text:
# OFF THE MASS SHELL: ELECTROWEAK PHYSICS AT NUTEV

## 1 Introduction and Motivation

**footnotetext:  The NuTeV Collaboration: T. Adams4, A. Alton4, S. Avvakumov8, L. de Barbaro5, P. de Barbaro8, R. H. Bernstein3, A. Bodek8, T. Bolton4, J. Brau6, D. Buchholz5, H. Budd8, L. Bugel3, J. Conrad2, R. B. Drucker6, B. T. Fleming2, R. Frey6, J.A. Formaggio2, J. Goldman4, M. Goncharov4, D. A. Harris8, R. A. Johnson1, J. H. Kim2, S. Koutsoliotas2, M. J. Lamm3, W. Marsh3, D. Mason6, J. McDonald7, K.S. McFarland8, C. McNulty2, D. Naples7, P. Nienaber3, V. Radescu7, A. Romosan2, W. K. Sakumoto8, H. Schellman5, M. H. Shaevitz2, P. Spentzouris2, E. G. Stern2, N. Suwonjandee1, M. Tzanov7, M. Vakili1, A. Vaitaitis2, U. K. Yang8, J. Yu3, G. P. Zeller5, and E. D. Zimmerman2; 1University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221; 2Columbia University, New York, NY 10027; 3Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510; 4Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506; 5Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208; 6University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; 7University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; 8University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627

Neutrino scattering played a key role in establishing the structure of the standard model of electroweak unification, and it continues to be one of the most precise probes of the weak neutral current available experimentally today. With copious data from the production and decay of on-shell $`Z`$ and $`W`$ bosons for comparison, contemporary neutrino scattering measurements serve to validate the theory over many orders of magnitude in momentum transfer and provide one of the most precise tests of the weak couplings of neutrinos. In addition, precise measurements of weak interactions far from the boson poles are inherently sensitive to processes beyond our current knowledge, including possible contributions from leptoquark and $`Z^{}`$ exchange and new properties of neutrinos themselves.

The Lagrangian for weak neutral current $`\nu `$$`q`$ scattering can be written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\rho _0}{\sqrt{2}}}(\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma ^5)\nu )`$ (1)
$`\times \left(ϵ_L^q\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma ^5)q+ϵ_R^q\overline{q}\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma ^5)q\right),`$
where deviations from $`\rho _0=1`$ describe non-standard sources of SU(2) breaking, and $`ϵ_{L,R}^q`$ are the chiral quark couplings 222Note that although we use a process-independent notation here for a tree-level $`\rho `$, radiative corrections to $`\rho `$ depend slightly on the particles involved in the weak neutral interaction. In this case, $`\rho \sqrt{\rho ^{(\nu )}\rho ^{(q)}}`$. For the weak charged current, $`ϵ_L^q=I_{\mathrm{weak}}^{(3)}`$ and $`ϵ_R^q=0`$, but for the neutral current $`ϵ_L^q`$ and $`ϵ_R^q`$ each contain an additional term, $`Q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, where $`Q`$ is the quark’s electric charge in units of $`e`$.

The ratio of neutral current to charged current cross-sections for either $`\nu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }`$ scattering from isoscalar targets of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks can be written as

$$R^{\nu (\overline{\nu })}\frac{\sigma (\stackrel{()}{\nu }N\stackrel{()}{\nu }X)}{\sigma (\stackrel{()}{\nu }N\mathrm{}^{(+)}X)}=(g_L^2+r^{(1)}g_R^2),$$
(2)
where

$$r\frac{\sigma (\overline{\nu }N\mathrm{}^+X)}{\sigma (\nu N\mathrm{}^{}X)}\frac{1}{2},$$
(3)
and $`g_{L,R}^2=(ϵ_{L,R}^u)^2+(ϵ_{L,R}^d)^2`$. Many corrections to Equation 2 are required in a real target, but those most uncertain result from the suppression of the production of charm, which is the CKM-favored final state for charged-current scattering from the strange sea. One way to reduce this source of uncertainty on electroweak parameters is to measure the observable

$`R^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\nu _\mu N\nu _\mu X)\sigma (\overline{\nu }_\mu N\overline{\nu }_\mu X)}{\sigma (\nu _\mu N\mu ^{}X)\sigma (\overline{\nu }_\mu N\mu ^+X)}}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^\nu rR^{\overline{\nu }}}{1r}}=(g_L^2g_R^2),`$
first suggested by Paschos and Wolfenstein and valid under the assumption of equal momentum carried by the $`u`$ and $`d`$ valence quarks in the target. Since $`\sigma ^{\nu q}=\sigma ^{\overline{\nu }\overline{q}}`$ and $`\sigma ^{\overline{\nu }q}=\sigma ^{\nu \overline{q}}`$, the effect of scattering from sea quarks, which are symmetric under the exchange $`q\overline{q}`$, cancels in the difference of neutrino and anti-neutrino cross-sections. Therefore, the suppressed scattering from the strange sea does not cause large uncertainties in $`R^{}`$. $`R^{}`$ is more difficult to measure than $`R^\nu `$, primarily because the neutral current scatterings of $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ yield identical observed final states which can only be distinguished through a priori knowledge of the initial state neutrino.

The experimental details and theoretical treatment of cross-sections in the NuTeV electroweak measurement are described in detail elsewhere. In brief, we measure the experimental ratio of neutral current to charged current candidates in both a neutrino and anti-neutrino beam. A Monte Carlo simulation is used to express these experimental ratios in terms of fundamental electroweak parameters. This procedure implicitly corrects for details of the neutrino cross-sections and experimental backgrounds. For the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, the sensitivity arises in the $`\nu `$ beam, and the measurement in the $`\overline{\nu }`$ beam is the control sample for systematic uncertainties, as suggested in the Paschos-Wolfenstein $`R^{}`$ of Eqn. 4. For simultaneous fits to two electroweak parameters, e.g., $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`\rho `$ or left and right handed couplings, this redundant control of systematics cannot be realized.

## 2 Result

As a test of the electroweak predictions for neutrino nucleon scattering, NuTeV performs a single-parameter fit to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ with all other parameters assumed to have their standard values, e.g., standard electroweak radiative corrections with $`\rho _0=1`$. This fit determines

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{(\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell})}`$ $`=`$ $`0.22773\pm 0.00135(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.00093(\mathrm{syst}.)`$ (5)
$``$ $`0.00022\times ({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{top}}^2(175\mathrm{GeV})^2}{(50\mathrm{GeV})^2}})`$
$`+`$ $`0.00032\times \mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}}{150\mathrm{GeV}}}).`$
The small dependences in $`M_{\mathrm{top}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ result from radiative corrections as determined from code supplied by Bardin and from V6.34 of ZFITTER; however, it should be noted that these effects are small given existing constraints on the top and Higgs masses. A fit to the precision electroweak data, excluding neutrino measurements, predicts a value of $`0.2227\pm 0.00037`$, approximately $`3\sigma `$ from the NuTeV measurement. Interpretations of the NuTeV data in terms of $`M_W`$ and $`\rho _\nu `$ and model-independent neutrino-quark chiral couplings are discussed elsewhere .

## 3 Interpretation

The NuTeV $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ result is approximately three standard deviations from the prediction of the standard electroweak theory. This by itself is surprising; however, it is not immediately apparent what the cause of this discrepancy might be. We discuss, in turn, the possibility that the NuTeV result is a statistical fluctuation among many precision results, the possibility that unexpected quark flavor asymmetries or nuclear effects influence the result, and finally possibilities for non-standard physics which could be appearing in the anomalous NuTeV value.

### 3.1 Significance in a Global Context

For fits assuming the validity of the standard model, it is appropriate to consider the a priori null hypothesis test chosen in the proposal of the NuTeV experiment, namely the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{(\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell})}`$. The fit to precision data, including NuTeV, performed by the LEPEWWG has a global the global $`\chi ^2`$ of $`28.8`$ for $`15`$ degrees of freedom, including significant contributions from NuTeV’s $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ measurement and $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$ from LEP I. The probability of the fit $`\chi ^2`$ being above $`28.8`$ is $`1.7\%`$. Without NuTeV, this probability of the resulting $`\chi ^2`$ is a plausible $`14\%`$. This suggests that in the context of all the precision data, as compiled by the LEPEWWG, the NuTeV result is still a statistical anomaly sufficient to spoil, or at least sully, the fit within the standard model.

This large $`\chi ^2`$ is dominated by two moderately discrepant measurements, namely $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$ and the NuTeV $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, and if one or both are discarded arbitrarily, then the data is reasonably consistent with the standard model. However, the procedure of merely discarding one or both of these measurements to make the fit “work” is clearly not rigorous. Furthermore, the potential danger of such a procedure has been noted previously in the literature. For example, if $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$ were disregarded, then the most favored value of the Higgs mass from the fit would be well below the direct search limits. Constraining the fit to be consistent with mass limits from standard model Higgs boson searches results in still uncomfortably large $`\chi ^2`$.

### 3.2 Unexpected QCD Effects

As noted above, corrections to Eqns. 2 and 4 are required to extract electroweak parameters from neutrino scattering on the NuTeV target. In particular, these equations assume targets symmetric under the exchange of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, and that quark seas consist of quarks and anti-quarks with identical momentum distributions.

The NuTeV analysis corrects for the significant asymmetry of $`d`$ and $`u`$ quarks that arises because the NuTeV target, which is primarily composed of iron, has an $`6`$% fractional excess of neutrons over protons. However, this correction is exact only with the assumption of isospin symmetry, i.e., $`\underset{p}{\overset{()}{u}}(x)=\underset{n}{\overset{()}{d}}(x)`$, $`\underset{p}{\overset{()}{d}}(x)=\underset{n}{\overset{()}{u}}(x)`$. This assumption, if significantly incorrect, could produce a sizable effect in the NuTeV extraction of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$.

Dropping the assumptions of symmetric heavy quark seas, isospin symmetry and a target symmetric in neutrons and protons, but assuming small deviations in all cases, we calculate the effect of these deviations on $`R^{}`$ is:

$`\delta R^{}`$ $``$ $`+\delta N\left({\displaystyle \frac{U_pD_p}{U_p+D_p}}\right)(3\mathrm{\Delta }_u^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_d^2)`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(U_p\overline{U}_pD_n+\overline{D}_n)(D_p\overline{D}_pU_n+\overline{U}_n)}{2(U_p\overline{U}_p+D_p\overline{D}_p)}}(3\mathrm{\Delta }_u^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_d^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{S_p\overline{S}_p}{U_p\overline{U}_p+D_p\overline{D}_p}}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_d^23(\mathrm{\Delta }_d^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_u^2)ϵ_c),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{u,d}^2=(ϵ_L^{u,d})^2(ϵ_R^{u,d})^2`$, $`Q_N`$ is the total momentum carried by quark type $`Q`$ in nucleon $`N`$, and the neutron excess, $`\delta NA2Z/A`$. $`ϵ_c`$ denotes the ratio of the scattering cross section from the strange sea including kinematic suppression of heavy charm production to that without kinematic suppression. The first term is the effect of the neutron excess, which is accounted for in the NuTeV analysis; the second is the effect of isospin violation and the third is the effect of an asymmetric strange sea.

NuTeV does not exactly measure $`R^{}`$, in part because it is not possible experimentally to measure neutral current reactions down to zero recoil energy. To parameterize the exact effect of the symmetry violations above, we have numerically evaluated the effects on the NuTeV results of isospin and $`s\overline{s}`$ asymmetries as a function of $`x`$ . This analysis shows that the level of isospin violation required to shift the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ measured by NuTeV to its standard model expectation would be, e.g., $`D_pU_n0.01`$ (about 5% of $`D_p+U_n`$), and that the level of asymmetry in the strange sea required would be $`S\overline{S}+0.007`$ (about $`30\%`$ of $`S+\overline{S}`$).

#### 3.2.1 Isospin Violations

Several recent classes of non-perturbative models predict isospin violation in the nucleon. The earliest estimation in the literature, a bag model calculation, predicts large valence asymmetries of opposite sign in $`u_pd_n`$ and $`d_pu_n`$ at all $`x`$, which would produce a shift in the NuTeV $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ of $`0.0020`$. However, this estimate neglects a number of effects, and a complete bag model calculation by Rodionov et al.  conclude that asymmetries at very high $`x`$ are larger, but the asymmetries at moderate $`x`$ are smaller and even of opposite sign at low $`x`$, thereby reducing the shift in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ to a negligible $`0.0001`$. Finally, the effect is also evaluated in the meson cloud model, and there the asymmetries are much smaller at all $`x`$, resulting in a modest shift in the NuTeV $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ of $`+0.0002`$.

