EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

DOI: 10.2478/s12175-013-0107-4
Math. Slovaca 63 (2013), No. 3, 431–448

Ahmed A. M. Kamal* ** — Khalid H. Al-Shaalan*

(Communicated by Constantin Tsinakis )

ABSTRACT. We obtain conditions on (R, +) which force that the zero map
is the only derivation on a zero-symmetric near-ring R. Throughout the paper
we construct several new examples of near-rings which are not rings admitting
non-zero derivations, non-zero (σ, σ)-derivations and non-zero (1, σ)-derivations.

2013
c
Mathematical Institute
Slovak Academy of Sciences

1. Introduction

Throughout this paper R is a left near-ring and Z(R) is the multiplicative

center of R. A map d : R → R is called a multiplicative derivation, if d(xy) =
xd(y) + d(x)y for all x, y ∈ R. A derivation d on a near-ring R is a group
endomorphism on (R, +) which satisfies d(xy) = xd(y) + d(x)y for all x, y ∈ R.
An element x ∈ R is called a left (right) zero divisor in R if there exists a non-
zero element y ∈ R such that xy = 0 (yx = 0). A zero divisor is either a left or
a right zero divisor. By an integral ring we mean a ring without non-zero zero
divisors. A near-ring R is called a constant near-ring, if xy = y for all x, y ∈ R
and is called a zero-symmetric near-ring, if 0x = 0 for all x ∈ R. A trivial
zero-symmetric near-ring R is a zero-symmetric near-ring such that xy = y for
all x ∈ R − {0}, y ∈ R. A near-field R is a near-ring in which (R − {0}, ·) is a
group. For any group (G, +), M (G) denotes the near-ring of all maps from G
to G with the two operations of addition and composition of maps. Mo (G) is
the zero-symmetric subnear-ring

of M (G) consisting of all zero preserving
 maps
from G to itself. MS (G) = f ∈ M (G) | αf = f α for all α ∈ S is called a

2010 M a t h e m a t i c s S u b j e c t C l a s s i f i c a t i o n: Primary 16W25, 16Y30.

K e y w o r d s: near-ring, derivation, inner derivation, n-distributive near-ring, 3-prime near-
ring.

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

centralizer near-ring, where S is a semigroup of endomorphisms of G. If 0 ∈ S,

then MS (G) is a zero-symmetric near-ring.
We say that a near-ring R is 0-prime (the usual prime) if, for every two ideals
I, J of R, IJ = {0} implies I = {0} or J = {0}. R is 1-prime if, for every two
right ideals K, L of R, KL = {0} implies K = {0} or L = {0}. R is 2-prime
if, for every two right R-subgroups A, B of R, AB = {0} implies A = {0} or
B = {0}. R is 3-prime if, for all x, y ∈ R, xRy = {0} implies x = 0 or y = 0. R
is equiprime if, for any a = 0, x, y ∈ R, xca = yca for all c ∈ R implies x = y.
The above five kinds of primeness are equivalent in the class of rings. But in
the class of near-rings, we have R is equiprime implies that R is zero-symmetric
3-prime, R is 3-prime implies R is 2-prime, R is zero-symmetric 2-prime implies
R is 1-prime and R is 1-prime implies R is 0-prime. For details see [8], [10], [12],
[13] and [19].
In this paper we discuss an issue which was observed in almost all published
papers in the subject of studying commutativity in near-rings using derivations
(see for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [9], [14] and [20]), that is almost all
examples given in the literature about non-zero derivations on near-rings are in
rings, not in near-rings which are not rings. For that reason, a large part of this
paper has been devoted to giving several examples of near-rings which are not
rings and have non-zero derivations.
In the last two examples we give a non-zero (σ, σ)-derivation and a non-
zero (1, σ)-derivation on a 3-prime near-ring which is not a ring. Also, we
show that for each distributive element in both a 2-distributive near-ring and
an n∗ -distributive near-ring we can construct an inner derivation. We prove
that a zero-symmetric n-distributive near-ring for every integer n
2 (an
n∗ -distributive near-ring for every integer n
1) is a ring if it has an identity
or it is 3-prime. Also, we prove that the zero derivation is the only derivation
on a near-ring with a right identity in which the additive group is simple.
The following results are useful in the next section of this paper.

 A ([17: Theorem 1.15]) Let R be a near-ring. Then R can be ex-
pressed as the sum of Ro = {x ∈ R | 0x = 0} the unique maximal zero-symmetric
subnear-ring of R, and Rc = 0R = {0r | r ∈ R} the unique maximal constant
subnear-ring of R. Furthermore, as a group, R is the semidirect product of Ro
and Rc , i.e. Ro is a normal subgroup of R, R = Ro + Rc and Ro ∩ Rc = {0}.

 B ([11: Theorem 1.1]) The transformation near-ring Mo (G) has no
non-zero derivations.

 C ([17: Theorem 1.40, Theorem 1.42]) For any group G, the trans-
formation near-ring Mo (G) is simple.

432

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

 D ([17: Theorem 9.28]) If R is a distributive near-ring, then the

elements of R2 commute with each other with respect to the additive operation.

2. Existence of derivations on near-rings

In this section we give some new results and examples concerning the existence
of derivations in near-rings which are not rings. We begin this section by the
following interesting result.
 2.1 A near-ring R admits a multiplicative derivation if and only if it
is zero-symmetric.
P r o o f. Let R be a zero-symmetric near-ring. Then the zero map is a deriva-
tion on R. Conversely, assume that R has a multiplicative derivation d. By
Theorem A, any near-ring can be expressed as the sum R = Ro + Rc . If z is a
constant element in R, then d(z) = d(z 2 ) = zd(z) + z is in Rc . So zd(z) = d(z),
hence z = 0. Therefore, R must be zero-symmetric. 
All the works appeared in the literature from 1987 till now concerning com-
mutativity theorems for additive and multiplicative operations in near-rings ad-
mitting derivations always assumed the extra condition that near-rings were
zero-symmetric. Lemma 2.1 shows that this should be removed.
As a direct consequence of Lemma 2.1, we obtain the following results.


