphism is an ideal of the codomain. In the present circumstance, this means that
Rad.g/.a/ consists of the elements y 2 T such that some power y m 2 g.a/. Thus,
if b 2 Rad.S/, then, for each x 2 Rad.g/.g 1 .b//, some x m 2 g.g 1 .b// D b,
which implies that x 2 b, and we have that Rad.g/ is surjective.
Finally, for radical ideals a1 ; a2 of R and any radical ideal b of T , assume that
Rad.a1 /  Rad.a2 /_b. Then, for each r 2 a1 , there is a power g.r/j 2 g.a2 /Cb,
that is to say,
g.r j x/ 2 b; for some x 2 a2 :
We conclude that r j 2 a2 C g 1 .b/, proving that
1
a1  a2 _ g .b/;
and that Rad.g/ is closed.
 An innocent theorem applied 585

Remark 4.2. Any CR-morphism g has an image factorization; that is, g may be
factored g D m
e such that e is surjective and m is a ring embedding.
To analyze Rad.g/ D Rad.m/
Rad.e/, with the end in mind of characterizing
the CR-morphisms g for which Rad.g/ is an s-map (or weakly closed, or closed),
it suffices to study the situation in which g itself is an embedding, because of the
following.

The first claim of the following proposition is [17, Lemma 4.4], for closed maps,
and [18, Lemma 3.2.5], for weakly closed maps. It is curious that no assumptions
are needed for the surjective map e in item (1) below, whereas for s-maps the
assumption that e is weakly closed seems important in item (2).

Proposition 4.3. Suppose that h W L ! M is a frame map and h factors in Frm

as h D f
e, with e being a surjective frame map. Then
(1) Assume that e is closed; then h is closed precisely when f is closed. The state-
ment is true, repeating with weakly closed replacing closed everywhere.
(2) If e is weakly closed and the factorization h D f
e occurs over compact
frames, then h is an s-map if and only if f is an s-map.
Proof. Since all three classes of maps under consideration here are closed with
respect to composition, it is clear that if f has either of these properties, then so
does h.
In reverse, we need only prove the statement about s-maps. To that end, assume
then that h is an s-map. Suppose that s.u/ D s.v/ in the domain of f . Now if
e .u/_x D 1, we have u_e.x/ D 1, whence v_e.x/ D 1. As e is weakly closed,
we conclude that e .v/ _ x D 1, thereby showing that s.e .u// D s.e .v//, be-
cause the argument we have given is reversible. Now the fact that h is an s-map
implies that
s.f .u// D s.f .e.e .u//// D s.h.e .u/// D s.h.e .v///
D s.f .e.e .v//// D s.f .v//
since e
e D 1, because e is surjective. Thus it is proved that f is an s-map.

Remark 4.4. Thus, in trying to characterize the CR-morphisms which induce

s-maps, we may restrict ourselves to frame maps of the form Rad.m/, where m is
an embedding. In general, such maps are dense, but not necessarily one-to-one,
and in Section 4.2 we will comment on this further.
For the present, we remind the reader that, when Rad.m/ is weakly closed, it is
also codense, and, in fact, one-to-one, provided Rad.R/ is a Yosida frame (Propo-
sition 3.14). In [20, §6], there is an account of the integral domains for which the
frame of radical ideals is Yosida.
586 J. Martínez

4.2 Going Up
Let R be a subring of T , and assume they share the identity. It is standard termi-
nology to refer to T as an extension of R. Let e be the frame map which assigns
to the radical ideal a of R the radical ideal it generates in T . When e is an s-map
we say that T is an s-extension of R. As already noted, e .b/ D R \ b.
The goal in this section is to connect the study of s-extensions with work of
Dobbs, Fontana and Picavet, and even earlier results by Ohm and others on rather
classical properties of extensions. Our most immediate references for background
material are [1, 15]. We refrain from saturating the bibliography with specific
references, however, for two reasons: first, there is quite a lot in print, much of
it oriented towards algebraic geometry, which is a discipline in which we have no
expertise whatsoever, and, second, the basic questions that this investigation does
impinge upon are either answered with the references included in this paragraph,
or else remain steeped in mystery.
We begin with a simple observation, concerning von Neumann rings. In von
Neumann rings – rings R in which for each a 2 R there is an x 2 R such that
a2 x D a – it is well known that every prime ideal is maximal. Thus, since Rad.R/
is regular when R is von Neumann regular, we have:

Proposition 4.5. Every homomorphism g out of a von Neumann regular ring into
a Gelfand ring is weakly closed.

