text:
# Superconducting properties and Fermi-surface topology of the quasi-two-dimensional organic superconductor 𝜆-(BETS)2GaCl4.

## 1 Introduction

There is considerable current debate over the nature of superconductivity in quasi-two-dimensional (Q2D) crystalline organic metals . The most heavily studied members of this family of materials are the $`\kappa `$-phase BEDT-TTF salts (e.g. $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2. Whilst nuclear magnetic resonance , penetration-depth , tunnelling  and other experiments  appear to suggest that the superconductivity in these salts may be d-wave-like and mediated by spin-density-wave-like fluctuations, some doubts have been cast by recent controversial specific heat measurements, which may suggest that the order parameter does not possess the required nodes . Several theories  stress the importance of the details of the Fermi-surface topology in providing suitable prerequisites for superconductivity; if the Fermi-surface geometry and interactions are altered slightly, it appears that BCS-like s-wave superconductivity may be the dominant low-temperature groundstate .

Clearly, it is of importance to study organic superconductors with slight variations in Fermi-surface topology so that the effect on the superconducting groundstate can be assessed. In this paper we therefore report magnetotransport and radiofrequency penetration-depth measurements of the superconductor $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4. Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations, magnetic breakdown and angle-dependent magnetoresistance oscillations indicate that the effective masses of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 and much of the topology of its Fermi surface are similar to those of the most heavily-studied BEDT-TTF superconductor, $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2. However, the magnetoresistance close to $`\theta =90^{}`$ implies that the interplane transfer integral in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is approximately five times larger than that in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, suggesting that $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is less two-dimensional. This increased dimensionality is manifested in the superconducting properties of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4; a clear two-dimensional to three dimensional crossover is seen in the temperature dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$. We have also used the radiofrequency measurements to extract various parameters related to the interactions between the fluxoids and to reveal the melting of the vortex solid.

## 2 Background information

When the innermost four sulphur atoms of BEDT-TTF  are replaced by selenium to produce BETS (where BETS stands for bis(ethylenedithio)tetraselenafulvalene), electrocrystallization gives rise to a range of charge-transfer salts with notably different properties compared to their BEDT-TTF counterparts . Salts of the $`\lambda `$-phase morphology are presently unique to the BETS series, and $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 ($`T_\mathrm{c}5`$ K) remains the only superconducting BETS charge-transfer salt found thus far .

Crystals of the $`\lambda `$-phase exist in the form of needles with the long axis of the needle corresponding to the shortest lattice vector $`𝐜`$ . At first sight, the crystal structure looks quasi-one-dimensional, with the BETS molecules packing roughly parallel in the planes between the anions . However, the BETS sites are not equivalent, and the cation molecules in fact occur in dimers, surrounded roughly isotropically by four nearest-neighbour dimers with the same orientation. The crystallographic unit cell contains two dimers, and hence contributes two holes . Although the details of the cation positioning and symmetry are rather different than in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 , the overall similarity of the dimer arrangements lead one to expect a Fermi surface for $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 which is topologically similar to that in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2. Indeed, the calculated bandstructure of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 predicts a Fermi surface consisting of a quasi-two-dimensional (Q2D) hole pocket (the $`\alpha `$ pocket) and a pair of warped quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) sheets . According to the calculations, the $`\alpha `$ pocket in this case is expected to occupy $`2833`$ % of the Brillouin zone .

## 3 Magnetotransport studies.

### 3.1 Experimental details.

Single crystals of approximately $`1\times 0.1\times 0.05`$ mm3 were synthesized using electrochemical techniques  employing a 1,1,-trichloroethane/1,1,2-trichloroethane/ethanol solvent system . For the purpose of performing four-wire resistance measurements, $`12\mu `$m gold leads were attached to the samples using graphite paint. In the pulsed field experiments, the resistance was measured using a $`10\mu `$A ac current with a frequency of 200 kHz . The voltage was measured using a high-speed lock-in amplifier. Temperatures as low as $``$ 340 mK were achieved by immersing the sample in liquid 3He inside a plastic cryostat . Capacitor-driven, $`40`$ millisecond-duration pulsed magnetic fields of up to 60 T were provided by the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL), Los Alamos. Angle-dependent magnetoresistance (AMRO) studies were made using a two-axis rotation insert  in quasistatic magnetic fields of up to 30 T provided by NHMFL, Tallahassee. In the AMRO experiments, an ac current of $`5\mu `$A (frequency $`3080`$ Hz) was used for the resistance measurements, and a stable base temperature of 1.4 K was obtained by pumping on 4He liquid. In both pulsed and quasistatic measurements, the current through the sample was driven in the interplane $`𝐛^{}`$ direction; in such a configuration the measured resistance is accurately proportional to the interplane resistivity component $`\rho _{zz}`$ .

### 3.2 Pulsed-field magnetotransport: Shubnikov-de Haas and magnetic breakdown oscillations.

Figure 1 shows the magnetoresistance of a $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 crystal obtained using pulsed magnetic fields; the temperature was 340 mK and the magnetic field was applied parallel to the $`𝐛^{}`$ direction (i.e. perpendicular to the Q2D planes of the crystal) . After the superconducting to normal transition, the resistance risies until a series of low-frequency Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations emerges at about 33 T. These grow in amplitude, until at about 45 T, a higher frequency series of oscillations becomes visible. The inset shows a Fourier transform of the magnetoresistance data. The lower of the two frequencies $`F_\alpha `$ (believed to originate from the $`\alpha `$ pocket) is $`650\pm 5`$ T. The higher frequency of $`4030\pm 25`$ T, which occurs at fields above $``$ 45 T, corresponds to an area in $`k`$-space approximately equal to the Brillouin-zone cross-section; following common usage in other charge-transfer salts , we will refer to this as the $`\beta `$ frequency $`F_\beta `$. Frequencies equivalent to the Brillouin-zone area are readily observed in other charge-transfer salts (typically in $`\kappa `$ and $`\alpha `$-phase salts of the form (BEDT-TTF)2X) as a result of magnetic breakdown, whereby electrons tunnel between the Q1D and Q2D sections of the Fermi surface .

The observation of magnetic breakdown is not unexpected in this material, given the small size of the gap between the Q2D and Q1D Fermi-surface sections predicted by the bandstructure calculations . However, the experimentally-observed value of $`F_\alpha 650`$ T is roughly a factor two smaller than that predicted by the calculations. Discrepancies between model and experiment of this size are not unknown in charge-transfer salts .

### 3.3 Effective mass determination.

Although the Fermi surface of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is Q2D, the relatively small amplitudes of the oscillations in the magnetoresistance (see Figure 1), and the absence of harmonics in the Fourier transform (inset to Figure 1) imply that the Lifshitz-Kosevich (LK) theory should provide an accurate description of the temperature dependence of the oscillations . According to this theory, the thermal damping factor has the form

$$R_T(B,T)=\frac{\chi (\frac{m^{}}{m_\mathrm{e}})\frac{T}{B}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\chi (\frac{m^{}}{m_\mathrm{e}})\frac{T}{B})},$$
(1)
where $`\chi =14.69`$ TK-1 and $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ is the free electron mass. On fitting the amplitudes of the oscillations as a function of temperature (14 different temperatures ranging from 340 mK to 3.0 K were used) we obtain the effective masses $`m_\alpha ^{}=3.6\pm 0.1m_\mathrm{e}`$ for $`F_\alpha `$ and $`m_\beta ^{}=6.3\pm 1m_\mathrm{e}`$ for $`F_\beta `$.

Table 1 compares the effective masses and Fermi-surface areas obtained in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 and the most heavily-studied $`\kappa `$-phase BEDT-TTF superconductor, $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2  (see Section 3.2 of Reference  for similar data on other $`\kappa `$-phase BEDT-TTF salts). Note that the Fermi-surface parameters of the two salts are remarkably similar. Moreover, bandstructure calculations in both salts predict $`m_\alpha ^{}m_\mathrm{e}`$ , whereas the observed masses are a factor $`3.5`$ bigger than this, indicating that interactions which renormalise the quasiparticle masses  are of similar importance in both materials. In both cases, the bandstructure calculations  predict that $`m_\beta ^{}2m_\alpha ^{}`$, in reasonable agreement with the experimental values, and suggesting that the renormalising interactions influence both Q1D and Q2D Fermi-surface sections in a similar manner .

The only marked difference between $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 and $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 is the relatively high value of the Dingle Temperature in the former material; the rate of growth of the oscillations with increasing field (see Figure 1) suggests a Dingle temperature of $`T_\mathrm{D}3.2\pm 0.1`$ K for the $`\alpha `$ pocket. Typical values of $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 crystals  (and indeed in $`\kappa `$-phase BETS salts ) are often a factor $`5`$ smaller than this, indicating that the impurity scattering rate in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is relatively high. The reason for this difference is not yet clear.

