format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A fundamental property of the interaction of matter and gravity is its spacetime reparametrisation invariance. In particular invariance under time reparametrisation leads to the constraint that the sum of the matter and gravitational Hamiltonians is zero. This implies that time does not appear in the Hamiltonian formulation of the matter-gravity action. However, this does not mean that time does not appear at all in the classical equations of motion, since they involve time derivatives of the dynamical parameters, but rather that there is no absolute time and no clock external to the universe.

Such a feature is maintained and becomes even more evident in the canonical quantisation of gravity within the superspace approach . In such an approach the spacetime dynamical variables are the three geometries of spacelike surfaces with their conjugate momenta, while matter is described by the corresponding fields and their conjugate momenta. As a consequence the classical equations correspond to geodesic equations in the manifold of all three geometries  (superspace) modified by the presence of a force term. Canonical quantisation then leads to a Schrödinger-like equation (Wheeler-DeWitt, hereafter WDW) without any time derivatives and a corresponding wave function satisfying it.

Clearly, if one considers as a starting point the complete quantum system, it must be possible to re-obtain the usual classical Einstein and quantum matter (Schwinger-Tomonaga) equations. This last step, however, does not appear to be immediate and has raised considerable interest. In particular the introduction of time has been examined within the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and the semiclassical approximation to gravity both without  and with  the backreaction of matter. Further it has also been discussed in quite diverse contexts such as through an examination of transition matrix elements of radiative processes occurring in the cosmos  or through interaction with the environment  or decoherence .

The scope of this paper is to examine the above problem by studying the matter-gravity quantum system within the context of a mini-superspace model containing a minimally coupled homogeneous scalar field (inflaton) which is known to lead to inflation  together with normal matter (which could be the non-homogeneous modes of the inflaton field or generic inflaton decay products appearing as lighter matter fields).

In the next section we shall study the general minisuperspace-homogeneous inflaton system and obtain an approximate solution, for large scale factor (inflation), suitable for some analytic considerations. Subsequently we shall illustrate the way the presence of normal matter leads to the requirement of an evolution (or time) which is obtained through a coarse graining and relating a gravitational part of the wave function to a measure of temporal density. Lastly, in section four, our results are summarized and discussed.

## 2 The gravity-matter system

As we have anticipated in the introduction we consider the gravity-matter interaction and work with a simple model having an approximate high degree of symmetry. To be definite we shall consider an inflationary cosmology driven by an homogeneous inflaton scalar field, with the presence of extra matter degrees of freedom, which will be treated as a small perturbation. Our goal is to study the effective quantum behavior of these latter degrees of freedom in the background of the homogeneous inflaton-gravity system. After having given the classical description of the full system we shall consider the quantized system described by the corresponding WDW equation. The study of the consequences of taking an approximate quantum solution will be of interest for our purposes.

### 2.1 The classical system

We start with a real massive scalar field (inflaton) and other unspecified matter fields minimally coupled to gravity which is described by a Robertson-Walker minisuperspace. The scalar field of mass $`m`$ is the homogeneous inflaton field $`\varphi `$, typical of chaotic inflation models, while matter fields are generally inhomogeneous, and of typical mass $`\mu m`$.

On taking $`ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)d\stackrel{}{r}^2`$, the line element in a flat 3-space, we write the total action with $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑t\left\{M^2a\dot{a}^2+a^3\left(\dot{\varphi }^2m^2\varphi ^2\right)+L_\mu \right\}}`$ (1)
where $`M`$ is the Plank mass and $`L_\mu `$ is the matter lagrangian, which depends on the scale factor $`a`$. Let us note that the volume factor has been absorbed by the scaling $`aaV^{1/3}`$. Since $`a`$ acquires the dimension of a length, the $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ variable is dimensionless just as any momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ arising from a Fourier analysis, further the scalar field $`\varphi `$ has the dimension of a mass.

The classical Hamiltonian is:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _a^2}{M^2a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^3}}\left(\pi _\varphi ^2+m^2\varphi ^2a^6\right)+H_\mu H_G+H_I+H_\mu `$ (2)
with $`\pi _a=M^2a\dot{a}`$, $`\pi _\varphi =a^3\dot{\varphi }`$.

### 2.2 The quantum system

The starting point of all our considerations is the quantized matter-gravity system. We shall consider in this section only the homogeneous inflaton degree of freedom minimally coupled to gravity, leaving to section $`3`$ the discussion of the quantum effects on the other matter fields. At the quantum level there is no time in the description of the system since the Hamiltonian, generating the dynamics, is a constraint which annihilates the physical states. The latter can be written as wave functions on considering, for example, the $`(a,\varphi )`$ representation. The dynamics is described by a second order partial differential equation which can be interpreted as giving a flow in $`a`$ of some distribution in $`\varphi `$ given for an initial $`a_0`$.

Physically we shall be interested in configurations with large $`a`$, typical of a situation which belongs to an advanced stage of the inflationary phase. At the same time we shall have a constraint on the kind of inflaton field quantum distribution which must be compatible with such an inflationary regime.

We therefore start from the quantum (WDW) Einstein equation in the $`(a,\varphi )`$ representation:

$`a|\varphi |\left(\widehat{H}_G+\widehat{H}_I\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2a^3}{2}}\varphi ^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(a,\varphi )=0`$ (3)
where, for convenience, we have taken a particular ordering for the first term ($`\frac{\pi _a^2}{a}\widehat{\pi }_a^2\frac{1}{\widehat{a}}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a,\varphi )`$ is the total scale factor-inflaton wave function. Let us note that different orderings, for example manifestly Hermitian ones, will differ by terms of the form $`(i/a^2)\widehat{\pi }_a`$ or $`\widehat{\pi }_a(i/a^2)`$ which, as we shall later verify, are irrelevant (non-leading) for $`a`$ large.

It is clear that for a positive definite inflaton Hamiltonian the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ will tend to have a strongly oscillatory dependence on $`a`$. The oscillatory period will be so small that natural scales for the matter dynamics in $`a`$ will be much longer and a coarse graining, which can be, for example, chosen as an averaging over a period of oscillation in $`a`$, will be necessary to study the effective matter dynamics. A statistical interpretation as given in studies of the probability distributions in the hydrogen atom  gives further insight. We shall develop this idea in section $`3`$ and concentrate in the following on studying the oscillatory behavior of the “universe” wave function.

It is convenient to write an expansion on a complete basis of the Hilbert space of the states of the inflaton field associated with the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_I`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(a,\varphi )=a\underset{n}{}\psi _n(a)u_n(a,\varphi )a\psi (a)\underset{n}{}c_n(a)u_n(a,\varphi )a\psi (a)u(a,\varphi );$$
(4)
on using the eigenstates of the inflaton Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_I`$ one has:

$$\widehat{H}_I|u_n=m\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)|u_n.$$
(5)
Substitution of (4) into (2.2) leads to (henceforth $`_a\frac{}{a}`$):

$`u(a,\varphi )_a^2\psi (a)+2_au(a,\varphi )_a\psi (a)+\psi (a)_a^2u(a,\varphi )+`$
$`+2M^2\psi (a)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2a^4}{2}}\varphi ^2\right)u(a,\varphi )=0.`$ (6)
Let us comment on the expansion in (4), and its statistical interpretation in quantum mechanics. We note that $`|c_n|^2`$ is the probability that a state of $`n`$ quanta is created (observed) and the $`c_n`$ arose through the extraction of a common factor $`\psi (a)`$ from the $`\psi _n(a)`$. That is the superposition of the different $`n`$ quantum number configurations occurred after extracting the common factor from the sum of the products of each $`n`$ quantum state with its corresponding universe wave function $`\psi _n(a)`$. Further we expect the homogeneous inflatonic matter initial state to be such as to lead to inflation. Thus we assume that the initial conditions are associated with the creation (considered as the inverse of a decay process) of a large average number $`\overline{n}`$ of quanta in an initial interval of $`a`$. This can then be imagined as occurring through a Poisson process so that the initial state associated with the interval of $`a`$ is related to a Poisson distribution.

Thus, instead of having a sequence of random creations of $`n`$ quanta (with average $`\overline{n}`$) corresponding to a sequence of inflationary processes in successive infinitesimal intervals of $`a`$ , we consider a statistical average, that is a superposition of the different possible quanta numbers which can occur in the interval of $`a`$ leading to inflation. Subsequently $`a`$ will undergo a rapid change due to inflation.

This distribution is familiar in quantum mechanical oscillators. It is associated with coherent states which, for large average occupation numbers, describe an almost classical behavior. We shall discuss the above assumption in the next section and find that for large $`a`$ it is a reasonable one, independently of any possible interpretation of its origin.

### 2.3 Approximating the quantum inflaton-gravity system

This section is devoted to the construction of an approximate solution of the WDW which corresponds to an inflationary situation. As a next step, in the following section, we shall make use of the results of this section in order to obtain some analytical insights on the dynamics of other matter degrees of freedom and show how a concept of time arises naturally, a phenomenon which in any case appears to be independent of the approximation employed.

To extract an approximate solution two procedures are possible: either try to solve directly the partial differential equation (2.2) or make an ansatz for $`u(a,\varphi )`$ and show that it leads to an approximate solvable differential equation for $`\psi (a)`$. We shall choose the latter approach.

For convenience we rewrite the inflaton Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_I(a)a|\widehat{H}_I|a`$ in terms of inflaton creation and annihilation operators:

$$\widehat{H}_I(a)\frac{\widehat{\pi }_\varphi ^2}{2a^3}+\frac{m^2a^3}{2}\widehat{\varphi }^2=m\left(b^{}b+\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(7)
where

$`b=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ma^3}{2}}}\left(\widehat{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ma^3}}\widehat{\pi }_\varphi \right),b^{}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ma^3}{2}}}\left(\widehat{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{ma^3}}\widehat{\pi }_\varphi \right)`$ (8)
and the ansatz for $`u(a,\varphi )`$ will be:

$$u(a,\varphi )=\varphi |\alpha (a),$$
(9)
where $`|\alpha (a)`$ is a coherent state of the inflaton, defined by

$$b|\alpha (a))=\alpha (a)|\alpha (a),$$
(10)
with $`\alpha (a)=\sqrt{\frac{m\varphi _0^2a^3}{2}}`$. From eqs. (9) and (10) $`u(a,\varphi )`$ must satisfy the differential equation:

$$\left(\frac{1}{ma^3}\frac{}{\varphi }+\varphi \varphi _0\right)u(a,\varphi )=0,$$
(11)
where $`\varphi _0`$ is a free parameter. Equation (11) has the familiar normalized solution:

$$u(a,\varphi )=\left(\frac{ma^3}{\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ma^3}{2}(\varphi \varphi _0)^2\right],$$
(12)
which is a simple gaussian peaked around $`\varphi _0`$ with a width which decreases as the scale factor $`a`$ increases. The values of the parameter $`\varphi _0`$ are constrained in order to lead to an inflationary regime  ($`\overline{n}=\alpha (a)^2`$), since such a quantum coherent state description can be related to the classical analysis of the inflaton system.