Thanks are due to David Dobbs for pointing this author in the right direction,
and thus helping to assess the kind of work still to be done, but also to force a
hard look at some classical material. And many thanks to Warren McGovern, for
suggesting that Professor Dobbs should be consulted.
Taking the cue from the theory of commutative rings, we say that a frame ho-
momorphism h W L ! M has the Going Up property if for each pair of primes
p  p1 of L and each prime q of M such that h .q/ D p there is a prime q1 > q
of M such that h .q1 / D .p1 /. The Going Up property will be abbreviated GU.
Note that if Spec.h/ is closed, then GU is satisfied.
The reader should note that an s-embedding need not have the GU property;
Example 3.7 shows that. We revisit the question of when s-embeddings do have the
GU property at the conclusion (in Section 5.2.)
The next proposition incorporates Lemmas 1.6 and 3.11 into the present discus-
sion of the GU property.

Proposition 4.6. Let h W L ! M be a dense frame homomorphism. In the di-

agram below, the valid implications between properties of h are indicated by an
arrow, and the number by the arrow refers to the item on the list of explanations
 An innocent theorem applied 587

following the diagram. An arrow with a tail indicates a strict implication,

.1/
1 GU -
|
.7/; .6/
!
Spec.h/ closed .5/ one-to-one
a
Spec.h/ surjective
X
.3/ .2/ .4/
 " 
+
closed s-embedding h surjective
F , 2
.9/ .6/
.8/
W
*
weakly closed.

Here are the promised sketches of arguments and explanations.

(1) Left as an exercise, with the reference to Exercise 10 (i) in [1, Chapter 5]. Also
note the remark immediately after the proof of this proposition.
(2) By the remarks in Definition & Remarks 1.2.
(3) See Lemma 3.11; presumed to be a strict implication.
(4) See Lemma 1.6.
(5) See proof below.
(6) Proved below, for coherent h between coherent frames.
(7) The embedding of

1 1

a in a b

0 0

induces a surjective spectral map, but GU fails. It is not an s-map either.

(8) The saturation s itself is rarely closed, but is weakly closed (3.10).
(9) The implication by Proposition 3.6, with Example 3.7 making it strict.
588 J. Martínez

Proof (Assuming Choice). By an argument similar to the one used in the proof
of Lemma 1.6, but on the elements y satisfying h .y/  p, for a given minimal
prime p, it is proved that each minimal prime is in the range of Spec.h/. It then
follows that the GU property implies that Spec.h/ is surjective.
GU implies that h is an s-embedding because, if m 2 M is maximal, then h .m/
must be maximal, else there is a prime n 2 M such that n > m, and 1 > h .n/ >
h .m/, which is a contradiction.

Suppose that R  T is an embedding. Recall that y 2 T is integral over R if

for some monic polynomial f .X /, with coefficients in R, f .y/ D 0. We call T
integral over R if each element of T is integral over R.

Remark 4.7. Regarding the reverse implication GU H) Spec is a closed map,

most of the prominent counter-examples in the literature of the sixties and seven-
ties involve placing conditions on the structure spaces themselves, such as in Exer-
cise 11 of [1, Chapter 6].
Theorem 4.15, due to Mulero, gives a class of extensions for which the GU
property is equivalent to the tracing of primes being a closed map. The reader will
see, in the next section, that the defining condition for the class only involves the
maximal ideal spaces, but makes no assumption about them.

As an immediate consequence of the Going Up Theorem ([15, Theorem 4.6]),

we have:

Corollary 4.8. Every integral extension is an s-extension.