Models aside, the NuTeV data itself cannot provide a significant independent constraint on this form of isospin violation. However, because PDFs extracted from neutrino data (on heavy targets) are used to separate sea and valence quark distributions which affect observables at hadron colliders, global analyses of PDFs including the possibility of isospin violation may be able to constrain this possibility experimentally. At least one author has begun to consider the experimental isospin constraints in the context of “nuclear PDFs”, and found very small isospin effects, except at very high $`x`$ and low $`Q^2`$, a region removed by the visible energy requirement ($`E_{\mathrm{calorimeter}}>20`$ GeV) of the NuTeV analysis.

#### 3.2.2 Strange Sea Asymmetry

If the strange sea is generated by purely perturbative QCD processes, then neglecting electromagnetic effects, one expects $`s(x)=\overline{s}(x)`$. However, it has been noted that non-perturbative QCD effects can generate a significant momentum asymmetry between the strange and anti-strange seas.

By measuring the processes $`\nu _N,\overline{\nu }_N\mu ^+\mu ^{}X`$ the CCFR and NuTeV experiments constrain the difference between the momentum distributions of the strange and anti-strange seas. Within the NuTeV cross-section model, this data implies a negative asymmetry,

$$S\overline{S}=0.0027\pm 0.0013,$$
(7)
or an asymmetry of $`11\pm 6`$% of $`(S+\overline{S})`$. Therefore, dropping the assumption of strange-antistrange symmetry results in an increase in the NuTeV value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=+0.0020\pm 0.0009.$$
(8)
The initial NuTeV measurement, which assumes $`s(x)=\overline{s}(x)`$, becomes

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{(\mathrm{on}\mathrm{shell})}=0.2297\pm 0.0019.$$

Hence, if we use the experimental measurement of the strange sea asymmetry, the discrepancy with the standard model is increased to $`3.7\sigma `$ significance.

#### 3.2.3 Nuclear Effects

Nuclear effects which can be absorbed into process-independent PDFs will not affect the NuTeV result. However, several authors have recently explored the possibility that neutrino neutral and charged current reactions may see different nuclear effects and therefore influence the NuTeV result.

A recent comment in the literature has offered a Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) model of low $`x`$ shadowing in which such an effect might arise. The most precise data that overlaps the low $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ kinematic region of NuTeV comes from NMC, which observed a logarithmic $`Q^2`$ dependence of the shadowing effect as predicted by perturbative QCD for $`Q^2`$ independent shadowing as in Pomeron models. However, models with a mixture of VMD and Pomeron shadowing can be consistent with this high $`Q^2`$ data .

The NuTeV analysis, which uses $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ data at $`<Q^2>`$ of $`25`$ and $`16`$ GeV2, respectively, is far away from the VMD regime, and the effect of this VMD model is significantly smaller than stated in Ref. . The most serious flaw in the hypothesis that this accounts for the NuTeV result, however, is that it is not internally consistent with the NuTeV data. Shadowing, a low $`x`$ phenomenon, largely affects the sea quark distributions which are common between $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ cross-sections, and therefore cancel in $`R^{}`$. However, the effects in $`R^\nu `$ and $`R^{\overline{\nu }}`$ individually are much larger than in $`R^{}`$ and this model increases the prediction for NuTeV’s $`R^\nu `$ and $`R^{\overline{\nu }}`$ by $`0.6\%`$ and $`1.2\%`$, respectively. NuTeV’s $`R^\nu `$ and $`R^{\overline{\nu }}`$ are both below predictions and the significant discrepancy is in the $`\nu `$ mode, not the $`\overline{\nu }`$ “control” sample, both in serious contradiction with the prediction of the VMD model.

Another recent paper has suggested that there may be little or no EMC effect in the neutrino charged-current but the expected EMC effect suppression at high $`x`$ in the neutral current. If true, this could have the right behavior and perhaps magnitude to explain the NuTeV data because of the effect at high $`x`$. Unfortunately, this mechanism would cause large differences between $`F_2^\nu `$ and $`F_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ on heavy targets at high $`x`$ which are excluded by the CCFR charged-current cross-section measurements.

### 3.3 New Physics

The primary motivation for embarking on the NuTeV measurement was the possibility of observing hints of new physics in a precise measurement of neutrino-nucleon scattering. NuTeV is well suited as a probe of non-standard physics for two reasons. First, the precision of the measurement is a significant improvement, most noticeably in systematic uncertainties, over previous measurements. Second, NuTeV’s measurement has unique sensitivity to new processes when compared to other precision data. In particular, NuTeV probes weak processes far off-shell, and thus is sensitive to other tree level processes involving exchanges of heavy particles. Also, the initial state particle is a neutrino, and neutrino couplings are the most poorly constrained by the $`Z^0`$ pole data, since they are primarily accessed via the measurement of the $`Z`$ invisible width.

In considering models of new physics, a “model-independent” effective coupling measurement  is the best guide for evaluating non-standard contributions to the NuTeV measurements. This measurement suggests a large deviation in the left-handed chiral coupling to the target quarks, while the right-handed coupling is as expected. Such a pattern of changes in couplings is consistent with either a hypothesis of loop corrections that affect the weak process itself or another tree level contribution that contributes primarily to the left-handed coupling. Chiral coupling deviations are often parameterized in terms of the mass scale for a unit-coupling “contact interaction” in analogy with the Fermi effective theory of low-energy weak interactions. Assuming a contact interaction described by a Lagrangian of the form

$$=\underset{H_q\{L,R\}}{}\frac{\pm 4\pi }{\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LH_q}^\pm \right)^2}\times \{\overline{l_L}\gamma ^\mu l_L\overline{q_{H_q}}\gamma _\mu q_{H_q}+l_L\gamma ^\mu \overline{l_L}\overline{q_{H_q}}\gamma _\mu q_{H_q}+\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{C}.),$$

the NuTeV result can be explained by an interaction with mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LL}^+4\pm 0.8`$ TeV.

#### 3.3.1 Extra U(1) Interaction

Phenomenologically, an extra $`U(1)`$ gauge group which gives rise to interactions mediated by a heavy $`Z^{}`$ boson, $`m_Z^{}m_Z`$, is an attractive model for new physics. In general, the couplings associated with this new interaction are arbitrary, although specific models in which a new $`U(1)`$ arises may provide predictions or ranges of predictions for these couplings. An example of such a model is an $`E(6)`$ gauge group, which encompasses the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ of the standard model and also predicts several additional $`U(1)`$ subgroups which lead to observable interactions mediated by $`Z^{}`$ bosons. Before the NuTeV measurement, several authors had suggested in the literature that the other precision electroweak data favored the possibility of a $`Z^{}`$ boson.

We have analyzed the effect of $`Z^{}`$s in $`E(6)`$ GUT models on the NuTeV measurement of the chiral couplings. The effect of these bosons when the $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ do not mix is primarily on the right-handed coupling. It is possible to reduce the left-handed coupling somewhat by allowing $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing; however, this possibility is severely constrained by precision data at the $`Z^0`$ pole.

A $`Z^{}`$ with coupling magnitudes equal to those of the $`Z`$ ($`Z_{SM}^{}`$) but leading to a destructive interference with the $`Z`$ exchange could explain the NuTeV measurement if the $`Z^{}`$ mass were in the range $`1`$$`1.5`$ TeV. Current limits from the TeVatron experiments on such $`Z_{SM}^{}`$ are approximately $`0.7`$ TeV. Several authors have also recently discussed other $`U(1)`$ extensions in the context of the NuTeV result and found significant effects.

#### 3.3.2 Anomalous Neutrino Neutral Current

There are few precision measurements of neutrino neutral current interactions. Measurements of neutrino-electron scattering from the CHARM II experiment and the direct measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\nu \overline{\nu })`$ from the observation of $`Z\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ at the $`Z^0`$ pole provide measurements of a few percent precision. The two most precise measurements come from the inferred $`Z`$ invisible width and NuTeV. As is shown in Figure 1, both of the precise rate measurements are significantly below the expectation. Theoretically, such a deviation is difficult to accomodate. One idea is a mixing of the light neutrinos with another heavy gauge singlet, but this mechanism leads to effects in both $`Z\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ vertices. However, Takeuchi and collaborators recently suggested that both of these effects could be accomodated in the precision electroweak data if the Higgs boson were heavy.

## 4 Summary

The NuTeV experiment has performed a measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, and finds a deviation of three standard deviations from the null hypothesis which assumes the validity of the standard model of electroweak interactions. Motivated by the significance of this discrepancy, we study both conventional and new physics explanations. Several possibilities exist, although none is theoretically compelling or has sufficient independent supporting evidence to be a clear favorite. Therefore, this result remains a puzzle.

## Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge support for this work from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The NuTeV experiment benefitted greatly from significant contributions from the Fermilab Particle Physics, Computing, Technical and Beams Divisions. In addition, we thank Stan Brodsky, Jens Erler, Martin Grünewald, Shunzo Kumano, Paul Langackger, Jerry Miller, Michael Peskin, Jon Rosner, Ivan Schmidt and Tony Thomas for useful input and discussions.


format: text

text:
# Quadratic algebras of skew type and the underlying semigroupsWork supported in part by Onderzoeksraad of Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Belgium), and KBN research grant 2P03A 030 18 (Poland). MSC Codes: 16P40, 20M25, 16S15 and 16S36

## 1 Introduction

We consider finitely generated monoids with a monoid presentation of the form

$$S=x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n|x_ix_j=x_kx_l$$

with $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$ relations, where $`ij,kl`$ and every product $`x_px_q`$ with $`pq`$ appears in one of the relations. So each $`x_px_q`$ appears in exactly one relation. We call such an $`S`$ a semigroup of skew type. Special classes of monoids of this type, and algebras defined by the same presentations, arise in a natural way from the study of set-theoretic solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation and independently from certain problems in the theory of associative algebras, ,,. These algebras turn out to have very nice properties. In particular, they have finite global dimension, satisfy the Auslander regularity condition and they are Cohen-Macaulay . Reasons and tools for dealing with these properties came from the study of homological properties of Sklyanin algebras by Tate and Van den Bergh .

The above mentioned special classes of semigroups also satisfy the requirement that $`i>j`$, $`k<l`$, $`i>k`$, $`j<l`$ for each of the relations $`x_ix_j=x_kx_l`$, and surprisingly, they define submonoids of torsion-free abelian-by-finite groups. In particular, for any field $`K`$, the semigroup algebra $`K[S]`$ is a domain that satisfies a polynomial identity and one also shows that it is left and right noetherian. Notice that, under this additional assumption on the relations, every element of $`S`$ can be written in the form $`x_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{k_n}`$ for some non-negative integers $`k_i`$. In particular, the Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of $`K[S]`$, denoted by $`\text{GK}(K[S])`$, does not exceed $`n`$. We note that some other (but related) types of algebras defined by quadratic relations have been investigated, see for example ,,.

Our aim is to study the noetherian property of algebras $`K[S]`$ of skew type, its relation to the growth and the PI-property, and the role of the minimal prime ideals with respect to the least cancellative congruence on $`S`$. This is motivated by the results on algebras of binomial semigroups, where the height one primes turned out to be crucial for the properties of the algebra, .

Our main result asserts that $`K[S]`$ is a noetherian PI algebra for a wide class of semigroups of skew type. A combinatorial approach allows us to derive a rich structural information on $`S`$. This is of independent interest and becomes the main tool in the proof. As an intermediate step we prove the following general result. Suppose $`A`$ is a unitary $`K`$-algebra defined via a presentation $`Kx_1,\mathrm{},x_n:R`$, where $`R`$ consists of relations of the type $`u=v`$ with $`u`$ and $`v`$ words of equal length in the generators. If $`A`$ is right noetherian and of finite Gelfand-Kirillov dimension then $`A`$ satisfies a polynomial identity.

## 2 Cyclic condition

We start with a combinatorial condition that allows us to build several examples of noetherian PI-algebras $`K[S]`$. If $`S`$ is a monoid and $`ZS`$ then we denote by $`Z`$ the submonoid generated by $`Z`$.