Let us now study the consequences of such a choice for $`u`$. If we substitute the expression (12) into equation (2.2) and calculate the contributions of the different derivatives we obtain:

$`_au(a,\varphi )=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4a}}{\displaystyle \frac{3ma^2}{2}}(\varphi \varphi _0)^2\right]u(a,\varphi ),`$ (13)
$`_a^2u(a,\varphi )=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{21ma}{4}}(\varphi \varphi _0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9m^2a^4}{4}}(\varphi \varphi _0)^4\right]u(a,\varphi ),`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}u(a,\varphi )=\left[ma^3+m^2a^6(\varphi \varphi _0)^2\right]u(a,\varphi ).`$ (15)
A key point is that we are interested in solutions of (2.2), describing an advanced stage of inflation ($`a1`$), since in this phase we wish to study how normal matter behaves. In this limit all the terms in the expressions (13-15) which are of the form $`(\varphi \varphi _0)^nu(a,\varphi )`$ with $`n>0`$, are non-leading by powers of $`a`$ with respect to $`u(a,\varphi )`$ since

$$\mathrm{max}\left[|\varphi \varphi _0|^nu(a,\varphi )\right]\left(\frac{n}{ma^3}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]\mathrm{max}\left[u(a,\varphi )\right];$$
(16)
in other words one has:

$`_au(a,\varphi )=O(a^1)u(a,\varphi ),`$ (17)
$`_a^2u(a,\varphi )=O(a^2)u(a,\varphi ),`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}u(a,\varphi )=O(a^3)u(a,\varphi ).`$ (19)
On just retaining the leading contributions in (2.2) one has:

$$\left[_a^2\psi (a)+m^2M^2\varphi ^2a^4\psi (a)\right]u(a,\varphi )=0$$
(20)
where $`u(a,\varphi )`$ has support in a tiny region around $`\varphi _0`$, due to the large values of $`a`$. We have also used the fact that any term of $`O(1/a)\psi (a)`$ is negligible with respect to $`_a\psi (a)`$ for large $`a`$, as can be verified on using the solution found for $`\psi (a)`$. Further additional terms such as $`_a(1/a^2)`$ or $`(1/a^2)_a`$, due to different orderings in the gravitational kinetic term, are non-leading when acting on $`au(a,\varphi )`$ (see eq. (17) and (18) ) and are also negligible with respect to $`_a^2\psi `$ when acting on the solution found for $`\psi (a)`$. Therefore the choice of ordering is irrelevant for large $`a`$. Finally one may rewrite (20) as:

$$_a^2\psi (a)+m^2M^2\varphi _0^2a^4\psi (a)=0$$
(21)
or on changing to the variable $`y=a^2`$ (again apart from a non-leading term for $`a`$ large),

$$\frac{^2}{y^2}\psi (y)+\frac{m^2M^2\varphi _0^2}{4}y\psi (y)=0.$$
(22)
A general solution, in terms of the Airy functions $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$, for eq. (22) is:

$$\psi (y)=C_1Ai(y)+C_2Bi(y)y^{\frac{1}{4}}\left[D_1\mathrm{sin}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}y^{\frac{3}{2}}+D_2\mathrm{cos}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}y^{\frac{3}{2}}\right]$$
(23)
as $`y\mathrm{}`$, or:

$$\psi (a)a^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[D_1\mathrm{sin}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}a^3+D_2\mathrm{cos}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}a^3\right]$$
(24)
for $`a1`$ where $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are complex numbers. The oscillatory behavior is encoded in $`\psi `$, even if at an approximate level (the solution is not exact). Let us note that the $`D_i`$ ($`C_i`$) in (23) can be determined by the initial conditions. For example, $`C_1=i`$ and $`C_2=1`$ corresponds to the Vilenkin initial wave function of the universe, while if $`C_1=1`$ and $`C_2=0`$ one has the Hartle-Hawking choice.

One may ask what would be the effect of a perturbation such as the addition of a small contribution of $`n`$ inflaton quanta. Because of the rapid oscillatory behavior of the gravitational wave function and the fast increase of $`\overline{n}`$ as $`a\mathrm{}`$ such a contribution will be quickly washed out. Thus our “coherent” state will remain dominant during inflation. Nonetheless some correction are certainly expected. For example in the classical limit (one has the classical Einstein equation) there are nonleading non power-like corrections to the oscillatory phase which are expcted to be of a logarithmic nature. We shall comment more on this in the following section.

## 3 The appearance of time in the description of matter

Let us at this point discuss the dynamics of “normal” matter fields. The quanta of these fields, associated with matter particles, are assumed to contribute as a small perturbation in the total Hamiltonian where the inflaton (homogeneous mode condensate) and gravity are dominant and whose classical expression was given in (2). In order to study this quantum problem one has to enlarge the corresponding Hilbert space of the physical states, in which the inflaton-gravity quantum state is only negligibly affected by the presence of “normal” matter, and consider the following extended quantum equation for the factorized wave function:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2a^3}{2}}\varphi ^2+\widehat{H}_\mu \right]\mathrm{\Psi }\chi `$ (25)
$`a|\varphi |\phi |\left(\widehat{H}_G+\widehat{H}_I+\widehat{H}_\mu \right)|\mathrm{\Psi }|\chi =0`$ $`,`$
where we have collectively denoted with $`\phi `$ all the matter fields (bosonic and fermionic) and $`\chi (\phi ,a)`$ describes their quantum state in some representation.

The first term in eq. (25) $`\widehat{H}_G`$ acts on both $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a,\varphi )`$ and $`\chi (\phi ,a)`$, the last ($`\widehat{H}_\mu `$) only on $`\chi `$ and $`\widehat{H}_I`$ only on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. On using eq. (2.2) for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we can obtain an equation for the “normal” matter wave function $`\chi `$:

$$2_a\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{a}\right)_a\chi +\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{a}_a^2\chi +2M^2\mathrm{\Psi }\widehat{H}_\mu (\phi ,a)\chi =0$$
(26)
where, for sake of compactness, $`\widehat{H}_\mu (\phi ,a)a|\phi |\widehat{H}_\mu |a|\phi `$. Further on defining $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(a,\varphi )\psi (a)u(a,\varphi )`$ and bearing in mind (4) one has:

$$2\frac{_a\stackrel{~}{\psi }}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_a\chi +2aM^2\widehat{H}_\mu (\phi ,a)\chi +_a^2\chi =0.$$
(27)
Let us now examine the different terms in (27) while assuming the presence of a finite number $`N`$ of quanta of normal matter. It is convenient to consider a free matter (bosonic or fermionic) field. Then it is clear that the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian will be independent of $`a`$ as $`a\mathrm{}`$. For example a state on $`N`$ bosonic quanta of momentum $`k`$ leads to a contribution $`\omega _k\left(N+\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ where $`\omega _k^2=\frac{k^2}{a^2}+\mu ^2`$ (apart from a normal ordering subtraction). The last term is then proportional to:

$$\left(\underset{L}{}N|\stackrel{}{}_a^2|LL|\stackrel{}{}_a^2|N\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{N^2}{a^2}$$
(28)
and is negligible with respect to the second for large $`a`$.

The first term in (27) contains all the information related to the behavior of the gravity-inflaton wave function which is highly oscillatory in $`a`$ with a typical period much less than a Planck time (length) (see below). Since any physical phenomena of interest for matter are related to scales above (or at least not below) the Planck time $`M^1`$, it is very natural to obtain an effective equation by means of a course graining. In particular we shall implement it by averaging over an oscillation period in $`a`$.

### 3.1 Approximate analysis

In order to compare the first two terms of (27) we consider the explicit expression of the approximate solution for $`\mathrm{\Psi }=a\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ derived in the preceding section and write:

$$\frac{_a\stackrel{~}{\psi }}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}\frac{_a\psi (a)}{\psi (a)}+\frac{_au(a,\varphi )}{u(a,\varphi )}.$$
(29)
On recalling eq. (13) the second term behaves as $`\frac{_au(a,\varphi )}{u(a,\varphi )}\frac{1}{a}`$ while the first term is asymptotically given by

$$\frac{_a\psi (a)}{\psi (a)}=\frac{y}{a}\frac{_y\psi (y)}{\psi (y)}\frac{mM\varphi _0a^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\psi (a)}\left[D_1\mathrm{cos}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}a^3D_2\mathrm{sin}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}a^3\right].$$
(30)
The crucial point is now to estimate the ratio (30): $`\psi (a)`$ and its derivative are products of a highly oscillating function of $`a`$ with some power of $`a`$. Let us consider the $`a`$-dependent period of oscillation $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a\frac{2\pi }{mM\varphi _0a^2}.$$
(31)
Since $`M`$ is the Plank mass, $`m10^6MM`$, $`\varphi _0M`$ and $`aM^1`$ (by many orders of magnitude) during the inflationary phase for $`a`$ large, one obtains the inequality

$$\mathrm{\Delta }aM^1.$$
(32)
Thus one may estimate (30) by averaging over an interval $`[a,a+\mathrm{\Delta }a]`$ which is much shorter than a Planck length:

$$I_{av}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }a}_a^{a+\mathrm{\Delta }a}𝑑\alpha (mM\varphi _0\alpha ^2)\frac{\left[D_1\mathrm{cos}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}\alpha ^3D_2\mathrm{sin}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}\alpha ^3\right]}{\left[D_1\mathrm{sin}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}\alpha ^3+D_2\mathrm{cos}\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}\alpha ^3\right]}.$$
(33)
The coarse-graining integral (33) is well defined for any complex $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, except for a zero measure case where their ratio is real, since the denominator in the integrand may vanish. To obtain a finite result one may then consider the principal value of the integral. We shall see that, except for the latter case and depending on the initial conditions discussed at the end of section $`2`$, one is able to introduce a time evolution. In particular one finds that Vilenkin type wave functions allow one to introduce a time, while Hartle-Hawking ones do not. On defining a new integration variable $`x=\frac{mM\varphi _0}{3}\alpha ^3`$ one may write:

$`I_{av}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{mM\varphi _0}{2\pi }}a^2{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\left[D_1\mathrm{cos}xD_2\mathrm{sin}x\right]}{\left[D_1\mathrm{sin}x+D_2\mathrm{cos}x\right]}},`$ (34)
which can be evaluated in the complex plane by using Jordan’s Lemma and the Residue Theorem. In fact on setting $`z=\mathrm{exp}ix`$ one has $`\mathrm{cos}x=\frac{1}{2}\left(z+\frac{1}{z}\right)`$, $`\mathrm{sin}x=\frac{1}{2i}\left(z\frac{1}{z}\right)`$, $`dx=\frac{i}{z}dz`$ and the integral (34) becomes:

$$I_{av}=\frac{mM\varphi _0}{2\pi i}a^2\frac{dz}{z}\frac{iD_1z^2+iD_1D_2z^2+D_2}{D_1z^2D_1+iD_2z^2+iD_2}$$
(35)
The function in the integrand (let us denote it by $`F(z)`$) has three singularities, at $`z_0=0`$ and $`z_{1,2}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{D_1iD_2}{D_1+iD_2}}\pm Ae^{i\theta }`$: $`z_0`$ will always lie within the path of integration (the circumference of radius 1 centred on the origin of the complex plane) while $`z_{1,2}`$ generally will not. Only if $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ have a real ratio one has $`A=1`$ and $`z_{1,2}`$ are on the circumference. If one evaluates the residues of $`F(z)`$ at $`z_{0,1,2}`$ one obtains:

$`ResF(z)|_{z=z_0}=i,ResF(z)|_{z=z_{1,2}}=i`$ (36)
To summarize, one can distinguish between 3 cases:
when $`0<A<1`$:

$$I_{av}=mM\varphi _0a^2\left(ResF(z)|_{z=z_0}+ResF(z)|_{z=z_1}+ResF(z)|_{z=z_2}\right)=imM\varphi _0a^2$$
(37)
when $`A>1`$:

$$I=mM\varphi _0a^2\left(ResF(z)|_{z=z_0}\right)=imM\varphi _0a^2$$
(38)
when $`A=1`$ the calculations are slightly different since one has to deform the path of integration to avoid the two singularities and then let the deformation tend to zero. For instance, the path could turn around $`z_{1,2}`$ following: $`z_{1,2}(\gamma )=z_{1,2}+ϵe^{i\gamma }`$ with $`\gamma `$ going from $`\theta \frac{\pi }{2}`$ to $`\theta \frac{3\pi }{2}`$ around $`z_1`$ and from $`\theta +\frac{\pi }{2}`$ to $`\theta \frac{\pi }{2}`$ around $`z_2`$:

$`I`$ $`=mM\varphi _0a^2\left(ResF(z)|_{z=z_0}\right)\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{mM\varphi _0}{2\pi i}}a^2\left({\displaystyle _{z_1(\gamma )}}𝑑zF(z)+{\displaystyle _{z_2(\gamma )}}𝑑zF(z)\right)\right]=`$
$`=imM\varphi _0a^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{mM\varphi _0}{2\pi i}}a^2\left(\pi +\pi \right)\right]=0.`$ (39)
Thus,unless $`A=1`$, coarse-graining of the ratio (30) leads to a non zero result, in which case the dominant contribution in (29) comes from the first term and one has:

$$\frac{_a\stackrel{~}{\psi }}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}\pm imM\varphi _0a^2.$$
(40)
We must further estimate $`_a\chi `$, again for N quanta, obtaining for its magnitude:

$$\left[N|\stackrel{}{}_a\stackrel{}{}_a|N\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\underset{L}{}N|\stackrel{}{}_a|LL|\stackrel{}{}_a|N\right]^{1/2}\frac{N}{a}.$$
(41)
As for the last term, we have shown it to be highly suppressed.

