An other approach of the diameter of $\Gamma(R)$ and $\Gamma(R[X])$
A. Cherrabi, H. Essannouni, E. Jabbouri, A. Ouadfel

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new approach to determine the diameter of zero-divisor graphs of a ring and its polynomial extension, providing a complete characterization of possible diameters 1, 2, or 3.
Contribution
It presents a novel method using an extended zero-divisor graph to characterize the diameters of zero-divisor graphs of rings and their polynomial rings.
Findings
Complete characterization of diameters 1, 2, or 3 for $ ext{G}(R)$ and $ ext{G}(R[X])$
New approach based on the extended zero-divisor graph $ ilde{ ext{G}}(R)$
Alternative to previous methods in the literature
Abstract
Using the new extension of the zero-divisor graph introduced in \cite{Groupe}, we give an approach of the diameter of and other than given in \cite{Lucas} thus we give a complete characterization for the possible diameters , or of and .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory · Advanced Algebra and Geometry · Homotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
An other approach of the diameter of and
A. Cherrabi Corresponding Author: [email protected] Laboratory of Mathematics, Computing and Applications-Information Security (LabMia-SI)
Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed-V University in Rabat.
Rabat. Morocco.
H. Essannouni
Laboratory of Mathematics, Computing and Applications-Information Security (LabMia-SI)
Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed-V University in Rabat.
Rabat. Morocco.
E. Jabbouri
Laboratory of Mathematics, Computing and Applications-Information Security (LabMia-SI)
Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed-V University in Rabat.
Rabat. Morocco.
A. Ouadfel
Laboratory of Mathematics, Computing and Applications-Information Security (LabMia-SI)
Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed-V University in Rabat.
Rabat. Morocco.
Abstract
Using the new extension of the zero-divisor graph introduced in [6], we give an approach of the diameter of and other than given in [11] thus we give a complete characterization for the possible diameters , or of and .
Introduction
The idea of a zero-divisor graph was introduced by I. Beck in [5] while he was mainly interested in colorings. In beck’s work, the graph associated with a nontrivial commutative unitary ring is the undirected simple graph where the vertices are all elements of and two vertices and are adjacent if and only if .
the study of the interaction between the properties of ring theory and the properties of graph theory begun with the article of D.F. Anderson and P.S. Livingston where they modified the graph considering the zero-divisor graph with vertices in , where is the set of zero-divisors of , and for distinct , the vertices and are adjacent if and only if [4]. Also, D. F Anderson and A. Badawi introduced the total graph of a commutative ring with all elements of as vertices and for distinct , the vertices and are adjacent if and only if [3].
In [6], we introduced a new graph, denoted , as the undirected simple graph whose vertices are the nonzero zero-divisors of and for distinct , and are adjacent if and only if or .
Recall that a path in the graph is a finite sequence of distinct vertices such that for all , is an edge. In this case, we said that and are linked by and the length of is , i.e., the number of its edges. is said to be connected if each pair of distincts vertices belongs to a path. Also, if has a path , then the distance between and , written or simply is the least length of a path. If has no such path, then . The diameter of , denoted , is the greatest distance between any two vertices in . A graph is complete if each pair of distinct vertices forms an edge, i.e., if .
is a nontrivial commutative unitary ring and general references for commutative ring theory are [1] and [10].
In [11], T. G. Lucas has studied situations where and are or and gave a complete characterization of these diameter strictly in terms of properties of the ring .
In this paper, we give another approach of this problem using the properties of the new graph . In the first section, we begin by showing the link between the non-completeness of and the diameter of and we give a complete characterization of the diameter of using the nature of the ring . In the second section, we give some examples illustrating cases where the diameter of is , or . The third section is reserved for characterization of the in terms of the nature of the ring .
We recall that if and only if or (cf. Example 2.1, [4]) so we assume, along this paper, that is such that .
1 diameter of
This section is devoted to the study of diameter of . We begin by recalling the Lucas’s result:
Theorem 1.1**.**
( cf. theorem 2.6, [11]) Let be a ring.