### 3.4 Angle-dependent magnetoresistance oscillations (AMROs).

Figure 2(a) shows the magnetoresistance of a $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 crystal as a function of $`\theta `$, the angle between the applied magnetic field and $`𝐛^{}`$. Data are shown for a number of different $`\varphi `$ angles, where $`\varphi `$ is azimuthal angle between the plane of rotation and the $`𝐛^{}𝐜`$ plane. Distinct AMROs are observed; their $`\varphi `$ dependence suggests that they are caused by a Q2D Fermi-surface section . In such a case, maxima in the magnetoresistance occur at angles $`\theta _i`$ defined by

$$b^{}k_{}\mathrm{tan}\theta _i=\pi (i\pm \frac{1}{4})+A(\varphi ),$$
(2)
where $`i`$ is an integer, $`k_{}`$ is the maximum Fermi wave-vector projection on the plane of rotation of the field and $`b^{}`$ is the effective interplane spacing (see Fig. 2(b)). On plotting the positions of the maxima $`\theta _i`$ versus $`i`$, taking account of the correct sign of the $`\frac{\pi }{4}`$ term , we obtain straight lines at all azimuthal angles in accordance with these expectations. On choosing $`b^{}`$ to be interlayer spacing ($`18.4`$Å) obtained from X-ray diffraction studies , we obtain the locus for $`k_{}`$ versus $`\varphi `$ shown in Figure 3(a).

A locus in the shape of a figure of eight is the usual result for a pocket of elliptical cross-section . For a pocket of ideal elliptical geometry, the locus of $`k_{}`$ is given by

$$k_{}=[k_x^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi \xi _{\mathrm{inc}})+k_y^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi \xi _{\mathrm{inc}})]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(3)
where $`\xi _{\mathrm{inc}}`$ is the inclination of the major axis of the ellipse with respect to $`𝐛^{}𝐜`$ plane. The parameters $`k_x=4.86\pm 0.08`$nm-1, $`k_y=1.63\pm 0.01`$nm-1 and $`\xi _{\mathrm{inc}}=19\pm 5^{}`$ yield the best fit (solid curves in Figure 3(a)).

The values of $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ deduced from the AMRO data indicate an ellipse area corresponding to a Shubnikov-de Haas frequency of $`2608\pm 60`$ T. This is almost exactly four times larger than the value of $`F_\alpha `$ observed in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 (see Table 1). It is inconceivable that this value of $``$ 2608 T could be the actual area of the $`\alpha `$ pocket, as it would then occupy $``$ 66 % of the Brillouin zone. Quantum oscillation measurements remain the definitive method for obtaining Fermi-surface cross-section areas . On the other hand, the AMRO measurements shown in Figure 2 behave exactly as one would expect for a Q2D Fermi-surface pocket , with no evidence for any significant misalignment of the sample; i.e. the fits to Equation 2 are straight lines and the peak feature at $`\theta 90^{}`$ occurs at $`90^{}`$ for all azimuthal angles.

A possible explanation is that the true interlayer spacing (as perceived by the quasiparticles) is double the unit-cell height, or that there is a modulation of the lattice in the crystallographic $`𝐛`$ direction; this would result in an effective interlayer spacing of $`b^{}=2\times 18.4`$ Å $`36.8`$ Å. Such a modulation of the lattice could occur in the event of a charge-density-wave (CDW) or spin-density-wave (SDW) instability; however, there is as yet no other evidence for the presence of such a groundstate (c.f. numerous other charge-transfer salts in which CDWs or SDWs cause extensive modification of the quantum-oscillation spectrum ). If such a modulation exists, it is too weak to be picked up by a careful X-ray study at 115 K (Bruker-AXS SMART6000 CCD, complete sphere of data, sixty-second frames, 0.3 degree scans) . However, this does not rule out the possibility that doubling occurs at a lower temperature .

Whatever the mechanism, a doubling of $`b^{}`$ (see Equation 2) would result in the Fermi-surface parameters $`k_x=2.43\pm 0.04`$nm-1, $`k_y=0.815\pm 0.005`$nm-1 and $`\xi _{\mathrm{inc}}=19\pm 5^{}`$, yielding an ellipse area corresponding to a Shubnikov-de Haas frequency of $`652\pm 15`$ T, in very good agreement with $`F_\alpha =650\pm 5`$ T derived in Section 3.2. Figure 3(b) shows an elliptical-cross-section Q2D pocket of this size and orientation alongside the most recent calculation of the Fermi surface , based on structural studies carried out at 17 K. The Q2D pocket measured experimentally is smaller and somewhat more elongated than that suggested by the calculations; it occupies $`16`$ % of the Brillouin zone, whereas the Q2D pocket of the calculation is 28 % of the Brillouin-zone area. However, such discrepancies between calculation and experiment are not without precedent in crystalline organic metals .

### 3.5 Estimate of the interplane transfer integral

We now turn to the small peak in the magnetoresistance component $`\rho _{zz}`$ observed at $`\theta =90^{}`$ in Figure 2. Thus far, we have treated only the Fermi-surface cross-section in the $`𝐚^{}𝐜^{}`$ plane (see Figure 3(b)). However, a small, but finite interlayer transfer integral will lead to a warping of the Fermi surface in the interlayer $`𝐛^{}`$ direction (see Section 2 of Reference ). When the magnetic field is almost exactly in the plane of the warping, a few closed orbits become possible on the warped sections of the Fermi surface (e.g. on the “bellies” of the warped Q2D Fermi cylinders) . For certain orientations of an in-plane field, closed orbits will be possible on both the Q1D sheets and Q2D cylinders of a Fermi surface such as that shown in Figure 3(b); at other orientations of an in-plane field, only the Q2D cylinders will be able to support closed orbits on their bellies. Such orbits are very effective at averaging the interplane velocity component $`v_z`$, and hence lead to a peak in $`\rho _{zz}`$ .

As the magnetic field is tilted away from the in-plane direction ($`\theta =90^{}`$), the closed orbits will cease to be possible when $`\theta =90^{}\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$, where the angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{radians})\frac{v_{}}{v_{||}},$$
(4)
where $`v_{}`$ is the maximum interlayer quasiparticle velocity and $`v_{||}`$ is the intralayer component of the quasiparticle velocity in the plane of rotation of the magnetic field . If the quasiparticle dispersion $`E(k_b)`$ in the interlayer direction is assumed to follow a simple tight-binding model, $`E(k_b)=2t_{}\mathrm{cos}(k_bb)`$ , where $`t_{}`$ is the interlayer transfer integral, then

$$v_{}=2t_{}b/\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where we have used the relationship $`\mathrm{}𝐯=_𝐤E(𝐤)`$  to obtain $`v_{}`$ from $`E(k_b)`$ . Equations 4 and 5 therefore show that there is a direct proportionality between $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the angular width of the peak in $`\rho _{zz}`$, and the interlayer transfer integral, $`t_{}`$.

Figure 4 shows how the angular width $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the peak in $`\rho _{zz}`$ is defined; the limits of the peak are defined by the intersections of extrapolations of the background magnetoresistance and the edges of the peak . Similar data for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 from Reference  are plotted for comparison; note how the peak at $`90^{}`$ is much narrower. Given the similarity of their intralayer Fermi-surface properties (see Table 1), this comparison immediately suggests a much smaller $`t_{}`$ in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 than in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4.

In order to obtain a quantitative estimate of $`t_{}`$, it is necessary to use reliable values of $`v_{||}`$ . Figure 3(b) suggests that when the in-plane magnetic field is close to the $`𝐚^{}`$ direction, it is likely that both Q1D and Q2D Fermi-surface sections will be able to support closed orbits; conversely, when the magnetic field is well away from this orientation, only the Q2D cylinder will be able to support closed orbits. As most of the accurate information deduced from the experiments in the previous Sections concerns the Q2D Fermi-surface section, we concentrate on the range of $`\varphi `$ over which it alone will determine the peak at $`\theta =90^{}`$.

We assume an effective-mass-tensor approximation for the in-plane motion on the Q2D Fermi-surface section ;

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_x^2}{2m_1}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_y^2}{2m_2}$$
(6)
Here $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are effective masses for linear motion in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. The cyclotron effective mass in such an approximation is $`m^{}=(m_1m_2)^{1/2}`$ . Using the lengths of the axes of the elliptical cross-section of the Q2D Fermi-surface section derived from the AMROs (2.43 nm-1 and 0.815 nm-1; see previous section- we have divided by 2 to account for apparent doubling of the unit-cell height) and $`m^{}=3.6m_\mathrm{e}`$ (Table 1), we obtain $`\frac{m_1}{m_2}=\left(\frac{2.43}{0.815}\right)^2`$ and $`m_1m_2=(3.6m_\mathrm{e})^2=12.96m_\mathrm{e}^2`$, yielding $`m_1=10.73m_\mathrm{e}`$, $`m_2=1.207m_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{F}20.95`$ meV (c.f $`m_1=10.59m_\mathrm{e}`$, $`m_2=1.177m_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{F}18.4`$ meV in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 ). Hence, using $`\mathrm{}𝐯=_𝐤E(𝐤)`$ , and constraining $`E=E_\mathrm{F}`$, the velocities $`v_{||}(\varphi )`$ may be derived for the Q2D Fermi-surface section.