On just retaining the two leading terms in eq.(27) one obtains

$$\pm i\frac{m\varphi _0}{M}a_a\chi =\widehat{H}_\mu (\phi ,a)\chi .$$
(42)
Therefore we are left with a parabolic PDE which describes the evolution of “normal” matter with respected to $`a`$. On just defining a time $`t`$ according to $`\pm im\varphi _0/M_{loga}\chi i_t\chi `$ one obtains a Schrödinger equation describing the quantum mechanical evolution of matter, or a Schwinger-Tomonaga equation

$$i_t\chi =\widehat{H}_\mu (\phi ,a)\chi .$$
(43)
Let us note that this is equivalent to interpreting the coefficient of $`i_a\chi `$ on the l.h.s. of (42) as $`\dot{a}`$, the rate of expansion seen by the “normal” matter (observers + clocks). In particular the approximate analysis employed here shows a DeSitter type expansion. In general an observer made of “normal” matter, using clocks made of normal matter, can only measure any change of state with respect to the evolution of the $`t`$ introduced above as the parameter of the Schrödinger equation (42). In other words it is the presence of normal matter which leads naturally to the introduction of a time. The sign in eq. (42) depends on the initial conditions which characterize the solution $`\psi (a)`$. With generic conditions, one of the two cases is realized and this, in our approach, is related to the definition of the flow of time.

### 3.2 Beyond the approximation

The result we have obtained is reasonable, especially considering the approximations made during the inflationary phase. A different scale dependent evolution seen by matter, such as the one obtained in the classical limit of the chaotic inflation model, could be easily recovered by a very mild correction (logarithmic) to the coefficient of $`i_a\chi `$, which allowes for the difference between a constant and an approximate linearly decreasing (in time) Hubble parameter.

For the general case, with a strongly peaked inflaton wave function, independently of any particular approximation, the oscillatory wave function in the large $`a`$ region can be written as $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(a)=\rho (a)\mathrm{exp}i\beta (a)`$, where $`\rho `$ is an oscillating real function. For most initial conditions, as in the approximate solution, such a function never vanishes except possibly at an extreme of the oscillation. Only a zero measure set of initial conditions will not satisfy this property leading to the same consequences as already discussed in the previous subsection. After the course-graining integration one can therefore make the correspondence:

$$\frac{1}{aM^2}\frac{_a\stackrel{~}{\psi }}{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}_a=\frac{1}{aM^2}\left(\frac{\rho ^{}(a)}{\rho (a)}+i\beta ^{}(a)\right)_a\frac{i}{aM^2}\beta ^{}(a)_ai_t$$
(44)
where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`a`$, since after course-graining the term $`\rho ^{}(a)/(a\rho (a))_a`$ is always negligible and the gradient of the phase is unaffected. From this formula one can recover the previous approximate result. Indeed, for example, for the case of the Vilenkin type wave function one has $`\beta (a)=mM\varphi _0a^3/3`$. Again time is defined in terms of the inverse of the gradient of the phase of the $`\psi `$ wave function with respect to the scale factor, and in particular $`dt(aM^2/\beta ^{}(a))da`$.

Until now we have worked with the amplitude and not the probability density, however for large $`a`$ a probability density analysis leads to the same result. One may easily convince oneself of this on examining the probability current, which satisfies the relation

$$J_a\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}_a\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}2i\rho ^2_a\beta _a\stackrel{~}{\psi }.$$
(45)
since, in the limit we consider and on repeating the previous steps, the terms leading to differences are negligible. This means that the density flux is proportional to the gradient of the phase and the fundamental condition for time to arise, in our framework, is then a non negligible coarse-grained probability current.

The presence of an effective time evolution for matter arises from a mechanism similar to one already observed in the analysis of the classical limit of quantum systems, such as the hydrogen atom , in the sense that the quantum probability as a function of $`a`$ is similar to the measure of temporal density in a classical orbit. This fact has been studied for the stationary quantum eigenstates of the hydrogen atom (with two particular fixed values of the angular momenta and large principal quantum number $`n`$) one of which presents a radial highly oscillatory behavior. On course graining (in particular on applying the Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma) one is able to recover the classical trajectory related to the given angular momenta. Indeed the classical trajectory is related to a classical spatial probability distribution of a particle in terms of the inverse of its speed (the fraction of time spent in a spatial interval is a measure of the probability density). There is a deep connection between the above example and the situation present in the matter-gravity system.

As a side remark we note that for the particular case wherein one performs a WKB analysis in order to obtain the classical limit of equation (2.2) (since this leads to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation), $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is characterized by $`\rho (\beta ^{})^{1/2}`$ (with $`\beta `$ the classical action) which does not oscillate and the usual relation $`\dot{a}\pi _a/a\beta ^{}(a)/a`$ is found. In any case we stress that the relation in (44) is quite general, a much wider class of states for the inflaton-minisuperspace system can lead to an effective time evolution of “normal” matter.

It is worth noting that we always obtain in the course-grained differential equation for “normal” matter, which constitutes a perturbation in the whole Hamiltonian system, a factorized term of the form $`f(a)_a\chi `$. In such a term $`f(a)`$ is related to the variation of the universe wave function (minisuperspace+inflaton) regarded as a system separate from “normal” matter. It therefore leads to a universal time for all the “normal” matter since it is a common factor for all types of ”normal” matter. One has an analogy with the introduction of a temperature in statistical mechanics if one thinks of the minisuperspace-inflaton system in dynamical equilibrium as a sort of “heat” bath and normal matter (a perturbation) in “thermal” equilibrium with the “bath” (reservoir), in the sense that is acquires from the “bath” a time (in analogy with temperature in statistical mechanics).

A short comment also on a possible highly quantum mechanical situation wherein the initial condition leads to a coherent superposition of states described by a wave function of the inflaton $`\varphi `$ consisting of well separated, almost gaussian, peaks. A similar definition of time can be extracted on repeating the analysis performed above using a probability density and its flux, constructing a density matrix and subsequently tracing over the possible inflaton states. Indeed the different superimposed states are almost orthogonal and one is finally left with an average gradient of the phase which plays an analogous role to the single peak case in the construction of an effective Schrödinger equation for matter. The application of course-graining techniques in the context of quantum cosmology has also been considered by other authors , for example in the study of the wave function of a minisuperspace model by using the Wigner function approach, where diverse kind of coarse-graining are discussed in the search for the emergence of a classical behavior for gravity.

In our quantum mechanical framework it is tempting to say that time “exists” only as far as “normal” matter or inhomogeneous modes for the inflaton or metric fluctuations are concerned. The homogeneous minisuperspace gravity and inflaton condensate system may still be in a quantum state, which is practically unobservable in the sense specified above for the other physical degrees of freedom (“normal” matter and inhomogeneous modes of inflaton and gravity). Indeed any observer, made of “normal” matter will only see a classical time dependent scale factor of the universe. Lastly let us emphasize that the presence of inflatonic matter driving the universe is crucial: in a chaotic inflation model for which $`\varphi _0=0`$  one would not obtain suitable conditions for time to evolve.

## 4 Conclusions

As we mentioned in the introduction the problem of the emergence of time in the context of the matter-gravity system has already drawn considerable attention. Nonetheless we feel that the issue is worth revisiting in a cosmological minisuperspace context, in particular within the inflationary paradigm . Inflation gives a framework in which to pose basic cosmological questions.

Associated with inflation is the early universe dominance of a vacuum energy density effectively described by a hypothetical scalar field called inflaton. In particular we have considered a simple model of chaotic inflation consisting of a minimally coupled massive scalar field in a flat 3-space with inflation being driven by the homogeneous mode. We then start from the quantum minisuperspace-homogeneous scalar field system. Such a quantum system has been previously studied within a Born-Oppenheimer approach and shown to lead to inflation even for non classical initial states . Our present approach and goal are quite different: we study this system, in an inflationary regime, in order to understand its influence on the dynamics of other degrees of freedom which we call “normal” matter.

The quantum minisuperspace homogeneous-inflaton system cannot be solved exactly, however some of its properties can be obtained through the use of a suitable ansatz for the initial state which allowes us to find an approximate solution for $`a`$ large. The results we obtain are not a consequence of our approximation, which certainly aids us in suggesting and understanding the basic mechanisms, but reflect a general structure for the effective dynamics of “normal” matter.

Our approximate approach consists in expanding the total matter-gravity wave function on a basis of the states associated with different numbers of homogeneous inflaton quanta. Subsequently, a common minisuperspace wave function is extracted from the expansion and the modulus squared of the coefficients multiplying the states with different number of inflaton quanta is then interpreted as the probability for the creation of such a state in the initial interval leading to inflation, bearing in mind, of course, that such a number is large in order for suitable inflation to take place.

The search for a suitable ansatz for the initial state may be related to a creation process for a large number of quanta. Such a mechanism can be considered as analogous to the inverse of a decay process, that is a Poisson process, without concerning oneself as what it is (the equivalent of the decay products)that leads to the creation. The initial conditions are then associated with a Poisson distribution of states with diverse numbers $`n`$ of inflaton quanta and with average number of quanta $`\overline{n}`$. This can be seen either as an initial statistical distribution in which each n quantum creation is associated with an inflationary gravitational wave function or a sequence of inflationary processes in successive intervals of $`a`$ which are however so close that $`a`$ is approximately constant. In all cases a common part of the gravitational wave function is extracted leaving the different quanta numbers states with their Poisson weights which then combine into a coherent state.

The quantity which is then studied is the common gravitational wave function. It is found to satisfy the same Airy equation for $`a`$ large, independently of any ordering chosen for the gravitational kinetic term, leading to a strong oscillatory behavior having a frequency many orders of magnitude greater than the Planck one. The oscillatory behavior of the complete wave function is the main feature we use and we stress that is not related to the approximation made but just to initial conditions such as those leading to inflation.

One may at this point introduce normal matter which should be regarded as a small perturbation with respect to the contribution of the homogeneous inflaton mode. Again in this context $`a`$ is considered large and an effective “flow”, due to the nature of the gravity-inflaton wave function, can be associated to the existence of time for normal matter. In order to obtain this, a “coarse graining” was performed so as to smooth out the effects of the gravitational wave function oscillations at ultra-Planckian frequencies (for the atomic case see ), to which normal matter is insensitive. It is also worth noting that the common gravitational wave function term leads to the introduction of a “time density” (the magnitude of the gravitational wave function in an interval of $`a`$ being related to the “time” spent in that interval) which is universal, i.e. independent of the type of normal matter associated with it. The paradigm of time developed here arises from a novel point of view, but nonetheless leads to the usual time that one considers in the WKB limit of the gravity-inflaton system.

Moreover we observe that a new interesting possibility is the emergence of a time even with gravity and the inflaton in quantum regimes: it is a consequence of the fact that normal matter cannot see quantum fluctuations below the Planck size but just experiences an evolution with respect to a function of the scale factor, associated with the speed of inflation. In such a framework time only exists for normal matter which evolves according to its position on the gravitational wave function.

In a sense, and particularly on considering the approximate analysis, this emergence of a universal time reminds us of the derivation of a Boltzmann distribution and a temperature for systems obtained by placing them in contact with a large heat bath where it is the density of energy levels of the heat bath that is related to the (common) temperature of systems in contact with it, different energy level densities for the reservoir being associated with different temperatures. Analogously, for us, normal matter is in contact with a gravitational wave function generated by the homogeneous mode inflaton background (reservoir-“time bath”) and it is that wave function with suitable initial conditions that generates a “time density” and “flow” which leads to the usual evolution of matter corresponding to the value of the matter wave function for different values of $`a`$ in the gravitational wave function.

