## MULTIPLICATIVE LATTICES WITH ABSORBING FACTORIZATION

ANDREAS REINHART AND G ¨ LS ¸EN ULUCAK U

Abstract. In [22], Yassine et al. introduced the notion of 1-absorbing prime ideals in commutative rings with nonzero identity. In this article, we examine the concept of 1-absorbing prime elements in C-lattices. We investigate the C-lattices in which every element is a finite product of 1-absorbing prime elements (we denote them as OAFLs for short). Moreover, we study C-lattices having 2-absorbing factorization (we denote them as TAFLs for short).

## 1. Introduction

Let L be a set together with an inner binary operation · on L and a partial order ≤ on L such that ( L, · ) is a monoid (i.e., ( L, · ) a commutative semigroup with identity) and ( L, ≤ ) is a complete lattice (i.e., each subset of L has both a supremum and an infimum with respect to ≤ ). For each subset E ⊆ L , we let ∨ E denote the supremum of E , called the join of E and we let ∧ E denote the infimum of E , called the meet of E . For elements a, b ∈ L , let a ∨ b = ∨ { a, b } and a ∧ b = ∧ { a, b } . Moreover, set 1 = ∨ L and set 0 = ∧ L . We say that ( L, , · ≤ ) is a multiplicative lattice if for all x ∈ L and E ⊆ L , it follows that 1 x = x and x ∨ E = ∨ { xe | e ∈ E } .

We recall a few important situations in which multiplicative lattices occur. In what follows, we use the definitions of star operations, ideal systems and the specific star operations/ideal systems v , t and w without further mention. For more information on star operations see [12] and for more information on ideal systems see [14]. A profound introduction and study of the w -operation can be found in [21].

- · It is well-known that if R is a commutative ring with identity, L is the set of ideals of R and · : L × L → L is the ideal multiplication on L , then ( L, , · ⊆ ) is a multiplicative lattice.
- · Let H be a commutative cancellative monoid and let r be an ideal system on H . Let L be the set of r -ideals of H and let · r : L × L → L be the r -multiplication. Then ( L, · r , ⊆ ) is a multiplicative lattice.
- · Let D be an integral domain and let ∗ be a star operation on D . Let L be the set of ∗ -ideals of D together with the ∗ -multiplication · ∗ : L × L → L . Then ( L, · ∗ , ⊆ ) is a multiplicative lattice.

Let L be a multiplicative lattice and let e ∈ L . For a, b ∈ L , we set ( a : b ) = ∨ { x ∈ L | xb ≤ a } . Then e is called weak meet principal if a ∧ e = ( a : e e ) for each a ∈ L and e is called weak join principal if ( be : e ) = (0 : e ) ∨ b for each b ∈ L . Furthermore, e is said to be meet principal if a ∧ be = (( a : e ) ∧ b e ) for all a, b ∈ L and e is said to be join principal if (( a ∨ be ) : e ) = ( a : e ) ∨ b for all a, b ∈ L . We say that e is weak principal if e is both weak meet principal and weak join principal. Finally, e is said to be principal ([9]) if e is both meet principal and join principal. An element a ∈ L is said to be compact if for each subset F ⊆ L with a ≤ ∨ F , it follows that a ≤ ∨ E for some finite subset E of F . A subset C ⊆ L is called multiplicatively closed if 1 ∈ C and xy ∈ C for each x, y ∈ C . A multiplicative lattice L is called a C-lattice if L is generated under joins by a multiplicatively closed subset C of compact elements. Note that a finite product of compact elements in a C-lattice is again compact. By L ∗ we denote the set of all compact elements of L . We say that L is principally generated if every element of L is the join of a set of principal elements of L . It is well-known (see [3, Theorem 1.3]) that each principal element of a

Key words and phrases. 1-absorbing prime element, 2-absorbing element, C-lattice, principally generated lattice.

C-lattice is compact. Moreover, L is said to be join-principally generated if each element of L is the join of a set of join principal elements of L . Additionally, a lattice L is called a principal element lattice if every element in L is principal [4].

Let R be a commutative ring with identity, let D be an integral domain, let H be a commutative cancellative monoid, let ∗ be a star operation on D and let r be an ideal system on H . Note that the lattice of ideals of R is a principally generated C-lattice. The lattice of ∗ -ideals of D is a C-lattice if and only if ∗ is a star operation of finite type. In analogy, it follows that the lattice of r -ideals of H is a C-lattice if and only if r is a finitary ideal system. Observe that the lattice of v -ideals of D (or of H ) can fail to be a C-lattice. Also note that even if ∗ is of finite type (resp. r is finitary), then the lattice of ∗ -ideals of D (resp. the lattice of r -ideals of H ) need not be (join-)principally generated. For instance, the t -operation is of finite type (resp. the t -system is finitary), but the lattice of t -ideals is (in general) not (join-)principally generated. We also want to emphasize that the lattice of w -ideals of D (resp. of H ) is a principally generated C-lattice.

An element a ∈ L is said to be proper if a &lt; 1, it is called nilpotent if a n = 0 for some n ∈ N and it is called comparable if a ≤ b or b ≤ a for each b ∈ L . For each a ∈ L , L/a = { b ∈ L | a ≤ b } is a multiplicative lattice with the multiplication c ◦ d = ( cd ) ∨ a for elements c, d ∈ L/a . A proper element p ∈ L is called prime if ab ≤ p implies a ≤ p or b ≤ p for all a, b ∈ L . A proper element m ∈ L is said to be maximal in L if for each x ∈ L m &lt; x , ≤ 1 implies x = 1. One can easily see that maximal elements are prime. For each a ∈ L , let min( a ) be the set of prime elements of L that are minimal above a . The lattice L is called a lattice domain if 0 is a prime element. J( L ) is defined as the meet of all maximal elements of L . For a ∈ L , we define √ a = ∧ { p ∈ L | p is prime and a ≤ p } . Note that in a C-lattice L , √ a = ∧ { p ∈ L | a ≤ p is a minimal prime over a } = ∨ { x ∈ L ∗ | x n ≤ a for some n ∈ N } . A proper element q ∈ L is called primary if ab ≤ q implies a ≤ q or b ≤ √ q for every a, b ∈ L . It is well-known that C-lattices can be localized at arbitrary multiplicatively closed subsets S of compact elements as follows. The localization of a ∈ L at S is defined as a S = ∨ { x ∈ L | xs ≤ a for some s ∈ S } . The multiplication on L S = { a S | a ∈ L } is defined by a ◦ S b = ( ab ) S for all a, b ∈ L S . Let p ∈ L be a prime element and S = { x ∈ L ∗ | x /notlessequal p } . Then the set S is a multiplicatively closed subset of L . In this case, the localization L S is denoted by L p . It is well-known that ( L p ) ∗ = { a p ∈ L p | a ∈ L ∗ } . Using this, it can be shown that if L is a (principally generated) C-lattice, then L p is also a (principally generated) C-lattice for any prime element p ∈ L (see [2, Theorem 2.9]). It can also be proved that in a C-lattice L , for all a, b ∈ L , ( ab ) m = ( a m m m b ) for each maximal element m ∈ L and also, a = b if and only if a n = b n for all maximal elements n ∈ L . For more information on localization, see [2, 3, 9, 17].

In [22], the authors introduced the concept of 1-absorbing prime ideals in commutative rings with identity. These ideals are generalizations of prime ideals and many authors studied them from different points of view (see [8]). The first aim of this paper is to study 1-absorbing prime elements in C-lattices. Another (well-known) generalization of 1-absorbing prime ideals are 2-absorbing ideals. They have first been mentioned in [7] and in [18], the authors introduced 2-absorbing elements in multiplicative lattices.

The aforementioned concepts are part of the more general definition, namely that of n -absorbing ideals. These types of ideals were introduced and studied by Anderson and Badawi (see [6]). It turns out that n -absorbing ideals are not just interesting objects in multiplicative ideal theory, but also in factorization theory. For instance, there is an important connection between n -absorbing ideals and the ω -invariant in factorization theory (see [6]). For a profound discussion of the ω -invariant, we refer to [13].

We want to emphasize that the commutative rings in which each ideal is a finite product of 1-absorbing prime ideals (resp. 2-absorbing ideals, resp. n -absorbing ideals) have already been studied (see [1, 11, 18]). The main goal of this paper is to consider principally generated C-lattices in which various types of elements can be written as finite products of 1-absorbing prime elements or 2-absorbing elements.

We continue with a few more basic definitions that will be needed in the sequel. L is said to be a field if L = { 0 1 , } and L is called a quasi-local lattice if 1 is compact and L has a unique maximal element.

The dimension of L , denoted by dim( L ), is defined to be sup { n ∈ N | there exists a strict chain of prime elements of L of length n } . If dim( L ) = 0, then L is said to be a zero-dimensional lattice. Note that L is a zero-dimensional lattice if and only if every prime element of L is maximal. We say that a multiplicative lattice is Noetherian if every element of L is compact (see [16, page 352]). A multiplicative lattice is said to be Pr¨ ufer lattice if every compact element of L is principal. (For more information about Pr¨ ufer lattices, see [3, Theorem 3.4].) A ZPI-lattice is a multiplicative lattice in which every element is a finite product of prime elements [15]. A multiplicative lattice L is said to be a Q-lattice if every element is a finite product of primary elements [20]. A principally generated lattice domain L is called unique factorization lattice domain if every principal element of L is a finite product of principal prime elements.