The widths $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ derived from data such as those in Figure 4 are plotted as a function of $`\varphi `$ in Figure 5. The Figure also shows the prediction of Equation 4 using $`v_{||}`$ derived from Equation 6; the only fit parameter is $`t_{}`$ (see Equation 5). We have chosen to fit data for ranges of $`\varphi `$ at which the Q2D pocket is expected to be the sole provider of closed orbits for in-plane magnetic fields; i.e. we avoided field orientations close to $`𝐚^{}`$ ($`\varphi =90^{}`$) and $`𝐚^{}`$ ($`\varphi =270^{}`$) (dashed lines) at which the Q1D sheets might also be expected to provide closed orbits in an in-plane field (see Figure 3(b)). (Note that the experimental data show a strong peak close to $`\varphi =90^{}`$ and $`270^{}`$ (instead of the minimum predicted by the model) suggesting that the Q1D sections are indeed the dominant cause of the peak in $`\rho _{zz}`$ at these orientations.) The fit yields $`v_{}1200`$ ms-1, so that $`t_{}0.21`$ meV . A similar procedure has been carried out for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, giving an interplane transfer integral of $`t_{}0.04`$ meV . Therefore, the interplane transfer integral in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is a factor $`5`$ bigger than that in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2.

### 3.6 Summary.

In summary, the magnetoresistance measurements indicate that the Fermi surface of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 bears a strong resemblance to that of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 within the highly-conducting Q2D planes. Moreover, the effective masses in the two salts are almost identical and the renormalising interactions are probably of a similar strength.

The width of the peak in the magnetoresistance close to $`\theta =90^{}`$ suggests that the interplane transfer integral in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is approximately five times bigger than that in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2. This implies that $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is a less two-dimensional material.

## 4 Penetration-depth measurements.

### 4.1 Experimental details.

In the current experiments, the penetration depth was inferred by placing the superconducting sample in a small coil which is the inductive element of a resonant tank circuit . The exclusion of flux from the sample, and hence the coil, decreases the inductance of the circuit; consequently the resonant angular frequency, $`\omega =1/\sqrt{LC}`$, will increase. The well-known properties of inductors  lead to $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A_\varphi }{A_C}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }L}{L}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_\varphi `$ is the change in flux area, $`A_\mathrm{C}`$ is the area of the measurement coil, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ is the change in inductance and $`L`$ is the total inductance. For small changes in inductance, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }L}{L_0}=2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f_0}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ is the change in resonant frequency, $`f_0`$ is the initial resonant frequency, and $`L_0`$ is the initial inductance. Through simple geometrical relations it can be shown that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A_\varphi }{A_C}=\frac{2r_s\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^2}{R^2},$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is the change in penetration depth, $`R`$ is the effective radius of the coil, $`r_s`$ is the effective sample radius. Simple estimates for the sample sizes used in the current experiments show that the second-order term is negligible , so that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\frac{R^2}{r_s}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f}{f_0}.$$
(8)
The $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 samples used in the current study have a needle-like geometry ; a typical example had approximate dimensions $`2\times 0.170\times 0.084`$ mm3. In order to maximize the filling factor and cross sectional area, the coil was made rectangular, with an effective area of $`1.34`$ mm2; for the sample mentioned above, the effective sample radius is half the shortest dimension (0.042 mm) (note that the long axis of the crystal is perpendicular to the coil axis). Calibration was achieved by placing a spherical superconducting sphere of known size in the coil . The sample was orientated in the coil so that the oscillating magnetic field was parallel to the crystallographic $`𝐛^{}`$ direction, i.e. perpendicular to the highly-conducting planes . The tank-circuit capacitance was provided by a 30 pF mica capacitor, and the circuit was driven at $`f25`$ MHz by a tunnel-diode oscillator . The sample and coil were placed in a 3He cryostat or dilution refrigerator. Quasistatic magnetic fields of up to 30 T were applied parallel to $`𝐛^{}`$.

Figure 6 shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ of a $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 crystal (deduced from the frequency of the tank circuit using Equation 8) as a function of temperature. The sharp rise in penetration between 4.5 K and 5.1 K gives a very clear indication of the superconducting to normal transition; above this temperature $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 80\mu `$m (i.e. comparable to the shortest dimension of the sample), indicating that the radiofrequency fields penetrate the whole crystal once it is in the normal state. This is in agreement with estimates of the low-temperature normal-state conductivity for $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 , which lead one to expect an in-plane skin depth $`\delta 100\mu `$.

### 4.2 Measurements at low magnetic fields: determination of pinning parameters

Wu and Sridhar  have treated the repulsively interacting flux lines in a type-II superconductor as periodic, damped harmonic-oscillator potentials modulated by a rf field. The physical justification of their model is that the repulsive interaction of the fluxoids causes the Abrikosov lattice  to resist higher flux densities in a manner analogous to the way in which a two dimensional network of springs resists compression. In such a model, the Labusch pinning potential parameter $`\alpha `$ corresponds to the restoring force on fluxoids displaced slightly by the current density $`J`$ induced by the radiofrequency field : $`\eta \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t}+\alpha x=\varphi _0J`$. Here $`x`$ is the fluxoid displacement, $`\eta `$ is a damping parameter and $`\varphi _0`$ is the flux quantum . In other words, a small perturbation displaces the fluxoid from its equilibrium position against the restoring force provided by the repulsion from neighbouring fluxoids and the pinning potential.

In the limit of small magnetic field ($`HB_{\mathrm{c2}}`$), the damping due to fluxoid viscous drag  may be neglected, leading to a linear relationship between changes in the square of the penetration depth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^2`$ and the magnetic induction $`B`$ inside the sample ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^2=\frac{\varphi _0}{\mu _0\alpha (T)}B(H).$$
(9)
Figure 7 (inset) shows the field dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^2`$ at a temperature of $`T=700`$ mK. The sample is well inside the mixed state for fields above $`\mu _0H0.01`$ T, so that $`B=\mu _0H`$; hence, the linear dependence predicted by Equation 9 fits the data well, yielding a Labusch parameter of $`\alpha (700\mathrm{mK})1.4`$ Nm-2.

Data similar to those in the inset of Figure 7 were acquired at a range of temperatures; the resulting values of $`\alpha `$ are plotted in Figure 7 (main figure) as a function of temperature. The solid line fit through the data in Figure 7 is the predicted temperature dependence from the two-fluid Gorter-Casmir  model,

$$\alpha \left[1\left(\frac{T}{T_\mathrm{c}}\right)^4\right].$$
(10)
Figure 7 also highlights some of the differences between organic superconductors and the “high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$” cuprates. As $`T0`$, the Labusch parameter in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 tends to $`1.5`$ Nm-2, almost four orders of magnitude smaller than that in YBa2Cu3O7 . Moreover, whereas the two-fluid model is able to describe the $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 data to a fair degree of accuracy, the pinning-force parameter in YBa2Cu3O7 has been shown to follow the temperature dependence $`(1(T/T_\mathrm{c})^2)^2`$ .

### 4.3 Measurements at high magnetic fields: deviation from Campbell penetration-depth behaviour and upper critical field.

Figure 8 shows the measured change in penetration depth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ for $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 at intermediate fields and a temperature of 700 mK. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ varies approximately as $`\sqrt{H}`$, as expected in the Campbell scenario for fluxoid motion . However, above a field which we label $`\mu _0H^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ deviates from the $`\sqrt{H}`$ dependence; this implies that the periodic harmonic well models  are no longer applicable. At fields above $`\mu _0H^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ follows the approximate field dependence $`H^2`$, until the penetration depth saturates.

The identification of the upper critical field in organic superconductors from conductivity data has been the subject of considerable debate ; the transition is intrinsically broad, and phenomena such as a pronounced “hump” in the resistivity and negative magnetoresistance are observed close to $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ . (Note that similar complications also afflict the “High-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$” cuprates .) Recently, a concensus has emerged whereby most of the transition region between zero resistance and normal-state magnetoresistance is regarded as a property of the mixed phase (see References  and references therein); $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is then defined as the intersection of the extrapolations of the transition region and the normal-state magnetoresistance .

In penetration depth measurements, the broadening is less severe since the measurement is not dependent on a macroscopic net current flow across the sample . The pinned fluxoids probed by rf fields do not experience as large an electric field gradient and hence the dissipation associated with the normal core is reduced . Nevertheless, the transition is still somewhat broadened, and so we follow the same spirit of the convention used in resistivity studies  and the GHz penetration depth studies of Reference , defining $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ as the intersection of extrapolations of the penetration-depth curves below and above the point at which the saturation occurs (see Figure 8). We can be confident that the saturated behaviour is characteristic of the normal state, as it continues up to at least 30 T without further features. This strongly suggests that the whole of the sample is penetrated by the rf fields in the normal state, as suggested in Section 4.1.

The values of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ and $`H^{}`$ deduced from the pentration depth measurements are shown as a function of temperature in Figure 9. Four different $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 samples, taken from four separate growth batches, were used in the study. There were negligible differences in their behaviour, and the data from the four samples in Figure 9 overlie each other, suggesting that the characteristic fields measured are intrinsic properties of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4. We shall return to the temperature dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ in a later section.