 2.2 Any non-zero-symmetric near-ring does not admit any deriva-

tion. In particular, M (G), where G contains more than one element and any
non-zero constant near-ring do not admit any derivation.


 2.3 Distributively generated near-rings, centralizer near-rings

MS (G), where S contains the zero endomorphism of G, and equiprime near-
rings (and hence near-fields) have derivations.
Remark 2.1 For the class of near-rings of characteristic 2, we have the follow-
ing observation “if d is a non-zero derivation on a near-ring R of characteristic
n
2, then d2 is a derivation on R for every positive integer n”.
In Theorem 2.6 we obtain some conditions on the additive group (R, +) of a
zero-symmetric near-ring R which force that the zero map is the only derivation
on R. We begin by proving the following lemma.
 2.4 Let R be a near-ring with a derivation d.
(i) If (R, +) has no non-trivial proper subgroups, then either d = 0 or d is an
automorphism of groups.

433

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

(ii) If (R, +) is a simple group, then either d = 0 or d is a monomorphism of

groups.
(iii) If R is a simple near-ring and ker d is an ideal of R, then either d = 0 or
d is a monomorphism of groups.
(iv) If R is 3-prime with a right (left) identity e ∈ R, then d(e) = 0.

P r o o f. The proofs are clear. 

 2.5 Let R be a simple near-ring with a right identity e. Then R is a
3-prime near-ring.

 elements x, yo ∈ R
P r o o f. Suppose R is not 3-prime.
So there exist non-zero
such that xRyo = {0}. Let I = y ∈ R | xRy = {0} . Then I = {0}. It
is clear that for all y, z ∈ I and for all r, s ∈ R, each of the following sets
xR(y − z), xR(r + y − r), xRry and xR((y + r)s − rs) is equal to {0}. So I is
a non-zero ideal of R. Then we have I = R. In particular, xRe = {0}. Thus,
x = xee ∈ xRe = {0}, which is a contradiction with x = 0. Therefore, R is
3-prime. 

 2.6 Let R be a zero-symmetric near-ring with a right identity e such
that (R, +) is a simple group. Then the zero map is the only derivation on R.

P r o o f. The proof is clear. 

 2.7 Let R be a zero symmetric simple near-ring with a right identity.
If d is a derivation on R such that ker d is an ideal of R, then d = 0.

P r o o f. The proof is clear. 

Moreover, there is a large class of simple near-rings with identity in which

every member has only the zero derivation, “for any group G, the transforma-
tion near-ring Mo (G) is a simple near-ring with identity and has only the zero
derivation” by Theorem B and Theorem C.
The conditions “(R, +) has no non-trivial proper subgroups” in Lemma 2.4(i)
and “(R, +) is a simple group” and “ker d is an ideal of R” in Lemma 2.4(ii) and
(iii), Theorem 2.6 and Theorem 2.7 respectively are essential as the following
example shows even for rings.
Example 2.1. Let R = {[ −w z w
z ] | z, w ∈ C} where C is the field of complex num-
bers and z is the complex conjugate of z. Then R is a non-commutative division
ring (see [15: Exercise III.1.8]). We say that d is an inner derivation on R in-
duced by a ∈ R, if d(x) = xa − ax for all x ∈ R. Let dbe the inner derivation

i(w+w) i(z−z)
on R induced by the element [ 1i 1i ]. Then d ([ −w
z w
z ]) = i(z−z) −i(w+w) and d

434

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

is a non-zero derivation on R with ker d = {[ −w z w

| z = z, w = −w}.
z ]  iThus,
 d
1 0 i 0 1 0] = d 0
is not
 0 −2 one-to-one. Observe that [ 01 ] ∈ ker d and d 0 −i [ 01 0 −i =

= [ 0 0 ]. Therefore, ker d is not an ideal of R.
2 0 00

We give an example of a non-zero idempotent derivation on a finite simple

ring with identity which shows also that “ker d is an ideal of R” in Theorem 2.7
is not redundant.
Example 2.2. Let R =  M2 (Z2 ) and d be the inner derivation induced by the
element [ 10 10 ]. Then d ac db = [ cc a+b+d
c ] for all a, b, c, d ∈ Z2 and d = 0.
Observe that





2 a b c a+b+d c c+a+b+d+c c a+b+d
d =d = =
c d c c c c c c


a b
=d .
c d
Therefore, d = d2 .
In the following, we give an easy example of a derivation on a zero symmetric
near-ring defined by a left (right) multiplication by a distributive element.
Example 2.3. Let R be a zero-symmetric near-ring. If there exists a ∈ R such
that Ra = {0}, then the map d : R → R defined by d(x) = ax is a derivation on
R. Indeed, d is an additive map and d(xy) = axy = xay + axy = xd(y) + d(x)y.
By the same way, if a is a distributive element in R and aR = {0}, then d(x) = xa
is a derivation on R.
Now, we consider some classes contain the class of distributive near-rings and
discuss the existence of derivations on them.
  2.1 ([16]) A near-ring R is called n-distributive, where n is an
integer greater than one, if for all a, b, c, d, r, ai , bi ∈ R, where i = 1, 2, . . . , n.
(i) ab + cd = cd + ab
 n 
n
(ii) ai bi r = ai bi r.
i=1 i=1

 2.8 Let R be a 2-distributive near-ring. Then

(i) R is zero-symmetric.
(ii) (−xy)r = −xyr for all x, y, r ∈ R.
P r o o f.
(i) For all r ∈ R, we get 0r + 0r = 00r + 00r = (00 + 00)r = 0r. So 0r = 0
and R is zero-symmetric.

435

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

(ii) For all x, y, r ∈ R, we have xyr + (−xy)r = (xy + (−xy))r = 0r = 0.

Thus, (−xy)r = −xyr for all x, y, r ∈ R. 
As a direct consequence of Lemma 2.8(i) and Lemma 2.1, we obtain the
following result.