We say that a monoid $`S`$ generated by a finite set $`X`$ satisfies the cyclic condition (C) if for every pair $`x,yX`$ there exist elements $`x=x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k`$, $`y^{}X`$ such that

$`yx`$ $`=`$ $`x_2y^{}`$
$`yx_2`$ $`=`$ $`x_3y^{}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`yx_k`$ $`=`$ $`xy^{}`$
It is shown in  (see also ) that binomial semigroups satisfy the cyclic condition. We show that the cyclic condition is symmetric.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`S=<X;R>`$ be a semigroup of skew type. Assume $`S`$ satisfies the cyclic condition. Then the full cyclic condition (FC) holds in $`S`$, that is, for any pair $`x,yX`$, there exist two sequences: $`x=x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k`$ and $`y=y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_p`$ in $`X`$ such that

$$y_1x_1=x_2y_2,y_1x_2=x_3y_2,\mathrm{},y_1x_k=x_1y_2,$$

$$y_2x_1=x_2y_3,y_2x_2=x_3y_3,\mathrm{},y_2x_k=x_1y_3,$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$y_px_1=x_2y_1,y_px_2=x_3y_1,\mathrm{},y_px_k=x_1y_1.$$

We call this a cycle of type $`k\times p`$.

###### Lemma 2.2

Under the hypothesis of Proposition 2.1, let $`ax_1=x_2b`$ for some $`a,b,x_1,x_2X`$. Then

1. there exist $`c,x_3,x_0X`$ such that: (a) $`ax_2=x_3b`$, (b) $`ax_0=x_1b`$, and (c) $`cx_1=x_2a`$,
2. if (i) $`ax_1=x_2b`$, (ii) $`ax_2=x_3b`$ and (iii) $`cx_1=x_2a`$, then $`cx_2=x_3a`$.

Proof. 1(a) and (b) follow immediately from condition (C). Indeed, (C) applied to $`ax_1=x_2b`$ implies $`a=x_1b`$ and $`ax_2=b`$, with ”$``$” meaning an element of $`X`$. In general the letter $``$ is different in the first and the second equality. For (c) consider $`x_2b=ax_1`$. Applying (a) we get $`x_2a=cx_1`$ for some $`cX`$.

2) Assume (i), (ii) and (iii) hold. Applying 1(c) to $`ax_2=x_3b`$ yields $`tX`$ such that $`tx_2=x_3a`$. But then, applying 1(b), we get $`ts=x_2a`$ for some $`sX`$. Since $`S`$ is of skew type, comparing the latter with $`cx_1=x_2a`$, we obtain $`t=c`$. Hence $`cx_2=x_3a`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now the statement of the proposition can be derived from the lemma as follows.

Let $`x,yX`$. From (C) it follows that the sequence for the ”internal cycle” $`x=x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ exists, so that $`yx_i=x_{i+1}z`$ and $`yx_k=x_1z`$, for some $`zX`$ and all $`i=1,\mathrm{},k1`$. By 1(c) there exists $`y^{(1)}X`$, such that

$$(iv)y^{(1)}x_1=x_2y.$$

Hence $`yx_1=x_2z,yx_2=x_3z`$ and $`y^1x_1=x_2y`$ (if $`k=1`$ then we put $`x_2=x_3=x_1`$ and if $`k=2`$ then we put $`x_3=x_1`$). So because of 2) we get $`y^{(1)}x_2=x_3y`$. It follows by an induction procedure that $`y^{(1)}`$ is compatible with the whole cycle $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$, that is

$$y^{(1)}x_1=x_2y,y^{(1)}x_2=x_3y,\mathrm{},y^{(1)}x_k=x_1y.$$

Applying the same procedure to (iv) we obtain a $`y^{(2)}X`$ such that

$$y^{(2)}x_1=x_2y^{(1)},y^{(2)}x_2=x_3y^{(1)},\mathrm{},y^{(2)}x_k=x_1y^{(1)}.$$

Condition (C) applied to $`x_2y`$ implies that, after finitely many such steps we shall close the cycle for $`y`$’s, that is, we obtain a sequence of pairwise distinct $`y^{(1)},\mathrm{},y^{(p1)}`$ such that $`x_2y^{(i)}=y^{(i+1)}x_1,`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},p2`$ and $`x_2y^{(p1)}=yx_1`$. Since $`yx_1=x_2z`$, we get $`y^{(p1)}=z`$. Also

$$y^{(i+1)}x_1=x_2y^{(i)},y^{(i+1)}x_2=x_3y^{(i)},\mathrm{},y^{(i+1)}x_k=x_1y^{(i)}$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},p2`$. The assertion follows by reindexing the elements $`y^{(1)},\mathrm{}`$, $`y^{(p1)}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following result allows to construct many examples of noetherian PI algebras from semigroups of skew type.

###### Proposition 2.3

Assume that $`S=x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ is a semigroup of skew type that satisfies the cyclic condition and $`S=\{x_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{a_n}|a_i0\}`$. Then $`K[S]`$ is a finite left and right module over a commutative subring of the form $`K[A]`$, where $`A=x_1^p,\mathrm{},x_n^p`$ for some $`p1`$. Namely $`S=_{cC}cA`$ with $`C=\{x_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{i_n}|i_j<p\}`$ and $`cA=Ac`$ for every $`cC`$. In particular $`K[S]`$ is a right and left noetherian PI algebra.

Proof. Let $`x,y_1X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. Then, for some $`t,y_1,\mathrm{},y_sX`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}xy_1=y_2t\\ xy_2=y_3t\\ \mathrm{}\\ xy_s=y_1t.\end{array}$$
(1)
This easily implies that $`x^sy_i=y_it^s`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$. Hence for every $`x,yX`$ there exists $`tS`$ such that $`x^ry=yt^r`$, where $`r`$ is the least common multiple of lengths of all cycles in $`S`$. Suppose there exist $`y^{},y^{\prime \prime }`$ so that $`xy=y^{}t`$ and $`x^{}y=y^{\prime \prime }t`$. By the cyclic condition we get $`xy^{\prime \prime \prime }=yt`$ and $`x^{}y^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }=yt`$ for some $`y^{\prime \prime \prime },y^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }`$. Since the relations are of skew type this yields $`x=x^{}`$. So the generator $`y`$ acts as an injection, and thus as a bijection on the set $`X`$, by mapping $`x`$ to $`t`$ if $`xy=y^{}t`$ for some $`y^{}X`$. It then also follows that there is a multiple $`p`$ of $`r`$ such that $`x_i^px_j^p=x_j^px_i^p`$ for all $`i,j`$. Every $`yX`$ acts also as a bijection on the set $`\{x_1^p,\mathrm{},x_n^p\}`$. Since $`S=\{x_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{a_n}|a_i0\}`$, it now follows that $`S=CA`$. Moreover $`cA=Ac`$ for $`cC`$ because $`c`$ acts as a bijection on the set of generators of $`A`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We note that the previous proof still works if $`S`$ is a semigroup of skew type that satisfies the cyclic condition and $`S`$ is the union of sets of the form $`\{y_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}y_k^{a_k}|a_i0\}`$ where $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_kX`$ and $`kn`$. In Theorem 4.5 we will prove that the latter is a consequence of the cyclic condition. Moreover (see Theorem 5.2) $`K[S]`$ is still a noetherian PI algebra for a class of semigroups of skew type essentially wider than those satisfying the cyclic condition.

## 3 Noetherian implies PI

It is well known that the Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of a finitely generated PI-algebra is finite (see ). One of our aims is to show that the converse holds for every algebra $`K[S]`$ of a semigroup $`S`$ of skew type, provided that $`K[S]`$ is right noetherian. Surprisingly, the following theorem shows that this can be proved in the more general context of finitely generated monoids defined by homogeneous relations. Clearly, in such a semigroup we have a natural degree function given by $`s|s|`$, where $`|s|`$ is the length of $`sS`$ as a word in the generators of $`S`$.

In the proof of the theorem we rely on the rich structure of linear semigroups ().

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`S`$ be a monoid such that the algebra $`K[S]`$ is right noetherian and $`\text{GK}(K[S])<\mathrm{}`$. Then $`S`$ is finitely generated. If, moreover, $`S`$ has a monoid presentation of the form

$$S=x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|R$$

with $`R`$ a set of homogeneous relations, then $`K[S]`$ satisfies a polynomial identity.

Proof. The first assertion follows from Theorem 2.2 in . So assume $`S`$ has a monoid presentation $`S=x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|R`$. Note that the unit group $`U(S)`$ is trivial. Let $`T=S^0`$, the semigroup with zero $`\theta `$ adjoined. We define a congruence $`\rho `$ on $`T`$ to be homogeneous if $`s\rho t`$ and $`(s,\theta )\rho `$ imply that $`|s|=|t|`$.

The contracted semigroup algebra $`K_0[T]`$ may be identified with $`K[S]`$. Suppose that $`K_0[T]`$ is not a PI algebra. Then, by the noetherian condition, there exists a maximal homogeneous congruence $`\eta `$ on $`T`$ such that $`K_0[T/\eta ]`$ is not PI. So, replacing $`T`$ by $`T/\eta `$, we may assume that every proper homogeneous homomorphic image of $`T`$ yields a PI algebra.

Since there are only finitely many minimal prime ideals of $`K_0[T]`$ and the prime radical $`B(K_0[T])`$ is nilpotent, there exists a minimal prime $`P`$ such that $`K_0[T]/P`$ is not a PI algebra. As $`K_0[T]`$ can be considered in a natural way as a $`𝐙`$-graded algebra (with respect to the length function on $`S`$), it is well known , that $`P`$ is a homogeneous ideal of $`K_0[T]`$. Therefore the congruence $`\rho _P`$ determined by $`P`$ is homogeneous. (Recall that $`s\rho _Pt`$ if $`stP`$, for $`s,tT`$.) Since $`K_0[T]/P`$ is a homomorphic image of $`K_0[T/\rho _P]`$, and because of the preceding paragraph of the proof, we get that $`T=T/\rho _P`$. As $`K_0[T]`$ is right noetherian, we thus get

$$TK_0[T]/PM_t(D)$$

for some division algebra $`D`$, where $`M_t(D)=Q_{cl}(K_0[T]/P)`$, the classical ring of quotients of $`K_0[T]/P`$. Let $`I`$ be the set of all elements of $`T`$ (with $`\theta `$) that are of minimal nonzero rank as matrices in $`M_t(D)`$. Consider $`K\{I\}`$, the subalgebra of $`K_0[T]/P`$ generated by $`I`$. Clearly $`K\{I\}`$ is an ideal of $`K_0[T]/P`$. Then $`M_t(D)=Q_{cl}(K\{I\})`$. So $`K\{I\}`$ is not a PI algebra, as otherwise its ring of quotients would also satisfy a polynomial identity.

Since not all elements of $`I`$ can be nilpotent, it follows from the theory of linear semigroups that $`I`$ has a nonempty intersection $`C`$ with a maximal subgroup $`G`$ of the multiplicative monoid $`M_t(D)`$. So $`G`$ is the group of units of the monoid $`eM_t(D)e`$ for some $`e=e^2`$ in $`M_t(D)`$. Let $`FG`$ be the group generated by $`C`$. Define

$$Z=\{ex|xT,CxC\}.$$

If $`g=exGeT`$ then $`Cx=CexGT=C`$. Hence $`gZ`$ and $`GeTZ`$. It is easy to see that $`ZG`$, so that $`Z=GeT`$. We claim that the monoid $`Z`$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on right ideals. Fix some $`cC`$. Let $`J`$ be a right ideal of $`Z`$. Notice that $`cJT`$ is a right ideal of $`T`$. Then $`cJTZ=cJeTZ=cJZ=cJ`$ because $`cJetZ`$ implies $`etGeT=Z`$ for $`tT`$. As $`T`$ is a cancellative monoid with the ascending chain condition on right ideals, the claim follows.

One verifies that $`F`$ is a finitely generated group. This follows from Proposition 3.16 in  (the result is proved for a field $`D`$ only, but the proof works also for division rings $`D`$.) Since $`\text{GK}(K_0[T])<\mathrm{}`$ we also have $`\text{GK}(C)<\mathrm{}`$. It is then known that $`F`$ also has finite Gelfand-Kirillov dimension, . Moreover, as $`F`$ is finitely generated, it follows from  that $`F`$ is nilpotent-by-finite.

Next we claim that the group of units $`U(Z)`$ of $`Z`$ is a periodic group. For this, suppose $`g,g^1Z`$. Then $`CgC`$ and $`Cg^1C`$. So $`Cg=C`$. Write $`g=ab^1`$ with $`a,bC`$. Then $`Ca=Cb`$ and so $`Ma=Mb`$, where $`M`$ is the subset consisting of the elements of minimal length in $`C`$. Clearly $`Mg=M`$. As $`M`$ is finite, we get $`g^k=e`$ for some $`k1`$, which proves the claim.

