pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.08850 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-09 · 🧮 math.AC

A Weaker Notion of Atomicity in Integral Domains

Mohamed Benelmekki , Brahim Boulayat This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.AC
keywords sub-atomic domainsintegral domainsatomic factorizationfactorization theoryD+M constructionlocalizationpolynomial ringsirreducible elements
0
0 comments X

The pith

Integral domains are sub-atomic when every nonunit divisor of an atomic element is also atomic.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces sub-atomic integral domains as a relaxation of classical atomicity in factorization theory. In these domains only the nonunit divisors of elements that already factor into irreducibles are required to factor into irreducibles themselves. This produces a class strictly between atomic domains, where every nonzero nonunit factors, and non-atomic domains, where no such factorization exists at all. The authors map the new property under localization, polynomial extensions, and D+M constructions while showing its independence from other standard factorization conditions.

Core claim

An integral domain is sub-atomic if every nonunit divisor of an atomic element is atomic. This definition relaxes the classical atomicity requirement by not demanding that every nonzero nonunit admit a factorization into irreducibles, only that the divisors of those elements that do factor must themselves be atomic. The paper studies associated factorization properties, supplies examples, and examines the behavior of the property under localization, polynomial rings, and D+M constructions.

What carries the argument

The sub-atomic condition: every nonunit divisor of an atomic element must itself be atomic.

If this is right

  • Sub-atomic domains need not be atomic overall, as demonstrated by concrete examples.
  • The property interacts with localization and polynomial ring extensions in controlled, describable ways.
  • D+M constructions produce new families of sub-atomic but non-atomic domains.
  • The sub-atomic property is independent of the ascending chain condition on principal ideals and several other classical factorization properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The notion could be used to track how atomicity propagates along divisor chains in rings where global atomicity fails.
  • It suggests examining the set of atomic elements as a distinguished subset closed under taking nonunit divisors.
  • One could test whether sub-atomicity forces additional weak factorization properties inside restricted classes such as valuation domains or Prüfer domains.

Load-bearing premise

The domain contains atomic elements whose nonunit divisors can be checked for atomicity independently of global factorization.

What would settle it

An explicit integral domain containing an atomic element whose nonunit divisor cannot be written as a finite product of irreducibles would violate the sub-atomic condition for that domain; a proof that every sub-atomic domain must be atomic would collapse the claimed intermediate class.

read the original abstract

In classical factorization theory, an integral domain is called \emph{atomic} if every nonzero nonunit element can be written as a finite product of irreducible elements. Here, we introduce and study a weaker notion of atomicity, which relaxes the requirement that all elements admit a factorization into irreducibles. Namely, we say that an integral domain is \emph{sub-atomic} if every nonunit divisor of an atomic element is also atomic. We further consider several factorization properties associated with this notion. Then, we investigate the basic properties of such domains, provide examples, and explore the behavior of the sub-atomic property under standard constructions such as localization, polynomial rings, and $D+M$ constructions. Our results highlight the independence of the sub-atomic property from other classical factorization properties and introduce an important class of integral domains that lies between atomic and non-atomic domains.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a weaker notion of atomicity in integral domains: an integral domain is sub-atomic if every nonunit divisor of an atomic element is itself atomic. It studies associated factorization properties, establishes basic properties of sub-atomic domains, supplies examples, and examines preservation or failure under localization, polynomial extensions, and D+M constructions. The central claim is that the sub-atomic property is independent of classical factorization properties (atomic, ACCP, BFD, etc.) and that sub-atomic domains form a proper intermediate class between atomic and non-atomic domains.

Significance. If the non-vacuous examples are correctly constructed and verified, the work supplies a new, strictly intermediate class in the hierarchy of factorization properties. This could prove useful for constructing or classifying domains that admit some irreducible factorizations while failing to be fully atomic, thereby refining the landscape between atomic and non-atomic domains.