 2.9 Every 2-distributive near-ring admits a derivation.

 2.10 Let R be a 2-distributive near-ring and a be a distributive
element in R. Then for all x ∈ R the map d defined by d(x) = ax − xa is a
derivation on R.
P r o o f. The proof is clear. 
Now, if we take R is a 2-distributive near-ring which is not a ring, then for any
distributive element a ∈ R the map d defined by d(x) = ax − xa for all x ∈ R
is a derivation on R by Proposition 2.10 and we call it the inner derivation
induced by the element a as the usual in the ring case. Therefore, the class of
2-distributive near-rings which are not rings is a class of near-rings which is very
rich by non-zero derivations (see Example 2.4).


 2.11 Let R be a distributive near-ring. Then for all a ∈ R there

is an inner derivation induced by a on R.
P r o o f. Since R is distributive, we have the elements of R2 commute with
each other by Theorem D. Thus, R is distributive implies R is 2-distributive.
Therefore, every element of R induces an inner derivation on R by using Propo-
sition 2.10. 
As shown in [16], any distributive near-ring is n-distributive for any posi-
tive integer n greater than one, but the converse is not true. So the class of
n-distributive near-rings is larger than the class of all distributive near-rings.
The following example shows that 2-distributive near-rings with some dis-
tributive elements need not be distributive near-rings. Moreover, a special case
of the example gives us an example of a non-zero inner derivation induced by a
distributive element.
Example 2.4. Let G be any abelian group of order greater than one. Then Mo (G)
is an abelian near-ring which is not distributive.
  The set of all distributive
0a b
elements in Mo (G) is End(G). Let R = 0 0 c | a, b, c ∈ Mo (G) . Then we
0 0 0
have ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 a b 0 e f 0 0 ag
⎣0 0 c ⎦ ⎣0 0 g ⎦ = ⎣0 0 0 ⎦ ∈ R
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

436

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

for all a, b, c, e, f, g ∈ Mo (G). So R is an abelian near-ring which is not distribu-

tive. The set of distributive elements dist(R) of R is of the form
 0 a b  
dist(R) = 0 0 c | a, b ∈ Mo (G) and c ∈ End(G) .
0 0 0

Notice that XY Z = 0 for all X, Y, Z ∈ R. In fact, R is 2-distributive, since for all

Xi ∈ R, i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, we have (X1 X2 + X3 X4 )X5 = X1 X2 X5 + X3 X4 X5 = 0.
Now, as a special case take G = Z and the endomorphism f ∈ Mo (G) defined
by nf = 2n for all n ∈ Z. Define d to be the inner derivation on R induced
0 e g
by the distributive element 00f , for some e, g ∈ Mo (G). That means for all
00 0
a, b, c ∈ Mo (G)
⎛⎡ ⎤⎞ ⎡ ⎤
0 a b 0 0 ec − af
d ⎝⎣0 0 c ⎦ ⎠ ⎣
= 0 0 0 ⎦
0 0 0 0 0 0
Therefore, one can easily shows that d is a non-zero derivation on R.

Now, we add some conditions for 2-distributive and n-distributive near-rings

to become rings. Thus, zero-symmetric n-distributive near-rings are not very
far from rings.
 2.12 Let R be a 2-distributive near-ring with identity. Then R
is a ring.

P r o o f. The proof is clear. 

 2.13 Any 3-prime 2-distributive near-ring is a ring.

P r o o f. Let R be a 3-prime 2-distributive near-ring. By Definition 2.1(ii), for

all x, y, z, r ∈ R, we have z[(x + y)r − yr − xr] = (zx + zy)r − zyr − zxr = 0.
So R[(x + y)r − yr − xr] = {0} for all x, y, r ∈ R. Since R is 3-prime, we have
(x + y)r = xr + yr and R is a distributive near-ring. Using Definition 2.1(i),
r(a + b − a − b) = ra + rb + r(−a) + r(−b) = ra + r(−a) + rb + r(−b) =
ra − ra + rb − rb = 0 for all r, a, b ∈ R. Thus, we have R(a + b − a − b) = {0}
for all a, b ∈ R. The primeness of R implies that a + b = b + a for all a, b ∈ R
and (R, +) is abelian. Therefore, R is a ring. 


 2.14
(i) ([17: Theorem 9.30]) Any distributive near-ring with identity is a ring.
(ii) Any 3-prime distributive near-ring is a ring.
 2.15 Let R be a zero-symmetric n-distributive near-ring. Then R is a
2-distributive near-ring.

437

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

P r o o f. We need only to check condition (ii) of Definition 2.1. For all a, b, c, d, r

∈ R, we have (ab+cd)r = (ab+cd+0r +· · ·+0r)r = abr +cdr +0rr +· · · +0rr =
abr + cdr. 

As a direct consequence of Proposition 2.10 and Lemma 2.15, we have the

following result.


 2.16 Let R be a zero-symmetric n-distributive near-ring and a a

distributive element in R. Then the map d defined by d(x) = ax − xa for all
x ∈ R is an inner derivation on R induced by a.

Now, we extend Proposition 2.12 and Proposition 2.13 to n-distributive near-

rings.
 2.17 Let R be an n-distributive near-ring with a derivation d
and satisfies one of the following conditions
(i) R has an identity element,
(ii) R is 3-prime,
(iii) There exists c ∈ R such that d(c) is not a left zero divisor in R.
Then R is a ring.

P r o o f. The proofs of (i) and (ii) are clear.

(iii) Using Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.15, it is sufficient to prove it for a 2-dis-
tributive near-ring. The proof is similar to the proof of Proposition 2.13 by
replacing z by d(c) in the first equation and r by d(c) in the second equation. 

Now, we introduce the definition of n∗ -distributive near-rings to the class of

zero-symmetric near-rings.
  2.2 A near-ring R is called n∗ -distributive, where n is a positive
integer, if (a1 a2 . . . an + b1 b2 . . . bn )c = a1 a2 . . . an c + b1 b2 . . . bn c for all ai , bi , c
∈ R, i = 1, . . . , n.

Notice that the 1∗ -distributive near-rings are the distributive near-rings.

Therefore, n∗ -distributive near-rings are the natural generalization of distribu-
tive near-rings.
The following example, Remark 2.2 and Example 2.6 show that the n∗ -dis-
tributive near-rings and the n-distributive near-rings are distinct.
Example 2.5. Let G be any non-abelian group and define the near-ring R by
the same way in Example 2.4. Then R is a non-abelian 2∗ -distributive near-ring
which is neither distributive nor 2-distributive.