So $`U(Z)`$ is a periodic subgroup of the finitely generated nilpotent-by-finite group $`F`$. Hence $`U(Z)`$ is finite. Since also $`Z`$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on right ideals, it follows from the remark on page 550 in  that $`F`$ is finite-by-abelian-by-finite. Hence $`F`$ is abelian-by-finite and thus $`K[F]`$ is a PI algebra.

Finally, as $`T`$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on right ideals, $`I`$ intersects finitely many $``$-classes of the monoid $`M_t(D)`$. It is then known that $`I`$ embeds into a completely $`0`$-simple semigroup with finitely many $``$-classes and with a maximal subgroup $`F`$. It follows that $`K\{I\}`$ is a PI algebra, see , Proposition 20.6, a contradiction. This completes the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.2

Let $`S`$ be a semigroup of skew type such that $`\text{GK}(K[S])<\mathrm{}`$. If $`K[S]`$ is right noetherian, then it satisfies a polynomial identity. In particular, $`K[S]`$ embeds into a matrix ring over a field and $`\text{GK}(K[S])=\text{GK}(K[S]/B(K[S]))`$ is an integer, where $`B(K[S])`$ is the prime radical of $`K[S]`$. Moreover, $`S`$ satisfies a semigroup identity.

Proof. $`K[S]`$ is a PI algebra by Theorem 3.1. Hence  implies that $`K[S]`$ is a subalgebra of $`M_t(L)`$ for a field $`L`$ and $`t1`$. Then, by a result of Markov $`\text{GK}(K[S])=\text{GK}(K[S]/B(K[S]))`$ is an integer, see , Section 12.10. The last assertion now follows from , Proposition 7.10. $`\mathrm{}`$

In Sections 4 and 5 we will show that for a wide class semigroups $`S`$ of skew type $`\text{GK}(K[S])<\mathrm{}`$ and $`K[S]`$ is right and left noetherian. So the corollary is applicable in this situation.

## 4 Non-degenerate and the ascending chain condition

Assume $`S=x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ is a semigroup of skew type that satisfies the cyclic condition. If $`x\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$, then for every $`y_1\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ we get a cycle

$$\begin{array}{c}xy_1=y_2t\\ xy_2=y_3t\\ \mathrm{}\\ xy_s=y_1t\end{array}$$
(2)
with $`t,y_i\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. Since every $`xx_k`$, with $`xx_k`$, appears in one of the relations defining $`S`$, it is clear that for every $`x_k`$ there exists a relation of the form $`xx_i=x_kx_l`$ for some $`i,l`$.

A semigroup of skew type satisfying the latter condition will be said right non-degenerate. Left non-degenerate semigroups are defined dually. A symmetric argument shows that the cyclic condition implies that $`S`$ is left non-degenerate as well. Notice that if $`S`$ is right non-degenerate then every $`x\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ defines a bijection $`f_x`$ of $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ as follows: if $`xx_i=x_kx_l`$ then $`f_x(x_i)=x_k`$.

There are many examples of right and left non-degenerate $`S`$ which do not satisfy the cyclic condition. For example, $`S=x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4`$ defined by the relations: $`x_2x_1=x_1x_3,x_3x_1=x_2x_4,x_4x_1=x_1x_2,x_3x_2=x_1x_4,x_4x_2=x_2x_3,x_4x_3=x_3x_4`$.

First we prove some technical and combinatorial properties of non-degenerate semigroups.

Let $`S`$ be a semigroup of skew type. Let $`Y=X,X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$, be a free monoid of rank $`n`$. (So, we use the same notation for the generators of $`Y`$ and of $`S`$, if unambiguous.) For any $`m2`$ and any $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_mX`$ define

$$g_i(y_1\mathrm{}y_m)=y_1\mathrm{}y_{i1}\overline{y}_i\overline{y}_{i+1}y_{i+2}\mathrm{}y_m$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m1`$, where

$$y_iy_{i+1}=\overline{y}_i\overline{y}_{i+1}$$

is one of the defining relations of $`S`$ (if $`y_iy_{i+1}`$) or $`y_i=y_{i+1}=\overline{y}_i=\overline{y}_{i+1}`$. Let

$$g(y_1\mathrm{}y_m)=g_{m1}\mathrm{}g_2g_1(y_1\mathrm{}y_m)$$

(Notice that $`g`$ is used for all $`m=2,3,\mathrm{}`$.) If $`g(y_1\mathrm{}y_m)=s_1\mathrm{}s_m,s_iX`$, then we set

$$f_{y_1}(y_2\mathrm{}y_m)=s_1\mathrm{}s_{m1}.$$

So $`f_{y_1}:X^{m1}X^{m1}`$ can be considered as a function on the subset $`X^{m1}`$ of $`Y`$ consisting of all words of length $`m1`$.

###### Lemma 4.1

Assume that $`S`$ is a right non-degenerate semigroup of skew type. If $`y_1X`$, then $`f_{y_1}:X^{m1}X^{m1}`$ is a one-to-one mapping, for any $`m2`$.

Proof. We proceed by induction on $`m`$. The case $`m=2`$ is clear because $`S`$ is right non-degenerate.

Assume now that $`m>2`$. Let

$$g(y_1\mathrm{}y_m)=s_1\mathrm{}s_m.$$

We will show that $`s_1\mathrm{}s_{m1}`$ and $`y_1`$ determine $`y_2\mathrm{}y_m`$. Notice that
$`g_1(y_1\mathrm{}y_m)=s_1h(y_1y_2)y_3\mathrm{}y_m`$ where

$$y_1y_2=s_1h(y_1y_2)$$

is a relation in $`S`$ or $`y_1=y_2=s_1=h(y_1y_2)`$. Moreover

$$s_1g(h(y_1y_2)y_3\mathrm{}y_m)=g(y_1\mathrm{}y_m)=s_1\mathrm{}s_m.$$

Then $`g(h(y_1y_2)y_3\mathrm{}y_m)=s_2\mathrm{}s_m`$ and hence by the induction hypothesis it follows that $`s_2\mathrm{}s_{m1}`$ and $`h(y_1y_2)`$ determine $`y_3\mathrm{}y_m`$. Since $`S`$ is right non-degenerate, $`y_1`$ and $`s_1`$ determine $`h(y_1y_2)`$ and $`y_2`$. Hence $`y_1`$ and $`f_{y_1}(y_2\mathrm{}y_m)=s_1\mathrm{}s_{m1}`$ determine $`y_2\mathrm{}y_m`$, as desired. $`\mathrm{}`$

Our aim is to investigate when $`K[S]`$ is noetherian. Hence we first study the weaker condition that $`S`$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on right ideals.

Let $`S=x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$. We shall consider the following over-jumping property

> for every $`aS`$ and every $`i`$ there exist $`k1`$ and $`wS`$ such that $`aw=x_i^ka`$.

This property is formally stronger than the following immediate consequence of the ascending chain condition on right ideals in $`S`$

> for every $`aS`$ and every $`i`$ there exist positive integers $`q,p`$ and $`wS`$ such that $`x_i^paw=x_i^{p+q}a`$.

(Indeed, this condition immediately follows from the ascending chain condition applied to $`I_j=_{k=1}^jx_i^kaS`$.) We show that the over-jumping property holds for the class of right non-degenerate semigroups of skew type.

###### Proposition 4.2

Assume that $`S`$ is a right non-degenerate semigroup of skew type. Then $`S`$ has the over-jumping property.

Proof. Fix some $`y_1X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. We have shown that, if $`m2`$, then $`f=f_{y_1}:X^{m1}X^{m1}`$ is a permutation. Therefore $`f^r`$ is the identity map for some $`r(|X|^{m1})!=(n^{m1})!`$. So, for any $`y_2,\mathrm{},y_mX`$ we have

$$f^r(y_2\mathrm{}y_m)=y_2\mathrm{}y_m.$$

Now, interpreting $`X`$ as the generating set of $`S`$, we get the following equality in $`S`$

$$y_1y_2\mathrm{}y_m=f_{y_1}(y_2\mathrm{}y_m)s_m.$$

Next

$$y_1^2y_2\mathrm{}y_m=y_1f_{y_1}(y_2\mathrm{}y_m)s_m=f_{y_1}(f_{y_1}(y_2\mathrm{}y_m))s_{m+1}s_m$$

for some $`s_{m+1}X`$. Proceeding this way, we come to

$$y_1^ry_2\mathrm{}y_m=f_{y_1}^r(y_2\mathrm{}y_m)s_{m+r1}\mathrm{}s_{m+1}s_m=y_2\mathrm{}y_ms_{m+r1}\mathrm{}s_{m+1}s_m$$

for some $`s_iX,i=m,\mathrm{},m+r1`$. This means that in $`S`$ we have

$$y_1^ry_2\mathrm{}y_m=y_2\mathrm{}y_mw$$

for some $`wS`$.

This can be also repeated for $`f`$ considered as a map $`f_{y_1}:X\mathrm{}X^{m1}X\mathrm{}X^{m1}`$. We have thus shown that $`S`$ has the following property:

> for every $`m1`$ there exists $`r1`$ ($`r(n^{m1})!`$) such that if $`aS`$ has length less than $`m`$ in the generators $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ then we have $`aw=x_i^ra`$ for some $`wS`$.

The result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.3

Assume that $`S`$ is a right non-degenerate semigroup of skew type. Then for every $`x,yS`$ there exist $`t,wS`$ such that $`|w|=|y|`$ and $`xw=yt`$.

Proof. Suppose first $`|x|=1`$, so that $`x=x_j`$ for some $`j`$. Then the assertion follows from Lemma 4.1. So, suppose $`|x|>1`$. We now proceed by induction on the length of $`x`$ as a word in $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$. So suppose that the assertion holds for all $`xS`$ of length $`<m`$. Let $`xS`$ be such that $`|x|=m`$, say $`x=z_1\mathrm{}z_m`$ for some $`z_i\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. By the induction hypothesis $`z_1\mathrm{}z_{m1}u=yw`$ for some $`u,wS`$ with $`|u|=|y|`$. We know also that $`z_mv=us`$ for some $`v,sS`$ such that $`|v|=|u|`$. Then

$$xv=z_1\mathrm{}z_{m1}z_mv=z_1\mathrm{}z_{m1}us=yws.$$

Since $`|v|=|y|`$, this proves the assertion. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following result, together with its proof, provide the first insight into the structure of non-degenerate semigroups and their algebras. This will be heavily exploited and strengthened in Section 5.

In the proof the following sets will play a crucial role.

###### Definition 4.4

Let $`S=x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$ be a semigroup of skew type. For a subset $`Y`$ of $`X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ define

$$S_Y=\underset{yY}{}yS$$

and

$$D_Y=\{sS_Y\text{ if }s=xt\text{ for some }xX\text{ and }tS\text{ then }xY\}.$$

The left-right symmetric duals of these sets will be denoted by $`S_Y^{}`$ and $`D_Y^{}`$ respectively.

Notice that because of Lemma 4.3 each such set $`S_Y`$ is non-empty. However, it may happen that $`S_Y=S_Z`$ for different subsets $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ of $`X`$; possibly it can occur that $`D_Y=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Theorem 4.5

Let $`S=x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ be a semigroup of skew type. If $`S`$ is right non-degenerate then

1. for each integer $`i`$, with $`1in`$, $`S_i=_{Y:|Y|=i}S_Y`$ is an ideal of $`S`$, and

$$S_X=S_nS_{n1}\mathrm{}S_1S,$$
2. $`S`$ is the union of sets of the form $`\{y_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}y_k^{a_k}:a_i0\}`$, where $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_k`$ $`X`$ and $`kn`$.

In particular, $`\text{GK}(K[S])n`$.

Proof. Let $`Y`$ be a subset of $`X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. If $`xX`$ then let $`ZX`$ be the largest subset such that $`xS_YS_Z`$. Since $`X`$ is right non-degenerate, it follows that $`|Z||Y|`$. Moreover, if $`xY`$, then $`|Z|>|Y|`$. Consequently, $`S_j=_{Y:|Y|=j}S_Y`$ are ideals of $`S`$ such that

$$S_X=S_nS_{n1}\mathrm{}S_1S.$$

Note that if $`j=|Y|`$ then $`D_Y=S_YS_{j+1}`$ (we let $`S_{n+1}=\mathrm{}`$). So

$$S_jS_{j+1}=\underset{Z:|Z|=j}{}D_Z$$

is a disjoint union.