4.3 Rings of functions

An s-embedding is much easier to identify among extensions of f -rings and f -al-
gebras. The place to begin is with rings of continuous functions; as always, C.X/
denotes the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on the topological space X,
viewed as a commutative ring with identity, relative to pointwise operations. Here
and there, the reader may benefit from referring to [11].
We consider continuous surjections  W Y ! X of compact Hausdorff spaces.
Any such  induces a one-to-one ring homomorphism C./ W C.X/ ! C.Y /,
by
C./.g/ D g
; for each g 2 C.X/I
that is to say, C./ is a CR-embedding. Since each maximal ideal of C.X/ – when
X is compact Hausdorff – is of the form

mp D ¹g 2 C.X/ W g.p/ D 0º;

 An innocent theorem applied 589

for some p 2 X, it is easily seen that the inverse image C./ 1 carries maximal
ideals to maximal ideals, whence Rad.C.// is an s-map.

Remark 4.9. From an algebraic point of view, one should wonder about what
features of a commutative ring make the situation we have just illustrated work.
Perhaps the following can be a working set of axioms:
 Each commutative ring should be an f -ring; that is to say, a lattice-ordered
ring which is a subdirect product of totally ordered rings. (With Choice, these
are the lattice-ordered rings in which a^b D 0 implies that ca^b D 0, for each
positive c.) For a background reference on f -rings, we suggest [9, Chapter 9].
 All f -rings under discussion should be archimedean and bounded, in the sense
that for each positive f there is a natural number m such that f  m1.
It is well known that every archimedean f -ring (with identity) is semiprime
([9, Corollary 12.3.9]). Moreover, if R is any semiprime f -ring with identity,
and M be a maximal convex `-subgroup, then M is a (ring) ideal of R. (Here
convex means order-convex, i.e., the property that if a  x  b and a and b
are in the subset in question, then x is as well.)
 Every maximal ideal should be convex. As is well known, this amounts to as-
suming that the f -ring has bounded inversion: Each f  1 is invertible. With
this assumption comes the consequence that the space of maximal ideals,
equipped with the hull-kernel topology, is Hausdorff.
 With the aforementioned hypotheses that R is a bounded archimedean f -ring
with bounded inversion, each maximal ideal m is also a maximal convex `-sub-
group, and so – by Hölder’s theorem ([9, Theorem 2.6.3]) – the residue field
R=m is isomorphic to a subfield of the reals.

It also follows from the assumption of bounded inversion, that every bounded
archimedean f -ring is Gelfand – without necessarily having every prime ideal
convex, as with each C.X /, by [11, Theorem 5.5]. We state this as a lemma; and
sketch a proof, though it certainly is known.
One final preliminary observation, regarding notation. For each maximal ideal
m of a ring R, denote
O.m/ D ¹f 2 R W 9 g … m; fg D 0º:
The first assertion in the lemma is well known for semiprime rings, and has nothing
to do with the ordering of an f -ring.

Lemma 4.10. Suppose that R is a semiprime f -ring with bounded inversion. Then
we have the following.
590 J. Martínez

(1) For each maximal ideal m of R,

(a) p 2 Spec.R/; p  m H) O.m/  p.
(b) For each minimal prime ideal p, O.m/  p H) p  m.
(c) If n is a maximal ideal, with m ¤ n, then R D O.m/ C O.n/.
(2) R is a Gelfand ring.

Proof. In (1), the first two assertions are easy to prove, and are left to the reader.
It is in proving (b) that the assumption that R is semiprime is used.
Regarding the third claim, we may express 1 D a C b with positive a 2 m
and b 2 n. The reader will also readily see that b … m, while a … n, and, thus, if
c D a .a ^b/ and d D b .a ^b/, then c ^d D 0 and c 2 O.m/ and d 2 O.n/.
Hence, 1 D c C .a ^ b C b/ 2 O.m/ C n, and it follows that R D O.m/ C n.
Then observe that each O.m/ is convex. One then essentially repeats the pre-
ceding argument with O.m/ and n, instead of the pair m and n, to obtain the
desired result.
To establish (2), we suppose by way of contradiction that the prime ideal p is
contained in the distinct maximal ideals m and n. By (1), we have, first, that both
O.m/ and O.n/ are contained in p, and so R D p, which is absurd since prime
ideals are proper ideals. Thus, every prime ideal is contained in a unique maximal
ideal, proving that R is Gelfand.

We are now ready to exhibit a class of ring embeddings R  T (in CR), where
R is an `-subring of T , for which the extension of radical ideals is an s-map.