Lastly let us note that we have studied the introduction of time during the inflationary era with gravitation being driven by the homogeneous inflaton Hamiltonian. Clearly one may ask what happens at the end of inflation when presumably all (or most or some) of the homogeneous modes have decayed into lighter matter. In such a case gravitation will just be driven by the mean energy of all matter (including a residual cosmological constant) and the resulting gravitational wave function will introduce a common time for any small sub-system which may be regarded as a perturbation of the whole.

## Acknowledgement

We wish to thank R. Brout for several clarifying discussions.


text:
# On entanglement capabilities in infinite dimensions or multi-dimensional entangled coherent states

## Abstract

An example is given of an interaction that produces an infinite amount of entanglement in an infinitely short time, but only a finite amount in longer times. The interaction arises from a standard Kerr nonlinearity and a 50/50 beamsplitter, and the initial state is a coherent state. For certain finite interaction times multi-dimensional generalizations of entangled coherent states are generated, for which we construct a teleportation protocol. Similarities between probabilistic teleportation and unambiguous state discrimination are pointed out.

Entangling operations are necessary for universal quantum computation  but also play an important role in quantum communication. For example, teleportation , entanglement distillation  and quantum repeaters  all rely on entangling operations.

Questions concerning the entangling power of given unitary operations or of given Hamiltonians are thus relevant from both theoretical and practical points of view and have been considered recently in the context of finite-dimensional systems . But for the electromagnetic field, which is clearly the system of choice for quantum communication, the associated Hilbert space is infinite. Entanglement in infinite Hilbert spaces has peculiar properties . For example, there is always a state with an arbitrarily large amount of entanglement arbitrarily close to a separable state. Some of these anomolies can be mitigated by imposing energy constraints on the states considered . Here we confirm this behavior of entanglement in infinite-dimensional systems. In fact, we show that a standard nonlinear optics interaction, arising from a Kerr nonlinearity, followed by a simple interaction with a beamsplitter is capable of generating an arbitrarily large amount of entanglement $`E=\mathrm{log}_2M`$ in an arbitrarily short time $`\tau =𝒪(1/M)`$, starting from a coherent state with energy $`|\alpha |^2=𝒪(M^2)`$. Note that squeezing or downconversion, in contrast, are only capable of generating Gaussian states from coherent states, whose entanglement after passing beamsplitters (and other linear-optics elements) is much better behaved . For instance, the entanglement of a two-mode squeezed state simply increases monotonically with the squeezing parameter, which in turn increases with the interaction time.

It turns out that for certain specific finite interaction times the interaction we will consider generates multi-dimensional generalizations of so-called entangled coherent states. Entangled coherent states are of the (unnormalized) form

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_2=|\alpha |\alpha +\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )|\alpha |\alpha ,$$
(1)
with $`|\alpha `$ a coherent state with amplitude $`\alpha `$. As far as the author knows, this type of states was discussed first in 1986 , and the name entangled coherent states was coined in Ref. . There has been a lot of interest in the quantum-information processing capabilities of such states after it was found that the states with $`\varphi =\pi `$ possess exactly one ebit of entanglement irrespective of the amplitude $`\alpha `$. Teleportation, entanglement purification, Bell-inequality violations, and universal quantum computing have all been discussed in this context.

Here we study a particular multi-dimensional generalization of the states (1) of the (unnormalized) form,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_M=\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _q)|\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi qi}{M}\right)|\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi qi}{M}\right),$$
(2)
with $`M>1`$ an integer. These states should not be confused with multi-mode generalizations of entangled coherent states of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_M=(|\alpha )^M+\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )(|\alpha )^M,$$
(3)
which can be trivially generated from a state (1) by mixing it with the vacuum on beamsplitters, and do not possess more than one ebit of bipartite entanglement. The states (2), on the other hand, are still 2-mode states, but may contain more than one ebit of entanglement. We choose to restrict the form of (2) to containing only symmetric coherent states with coefficients of equal magnitude, because that is the type of states that can be generated by propagating a coherent state through a medium with a Kerr nonlinearity (see below). Such states potentially have $`\mathrm{log}_2M`$ ebits of bipartite entanglement. In particular, they reach that limit for large $`\alpha /M`$.

Consider the following unitary operator

$$U_{A,B}(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi }{4}(a^{}bb^{}a)\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\tau a^2a^2),$$
(4)
where $`\tau `$ represents a dimensionless time, and $`a^{},a,b^{},b`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for two modes $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. Physically, the first term corresponds to a 50/50 beamsplitter, the second describes the propagation of mode $`A`$ through a Kerr medium, for which the effective Hamiltonian is

$$H=\mathrm{}\chi a^2a^2,$$
(5)
with $`\chi `$ a rate determined by the appropriate third-order nonlinear susceptibility of the medium. (Note that such an interaction has been considered for the generation of entangled coherent states). We will be interested in the entangling capabilities of $`U_{A,B}(\tau )`$. The class of initial states of modes $`A`$ and $`B`$ is chosen from product states such that for $`\tau =0`$ no entanglement is generated. It is easy to see that any product of two coherent states will fit the bill. Here we take a subclass, namely $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A,B}=|\beta _A|0_B`$ with arbitrary $`\beta `$, as initial states. It is straightforward to expand the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )_{A,B}=U_{A,B}(\tau )|\beta _A|0_B$$
(6)
in number states and subsequently evaluate the entanglement $`E_{A,B}(\tau )`$ between modes $`A`$ and $`B`$ as a function of time. Here, however, we give a more elegant description valid at certain times $`\tau `$. This treatment is based on Ref. . First, consider the second term in Eq. (4), and write it as

$$U_A(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(i\tau \widehat{N}_A(\widehat{N}_A1)),$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{N}_A=a^{}a`$. The operator $`U_A`$ becomes periodic in $`N`$ with period $`M`$ (that is, it becomes invariant under $`\widehat{N}_A\widehat{N}_A+M`$) at times $`\tau =\pi /M`$ if $`M`$ is an odd integer. This implies one can write down Fourier series as follows

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi }{M}\widehat{N}(\widehat{N}1)\right)=\underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}f_q^{(o)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i\pi q}{M}\widehat{N}\right).$$
(8)
Similarly, for even values of $`M`$ one has

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi }{M}(\widehat{N}+M)^2\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi }{M}\widehat{N}^2\right),$$
(9)
so that we can expand

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi }{M}\widehat{N}^2\right)=\underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}f_q^{(e)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i\pi q}{M}\widehat{N}\right).$$
(10)
The coefficients $`f_q`$ are not explicitly evaluated in Ref. , but one can actually derive them (see below ),

$`f_q^{(o)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi iq(q+1)}{M}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi iK(K+1)}{M}}\right),`$ (11)
$`f_q^{(e)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi iq^2}{M}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\pi i/4),`$ (12)
where in the first line $`K`$ is such that $`M=2K+1`$ for odd $`M`$. If one starts with a coherent state of mode $`A`$ at time $`\tau =0`$, $`|\psi (0)=|\beta `$, this then immediately leads to the following time evolution under $`U_A`$:

$`U_A(\pi /M)|\beta _A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}f_q^{(o)}|\beta \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{for}M\mathrm{odd},`$ (14)
$`U_A(\pi /M)|\beta _A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}f_q^{(e)}|\beta \mathrm{exp}(\pi i(12q)/M)`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{for}M\mathrm{even}`$ (16)
If one subsequently takes these states and splits them on a 50/50 beamsplitter with the vacuum, the output state is an entangled state of the form (2),

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_M=\underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}f_q^{(o)}|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M),$$
(17)
for $`M`$ odd with $`\alpha =\beta /\sqrt{2}`$, and

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_M=\underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}f_q^{(e)}|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M),$$
(18)
for $`M`$ even, where now $`\alpha =\beta \mathrm{exp}(i\pi /M)/\sqrt{2}`$. These are the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\pi /M)_{A,B}`$ of Eq. (6) we were looking for.

Now consider the entanglement between modes $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the states (17) and (18). In the limit of large $`\alpha `$, more precisely, for $`\alpha /M1`$, the coherent states appearing in these superpositions become orthogonal. The entangled states, therefore, are already written in their Schmidt decomposition form, and it is straightforward to calculate their entanglement. In fact, since all coefficients $`f_q`$ have the same magnitude $`1/\sqrt{M}`$, one sees one ends up with a maximally entangled state in $`M`$ dimensions (spanned by the $`M`$ symmetric coherent states), with $`E_{A,B}(\pi /M)=\mathrm{log}_2M`$ ebits. This fact is paradoxical at first sight, since the entanglement increases with $`M`$, that is, with decreasing interaction time. However, this paradox is resolved easily by noting that for fixed $`\alpha `$ the coherent states $`|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(\pi iq/M)`$ become nonorthogonal for sufficiently large $`M`$ so that the entanglement is in fact smaller than $`\mathrm{log}_2(M)`$. Thus, just as in , an energy constraint saves us from the more embarrassing peculiarities of entanglement in infinite dimensions. In fact, there is an optimal time $`\tau `$ for which the entanglement is maximal for fixed $`\alpha `$. This is illustrated in Figure 1. Here, for several finite values of $`\alpha `$ we evaluate the entanglement numerically by expanding the reduced density matrix of either of the two subsystems in the number-state basis.

For $`\alpha `$ small, there is no entanglement as the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ reduces to the vacuum state. This follows immediately from the fact that the evolution operator $`U_{A,B}`$ commutes with the sum of the number operators, $`a^{}a+b^{}b`$, so that the total photon number distribution does not change.

For a large subset of pairs of values of $`\alpha `$ and $`M`$, the entangled states (17) or (18) possess more than one ebit of entanglement. As such, they can be used for teleporting at least one qubit. Here we give a simple protocol for even values of $`M`$ that works perfectly in the limit of large $`\alpha `$, while for smaller $`\alpha `$ it works only partially, namely, with a probability less than unity and with a fidelity less than unity. It generalizes the protocol of .

Suppose Alice and Bob share an entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_M_{A,B}`$ of the form (18) ($`M`$ is even) between modes $`A`$ and $`B`$, and Alice possesses an arbitrary state of the form

$$|\psi _C=\underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}Q_q|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)_C,$$
(19)
that she wishes to teleport to Bob. Alice first uses beamsplitters to make $`L=M/2`$ “diluted” copies of both the state to be teleported (ending up in modes $`C_k`$ for $`k=0\mathrm{}L1`$) and of her half of the entangled state (ending up in modes $`A_k`$ for $`k=0\mathrm{}L1`$) by the process

$`|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )(|0)^{L1}(|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )/\sqrt{L})^L.`$ (20)
Then she applies a phase shift over an angle $`\varphi _k=2k\pi /M`$ to the modes $`A_k`$ and, in order to perform her Bell measurement, subsequently combines the modes $`C_k`$ and $`A_k`$ on $`L`$ 50/50 beamsplitters. If we call the output modes $`G_k`$ and $`H_k`$ for $`k=0\mathrm{}L1`$, the resulting state is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}_{k=0}^{L1}f_q^{(e)}Q_p|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)_B`$ (21)
$``$ $`|\alpha [\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i(p+k)/M)]/\sqrt{2L}_{G_k}`$ (22)
$``$ $`|\alpha [\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)+\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i(p+k)/M)]/\sqrt{2L}_{H_k}.`$ (23)
Alice now performs photon-number measurements on all $`2L=M`$ output modes. She cannot find a nonzero number in every mode. But suppose she finds nonzero numbers of photons in all but one mode, say, mode $`H_m`$. Then the only terms that survive the sums over $`q`$ and $`p`$ in (21) are those for which $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)+\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i(p+m)/M)=0`$, that is, $`p+m=q+L`$ modulo $`M`$. The state at Bob’s side reduces to (unnormalized)

$$\underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}f_q^{(e)}Q_{qLm}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi iqN_{\mathrm{tot}}}{M}\right)|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)_B,$$
(24)
with $``$ denoting addition modulo $`M`$, and where $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total number of photons detected by Alice. Alice communicates to Bob which mode contained no photons, and Bob then applies the appropriate unitary transformation. Here, with $`H_m`$ being the empty mode, he applies

$$U_B=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i\widehat{N}_B(Lm)}{M}\right)$$
(25)
to his state to obtain (unnormalized)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{M1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi i(qLm)^2}{M}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi iqN_{\mathrm{tot}}}{M}}\right)`$ (26)
$`Q_q|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)_B.`$ (27)
This ensures that the coefficients $`Q_q`$ are in front of the corresponding states $`|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)_B`$. But what remains to complete teleportation would be a phase shift operation

$`|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M)`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi i(q^2+2q(mLN_{\mathrm{tot}}))}{M}}\right)|\alpha \mathrm{exp}(2\pi iq/M).`$ (29)
This operation is in general unitary only in the limit of large $`\alpha /M`$. For finite $`\alpha /M`$ one is thus able to perform teleportation only approximately. Moreover, in that case the probability to find nonzero numbers of photons in every mode but one will be less than unity.