438

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

 2.18 Let R be an n∗ -distributive near-ring. Then

(i) The elements of Rn+1 commute under the operation +.
(ii) R is zero-symmetric.
(iii) −a1 a2 . . . an+1 = (−a1 a2 . . . an )an+1 for all ai ∈ R, i = 1, . . . , n + 1.

P r o o f.
(i) For all ai , bi ∈ R, i = 1, . . . , n + 1, observe that

(a1 a2 . . . an + b1 b2 . . . bn )(bn+1 + an+1 )

= (a1 a2 . . . an + b1 b2 . . . bn )bn+1 + (a1 a2 . . . an + b1 b2 . . . bn )an+1
= a1 a2 . . . an bn+1 + b1 b2 . . . bn bn+1 + a1 a2 . . . an an+1 + b1 b2 . . . bn an+1 .

On the other hand, we get

(a1 a2 . . . an + b1 b2 . . . bn )(bn+1 + an+1 )

= a1 a2 . . . an (bn+1 + an+1 ) + b1 b2 . . . bn (bn+1 + an+1 )
= a1 a2 . . . an bn+1 + a1 a2 . . . an an+1 + b1 b2 . . . bn bn+1 + b1 b2 . . . bn an+1 .

Comparing the last two equations, we have

b1 b2 . . . bn bn+1 + a1 a2 . . . an an+1 = a1 a2 . . . an an+1 + b1 b2 . . . bn bn+1 .

(ii) For all r ∈ R, we get 0r + 0r = 00 . . . 0r + 00 . . . 0r = (00 . . . 0 + 00 . . . 0)r

= 0r. So 0r = 0 and R is zero-symmetric.
(iii) From 0 = (a1 a2 . . . an + (−a1 a2 . . . an ))an+1 , we obtain that −a1 a2 . . .
. . . an+1 = (−a1 a2 . . . an )an+1 for all ai ∈ R, i = 1, . . . , n + 1. 

Remark 2.2 From Lemma 2.18(ii), any n∗ -distributive near-ring is a zero-

symmetric near-ring and from Lemma 2.8(i), any 2-distributive near-ring is zero-
symmetric. The next example shows that for n
3, n-distributive near-rings
are not necessarily zero-symmetric.

Example 2.6. Let (R, +) be the Klein’s four group on R = {0, a, b, c} and define
the multiplication on R by x0 = xb = 0 and xa = xc = a for all x ∈ R (see [18:
Appendix, the near-ring E (22)]). Then R is a left near-ring which is not zero-
symmetric. Clearly that 0, b are the only distributive elements in R. Observe
that, for all z ∈ {a, c}, xi , yi ∈ R, we have (x1 y1 + · · · + xn yn )z = a, but
x1 y1 z + · · · + x2n y2n z = 0 and x1 y1 z + · · · + x(2n+1) y(2n+1) z = a for all integer
n
1. Therefore, R is (2n + 1)-distributive which is not 2n-distributive for all
integer n
1.

439

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

 2.19 Let R be an n∗ -distributive near-ring. If one of the follow-

ing conditions
(i) R is 3-prime
(ii) R has an identity
(iii) R admits a derivation d such that d(c) is not a left zero divisor in R for
some c ∈ R
holds, then R is a ring.

P r o o f.
(i) Let ai , x, y, z ∈ R, i = 1, . . . , n. Then (a1 a2 . . . an x + a1 a2 . . . an y)z =
a1 a2 . . . an xz + a1 a2 . . . an yz and hence a1 a2 . . . an [(x + y)z − yz − xz] = 0 for all
ai , x, y, z ∈ R, i = 1, . . . , n. Using R is 3-prime n − 1 times, we have (x + y)z −
yz − xz = 0 and so R is a distributive near-ring. From Corollary 2.14(ii), we get
that R is a ring.
(ii) From (x + y)z = (1 · 1 · · · 1 · x + 1 · 1 · · · 1 · y)z = 1 · 1 · · · 1 · xz + 1 · 1 · · · 1 · yz =
xz + yz for all x, y, z ∈ R, we obtain that R is distributive. Thus, R is a ring by
Corollary 2.14(i).
(iii) The proof is similar to the proof of (i) by replacing ai by d(c). 
 2.20 Let R be an n∗ -distributive near-ring with a distributive
element a. Then the map d : R → R defined by d(x) = an x − xan for all x ∈ R
is an inner derivation on R.

P r o o f. For all x, y ∈ R and using Lemma 2.18, we have d(x + y) = an (x + y)

− (x + y)an = an x + an y − (xan + yan ) = an x + an y − yan − xan = an x +
an y + yan−1 (−a) + xan−1 (−a) = an x − xan + an y − yan = d(x) + d(y). Also,
d(xy) = an xy − xyan = an xy − xan y + xan y − xyan = an xy + (−xan )y + xan y +
x(−yan ) = (an x − xan )y + x(an y − yan ) = d(x)y + xd(y). 
Remark 2.3 Let R be a zero-symmetric n-distributive (n∗ -distributive) near-
ring and a ∈ R is a distributive element (a ∈ R such that an is a distributive
element). If a ∈
/ Z(R) (an ∈ / Z(R)), then the inner derivation defined in Corol-
lary 2.16 (in Proposition 2.20) is a non-zero inner derivation on R.


 2.21 Let R be an n-distributive (n∗ -distributive) near-field. Then

R is a division ring.

P r o o f. Since any near-field is zero-symmetric, we have that R is a 2-distributive

near-field by Lemma 2.15. Therefore, R is a division ring by Proposition 2.13.
(Now, for the n∗ -distributive case, the proof follows directly from Proposi-
tion 2.19). 

440

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

Remark 2.4 From Proposition 2.17(ii) and Proposition 2.19(i), if a 3-prime

near-ring which is not a ring admitting a non-zero derivation, then it must be
neither n-distributive nor n∗ -distributive. Also, by Corollary 2.21, a near-field
which is not a division ring must be neither n-distributive nor n∗ -distributive.

The following two examples show the existence of non-zero non-inner deriva-
tions on near-rings which are neither n-distributive nor n∗ -distributive.