Lemma 4.11. Suppose that R and T are bounded archimedean f -rings with boun-
ded inversion, and that R is an
p`-subring of T sharing the identity. Then the ex-
tension of radical ideals a 7! T a is an s-map.

Proof. It suffices to show that the contraction of a maximal ideal is maximal.

For any maximal ideal m of T , the contraction R \ m is a prime ideal of R, and
the residue R=R \ m is isomorphic to a subring of T =m, which is a field of real
numbers. Then it easily follows that R \ m is a maximal ideal.

It only remains to combine Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 2.6 into a functorial
version of De Marco’s theorem. To simplify the formulation of this result, we shall
call the ring homomorphisms g for which Rad.g/ is an s-map an s-homomorphism.

Theorem 4.12. The assignments P and J, which compute for each commutative
ring R, respectively, the frames of pure ideals P .R/ and Jacobson ideals J.R/,
are naturally equivalent functors on the category Glfs of Gelfand rings and the
 An innocent theorem applied 591

s-homomorphisms between them. More precisely,

(1) if g W R ! T is an s-homomorphism of Gelfand rings, then
p
 P .g/ D %.Rad.g//, the restriction of the map a 7! T g.a/ to the pure
ideals of R, and
 J.g/ D S.Rad.g//, which gives, for each Jacobson ideal a of R, the least
Jacobson ideal of T containing g.a/.
(2) In particular, this holds in the subcategory bArbi of all bounded archimed-
ean f -rings with the bounded inversion property, together with all the ring
`-homomorphisms.

Proof. Regarding (1), P and J are functors as they are defined by composition of
functors. Theorem 3.4, interpreted in the frames of radical ideals, insures that the
isomorphism achieved in Theorem 2.6 is a natural equivalence.
As for (2), Lemma 4.10 guarantees that the objects of this subcategory are Gel-
fand rings, while Lemma 4.11 tells us that the chosen monomorphisms are s-maps.
This suffices, by Proposition 4.3 and the remarks preceding it, because for every
surjective `-homomorphism e, Rad.e/ is closed, and bArbi has factorization of
maps through the image.

In conclusion of this section, let us return to origins, so to speak. The section

began, after all, with references to rings of continuous functions, and De Marco’s
theorem is, in turn, a generalization of the observation that the frame P .C.X// is
isomorphic to O.X/, for compact spaces X .
From Theorem 4.12 one can deduce the following: KT2 denotes the category
of compact Hausdorff spaces and all continuous functions. View C.
/ as a contra-
variant functor from KT2 to bArbi .

Corollary 4.13. On KT2 , the functors O and P
C are naturally equivalent.

Proof. By the preceding theorem, P
C Š J
C . By the last assertion in Theo-

rem 2.6,
Spec
P
C Š Spec
J
C Š Max
C Š 1;
the latter being the identity functor. Further,
O Š O
Spec
J
C Š P
C:
In this return to origins, one should record the following observation, leaving it
to the reader to interpret any undefined terms.

Remark 4.14. The rings of continuous functions on a completely regular frame F ,

denoted RF by Banaschewski, or simply C.F / by others, have gained consid-
592 J. Martínez

erable prominence in the last twenty years. The set C.F / consists of the frame
homomorphisms from the localic real numbers (see [4]) into F . In [7], the functor
J
C (now covariantly) turns up as a point-free model of the Stone–Čech com-
pactification of a completely regular frame.

To round out the discussion on s-extension, we return once more to the ini-
tial situation of this section, that is, the extensions obtained by taking the homo-
morphism C.g/ W C.X/ ! C.Y / given by a continuous surjection g between
compact Hausdorff spaces Y and X.
In [22], Mulero takes up the question of when the extension C.g/ has the GU (as
well as the dual Going Down (GD) property). Her principal results in this regard
are as follows.

Theorem 4.15. Let g W Y ! X denote a continuous surjection between compact

Hausdorff spaces.
(1) C.g/ satisfies the GU if and only if Spec.C.g// is a closed mapping ([22, Lem-
ma 1.2]).
(2) If g is open, then C.g/ satisfies both GU and GD ([22, Theorem 1.5]).
Then we have the following corollary, recalling Proposition 4.6.