Our paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we study the concept of 1-absorbing prime elements (OAelements). The relationships among prime elements, primary elements, and TA-elements are studied in Examples 2.2 and 2.3. Propositions 2.7 and 2.8, along with Corollary 2.9, demonstrate that the concepts of prime elements and OA-elements coincide in C-lattices that are not quasi-local. In Section 3, we study C-lattices whose elements have a TA-factorization. We call a C-lattices a TA-factorization lattice (abbreviated as TAFL) if every element possesses a TA-factorization. In Proposition 3.4, we get that dim( L ) ≤ 1 if L is a principally generated TAFL. In Theorem 3.5, we obtain that a TAFL is ZPI-lattice domain if it is a Pr¨fer lattice domain. u Then, we study the factorization of C-lattices by assuming that all compact elements of L have a factorization into TA-elements, denoted by CTAFL . Finally, we explore the factorization of C-lattices by assuming that all principal elements of L have a factorization into TA-elements, denoted by PTAFL . In Theorem 3.11, we have that if ( L, m ) is a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice domain, then L is a TAFL if and only if L is a PTAFL and dim( L ) ≤ 1. In Section 4, we study the factorization of L with respect to the OA-element concept, similar to Section 3. We study C-lattices as a OA-factorization lattice (abbreviated as OAFL) if every element possesses an OAfactorization. Then, we examine the factorization of C-lattices by assuming that all compact elements of L have a factorization into OA-elements, denoted by COAFL . Finally, we explore the factorization of C-lattices by assuming that all principal elements of L have a factorization into OA-elements, denoted by POAFL . Among the many results, in Theorem 4.13, we characterize OAFL, COAFL and lattices which of the join of any two principal elements has an OA-factorization. In Theorem 4.13, we also see that if L is an OAFL, then it satisfies one of the following conditions.

- i. L is a ZPI-lattice.
- ii. L is a quasi-local lattice, m 2 is comparable and m is a nilpotent element.
- iii. L is a quasi-local lattice domain, m 2 is comparable and ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0.

In Theorem 4.14, we conclude that the following statements are equivalent: L is a ZPI-lattice if and only if L is a Pr¨fer OAFL if and only if u L is a Pr¨fer POAFL. Theorem 4.15 establishes relationships among u the concepts of OAFL, COAFL, TAFL and CTAFL.

## 2. On 1-absorbing prime elements of C-lattices

Definition 2.1. Let L be a C-lattice. A proper element x ∈ L is called a 1 -absorbing prime element or an OA-element if for all a, b, c ∈ L \ { 1 } , abc ≤ x implies that ab ≤ x or c ≤ x .

It follows immediately from the definition that every OA-element is both a TA-element and a primary element. Moreover, every prime element is an OA-element. We infer that the class of OA-elements of L lies between the classes of prime elements and TA-elements and also between the classes of prime elements and primary elements.

Let L be a C-lattice and let a ∈ L . We obtain the following irreversible right arrows:

- (2) a is a prime element ⇒ a is an OA-element ⇒ a is a TA-element.
- (1) a is a prime element ⇒ a is an OA-element ⇒ a is a primary element.

We give some examples to show that these arrows are not reversible.

Example 2.2. { This example is inspired by [10, Example 7] . } Let L be a C-lattice, which having underlying set { 0 1 , , a, b, c, d } ordered by a ≤ b ≤ d and a ≤ c ≤ d , with multiplication xy = a for all x, y ∈ { a, b, c, d } . The prime elements of L are 0 and d . Moreover, L is a quasi-local lattice. Note that b is an OA-element of L that is not a prime element. In particular, b is a primary TA-element of L .

Example 2.3. We demonstrate that, in general, neither TA-elements nor primary elements are OAelements. Let I( Z ) be the lattice of ideals of Z . Note that (15) is a TA-element of I( Z ) that is not an OA-element of I( Z ). Furthermore, (8) is a primary element of I( Z ) that fails to be an OA-element of I( Z ).

Lemma 2.4. Let L be a C-lattice. An element x ∈ L is an OA-element if and only if for all a, b, c ∈ L ∗ \ { 1 } , abc ≤ x implies that ab ≤ x or c ≤ x .

( ⇐ ) Let abc ≤ x and ab /notlessequal x for some a, b, c ∈ L \ { 1 } . We show that c ≤ x to complete the proof. Since abc ≤ x , then a b c ′ ′ ′ ≤ x for all compact elements a , b , c ′ ′ ′ ∈ L with a ′ ≤ a , b ′ ≤ b and c ′ ≤ c . Since ab /notlessequal x , then there are some compact elements a , b 1 1 ∈ L such that a 1 ≤ a , b 1 ≤ b and a b 1 1 /notlessequal x . Let a 2 = a ′ ∨ a 1 and b 2 = b ′ ∨ b 1 . It is clear that a 2 and b 2 are compact. Obviously, there is a compact element c ∗ ∈ L with c ∗ ≤ c . Note that ( a ′ ∨ a 1 )( b ′ ∨ b 1 ) c ∗ ≤ x and ( a ′ ∨ a 1 )( b ′ ∨ b 1 ) /notlessequal x . We obtain that c ∗ ≤ x , and thus c ≤ x . Therefore, x is an OA-element. /square

Proof. ( ⇒ ) This is clear.

Proposition 2.5. Let L be a C-lattice and let x ∈ L .

- (2) If x is an OA-element of L , then ( x : a ) is a prime element of L for each a ∈ L with a /notlessequal x .
- (1) If x is an OA-element of L , then √ x is a prime element of L with ( √ x ) 2 ≤ x .
- (3) If ( p 2 : a ) ≤ x for every compact element a ≤ p , a /notlessequal x and x is a p -primary element of L , then x is an OA-element of L .
- (2) Let x be an OA-element of L and let b, c ∈ L be such that bc ≤ ( x : a ). Then abc ≤ x . By the assumption, ab ≤ x or c ≤ x . Therefore, b ≤ ( x : a ) or c ≤ ( x : a ).

Proof. (1) Let x be an OA-element of L and let a, b ∈ L be such that ab ≤ √ x . There is a positive integer n such that a n n b ≤ x . We can write a m n a -m n b ≤ x for a positive integer m with m &lt; n . By the assumption, a n ≤ x or b n ≤ x . Then a ≤ √ x or b ≤ √ x , and thus √ x is prime. Now we will show that ( √ x ) 2 ≤ x . Let a, b ∈ L be such that a, b ≤ √ x . Then there is an n ∈ N with a n ≤ x . If n = 1, then we are done. Let n &gt; 2. Then a n -2 aa ≤ x , and so a 2 ≤ x . Similarly, we have that b 2 ≤ x . Note that a a ( ∨ b b ) ≤ x . Then ab ≤ a a ( ∨ b ) ≤ x or ab ≤ b ≤ x . In any case, we have that ab ≤ x . Therefore, ( √ x ) 2 ≤ x .

- (3) Let a, b, c ∈ L ∗ be such that abc ≤ x and a /notlessequal x . By assumption, bc ≤ √ x = p . Therefore, we obtain that abc ≤ p 2 , and thus bc ≤ ( p 2 : a ) ≤ p . We infer that bc ≤ x , and hence x is an OA-element. /square

/negationslash

Lemma 2.6. Let L be a C-lattice. If w ∨ u = 1 for some distinct proper elements u, w ∈ L , then L is quasi-local.

/negationslash

Proof. Let w ∨ u = 1 be distinct proper elements u, w ∈ L . Assume that L is not a quasi-local lattice. There are at least two distinct maximal elements m ,m 1 2 ∈ L such that m 1 ∨ m 2 = 1, a contradiction. Therefore, L is quasi-local. /square

Proposition 2.7. Let L be a C-lattice and let x ∈ L . If x is an OA-element of L that is not prime, then L is quasi-local.

/negationslash

Proof. Let x be an OA-element of L that is not a prime. By the assumption, cd ≤ x for some c, d ∈ L implies neither c ≤ x nor d ≤ x . If w ∨ u = 1 for each distinct proper elements w, u ∈ L , then we are done by Lemma 2.6. Assume that w ∨ u = 1 for two distinct proper elements w, u ∈ L . Since wcd ≤ x and d /notlessequal x , then wc ≤ x and similarly, ucd ≤ x and d /notlessequal x , then uc ≤ x . We obtain that wc ∨ uc = ( w ∨ u c ) ≤ x , and hence c = 1 c = ( w ∨ u c ) ≤ x , a contradiction. Therefore, L is quasi-local. /square

Proposition 2.8. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local C-lattice and let x ∈ L be proper. Then x is an OA-element if and only if x is a prime element or m 2 ≤ x &lt; m .

Proof. ( ⇒ ) Without restriction, we can assume that x is not a prime element of L . Clearly, there are two proper elements a, b ∈ L such that ab ≤ x , a /notlessequal x and b /notlessequal x . Set y = m 2 . Note that yab ≤ ab ≤ x . Since a , b and y are proper elements of L and b /notlessequal x , we have that ya ≤ x , and hence mma ≤ x . since a and m are proper elements of L and a /notlessequal x , this implies that m 2 = mm ≤ x . Since x is not a

( ⇐ ) If x is a prime element of L , then clearly x is an OA-element of L . Now let m ≤ x &lt; m . Let a, b, c ∈ L be proper such that abc ≤ x and c /notlessequal x . Note that a ≤ m and b ≤ m . We obtain that ab ≤ m 2 ≤ x . Therefore, x is an OA-element. /square

Moreover, prime element of L , it is obvious that x &lt; m . 2

As another consequence of Propositions 2.7 and 2.8, we give the following corollary without proof.