Example 2.7. Let


R = f ∈ Mo (Zn ) | (Zn − {1})f = {0} = AnnMo (Zn ) (Zn − {1})

with n ≥ 3. Then R is a zero-symmetric abelian near-ring with 2R = {0}. De-

note the elements of R by fy to mean 1fy = y. Moreover, one can shows that R
is 1-prime near-ring (see [17: Example 5.28]) which is not 3-prime since fx Rfx =
{fo } = {0} where fx ∈ R − {fo , f1 }. Notice that R is neither n-distributive nor
n∗ -distributive near-ring and so is not a ring by using Lemma 2.15 and Defini-
tion 2.2, f1 f1 = f1 and (f1 + f1 )f1 = f2 f1 = f0 = f2 = f1 + f1 = f1 f1 + f1 f1 .
Observe that fx + fy = fx+y for all x, y ∈ Zn , f1 fy = fy and fx fy = f0 for
all x ∈ Zn − {1}, y ∈ Zn . Define D : R → R by D(fy ) = fmy for all y ∈ Zn
where m is a positive integer such that (m, n) = 1 (i.e. fmy = f1 for all y ∈ Zn ).
Thus, we have D(fx + fy ) = D(fx+y ) = fm(x+y) = fmx+my = fmx + fmy =
D(fx ) + D(fy ) for all x, y ∈ Zn and D is an additive endomorphism of (R, +).
Also, D(f1 fy ) = D(fy ) = f1 D(fy ) + f0 = f1 D(fy ) + fm fy = f1 D(fy ) + D(f1 )fy
for all y ∈ Zn and D(fx fy ) = D(f0 ) = f0 = f0 + f0 = fx D(fy ) + D(fx )fy
for all x ∈ Zn − {1}, y ∈ Zn . Therefore, if n is not a prime number, then D
is a non-zero non-inner derivation on the 1-prime near-ring R which is neither
n-distributive nor n∗ -distributive.

Remark 2.5 Example 2.7 can be generalized

as the following: Consider G
is a non-2-torsion group and R = f ∈ Mo (G) | (G − {e})f = {0} =
AnnMo (G) (G − {e}) such that 2e = 0. Denote the elements of R by fy to mean
efy = y. Let D : R → R be an additive map such that D(fy ) = fe for all
y ∈ G. By the same argument R is a zero-symmetric near-ring which is neither
n-distributive nor n∗ -distributive and so is not a ring. For all y ∈ G, we get
D(fe fy ) = D(fy ) = fe D(fy ) + f0 = fe D(fy ) + D(fe )fy and for all x ∈ G − {e},
y ∈ G, we obtain D(fx fy ) = D(f0 ) = f0 = f0 + f0 = fx D(fy ) + D(fx )fy . There-
fore, D is a derivation on R. Moreover, by using the details of the generalization
of [17: Example 5.28], we deduce that R is a 1-prime near-ring which is not a
3-prime near-ring.

441

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

Example 2.8. Let (R, +) be any group with 2R = {0}. Take e ∈ R such that
2e = 0 and define the product on R by xy = 0 if x = e and ey = y for all
x, y ∈ R. Then R is a zero-symmetric near-ring and any additive mapping D
on R such that D(x) = e for all x ∈ R is a derivation on R. Indeed, for all
x = e, y ∈ R we have D(xy) = D(0) = 0 = xD(y) + D(x)y, and D(ey) =
D(y) = eD(y) = eD(y) + D(e)y. Using ee = e, Lemma 2.15, Definition 2.2
and (e + e)e = 0 = 2e = ee + ee, we have that R is neither n-distributive nor
n∗ -distributive.

Recall that a near-ring R is called 3-semiprime if, for all a ∈ R (aRa = {0}
implies that a = 0). It is clear that every 3-prime near-ring is 3-semiprime.
We give two examples of different kinds of near-rings which are not rings. The
first near-ring R constructed from a near-field and the second is a near-ring R
of matrices and each of them admits a non-zero derivation D such that all the
elements of D(R) are left zero divisors in R.

Example 2.9. Let N be a near-field which is not a division ring and R = N ×N ∗ ,

where N ∗ = N −{0}. Define addition and multiplication on R by (a, b)+(c, d) =
(a + c, bd) and (a, b)(c, d) = (ac, 1) for all (a, b), (c, d) ∈ R. Then (R, +, ·) is
a zero-symmetric near-ring which is not a ring with a zero element (0, 1) and
(−a, b−1 ) is the additive inverse of (a, b). Define D : R → R by D((a, b)) = (0, b).
So D is a non-zero derivation on R. Moreover, notice that
(1) R is neither n-distributive nor n∗ -distributive.
(2) R is not 3-semiprime since (0, b)(c, d)(0, b) = (0, 1) for all (c, d) ∈ R and
b = 1 and so R is not 3-prime.
(3) All elements of R (especially the elements of D(R)) are left and right zero
divisors since (a, b)(0, d) = (0, d)(a, b) = (0, 1) for all (a, b) ∈ R and d = 1.

Example 2.10. Let N be a zero-symmetric abelian near-ring and

R = {[ a0 bc ] | a, c ∈ dist(N ), b ∈ N }
where dist(N ) is the set of all distributive elements in N . Then R is a near-
ring with the usual addition and multiplication in matrices. Define D : R → R
by D ([ a0 bc ]) = [ 00 0b ]. Then D is a non-zero derivation on R such that all the
elements of D(R) are left zero divisors in R. Moreover,





0 f a b 0 f 0 0
=
0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0
for all a, c ∈ dist(N ), b, f ∈ N which implies R is not 3-semiprime and so is not
3-prime.