Suppose first that $`|Y|=1`$. Let $`wD_Yy`$, where $`Y=\{y\}`$. Then $`w=y^kxt`$ for some $`xX,tS`$, and $`y^kxD_Yy`$. Since $`S`$ is right non-degenerate, there exist $`r1`$ and distinct elements $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_r=xX`$ such that $`yx=u_1w_1,yu_1=u_2w_2,\mathrm{},yu_{r1}=u_rw_r`$. Therefore $`y^qxu_1S\mathrm{}u_rS`$ for every $`q1`$. But $`u_iy`$ for all $`i1`$, so $`y^kxD_Y`$, a contradiction. It follows that $`D_Y=y\{1\}`$.

Fix some $`yY`$. Suppose $`sD_Y`$ and $`j=|Y|`$. Let $`r1`$ be the maximal integer such that $`s=y^rt`$ for some $`tS`$. Suppose $`tS_Z`$ for some $`ZX`$ with $`|Z|=|Y|`$. If $`yZ`$ then $`ytx_iS`$ for at least $`|Y|+1`$ different indices $`i`$. So $`ytS_{j+1}`$ and therefore $`sS_{j+1}`$, a contradiction. So, we have $`yZ`$. Then $`tyS`$, which contradicts the maximality of $`r`$. Hence, we have shown that $`tS_j`$. It follows that

$$D_Yy(SS_j).$$

By induction on $`|Y|`$ this easily implies $`D_Y`$ is contained in a union of sets of the form $`\{y_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}y_j^{a_j}:a_j0\}`$, where $`|Y|=j`$ and $`y_iX`$. So $`S`$ is the (finite) union of sets of the form $`\{y_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}y_k^{a_k}:a_i0\}`$, where $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_kX`$ and $`kn`$.

The assertion on the Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of $`K[S]`$ is now an easy consequence. It is clear that $`SS_2=_{i=1}^nx_i`$. Hence there are $`nm+1`$ elements of $`S`$ that are words of length at most $`m`$ in the generators $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and that lie in $`SS_2`$. Proceeding by induction on $`j`$, assume that the number of elements of $`SS_j`$ that are words of length at most $`m`$ is bounded by a polynomial of degree $`j1`$ in $`m`$. Let $`|Y|=j,YX`$. Since $`D_Yy(SS_j)`$ for $`yY`$, it is easy to see that the number of elements of $`D_Y`$ that are words of length at most $`m`$ is bounded by a polynomial of degree $`j`$. As $`S_jS_{j+1}`$ is a finite union of such $`D_Y`$, the same is true of the elements of the set $`S_jS_{j+1}`$. This proves the inductive claim. It follows that the growth of $`S`$ is polynomial of degree not exceeding $`n`$, so that $`\text{GK}(K[S])n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The left-right symmetric dual of $`S_i`$ will be denoted by $`S_i^{}`$. Of course, if $`S`$ is a semigroup of skew type which is left non-degenerate then we obtain that each $`S_i^{}`$ also is an ideal of $`S`$.

The following technical result turns out to be very useful.

###### Lemma 4.6

Let $`S`$ be a right non-degenerate semigroup of skew type. Let $`Y`$ be a subset of $`X`$ and assume $`|Y|=i1`$. Let $`bD_Z`$, for some subset $`Z`$ of $`Y`$. Assume that $`k`$ is the length of $`b`$ in the generators of $`X`$. Then $`(S_{i1})^kD_YbS`$. Furthermore, $`(S_{i1})^{k+1}D_YbS_{i1}`$ and $`(S_{i1}S_{i1}^{})^{k+1}D_Yb(S_{i1}S_{i1}^{})`$.

Proof. If $`k=1`$ the assertion is clear. So assume $`k2`$. Write $`b=y_k\mathrm{}y_1`$ with each $`y_jX`$. Let $`qk`$ and $`a=a_q\mathrm{}a_1D_Y`$ with each $`a_jS_{i1}S_i`$. Since $`bD_Z`$ with $`ZY`$ we get $`y_kY`$, and therefore $`a_qy_kS`$. So $`a_q=y_kb_k`$ for some $`b_kS`$. Then $`a_qa_{q1}=y_kc_k`$ where $`c_k=b_ka_{q1}`$. Clearly $`c_kS_{i1}S_i`$.

Suppose we have already shown that

$`a_q\mathrm{}a_{qr}`$ $`=`$ $`y_k\mathrm{}y_{kr+1}c_{kr+1}`$ (3)
for some $`r1`$ and $`c_{kr+1}S_{i1}S_i`$. We claim that $`c_{kr+1}y_{kr}S`$. Let $`WX`$ be so that $`|W|=i1`$ and $`c_{kr+1}D_W`$. Consider the set

$$U=\{xXy_k\mathrm{}y_{kr+1}xD_V\text{ for some }VY\}.$$

Because of the right non-degeneracy, an induction argument on $`r`$ yields that $`|U||Y|`$. Since the left hand side of equation (3) is an initial segment of $`a`$ and $`aD_Y`$ it follows that $`WU`$. So $`W=U`$. Since $`y_k\mathrm{}y_{kr+1}y_{kr}`$ is an initial segment of $`bD_Z`$ and $`ZY`$ we also get that $`y_{kr}U=W`$. Hence $`c_{kr+1}y_{kr}S`$. This proves the claim.

Now write $`c_{kr+1}=y_{kr}b_{kr}`$ for some $`b_{kr}S`$. So

$`a_q\mathrm{}a_{qr}a_{qr1}`$ $`=`$ $`y_k\mathrm{}y_{kr+1}y_{kr}b_{kr}a_{qr1}.`$
Define $`c_{kr}=b_{kr}a_{qr1}`$. Then $`c_{kr}S_{i1}S_i`$.

So we have shown that for any $`qk`$, $`a_q\mathrm{}a_{qk+1}y_k\mathrm{}y_1S=bS`$. If $`q=k`$ then the first assertion of the lemma follows. On the other hand, if $`q=k+1`$ then we obtain $`a=a_{k+1}\mathrm{}a_1bSa_1bS_{i1}`$. The second and third assertion of the lemma now easily follow. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 4.7

Let $`S`$ be a right non-degenerate semigroup of skew type. Then $`S`$ has the ascending chain condition on right ideals.

Proof. Suppose we know already that $`S/S_i`$ has the ascending chain condition on right ideals for some $`i`$. We will show that $`S/S_{i+1}`$ also has this property. Recall that by definition $`S_{n+1}=\mathrm{}`$ and $`S/S_{n+1}=S`$. Then with $`i=n+1`$ the assertion follows.

From Theorem 4.5 we know that $`S=\{z_1^{a_1}z_2^{a_2}\mathrm{}z_m^{a_m}:a_j0\}`$ for some $`m1`$ and $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_mX`$ (not all $`z_j`$ are necessarily different). We claim that $`S_i/S_{i+1}`$ is a finitely generated as a right ideal of $`S/S_{i+1}`$. To prove this, it is sufficient to show by induction on $`mk`$ that right ideal of $`S/S_{i+1}`$ generated by $`C_k(S_iS_{i+1})`$ is finitely generated; where $`C_k=\{z_k^{a_k}\mathrm{}z_m^{a_m}|a_j0\}`$. The case $`mk=0`$ is clear. The case $`mk=m1`$ gives the assertion.

So assume $`1k<m`$. Let $`B=\{bC_{k+1}|z_k^abS_i\text{ for some }a\}`$. If $`yC_k(S_iS_{i+1})`$ then $`yz_k^a(B(SS_i))`$ for some $`a`$ (see the proof of Theorem 4.1) and $`(B(SS_i))Sb_1S\mathrm{}b_rS`$ for some $`b_jB(SS_i)`$ because $`S/S_i`$ has the ascending chain condition on right ideals. Since $`S_i`$ is an ideal of $`S`$, it follows that

$$C_k(S_iS_{i+1})\underset{tN}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}z_k^tb_jS\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}z_k^jB_j$$
(4)
where $`N`$ is chosen so that $`z_k^Nb_jS_i`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$ and $`B_j=\{yC_{k+1}|z_k^jyS_i\}`$. By the inductive hypothesis every $`B_jS_i`$ generates a finitely generated right ideal modulo $`S_{i+1}`$. On the other hand, $`(B_jS_i)S`$ is a finitely generated right ideal because $`S/S_i`$ has the ascending chain condition on right ideals. Hence $`B_j`$ and thus also $`z_k^jB_j`$ generates a finitely generated right ideal modulo $`S_{i+1}`$.

Next we show that the double union above is a finitely generated right ideal of $`S`$. Because of Proposition 4.2 we know that $`S`$ has the over-jumping property. Consequently, for every $`j`$ there exist $`w_jS`$ and a positive integer $`q_j`$ such that

$$b_jw_j=z_k^{q_j}b_j.$$

Hence

$$z_k^{q_j𝐍}b_jb_jS\text{ and so }z_k^{p+q_j𝐍}b_jz_k^pb_jS$$

for every $`p0`$. It follows that the right ideal $`_{tN}z_k^tb_jS=_{t=N}^{N+q_j}z_k^tb_jS`$ is finitely generated, as claimed.

As the left and the right side in (4) generate modulo $`S_{i+1}`$ the same right ideal, it follows that $`C_k(S_iS_{i+1})`$ generates a finitely generated right ideal modulo $`S_{i+1}`$. So we proved our claim that $`S_i/S_{i+1}`$ is a finitely generated right ideal of $`S/S_{i+1}`$.

Suppose there is an infinite sequence $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}SS_{i+1}`$ such that we have proper inclusions

$$a_1Sa_1Sa_2S\mathrm{}a_1S\mathrm{}a_kS\mathrm{}.$$

Since $`S`$ is the union of finitely many sets $`D_Y,YX`$, we may assume that all $`a_jD_Y`$ for some $`Y`$. As $`S/S_i`$ has the ascending chain condition on right ideals, it follows that $`D_YS_iS_{i+1}`$. Lemma 4.6 implies that $`a_jS_i^t`$ where $`t`$ denotes the length of $`a_1`$. This leads to a contradiction with the fact that $`S_i/S_{i+1}`$ is a finitely generated right ideal of $`S/S_{i+1}`$ and $`S/S_i`$ has the ascending chain condition on right ideals. (Namely, if $`S_i=s_1S\mathrm{}s_qSS_{i+1}`$ then $`\{a_j\}`$ has a subsequence contained in $`s_{k_1}\mathrm{}s_{k_p}(SS_i)`$ for some $`p<t`$ and some $`k_j`$, leading to a contradiction.)

This proves that $`S/S_{i+1}`$ has the ascending chain condition on right ideals, completing the inductive argument, and proving the result. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Non-degenerate implies noetherian

Our main aim in this section is to show that left and right non-degenerate semigroups $`S`$ yield left and right noetherian algebras $`K[S]`$. To prove this we will rely on a general result  that makes use of ideal chains in $`S`$ of a special type. Before stating the latter we recall some terminology. Let $`E=(G,t,t;Id)`$ be an inverse semigroup over a group $`G`$ with $`t1`$ (see ). In other words, $`E=\{(g)_{ij}gG,i,j=1,\mathrm{},t\}\{0\}`$, where $`(g)_{ij}`$ denotes the $`t\times t`$-matrix with $`g`$ in the $`(i,j)`$-component and zeros elsewhere. The multiplication on $`E`$ is the ordinary matrix multiplication. A semigroup $`S`$ is said to be a generalised matrix semigroup if it is a subsemigroup of a semigroup $`E`$ of the above type and for every $`i,j`$ there exists $`gG`$ so that $`(g)_{ij}S`$. So, in the terminology of , $`S`$ is a uniform subsemigroup of $`E`$.

###### Theorem 5.1 (Theorem 3.3 )

Assume that $`M`$ is a finitely generated
monoid with an ideal chain $`M_1M_2\mathrm{}M_r=M`$ such that $`M_1`$ and every factor $`M_j/M_{j1}`$ is either nilpotent or a generalised matrix semigroup. If $`M`$ has the ascending chain condition on right ideals, and $`\text{GK}(K[M])`$ is finite, then $`K[M]`$ is right noetherian.