Corollary 2.9. Let L be a C-lattice. Then there is an OA-element of L that is not prime if and only if L is quasi-local with maximal element m such that m 2 = m .

/negationslash

Proposition 2.10. Let L be a principally generated C-lattice and set m = J( L ) . The following statements are equivalent.

- (1) Every proper element of L is an OA-element.
- (2) Every proper principal element of L is an OA-element.
- (3) L is quasi-local and m 2 = 0 .

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) This is obvious.

/negationslash

(2) ⇒ (3) Assume that L is not a quasi-local lattice. Then each proper principal element is a prime element. Note that L is a lattice domain. Let x ∈ L be a principal element. It follows that x 2 is a principal prime element. We conclude that x = x 2 , and thus 1 = x ∨ (0 : x ). Since x is proper, then we have that x = 0. Consequently, L is field. But this contradicts the fact that L is not a quasi-local lattice. This implies that L is quasi-local with maximal element m . We infer that 0 is prime or m 2 = 0 by Proposition 2.8. Suppose that m 2 = 0. Then there is a nonzero principal element c ∈ L with c ≤ m 2 . By Proposition 2.8, we get that c 2 is prime element or m 2 ≤ c 2 . If c 2 is prime, then we have that c 2 = . c Let m 2 ≤ c 2 . We have that m 2 ≤ c 2 ≤ c ≤ m 2 , and hence c 2 = . In any cases, we obtain that c c 2 = , c and hence 1 = c ∨ (0 : c ), since c is principal. Since L is quasi-local, it follows that c = 1, a contradiction. Therefore, m 2 = 0.

- (3) ⇒ (1) This follows from Proposition 2.8.

/square

Lemma 2.11. Let L be a join-principally generated C-lattice. If every nonzero element of L is an OA-element, then dim( L ) = 0 .

/negationslash

Proof. Let p ∈ L be a prime element and let m ∈ L a maximal element with p &lt; m . Then there is a join principal element a ∈ L with a &lt; m and a /notlessequal p . Observe that a is a nonzero element that is not nilpotent. By assumption, a is an OA-element of L . We have that a 3 = a or a 3 = a 2 , since 0 = a 3 is an OA-element of L . If a 3 = a , then it follows that 1 = (0 : a ) ∨ a 2 .

/negationslash

Since (0 : a ) = 1, we have that a 2 = 1, which implies that m = 1, a contradiction. We get a similar result when assuming that a 3 = a 2 . We conclude that dim( L ) = 0. /square

Proposition 2.12. Let L be a principally generated C-lattice. If L is quasi-local with maximal element m such that m 2 is comparable, then the following statements are equivalent.

- (1) Each two principal elements x, y ∈ L with m 2 ≤ x and m 2 ≤ y imply that x ≤ y or y ≤ x ,
- (2) If a is an OA-element of L , then a is prime or a = m 2 .

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) Let each two principal elements x, y ∈ L with m 2 ≤ x and m 2 ≤ y satisfy x ≤ y or y ≤ x . Let a be an OA-element of L . Suppose that a is not a prime. By Proposition 2.8, we get m 2 ≤ a &lt; m . Let m &lt; a 2 . Clearly, there are two principal elements c, d ∈ L such that c ≤ x , c /notlessequal m 2 and d &lt; m , d /notlessequal a . Note that c, d /notlessequal m 2 . By the assumption, we have that m 2 ≤ c, d . Consequently, c and d are OA-elements. Since d /notlessequal c , then c ≤ d . Therefore, there is an element v ∈ L with c = vd and hence, we deduce c ≤ m 2 , a contradiction. It must be the case that a = m 2 .

(2) ⇒ (1) This is clear.

/square

Although we do not derive the result that the meet of two prime elements or two OA-elements yields an OA-element, we deduce the following result.

Lemma 2.13. Let L be a C-lattice and let x, y ∈ L be OA-elements that are not prime. Then x ∧ y and x ∨ y are OA-elements.

/negationslash

Proof. Let x, y ∈ L be OA-elements that are not prime. Then L is quasi-local. By the assumption, we have that m 2 ≤ x, y , and hence m 2 ≤ x ∧ y and m 2 ≤ x ∨ y = 1. Since m 2 ≤ x ∧ y ≤ x ∨ y ≤ m and L is quasi-local, then x ∧ y and x ∨ y are OA-elements. /square

Now, we give a relation between OA-elements and lattice domains.

Proposition 2.14. Let L be a C-lattice. Then 0 is an OA-element of L if and only if L is a lattice domain or L is quasi-local with maximal element m such that m 2 = 0 .

Proof. ( ⇒ ) Let 0 be an OA-element of L . Let L be not a lattice domain. Then 0 is not prime, and thus L is quasi-local with maximal element m . We infer that m 2 = 0.

( ⇐ ) This is obvious.

/square

Proposition 2.15. Let L be a C-lattice. Every TA-element of L is an OA-element of L if and only if the following conditions hold.

- (a) For each two prime elements p, q ∈ L , we have that p ≤ q or q ≤ p . In particular, L is quasi-local.
- (b) If x is a TA-element of L and p ∈ min( x ) , then x = p or p = m .

Proof. ( ⇒ ) Let p and q be prime elements of L . Then p ∧ q is a TA-element of L . By assumption, p ∧ q is an OA-element. Then by Proposition 2.5(1), we have that √ p ∧ q = p ∧ q is prime, and hence p ∧ q = p or p ∧ q = q by [18, Lemma 7]. We obtain that p ≤ q or q ≤ p . Therefore, L is quasi-local. Now, assume that p is minimal prime over x . If x is prime, then it is clear that x = p . Let x be not a prime element. Then L is quasi-local with maximal element m . Then m 2 ≤ x &lt; p &lt; m , and thus p = m .

( ⇐ ) Suppose that L satisfies (a) and (b). Let x be a TA-element of L and let p be a minimal prime element over x . By [18, Theorem 3(1)], p 2 ≤ x ≤ p . If x = p , then x is prime, and thus it is clearly an OA-element. Now let p = m . Then m 2 ≤ x ≤ m , and hence x is an OA-element. /square

Remark 2.16. Let L be a C-lattice, let x ∈ L be an OA-element and let p ∈ L be a prime element of L such that p ≤ x . Then x is an OA-element of L/p .

Proof. Let a ◦ b ◦ c ≤ x for some a, b, c ∈ L/p . Then abc ≤ x . By assumption, ab ≤ x or c ≤ x , and hence a ◦ b ≤ x or c ≤ x . Consequently, x is an OA-element of L/p . /square

Remark 2.17. Let L be a C-lattice and let p ∈ L be a prime element. If x ∈ L is an OA-element such that x ≤ p , then x p is an OA-element of L p .

Proof. Let x ∈ L be an OA-element such that x ≤ p . Clearly, x p is a proper element of L p . Let a, b, c ∈ L ∗ be such that a b c p p p ≤ x p . Then abc ≤ x p , and hence dabc ≤ x for some d /notlessequal p . We have that dab ≤ x or c ≤ x . Note that d p = 1 by [17]. Then a b p p ≤ x p or c p ≤ x p . Therefore, x p is an OA-element of L p . /square

Theorem 2.18. Let L be a principally generated C-lattice. Every nonzero proper element of L is an OA-element if and only if L ∼ = L 1 × L 2 where L , L 1 2 are fields or L is quasi-local with maximal element m such that m = √ 0 and m 2 ≤ x for every nonzero proper principal element x ∈ L .

/negationslash

( ⇐ ) If L ∼ = L 1 × L 2 , where L 1 and L 2 are fields, then each nonzero proper element of L is prime, and hence it is an OA-element. Now let L be quasi-local with maximal element m such that m = √ 0 and m 2 ≤ x for every nonzero proper principal element x ∈ L . Let y be a nonzero proper element of L . There is some nonzero principal element c ∈ L with c ≤ y . We have that m 2 ≤ c ≤ y , and thus y is an OA-element of L . /square

Proof. ( ⇒ ) Let every nonzero proper element of L be an OA-element. First let L be quasi-local with maximal element m . By assumption, every nonzero proper element of L is a TA-element. Now [18, Theorem 8] completes the proof. Now let L be not quasi-local. Then the concepts of prime elements and OA-elements coincide. Let m 1 and m 2 be two distinct maximal elements of L . Assume that m 1 ∧ m 2 = 0. By the assumption, m 1 ∧ m 2 is prime. It can be shown that m 1 = m 2 , a contradiction. It follows that m 1 ∧ m 2 = 0, and thus L ∼ = L/m 1 × L/m 2 . Note that L/m ,L/m 1 2 are fields.

Proposition 2.19. Let L be a principally generated quasi-local Noetherian lattice with maximal element m . Then every OA-element is prime if and only if L is field.

Proof. ( ⇒ ) Since every OA-element is prime, then we obtain that m 2 = m . Therefore, m = 0 by [3, Theorem 1.4], and thus L is field.

( ⇐ ) This is clear.

/square

## 3. TAFLs and their generalizations

In this section, we study C-lattices whose elements have a TA-factorization. A TA-factorization of an element x ∈ L means that x is written as a finite product of TA-elements ( x k ) n k =1 . (Note that the element 1 is the empty product.) We say that a C-lattice L is a TA-factorization lattice (abbreviated as TAFL) if every element of L has a TA-factorization.

In this section, we investigate the factorization of elements into TA-elements. Firstly, we study C-lattices whose elements possess a TA-factorization, called TAFLs . Next, we study C-lattices whose compact elements have a factorization into TA-elements. We call them CTAFLs . We also explore the C-lattices whose principal elements have a factorization into TA-elements, called PTAFLs . Clearly, every TAFL is both a CTAFL and a PTAFL.