442

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

In the next example, we construct from division rings a class of 3-semiprime

near-rings which are not rings. Moreover, each 3-semiprime near-ring of this
class admits a non-zero derivation.
Example 2.11. Let D be a division ring which is not a field and R = D × D∗ ,
where D∗ = D −{0}. Define addition and multiplication on R by (a, b)+(c, d) =
(a + c, bd) and (a, b)(c, d) = (ac, d) if b = 1 and (a, 1)(c, d) = (ac, 1) for all
a, c ∈ D, b, d ∈ D∗ . Then R is a zero-symmetric near-ring which is not a ring.
Let δ1 be an inner derivation on D induced by a non-central element (that is δ1
is a non-zero derivation on D). Define δ : R → R by δ((a, b)) = (δ1 (a), 1) for all
(a, b) ∈ R. So δ is a non-zero derivation on R such that all the elements of δ(R)
are left zero divisors in R. Notice that R is not 3-prime since (0, b)R(c, 1) = (0, 1)
for all c ∈ D and b ∈ D∗ . But R is 3-semiprime. Indeed, (a, b)R(a, b) = (0, 1)
implies that (a, b)(a, b)(a, b) = (0, 1). It follows that (a3 , b) = (0, 1) and hence
(a, b) = (0, 1).

We can’t find an example of a zero-symmetric near-ring R which is not a ring

with a non-zero derivation d such that R is either 3-prime or contains an element
a such that d(a) is not a left zero divisor in R. But we found a special case of a
non-zero (σ, τ )-derivation on either 3-prime near-ring or on a near-ring R such
that d(R) contains a non-left zero divisor in R. Before we give these examples,
we need the following definition and theorems.
  2.3 Let σ and τ be two endomorphisms on a near-ring R. An
additive mapping d : R → R is called a (σ, τ )-derivation if d(xy) = σ(x)d(y) +
d(x)τ (y) for all x, y ∈ R.

 2.22 Let D be a division ring. Then D can be embedded in the
near-ring Mo (D). Moreover, The elements of D can be considered as distributive
elements of Mo (D) and (D − {0}, ·) as a subgroup of (Aut(D), ◦).

P r o o f. Define a map θ from D to Mo (D) by r → rθ for all r ∈ D, where rθ

is defined by s(rθ) = sr for all s, r ∈ D. By the same way as in the proof of
[18: Proposition 1.48], we can see that D can be embedded in Mo (D). So we
can identify D with Dθ and consider D as a subnear-ring of Mo (D). Observe
that (s + t)(rθ) = (s + t)r = sr + tr = s(rθ) + t(rθ) for all s, t, r ∈ D, and
D ⊆ End(D), where End(D) is the set of all endomorphisms of D (which is also
the set of all distributive elements of Mo (D)). Finally, take r ∈ D − {0}. If
s(rθ) = t(rθ) for some s, t ∈ D, then sr = tr and hence s = t which means rθ
is one-to-one. Also, for all s ∈ D, we have (sr−1 )(rθ) = s which means rθ is
onto. Therefore, rθ is bijective and we can consider (D − {0}, ·) as a subgroup
of (Aut(D), ◦). 

443

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

We can generalize a part of Theorem 2.22 for near-fields as the following result
shows.

 2.23 Let F be a near-field. Then F can be embedded in the near-ring
Mo (F ). Moreover, (F − {0}, ·) can be considered as a subgroup of (U, ◦), where
(U, ◦) is the group of units of Mo (F ).
P r o o f. The same proof of Theorem 2.22. 
We give an example of a zero-symmetric near-ring R which is not a ring
admitting a non-zero (σ, σ)-derivation d such that d(a) is not a left zero divisor
in R for some a ∈ R.
Example 2.12. Let D be a non-commutative division ring. Using Theorem 2.22
to embed D as a subnear-ring in Mo (D) and (D − {0}, ·) as a subgroup of
(Aut(D), ◦). Let R = D × Mo (D) and define the addition and the multipli-
cation on R by (a, b) + (c, d) = (a + c, b + d) and (a, b)(c, d) = (ac, ad + bc)
for all (a, b), (c, d) ∈ R. Then R is a zero-symmetric abelian near-ring with
identity (1, 0) which is not a ring. Let δ1 be an inner derivation on D in-
duced by a non-central element (that is δ1 is a non-zero derivation on D) and
σ the endomorphism defined on the near-ring R by σ((a, b)) = (a, 0) for all
(a, b) ∈ R. Define δ : R → R by δ((a, b)) = (δ1 (a), 0). One can shows that δ is
a (σ, σ)-derivation on R. Now, choose a ∈ D such that δ1 (a) = 0 and consider
δ((a, b))(c, e) = (0, 0) for some b ∈ Mo (D), (c, e) ∈ R. So (δ1 (a), 0)(c, e) = (0, 0)
and then (δ1 (a)c, δ1 (a)e) = (0, 0). It follows that δ1 (a)c = 0 in D and δ1 (a)e = 0
in Mo (D). Hence, c = 0 and e = (δ1 (a))−1 ◦ (δ1 (a) ◦ e) = 0. Therefore,
δ((a, b)) is not a left zero divisor in R. Notice that R is not 3-semiprime since
(0, b)(x, y)(0, b) = (0, 0) for all (x, y) ∈ R, b ∈ Mo (D) and h : R → R defined by
h(a, b) = (0, b) is a non-zero derivation on R such that all the elements of h(R)
are left and right zero divisors in R.
 2.24 For any multiplicative derivation d on a near-ring R, d(0) = 0.
P r o o f. Observe that R is zero-symmetric by Lemma 2.1. Therefore, d(0) =
d(00) = 0d(0) + d(0)0 = 0. 
 2.25 Let R be a prime ring. If 2a = 0 for some a ∈ R, then either
2R = {0} or a = 0.
P r o o f. For all y, z ∈ R, we have 0 = yz(2a) = 2(yza) = (2y)za. From the
primeness of R, we have either 2R = {0} or a = 0. 
The following example shows the existence of a zero-symmetric 3-prime
abelian near-ring R with identity which is not a ring and admitting a non-zero

444

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

(σ, σ)-derivation d such that d(a) is not a left zero divisor in R for some a ∈ R.
Also, R admits a non-zero (1, σ)-derivation h such that all the elements of h(R)
are left zero divisors in the 3-prime near-ring R. Moreover, we show that the
zero map is the only multiplicative derivation on R, consequently the zero map
is the only derivation on R.