- (1)
* if and only if R is (nonreduced and) isomorphic to either or .* 2. (2)
* if and only if for each distinct pair of zero divisors and has at least two nonzero zero divisors.* 3. (3)
* if and only if either (i) is reduced with exactly two minimal primes and at least three nonzero zero divisors, or (ii) is an ideal whose square is not and each pair of distinct zero divisors has a nonzero annihilator.* 4. (4)
* if and only if there are zero divisors such that and either (i) is a reduced ring with more than two minimal primes, or (ii) is nonreduced.*
Remark 1.2**.**
As stated above, we assume that is such that , i.e., and . Also, we recall that (cf. theorem 2.3, [4]) whose next lemma is an immediate consequence.
Lemma 1.3**.**
Let . If , then .
Using the new graph , we obtain some cases where :
Theorem 1.4**.**
If is not complete, then .
Proof.
Since is not complete, then ((cf. [6], theorem 2.1), so there exists such that hence and thus therefore and thus, by the previous lemma, . ∎
Corollary 1.5**.**
If is not an ideal of and is neither boolean nor (up to isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains, then .
Proof.
Since is not an ideal of and is neither boolean nor a subring of a product of two integral domains, then, by theorem 1.7 [7], is not complet and, by the previous theorem, . ∎
Remark 1.6**.**
The previous theorem gives a method to construct graphs of diameter : for example, because is not an ideal () and is neither boolean ( is not isomorph to ) nor a subring of a product of two integral domains ( is not reduced).
We know that is not complete if and only if is not an ideal of and is neither boolean nor (up to isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains (cf. [7], theorem 1.7) so it is enough to treat the cases where is complete to give a ring characterizations such that , or , i.e., the cases where is an ideal of or is boolean or is (up to isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains.
We have the following preliminary lemma:
Lemma 1.7**.**
- (1)
If , then is an ideal. 2. (2)
Let such that is an ideal. If , then there exist a distinct pair of non-zero-divisors such that . 3. (3)
Let such that is an ideal. If there exist a pair of zero-divisors such that , then is distinct pair of non-zero-divisors such that .
Proof.
(1) Suppose that so , where is the nilradical of , then hence is an ideal.
(2) Let such that . It is clear that if , then is a distinct pair of non-zero-divisors such that . Suppose that and let such that . Let so because is an ideal. Also, and then is a distinct pair of zero-divisors such that thus therefore because for each pair of zero-divisors , .
(3) Suppose that there exist a pair of zero-divisors such that so , and . Also, because is an ideal so there exist such that then . We claim that , indeed, if , so and hence . Also, and then therefore .
∎
Proposition 1.8**.**
- (1)
Let such that is an ideal and . If for each distinct pair of zero-divisors , , then . 2. (2)
Let such that is an ideal. If there exist a pair of zero-divisors such that , then .
Proof.
(1) By lemma 1.7, there exist a distinct pair of zero-divisors such that then . Let such that so hence .
(2) Suppose that there exist a pair of zero-divisors such that , then, by the previous lemma, is distinct pair of non-zero-divisors such that so and since , then . ∎
Remark 1.9**.**
Let such that is an ideal. By the previous proof, if there exist a pair of zero-divisors such that so then then .
Proposition 1.10**.**
If is (up to isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains and , then .
Proof.
Since is a subring of a product of two integral domains and is not an integral domain, there exists .
We claim that , indeed, if , or or then or (because ). However, and are not reduced but is reduced then .
Let and suppose that (the other case is similar). Since and so . Also, let such that so we can suppose that and then hence and thus .
∎
Proposition 1.11**.**
Let be a boolean ring. If , then .
Proof.
Since is boolean and , there exists such that . Also, since , we can suppose that thus, since is boolean, there exists such that therefore we can suppose that , with boolean rings. Let so , and then hence, by lemma 1.3, . ∎
Theorem 1.12**.**
- (1)
* if and only if or .* 2. (2)
* if and only if ( is (up isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains and ) or ( is an ideal, and for each distinct pair of zero-divisors , .* 3. (3)
* if and only if ( is boolean and ) or ( is not an ideal and is neither boolean nor a subring of a product of two integral domains) or ( is an ideal and there there exist a pair of zero-divisors such that .*
Proof.