Example 3.1. As a simple example, it is clear that each prime element is a TA-element, then every ZPI-lattice is a TAFL. By [19, Example 2.1], we have that the lattice of ideals of Z [ √ -7] is not a TAFL.

First, we will present some basic results related to TAFL in the following proposition.

Remark 3.2. Let L be a TAFL, let L 1 and L 2 be C-lattices and let p ∈ L be a prime element.

- (2) L 1 × L 2 is a TAFL if and only if L 1 and L 2 are both TAFLs.
- (1) min( x ) is finite for each x ∈ L .
- (3) L/p is a TAFL.
- (4) L p is a TAFL.

Proof. (1) Let x = ∏ n k =1 x k be a TA-factorization of x . By [18, Theorem 3], we have that min( x i ) is finite. Then min( x ) is finite, since min( x ) ⊆ ⋃ n i =1 min( x i ).

(2) It is well-known by [18] that p 1 = 1 L 1 and p 2 is a TA-element of L 2 or p 2 = 1 L 2 and p 1 is a TA-element of L 1 or p 1 and p 2 are prime elements of L 1 and L 2 , respectively if and only if ( p , p 1 2 ) is a TA-element of L . The rest now follows easily.

- (3) Let y ∈ L/p . By the assumption, y = ∏ n k =1 x k where x i is a TA-element of L for each i ∈ [1 , k ]. Note that x i is a TA-element of L/p and y = ( ∏ n k =1 x k ) ∨ p = © n k =1 x k . Consequently, L/p is a TAFL.
- (4) Recall that if x is a TA-element of L , then x p is a TA-element of L p . Let a ∈ L p . Then we have that a = y p for some y ∈ L . By assumption, y has a TA-factorization in L , meaning y is the finite product of some TA-elements ( y k ) n k =1 . We have that a = y p = ( ∏ n k =1 y k ) p = © n k =1 ( y k ) p . This completes the proof. /square

Lemma 3.3. Let L be a C-lattice, let x ∈ L be proper with √ x ∈ max( L ) and let one of the following conditions be satisfied:

- (a) L is a TAFL.
- (b) L is a CTAFL and x is compact.
- (c) L is a PTAFL and x is principal.

Proof. Let L be a TAFL, let ( √ x ) 2 /notlessequal x and √ x = m . By [18, Theorem 3], x is not a TA-element. By assumption, x = ∏ n i =1 x i where x i is TA-element of L and n ≥ 2. Since x ≤ x i for each i ∈ [1 , n ] and √ x = m ∈ max( L ), we have that √ x i = m for each i ∈ [1 , n ]. Consequently, x ≤ m 2 .

Then x ≤ ( √ x ) 2 or ( √ x ) 2 ≤ x .

If L is a CTAFL (resp. a PTAFL) and x is a compact (resp. principal), then this can be shown along the same lines as before. /square

## Proposition 3.4. Let L be a principally generated TAFL. Then dim( L ) ≤ 1 .

/negationslash

Moreover, p q is a prime element of L q , y q is a principal element of L q and q q ∈ min(( p ∨ y ) q ). If p q is a minimal prime element of L q , then p is a minimal prime element of L . For these reasons, we can assume without restriction that m ∈ min( p ∨ y ). Since L is quasi-local, this implies that √ p ∨ y = m . Next we verify the following claims.

Proof. Observe that since dim( L ) = sup { dim( L q ) | q ∈ L is a prime element } , we can assume without restriction that L is quasi-local with maximal element m = 0. It remains to show that each nonmaximal prime element of L is a minimal prime element. Let p ∈ L be a nonmaximal prime element. Since L is principally generated, there is some principal element y ∈ L such that y ≤ m and y /notlessequal p .

Claim 1: m = m

2 .

Claim 2: q ≤ m 2 for every prime element q &lt; m .

/negationslash

Assume the contrary of claim 1 that m = m 2 . Then m is the only TA-element whose radical is m . There is a (join) principal element y with y &lt; m and y /notlessequal p . Clearly, p ∨ y = ∏ k i =1 x i where k is a positive integer and x i is a TA-element of L for each i ∈ [1 , k ]. Note that m is minimal over p ∨ y . Then m 2 ≤ x i for each i ∈ [1 , k ] by [18, Lemma 5]. Therefore, we get that m 2 k = m ≤ p ∨ y ≤ m k = m by [18, Theorem 3] and Lemma 3.3. Similarly, we have that m 2 k = m ≤ p ∨ y 2 ≤ m k = m . This implies that p ∨ y = m = p ∨ y 2 . Note that (( p ∨ y 2 ) : y ) = ( p : y ) ∨ y = p ∨ y . Then 1 = (( p ∨ y ) : y ) = (( p ∨ y 2 ) : y ) = p ∨ y , and hence 1 = p ∨ y = m , a contradiction.

/negationslash

To show that the second claim is true, assume that there is a prime element q &lt; m with q /notlessequal m 2 . Also, there is a principal element b ∈ L with b ≤ m and b /notlessequal q . Note that b n /notlessequal q for a positive integer n . We have that b ∈ L is a nonzero element that is not nilpotent. Since L is a TAFL and q /notlessequal m 2 , we have that q ∨ b 3 is a TA-element by Lemma 3.3 and [18, Theorem 3]. It follows that b 2 ≤ q ∨ b 3 , since b 3 ≤ q ∨ b 3 . Note that 1 = (( q ∨ b 3 ) : b 2 ) = ( q : b 2 ) ∨ b . We conclude that ( q : b 2 ) = 1 or b = 1. Therefore, b 2 ≤ q or b = 1, a contradiction. We infer that every prime element q ∈ L with q &lt; m satisfies q ≤ m 2 .

/negationslash

We will return to the proof of the main part. Since m = m 2 , there is a nonzero principal element c ∈ L with c /notlessequal m 2 . By claim 2, it follows that √ c = m . By Lemma 3.3, we get m 2 ≤ c . Let 0 = s ≤ p . We have that s = ∏ n i =1 y i where y i is a TA-element of L . Since p is prime, then y j ≤ p for some j ∈ [1 , n ].

Since y j ≤ p &lt; m 2 ≤ c , then y j = c/lscript j for some /lscript j ∈ L because c is weak meet principal. Note that /lscript j ≤ p because c /notlessequal p . Consequently, /lscript j ≤ p ≤ m 2 ≤ c , and thus /lscript j = ct j for some t j ∈ L . Therefore, y j = c 2 t j , and hence /lscript j = ct j ≤ y j , since y j is a TA-element. We obtain that y j = /lscript j , and so y j = cy j . Therefore, s = sc . Note that sm ≤ s . Since s = sc , we have that s = sc ≤ sm , and hence s = sm . We conclude that s = 0 by [3, Theorem 1.4], a contradiction. This implies that p = 0. /square

Theorem 3.5. If L is a TAFL and a Pr¨fer lattice domain, then u L is a ZPI-lattice domain.

Proof. Let L be a Pr¨fer lattice domain such that u L is also a TAFL. First we have that L m is a TAFL for each maximal element m ∈ L . Let m ∈ L be maximal. Since L is a Pr¨fer lattice domain, then u L m is a linearly ordered TAFL. From [18, Theorem 10] recall that if L is a Pr¨fer lattice domain, then the u following statements are equivalent: (1) p is a TA-element, (2) p is a prime element of L or p = p 2 1 is a p 1 -primary element of L or p = p 1 ∧ p 2 where p 1 and p 2 are some nonzero prime elements of L . By using this characterization, we conclude that every TA-element of L m is a finite product of some prime elements. Therefore, L m is a ZPI-lattice (since it is a TAFL), and hence every element of L m is principal and compact. Moreover, dim( L m ) ≤ 1. Therefore, dim( L ) ≤ 1. Since L is a TAFL domain and dim( L ) ≤ 1, every nonzero element of L is contained in only finitely many maximal elements. Now one can show that every element of L is compact (since every nonzero element is locally compact and contained in only finitely many maximal elements). Therefore, every element of L is compact. In particular, L is a principal element lattice domain (since L is a Pr¨fer lattice domain), and hence it is a ZPI-lattice domain. u /square

Next we study CTAFLs.

Remark 3.6. Let L be a CTAFL, let L 1 and L 2 be C-lattices and let p ∈ L be a prime element.

- (2) L 1 × L 2 is a CTAFL if and only if L 1 and L 2 are both CTAFLs.
- (1) min( x ) is finite for each x ∈ L ∗ .
- (3) If p is compact, then L/p is a CTAFL.
- (4) L p is a CTAFL.

Proof. (1) This can be proved along the same lines as in the proof of Remark 3.2.

- (2) It follows from [18] that p 1 = 1 L 1 and p 2 is a TA-element of L 2 or p 2 = 1 L 2 and p 1 is a TA-element of L 1 or p 1 and p 2 are prime elements of L 1 and L 2 , respectively if and only if ( p , p 1 2 ) is a TA-element of L . The rest is straightforward.
- (3) Let p be compact. Observe that every element a ∈ L with a ≥ p is compact in L if and only if a is compact in L/p . Now, let y ∈ L/p be compact. Then y ≥ p . By the assumption, y = ∏ n k =1 x k where x i is a TA-element of L . Note that x i is a TA-element of L/p . Then we get that y = ( ∏ n k =1 x k ) ∨ p = © n k =1 x k . Therefore, L/p is a CTAFL.
- (4) This can be shown along similar lines as in Remark 3.2(4).