### 4.4 Flux-lattice melting at $`H^{}`$.

We now turn to the change in behaviour which occurs at the field $`H^{}`$ (see Figure 8). We attribute the change at $`H^{}`$ to flux-line lattice melting, as $`H^{}`$ follows the $`(T_\mathrm{c}T)^2`$ dependence expected from the Gorter-Casimir two-fluid model .

Additional support for this attribution comes from considering microscopic models of the melting process. Houghton et al.  have considered the elastic moduli of the flux-line lattice and proposed that melting occurs when the mean thermal flux-line displacement $`d(T)`$ is a substantial fraction of the Abrikosov lattice parameter $`\mathrm{}=(2\varphi _0/\sqrt{3}B)^{1/2}`$, i.e., $`d(T)c_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{}`$. Here $`c_\mathrm{L}`$ is the Lindemann parameter , a function used very generally in the description of solid-liquid transitions; typically $`c_\mathrm{L}0.10.2`$. The explicit expression for $`d(T)`$ is

$$d(T)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(\frac{G_i}{\gamma ^2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{t}{(1t)^{1/2}}\frac{b}{(1b)}\left(\frac{4(\sqrt{2}1)}{(1b)^{1/2}}+1\right)\mathrm{}^2}$$
(11)
where $`t=T/T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`b=B/B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$. The parameter $`G_i=(16\pi ^3\kappa ^4(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2)/(\varphi _0^3H_{c2}(0))`$ describes the importance of fluctuations in a given system; $`\gamma `$ is the anisotropy term defined by

$$\gamma \frac{\xi _{xy}}{\xi _z},$$
(12)
with $`\xi _{xy}`$ and $`\xi _z`$ being the in-plane and interplane coherence lengths respectively. $`\kappa `$ is another Ginzburg-Landau parameter giving the ratio of penetration depth to the coherence length for a particular orientation . In this case we require $`\kappa =\frac{\lambda }{\xi _{}}`$. Using Ginzberg-Landau theory in the limit $`T0`$  yields $`\xi _{}`$ 1.4 nm and $`\lambda `$150 nm for $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4, resulting in $`\kappa 107`$.

In this model, the melting field at each temperature can be interpreted as the point at which the product of $`c_\mathrm{L}`$ and the lattice spacing is roughly equal to the average flux line displacement. Thus, an increasing field reduces the average inter-vortex spacing, thereby facilitating melting . Substituting $`\mu _0H^{}1`$ T at $`T=700`$ mK and $`\kappa =107`$ into the above equations yields a flux-line displacement of approximately 6.0 nm, roughly 12$`\%`$ of the Abrikosov lattice spacing. This implies that $`c_\mathrm{L}0.12`$, a value entirely typical of a solid-liquid transition .

In isotropic superconducting systems, the melting of the flux-line lattice occurs so close to $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ as to be indistinguishable from it . However, in materials such as $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 (and in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2; see References ), the large anisotropy of the superconducting properties permits the melting line to be observed over extended regions of the $`HT`$ phase diagram, well clear of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$.

## 5 Discussion: comparison of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 with $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2; dimensional cross-over.

Having seen in Section 3 that the Fermi surfaces of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 and $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 bear some striking similarities within the Q2D planes but have interplane transfer integrals differing by a factor $`5`$, it is interesting to compare their superconducting properties.

The work of Belin et al.  has shown that conventional resistivity measurements can yield unrepresentative values for the upper critical field of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 (see also ); the difficulties result from the dissipative mechanisms mentioned in Section 4.3, which act to broaden the resistive transition . Thermal conductivity, magnetisation and penetration depth measurements seem to be less susceptible to these problems and give a better reflection of the true $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ . We have therefore compiled the $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$ plot in Figure 10 using available thermal conductivity , magnetisation  and MHz  and microwave ($`1225`$ GHz)  penetration measurements. There is some scatter amongst the data from different measurements, but all suggest that $`(H_{\mathrm{c2}}/T)`$ increases in magnitude as $`T`$ increases, and in fact the power law $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T_\mathrm{c}T)^{2/3}`$ is quite successful in describing the data (Figure 10).

A material made up of weakly-coupled superconducting planes may transform from a three-dimensional system to what is in effect a series of two-dimensional superconductors as the interlayer coherence length decreases with decreasing temperature . The dimensional crossover occurs when the interplane coherence length $`\xi _z`$ becomes shorter than the interplane spacing of the quasi-two-dimensional layers. Muon-spin rotation studies  have shown that this transition occurs in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 at magnetic fields $`7`$ mT, i.e. three orders of magnitude smaller than typical values of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ (Figure 10). This strongly suggests that the variation of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ shown in Figure 10 is typical of a quasi-two-dimensional superconductor consisting of weakly-coupled layers .

Figure 9 shows that the upper critical field of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 (conducting planes perpendicular to the applied magnetic field) has a linear region $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T_\mathrm{c}T)`$ that spans from $`T_c`$ to approximately 1.9 K. Below 1.9 K, a definite change in the slope of the upper critical field occurs, and $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ begins to follow the power law $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T^{}T)^\zeta `$, with $`T^{}`$ a fit parameter; powers $`\zeta `$ in the range $`0.50.7`$ provide an adequate fit to the data.

The behaviour of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 at temperatures below 1.9 K is therefore very similar to that of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 over the whole temperature range shown in Figure 10, and is thus characteristic of a two-dimensional superconductor with weakly-coupled layers . On the other hand, the linear variation of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 at higher temperatures follows the expectations of Ginzberg-Landau theory for three-dimensional superconductors . We therefore attribute the change in gradient at 1.9 K to dimensional cross-over from quasi-two-dimensional (low temperatures) to three dimensional (high temperatures). As we shall now show, this is entirely consistent with estimates of the interplane coherence length in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4.

The magnetic-field-orientation dependence of $`B_{\mathrm{c2}}`$  in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is qualitatively similar to the predictions of the Ginzberg-Landau anisotropic effective mass approximation

$$B_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta )=\frac{B_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta =0)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )+\gamma ^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )}},$$
(13)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐛^{}`$ and the applied magnetic field and $`\gamma `$ has been defined in Equation 12. Using Ginzberg-Landau theory , the in-plane coherence length may be estimated from the upper critical field when the magnetic field is parallel to $`𝐛^{}`$:

$$H_{\mathrm{c2}}(\theta =0)=\frac{\varphi _0}{2\pi \xi _{xy}^2}.$$
(14)
Fits of the $`\theta `$ dependence of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ at $`T=1.75`$ K  (the temperature at which the change in gradient in Figure 9 occurs) yield $`\xi _z1.85`$ nm, almost identical with the interplane spacing, and supporting our assertion that the change in gradient in Figure 9 at 1.9 K is associated with a dimensional crossover.

Dimensional crossovers with the magnetic field applied perpendicular to the Q2D planes have been observed in artificial Q2D superconducting structures  and in organic superconductors such as $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 ; however, in the majority of these cases, the effect of the crossover is observed at magnetic fields less than $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$. $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is perhaps unique in providing the correct anisotropy for the crossover to be observed in the behaviour of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$.

In Section 3.5 we demonstrated that the interplane transfer integral in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is a factor $`5`$ larger than that in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2. The greater “three dimensionality” of the bandstructure of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 compared to $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 obviously manifests itself in the superconducting behaviour (compare Figures 9 and 10); whereas $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 exhibits 2D-3D dimensional crossover in its $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$ behaviour, $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}(T)`$ in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 is entirely characteristic of a Q2D superconductor.

## 6 Summary

In summary, we have measured the Fermi surface topology of the organic superconductor $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 using Shubnikov-de Haas and angle-dependent magnetoresistance oscillations. The data show that the Fermi-surface topology of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is very similar indeed to that of the most heavily-studied organic superconductor, $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, except in one important respect; the interplane transfer integral in $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is a factor $`5`$ larger than that in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2. The increased three-dimensionality of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 is manifested in radiofrequency penetration-depth measurements, which show a clear dimensional crossover in the behaviour of $`H_{\mathrm{c2}}`$. The radiofrequency measurements have also been used to extract the Labusch parameter determining the fluxoid interactions as a function of temperature, and to map the flux-lattice melting curve.

We have observed a discrepancy between the angle-dependent magnetoresistance oscillation and Shubnikov-de Haas data which suggests that the true unit cell height at low temperatures is double that inferred from X-ray studies. At present, this has not been detected by other techniques.

It is interesting to note that the anisotropies and Ginzberg-Landau parameters of the organic superconductors $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 (this work) and $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2  span the typical values found in “High $`T_\mathrm{c}`$” cuprates such as YBCO and BISCCO . However, as the current work has shown, in contrast to the cuprates, the Fermi-surface topologies and complete phase diagrams of organic superconductors such as $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 and $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 can be mapped out in detail using accessible laboratory fields. Moreover, details of the bandstructure in the organics can be related directly to the superconducting properties. The availability of a large number of organic superconductors of varying dimensionality and bandstructure  should potentially allow very stringent experimental tests of models of superconductivity in layered materials to be carried out.