Suppose that is not an ideal and is neither boolean nor a subring of a product of two integral domains. Then, according to theorem 1.7 [7], is not complete and thus, by theorem 1.4, .
Suppose that is a boolean ring. It is obvious that if , then is complete. If , then, by proposition 1.11, .
Suppose that is a subring of a product of two integral domains and , then, by proposition 1.10, .
Suppose that is an ideal of :
It is obvious that if , then .
Suppose that then, by proposition 1.8, if for each distinct pair of zero-divisors , , .
If is an ideal and there exist a pair of zero-divisors such that , then by proposition 1.8, . Also, we recall that, by remark 1.9, . ∎
We recall that is a McCoy ring (or satisfy the property A) (cf. [9]) if each finitely generated ideal contained in has a nonzero annihilator.
Corollary 1.13**.**
Let be a McCoy ring.
- (1)
* if and only if or .* 2. (2)
* if and only if ( is (up isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains and ) or ( is an ideal, .* 3. (3)
* if and only if ( is boolean and ) or ( is not an ideal and is neither boolean nor a subring of a product of two integral domains).*
Proof.
Suppose that is an ideal of such that . Let a distinct pair of zero-divisors so because is an ideal and since is a McCoy ring, . ∎
Lemma 1.14**.**
* is a noetherian boolean ring if and only if .*
Proof.
Since is boolean, then so is artinian hence has a finite number of maximal ideals . Since is boolean, is reduced then so therefore because are boolean fields. The other implication is obvious. ∎
Since a noetherain ring is a McCoy ring (cf. theorem 82, [10]), using the previous lemma, we obtain:
Corollary 1.15**.**
Let a noetherian ring.
- (1)
* if and only if or .* 2. (2)
* if and only if ( is (up isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains and ) or ( is an ideal, .* 3. (3)
* if and only if (, with ) or ( is not an ideal and is neither , with nor a subring of a product of two integral domains).*
Using theorem 2.4 [6], we obtain when is a finite ring:
Corollary 1.16**.**
Let be a finite ring.
- (1)
* if and only if or ( is local and ).* 2. (2)
* if and only if is a product of two fields or ( is local and .* 3. (3)
* if and only if ( and is neither a product of two fields nor local) or (, with ).*
Corollary 1.17**.**
Let a composite integer.
- (1)
* if and only if .* 2. (2)
* If and only if if with is an odd prime.* 3. (3)
* if and only if with and is prime or is a product of two distinct primes.* 4. (4)
* if and only if is neither a power of a prime number nor a product of two distinct primes.*
2 examples
in this section, we give examples of the situations described in the theorem. We begin by giving an example where .
Example 2.1**.**
Let . It is obvious that and then .
For the case where , we give the following two examples:
Example 2.2**.**
Let so .
Example 2.3**.**
Let . It is obvious that the is an ideal of and since and in , . Also is noetherian so, by corollary 1.14, .
For the case where , we give also the following three examples:
Example 2.4**.**
Let , where is an integer, so is boolean then .
Example 2.5**.**
Let . It is obvious that is not an ideal and is neither boolean nor a subring of a product of two integral domains hence .
Example 2.6**.**
*As in [11], we will use a variation of the construction described in [9] and [2] to give an example of a ring such that is an ideal and there exist a pair of zero-divisors such that (then by remark 1.9, ): Let the maximal ideal of and the set of height one primes of . For every , let and . It is obvious that is a non-unital ring and is a unitary -module. As in theorem 2.1 [2], define on : and then is a commutative ring with identity and is noted .
We claim that and consequently is an ideal: Let such that and so , and since is local and is the maximal ideal of , is unit in . For every , let so and we have hence . Conversely, let such that and . It follows from the Krull’s principal ideal theorem that there exist such that so there exist such that and (because is infinite and is finite). Let and y_{i}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{c}v\ \text{si}\ i=j\\ 0\ \text{si}\ i\neq j\end{array}\right. so and thus .
Also, we claim that there exist such that : let and . If , where and , so then and , and then , , if not such that so , contradiction, because . Thus and .
By the previous theorem, we obtain .*
3 diameter of
Lucas gave a following characterization of the diameter of (see theorem 3.4, [11] ):
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let be a ring.