/square

Proposition 3.7. Let L be a principally generated CTAFL that satisfies the ascending chain condition on prime elements. Then dim( L ) ≤ 1 .

/negationslash

Since L is a C-lattice, there exists some q ∈ min( p ∨ y ) such that q ≤ m . Clearly, L q is a principally generated CTAFL with maximal element q q that satisfies the ascending chain condition on prime elements. Moreover, p q is a prime element of L q , y q is a principal element of L q and q q ∈ min(( p ∨ y ) q ). If p q is a minimal prime element of L q , then p is a minimal prime element of L . For these reasons, we can assume

Proof. Observe that for each prime element q ∈ L , we have that L q is a principally generated CTAFL that satisfies the ascending chain condition on prime elements. Since dim( L ) = sup { dim( L q ) | q ∈ L is a prime element } , we can assume without restriction that L is quasi-local with maximal element m = 0. It remains to show that each nonmaximal prime element of L is a minimal prime element. Let p ∈ L be a nonmaximal prime element. Since L is principally generated, there is some principal element y ∈ L such that y ≤ m and y /notlessequal p .

without restriction that m ∈ min( p ∨ y ). Since L is quasi-local, this implies that √ p ∨ y = m . Next we verify the following claims.

Claim 1:

m = m 2 .

Claim 2: q ≤ m 2 for every prime element q ∈ L with q &lt; m .

/negationslash

First we prove claim 1. It follows from Remark 3.6(1) that min( x ) is finite for each compact element x ∈ L . Since L satisfies the ascending chain condition on prime elements, it follows from [16, Theorem 2] that p = √ d for some compact element d ∈ L . Observe that m = √ d ∨ y and d ∨ y is compact. Consequently, d ∨ y = ∏ t i =1 x i for some positive integer t and some TA-elements x i ∈ L . Clearly, √ x i = m for each i ∈ [1 , t ], and thus m 2 ≤ x i ≤ m by [18, Theorem 3] for each i ∈ [1 , t ]. Assume to the contrary that m = m 2 . Then d ∨ y = m , and hence p ∨ y = m . We infer that m = m 2 ≤ p ∨ y 2 ≤ p ∨ y ≤ m , and thus p ∨ y = p ∨ y 2 . Since y is (join) principal, we obtain that 1 = (( p ∨ y ) : y ) = (( p ∨ y 2 ) : y ) = p ∨ y = m , a contradiction. This implies that m = m 2 . /square (Claim 1)

Now we prove claim 2. Assume that there is a prime element q ∈ L such that q &lt; m and q /notlessequal m 2 . Since L is principally generated, there is a principal element b ∈ L such that b ≤ m and b /notlessequal q . Note that b 2 /notlessequal q . Since q /notlessequal m 2 and L is a C-lattice, there is a compact element a ∈ L such that a ≤ q and a /notlessequal m 2 . Since a and b are compact, we have that a ∨ b 3 is compact. Note that a ∨ b 3 is a TA-element, since L is a CTAFL and a /notlessequal m 2 . Since b 3 ≤ a ∨ b 2 and a ∨ b 2 is a TA-element, we get that b 2 ≤ a ∨ b 3 . Note that 1 = (( a ∨ b 3 ) : b 2 ) = ( a : b 2 ) ∨ b . Since b ≤ m and L is quasi-local, we have that ( a : b 2 ) = 1. Consequently, b 2 ≤ a ≤ q , a contradiction. /square (Claim 2)

/negationslash

/negationslash

It is sufficient to show that p = 0. (Then p is a minimal prime element of L and we are done.) Since m = m 2 by claim 1 and L is principally generated, there is a principal element c ∈ L such that c ≤ m and c /notlessequal m 2 . By claim 2, we have that √ c = m . Furthermore, Lemma 3.3 implies that m 2 ≤ c . Let s ∈ L be compact such that s ≤ p . It follows that s = ∏ k i =1 y i for some positive integer k and some TA-elements y i ∈ L . Obviously, there is some j ∈ [1 , k ] such that y j ≤ p . Since y j ≤ p ≤ m 2 ≤ c and c is (weak meet) principal, we infer that y j = c/lscript for some /lscript ∈ L . Note that /lscript ≤ p , since c /notlessequal p . Consequently, /lscript ≤ p ≤ m 2 ≤ c , and thus /lscript = ct for some t ∈ L . This implies that y j = c 2 t , and hence /lscript = ct ≤ y j (since y j is a TA-element of L ). Therefore, y j = , and thus /lscript y j = cy j . We infer that s = sc , and hence s = sc ≤ sm ≤ s . We conclude that s = sm . It is an immediate consequence of [3, Theorem 1.4] that s = 0. Finally, we have that p = 0 (since L is a C-lattice). /square

Next we study PTAFLs. We start with a simple observation.

Remark 3.8. Let L be a Pr¨fer lattice. u Then L is a CTAFL if and only if L is a PTAFL.

Proof.

This is obvious, since every compact element in a Pr¨fer lattice is principal. u /square

Note that Proposition 3.7 does not hold for PTAFLs. To show that, we consider the following example.

Example 3.9. Note that if L is the lattice of ideals of a local two-dimensional unique factorization domain D (e.g. take D = K X,Y [ ] ( X,Y ) where K is a field and X and Y are indeterminates over K ), then L is a quasi-local principally generated PTAFL that satisfies the ascending chain condition on prime elements and dim( L ) = 2.

Theorem 3.10. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice domain such that dim( L ) ≤ 1 , m 2 is comparable and ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0 . Then L is a TAFL.

/negationslash

Proof. Assume that m = m 2 . Since L is a lattice domain and ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0, we infer that m = 0. Therefore, L is a field and hence we get the desired properties. Now, suppose that m = m 2 . Then there is a principal element x ∈ L with x /notlessequal m 2 . By the assumption, we get that m &lt; x 2 . Since dim( L ) ≤ 1, then we conclude that x is a TA-element by [18, Theorem 3]. Since x is meet principal, then we conclude that m 2 = xm . Let z ∈ L be proper. If z = 0, then it is clear that it has a TA-factorization under the

/negationslash assumption that L is a lattice domain. Now let z = 0. If m 2 ≤ z , then the proof is complete by [18, Theorem 3]. Now let z ≤ m 2 . Let n be the largest positive integer satisfying z ≤ m n . We conclude that z ≤ m n = x n -1 m . Consequently, z ≤ x n -1 . Note that z = x n -1 a for some a ∈ L since x n -1 is principal. Suppose that a ≤ m 2 . We conclude that a ≤ x . Moreover, we can write a = xb for some b ∈ L . Consequently, we obtain z = x b n ≤ x m n = m n +1 , leading to a contradiction. This implies that m 2 ≤ a , and thus a is a TA-element. Therefore, z has a TA-factorization. /square

Theorem 3.11. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice domain. Then L is a TAFL if and only if dim( L ) ≤ 1 and L is a PTAFL. If these equivalent conditions are satisfied, then ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0 and m 2 is comparable.

Proof. ( ⇒ ): This is follows from Proposition 3.4.

( ⇐ ): Let L be a PTAFL such that dim( L ) ≤ 1. First, assume that m = m 2 . Since dim( L ) ≤ 1, then m is the only TA-element whose radical is m . We infer that each proper nonzero element of L is equal to m and we are done.

/negationslash

Now let m = m 2 . Then there is a principal element x ∈ L such that x ≤ m and x /notlessequal m 2 . Since x /notlessequal m 2 , we infer that x is a TA-element (since x cannot be the product of more than one TA-element). From [18, Theorem 3], we get that m 2 ≤ x since √ x = m . Since x is a (weak meet) principal element, we conclude that m 2 = xm . Let z ∈ L be proper. We have to show that z has a TA-factorization. If z = 0, then we are done, since L is lattice domain. Therefore, we can assume without restriction that z = 0.

/negationslash

/negationslash

First let z ≤ m 2 . Let n be the largest positive integer satisfying z ≤ m n . We conclude that z ≤ m n = x n -1 m , and thus z ≤ x n -1 . Note that z = x n -1 a for some a ∈ L since x n -1 is principal. Suppose that a ≤ m 2 . It follows that a ≤ x . Moreover, we can write a = xb for some b ∈ L . Consequently, we obtain z = x b n ≤ x m n = m n +1 , a contradiction. Let a /notlessequal m 2 . There is a principal element a ′ ∈ L such that a ′ ≤ a but a ′ /notlessequal m 2 . Since a ′ /notlessequal m 2 , we know that a ′ is a TA-element of L . Therefore, m 2 ≤ a ′ ≤ a . We conclude that a is a TA-element. This implies that z = x n -1 a has a TA-factorization.

Next we show that ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0. Assume the contrary that ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0. Note that each nonzero TA-element v ∈ L satisfies m 2 ≤ v by [18, Lemma 2]. Clearly, there is some nonzero principal element x ∈ L such that x ≤ ∧ n ∈ N m n . We have that x = ∏ k i =1 a i where a i is a TA-element for each i ∈ [1 , k ]. We obtain that ( m 2 ) k ≤ x ≤ ( m 4 ) k ≤ ( m 2 ) k , and hence x = x 2 . Since x is principal, we infer that 1 = x ∨ (0 : x ). Therefore, we obtain that x = 1, a contradiction.

Finally, let z /notlessequal m 2 . Then there is a principal element y ∈ L such that y ≤ z and y /notlessequal m 2 . We have that y is a TA-element, and hence m 2 ≤ y ≤ z . This implies that z is a TA-element. Consequently, L is a TAFL.