## 7 Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the State of Florida and EPSRC (UK). Acknowledgement is made to the donors of The Petroleum Research Fund, administered by the ACS, for partial support of this research. CHM thanks J.S. Brooks for very useful insights into the radiofrequency measurement technique. We are grateful to Stephen Hill and Monty Mola for their considerable help in compiling Figure 10 and Kazumi Maki, Ross McKenzie and Stephen Blundell for illuminating discussions. Paul Goddard, Mike Whangbo and J.-H. Koo are thanked for permission to use data and calculations from References  prior to publication. Finally, we acknowledge the suggestions of one of the Referees, which have helped to clarify several points.

## 8 Appendix: a note on the radiofrequency response.

In the current paper we have extracted parameters which describe the superconducting state of $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 under the assumption that all of the apparent changes in the penetration of the radiofrequency field are due to the variation of $`\lambda `$. It is therefore very important to assess whether this assumption is valid. Moreover, as little has been written in the literature about the radiofrequency techniques employed, it is useful to summarise the artefacts which can affect the experimental data. For future reference, we hope that it is also useful to provide estimates of some of the paramters used in the theory used to model experimental data .

Coffey and Clem  have treated the behaviour of a superconductor in a rf field over a broad frequency range. Using their approach, the contributions to the penetration depth signal from surface-impedance and skin-depth effects can be evaluated as the temperature or applied magnetic field are varied. The model defines boundaries at which the surface-impedance and skin-depth effects become non-negligible; these are set by evaluating the flux creep factor .

The flux creep factor $`\epsilon `$ is determined by $`\nu `$, the ratio of the fluxoid barrier height $`U_0`$ to the typical thermal energy $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$, $`\nu =\frac{U_0}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}`$. The flux creep factor is then determined by: $`\epsilon =1/I_0(\nu )^2`$, where $`I_0`$ is a zeroth-order modified Bessel function of the first kind . $`\epsilon `$ parameterises the degree to which thermal effects assist the motion of fluxoids.

In the limit of large $`\epsilon `$ (i.e. $`\epsilon 1`$), thermal excitation causes the behaviour of fluxoids to approach that of completely unpinned fluxoids. In this case, the complex effective resistivity ($`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_v(\omega )`$) becomes a contributing factor to the measured change in penetration depth. $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_v(\omega )`$  is given by the expression

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_v(\omega )=\frac{\epsilon +(\omega \tau )^2+i(1\epsilon )\omega \tau }{1+(\omega \tau )^2}\rho _f,$$
(15)
where $`\rho _f=B\varphi _0/\eta `$ is the flux flow resistivity and $`\omega \tau `$ represents the product of the measurement frequency and the relaxation time of the normal-state quasiparticles.

An order-of-magnitude estimate of $`U_0`$ is given by considering the energy at which the harmonic-oscillator potentials of neighbouring fluxoids cross, yielding  $`U_0\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\alpha L^3`$. The charcteristic length $`L`$  will be roughly equal to the Abrikosov lattice spacing, $`L=\mathrm{}`$, so that the pinning well barrier height $`U_0`$ can be estimated using

$$U_0=\frac{2\alpha }{\pi ^2}\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{\varphi _0}{B}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(16)
Equation 16 shows that $`U_0`$ decreases as the field $`B`$ increases, so that the surface-impedance and skin-depth effects will be most prominent at high magnetic fields. Within the superconducting state, the highest field (i.e. worst-case scenario) at which we make quantitative deductions about vortex behaviour is $`\mu _0H^{}`$, the field at which the penetration depth indicates a divergence from the Campbell regime. Substituting the value for 700 mK, we obtain $`U_016`$ K. At this field and temperature, $`\nu 4`$, leading to $`\epsilon 0.005`$.

Equation 15 also shows that the value of $`\omega \tau `$ contributes to the complex resistivity. Taking a frequency $`\omega /2\pi 25`$ MHz from the current experiments and $`\tau `$ from measurements of the normal-state resistivity  (or the penetration depth: see Figure 6), we obtain $`\omega \tau 0.005`$. Therefore, the fact that both $`\epsilon `$ and $`\omega \tau `$ are $`1`$ indicates that the surface-impedance and skin-depth effects have negligible impact  on the experiments on $`\lambda `$-(BETS)2GaCl4 reported in this work.

## 9 References


format: text

text:
# Conservation of the noetherianity by perfect transcendental field extensions

## Introduction

Motivated by the generalization of the results in  (for the case of a perfect base field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$) in this paper we study the conservation of noetherianity by the base field extension $`kk(t)_{per}`$, where $`k(t)_{per}`$ is the perfect closure of $`k(t)`$. Since this extension is not finitely generated, the conservation of noetherianity is not clear a priori for $`k`$-algebras which are not finitely generated.

Our main result states that $`k(t)_{per}_kA`$ is noetherian if and only if $`A`$ is noetherian and for every prime ideal $`𝔭A`$ the field $`{\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}Qt(A/𝔭)^{p^m}`$ is algebraic over $`k`$ (see theorem 3.6). In particular, we are able to apply this result to the case where $`A`$ is the ring of formal power series in $`n`$ indeterminates over $`k`$

We are indebted to J. M. Giral for giving us the proof of proposition 2.6 and for other helpful comments.

## 1 Preliminaries and notations

All rings and algebras considered in this paper are assumed to be commutative with unit element. If $`B`$ is a ring, we shall denote by $`dim(B)`$ its Krull dimension and by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(B)`$ the set of its maximal ideals. We shall use the letters $`K,L,k`$ to denote fields and $`𝔽_p`$ to denote the finite field of $`p`$ elements, for $`p`$ a prime number. If $`𝔭\mathrm{Spec}(B)`$, we shall denote by $`\mathrm{ht}(𝔭)`$ the height of $`𝔭`$. Remember that a ring $`B`$ is said to be equicodimensional if all its maximal ideals have the same height. Also, $`B`$ is said to be biequicodimensional if all its saturated chains of prime ideals have the same length.

If $`B`$ is an integral domain, we shall denote by $`Qt(B)`$ its quotient field.

For any $`𝔽_p`$-algebra $`B`$, we denote $`B^{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}B^{p^m}`$.

We shall first study the contraction-extension process for prime ideals relative to the ring extension $`K[t]K[t^{\frac{1}{p}}]`$, $`K`$ being a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. Let us recall the following well known result (cf. for example , th. 10.8):

###### Proposition. 1.1

Let $`K`$ be a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. Let $`g(X)`$ be a monic polynomial of $`K[X]`$. Then, the polynomial $`f(X)=g(X^p)`$ is irreducible in $`K[X]`$ if and only if $`g(X)`$ is irreducible in $`K[X]`$ and not all its coefficients are in $`K^p`$.

From the above result, we deduce the following corollary.

###### Corollary. 1.2

Let $`K`$ be a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. Let $`P`$ be a non zero prime ideal in $`K[t^{\frac{1}{p}}]`$ and let $`F(t)K[t]`$ be the monic irreducible generator of the contraction $`P^c=PK[t]`$. Then the following conditions hold:

1. If $`F(t)=a_0^p+a_1^pt+\mathrm{}+t^dK^p[t]`$, then $`P=(a_0+a_1t^{\frac{1}{p}}+\mathrm{}+t^{\frac{d}{p}})`$.
2. The equality $`P=P^{ce}`$ holds if and only if $`F(t)K^p[t]`$.

Proof:

1. Consider the polynomial $`G(\tau )=a_0+a_1\tau +\mathrm{}+\tau ^dK[\tau ](\tau =t^{\frac{1}{p}})`$ and the ring homomorphism $`\mu :K[\tau ]K[t]`$ defined by

$$\mu (a_i\tau ^i)=a_i^pt^i.$$

From the identity $`\mu (G)=F`$ we deduce that $`G(\tau )`$ is irreducible. Since $`G(t^{\frac{1}{p}})^p=F(t)P`$, we deduce that $`G(t^{\frac{1}{p}})P`$ and then $`P=(G(t^{\frac{1}{p}}))`$.
2. The equality $`P=P^{ce}`$ means that $`F(t)=F(\tau ^p)K[\tau ]`$ generates the ideal $`P`$, but that is equivalent to saying that $`F(\tau ^p)`$ is irreducible in $`K[\tau ]`$. To conclude, we apply proposition 1.1.

For each $`k`$-algebra $`A`$, we define $`A(t):=k(t)_kA`$. We also consider the field extension

$$k_{(\mathrm{})}=\underset{m1}{}k(t^{\frac{1}{p^m}}).$$

If $`k`$ is perfect, $`k_{(\mathrm{})}`$ coincides with the perfect closure of $`k(t)`$, $`k(t)_{per}`$.