Now we assume that $`S`$ is a semigroup of skew type that is right and left non-degenerate. Recall that for a $`YX`$ we write $`S_Y^{}=_{yY}Sy`$. Further, $`S_k^{}=_{YX,|Y|=k}S_Y^{}`$ is an ideal of $`S`$. We claim that $`S_k^kS_k^{}`$ for all $`k`$ and symmetrically $`(S_k^{})^kS_k`$. Since $`S_1=S_1^{}`$ (see the description of $`S_1`$ in the proof of Theorem 4.5), we may assume that $`k>1`$. Let $`1aS`$ and $`bS_k`$. Let $`YX`$ be maximal such that $`aS_Y^{}`$. If $`|Y|<k`$ then there exists $`xX`$ such that $`bxS`$ and $`xY`$. So we may write $`b=xc,cS`$. Now $`axSx`$ but, as $`xY`$ and $`aS_Y^{}`$, the element $`ax`$ is also contained in $`|Y|`$ different left ideals of the form $`Sw`$, $`xwX`$ (use the left non-degeneracy of $`S`$). Therefore $`axS_Z^{}`$ for some $`ZX`$ with $`|Z|>|Y|`$. Hence $`ab=axcS_{|Z|}^{}`$. By induction it follows easily that $`S_k^kS_k^{}`$, as desired.

We have shown that $`I_k=S_kS_k^{}`$ is an ideal of $`S`$ such that $`S_k/I_k`$ is nilpotent.

###### Theorem 5.2

Let $`S=x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ be a semigroup of skew type. If $`S`$ is right and left non-degenerate, then $`K[S]`$ is a right and left noetherian PI-algebra.

Proof. From Theorem 4.5 we know that $`\text{GK}(K[S])`$ is finite. Because of Proposition 4.7 we also know that $`S`$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on one sided ideals. In view of Theorem 5.1 and its dual, to prove that $`K[S]`$ is right and left noetherian it is sufficient to show that $`S`$ has an ideal chain with each factor either nilpotent or a generalised matrix semigroup.

Write $`S_{n+1}=S_{n+1}^{}=\mathrm{}`$ and adopt the convention $`S/\mathrm{}=S`$. By induction on $`i`$ we will prove that $`S/S_i`$ has an ideal chain of the desired type. The case $`i=n+1`$ then yields the result. As noticed in the proof of Theorem 4.5, $`SS_2`$ is the disjoint union of all $`D_{\{x_i\}}=x_i\{1\}`$ and $`\{1\}`$. So $`S/S_2`$ has an ideal chain with commutative $`0`$-cancellative factors, hence it has a chain of the type described in Theorem 5.1. So now assume that we have shown this for the semigroup $`S/S_{i1}`$ for some $`i3`$.

Let $`J^{}`$ be the ideal of $`S`$ such that $`S_iJ^{}`$ and $`J^{}/S_i`$ is the maximal nil ideal of $`S/S_i`$. We consider the following ideals of $`S`$

$$S_iI(S_iS_i^{})IJI=S_{i1}S_{i1}^{}S_{i1}$$

where $`J=J^{}I`$. (Notice that the first and the last Rees factor are nilpotent by the comment after Theorem 5.1.) Then $`J/S_i`$ is nilpotent because of the ascending chain condition on one-sided ideals in $`S`$, see Theorem 17.22 in .

For $`YX`$, let $`D_Y`$ and $`D_Y^{}`$ be the subsets of $`S`$ introduced in Definition 4.4. Let $`I_{YW}=D_YD_W^{}`$ for $`Y,WX`$ and $`I_Y=I_{YY}`$. If $`|Y|=i1`$, $`D_Y^{}\mathrm{}`$ and $`xXY`$ then $`D_Y^{}xS_i^{}`$. (Use the left non-degeneracy of $`S`$; $`D_Y^{}xSx`$ but also it is contained in $`|Y|`$ different left ideals of the form $`Syx`$, $`yY`$, and thus $`yx=x^{}y^{}`$ with $`y^{}x`$.) So $`D_Y^{}D_ZS_i^{}`$ for every $`Y,ZX`$ of cardinality $`i1`$ with $`ZY`$, provided that $`D_Y\mathrm{}`$ and $`D_Z^{}\mathrm{}`$. Hence we get a generalised matrix structure $`(S_{i1}S_{i1}^{})(S_iS_i^{})=_{Y,Z}I_{YZ}`$.

Now, for $`YX`$ with $`|Y|=i1`$ there are two mutually exclusive cases:

1. 1: either $`I_Y=\mathrm{}`$ or there exist $`bD_Y^{}`$ and $`xD_Y`$ such that $`bxJ`$.
2. 2: $`I_Y\mathrm{}`$ and $`D_Y^{}D_Y(S_{i1}S_{i1}^{})J`$, so in particular $`I_Y`$ is a subsemigroup of $`(S_{i1}S_{i1}^{})J`$.

In Case 1 we claim that $`D_YI`$ and $`D_Y^{}I`$ are contained in $`J`$. If $`I_Y=\mathrm{}`$, then the generalised matrix structure easily yields that $`(D_YI)^2`$ and $`(D_Y^{}I)^2`$ are contained in $`J`$. As both $`D_YI`$ and $`D_Y^{}I`$ are one sided ideals modulo $`J`$, we get $`D_YI,D_Y^{}IJ`$. So assume $`I_Y\mathrm{}`$ and that there exist $`bD_Y^{}`$ and $`xD_Y`$ so that $`bxJ`$. Let $`q`$ be the maximum of the lengths of $`b`$ and $`x`$. Then by Lemma 4.6 and its right-left dual we get

$$I_Y^{2q}(D_Y^{})^qD_Y^q(Sb)(xS)S_iS_i^{}J^{}.$$

So $`I_Y`$ is nilpotent modulo $`J`$. Then again $`D_Y^{}I`$ (with zero) is a left ideal of $`S/S_i^{}`$ and it is nil modulo $`J`$ (use the generalised matrix pattern), so we must have $`D_Y^{}IJ`$. Similarly $`D_YIJ`$.

In Case 2 we will show that $`I^rI_Y`$ is a cancellative semigroup, for some $`r1`$.

Before proving this we introduce some notation and develop some machinery. For $`a,bS`$ we write $`a\tau b`$ if there exists $`zI=S_{i1}^{}S_{i1}`$ so that $`az=bzJ`$. Notice $`a`$ and $`b`$ have the same length. Hence, for a given $`aS`$, there are only finitely many $`b`$ so that $`a\tau b`$.

Let $`𝒜`$ be the set of all elements $`dI`$ such that every proper initial segment of $`d`$ is not in $`I`$. In other words, $`𝒜`$ is the (unique) minimal set of generators of $`I`$ as a right ideal of $`S`$. By the ascending chain condition on right ideals in $`S`$ this is a finite set.

Let $`a\tau b`$ for some $`aI,bS`$; so $`az=bzJ`$ for some $`zI`$. Let $`Y,ZX`$ be such that $`aD_Y^{}`$ and $`bD_Z^{}`$. Because $`S`$ is left non-degenerate, $`azJ`$ implies that $`zD_Y`$. Since $`S`$ is also right non-degenerate and because $`bzJ`$ we thus obtain $`ZY`$. In particular $`a,bSx`$ for every $`xZ`$.

Choose $`sS`$ such that $`a=a^{}s,b=b^{}s`$ for some $`a^{}I,b^{}S`$ such that if $`a^{}=a^{\prime \prime }x,b=b^{\prime \prime }x`$ for $`xX,a^{\prime \prime },b^{\prime \prime }S`$ then $`a^{\prime \prime }I`$. Notice that $`a^{}\tau b^{}`$. The previous paragraph implies that $`a^{}𝒜`$.

Let $`a_j,b_j,j=1,\mathrm{},q`$, be all pairs such that $`a_j\tau b_j`$, $`a_jb_j`$ and $`a_j𝒜`$. As remarked earlier, there are only finitely many such pairs of elements. Let $`z_jI`$ so that $`a_jz_j=b_jz_jJ`$. By the above, for every $`aI,bS`$ such that $`a\tau b`$ and $`ab`$ we have $`a=a_js,b=b_js`$ for some $`sS`$. Consider $`Y`$ that satisfies the conditions in Case 2 and assume that $`a,bD_Y^{}`$. We claim that

$`at=btJ\text{ for every }tI^NI_Y`$ (5)
where $`N`$ is the maximum of all $`|z_j|`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},q`$.

So $`a=a_js`$ and $`b=b_js`$ for some $`j`$ and some $`sS`$. Since $`a_jIJ`$, there exist $`W,ZX`$, each of cardinality $`i1`$, so that $`a_jI_{WZ}`$. As $`aD_Y^{}J`$ we thus get that $`aI_{WY}`$. Moreover, $`a_jz_j=b_jz_jJ`$ yields that $`z_jI_{ZV}`$ for some $`VX`$. Now $`a_js=aD_Y^{}`$ implies $`aI_Y=a_jsI_Y`$ and, because $`Y`$ satisfies Case 2, the former does not intersect $`J`$. In particular $`sI_YI_{ZY}`$.

Let $`tI^NI_Y`$. Then $`sts(I^NI_Y)D_ZI^{|z_j|}z_jS`$ by Lemma 4.6. So $`st=z_ju`$ for some $`uS`$. Now $`at=a_jst=a_jz_ju`$ and $`atI_{WY}I_Y`$, and thus $`atJ`$. Similarly $`bt=b_jst=b_jz_ju`$ whence $`at=bt`$. This proves the claim.

For every $`Y`$ that satisfies Case 2 choose $`c_YI^NI_Y`$. Write $`r=\mathrm{max}\{|c_Y|+1\}`$ and let $`T=I^r`$. Then $`T/(JT)=I^r/(JI^r)`$ has a matrix pattern $`T/(JT)=_{Y,W}T_{YW}\{0\}`$ where $`T_{YW}=(I_{YW}T)J`$ and $`Y,W`$ run through a subset of the set of $`i1`$-element subsets of $`X`$. The ‘diagonal components’ are $`T_Y=TI_Y`$. We know that if there exist $`aT_{YZ}`$ and $`bT_{ZW}`$ (so $`Z`$ satisfies Case 2) then $`abT_{YW}`$. In particular, if $`T_{YZ}`$ and $`T_{ZW}`$ are nonempty, then also $`T_{YW}`$ is nonempty.

Let $`A`$ be a maximal subsemigroup of $`T/(JT)`$ of the form $`A=_{Y,W𝒫}T_{YW}`$ $`\{0\}`$ where $`𝒫`$ is a set of $`i1`$-element subsets of $`X`$ such that every $`T_{YW}`$ is not empty. Let $`Y𝒫`$. Suppose that $`T_{YW}\mathrm{}`$ for some $`W𝒫`$ of cardinality $`i1`$. Then $`\mathrm{}T_{ZY}T_{YW}T_{ZW}`$ for every $`Z𝒫`$. Clearly $`T_W\mathrm{}`$ because $`W`$ satisfies Case 2. Using the maximality of $`𝒫`$ it is now easy to see that $`B=_{Y𝒫,V𝒫}T_{YV}\{0\}`$ is a right ideal of $`T/(JT)`$. However, if $`bB`$ and $`0bsA`$ for some $`sS/J`$, then $`0bsxA`$ for some $`xA`$. Since $`sxT/(JT)`$, it follows that $`bsxB`$, a contradiction. This shows that $`B`$ is a right ideal of $`S/J`$. From the matrix pattern it follows that it is nilpotent and this contradicts with the definition of $`J`$. Consequently, $`T_{YV}=\mathrm{}`$, and similarly $`T_{VY}=\mathrm{}`$ for every $`V𝒫`$ of cardinality $`i1`$. Therefore we get a decomposition $`T/(JT)=A_1\mathrm{}A_k`$ for some $`k`$, where each $`A_i`$ is of the ‘square type’, as $`A`$ above. This union is $`0`$-disjoint, $`A_i`$ are ideals of $`S/J`$ and $`A_iA_j=0`$ for $`j`$. Fix some $`A=A_i`$, say $`i=1`$.

Let $`Y`$ be such that $`T_YA`$. Let $`c=c_YI^NI_Y`$. We now prove that if $`a,bTD_Y^{}`$ satisfy $`az=bzJ`$ for some $`zT`$ then $`a=b`$. As $`zD_YJ`$, we must have $`zA`$. Then $`z(TD_Y^{})T_Y\mathrm{}`$, so we may assume that $`zT_Y`$. Since $`r|c|+1`$, by the dual of Lemma 4.6 we may write $`a=a^{}c,b=b^{}c`$ for some $`a^{},b^{}I`$. Moreover $`a^{},b^{}D_Y^{}`$ because $`cI_Y`$ and $`a^{},b^{}I`$ (use the generalised matrix pattern). Then $`a^{}cz=b^{}cz`$ and $`a^{}\tau b^{}`$. As $`a^{}c=b^{}c`$ by (5), we obtain $`a=b`$. Repeating this for every $`Y`$ with $`T_YA`$ we show that $`A`$ has the property that $`az=bz0`$ implies $`a=b`$. By a symmetric argument we may also obtain that $`A`$ has the property

$`\text{if }a,b,zA,\text{ and }az=bz0\text{ or }za=zb0`$ then $`a=b`$ (6)
In particular, if $`Y`$ satisfies Case 2, then the diagonal components $`T_Y=I_YT`$ are cancellative semigroups.