- (1)
. 2. (2)
* if and only if is a nonreduced ring such that .* 3. (3)
* if and only if either (i) is a reduced ring with exactly two minimal primes, or (ii) is a McCoy ring and is an ideal with .* 4. (4)
* if and only if is not a reduced ring with exactly two minimal primes and either is not a McCoy ring or is not an ideal.*
In this section, we will use the results of the study of the graph [7] to approach the same problem. We recall that is a McCoy ring (cf. Theorem 2.7, [9]). We note also that is not boolean and if is not an integral domain, then .
Lemma 3.2**.**
* if and only if .*
Proof.
(1) Since , if then . Conversely, since (cf. Exercise 2, iii), page 13, [1]), if , then . ∎
Using corollary 1.13 and the previous lemma, we obtain:
Theorem 3.3**.**
Let a ring such that is not an integral domain.
- (1)
* if and only if .* 2. (2)
* if and only if ( is (up isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains or ( is a McCoy ring and is an ideal such that ).* 3. (3)
* if and only if ( is not a McCoy ring or is not an ideal) and is not a subring of a product of two integral domains.*
Proof.
- (1)
The result is a consequence of the lemma 3.2 and the fact that . 2. (2)
By corollary 1.13, if and only if is (up isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains and ) or ( is an ideal, . It is obvious that is (up isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains if and only if is (up isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains. On the other hand, by lemma 1.10 [7], is an ideal such that if and only if is a McCoy ring and is an ideal such that . 3. (3)
Also, by corollary 1.13, if and only if ( is boolean and ) or ( is not an ideal and is neither boolean nor a subring of a product of two integral domains). It is obvious that is not boolean and is not a subring of a product of two integral domains if and only if is not a subring of a product of two integral domains. Also, by lemma 1.10 [7], is not an ideal if and only if is not a McCoy ring or is not an ideal.
∎
Remark 3.4**.**
*We recall that, by lemma 1.9 [7], is an ideal of if and only if is an ideal of and is a McCoy ring if and only if for any ideal of generated by a finite number of zero-divisors, .
If is noetherian so is a McCoy ring, then is an ideal of if and only if is an ideal of .*
Corollary 3.5**.**
Let a noetherian ring such that is not an integral domain.
- (1)
* if and only if .* 2. (2)
* if and only if ( is (up isomorphism) a subring of a product of two integral domains or ( is an ideal and ).* 3. (3)
* if and only if is not an ideal and is neither boolean nor a subring of a product of two integral domains.*
Corollary 3.6**.**
Let a finite ring such that is not a field.
- (1)
* if and only if is local and .* 2. (2)
* if and only if is a product of two fields or ( is local and .* 3. (3)
* if and only if is not local and is not a product of two fields.*
Corollary 3.7**.**
Let a composite integer.
- (1)
* If and only if if with is prime.* 2. (2)
* if and only if is a product of two distinct primes or with and is prime.* 3. (3)
* if and only if is neither a power of a prime number nor a product of two distinct primes.*
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] M.F. Atiyah, I.G. Macdonald, Introduction to Commutative Algebra, Addison-Wesley Pub- lishing Company, 1969.
- 2[2] D.D. Anderson, commutative rings, in ”Multiplicative ideal theory in commutative algebra: A tribute to the Work of Robert Gilmer”, Springer, 2006, 1-20.
- 3[3] D. F. Anderson, A. Badawi, The total graph of a commutative ring. J. Algebra 320(7), 2706–2719 (2008)
- 4[4] D. F. Anderson, P.S. Livingston, The zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, J. Algebra 217 (1999), 434-447.
- 5[5] I. Beck, Coloring of commutative rings, J. Algebra 116 (1988), 208-226.
- 6[6] A. Cherrabi, H. Essannouni, E. Jabbouri, A. Ouadfel, On a new extension of the zero-divisor graph. Submit for publication
- 7[7] A. Cherrabi, H. Essannouni, E. Jabbouri, A. Ouadfel, On a new extension of the zero-divisor graph (II). Submit for publication
- 8[8] R. Diestel, “Graph Theory,” Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