Example 2.13. Let R = I × I where I is a non-commutative integral ring with

identity which has at least three elements. Define the addition and the multi-
plication on R by (a, b) + (c, d) = (a + c, b + d) and (a, b)(c, d) = (ac, bc + d) if
(a, b) = (0, 0) and (0, 0)(c, d) = (0, 0). Then R is a zero-symmetric abelian near-
ring with identity (1, 0) which is not a ring. Let D be a non-zero derivation on I
(for example, let D be an inner derivation on I induced by a non-central element
of I) and σ the endomorphism defined on the near-ring R by σ((a, b)) = (a, 0)
for all (a, b) ∈ R. Define d : R → R by d((a, b)) = (D(a), 0). Then d is a non-
zero (σ, σ)-derivation on R by simple calculations. Now, choose a ∈ I such that
D(a) = 0. So d((a, b)) is not a left zero divisor in R since (D(a), 0)(c, e) = (0, 0)
implies that (D(a)c, e) = (0, 0) and then c = e = 0.
Now, we prove that R is 3-prime. indeed, assume that (a, b)R(c, d) = (0, 0)
with (a, b) = (0, 0). If a = 0, then (a, b)(1, 0)(c, d) = (0, 0). That means
(a, b)(c, d) = (ac, bc + d) = (0, 0). Thus, c = 0 and hence d = 0. Now, suppose
a = 0 and b = 0. It follows that (0, 0) = (0, b)(0, 1)(c, d) = (0, 1)(c, d) = (0, c + d)
and then c = −d. On the other hand, (0, 0) = (0, b)(0, −1)(c, d) = (0, −1)(c, d) =
(0, −c + d) and then c = d, so 2d = 0. If d = 0, then I is of characteristic 2
by using Lemma 2.25. As (0, 0) = (0, b)(1, 0)(d, d) = (0, b)(d, d) = (0, bd + d) =
(0, (b + 1)d), we obtain b = −1 = 1. It follows that (0, 0) = (0, 1)(0, y)(d, d) =
(0, y)(d, d) = (0, yd + d) = (0, (y + 1)d) for all y ∈ I − {0}. Hence, y = 1 and
I = {0, 1} which is a contradiction. Therefore, (c, d) = (0, 0) and R is a 3-prime
near-ring.
Let h : R → R be defined by h((a, b)) = (0, b) for all (a, b) ∈ R. Then by
a simple calculation, h is a non-zero (1, σ)-derivation on the zero-symmetric
3-prime near-ring R such that all the elements of h(R) are left zero divisors in
R (notice that (0, b)(1, −b) = (0, 0) for all b).
Finally, we will show that the zero map is the only multiplicative derivation
on R. Suppose D : R → R is a non-zero multiplicative derivation on R. Then
D((a, b)) = (f1 (a), f2 (b)) for all a, b ∈ I, where f1 and f2 are maps on R. Let
(a, b) be a non-zero element of R such that D((a, b)) = (f1 (a), f2 (b)) = (0, 0) and
c ∈ I, d ∈ I − {0}. So D((a, b)(c, d)) = (a, b)D((c, d)) + D((a, b))(c, d) implies
that f2 (bc + d) = bf1 (c) + f2 (d) + f2 (b)c + d for all c ∈ I, d ∈ I − {0} after
some calculations. Putting c = 0 in the last equation and using Lemma 2.24, we

445

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

get that f1 (0) = 0 and f2 (d) = f2 (d) + d which means d = 0, a contradiction.

Therefore, the zero map is the only multiplicative derivation on R.

For each integer greater than two and any prime ring, we construct the follow-
ing example which gives us a class of zero-symmetric 3-prime near-rings which
are neither equiprime near-rings nor rings. Moreover, each near-ring R of the
class admitting a non-zero (σ, σ)-derivation d such that d(a) is not a left zero
divisor in R for some a ∈ R and admitting a non-zero (1, σ)-derivation δ such
that all the elements of δ(R) are left zero divisors in R. Also, the zero map is
the only multiplicative derivation on any near-ring of the class.
Example 2.14. Let R = I × I × · · · × I = I n , where I is a prime ring with a
non-zero derivation D and n is an integer greater than two. Define the addition
on R by
(a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) + (b1 , b2 , . . . , bn ) = (a1 + b1 , a2 + b2 , . . . , an + bn )
and define the multiplication on R by
(a1 , a2 , . . . , an )(b1 , b2 , . . . , bn ) = (a1 b1 , a2 b1 + b2 , . . . , an b1 + bn )
if (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) = (0, 0, . . . , 0) = 0 and 0(b1 , b2 , . . . , bn ) = 0. Then R is a zero-
symmetric abelian near-ring which is not a ring. Let σ : R → R be the near-ring
endomorphism defined by σ((a1 , a2 , . . . , an )) = (a1 , 0, . . . , 0). Then d : R → R
defined by d((a1 , a2 , . . . , an )) = (D(a1 ), 0, . . . , 0) is a non-zero (σ, σ)-derivation
on R. If a ∈ I such that D(a) = 0, then d((a, a2 , . . . , an )) = (D(a), 0, . . . , 0)
is not a left zero devisor in R. Now, define h : R → R by h((a1 , a2 , . . . , an )) =
(0, a2 , . . . , an ). Then h is a non-zero (1, σ)-derivation on R such that all the
elements of h(R) are left zero divisors in R (notice that (0, a2 , . . . , an )(c, −a2 c, . . .
. . . , −an c) = 0).
Now, R is 3-prime but not equiprime. Indeed, let 0 = x = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an )
and y = (c1 , c2 , . . . , cn ) be two elements of R such that xRy = {0}. Using
the primeness of I, if a1 = 0, then 0 = x(t, 0, . . . , 0)y for all t ∈ I implies
y = 0 by the same way in Example 2.13. Now, suppose a1 = 0. Using that
0 = x(0, t, 0, . . . , 0)y and 0 = x(0, 0, . . . , 0, t)y for all t ∈ I, we have c1 = c2 =
· · · = cn = 0 and R is a 3-prime near-ring. Now, let x, y be two non-zero elements
of R such that x = y. Since xz(0, c2 , . . . , cn ) = yz(0, c2, . . . , cn ) = (0, c2 , . . . , cn )
for all z ∈ R, we have that R is not equiprime.
Finally, suppose D : R → R is a non-zero multiplicative derivation on R.
Then D((a1 , a2 , . . . , an )) = (f1 (a1 ), f2 (a2 ), . . . , fn (an )), where fi , i = 1, . . . , n
are maps in the near-ring M (I). From Lemma 2.24, we obtain fi (0) = 0 for all
i = 1, . . . , n. Let x = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) and y = (b1 , b2 , . . . , bn ) be two elements in
R such that D(x) = 0 and bn = 0. By the same argument in Example 2.13 with