Let $`Q=\{a_1+\mathrm{}+a_m:a_iT_{Y_i}\}`$ where $`𝒫=\{Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m\}`$. Let $`Z=(T/(JT))/(A_2\mathrm{}A_k)`$. Then $`Z`$ may be identified with $`A`$. Because of $`(\text{6})`$ $`Q`$ consists of regular elements in the algebra $`K_0[A]`$. Furthermore, the diagonal components $`T_{Y_i}`$ form cancellative right and left Ore semigroups. Indeed, from Lemma 4.6 it follows that every two right ideals of each $`I_{Y_i}`$ intersect nontrivially. This implies easily that the same holds for the semigroup $`T_{Y_i}`$, and a symmetric argument works for left ideals. It is then readily verified that $`Q`$ is an Ore subset of the algebra $`K_0[A]`$. The localization of $`A`$ with respect to $`Q`$ is an inverse semigroup (it has a matrix pattern and each diagonal component is a group, namely the group of quotients of the corresponding $`T_Y`$). Therefore $`A`$, and thus each $`A_i`$ is a semigroup of generalised matrix type. Hence $`T/(JT)`$ has an ideal chain whose factors are of generalised matrix type and which is determined by certain ideals of $`S`$. Consider the ideal chain

$$S_iS_i(JT)S_iTS_{i1}S.$$

We know that $`S_i(JT)`$ is nilpotent modulo $`S_i`$ and $`S_{i1}`$ is nilpotent modulo $`S_iT`$. The factor $`(S_iT)/(S_i(JT))`$ is naturally identified with $`T/(JT)`$ because $`S_iTJ`$. It follows that $`S/S_i`$ has an ideal chain of the type described in Theorem 5.1. This completes the inductive step, and thus we have shown that $`K[S]`$ is right and left noetherian.

Finally, from Theorem 3.1 it now follows that $`K[S]`$ satisfies a polynomial identity. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the last paragraph of the proof we have shown that each $`A_i`$ is an order in a completely 0-simple inverse semigroup, in the sense of Fountain and Petrich. While this is an easy consequence of the properties of $`T`$ proved before and of the main results of , we used a simple localization technique at the semigroup algebra level, rather than referring to these nontrivial semigroup theoretical results.

The following is a direct consequence of the proof of Theorem 5.2.

###### Corollary 5.3

Assume that $`S`$ is a right and left non-degenerate semigroup of skew type. Then $`S`$ has a cancellative ideal $`I`$. Namely, $`S_X^N`$ is such an ideal for some $`N1`$.

## 6 Cancellative congruence and the prime radical

Let $`\rho `$ be the least cancellative congruence on a semigroup of skew type $`S`$. So it is the intersection of all congruences $``$ on $`S`$ such that $`S/`$ is cancellative. Let $`\rho _1`$ be the smallest congruence on $`S`$ containing all $`(s,t)`$ such that $`su=tu`$ or $`us=ut`$ for some $`uS`$. Suppose we have already constructed $`\rho _n`$. Let $`\rho _{n+1}`$ be the smallest congruence on $`S`$ that contains all $`(s,t)`$ with $`(su,tu)\rho _n`$ or $`(us,ut)\rho _n`$ for some $`uS`$. We claim that $`\rho =_{n1}\rho _n`$. Indeed, if $`(su,tu)_{n1}\rho _n`$, then $`(su,tu)\rho _n`$ for some $`n1`$. Hence $`(s,t)\rho _{n+1}`$. It follows that $`_{n1}\rho _n`$ is right cancellative. Similarly, it is left cancellative, so that $`\rho _{n1}\rho _n`$. For the converse first note that $`\rho _1\rho `$. Then, by induction one shows easily that $`\rho _n\rho `$ for every $`n1`$. Hence $`\rho =_{n1}\rho _n`$, as claimed.

It is easy to see (by induction) that every $`\rho _n`$ is homogeneous, because the defining relations of $`S`$ are homogeneous. It follows that $`\rho `$ is homogeneous.

From now on we assume that $`S`$ is left and right non-degenerate. So, by Lemma 4.3, $`S`$ satisfies: $`xSyS\mathrm{}`$ for every $`x,yS`$. Define a relation $``$ on $`S`$ by: $`ab`$ if $`ax=bx`$ for some $`xS`$. We claim that $``$ is a congruence on $`S`$. Suppose $`ab`$ and $`bc`$. Then $`ax=bx,by=cy`$ for some $`x,yS`$. There exist $`u,wS`$ such that $`xu=yw`$. Thus

$$axu=bxu=byw=cyw=cxu$$

and so $`ac`$. Next, if $`zS`$, then $`zs=xt`$ for some $`s,tS`$. Then

$$azs=axt=bxt=bzs$$

and $`azbz`$. It follows that $``$ is a congruence on $`S`$. It is clear that it is the least congruence on $`S`$ such that $`S/`$ is right cancellative.

###### Lemma 6.1

Let $`T`$ be a semigroup with a cancellative ideal $`J`$. Assume that $`J`$ has a group of quotients $`G`$. Define $`\widehat{T}=(TJ)G`$. Then $`\widehat{T}`$ has a semigroup structure extending that of $`T`$.

Proof. The multiplication on $`\widehat{T}`$ is defined by

$$t(ab^1)=(ta)b^1$$

for $`a,bJ`$ and $`tT`$. Similarly, one defines the left multiplication by elements of $`G`$. Associativity can be easily checked. $`\mathrm{}`$

By Lemma 5.3 there exists $`N1`$ such that $`I=S_X^N`$ is a cancellative ideal of $`S`$. We know that $`I`$ has a group of quotients and thus by Lemma 6.1 we have the semigroup $`\widehat{S}=(SI)II^1`$. Let $`e=e^2II^1`$. For any $`a,b,xS`$ we get that $`(ab)x=0`$ implies $`(ab)xI=0`$, and thus $`(ab)e=0`$. Since $`e`$ is a central idempotent this yields $`e(ab)=0`$ and therefore $`x(ab)=0`$. So, by symmetry, we obtain that the following conditions are equivalent: (1) $`(ab)x=0`$, (2) $`x(ab)=0`$, (3) $`Ix=0`$ and (4) $`xI=0`$. It follows that the least right cancellative congruence coincides with the least left cancellative congruence on $`S`$. Note that $`\rho `$ is finitely generated, as a right congruence, since $`K[S]`$ is right noetherian. So, we have proved the following result.

###### Proposition 6.2

Let $`S`$ be a left and right non-degenerate semigroup of skew type. Then the least right cancellative congruence on $`S`$ coincides with the least cancellative congruence on $`S`$ and it is defined by $`a\rho b`$ if $`ax=bx`$ for some $`xS`$. Moreover the ideal of $`K[S]`$ determined by $`\rho `$ is of the form $`I(\rho )=_{i=1}^k(a_ib_i)K[S]`$ for some $`k1`$ and $`a_i,b_iS`$.

Recall that by definition $`I(\rho )`$ is the kernel of the natural homomorphism $`K[S]K[S/\rho ]`$. The congruence $`\rho `$ is actually important for the description of the prime radical $`B(K[S])`$ of $`K[S]`$. As in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we get that $`S/\rho `$ has an abelian-by-finite group of quotients. Moreover, if $`\text{char}(K)=0`$, then $`K[S/\rho ]`$ is semiprime (see for example , Theorem 7.19). In particular $`B(K[S])I(\rho )`$, the ideal of $`K[S]`$ determined by $`\rho `$.

We have seen that $`a\rho b`$ if and only if $`(ab)I=0=I(ab)`$. So $`I(\rho )I=II(\rho )=0`$. Hence, if $`P`$ is a prime ideal of $`K[S]`$ with $`PS=\mathrm{}`$ then $`I(\rho )P`$. If, on the other hand, $`P`$ is a prime ideal with $`PS\mathrm{}`$, then there exists $`bPS_X`$. So, by Lemma 4.6, $`S_X^k=bSP`$ for some positive integer $`k`$. It follows that $`S_XP`$.

Suppose that $`\alpha K[S]`$ belongs to the left annihilator $`\text{ann}_l(I)`$ of $`I`$ in $`K[S]`$. Then $`\alpha s=0`$ for all $`sI`$. Write $`\alpha =\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _m`$ with $`|\text{supp}(\alpha _i)s|=1`$ and $`\text{supp}(\alpha _i)s\text{supp}(\alpha _j)s`$ for $`ij`$. It follows that $`\alpha _is=0`$ for all $`i`$. So the augmentation of $`\alpha _i`$ is zero and it is clear that $`\alpha _iI(\rho )`$. From all the above it follows that $`I(\rho )\text{ann}_l(I)I(\rho )`$. Hence $`I(\rho )=\text{ann}_l(I)`$. By symmetry, $`I(\rho )=\text{ann}(I)`$, the two-sided annihilator of $`I`$. If $`\text{char}(K)=0`$, then $`I(\rho )`$ is a semiprime ideal and thus $`I(\rho )=_{P,I(\rho )P}P`$. So we have proved the following result. By $`X^0(K[S])`$ we denote the set of all the minimal primes of $`K[S]`$.

###### Proposition 6.3

If $`S`$ is a left and right non-degenerate semigroup of skew type, then

1. $`I(\rho )=\text{ann}(S_X^N)`$ for some $`N1`$,
2. $`I(\rho )P`$ for any $`PX^0(K[S])`$ with $`PS=\mathrm{}`$,
3. $`S_XP`$ for any $`PX^0(K[S])`$ with $`PS\mathrm{}`$.

If, furthermore, $`\text{char}(K)=0`$ then

$$B(K[S])=I(\rho )\underset{PX^0(K[S]),PS\mathrm{}}{}P=I(\rho )(\underset{PX^0(K[S]),S_XP}{}P).$$

Note that if $`S`$ is a left and right non-degenerate semigroup of skew type then there is at least one minimal prime $`P`$ so that $`PS=\mathrm{}`$. Indeed for otherwise the proposition implies that $`S_XB(K([S])`$. This yields a contradiction as $`S_X`$ is not nil.

## 7 Examples

Our first example shows that $`K[S]`$ can be a noetherian PI algebra even if $`S`$ is not non-degenerate.

###### Example 7.1

Let $`S=x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4`$ be the semigroup of skew type defined by

$$x_3x_2=x_1x_4\text{ and }x_4x_1=x_2x_3$$

with all the remaining relations in $`S`$ of the form $`xy=yx`$. Then, for every field $`K`$, $`K[S]`$ is a noetherian PI-algebra. Moreover $`B(K[S])=I(\rho )`$, and $`I(\rho )`$ is the only minimal prime of $`K[S]`$.

Proof. By the defining relations we get

$$x_3x_3x_2=x_3x_1x_4=x_1x_3x_4=x_1x_4x_3=x_3x_2x_3=$$

$$=x_3x_4x_1=x_4x_3x_1=x_4x_1x_3=x_2x_3x_3.$$

So $`x_3^2Z(S)`$. Similarly $`x_i^2Z(S)`$ for $`i=1,2,3,4`$. It is easy to see that $`S=\{x_1^{a_i}x_2^{a_2}x_3^{a_3}x_4^{a_4}|a_i0\}`$. It follows that $`K[S]`$ is a finite module over $`K[A]`$, where $`A=x_1^2,x_2^2,x_3^2,x_4^2`$. Therefore $`K[S]`$ is right and left noetherian. Notice that $`S`$ is right and left degenerate.

We claim that $`B(K[S])=I(\rho )`$ and the least cancellative congruence $`\rho `$ on $`S`$ coincides with the congruence determined by the natural homomorphism $`\varphi :K[S]K[C]`$, where $`C`$ is the commutative monoid obtained from $`S`$ by adding all the commutator relations to the defining relations of $`S`$. So $`C=a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4a_ia_j=a_ja_i,a_1a_4=a_3a_2`$. In fact, we have seen above that

$$x_3(x_2x_3x_3x_2)=0=(x_2x_3x_3x_2)x_3.$$

Similarly one shows that

$$y(x_2x_3x_3x_2)=0=(x_2x_3x_3x_2)y$$

for every $`y\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\}`$. Also,

$$y(x_1x_4x_4x_1)=0=(x_1x_4x_4x_1)y.$$

So $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )I(\rho )`$. Since $`C`$ embeds in a torsion-free group, $`K[C]`$ is a domain and we get $`I(\rho )=\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )`$. Also $`B(K[S])\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )`$, while $`(\mathrm{ker}\varphi )^2=0`$ by the displayed formulas. It follows that $`B(K[S])=I(\rho )`$. In particular, $`I(\rho )`$ is the only minimal prime of $`K[S]`$, so $`K[S]`$ has no minimal primes intersecting $`S`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following example shows that a right non-degenerate semigroup $`S`$ of skew type does not always yield a right noetherian algebra $`K[S]`$.