For the sake of brevity, we will write $`t_m=t^{\frac{1}{p^m}}`$. We also define

$$A_{(m)}:=A(t_m):=A_kk(t_m)=A(t)_{k(t)}k(t_m),A_{[m]}:=A[t_m]$$

and

$$A_{(\mathrm{})}:=A_kk_{(\mathrm{})}=\underset{m0}{}A_{(m)},A_{[\mathrm{}]}:=\underset{m0}{}A[t_m].$$

Each $`A_{(m)}`$ (resp. $`A_{[m]}`$) is a free module over $`A(t)`$ (resp. over $`A[t]`$) of rank $`p^m`$ (because $`(t_m)^{p^m}t=0`$).

For each prime ideal $`P`$ of $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ we denote $`P_{[\mathrm{}]}:=PA_{[\mathrm{}]}`$, $`P_{[m]}:=PA_{[m]}\mathrm{Spec}(A_{[m]})`$ and $`P_{(m)}:=PA_{(m)}\mathrm{Spec}(A_{(m)})`$.

In a similar way, if $`Q`$ is a prime ideal of $`A_{[\mathrm{}]}`$ we denote $`Q_{[m]}:=QA_{[m]}\mathrm{Spec}(A_{[m]})`$.

We have:

* $`P={\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}P_{(m)}`$, $`P_{[\mathrm{}]}={\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}P_{[m]}`$, (resp. $`Q={\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}Q_{[m]}`$).
* $`P_{(n)}A_{(m)}=P_{(m)}`$ and $`P_{[n]}A_{[m]}=P_{[m]}`$ for all $`nm`$ (resp. $`Q_{[n]}A_{[m]}=Q_{[m]}`$ for all $`nm`$).

The following properties are straightforward:

1. The $`k`$-algebras $`A_{[m]}`$ (respectively $`A_{(m)}`$) are isomorphic to each other.
2. If $`S_m=k[t_m]\{0\}`$, then $`A_{(m)}=S_m^1A_{[m]}`$.
3. Since $`(S_m)^{p^m}S_0S_m`$, we have $`A_{(m)}=S_0^1A_{[m]}`$ for $`m0`$. Consequently $`A_{(\mathrm{})}=S_0^1A_{[\mathrm{}]}`$.
4. If $`A`$ is a domain (integrally closed), then $`A_{[m]}`$ and $`A_{(m)}`$ are domains (integrally closed) for all $`m0`$ or $`m=\mathrm{}`$.
5. If $`A`$ is a noetherian k-algebra, then $`A_{[m]}`$ and $`A_{(m)}`$ are noetherian rings, for every $`m0`$.
6. If $`A=k[\underset{¯}{X}]=k[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$, then $`A_{[\mathrm{}]}`$ is not noetherian (the ideal generated by the $`t_m`$, $`m0`$, is not finitely generated).
7. If $`IA`$ is an ideal, then $`(A/I)_{(\mathrm{})}=A_{(\mathrm{})}/A_{(\mathrm{})}I`$.
8. If $`TA`$ is a multiplicative subset, then $`(T^1A)_{(\mathrm{})}=T^1A_{(\mathrm{})}`$.
9. If $`A=k[\underset{¯}{X}]`$, then $`A_{(\mathrm{})}=k_{(\mathrm{})}[\underset{¯}{X}]`$, hence $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian. Moreover, $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian for every finitely generated $`k`$-algebra $`A`$.

The main goal of this paper is to characterize whether the ring $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian (see th. 3.6 and corollary 3.8).

###### Proposition. 1.3

With the above notations, the following properties hold:

1. The extensions $`A_{[m1]}A_{[m]}`$ and $`A_{(m1)}A_{(m)}`$ are finite free, and therefore integral and faithfully flat.
2. The corresponding extensions to their quotient fields are purely inseparable.

Proof:  Straightforward.

###### Corollary. 1.4

$`A_{[\mathrm{}]}`$ (resp. $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$) is integral and faithfully flat over each $`A_{[m]}`$ (resp. over each $`A_{(m)}`$).

From the properties above, we obtain the following lemmas:

###### Lemma. 1.5

Let $`P^{}P`$ be prime ideals of $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ (resp. of $`A_{[\mathrm{}]}`$). The following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`P^{}P`$
2. There exists an $`m0`$ such that $`P_{(m)}^{}P_{(m)}`$ (resp. $`P_{[m]}^{}P_{[m]}`$).
3. For every $`m0`$, $`P_{(m)}^{}P_{(m)}`$ (resp. $`P_{[m]}^{}P_{[m]}`$).

###### Lemma. 1.6

Let $`P`$ prime ideal of $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ (resp. of $`A_{[\mathrm{}]}`$). The following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`P`$ is maximal.
2. $`P_{(m)}`$ (resp. $`P_{[m]}`$) is maximal for some $`m0`$.
3. $`P_{(m)}`$ (resp. $`P_{[m]}`$) is maximal for every $`m0`$.

###### Corollary. 1.7

With the notations above, for every prime ideal $`P`$ of $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ we have $`\mathrm{ht}(P)=\mathrm{ht}(P_{(m)})=\mathrm{ht}(P_{[m]})`$ for all $`m0`$. Moreover, $`dim(A_{(\mathrm{})})=dim(A_{(m)})`$.

Proof:  Since flat ring extensions satisfy the “going down” property, corollary 1.4 implies that $`\mathrm{ht}(PA_{(m)})\mathrm{ht}(P)`$. By corollary 1.4 again, $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is integral over $`A_{(m)}`$, then $`\mathrm{ht}(P)\mathrm{ht}(PA_{(m)})`$.

The equality $`\mathrm{ht}(P_{(m)})=\mathrm{ht}(P_{[m]})`$ comes from the fact that $`A_{(m)}`$ is a localization of $`A_{[m]}`$.

The last relation is a standard consequence of the “going up” property.

###### Remark. 1.8

Corollary 1.7 remains true if we replace $`A_{(m)}A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ by $`A_{[m]}A_{[\mathrm{}]}`$.

###### Corollary. 1.9

With the notations above, for every $`Q\mathrm{Spec}(A_{(m)})`$ there is a unique $`\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{Spec}(A_{(m+1)})`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^c=Q`$. Moreover, the ideal $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is given by $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=\{yA_{(m+1)}|y^pQ\}`$.

Proof:  This is an easy consequence of the fact that $`(A_{(m+1)})^pA_{(m)}`$.

###### Corollary. 1.10

Let us assume that $`A`$ is noetherian and for every maximal ideal $`𝔪`$ of $`A`$, the residue field $`A/𝔪`$ is algebraic over $`k`$. Then for every $`m0`$ we have:

1. $`dim(A_{[\mathrm{}]})=dim(A_{[m]})=dim(A[t])=n+1`$.
2. $`dim(A_{(\mathrm{})})=dim(A_{(m)})=dim(A(t))=n`$.

Proof:  The first relation comes from remark 1.8 and the noetherianity hypothesis.

The second relation comes from corollary 1.7 and proposition (1.4) of .

The following result is a consequence of theorem (1.6) of , lemma 1.6 and corollary 1.10.

###### Corollary. 1.11

Let $`A`$ be a noetherian, biequidimensional, universally catenarian $`k`$-algebra of Krull dimension $`n`$, and that for any maximal ideal $`𝔪`$ of $`A`$, the residue field $`A/𝔪`$ is algebraic over $`k`$. Then every maximal ideal of $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ has height $`n`$.

## 2 The biggest perfect subfield of a formal functions field

Throughout this section, $`k`$ will be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>0`$, $`A=k[[\underset{¯}{X}]]`$, $`𝔭A`$ a prime ideal, $`R=A/𝔭`$ and $`K=Qt(R)`$.

The aim of this section is to prove that the biggest perfect subfield of $`K`$, $`K^{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \underset{e0}{}}K^{p^e}`$, is an algebraic extension of the field of constants, $`k`$. This result is proved in prop. 2.6 and it is one of the ingredients in the proof of corollary 3.8.

###### Proposition. 2.1

Under the above hypothesis, it follows that $`k=R^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof:  Let $`𝔪`$ be the maximal ideal of $`R`$. It suffices to prove that $`R^{\mathrm{}}k`$. If $`fR^{\mathrm{}}`$, then for every $`e>0`$ there exists an $`f_eR`$ such that $`f=f_e^{p^e}`$.

* Suppose at first that $`f`$ is not a unit, then $`f_e`$ is not a unit for any $`e>0`$, and $`f_e𝔪`$ for every $`e>0`$. Thus, $`f𝔪^{p^e}`$ for every $`e>0`$ and by Krull’s intersection theorem,

$$f\underset{e0}{}𝔪^{p^e}=\underset{r0}{}𝔪^r=(0).$$
* If $`f`$ is unit, then $`f=f_0+\stackrel{~}{f}`$, with $`f_0kR^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}R^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`f_0`$ is unit. By the above case $`\stackrel{~}{f}=0`$, hence $`fk`$.

###### Proposition. 2.2

If $`𝔭=(0)`$, that is $`R=k[[\underset{¯}{X}]]`$, $`K=k((\underset{¯}{X}))`$, then $`k=K^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof:  It is a consequence of prop. 2.1 and the fact that $`R`$ is a unique factorization domain.