Corollary 4.16. If g W Y ! X is a continuous surjection of compact Hausdorff

spaces, and C.g/ has the GU property, then Rad.C.g// is closed.

5 Comments and work points

We close this presentation with an assortment of remarks, open questions, and sug-
gestions associated with material in this article.

5.1 Obvious questions

The first question to wriggle free and into the open is the following one.

Question 5.1. Can any of this material be reproduced without compactness?

Without normality in the hypotheses, it is difficult to get anywhere. Even if the
frames in the discourse are assumed to be normal, there are several open questions,
and just a few features that can be generalized.
One can form, in any frame L, the subframe of regular elements Reg.L/, and if
L is normal, then %L D Reg.L/, as the relation  interpolates. Recall (in Proposi-
tion 1.4) that % preserves finite suprema, but need not preserve arbitrary suprema.
Thus, % might not have a right adjoint.
 An innocent theorem applied 593

From the opposite direction, as it were, one wonders what takes the place of
saturation. The obvious choice is the jointfit closure.

Remark 5.2. Let L be a frame, and a < b in L. We say that a is infinitesimal to b,

and write a  b, if a _ z D b implies that z D b. If a  1, then a is simply an
infinitesimal. To simplify the notation, when a  b in the quotient " x, we shall
write a  b .x/.
The joinfit closure is most directly defined by letting j.a/ be the meet of all
x 2 L such that " x is joinfit and x  a. If " x is joinfit, we say that x is residually
joinfit. By [16, Proposition 4.1], this establishes j.a/ as the least element x  a
which is residually joinfit.

Lemma 5.3. In a normal frame L,

(1) a  c .b/ if and only if a _ x D c implies b _ x D c.
(2) b 2 L is residually joinfit if and only if for each a > b there is an x such that
a _ x D 1, but b _ x < 1.
(3) The quotient frame jL is subfit.

Proposition 5.4. In a normal frame L, the restriction of % to jL is one-to-one.

Proof. Assume that c and d are residually joinfit. If % .c/ D % .d /, then y  c

precisely when y  d . As with Lemma 1.8, we may conclude that
c_w D1 ” d _ w D 1:
By the preceding lemma, this implies that c D d , as desired.

We have mentioned it in passing, that temptation to apply the first two sections
of this article to other settings. In these concluding pages, it seems reasonable to
be more specific.

Question 5.5. How does one formulate, in a useful manner, the De Marco Theorem
for unital `-groups?
To be clear, the context of such a theorem is the category of abelian lattice-
ordered groups with a designated strong order unit, with all the `-homomorphisms
that preserve the designated unit (called the unital morphisms).
One should note that, in view of the Chang–Mundici Theorem on the equiva-
lence of the category of unital `-groups and unital morphisms with the category of
MV-algebras and MV-morphisms, there is a parallel application to these algebras.
Since the MV-algebras form a variety of algebras, it may be easier to make the
correct guesses there.
594 J. Martínez

In either of these contexts, the obvious substitute for the radical ideals of ring
theory – the frame of convex `-subgroups in unital `-groups, and of the order
ideals of the MV theory – not only is compact normal, but in fact has the much
stronger disjointification property, with regard to which each # c (with c compact)
is normal.
It should be added that Belluce ([8]) has a thorough account of the Going Up
property for MV-algebras.

5.2 Going Up again

Let us briefly revisit the situation in Proposition 4.6, to address what it leaves
unanswered.

Question 5.6. Does GU imply that the frame map h W L ! M is closed, or,
failing that, weakly closed?
All considerations here regard only compact frames. If the frames in question
are also normal, then weak closure of h is equivalent to it being an s-map, but is
there a direct proof that GU implies weak closure (with or without normality)?

Question 5.7. When does GU imply that the map Spec is closed?
Assuming normality ought to help. In fact, some preliminary results indicate
that, with the stronger disjointification property, for coherent frames and maps,
these two might be equivalent. We will present this material elsewhere. (The reader
is reminded that, with Choice, the disjointification property translates into the
statement that, for each prime p, " p is a chain.)