It remains to show that m 2 is comparable. Let x ∈ L be proper such that x /notlessequal m 2 . Since L is a TAFL, we conclude that x is a TA-element. From [18, Lemma 2], we get that m 2 ≤ x since dim( L ) ≤ 1. /square

Proposition 3.12. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice such that L is not a lattice domain. Then L is a TAFL if and only if dim( L ) = 0 and L is a PTAFL.

Proof. ( ⇒ ): Let L be a TAFL. By proof of Proposition 3.4, we know that if p ∈ L is a nonmaximal prime element of L , then p = 0. Therefore, dim( L ) ≤ 1. Since L is not a lattice domain, we infer that dim( L ) = 0.

/negationslash

( ⇐ ): Let dim( L ) = 0 and let L be a PTAFL. Note that m is nilpotent element of L since 0 = ∏ k i =1 x i where x i is a TA-element with √ x i = m for each i ∈ [1 , k ], and hence ( m 2 ) k ≤ 0. This implies that 0 = m 2 k , and thus 0 has a TA-factorization. If m = m 2 , we get that m = 0. Now let m = m 2 . Then there is a principal element z ∈ L such that z ≤ m and z /notlessequal m 2 . Since z /notlessequal m 2 , we infer that z is a TA-element (since z cannot be the product of more than one TA-element). From [18, Lemma 2], we get that m 2 ≤ z since √ z = m . Since z is a (weak meet) principal element, we conclude that m 2 = zm . Let

- x ∈ L be nonzero. If m 2 ≤ x , then x is a TA-element because it is a primary element as shown by [18, Lemma 5].

Next let x ≤ m 2 . Let n be the largest positive integer for which x ≤ m n . We conclude that x ≤ m n = z n -1 m , which implies x ≤ z n -1 . Note that x = z n -1 a for some a ∈ L , given that z n -1 is a principal element. Assume that a ≤ m 2 . This implies that a ≤ z , and hence a = zb for some b ∈ L . We conclude x = z n b ≤ z n m = m n +1 , a contradiction. Therefore, a /notlessequal m 2 . There is a principal element a ′ ∈ L such that a ′ ≤ a and a ′ /notlessequal m 2 . Since a ′ /notlessequal m 2 , we have that a ′ is a TA-element. Therefore, m 2 ≤ a ′ ≤ a . Consequently, a is a TA-element. It follows that x = z n -1 a has a TA-factorization.

Finally, let x /notlessequal m 2 . Then there is a principal element y ∈ L such that y /notlessequal m 2 and y ≤ x . We have that y is a TA-element, and hence m 2 ≤ y ≤ x . We infer that x is a TA-element. Therefore, L is a TAFL. /square

Remark 3.13. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local principal element TAFL domain. Then every proper element of L is a power of m .

Proof. We know that a TA-element of L equals m or m 2 by [18, Theorem 9]. This completes the proof. /square

## 4. OAFLs and their generalizations

In this section, we study the factorization of elements of L with respect to the OA-elements, similar to the previous section. It consists of three parts. The first part involves C-lattices, whose elements possess an OA-factorization, called a OAFLs . Next, we examine C-lattices whose compact elements have a factorization into OA-elements, called a COAFLs . Finally, we explore the C-lattices whose principal elements have a factorization into OA-elements, called POAFLs . It can easily be shown that every OAFL is both a COAFL and a POAFL. We continue by presenting some results related to OAFL.

Example 4.1. Let L be the lattice of ideals of Z [2 ]. i Note that (2 + 2 ) has i no OA-factorization. Therefore, L is not an OAFL.

Remark 4.2. Let L be an OAFL and let p ∈ L be a prime element.

- (2) L is both a Q-lattice and a TAFL.
- (1) min( x ) is finite for each x ∈ L .
- (3) L p is an OAFL.
- (4) L/p is an OAFL.
- Proof. (1) Let x ∈ L and let x = ∏ n k =1 x k be an OA-factorization of x for some OA-elements x i ∈ L . Recall that each OA-element is a TA-element and min( a ) is finite for a TA-element a ∈ L by [18, Theorem 3]. Hence min( x ) is finite since min( x ) ⊆ ⋃ n i =1 min( x i ).
- (2) Since every OA-element of L is a TA-element and a primary element, we have that L is both a Q-lattice and a TAFL.
- (3) Let y ∈ L p be proper. Then there is a proper element x ∈ L such that y = x p . By the assumption, we get such a factorization x = ∏ n k =1 x k for some OA-elements x i ∈ L . By Remark 2.17, we know that ( x i ) p is an OA-element of L p , and thus y = x p = ( ∏ n k =1 x k ) p = © n k =1 ( x k ) p . This completes the proof.
- (4) Let y ∈ L/p . By the assumption, y = ∏ n k =1 x k where x i is an OA-element of L for each i ∈ [1 , k ]. Note that x i is an OA-element of L/p . Then we get that y = ( ∏ n k =1 x k ) ∨ x = © n k =1 x k . Observe that L/p is an OAFL. /square

Corollary 4.3. Let L be a principally generated OAFL. Then dim( L ) ≤ 1 .

Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Remark 4.2(2) and Proposition 3.4.

/square

Lemma 4.4. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice such that m 2 is comparable and m is nilpotent or L is a lattice domain with ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0 . Then L is an OAFL and every proper principal element of L is a finite product of principal OA-elements.

Proof. First let m = m 2 . Since m is nilpotent or L is lattice domain with ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0, we have that m = 0. Therefore, L is a field and hence it satisfies the desired conditions.

/negationslash

Now let that m = m 2 . There is a proper principal element x ∈ L with x /notlessequal m 2 . By the assumption, we get that m &lt; x 2 . We conclude that x is an OA-element. Since x is meet principal, then we get that m 2 = x m ( 2 : x ). We have that m 2 = xm . Let z ∈ L be proper. First let z = 0. If L is lattice domain, then it is clear that z is a principal OA-element. Let m is nilpotent. Then there is a positive integer n with m n = 0. Note that z = x n is a finite product of principal OA-elements.

/negationslash

Next let z = 0. If m &lt; z 2 , then z is an OA-element and we are done. Now let z ≤ m 2 . Let n be the largest positive integer satisfying z ≤ m n . Therefore, z ≤ m n = x n -1 m , and thus z ≤ x n -1 . Note that z = x n -1 a for some a ∈ L since x n -1 is principal. If z is principal, then we can by [5, Theorem 9] assume that a is principal. Suppose that a ≤ m 2 . We have that a ≤ x . Moreover, a = xb for some b ∈ L . Consequently, we obtain z = x b n ≤ x m n = m n +1 , a contradiction. Therefore, m 2 ≤ a and so a is an OA-element by Proposition 2.8. We infer that z has an OA-factorization and if z is principal, then z is a finite product of principal OA-elements. /square

Next we study COAFLs.

Remark 4.5. Let L be a COAFL and let p ∈ L be a prime element.

- (2) L is a CTAFL.
- (1) min( x ) is finite for each x ∈ L ∗ .
- (3) If p is compact, then L/p is a COAFL.
- (4) Then L p is a COAFL.

Proof. (1) This can be shown along the lines of the proof of Remark 4.2.

(2) This is clear, since every OA-element of L is a TA-element.

(3) Let p be compact. Note that every element a ∈ L with a ≥ p is compact in L if and only if a is compact in L/p . Now, let y ∈ L/p be compact. Then y ≥ p . By the assumption, y = ∏ n k =1 x k where x i is an OA-element of L . Note that x i is an OA-element of L/p . Then we get that y = ( ∏ n k =1 x k ) ∨ x = © n k =1 x k . Consequently, L/p is a COAFL.

- (4) This can proved along similar lines as in Remark 2.17.

/square

Proposition 4.6. Let L be a quasi-local COAFL. Then each minimal nonmaximal prime element of L is a weak meet principal element.

/negationslash

Proof. Let p ∈ L be a minimal nonmaximal prime element of L . First we show that x = p x ( : p ) for each compact element x ∈ L with x ≤ p . Let x ∈ L be a compact element of L with x ≤ p . By the assumption, we can write x = ∏ n i =1 x i where n is a positive integer and x i is an OA-element of L for each i ∈ [1 , n ]. Since x ≤ p , we have that x i ≤ p for some i ∈ [1 , n ]. If x i is not a prime element, then m 2 ≤ x i ≤ p by Proposition 2.8. We infer that m = p , a contradiction. Consequently, x i is a prime element, and hence x i = . We have that p x = pz , where z = ∏ n k =1 ,k = i x k . Observe that x = ( p x : p ).

Let y ∈ L be such that y ≤ p . Since L is a C-lattice, we have that

$$y = \bigvee _ { \substack { \{ v \in L _ { * } \, | \, v \leq y \} = \bigvee \{ p ( v \colon p ) \, | \, v \in L _ { * }, v \leq y \} = p \bigvee \{ ( v \colon p ) \, | \, v \in L _ { * }, v \leq y \}. \\ \circ \colon \dots \quad \mathbb { m } \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \det \, \dot { \to } \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \tau \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \tap \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \to \, \pmod { \alpha } } \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \tau \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \, \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \to \}$$

Set w = ∨ { ( v : p ) | v ∈ L , v ∗ ≤ y } . Then w ∈ L and y = pw , and thus p is weak meet principal.

Next we study POAFLs. We start with a simple observation.

Remark 4.7. Let L be a Pr¨fer lattice. u Then L is a COAFL if and only if L is a POAFL.