In order to treat the general case, let us look at some general lemmas.

###### Lemma. 2.3

(cf.  Chap. 5, $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 15, ex. 8) If $`L`$ is a separable algebraic extension of a field $`K`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$, then $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ is an algebraic extension of $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof:  If $`xL^{\mathrm{}}`$, then $`x=y_e^{p^e}`$ with $`y_eL`$ for all $`e0`$. Since $`y_e`$ is separable over $`K`$, $`K(y_e)=K(y_e^{p^e})=K(x)`$, it follows that $`y_e=x^{p^e}K(x)`$ and then $`xK^{p^e}(x^{p^e})`$. Therefore

$$[K^{p^e}(x):K^{p^e}]=[K^{p^e}(x^{p^e}):K^{p^e}]=[K(x):K].$$

Thus $`x`$ satisfies the same minimal polynomial over $`K^{p^e}`$ and over $`K`$ for all $`e0`$, and the coefficients of this minimal polynomial must be in $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$. So $`x`$ is algebraic over $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Lemma. 2.4

Every algebraic extension of a perfect field is perfect.

Proof:  This is obvious because this is true for the finite algebraic extensions.

###### Lemma. 2.5

Let $`C`$ be a subring of a domain $`D`$ and let $`\overline{C}`$ be the integral closure of $`C`$ in $`D`$. If $`f(X),g(X)`$ are monic polynomials in $`D[X]`$ such that $`f(X)g(X)\overline{C}[X]`$, then $`f(X),g(X)\overline{C}[X]`$.

Proof:  We consider a field $`L`$ containig $`D`$ such that the polynomials $`f(X),f(X)`$ are a product of linear factors: $`f(X)=(x\alpha _i)`$, $`g(X)=(x\beta _j)`$, $`\alpha _i,\beta _jL`$. Each $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _j`$ are roots of $`f(X)g(X)`$, hence they are integral over $`\overline{C}`$. Thus the coefficients of $`f(X)`$ and $`g(X)`$ are integral over $`\overline{C}`$ and therefore they are in $`\overline{C}`$.

###### Proposition. 2.6

Let $`k`$ be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>0`$, $`A=k[[\underset{¯}{X}]]=k[[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]]`$, $`𝔭A`$ a prime ideal, $`R=A/𝔭`$ and $`K=Qt(R)`$. Then $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$ is an algebraic extension of $`k`$.

Proof: 111Due to J. M. Giral. Let $`r=dim(A/𝔭)n`$. By the normalization lemma for power series rings (cf. , 24.5 and 23.7)222The proof of the normalization lemma for power series rings in  uses generic linear changes of coordinates and needs the field $`k`$ to be infinite. This proof can be adapted for an arbitrary perfect coefficient field (infinite or not) by using non linear changes of the form $`Y_i=X_i+F_i(X_{i+1}^p,\mathrm{},X_n^p)`$, where the $`F_i`$ are polynomials with coefficients in $`𝔽_p`$., there is a new system of formal coordinates $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n`$ of $`A`$, such that

* $`𝔭k[[Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_r]]=\{0\}`$,
* $`k[[Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_r]]{\displaystyle \frac{A}{𝔭}}=R`$ is a finite extension, and
* $`k((Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_r))K`$ is a separable finite extension.

The proposition is then a consequence of proposition 2.2 and lemma 2.3333In particular, if $`k`$ is algebraically closed, we would have $`K^{\mathrm{}}=k`$..

###### Remark. 2.7

Actually, under the hypothesis of proposition 2.6, J.M. Giral and the authors have proved that the following stronger properties hold:

1. If $`R`$ is integrally closed in $`K`$, then $`K^{\mathrm{}}=k`$.
2. In the general case, $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a finite extension of $`k`$.

## 3 Noetherianity of $`A_kk(t)_{per}`$

Throughout this section, $`k`$ will be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>0`$, keeping the notations of section 1.

###### Proposition. 3.1

Let $`K`$ be a field extension of $`k`$ and suppose that $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$ is algebraic over $`k`$. For every prime ideal $`𝒫\mathrm{Spec}(K_{[\mathrm{}]})`$ such that $`𝒫k[t]=0`$ there exists an $`m_00`$ such that $`𝒫_{[m]}`$ is the extended ideal of $`𝒫_{[m_0]}`$ for all $`mm_0`$.

Proof:  The extension $`k[t]K^{\mathrm{}}[t]`$ is integral and then $`𝒫K^{\mathrm{}}[t]=0`$.

We can suppose $`𝒫(0)`$. From Remark 1.8, we have $`\mathrm{ht}(𝒫_{[i]})=\mathrm{ht}(𝒫)=1`$ for every $`i0`$. Let $`F_i(t_i)K[t_i]`$ be the monic irreducible generator of $`𝒫_{[i]}`$. From 1.2, for each $`i0`$ there are two possibilities:

1. $`F_iK^p[t_i]`$, then $`F_{i+1}(t_{i+1})=F_i(t_i)^{1/p}`$.
2. $`F_iK^p[t_i]`$, then $`𝒫_{[i+1]}=(𝒫_{[i]})^e`$ and $`F_{i+1}(t_{i+1})=F_i(t_i)=F_i(t_{i+1}^p)`$.

Since $`𝒫K^{\mathrm{}}[t]=(0)`$, $`F_0(t_0)({\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}K^{p^m})[t_0]={\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}K^{p^m}[t_0]`$ and there exists an $`m_00`$ such that $`F_0(t_0)K^{p^{m_0}}[t_0]`$ and $`F_0(t_0)K^{p^{m_0+1}}[t_0]`$.

From (1) we have $`F_i(t_i)=F_0(t_0)^{1/p^i}K^{p^{m_0i}}[t_i]`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},m_01`$ and $`F_{m_0}(t_{m_0})K^p[t_{m_0}]`$. Hence, applying (2) repeatedly we find $`F_{j+m_0}(t_{j+m_0})=F_{m_0}(t_{m_0})=F_{m_0}(t_{j+m_0}^{p^j})`$ and $`𝒫_{[j+m_0]}`$ is the extended ideal of $`𝒫_{[m_0]}`$ for all $`j1`$.

###### Corollary. 3.2

Under the same hypothesis of proposition 3.1, $`𝒫`$ is the extended ideal of some $`𝒫_{m_0}`$.

Proof:  This is a consequence of prop. 3.1 and the equality $`𝒫={\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}𝒫_m`$.

Let $`B`$ be a free algebra over a ring $`A`$ and $`SA`$ a multiplicative subset. We denote by $`II^E,JJ^C`$ (resp. $`II^e,JJ^c`$) the extension-contraction process between the rings $`A`$ or $`S^1A`$ (resp. $`A`$ or $`B`$) and the rings $`B`$ or $`S^1B`$ (resp. $`S^1A`$ or $`S^1B`$).

###### Proposition. 3.3

With the notations above, let $`𝒫_1`$ be a prime ideal in $`B`$ such that $`𝒫_1S=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`𝒫_0=𝒫_1^C`$, $`𝒫_1=𝒫_1^e`$ and $`𝒫_0=𝒫_1^C`$. If $`𝒫_1=𝒫_0^E`$, then $`𝒫_1=𝒫_0^E`$.

Proof:  Let $`\{e_i\}`$ be a $`A`$–basis of $`B`$. Since $`𝒫_1S=\mathrm{}`$, it is clear that $`𝒫_1^c=𝒫_1`$, $`𝒫_0^c=𝒫_0`$ and $`𝒫_0=𝒫_0^e`$. If $`𝒫_1=𝒫_0^E`$, we have

$$𝒫_1=𝒫_1^{ec}=𝒫_1^c=(𝒫_0^E)^c=(𝒫_0^{eE})^c=(𝒫_0^{Ee})^c=(𝒫_0^E)^{ec}=\underset{sS}{}(𝒫_0^E:s)_B𝒫_0^E.$$

To prove the other inclusion, take an $`sS`$ and let $`f=a_ie_i`$ be an element of $`(𝒫_0^E:s)_B`$ with $`a_iA`$. Then, $`sf={\displaystyle (sa_i)e_i}𝒫_0^E`$ and from the equality $`𝒫_0^E=\{b_ie_i|b_i𝒫_0\}`$ we deduce that $`sa_i𝒫_0`$ and $`a_i(𝒫_0^E:s)_A=𝒫_0`$. Therefore $`f𝒫_0^E`$.

###### Proposition. 3.4

Let $`R`$ be an integral $`k`$-algebra, $`K=Qt(R)`$, and suppose that $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$ is algebraic over $`k`$. Then any prime ideal $`𝒫\mathrm{Spec}(R_{[\mathrm{}]})`$ with $`𝒫k[t]=0`$ and $`𝒫R=0`$ is the extended ideal of some $`𝒫_{[m_0]}`$, $`m_00`$.

Proof:  Let us write $`T=R\{0\}`$. We have $`K=T^1R`$ and $`K_{[m]}=T^1R_{[m]}`$ for all $`m0`$ or $`m=\mathrm{}`$. We define $`𝒫=T^1𝒫`$. We easily deduce that $`𝒫_{[m]}=T^1𝒫_{[m]}`$ for all $`m0`$.