###### Example 7.2

Let $`S=x_1,x_2,x_3`$ be the monoid defined by the relations

$$x_2x_1=x_3x_1,x_1x_2=x_3x_2,x_1x_3=x_2x_3.$$

Then $`S`$ is right non-degenerate but not left non-degenerate and $`K[S]`$ is neither right nor left noetherian. Furthermore, $`S`$ is left cancellative and $`\text{GK}(K[S])=2`$.

Proof. Consider the elements $`a_n=x_1x_2^{n+1}x_1^nx_2^2K[S]`$, $`n=2,3\mathrm{}`$. We claim that $`a_nK[S]=\text{lin}_K\{a_nx_2^j|j0\}`$. Indeed, first note that

$$x_1x_2x_1=x_1x_3x_1=x_2x_3x_1=x_2x_2x_1.$$

Next

$`x_1x_2x_2x_1=x_1x_2x_3x_1=x_1x_1x_3x_1=x_1x_1x_2x_1=x_1x_3x_2x_1=`$
$`x_2x_3x_2x_1=x_2x_1x_2x_1=x_2x_1x_3x_1=x_2x_2x_3x_1=x_2x_2x_2x_1.`$
Using induction, we then also get for every $`a>2`$

$$x_1x_2^ax_1=x_1x_2^{a1}x_3x_1=x_1x_2^{a2}x_1x_3x_1=x_2^{a1}x_1x_3x_1=x_2^ax_3x_1=x_2^{a+1}x_1.$$

Now, for every $`n2`$ we get

$$a_nx_1=0$$

and

$$a_nx_3=(x_1x_2^nx_1^nx_2)x_2x_3=(x_1x_2^nx_1^nx_2)x_1x_3=0.$$

So the claim follows.

Now each element $`x_1^kx_2^q`$ can only be rewritten as $`syx_2^q`$ for some $`sS`$ and $`y\{x_1,x_3\}`$. It then easily follows that for $`n3`$ there do not exist $`\lambda _jK`$ so that

$$a_n=\underset{j=2}{\overset{n1}{}}\lambda _j(x_1x_2^{j+1}x_1^jx_2^2)x_2^{nj}.$$

Therefore, $`a_n_{j=2}^{n1}a_jK[S]`$ for every $`n`$. So, indeed $`K[S]`$ is not right noetherian (however, $`S`$ satisfies the ascending chain condition by Proposition 4.7).

If $`k<n`$ then $`x_2x_1^nSx_2x_1^k`$. This is clear from the defining relations. Namely, for every $`sS`$ the element $`sx_2x_1^k`$ can only be rewritten in the form $`tx_2x_1^k`$ or $`tx_3x_1^k`$ for some $`tS`$. So $`S`$ does not satisfy the ascending chain condition on left ideals and $`K[S]`$ is not left noetherian.

It can be verified that $`\text{GK}(K[S])=2`$. From the relations it also follows easily that $`S`$ is left cancellative. $`\mathrm{}`$

Our third example satisfies the cyclic condition, but the defining relations do not yield a Gröbner basis, so it is not of binomial type studied in ,. The aim is to show that one can get important structural information on $`K[S]`$. In particular we determine all minimal primes and the prime radical of $`K[S]`$. Recall that $`K[S]`$ is an affine PI algebra which is left and right noetherian by Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 2.3.

###### Example 7.3

Let $`S=x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4`$ be given by the presentation

$$x_4x_3=x_1x_4,x_4x_2=x_2x_4,x_4x_1=x_3x_4,$$

$$x_3x_2=x_1x_3,x_3x_1=x_2x_3,x_2x_1=x_1x_2.$$

The minimal primes of $`K[S]`$ are the ideals $`P_1=(x_1x_2,x_2x_3)=I(\rho )`$, $`P_2=(x_4)`$, $`P_3=(x_1,x_3)`$ and $`P_4=(x_2)`$. Moreover, $`K[S]`$ is semiprime, has dimension three and

$$S=x_1,x_2,x_3x_1x_4x_2x_4x_3x_4x_1x_2x_4.$$

Proof. First note that the following equalities hold in $`S`$:

$$x_1x_3x_4=x_1x_4x_1=x_4x_3x_1=x_4x_2x_3=x_2x_4x_3=x_2x_1x_4=x_1x_2x_4(7)$$

and

$$x_1x_2x_4=x_1x_4x_2=x_4x_3x_2=x_4x_1x_3=x_3x_4x_3=x_3x_1x_4=x_2x_3x_4.(8)$$

So $`x_1x_3x_4=x_1x_2x_4`$ and $`x_2x_1x_4=x_2x_3x_4`$. Therefore $`P_1=(x_2x_3,x_1x_3)I(\rho )`$. As $`K[S]/P_1K[Y_1,Y_4]`$, a polynomial ring in two commuting variables, we get that $`P_1`$ is a prime ideal of $`K[S]`$. So, by Proposition 6.3 and its following remark, $`P_1`$ is a minimal prime ideal of $`K[S]`$ (it has depth $`2`$), $`I(\rho )=P_1`$, and $`P_1`$ is the only minimal prime of $`K[S]`$ intersecting $`S`$ trivially.

Second note that $`x_4`$ is a normalizing element of $`S`$ and thus also a normalizing element of $`K[S]`$. Also $`K[S]/(x_4)K[x_1,x_2,x_3]`$ and because $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ is a binomial semigroup, we get that $`(x_4)`$ is a prime ideal of depth $`3`$.

Now, suppose $`P`$ is a prime ideal of $`K[S]`$ that does not contain $`x_4`$. The equations (7) and (8) yield that

$$I=(x_1(x_2x_3),(x_1x_2)x_3)P.$$

In the classical ring of quotients $`Q_{cl}(K[S]/P)`$ the element $`\overline{x_4}`$ is invertible (as it is regular in $`K[S]/P`$) and this element acts via conjugation on the set $`\{\overline{x_1},\overline{x_2},\overline{x_3}\}`$. Applying this conjugation action on the equations $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}=\overline{x_1}\overline{x_3}=\overline{x_2}\overline{x_3}`$ yields $`\overline{x_3}\overline{x_2}=\overline{x_3}\overline{x_1}=\overline{x_2}\overline{x_1}`$. As $`x_1x_2=x_2x_1`$ and thus $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}=\overline{x_2}\overline{x_1}`$ we get that the monoid $`\overline{x_1},\overline{x_2},\overline{x_3}`$ is abelian. It is easily verified that $`\overline{x_1},\overline{x_2},\overline{x_3}=\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}\overline{x_3}\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}`$. It follows that $`K[S]/P`$ is an epimorphic image of $`K[S/\tau ]`$, where $`\tau `$ is the smallest congruence generated by the relations in $`S`$ and the extra relations $`x_1x_2=x_1x_3=x_3x_1=x_2x_3=x_3x_2`$. Denote the image of $`x_i`$ in $`S/\tau `$ by $`y_i`$. Then we get $`S/\tau =\left(y_1y_2y_3y_1y_2\right)y_4`$. Moreover $`y_4`$ acts on $`T=y_1,y_2,y_3S/\tau `$ via an automorphism $`\sigma `$ of finite order. It follows that $`K[S/\tau ]=(K[T])[y_4,\sigma ]`$, a skew polynomial ring. Now the commutative semigroup $`T`$ is a semilattice of cancellative semigroups, each yielding an algebra which is a domain. Hence $`K[T]`$ is semiprime and thus so is the skew polynomial ring $`K[S/\tau ]`$. Moreover,

$$y_1(y_2y_3)=(y_1y_2)y_3=0.$$

Thus if $`Q`$ is a minimal prime ideal of the abelian algebra $`K[T]`$ then $`Q`$ contains one of the following ideals:

$$(y_1,y_3),(y_1,y_1y_2)=(y_1,y_2),(y_3,y_2y_3)=(y_3,y_2),(y_2y_3,y_1y_3).$$

It is easily seen that each of these ideals is a prime ideal of $`K[T]`$ of depth $`1`$. Hence these are all the minimal prime ideals of $`K[T]`$. Under the action of $`\sigma `$ there are thus precisely three orbits of minimal primes in $`K[T]`$. Hence the minimal $`\sigma `$-primes of $`K[T]`$ are $`(y_1,y_3)`$, $`(y_1,y_2)(y_2,y_3)=(y_2)`$ and $`(y_1y_3,y_2y_3)`$. Note also that

$$T(y_4)(y_2)(y_1,y_3)=\{y_1^\alpha y_2y_4^\gamma \alpha ,\gamma >0\}.(9)$$

It is easily seen (and well known from standard results on $`𝐙`$-graded rings) that the minimal primes of the skew polynomial algebra $`K[S/\tau ]=(K[T])[y_4,\sigma ]`$ are all ideals of the type $`M[y_4,\sigma ]`$ with $`M`$ a minimal $`\sigma `$-prime ideal of $`K[T]`$. Therefore the minimal primes of $`K[S/\tau ]`$ are $`(y_2)`$, $`(y_1,y_3)`$ and $`(y_1y_3,y_2y_3)`$.

All the above implies that if $`P`$ is a prime ideal of $`K[S]`$ that does not contain $`x_4`$, then $`P`$ contains one of the following incomparable prime ideals of depth $`2`$:

$$J+(x_2)=(x_2)=P_4,J+(x_1,x_3)=(x_1,x_3)=P_3\text{ or }P_1,$$

where $`J`$ is the kernel of the natural epimorphism $`K[S]K[S/\tau ]`$. As all these primes are incomparable with the prime $`P_2=(x_4)`$, we get that indeed $`P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4`$ are all the minimal prime ideals of $`K[S]`$. Because $`P_2`$ has maximal depth, $`K[S]`$ has dimension $`3`$.

From (9) we get that

$$(x_4)(x_2)(x_1,x_3)J+K[\{x_1^\alpha x_2x_4^\gamma \alpha ,\gamma >0\}](x_4)(x_2)(x_1,x_3).$$

Hence it follows easily that $`S(x_4)(x_2)(x_1,x_3)=\{x_1^\alpha x_2x_4^\gamma \alpha ,\gamma >0\}.`$

Since $`K[S]/(x_1x_2,x_2x_3)K[Y_1,Y_4]`$, a polynomial algebra in commuting variables, it also easily follows that $`x_1^\alpha x_2x_4^\gamma =x_1^\alpha ^{}x_2x_4^\gamma ^{}`$ if and only if $`\alpha =\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\gamma =\gamma ^{}`$. Hence $`(x_1x_2,x_2x_3)K[\{x_1^\alpha x_2x_4^\gamma \alpha ,\gamma >0\}]=\{0\}`$. As $`P_2P_3P_4=K[\{x_1^\alpha x_2x_4^\gamma \alpha ,\gamma >0\}]`$ we indeed obtain that $`K[S]`$ is semiprime.

Now earlier we have shown that $`x_1x_2x_4=x_1x_3x_4=x_2x_3x_4`$. Using these and the defining relations for $`S`$, it is easy to check that $`x_1^\alpha x_2^\beta x_3^\gamma x_4=x_1^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma 1}x_2x_4`$ in case that at least two of the exponents $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are nonzero. Hence

$$S=x_1,x_2,x_3\{x_1^\alpha x_4^\gamma ,x_2^\alpha x_4^\gamma ,x_3^\alpha x_4^\gamma ,x_1^\alpha x_2x_4^\gamma \alpha ,\gamma 0\}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

| T. Gateva-Ivanova |  | E. Jespers |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Institute of Mathematics |  | Department of Mathematics |
| Bulgarian Academy of Sciences |  | Vrije Universiteit Brussel |
| Sofia 1113 |  | Pleinlaan 2 |
| Bulgaria |  | 1050 Brussel, Belgium |
| J. Okniński |  |  |
| Institute of Mathematics |  |  |
| Warsaw University |  |  |
| Banacha 2 |  |  |
| 02-097 Warsaw, Poland |  |  |