Proof. This is obvious, since every compact element in a Pr¨fer lattice is principal. u

/square

/square

Lemma 4.8. Let L be a quasi-local principally generated POAFL. Then every minimal nonmaximal prime element of L is a principal element.

/negationslash

Proof. Let p ∈ L be a minimal nonmaximal prime element of L . Let a ∈ L be a principal element of L with a ≤ p . By the assumption, we can write a = ∏ n k =1 q k where q i is an OA-element of L for i ∈ [1 , n ]. Since a ≤ p , then q j ≤ p for some j ∈ [1 , n ]. If q j is an OA-element that is not prime, then m 2 ≤ q j ≤ p . Therefore, m = p , a contradiction. Assume that q i is prime. Then we get that q i = p . We infer that a = p ∏ n k =1 ,k = i q k , and thus a = pb where b = ∏ n k =1 ,k = i q k . Obviously, a = ( p a : p ). Now, take an element c ∈ L with c ≤ p . By assumption, c = ∨ A for some set A of principal elements of L . We conclude that c = ∨ A = ∨ { p a ( : p ) | a ∈ A } = p ( ∨ { ( a : p ) | a ∈ A } ). Therefore, p is a weak meet principal element, and hence p is a principal element by [3, Theorem 1.2]. /square

/negationslash

Lemma 4.9. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice. If the join of any two principal elements of L has an OA-factorization, then every nonmaximal prime element of L is a principal element and dim( L ) ≤ 2 .

Proof. Let the join of any two principal elements of L have an OA-factorization. First, we show that dim( L ) ≤ 2. Let p ∈ L be a nonmaximal prime element of L . Consider that L p is quasi-local and L p is generated by the set of elements { a p | a ∈ L is principal } . We can see that the join of any two principal element of L p has a prime factorization. Because a p ∨ p b p = ( a ∨ b ) p = ( ∏ n i =1 x i ) p = © n i =1 ( x i ) p where ( x i ) p is a prime element of L p . Consequently, L p is a ZPI-lattice by [15, Theorem 8], and thus dim( L p ) ≤ 1. Therefore, dim( L ) ≤ 2.

/negationslash

/negationslash

Let q be a nonmaximal prime element of L . Assume that qm = q . If q ∈ min(0), then it is clear that q = 0 by Nakayama's Lemma since q is principal. Now let q be not minimal. There is a p ∈ min(0) such that p &lt; q , and thus there is a principal element c ∈ L such that c /notlessequal p and c ≤ q . By assumption, c ∨ p has an OA-factorization since p is principal by Lemma 4.8. Since dim( L ) ≤ 2, we have that q is minimal over c ∨ p . Let c ∨ p = ∏ n i =1 x i where x i is an OA-element for each i ∈ [1 , n ]. We get that x j ≤ q for some j ∈ [1 , n ]. Note that m 2 /notlessequal x j , and hence x j = q . We infer that c ∨ p = q/lscript for some /lscript ∈ L . We conclude that ( c ∨ p m ) = c ∨ p by the assumption, and thus c ∨ p = 0. Consequently, c = p = 0, which contradicts the fact that c ≤ p . Now assume that q = qm . Assume that q is a nonminimal and nonmaximal prime element of L . Since L is principally generated, there is a principal element a ∈ L such that a ≤ q and a /notlessequal qm . Since q is nonmaximal and L is principally generated, there is a principal element b ∈ L such that b ≤ m and b /notlessequal q . It remains to show that x ≤ a of each principal element x ∈ L such that x ≤ q . (Then q = a is principal, since L is principally generated and a ≤ q .) Let x ∈ L be principal such that x ≤ q . Note that xb 2 is principal, and thus a ∨ xb 2 is the join of two principal elements of L . Consequently, a ∨ xb 2 has an OA-factorization. Since a ∨ xb 2 ≤ p , there are v, w ∈ L such that v is an OA-element of L v , ≤ q and a ∨ xb 2 = vw . If w = 1, then w ≤ m , and hence a ≤ a ∨ xb 2 ≤ qm , a contradiction. Therefore, a ∨ xb 2 = v is an OA-element. Assume that b 2 ≤ a ∨ xb 2 . Since b 2 is principal, we have that 1 = ( a ∨ xb 2 : b 2 ) = ( a : b 2 ) ∨ x , and thus ( a : b 2 ) = 1, since L is quasi-local. Consequently, b 2 ≤ a ≤ q , and hence b ≤ q , a contradiction. This implies that b 2 /notlessequal a ∨ xb 2 . Since xb 2 ≤ a ∨ xb 2 and a ∨ xb 2 is an OA-element, we conclude that x ≤ a ∨ xb 2 . By [3, Theorem 1.4], it follows that x ≤ a . /square

Proposition 4.10. Let L be a principally generated C-lattice. If the join of any two principal elements has an OA-factorization, then dim( L ) ≤ 1 .

/negationslash

Claim: p ≤ m 2 for each nonmaximal prime element p ∈ L .

Proof. First let every OA-element of L be a prime element. We infer that L is a ZPI-lattice by [15, Theorem 8]. Therefore, dim( L ) ≤ 1 by [4, Theorem 2.6]. Now let there be an OA-element that is not a prime element. Then L is quasi-local by Proposition 2.7. Let m be the maximal element of L . We conclude by Proposition 2.8 that m = m 2 . There exists some principal element c ∈ L such that c /notlessequal m 2 and c ≤ m .

Let p ∈ L be a nonmaximal prime element. By Lemma 4.9, we have that dim( L ) ≤ 2. Therefore, we can assume without restriction that there are no prime elements of L that are properly between p and m (i.e., for each prime element r ∈ L with p ≤ r ≤ m , it follows that r ∈ { p, m } ).

/negationslash

Assume that p /notlessequal m 2 . It is sufficient to show that m 2 ≤ p ∨ a for each proper principal a ∈ L with a /notlessequal p . (Then m 2 ≤ ∧ { p ∨ d | d ∈ L is principal and d /notlessequal p } = p , and hence p = m , a contradiction.) Let a ∈ L be a proper principal element such that a /notlessequal p . Since p is principal by Lemma 4.9, it follows that p ∨ a has an OA-factorization in L . Since p ∨ a /notlessequal m 2 and p ∨ a is proper, we obtain that p ∨ a is an OA-element. Clearly, p ∨ a is not a nonmaximal prime element, and hence m 2 ≤ p ∨ a by Proposition 2.8. Consequently, q ≤ m 2 . /square (Claim)

Next we show that p = ∧ { p ∨ a | a ∈ L is principal and a /notlessequal p } . Assume to the contrary that p = ∧ { p ∨ a | a ∈ L is principal and a /notlessequal p } . Then there is a principal element y ∈ L such that y /notlessequal p and y ≤ ∧ { p ∨ a | a ∈ L is principal and a /notlessequal p } . Since p &lt; m , there is a principal element b ∈ L such that b /notlessequal p and b ≤ m . Since by ∈ L is principal and by /notlessequal p , we have that y ≤ ∧ { p ∨ a | a ∈ L is principal and a /notlessequal p } ≤ p ∨ by . It follows from [3, Theorem 1.4] that y ≤ p , a contradiction. Therefore, p = ∧ { p ∨ a | a ∈ L is principal and a /notlessequal p } .

It is sufficient to show that r = 0 for each nonmaximal prime element r ∈ L . Let r ∈ L be a nonmaximal prime element. Since c has an OA-factorization and c /notlessequal m 2 , we infer that c is an OA-element of L . By the claim, it follows that c is not a nonmaximal prime element of L . Observe that r ≤ m 2 ≤ c by the claim and by Proposition 2.8. Since c is a (weak meet) principal element of L r , is a prime element of L and c /notlessequal r , we conclude that r = cr . Therefore, r = 0 by [3, Theorem 1.4]. /square

Proposition 4.11. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice. If the join of any two principal elements of L has an OA-factorization and dim( L ) = 1 , then L is a domain.

/negationslash

Proof. Let p ∈ L be a minimal nonmaximal prime element with p &lt; m . If m 2 = 0, then p = m , a contradiction. Therefore, m 2 = 0. Since ( L, m ) is a quasi-local, then m 2 = m . There is a principal element x ∈ L such that x /notlessequal m 2 . by the assumption, we infer that m 2 ≤ x and x is not prime. We show that p ≤ m 2 . Assume the contrary that p /notlessequal m 2 . There is a principal element a ∈ L with a /notlessequal p and a ≤ m 2 . Note that a n /notlessequal p for a positive integer n . Note that p ∨ a 3 /notlessequal m 2 because p /notlessequal m 2 . By the assumption p ∨ a 3 is an OA-element. Since a 3 ≤ p ∨ a 3 , then we infer that a 2 ≤ p ∨ a 3 or a ≤ p ∨ a 3 . Note that we have that (( p ∨ a 3 ) : a 2 ) = ( p : a 2 ) ∨ a and (( p ∨ a 3 ) : a ) = ( p : a ) ∨ a 2 . If a 2 ≤ p ∨ a 3 , then we obtain that 1 = ( p : a 2 ) ∨ a . This implies that 1 = ( p : a 2 ) or a = 1, and hence a 2 ≤ p or a = 1, a contradiction. Assume that a ≤ p ∨ a 3 . We obtain that 1 = ( p : a ) ∨ a 2 . This implies that 1 = ( p : a ) or a 2 = 1 ≤ a , and thus a ≤ p or a = 1, a contradiction. Therefore, p ≤ m 2 . Since p ≤ x , we get that px = . By Nakayama's Lemma and Lemma 4.8, we have that p p = 0. /square

/negationslash

Proposition 4.12. Let L be a principally generated C-lattice and set m = J( L ) . If the join of any two principal elements of L has an OA-factorization, then L satisfies one of the following conditions.