The measurement performed by Alice is in fact the same as that needed for unambiguous state discrimination (USD) measurements on symmetric coherent states . The only difference is that the USD measurement would have to be performed with a coherent state of known phase, not with half of the entangled state, in which the phase is basically unknown, that is, a mixture of $`M`$ values. This difference arises because for teleportation it is crucial that Alice’s measurement does not reveal any information about the identity of the state to be teleported. In both USD and probabilistic teleportation the success probability may be less than unity (it becomes unity only in the limit of large $`\alpha /M`$), but one does know when it failed.

In conclusion, we considered the entangling capabilities of the unitary operator $`U_{A,B}(\tau )`$ of Eq. (4), which arises from a standard Kerr nonlinearity and simple linear optics. Starting from coherent states, $`M`$-dimensional symmetric generalizations of entangled coherent states are generated for arbitrary integers $`M`$. We constructed a teleportation protocol with these states that uses only linear optics and teleports states chosen from an appropriate $`M`$-dimensional Hilbert space.

Moreover, we found that an arbitrarily large amount of entanglement $`\mathrm{log}_2M`$ ebits can be created in an arbitrarily short time $`\tau =\pi /M`$. This is surprising as in finite dimensions not only the entanglement is finite (obviously) but also the rate of production of entanglement . Thus one cannot create any finite amount of entanglement in an arbitrarily short time in a finite-dimensional space.

I thank Debbie Leung for pointing out this surprising contrast between the present result and that of Ref. .


text:
# Complete integral closure and strongly divisorial prime ideals

## Introduction

The strongly divisorial ideals of a domain $`R`$ are the nonzero conductors $`(R:T)`$ for some overring $`T`$ of $`R`$. They can be used to describe the complete integral closure $`R^{}`$ of $`R`$; in fact $`R^{}=`$ $`(R:I)`$, where $`I`$ runs throughout the set of the strongly divisorial ideals of $`R`$. In particular, $`R`$ is completely integrally closed, (that is $`R=R^{}`$), if and only if $`R`$ has no proper strongly divisorial ideals . This paper deals with the following question \[5, Problem 11, page 461\]:

Question. Is a domain $`R`$ completely integrally closed if $`R`$ does not have strongly divisorial prime ideals?

We show that in general the answer is negative, and give conditions on $`R`$ for a positive answer.

The positive results are collected in Section 1. We first prove some criteria useful to establish when a domain having a proper strongly divisorial ideal is forced to have a strongly divisorial prime ideal. We prove that an ideal which is maximal in the set of proper strongly divisorial ideals of a domain is prime (Proposition 1.3) and we give conditions sufficient for a strongly divisorial ideal to have a strongly divisorial minimal prime (Lemmas 1.6 and 1.7).

Applying these results, we show that the answer to the question above is positive for some classes of domains. We prove in Proposition 1.8 that if a domain has a proper strongly divisorial ideal containing a power of its radical and if this radical is an irredundant intersection of primes, then the domain contains a strongly divisorial prime ideal. We note in Lemma 1.9 that in a seminormal domain each strongly divisorial ideal is radical, and so the first assumption of Proposition 1.8 is always satisfied in the seminormal case. As another consequence of Proposition 1.8, we give a positive answer for any pullback of a Noetherian domain (Theorem 1.11).

We also answer the above question affirmatively for the class of domains with the property that each maximal $`t`$-ideal is divisorial (Proposition 1.12). This class includes Noetherian, Mori, TV- and pseudo-valuation domains. Indeed a domain of this kind without strongly divisorial prime ideals is a Krull domain, as it is pointed out in Theorem 1.13, where there are given several other equivalent conditions in terms of ideals. A domain without strongly divisorial primes satisfying the stronger property that each maximal ideal is invertible is a Dedekind domain (Corollary 1.15).

There are also other important classes of domains for which the question has a positive answer; for example valuation domains (more generally, TP-domains or Prüfer RTP-domains) and one-dimensional seminormal domains with finitely many maximal ideals (Proposition 1.17).

On the other hand we do not know the answer in case of a one-dimensional seminormal domain.

In Section 2 we give examples of domains that are not completely integrally closed but do not have strongly divisorial prime ideals. The first two examples are quasilocal and one-dimensional domains whose maximal ideal is not divisorial. The conductor of the complete integral closure is zero in the first example and is nonzero in the second one. These two domains are Archimedean and not seminormal by Proposition 1.17. The third example is an infinite dimensional domain with nonzero conductor in its complete integral closure, and can be chosen to satisfy or not either one of the conditions of being Archimedean or seminormal. In the seminormal case, the conductor is a strongly divisorial radical ideal (Lemma 1.9) such that all its minimal primes are strong but not divisorial.

Throughout this paper, $`R`$ will denote an integral domain with quotient field $`\mathrm{Qf}(R)=K`$. For a pair of fractional ideals $`I`$ and $`J`$ of a domain $`R`$ we let $`(J:I)`$ denote the set $`\{xK|xIJ\}`$ and $`(J:_RI)`$ denote the set $`\{xR|xIJ\}`$. As usual, we set $`I_v=(R:(R:I))`$ and $`I_t=J_v`$ with the union taken over all finitely generated fractional ideals $`J`$ contained in $`I`$. An ideal $`I`$ is a $`v`$-ideal, or divisorial, if $`I=I_v`$, and it is a $`t`$-ideal if $`I=I_t`$. The $`v`$\- and the $`t`$-operations are particular $``$-operations. If $`(R:I)=(I:I)`$, that is, $`I=I(R:I)`$, we say that $`I`$ is a strong ideal or a trace ideal. A strongly divisorial ideal is an ideal that is strong and divisorial and a maximal strongly divisorial ideal is an ideal that is maximal in the set of the proper strongly divisorial ideals. A maximal $`t`$-ideal is an ideal that is maximal in the set of the proper integral $`t`$-ideals. A general reference for systems of ideals and $``$-operations is .

A nonzero element $`xK`$ is said to be almost integral over $`R`$ if there is a nonzero element $`dR`$ such that $`dx^iR`$, for $`i0`$. This is equivalent to saying that all the powers of $`x`$ belong to a finite $`R`$-module or that they generate a fractional ideal of $`R`$. The complete integral closure of $`R`$ in $`K`$, which we denote by $`R^{}`$, is the set of the elements of $`K`$ that are almost integral over $`R`$. One says that $`R`$ is completely integrally closed if $`R=R^{}`$.

If an element is integral over $`R`$, then it is almost integral, and if $`R`$ is Noetherian the converse holds. Thus, if $`R^{}`$ denotes the integral closure of $`R`$ in $`K`$, one has $`RR^{}R^{}`$, and if $`R`$ is Noetherian then $`R^{}=R^{}`$. It is well known that $`R^{}`$ is always integrally closed, but many examples have been given to show that it might not be completely integrally closed. However, $`R^{}`$ is completely integrally closed if the conductor $`(R:R^{})`$ is a nonzero ideal, that is, if $`R^{}`$ is contained in a finite $`R`$-submodule of $`K`$ (see for example ).

## 1. Positive results

In this Section we give some criteria which are useful for establishing when a domain having a proper strongly divisorial ideal has a strongly divisorial prime ideal and we apply our criteria to give a positive answer to the Question in the Introduction for some classes of domains.

We start by proving that a maximal strongly divisorial ideal is prime.

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $`R`$ be any ring and let $`𝐒`$ be a set of proper ideals of $`R`$. Assume that $`(I:_Rx)𝐒`$ for any $`I𝐒`$ and nonzero $`xRI`$. Then an ideal of $`R`$ that is maximal in $`𝐒`$ is prime.

###### Proof.

Let $`I`$ be an ideal that is maximal in $`𝐒`$ and let $`x,yR`$ such that $`xyI`$ and $`xI`$. We have $`I(I:_Rx)𝐒`$. Hence $`(I:_Rx)=I`$ and $`y(I:_Rx)=I`$. It follows that $`I`$ is a prime ideal. ∎

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`R`$ be an integral domain, $`I`$ a proper strong ideal of $`R`$ and $`x(R:I)I`$. Then $`(I:_Rx)`$ is also a proper strong ideal of $`R`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly $`J=(I:_Rx)`$ is a proper ideal of $`R`$ containing $`I`$. Hence $`(R:J)(R:I)=(I:I)`$. Moreover, $`(R:J)Jx=(I:I)(I:_Rx)xI`$. Thus $`(R:J)J(I:_Rx)=J`$, which implies that $`(R:J)=(J:J)`$. ∎

###### Proposition 1.3.

If $`I`$ is a maximal strongly divisorial ideal of an integral domain $`R`$, then $`I`$ is a prime ideal of $`R`$.

###### Proof.

If $`I`$ is a proper strongly divisorial ideal of $`R`$ and $`xRI`$, then, by Lemma 1.2, the ideal $`(I:_Rx)`$ is proper and strongly divisorial. We conclude by applying Lemma 1.1 to the set $`𝐒`$ of the proper strongly divisorial ideals of $`R`$. ∎

We observe that the proof of the previous proposition yields the following more general:

###### Proposition 1.4.

For any $``$-operation, a maximal strong $``$-ideal is prime.

We now give conditions sufficient for a strongly divisorial ideal to have a strongly divisorial minimal prime. It is known that a prime ideal minimal over a divisorial ideal is a $`t`$-ideal  and that a minimal prime of a strong ideal is strong \[11, Proposition 2.1\].

###### Lemma 1.5.

If a divisorial ideal $`I`$ of a domain $`R`$ contains a power of its radical, then $`\sqrt{I}`$ is divisorial.

###### Proof.

By assumption, $`(\sqrt{I})^nI`$ for some $`n1`$. Thus $`((\sqrt{I})_v)^n((\sqrt{I})^n)_vI`$. Hence $`(\sqrt{I})_v\sqrt{I}`$ and so $`\sqrt{I}`$ is divisorial. ∎

###### Lemma 1.6.

If a divisorial ideal $`I`$ of a domain $`R`$ is an intersection of primes and the prime $`P`$ is essential for this representation (that is, it cannot be omitted), then $`P`$ is divisorial.

###### Proof.

Let $`I=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}P_\lambda `$ be a divisorial ideal, where the $`P_\lambda `$ are primes, and let $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be such that $`J:=_{\{\lambda \mu \}}P_\lambda P_\mu `$. We have $`(I:_RJ)=_{\{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }\}}(P_\lambda :_RJ)=P_\mu `$ since, for all $`\lambda `$, $`JP_\lambda `$ if and only if $`\lambda \mu `$. It follows that $`P_\mu `$ is divisorial. ∎

###### Lemma 1.7.

Let $`\{P_\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ be a family of prime ideals and let $`I=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}P_\lambda `$ be an irredundant intersection. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`I`$ is strong (resp. divisorial);
2. $`P_\lambda `$ is strong (resp. divisorial) for each $`\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

By \[11, Proposition 3.13\], $`(R:I)`$ is a ring if and only if $`(R:P_\lambda )`$ is a ring for each $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. But, if $`J`$ is a radical ideal, then $`(R:J)`$ is a ring if and only if $`(R:J)=(J:J)`$ \[2, Proposition 3.3\]. Hence $`I`$ is strong if and only if $`P_\lambda `$ is strong for each $`\lambda `$.