446

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 EXISTENCE OF DERIVATIONS ON NEAR-RINGS

the nth coordinates of D(xy) and xD(y) + D(x)y and putting b1 = 0, we get
bn = 0, a contradiction. Therefore, R does not have any non-zero multiplicative
derivation.
Remark 2.6 We have the following notices about Example 2.13 and Exam-
ple 2.14.
1) If the ring I in Example 2.13 is a division ring, then every element (a, b)
in the near-ring R with a = 0 has the multiplicative inverse (a−1 , −ba−1 ).
2) If the ring I in Example 2.14 has an identity 1, then (1, 0, . . . , 0) is an iden-
tity element of the near-ring R. Also, if I is a division ring, then every element
(a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) ∈ R with a1 = 0 has the inverse (a−1 −1 −1
1 , −a2 a1 , . . . , −an a1 ) with
respect to the multiplicative operation.


3) Notice
 that in Example 2.14 the set S = (0, x2 , . . . , xn ) | xi ∈ I, i =
2, . . . , n is a subnear-ring of R which is a trivial zero-symmetric near-ring.
4) Observe that in Example 2.14 the near-ring R has the non-zero
(1, σ)-derivation δ even the prime ring I does not admit any non-zero derivation.
5) If we change the definition of the multiplication of the near-ring R in
Example 2.14 to be
(a1 , a2 , . . . , an )(b1 , b2 , . . . , bn ) = (a1 b1 , a2 b1 + b2 , . . . , an b1 + bn )
for all (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ), (b1 , b2 , . . . , bn ) ∈ R, then R is a
non-zero-symmetric 
3-prime near-ring.

Notice that R = Ro + Rc , where  Ro = (a, 0, . . . , 0) | a ∈ I
and Rc = (0, c2 , . . . , cn ) | ci ∈ I, i = 2, . . . , n by Theorem A. Since every con-
stant near-ring is a 3-prime near-ring, we have that Rc is a 3-prime near-ring.
Also, Ro is a prime ring since Ro is isomorphic to I as rings.
6) The class of prime rings is too large. Therefore, The class of zero-symmetric
3-prime near-rings which are not equiprime near-rings and hence are not rings
constructed in Example 2.14 is too large. But each near-ring in this class has
only the zero derivation.

REFERENCES

[1] ARGAC, N.—BELL, H. E.: Some results on derivations in nearrings. In: Near-rings and
Near-fields (Stellenbosch, 1997), Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2001, pp. 42–46.
[2] BEIDAR, K. I.—FONG, Y.—WANG, X. K.: Posner and Herstein theorems for deriva-
tions of 3-prime near-rings, Comm. Algebra 24 (1996), 1581–1589.
[3] BELL, H. E.: On derivations in near-rings II. In: Nearrings, Nearfields and K-loops
(Hamburg, 1995). Math. Appl. 426, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1997, pp. 191–197.
[4] BELL, H. E.: On prime near-rings with generalized derivation, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci.
(2008), Art. ID 490316, 5 p.

447

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM
 AHMED A. M. KAMAL — KHALID H. AL-SHAALAN

[5] BELL, H. E.—ARGAC, N.: Derivations, products of derivations, and commutativity in

near-rings, Algebra Colloq. 8 (2001), 399–407.
[6] BELL, H. E.—MASON, G.: On derivations in near-rings. In: Near-rings and Near-fields
(Tübingen, 1985). North-Holland Math. Stud. 137, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987, pp.
31–35.
[7] BELL, H. E.—MASON, G.: On derivations in near-rings and rings, Math. J. Okayama
Univ. 34 (1992), 135–144.
[8] BOOTH, G. L.—GROENEWALD, N. J.—VELDSMAN, S.: A Kurosh-Amitsur prime
radical for near-rings, Comm. Algebra 18 (1990), 3111–3122.
[9] DENG, Q.—YENIGUL, M. S.—ARGAC, N.: On commutativity of near-rings with
derivations, Math. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 98A (1998), 217–222.
[10] COTTI FERRERO, C.—FERRERO, G.: Nearrings. Some Developments Linked to
Semigroups and Groups. Adv. Math. (Dordr.) 4, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
2002.
[11] FONG, Y.—KE, W.-F.—WANG, C.-S.: Nonexistence of derivations on transformation
near-rings, Comm. Algebra 28 (2000), 1423–1428.
[12] GROENEWALD, N. J.: Different prime ideals in near-rings, Comm. Algebra 19 (1991),
2667–2675.
[13] HOLCOMBE, M.: A hereditary radical for near-rings, Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 17
(1982), 453–456.
[14] HONGAN, M.: On near-rings with derivation, Math. J. Okayama Univ. 32 (1990), 89–92.
[15] HUNGERFORD, T. W.: Algebra, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York, 1974.
[16] LIGH, S.: A note on matrix near rings, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 11 (1975), 383–384.
[17] MELDRUM, J. D. P.: Near-rings and their links with groups. Res. Notes Math. 134,
Pitman (Advanced Publishing Program), Boston, MA, 1985.
[18] PILZ, G.: Near-rings. The theory and its applications. North-Holland Math. Stud. 23,
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1983.
[19] VELDSMAN, S.: On equiprime near-rings, Comm. Algebra 20 (1992), 2569–2587.
[20] WANG, X. K.: Derivations in prime near-rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 121 (1994),
361–366.

Received 22. 12. 2010 * Department of Mathematics

Accepted 2. 2. 2011 College of Science
King Saud University
SAUDI ARABIA
E-mail : aamkamal 9@hotmail.com

** Permanent address:
Department of Mathematics
Faculty of Sciences
Cairo University
Giza
EGYPT

448

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/14/19 6:47 PM