- (a) L is a ZPI-lattice.
- (b) L is a quasi-local lattice, m 2 is comparable and m is a nilpotent element.
- (c) L is a quasi-local lattice domain, m 2 is comparable and ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0 .

/negationslash

Proof. Let the join of any two principal elements of L has an OA-factorization. Assume that every OAelement of L is prime. By [15, Theorem 8], it follows that L is a ZPI-lattice. Now, assume that there is an OA-element which is not a prime. We conclude that ( L, m ) is a quasi-local C-lattice with m 2 = m by Propositions 2.7 and 2.8. Then there is a nonzero principal element x /notlessequal m 2 . Clearly, x is not the product of more than one OA-element, and thus x is an OA-element.

First let dim( L ) = 0. We show that m 2 is comparable. Let z ∈ L be proper such that z /notlessequal m 2 . There is a principal element a ∈ L with a ≤ z and a /notlessequal m 2 . Note that a is an OA-element which is not a prime element. We have that m 2 ≤ a by Proposition 2.8, and thus m 2 ≤ z . Consequently, m 2 is comparable.

Clearly, 0 has an OA-factorization. This implies that m k ≤ 0 for some positive integer k , and hence m k = 0.

/negationslash

Now let dim( L ) = 1. We obtain that ( L, m ) is a quasi-local lattice domain by Proposition 4.11. To verify that ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0, assume the contrary that ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0. There is a nonzero principal element x ∈ L with x ≤ ∧ n ∈ N m n . Since x is a product of k OA-elements of L , we conclude that m 2 k ≤ x ≤ m 4 k ≤ m 2 k . In particular, we get that x = x 2 . Since x is principal, we have that 1 = x ∨ (0 : x ). We infer that x = 1, a contradiction. Therefore, ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0. Finally, we show that m 2 is comparable. Let z ∈ L be proper such that z /notlessequal m 2 . There is a principal element a ∈ L with a ≤ z and a /notlessequal m 2 . We get that a is a nonzero OA-element. Therefore, m 2 ≤ a (since dim( L ) = 1), and thus m 2 ≤ z . /square

Theorem 4.13. Let L be a principally generated C-lattice and set m = J( L ) . The following statements are equivalent.

- (1) L is an OAFL.
- (2) L is a COAFL.
- (3) The join of any two principal elements of L has an OA-factorization.
- (4) L satisfies one of the following conditions.
- (a) L is a ZPI-lattice.
- (b) L is a quasi-local lattice, m 2 is comparable and m is a nilpotent element.
- (c) L is a quasi-local lattice domain, m 2 is comparable and ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0 .

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) This is obvious.

- (2) ⇒ (3) Note that every principal element is compact, and hence the join of each two principal elements is compact. The statement is now immediately clear.
- (3) ⇒ (4) This follows from Proposition 4.12.
- (4) ⇒ (1) If L is a ZPI-lattice, then clearly L is an OAFL. Now let L be not a ZPI-lattice. It is an immediate consequence of Lemma 4.4 that L is an OAFL. /square

Theorem 4.14. Let L be a principally generated C-lattice. The following statements are equivalent.

- (1) L is a ZPI-lattice.
- (2) L is a Pr¨fer OAFL. u
- (3) L is a Pr¨fer POAFL. u

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) ⇒ (3) This follows from [15, Theorem 8].

- (3) ⇒ (1) Let L be a Pr¨fer POAFL. If u L is not quasi-local, then the prime elements coincide with the OAelements. By Theorem 4.13, we infer that L is a ZPI-lattice. Assume that ( L, m ) is a quasi-local lattice with maximal element m . Then m 2 is comparable by Theorem 4.13. We know from Proposition 2.12(2) that each OA-element is either prime or equal to m 2 . Therefore, L is a ZPI-lattice. /square

Finally, we provide a theorem that connects the various types of factorization lattices for a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice domain.

Theorem 4.15. Let ( L, m ) be a quasi-local principally generated C-lattice domain. The following statements are equivalent.

- (1) L is an OAFL.
- (2) L is a TAFL.
- (3) L is a COAFL.
- (4) L is a CTAFL that satisfies the ascending chain condition on prime elements.
- (5) dim( L ) ≤ 1 and L is a POAFL.
- (7) dim( L ) ≤ 1 , m 2 is comparable and ∧ n ∈ N m n = 0 .
- (6) dim( L ) ≤ 1 and L is a PTAFL.

Proof. (1) ⇔ (3) ⇔ (7) This follows from Theorem 4.13.

- (2) ⇔ (6) ⇔ (7) This is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.11 and Proposition 3.12.
- (1) ⇒ (5) ⇒ (6) This follows from Corollary 4.3.
- (2) ⇒ (4) Clearly, L is a CTAFL. Moreover, dim( L ) ≤ 1 by Proposition 3.4. It is clear now that L satisfies the ascending chain condition on prime elements.
- (4) ⇒ (6) Obviously, L is a PTAFL. We infer by Proposition 3.7 that dim( L ) ≤ 1.

/square

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The first-named author was supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWF, Project Number P36742-N. The second-named author was supported by Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) 2219-International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program for Turkish Citizens, (Grant No: 1059B192202920).

## References

- [1] M. T. Ahmed, T. Dumitrescu, and A. Khadam, Commutative rings with absorbing factorization , Comm. Algebra 48 (2020), 5067-5075.
- [2] D. D. Anderson, Multiplicative lattices , Doctoral dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1974.
- [3] D. D. Anderson, Abstract commutative ideal theory without chain condition , Algebra Universalis 6 (1976), 131-145.
- [4] D. D. Anderson and C. Jayaram, Principal element lattices , Czechoslovak Math. J. 46 (1996), 99-109.
- [5] D. D. Anderson and E. W. Johnson, Dilworth's principal elements , Algebra Universalis 36 (1996), 392-404.
- [6] D. F. Anderson and A. Badawi, On n-absorbing ideals of commutative rings , Comm. Algebra 39 (2011), 1646-1672.
- [7] A. Badawi, On 2-absorbing ideals of commutative rings , Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 75 (2007), 417-429.
- [8] E. M. Bouba, M. Tamekkante, ¨ . U Tekir, and S. Ko¸ c, Notes on 1 -Absorbing Prime Ideals , In: Proceedings of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 75 (2022), 631-639.
- [9] R. P. Dilworth, Abstract commutative ideal theory , Pacific J. Math. 12 (1962), 481-498.
- [10] T. Dumitrescu and M. Epure, Comaximal factorization lattices , Comm. Algebra 50 (2022), 4024-4031.
- [11] A. El Khalfi, M. Issoual, N. Mahdou, and A. Reinhart, Commutative rings with one-absorbing factorization , Comm. Algebra 49 (2021), 2689-2703.
- [12] J. Elliott, Rings, modules, and closure operations , Springer Monogr. Math., Springer, Cham, 2019, xxiv+490pp.
- [13] A. Geroldinger and W. Hassler, Local tameness of v-Noetherian monoids , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 212 (2008), 1509-1524.
- [14] F. Halter-Koch, Ideal systems. An introduction to multiplicative ideal theory , Monogr. Textbooks Pure Appl. Math. 211 , Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1998, xii+422pp.
- [15] C. Jayaram, Primary elements in Pr¨fer lattices u , Czechoslovak Math. J. 52 (2002), 585-593.
- [16] C. Jayaram, Laskerian lattices , Czechoslovak Math. J. 53 (2003), 351-363.
- [17] C. Jayaram and E. W. Johnson, s-Prime elements in multiplicative lattices , Period. Math. Hungar. 31 (1995), 201-208.
- [18] C. Jayaram, U. Tekir, and E. Yetkin, 2 ¨ -absorbing and weakly 2 -absorbing elements in multiplicative lattices , Comm. Algebra 42 (2014), 2338-2353.
- [19] M. Mukhtar, M. T. Ahmed, and T. Dumitrescu, Commutative rings with two-absorbing factorization , Comm. Algebra 46 (2018), 970-978.
- [20] H. M. Nakkar and E. A. Al-Khouja, On Laskerian lattices and Q-lattices , Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 33 (1997), 363-368.
- [21] F. Wang and H. Kim, Foundations of commutative rings and their modules , Algebr. Appl. 22 , Springer, Singapore, 2016, xx+699pp.
- [22] A. Yassine, M. J. Nikmehr, and R. Nikandish, On 1 -absorbing prime ideals of commutative rings , J. Algebra Appl. 20 (2021), 2150175.

Institut f¨r Mathematik und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen, Karl-Franzens-Universit¨t Graz, NAWI Graz, Heinu a richstraße 36, 8010 Graz, Austria

Email address : andreas.reinhart@uni-graz.at

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Gebze Technical University, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey Email address : gulsenulucak58@gmail.com , gulsenulucak@gtu.edu.tr
Andreas Reinhart Gulsen Ulucak
Multiplicative Lattices with Absorbing Factorization
In [22], Yassine et al. introduced the notion of 1-absorbing prime ideals in
commutative rings with nonzero identity. In this article, we examine the
concept of 1-absorbing prime elements in C-lattices. We investigate the
C-lattices in which every element is a finite product of 1-absorbing prime
elements (we denote them as OAFLs for short). Moreover, we study C-lattices
having 2-absorbing factorization (we denote them as TAFLs for short).