If $`P_\lambda `$ is divisorial for each $`\lambda `$, then clearly $`I`$ is divisorial. The converse follows from Lemma 1.6. ∎

Since the radical of a strong ideal is strong \[11, Proposition 2.1\], an immediate consequence of Lemmas 1.5 and 1.7 is:

###### Proposition 1.8.

If a domain $`R`$ has a proper strongly divisorial ideal $`I`$ containing a power of its radical and this radical is an irredundant intersection of primes, then all the minimal primes over $`I`$ are strongly divisorial.

We now prove that any seminormal domain satisfies the hypothesis that each strongly divisorial ideal is radical. Hence a seminormal domain which has a strongly divisorial ideal that is an irredundant intersection of primes has a strongly divisorial prime.

Recall that a domain $`R`$ is seminormal if it contains all the elements $`xK`$ such that $`x^2,x^3R`$.

###### Lemma 1.9.

Let $`R`$ be a seminormal domain, $`T`$ an overring of $`R`$ and $`I=(R:T)`$. Then $`I`$ is radical in both $`T`$ and $`R`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to show that $`I`$ is radical in $`T`$. Let $`t`$ be an element of $`T`$ such that $`t^2I`$, thus $`t^2TR`$, and $`t^3T=t^2(tT)R`$. Hence, for any $`xT`$, we have $`(tx)^2=t^2x^2R`$ and $`(tx)^3=t^3x^3R`$. Since $`R`$ is seminormal, it follows that $`txR`$ and so $`tI`$. ∎

Lemma 1.9 leads to a characterization of seminormal domains, which is similar to \[9, Theorem 1.1\].

###### Proposition 1.10.

A domain $`R`$ is seminormal if and only if each strongly divisorial ideal $`I`$ of $`R`$ is radical in the overring $`(I:I)`$.

###### Proof.

If $`I`$ is a strongly divisorial ideal of $`R`$ and $`T=(I:I)`$, then $`I=(R:T)`$. Conversely, if $`T`$ is an overring of $`R`$ so that $`(R:T)0`$, then the ideal $`I=(R:T)`$ is strongly divisorial and $`T(I:I)`$ \[3, Proposition 6\].

Then, if $`R`$ is seminormal and $`I`$ is strongly divisorial, $`I`$ is radical in $`T=(I:I)`$ by Lemma 1.9.

Conversely, assume that $`R`$ is not seminormal and let $`xKR`$ be such that $`x^2,x^3R`$. Then the ideal $`I=(R:R[x])`$ is not radical in $`(I:I)`$, because $`xR[x](I:I)`$, $`x^2I`$ but $`xI`$. ∎

We will give in the next section examples showing that both the hypotheses of Proposition 1.8 are essential. In fact the examples given in §2.1 and §2.2 are non-completely integrally closed, quasilocal one-dimensional domains, such that the maximal ideal $`M`$ is not divisorial. In these cases no proper strongly divisorial ideal contains a power of its radical $`M`$.

On the other hand the example given in §2.3 is a non-completely integrally closed domain without strongly divisorial prime ideals which can be seminormal (or even integrally closed). In this case, no (radical) strongly divisorial ideal is an irredundant intersection of prime ideals.

We now apply the previous results to obtain other classes of domains that are completely integrally closed if they have no strongly divisorial prime ideals.

###### Theorem 1.11.

Let $`RT`$ be integral domains with $`(R:T)(0)`$. If $`T`$ is Noetherian, then $`R`$ contains a strongly divisorial prime ideal.

###### Proof.

Let $`I=(R:T)`$, thus $`I`$ is a common proper ideal of $`R`$ and of $`T`$. Moreover, $`I`$ is divisorial as an ideal of $`R`$. Since $`T`$ is Noetherian, the ideal $`I`$ of $`T`$ contains a power of its radical and it has just finitely many minimal primes. Since the radical of $`I`$ in $`R`$ is contained in the radical of $`I`$ in $`T`$, the ideal $`I`$ of $`R`$ contains a power of its radical and it is also an (irredundant) intersection of finitely many primes of $`R`$. By Proposition 1.8, all minimal primes over $`I`$ are strongly divisorial. ∎

We note that if the domains $`R`$ and $`T`$ satisfy the hypotheses of the previous theorem, then $`R`$ is a pullback of $`T`$. Moreover, $`TR^{}`$.

We now turn to the case of domains with all the maximal $`t`$-ideals divisorial.

###### Proposition 1.12.

Let $`R`$ be a domain such that each maximal $`t`$-ideal is divisorial. If $`R`$ has no strongly divisorial prime ideals, then $`R`$ is completely integrally closed.

###### Proof.

Suppose, by contradiction, that $`R`$ is not completely integrally closed, that is, that in $`R`$ there is a proper strongly divisorial ideal.

Let $`\{I_\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ be a chain of proper strongly divisorial ideals of $`R`$. Then the ideal $`I=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}I_\lambda `$ is a $`t`$-ideal and, since each maximal $`t`$-ideal of $`R`$ is divisorial, $`I_v`$ is a proper ideal. Moreover,

$$(R:I)=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}(R:I_\lambda )=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}(I_\lambda :I_\lambda )\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}(I:I_\lambda )=(I:I).$$

Hence $`I_v`$ is a strongly divisorial ideal.

It follows that $`R`$ has a maximal strongly divisorial ideal, which is prime by Proposition 1.3. ∎

###### Theorem 1.13.

Let $`R`$ be any domain. The following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`R`$ has no proper strong $`t`$-ideals;
2. $`R`$ has no strong prime $`t`$-ideals;
3. $`R`$ has no strongly divisorial prime ideals and each maximal $`t`$-ideal is $`t`$-invertible;
4. $`R`$ has no strongly divisorial prime ideals and each maximal $`t`$-ideal is divisorial;
5. $`R`$ is completely integrally closed and each maximal $`t`$-ideal is divisorial;
6. $`R`$ is a Krull domain;
7. Each $`t`$-ideal of $`R`$ is $`t`$-invertible.

###### Proof.

(1) $``$ (2) and (3) $``$ (4) are clear.

(2) $``$ (3) follows from the facts that any $`v`$-ideal is a $`t`$-ideal and that a maximal $`t`$-ideal is either strong or $`t`$-invertible.

(4) $``$ (5) follows from the Proposition 1.12.

(5) $``$ (6) is \[7, Corollary 2.8\].

(6) $``$ (7) is well known (see for example \[7, Corollary 2.7\]).

(7) $``$ (1) is clear.

The fact that a domain without strong prime $`t`$-ideals is completely integrally closed can be also proved recalling that a minimal prime of a proper strongly divisorial ideal is a strong $`t`$-ideal \[11, Proposition 2.1\].

A domain in which each $`t`$-ideal is divisorial is called a $`TV`$-domain. Examples of $`TV`$-domains include Mori, in particular Noetherian, domains and pseudovaluation domains .

The following corollary is immediate by Theorem 1.13 and was proved for Mori domains in \[3, Corollary 14\]; the equivalence (2) $``$ (3) in it was also proved in \[12, Theorem 2.3\].

###### Corollary 1.14.

Let $`R`$ be any domain. The following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`R`$ is a $`TV`$-domain with no strongly divisorial prime ideals;
2. $`R`$ is a completely integrally closed $`TV`$-domain;
3. $`R`$ is a Krull domain.

An invertible maximal ideal is clearly a $`t`$-invertible maximal $`t`$-ideal. Hence a domain in which each maximal ideal is invertible satisfies the hypothesis that each maximal $`t`$-ideal is divisorial. In addition, a completely integrally closed domain in which each maximal ideal is invertible is one-dimensional \[7, Theorem 2.1\]. Hence we obtain the following results.

###### Corollary 1.15.

Let $`R`$ be any domain. The following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`R`$ has no strong ideals;
2. $`R`$ has no strong prime ideals;
3. $`R`$ has no strongly divisorial prime ideals and each maximal ideal is invertible;
4. $`R`$ has no strongly divisorial prime ideals and each maximal ideal is divisorial;
5. $`R`$ is completely integrally closed and each maximal ideal is divisorial;
6. $`R`$ is a Dedekind domain;
7. Each ideal of $`R`$ is invertible.

Recall that a $`t`$-ideal of a domain may be neither strong nor $`t`$-invertible. However, by Theorem 1.13, if no proper $`t`$-ideal is strong, then all the $`t`$-ideals must be $`t`$-invertible.

###### Corollary 1.16.

Let $`R`$ be a domain in which each ideal is divisorial. The following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`R`$ has no strongly divisorial prime ideals;
2. $`R`$ is completely integrally closed;
3. $`R`$ is a Dedekind domain.

An integrally closed domain in which each ideal is divisorial is a Prüfer $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$-domain \[6, Theorems 4.3.4 and 4.3.6\]. Hence it has the radical trace property \[6, Theorem 4.2.28\].

Recall that $`R`$ is a $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$-domain if each overring $`S`$ of $`R`$ has the property that, for each pair of nonempty sets of maximal ideals $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ of $`S`$, $`_{M_1}S_M=_{M_2}S_M`$ only if $`_1=_2`$.

A domain satisfying the radical trace property, or an $`RTP`$-domain, is a domain $`R`$ such that $`I(R:I)`$ is a radical ideal, for every noninvertible ideal $`I`$. That is, $`R`$ is an $`RTP`$-domain if and only if each strong ideal of $`R`$ is radical \[6, Section 4.2\]. The property that $`I(R:I)`$ is a prime ideal for every noninvertible ideal $`I`$, is called the trace property and domains with this property are called $`TP`$-domains. Therefore $`R`$ is a $`TP`$-domain if and only if each proper strong ideal of $`R`$ is prime. Examples of $`TP`$-domains include valuation domains \[6, Section 4.2\].

It follows directly from the definition that a $`TP`$-domain without strongly divisorial primes is completely integrally closed.

We do not know whether in general an $`RTP`$-domain with no strongly divisorial prime ideals is completely integrally closed. However, the answer to this problem is positive in case $`R`$ is an $`RTP`$-domain with the ascending chain condition on radical ideals. In fact, in this case, if the set of maximal strongly divisorial ideals of $`R`$ is not empty, it has maximal elements and these are prime ideals by Proposition 1.3. Recalling that each ideal of a domain with the ascending chain condition on radical ideals has finitely many minimal primes, the same result can also be obtained by applying Lemma 1.6. In addition, it is known that, if $`R`$ is an $`RTP`$-domain, then each nonzero nonmaximal prime of $`R`$ is strongly divisorial \[6, Theorem 4.2.16\]. Hence an $`RTP`$-domain without strongly divisorial primes is always one-dimensional. It follows that a Prüfer $`RTP`$-domain without strongly divisorial primes is completely integrally closed.

In general a one-dimensional domain without strongly divisorial prime ideals may not be completely integrally closed, as we will show in the next section. The following proposition is a partial positive result:

###### Proposition 1.17.

Let $`R`$ be a one-dimensional domain that is not completely integrally closed and such that the intersection of the maximal ideals is irredundant (e.g., $`R`$ has finitely many maximal ideals). If $`R`$ is either an $`RTP`$-domain or seminormal, then it has a strongly divisorial maximal ideal.

###### Proof.

If $`R`$ is not completely integrally closed, it has a strongly divisorial ideal which is radical (Lemma 1.9). Since this ideal is an irredundant intersection of primes, we conclude by Lemma 1.7. ∎

## 2. Counterexamples

In this Section we give examples of domains which are not completely integrally closed, but do not have strongly divisorial prime ideals.

We denote the integral closure of an integral domain $`R`$ in its quotient field by $`R^{}`$.

### 2.1.  § A one-dimensional non-completely integrally closed quasilocal integral domain $`(R,M)`$ such that $`R^{}=R^{}`$ is also one-dimensional quasilocal, $`(R:R^{})=(0)`$ and such that $`M`$ is not divisorial.

Let $`F`$ be a field of finite characteristic $`p`$ and let $`S`$ be the additive submonoid of $``$ generated by the set of the numbers $`\{n+1+\frac{1}{2^n}\}`$ for all natural numbers $`n0`$. Clearly, $`2,5S`$. Thus each natural number $`n4`$ belongs to $`S`$ .