From proposition 3.1, there exists an $`m_00`$ such that $`𝒫_{[m]}`$ is the extended ideal of $`𝒫_{[m_0]}`$ for every $`mm_0`$. Then, proposition 3.3 tells us that $`𝒫_{[m]}`$ is the extended ideal of $`𝒫_{[m_0]}`$ for every $`mm_0`$, so $`𝒫=𝒫_{[m]}`$ is the extended ideal of $`𝒫_{[m_0]}`$.

###### Proposition. 3.5

Let $`K`$ be a field extension of $`k`$ and suppose that $`K^{\mathrm{}}`$ is not algebraic over $`k`$. Then $`K_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is not noetherian.

Proof:  Let $`sK^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a transcendental element over $`k`$.

For each $`m0`$, let $`s_m=s^{\frac{1}{p^m}}K`$ and $`\alpha _m=t_ms_m`$. Let $`P`$ be the ideal in $`K_{(\mathrm{})}`$ generated by the $`\alpha _m,m0`$. We have $`\alpha _m=\alpha _{m+1}^p`$ and $`P_{(m)}=K_{(m)}\alpha _m`$ for all $`m0`$.

Suppose that $`P`$ is finitely generated. Then, there exists an $`m_00`$ such that $`P=K_{(\mathrm{})}\alpha _{m_0}`$. By faithful flatness, we deduce that $`\alpha _{m_0+1}K_{(m_0+1)}\alpha _{m_0}`$. Let us write $`\tau =t_{m_0+1},\sigma =s_{m_0+1}`$. Then, $`\alpha _{m_0+1}=\tau \sigma `$ and there exist $`\psi (\tau )K[\tau ]=K_{[m_0+1]}`$, $`\phi (\tau )k[\tau ]\{0\}`$ such that

$$\phi (\tau )(\tau \sigma )=\psi (\tau )(\tau \sigma )^p.$$

Simplifying and making $`\tau =\sigma `$ we obtain

$$\phi (\sigma )=\psi (\sigma )(\sigma \sigma )^{p1}=0$$

contradicting the fact that $`s`$ is transcendental over $`k`$.

We conclude that $`P`$ is not finitely generated and $`K_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is not noetherian.

###### Theorem. 3.6

Let $`k`$ be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>0`$ and let $`A`$ be a $`k`$-algebra. The following properties are equivalent:

1. The ring $`A`$ is noetherian and for any $`𝔭\mathrm{Spec}(A)`$, the field $`Qt(A/𝔭)^{\mathrm{}}`$ is algebraic over $`k`$.
2. The ring $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian.

Proof:  Let first prove (a) $``$ (b). By Cohen’s theorem (cf. , (3.4)), it is enough to prove that any $`P\mathrm{Spec}(A_{(\mathrm{})})\{(0)\}`$ is finitely generated.

From corollaries 1.7 and 1.10, we have

$$\mathrm{ht}(P_{[m]})=\mathrm{ht}(P_{(m)})=\mathrm{ht}(P_{[\mathrm{}]})=\mathrm{ht}(P)=rn.$$

Consider the prime ideal of $`A`$:

$$𝔭:=AP=AP_{[\mathrm{}]}=AP_{[m]}=AP_{(m)}.$$

There are two possibilities (cf. , prop. (5.5.3)):

1. $`\mathrm{ht}(𝔭)=r=\mathrm{ht}(P_{[m]})`$ and $`P_{[m]}=𝔭[t_m]`$, for every $`m0`$.
2. $`\mathrm{ht}(𝔭)=r1=\mathrm{ht}(P_{[m]})1`$, $`𝔭[t_m]P_{[m]}`$ and $`A/𝔭A[t_m]/P_{[m]}`$ is algebraic generated by $`t_m`$ mod $`P_{[m]}`$, for every $`m0`$.

In case (i), $`P_{[\mathrm{}]}`$ and $`P`$ are the extended ideals of $`𝔭`$ and they are finitely generated.

Suppose we are in case (ii). We denote $`R=A/𝔭`$, $`K=Qt(R)`$.

Then:

$$R_{[m]}=A_{[m]}/𝔭[t_m],R_{[\mathrm{}]}=A_{[\mathrm{}]}/A_{[\mathrm{}]}𝔭=A_{[\mathrm{}]}/\underset{m0}{}𝔭[t_m].$$

Define $`𝒫:=R_{[\mathrm{}]}P_{[\mathrm{}]}=P_{[\mathrm{}]}/{\displaystyle \underset{m0}{}}𝔭[t_m]\mathrm{Spec}(R_{[\mathrm{}]})`$. We have $`𝒫_{[m]}=𝒫R_{[m]}=P_{[m]}/𝔭[t_m]`$, $`𝒫R=𝒫k[t]=0`$ and

$$\mathrm{ht}(𝒫_{[m]})=\mathrm{ht}\left(P_{[m]}/𝔭[t_m]\right)=1,\mathrm{ht}(𝒫)=\mathrm{ht}\left(P_{[\mathrm{}]}/\underset{m0}{}𝔭[t_m]\right)=1.$$

We conclude by applying proposition 3.4: there exists an $`m_00`$ such that $`𝒫`$ is the extended ideal of $`𝒫_{[m_0]}`$. Then, $`P_{[\mathrm{}]}`$ is the extended ideal of $`P_{[m_0]}`$ and $`P=A_{(\mathrm{})}P_{[\mathrm{}]}=A_{(\mathrm{})}P_{[m_0]}`$ is finitely generated.

Let us prove now (b) $``$ (a). Since $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is faithfully flat over $`A`$, we deduce that $`A`$ is noetherian.

Let $`𝔭\mathrm{Spec}(A)`$ and let $`R=A/𝔭`$, $`K=Qt(R)`$. Noetherianity of $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ implies, first, noetherianity of $`R_{(\mathrm{})}`$, and second, noetherianity of $`K_{(\mathrm{})}`$. To conclude we apply proposition 3.5.

###### Corollary. 3.7

Let $`k`$ be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>0`$ and let $`A`$ be a noetherian $`k`$-algebra. The following properties are equivalent:

1. The ring $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian.
2. The ring $`\left(A_𝔪\right)_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian for any maximal ideal $`𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$.

Proof:  For (a) $``$ (b) we use the fact that $`\left(A_𝔪\right)_{(\mathrm{})}=A_𝔪_AA_{(\mathrm{})}`$.

For (b) $``$ (a), let $`𝔭A`$ be a prime ideal and let $`𝔪`$ be a maximal ideal containing $`𝔭`$. From hypothesis (b) , the ring $`\left(A_𝔪\right)_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian. Then, from theorem 3.6 we deduce that the field $`Qt(A/𝔭)^{\mathrm{}}=Qt\left(A_𝔪/A_𝔪𝔭\right)^{\mathrm{}}`$ is algebraic over $`k`$. From theorem 3.6 again we obtain (a).

###### Corollary. 3.8

Let $`k`$ be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>0`$, $`k^{}`$ an algebraic extension of $`k`$ and $`A=k^{}[[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]]`$. Then, the ring $`A_{(\mathrm{})}=k(t)_{per}_kA`$ is noetherian.

Proof:  It is a consequence of lemma 2.4, proposition 2.6 and theorem 3.6.

###### Corollary. 3.9

Let $`k`$ be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>0`$. If $`(B,𝔪)`$ is a local noetherian $`k`$-algebra such that $`B/𝔪`$ is algebraic over $`k`$, then $`B_{(\mathrm{})}=k(t)_{per}_kB`$ is noetherian. In particular, the field $`Qt(B/𝔭)^{\mathrm{}}`$ is algebraic over $`k`$ for every prime ideal $`𝔭B`$.

Proof:  Let $`k^{}=B/𝔪`$. By Cohen structure theorem (cf. , Chap. 0, Th. (19.8.8)), the completion $`\widehat{B}`$ of $`B`$ is a quotient of a power-series ring $`A`$ with coefficients in $`k^{}`$. Since $`\widehat{B}_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is also a quotient of $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$, we deduce from corollary 3.8 that $`\widehat{B}_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian. Since $`\widehat{B}`$ is faithfully flat over $`B`$, the ring $`\widehat{B}_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is also faithfully flat over $`B_{(\mathrm{})}`$. So, $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ is noetherian.

The last assertion is a consequence of theorem 3.6.

###### Corollary. 3.10

Let $`k`$ be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>0`$. For any noetherian $`k`$-algebra $`A`$ such that the residue field $`A/𝔪`$ of every maximal ideal $`𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ is algebraic over $`k`$, the ring $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is noetherian. Furthermore, if $`A`$ is regular and equicodimensional then $`A_{(\mathrm{})}`$ is also regular and equicodimensional of the same dimension as $`A`$.

Proof:  The first part is a consequence of corollaries 3.7 and 3.9. For the last part, we use corollary 1.11, the fact that all $`A_{(m)},m0`$ are regular and of the same (global homological = Krull) dimension (, th. (1.6)) and .