major comments (2)
  1. [Definition 2.1] Definition 2.1 (and the surrounding discussion in §2): the definition is satisfied vacuously in any domain containing no atomic elements at all. For the claim that sub-atomic domains form a proper class strictly between atomic and non-atomic domains to hold, the manuscript must exhibit domains that contain at least one atomic element (so the universal quantifier is non-vacuous) whose nonunit divisors are atomic, yet which also contain non-atomic elements that do not divide any atomic element. The provided examples must be checked against this requirement.
  2. [§3] Examples in §3: the manuscript asserts independence via explicit constructions, but the load-bearing verification that each example is neither atomic nor vacuously sub-atomic is not fully detailed. In particular, for each example domain, it is necessary to (i) exhibit at least one atomic element, (ii) confirm that all its nonunit divisors are atomic, and (iii) exhibit a non-atomic element that does not divide any atomic element.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for atomic elements and their divisors should be introduced once and used consistently; currently the same symbol is reused for different roles in §2 and §4.
  2. [Theorem 4.3] The statement of Theorem 4.3 on localization should explicitly record the hypothesis that the multiplicative set does not contain zero-divisors, even if it is implicit from the domain assumption.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We agree that the examples require more explicit verification to ensure the sub-atomic property is non-vacuous and to fully support the independence claims. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Definition 2.1] Definition 2.1 (and the surrounding discussion in §2): the definition is satisfied vacuously in any domain containing no atomic elements at all. For the claim that sub-atomic domains form a proper class strictly between atomic and non-atomic domains to hold, the manuscript must exhibit domains that contain at least one atomic element (so the universal quantifier is non-vacuous) whose nonunit divisors are atomic, yet which also contain non-atomic elements that do not divide any atomic element. The provided examples must be checked against this requirement.

    Authors: We agree that the definition holds vacuously in domains with no atomic elements. To ensure our claim of a proper intermediate class is substantiated, we will revise the manuscript to include explicit checks in §3 for each example domain: (i) exhibit at least one atomic element, (ii) confirm all its nonunit divisors are atomic, and (iii) exhibit a non-atomic element that does not divide any atomic element. These additions will make the non-vacuous nature clear and support the independence from classical properties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] Examples in §3: the manuscript asserts independence via explicit constructions, but the load-bearing verification that each example is neither atomic nor vacuously sub-atomic is not fully detailed. In particular, for each example domain, it is necessary to (i) exhibit at least one atomic element, (ii) confirm that all its nonunit divisors are atomic, and (iii) exhibit a non-atomic element that does not divide any atomic element.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the verifications in §3 could be expanded for greater transparency. In the revised version, we will provide detailed step-by-step arguments for each example, explicitly addressing (i) the presence of an atomic element, (ii) the atomicity of all nonunit divisors of atomic elements, and (iii) the existence of a non-atomic element not dividing any atomic element. This will confirm that the examples are neither atomic nor vacuously sub-atomic while preserving the original constructions and results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct definition with independent examples

full rationale

The paper defines sub-atomicity explicitly as 'every nonunit divisor of an atomic element is also atomic' and proceeds to study its properties, provide concrete examples, and examine behavior under localization and polynomial extensions. No derivation chain reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by construction, no parameters are fitted then renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation. The independence claim rests on explicit constructions rather than vacuous or self-referential logic, rendering the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on the standard definition of integral domains and atomic elements from classical factorization theory together with the newly introduced sub-atomic condition.

axioms (2)
  • standard math An integral domain is a commutative ring with unity and no zero-divisors.
    Standard background assumption in commutative algebra.
  • domain assumption An element is atomic if it factors into a finite product of irreducibles.
    Taken from classical factorization theory as referenced in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • sub-atomic property no independent evidence
    purpose: To define a weaker form of atomicity based on divisors of atomic elements.
    Newly coined definition with no independent external evidence supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5444 in / 1234 out tokens · 34305 ms · 2026-05-16T23:14:52.782730+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. D. Anderson, D. F. Anderson, and M. Zafrullah,Factorization in integral domains, J. Pure Appl. Algebra69 (1990) 1–19

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    D. D. Anderson, D. F. Anderson, and M. Zafrullah,Factorization in integral domains II, J. Algebra152(1992) 78–93

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    D. D. Anderson and M. Zafrullah,The Schreier property and Gauss Lemma, Bollettino U. M. I. (8) 10-B (2007) 43–62

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    J. T. Arnold and P. B. Sheldon,Integral domains that satisfy Gauss’s lemma, Michigan Math. J.22(1975) 39–51

    work page 1975

  5. [5]