Consider the monoid domain $`F[S]=F[X^S]`$, where $`X^S=\{X^s|sS\}`$, and set $`M=X^{S\{0\}}F[S]`$ and $`R=F[S]_M`$.

For $`n4`$, since $`nS`$, then $`X^nR`$. In particular this shows directly that $`R`$ is not seminormal, because $`XR`$ (cf. Proposition 1.17).

In order to prove that $`R`$ has the required properties, we need two Lemmas.

###### Lemma 2.1.

1. For $`n0`$, if $`m`$ is a sufficiently large positive integer, then $`\frac{m}{2^n}S`$.
2. Let $`q`$ be a rational number. If $`q+sS`$ for each nonzero $`sS`$, then $`qS`$.
3. If $`q`$ is a rational number, then $`q+\frac{1}{2^n}S`$ for natural $`n0`$.

###### Proof.

1. For natural $`k0`$, the elements $`\frac{k2^n}{2^n}=k`$ and $`\frac{k2^n+1}{2^n}=(kn1)+(n+1+\frac{1}{2^n})`$ belong to $`S`$ and the numerators of these two fractions are coprime positive integers. Thus, if $`m0`$, then $`\frac{m}{2^n}S`$.
2. Let $`q=\frac{a}{b}`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are integers, and $`b>0`$. Let $`k>\mathrm{max}(q,b)`$ be an integer. Since $`u:=q+k+1+\frac{1}{2^k}S`$, we have $`u=_{i=1}^m(n_i+1+\frac{1}{2^{n_i}})`$ for some natural numbers $`n_1\mathrm{}n_m`$, not necessarily distinct. Since $`k>q`$, we have $`n_ik`$ for at most one index $`i`$. Since $`k>b`$, we have $`u=\frac{a}{b}+k+1+\frac{1}{2^k}=\frac{\alpha }{2^k\beta }`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are odd integers. The denominator of $`u=_{i=1}^m(n_i+1+\frac{1}{2^{n_i}})`$ as a reduced fraction is at most $`2^{n_m}`$, thus $`n_mk`$, and $`n_i<k`$ for $`i<m`$. It follows that $`n_m=k`$ and that $`q=_{i=1}^{m1}(n_i+1+\frac{1}{2^{n_i}})S`$.
3. Let $`q=\frac{a}{b}`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are integers, and $`b>0`$. Let $`n>\mathrm{max}(q,b)`$ be an integer. Assume that $`q+\frac{1}{2^n}S`$, thus $`q+\frac{1}{2^n}=_{i=1}^m(n_i+1+\frac{1}{2^{n_i}})`$ for some natural numbers $`n_1\mathrm{}n_m`$. Since $`2^n`$ divides the denominator of $`q+\frac{1}{2^n}`$ written as a reduced fraction, we see that $`n_mn`$. Thus $`n_m+1+\frac{1}{2^{n_m}}>n+\frac{1}{2^n}>q+\frac{1}{2^n}`$, a contradiction.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`f`$ be a nonzero element of $`R`$. Then, for $`n`$ sufficiently large, $`f^{p^n}`$ is associated in $`R`$ with an element of the form $`X^s`$ for some $`sS`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`f`$ belongs to the ideal $`M`$ of $`F[S]`$, so that

$$f=a_1X^{s_1}+a_2X^{s_2}+\mathrm{}+a_mX^{s_m},$$

where $`s_1<\mathrm{}<s_m`$ are elements of $`S`$, and the coefficients $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$ are in $`F`$. We may further assume that $`a_1=1`$. We have

$$f^{p^n}=X^{p^ns_1}+a_2^{p^n}X^{p^ns_2}+\mathrm{}+a_m^{p^n}X^{p^ns_m}$$

$$=X^{p^ns_1}(1+a_2^{p^n}X^{p^n(s_2s_1)}+\mathrm{}+a_m^{p^n}X^{p^n(s_ms_1)}).$$

If $`n`$ is sufficiently large, by Lemma 2.1 (1), we see that $`p^n(s_is_1)S`$, for $`i=2,\mathrm{},m`$ and so

$$1+a_2^{p^n}X^{p^n(s_2s_1)}+\mathrm{}+a_m^{p^n}X^{p^n(s_ms_1)}F[S].$$

Hence $`f^{p^n}`$ is associated in $`R`$ with $`X^{p^ns_1}`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.3.

1. $`R`$ is one-dimensional.
2. $`R^{}=R^{}`$ is one-dimensional quasilocal.
3. $`(R:R^{})=(0)`$.
4. The ideal $`M`$ is not divisorial.
5. $`R`$ is not integrally closed and has no strongly divisorial prime ideals.

###### Proof.

1. If $`f,g`$ are nonzero elements of $`M`$, then by Lemma 2.2 there exist $`m,n`$ such that $`f^m`$ and $`g^n`$ are associated. So $`\sqrt{(f)}`$ = $`\sqrt{(g)}`$ and $`R`$ is one-dimensional (cf. \[8, Theorems 17.1 and 21.4\]).
2. By Lemma 2.1 (1) and by \[8, Corollary 12.7\], we easily obtain that $`R^{}=R^{}=F[X^{\frac{m}{n}}|m\text{ and }n\text{ are positive integers}]_N`$, where $`N`$ is the maximal ideal generated by the elements $`X^{\frac{m}{n}}`$ for positive integers $`m`$ and $`n`$. Hence $`R^{}=R^{}`$ is one-dimensional quasilocal.
3. Suppose that $`0f=a_1X^{s_1}+a_2X^{s_2}+\mathrm{}+a_mX^{s_m}(R:R^{})`$, where $`a_10`$. Then, for $`n0`$, $`X^{\frac{1}{2^n}}R^{}`$, but $`fX^{\frac{1}{2^n}}=a_1X^{s_1+\frac{1}{2^n}}+\mathrm{}R`$, since $`s_1+\frac{1}{2^n}S`$ by Lemma 2.1 (3); a contradiction.
4. To show that $`M`$ is not divisorial, it is enough to prove that $`(R:M)R`$.

Let $`t=\frac{f}{g}`$, where $`f,gF[S]`$, such that $`tMR`$. By Lemma 2.2, for $`n0`$, the element $`g^{p^n}`$ is associated in $`R`$ with an element of $`X^S`$. Since $`t=\frac{fg^{p^n1}}{g^{p^n}}`$, we may assume that $`tF[G]`$, where $`G`$ is the group of quotients of $`S`$. Since $`M=X^{S\{0\}}R`$, it follows that $`t^{}MM`$ for all components $`t^{}X^G`$ of $`t`$. Thus we may assume that $`t=X^q`$, where $`qG`$, thus $`q`$ is a rational number. Since $`tX^sR`$, for each nonzero $`sS`$, by Lemma 2.1 (2) we obtain $`tR`$.
5. Since, as we have already observed, $`R`$ is not seminormal, it is certainly not integrally closed. Since $`R`$ is one dimensional and quasilocal and the unique maximal ideal $`M`$ is not divisorial, there are no strongly divisorial prime ideals.

### 2.2.  § A one-dimensional non-completely integrally closed quasilocal domain $`(R,M)`$ such that $`R^{}`$ is also one-dimensional quasilocal, $`(R:R^{})(0)`$, and such that $`M`$ is not divisorial.

Let $`𝐗=\{X_n,|n1\}`$ be a set of indeterminates over a field $`F`$. We define $`w(X_n)=\frac{1}{n}`$ (the weight of $`X_n`$) for all $`n1`$. We extend the function $`w`$ to the set of monomials in $`F[𝐗]`$ setting $`w(cX_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_m})=_{j=1}^mw(X_{i_j})`$, where $`c`$ is a nonzero element of $`F`$ and $`X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_m}`$ are indeterminates in the set $`𝐗`$ ($`i_1,\mathrm{},i_m`$ not necessarily distinct). For a nonzero polynomial $`fF[𝐗]`$, we define $`w(f)`$ to be the least weight of a monomial occurring in $`f`$. We let $`w(0)=\mathrm{}`$. Clearly, $`w(fg)=w(f)+w(g)`$ for any polynomials $`f`$ and $`g`$. We uniquely extend the function $`w`$ from $`F[𝐗]\{0\}`$ to a function defined on $`F(𝐗)`$ and satisfying the above property for rational functions $`f`$ and $`g`$. Using the weight $`w`$ we naturally define a $`^+`$-grading on $`F[𝐗]`$:

$$F[𝐗]=\underset{q^+}{}F[𝐗]_q,$$

where $`F[𝐗]_q`$ is the set of $`w`$-homogeneous forms of weight $`q`$, together with $`0`$, that is, the $`F`$-linear combinations of monomials of weight $`q`$ for $`q^+`$. If $`f=_{i=0}^rT_{q_i}F[𝐗]`$, where $`0q_0<q_1<\mathrm{}<q_r`$ are rational numbers, and $`T_{q_0},\mathrm{},T_{q_r}`$ are $`w`$-homogeneous forms of weight $`q_0,\mathrm{},q_r`$ respectively, we set $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(f)=T_{q_0}`$ (the $`w`$-initial form of $`f`$). We let $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(0)=0`$. Clearly, $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(fg)=w_{\mathrm{in}}(f)w_{\mathrm{in}}(g)`$ for any polynomials $`f`$ and $`g`$. Thus we may define $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(\frac{f}{g})=\frac{w_{\mathrm{in}}(f)}{w_{\mathrm{in}}(g)}`$ for any nonzero rational function $`\frac{f}{g}`$, where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are nonzero polynomials.

If $`q`$ , we denote by $`F(𝐗)_q`$ the set $`\{fF(𝐗)|w(f)q\}`$.

Let $`A=F[𝐗]+F(𝐗)_1`$, and let $`P`$ be the maximal ideal $`(𝐗)F[𝐗]+F(𝐗)_1`$ of $`A`$. Set $`R=A_P`$, and $`M=PA_P`$, thus $`(R,M)`$ is a quasilocal domain with quotient field $`F(𝐗)`$. Moreover:

###### Proposition 2.4.

1. $`R^{}=F(𝐗)_0`$ and $`(R:R^{})(0)`$.
2. $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ are quasilocal and one-dimensional, and $`R^{}`$ dominates $`R`$.
3. The ideal $`M`$ is not divisorial.
4. $`R`$ is not completely integrally closed and has no strongly divisorial prime ideals.

###### Proof.

1. Clearly $`RF(𝐗)_0`$. The domain $`F(𝐗)_0`$ is completely integrally closed. Indeed, let $`0fF(𝐗)`$. If $`gf^nF(𝐗)_0`$ for some nonzero $`gF(𝐗)_0`$ and all $`n1`$, then $`w(gf^n)=w(g)+nw(f)0`$ for all $`n1`$, which implies that $`w(f)0`$. It follows that $`fF(𝐗)_0`$.

Since $`X_1F(𝐗)_0R`$, then $`F(𝐗)_0R^{}`$. Hence $`R^{}=F(𝐗)_0`$, and $`(R:R^{})0`$.
2. Clearly, $`N:=F(𝐗)_{>0}`$ is the unique maximal ideal of $`F(𝐗)_0`$, and $`M:=NR`$ is the unique maximal ideal of $`R`$. If $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are nonzero elements in $`N=F(𝐗)_{>0}`$, then, for sufficiently large $`n`$, we have $`w(\frac{c_1^n}{c_2})1`$. Hence $`\frac{c_1^n}{c_2}R`$. This implies that both $`R`$ and $`F(𝐗)_0`$ are one-dimensional since any element in $`RF(𝐗)_{>0}`$ is a unit in $`R`$.
3. Assume that the maximal ideal $`M`$ of $`R`$ is divisorial, i.e. $`(R:M)R`$.