In conclusion, it is reasonable since the connection to commutative rings in this

paper began with purity in modules, to expect that tie-in again with regard to s-ex-
tensions. As an illustration, here is a translation of the weak closure of e; the reader
will have no trouble verifying it. The informal question we wish to leave the reader
with is: How is the condition in Proposition 5.8 related to purity?

Proposition 5.8. Suppose that T is a ring extension of R. Then e is weakly closed

if and only if for each a1 ; : : : ; am 2 R and radical ideal b, if

s1 a1 C


C sm am D 1 mod b with s1 ; : : : ; sm 2 T;

then there exist r1 ; : : : ; rm 2 R and y 2 T such that

r1 a1 C


C rm am D 1 mod b \ R:
 An innocent theorem applied 595

Bibliography
[1] M. F. Atiyah and I. G. MacDonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra, Addison-
Wesley, Oxford, 1969.
[2] B. Banaschewski, Radical ideals and coherent frames, Comment. Math. Univ. Car-
olin. 37 (1996), 349–370.
[3] B. Banaschewski, Point-free topology and the spectrum of f -rings, in: Ordered Al-
gebraic Structures, pp. 123–148, edited by W. C. Holland and J. Martínez, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997.
[4] B. Banaschewski, The Real Numbers in Point-Free Topology, Textos de Matemática,
Serie B, No. 12, Departamento de Matemática da Universidade de Coimbra, 1997.
[5] B. Banaschewski, Gelfand and exchange rings: their spectra in point-free topology,
Arab. J. Sci. Eng. Sect. C Theme Issues 25 (2000), no. 2, 3–22.
[6] B. Banaschewski, Functorial maximal spectra, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 168 (2002),
327–346.
[7] B. Banaschewski and M. Sioen, Ring ideals and the Stone–Čech compactification in
point-free topology, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010), 2159–2164.
[8] L. P. Belluce, The Going Up and Going Down Theorems in MV-algebras and abelian
`-groups, J. Appl. Math. Anal. Appl. 241 (2000), 92–106.
[9] A. Bigard, K. Keimel, and S. Wolfenstein, Groupes et Anneaux Réticulés, Lecture
Notes in Mathematics 608, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1977.
[10] G. De Marco, Projectivity of pure ideals, Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 69 (1983),
289–304.
[11] L. Gillman and M. Jerison, Rings of Continuous Functions, Graduate Texts in Math-
ematics 43, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1976.
[12] H. Herrlich and G. Strecker, Category Theory, Sigma Series in Pure Mathematics 1,
Heldermann-Verlag, Berlin, 1979.
[13] M. Hochster, Prime ideal structure in commutative rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
142 (1969), 43–60.
[14] P. T. Johnstone, Stone Spaces, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 3, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
[15] M. D. Larsen and P. J. McCarthy, Multiplicative Theory of Ideals, Pure and Applied
Mathematics 43, Academic Press, New York, London, 1971.
[16] J. Martínez, Archimedean frames, revisited, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 49
(2008), no. 1, 25-44.
[17] J. Martínez, Epicompletion in frames with skeletal maps III: When maps are closed,
Appl. Categ. Structures 19 (2011), 489–504.
596 J. Martínez

[18] J. Martínez, Epicompletion in frames with skeletal maps IV: -regular frames, Appl.
Categ. Structures, DOI 10.1007/s10485-009-9220-5.
[19] J. Martínez and E. R. Zenk, Nuclear typings of frames vs spatial selectors, Appl.
Categ. Structures 14 (2006), 35–61.
[20] J. Martínez and E. R. Zenk, Yosida frames, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 204 (2006), 473–
492.
[21] J. Martínez and E. R. Zenk, Regularity in algebraic frames, J. Pure Appl. Algebra
211 (2007), 566–580.
[22] M. A. Mulero , Algebraic properties of rings of continuous functions, Fund. Math.
149 (1996), 56-68.
[23] M. C. Pedicchio and W. Tholen, Special Topics in Order, Topology, Algebra and
Sheaf Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.

Received September 1, 2010; revised February 16, 2011.

Author information
Jorge Martínez, Department of Mathematics, University of Florida,
456 Little Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-8105, USA.
E-mail: gnocchiverdi@gmail.com
Copyright of Forum Mathematicum is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.