    Benelmekki and S

    M. Benelmekki and S. El Baghdadi,Factorization of polynomials with rational exponents over a field, Comm. Alg. 50(10) (2022) 4345–4355

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Benelmekki and S

    M. Benelmekki and S. El Baghdadi, When is a group algebra antimatter?, inAlgebraic, Number Theoretic, and Topological Aspects of Ring Theory, eds. J.L. Chabert et al. (Springer, 2023) pp. 87–98

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Benelmekki, S

    M. Benelmekki, S. El Baghdadi, and S. Najib,Factorization in group algebras, J. Algebra Appl.24(2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Benelmekki and S

    M. Benelmekki and S. El Baghdadi,Factorization in group rings, Journal of Commutative Algebra (to appear)

    work page

  9. [9]

    J. G. Boynton and J. Coykendall,On the graph of divisibility of an integral domain. Can. Math. Bull.58(3) (2015) 449–458

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Clark,The Euclidean criterion for irreducibles, Am

    P.L. Clark,The Euclidean criterion for irreducibles, Am. Math. Mon.124(2017) 198–216

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    P. M. Cohn,Bezout rings and their subrings, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.64(1968) 251–264

    work page 1968

  12. [12]

    Coykendall, D

    J. Coykendall, D. E. Dobbs, and B. Mullins,On integral domains with no atoms, Comm. Alg.27(12) (1999) 5813– 5831

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Costa, J

    D. Costa, J. L. Mott, and M. Zafrullah,Overrings and dimensions of general D + M constructions, J. Natur. Sci.Math.26(1986) 7–14

    work page 1986

  14. [14]

    Coykendall and M

    J. Coykendall and M. Zafrullah,AP-domains and unique factorization, J. Pure Appl.189(2004) 27–35

    work page 2004

  15. [15]

    Du and F

    J. Du and F. Gotti,Unrestricted notion of the finite factorization property. Preprint available on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.00691

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    Eftekhari and M

    S. Eftekhari and M. R. Khorsandi,MCD-finite domains and ascent of IDF-property in polynomial extensions, Comm. Alg.46(2018) 3865–3872

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Gilmer,Multiplicative Ideal Theory, Marcel Dekker, New York (1972)

    R. Gilmer,Multiplicative Ideal Theory, Marcel Dekker, New York (1972)

    work page 1972

  18. [18]

    Gilmer and T

    R. Gilmer and T. Parker,Divisibility properties in semigroup rings, Michigan Math. J.,21(1974) 65–86

    work page 1974

  19. [19]

    Gonzalez and I

    V. Gonzalez and I. Panpaliya,On GL-domains and the ascent of the IDF property. Preprint available on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10722

    work page arXiv

  20. [20]

    Gotti and M

    F. Gotti and M. Zafrullah,Integral domains and the IDF property, J. Algebra614(2023) 564–591

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Grams and H

    A. Grams and H. Warner,Irreducible divisors in domains of finite character, Duke Math. J.42(1975) 271–284. 14M. BENELMEKKI AND B. BOULAYAT

    work page 1975

  22. [22]

    Kim,Factorization in monoid domains, Comm

    H. Kim,Factorization in monoid domains, Comm. Alg.29(5) (2001) 1853–1869

    work page 2001

  23. [23]

    Lebowitz–Lockard,On domains with properties weaker than atomicity, Comm

    N. Lebowitz–Lockard,On domains with properties weaker than atomicity, Comm. Alg.47(2019) 1862–1868

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    F. W. Levi,Arithmetische Gesetze im Gebiete diskreter Gruppen, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo35(1913) 225–236

    work page 1913

  25. [25]

    Roitman,Polynomial extensions of atomic domains, J

    M. Roitman,Polynomial extensions of atomic domains, J. Pure Appl. Algebra87(1993) 187–199

    work page 1993

  26. [26]

    P. B. Sheldon,How changingD[[X]]changes its quotient field, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.159(1971) 223–244. Department of Mathematics, Facult´e des Sciences et Techniques, Beni Mellal University, P.O. Box 523, Beni Mellal, Morocco Email address:med.benelmekki@gmail.com Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, FPK, Sultan Moulay Slimane University, P.O. B...

    work page 1971