Let $`h`$ be an element in $`F(𝐗)R`$ satisfying $`hMR`$. First we show that $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(h)F[𝐗]`$. Otherwise we have $`w(h)<1`$. Let $`m`$ be a positive integer such that $`w(h)+\frac{1}{m}<1`$. Choose $`nm`$ so that $`hF(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1})`$. Since $`X_nM`$, we have $`hX_nM`$, and so there are an element $`u1+(𝐗)F[𝐗]`$ and a polynomial $`pF[𝐗]`$ such that $`uhX_npF(𝐗)_1`$. Since $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(hX_n)<1`$, we obtain that $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(p)=w_{\mathrm{in}}(uhX_n)=X_nw_{\mathrm{in}}(h)`$. Since $`hF(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1})`$, we infer that $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(h)F[𝐗]`$, a contradiction. Hence $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(h)F[𝐗]`$ as claimed. For some $`m`$ we have $`hF(X_1,\mathrm{},X_m)`$. Define inductively $`h_0=h`$ and $`h_{n+1}=h_nw_{\mathrm{in}}(h_n)`$. Clearly, $`h_nF(X_1,\mathrm{},X_m)R`$, $`h_nMR`$, and $`w(h_{n+1})>w(h_n)`$ for all $`n0`$. It follows that $`w_{\mathrm{in}}(h_n)1`$, so $`h_nR`$ for $`n0`$, a contradiction.
4. By part (1), $`R`$ is not completely integrally closed; for example, $`\frac{X_1}{X_2^2}R^{}R`$. Further, as in the previous example, since $`R`$ is one dimensional quasilocal and the unique maximal ideal $`M`$ is not divisorial, there are no strongly divisorial prime ideals.

### 2.3.  § An infinite dimensional integrally closed non-completely integrally closed domain without strongly divisorial prime ideals such that $`(R:R^{})(0)`$.

To construct this example, we use some properties of the domain $`E=D[Z,\frac{d}{Z}]`$, where $`Z`$ is an indeterminate over $`D`$ and $`dD`$ is a nonzero element. This is isomorphic to the extended Rees Algebra $`D[dX,\frac{1}{X}]`$ of the nonzero principal ideal $`dD`$, via the correspondence $`Z\frac{1}{X}`$.

We have $`\mathrm{Qf}(E)=(\mathrm{Qf}(D))(Z)`$ and $`D=E\mathrm{Qf}(D)`$.

If $`(D:D^{})(0)`$, then $`E^{}=D^{}[Z,\frac{d}{Z}]`$ and $`(D:D^{})(E:E^{})`$. In fact, since $`D^{}`$ is completely integrally closed, then $`D^{}[Z,\frac{d}{Z}]`$ is completely integrally closed \[1, Theorem 8\] and $`D^{}[Z,\frac{d}{Z}]E^{}`$.

The domain $`R`$ is constructed in the following way.

Let $`A`$ be an integral domain such that $`AA^{}`$ and $`(A:A^{})(0)`$, and let $`a`$ be a nonzero element of $`(A:A^{})`$.

Let $`T_0`$ and $`T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n0}`$, for $`n1`$ and $`\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n\{0,1\}`$, be independent indeterminates over $`A`$.

Define inductively $`T_1=\frac{a}{T_0}`$, and $`T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n1}=\frac{T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n}}{T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n0}}`$ for $`n1`$ and set

$$R=A[T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n}|n1\text{ and }\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n\{0,1\}].$$

We have $`R=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}R_n`$, where $`R_0=A`$ and

$$R_n=A[T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _k}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}kn\text{ and }\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _k\{0,1\}]$$

for each $`n1`$.

Moreover the domain $`R_n`$ is obtained from $`A`$ by constructing iteratively extended Rees algebras of the type $`D[Z,\frac{d}{Z}]`$; in fact,

$$R_1=A[T_0,T_1]=A[T_0,\frac{a}{T_0}]$$

and, for $`n1`$,

$$R_{n+1}=R_n[Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_{2^n},\frac{c_1}{Z_1},\mathrm{},\frac{c_{2^n}}{Z_{2^n}}],$$

where

$$\{Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_{2^n}\}=\{T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n0}|\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n\{0,1\}\}$$

is a set of algebraically independent elements over $`R_n`$, and

$$\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_{2^n}\}=\{T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n}|\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n\{0,1\}\}R_n,$$

because by definition $`T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n1}=\frac{T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n}}{T_{\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _n0}}`$.

Setting $`K_0=\mathrm{Qf}(A)`$ and $`K_n=\mathrm{Qf}(R_n)`$ for $`n1`$ , we have $`K_{n+1}=K_n(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_{2^n})`$ and $`\mathrm{Qf}(R)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}K_n.`$ Since $`K_nR_{n+1}=R_n`$, it follows that $`K_nR=R_n`$, for all $`n0`$.

With this notation, we have:

###### Proposition 2.5.

1. $`R^{}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}R_n^{}`$.
2. $`R`$ is not completely integrally closed and $`a(R:R^{})`$. In particular $`(R:R^{})(0)`$.
3. $`R`$ has no strongly divisorial prime ideals.

###### Proof.

1. Let $`x\mathrm{Qf}(R)`$ be almost integral over $`R`$ and let $`dR`$ such that $`dx^kR`$, for all $`k0`$. Since $`x\mathrm{Qf}(R_s)`$ and $`dR_t`$ for some $`s,t0`$, then, for $`m`$ sufficiently large, $`x\mathrm{Qf}(R_m)`$ , $`dR_m`$ and $`dx^kR\mathrm{Qf}(R_m)=R_m`$, for all $`k0`$. Hence $`xR_m^{}`$ and $`R^{}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}R_n^{}`$.

The opposite inclusion is clear.
2. If $`R=R^{}`$, then $`A^{}R^{}\mathrm{Qf}(A)=R\mathrm{Qf}(A)=A`$ . Since $`A`$ is not completely integrally closed, neither is $`R`$.

By hypothesis, $`a(A:A^{})`$ and we have

$$(A:A^{})(R_1:R_1^{})(R_2:R_2^{})\mathrm{}$$

since $`R_n`$ is obtained from $`A`$ by constructing iteratively extended Rees algebras of the type $`D[Z,\frac{d}{Z}]`$.

To conclude it is enough to observe that

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(R_n:R_n^{})\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(R:R_n^{})(R:R^{}).$$

This follows from (a): $`R^{}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}R_n^{}`$.

Actually, $`(R:R^{})=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(R_n:R_n^{})`$. Indeed, let $`y(R:R^{})`$. If $`y\mathrm{Qf}(R_m)`$ , then $`yR_m^{}R\mathrm{Qf}(R_m)=R_m`$ . Hence $`y(R_m:R_m^{})`$ and it follows that $`(R:R^{})_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(R_n:R_n^{})`$.
3. Let $`P`$ be a strongly divisorial prime ideal of $`R`$. Since $`P`$ contains $`(R:R^{})`$, by part (2), $`aP`$.

Since $`a=T_0T_1`$, either $`T_0`$ or $`T_1`$ belongs to $`P`$. We may assume that $`T_0P`$ since there is an automorphism of $`R`$ over $`A`$ interchanging $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$. Then, since $`T_0=T_{00}T_{01}P`$, either $`T_{00}`$ or $`T_{01}`$ belongs to $`P`$. Since there is an automorphism of $`R`$ over $`A[T_0]`$ interchanging $`T_{00}`$ and $`T_{01}`$, we may assume that $`T_{00}P`$. Iterating this process, we may assume that all the indeterminates $`T_0,T_{00},T_{000}\mathrm{}`$ are in $`P`$. Thus $`(R:P)(R:\{T_0,T_{00},\mathrm{}\})`$.

We now prove that $`(R:\{T_0,T_{00},\mathrm{}\})=R`$, thus obtaining a contradiction.

Let $`f(R:\{T_0,T_{00},\mathrm{}\})`$ and let $`n0`$ such that $`f\mathrm{Qf}(R_n)`$. As above, we can write

$$R_{n+1}=R_n[Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_{2^n},\frac{c_1}{Z_1},\mathrm{},\frac{c_{2^n}}{Z_{2^n}}],$$

where we can assume that $`Z_1=T_{0\mathrm{}0}`$.

Hence $`fZ_1R\mathrm{Qf}(R_{n+1})=R_{n+1}`$. Since the indeterminates $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_{2^n}`$ do not occur in $`f`$, setting all the $`Z_i`$’s equal to $`1`$, we obtain that $`fR_nR`$.

To finish, we show in Proposition 2.7 below that this domain can be chosen to satisfy or not either one of the conditions of being seminormal, integrally closed or Archimedean. In the seminormal case the conductor $`(R:R^{})`$ is a radical strongly divisorial ideal of $`R`$ (Lemma 1.9), that is not an irredundant intersection of primes (Lemma 1.7).

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`D`$ be an integral domain, $`dD\{0\}`$ and $`E=D[Z,\frac{d}{Z}]`$. Then

1. $`E`$ is seminormal if and only if $`D`$ is seminormal.
2. $`E`$ is Archimedean if and only if $`D`$ is Archimedean.

###### Proof.

1. Since $`D=EQf(D)`$, if $`E`$ is seminormal, then $`D`$ is seminormal.

Conversely, assume that $`D`$ is seminormal and let $`fQf(E)`$ be such that $`f^2,f^3E`$. Since $`ED[Z,\frac{1}{Z}]`$ and $`D[Z,\frac{1}{Z}]`$ is seminormal, then $`fD[Z,\frac{1}{Z}]`$. Write $`f=_{i=m}^nc_iZ^i`$. Since $`D[Z]E`$, we can assume that $`m<0`$. We have that $`f^2=c_m^2Z^{2m}+gE`$. Hence $`c_m^2Dd^{|2m|}`$ and similarly $`c_m^3Dd^{|3m|}`$. Since $`D`$ is seminormal, we obtain that $`\frac{c_m}{d^{|m|}}D`$ and so $`c_mZ^mE`$.

Repeating this process, we get that all the terms of $`f`$ are in $`E`$ and so $`fE`$.
2. Since $`D=EQf(D)`$, if $`E`$ is Archimedean, then $`D`$ is Archimedean.

Conversely, assume that $`D`$ is Archimedean. Let $`f(Z),g(Z)`$ be two nonzero Laurent polynomials in $`E`$ such that $`g_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}Ef^n`$. Since the domain $`\mathrm{Qf}(D)[Z,\frac{1}{Z}]`$ is Notherian, so Archimedean, we see that $`f=cZ^m`$ for some element $`cD`$ and some integer $`m`$. Since the coefficients of $`g`$ belong to $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}Dc^n`$, we see that $`c`$ is invertible in $`D`$. If $`m0`$, then clearly $`f`$ is a unit in $`E`$. If $`m>0`$, then the coefficients of $`g`$ belong to $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}Dd^n`$. Hence $`d`$ is a unit in $`D`$, $`Z`$ is a unit in $`E`$, and $`f=cZ^m`$ is a unit in $`E`$. We conclude that $`E`$ is Archimedean.

###### Proposition 2.7.

1. $`R`$ is seminormal (resp. integrally closed) if and only if $`A`$ is seminormal (resp. integrally closed).
2. $`R`$ is Archimedean if and only if $`A`$ is Archimedean.

###### Proof.

1. Since $`R=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}R_n`$, it is enough to show that $`R_n`$ is seminormal (resp. integrally closed) if and only if $`R_{n+1}`$ is seminormal (resp. integrally closed), for each $`n0`$ .

This follows from the fact that the domain $`R_{n+1}`$ is obtained from $`R_n`$ by constructing iteratively extended Rees algebras of principal ideals and from the fact that $`D[Z,\frac{d}{Z}]`$ is seminormal (resp. integrally closed) if and only if $`D`$ is seminormal (resp. integrally closed) by Lemma 2.6 (resp. \[1, Theorem 8\]).
2. Since $`A=RQf(A)`$ , if $`R`$ is Archimedean, then $`A`$ is Archimedean.

Conversely, assume that $`A`$ is Archimedean. By Lemma 2.6, all the domains $`R_m`$ are Archimedean.

Now let $`r`$ be a nonzero element of $`R`$, and let $`c_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}Rr^n`$. For some $`m0`$ we have $`r,cR_m`$. Since $`\mathrm{Qf}(R_m)R=R_m`$, we see that $`c_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}R_mr^n`$. Since $`R_m`$ is Archimedean, we conclude that $`c=0`$ and that $`R`$ is Archimedean.