Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences (FJMS)

Volume 39, Number 2, 2010, Pages 185-192

Published Online: April 26, 2010
This paper is available online at http://www.pphmj.com
© 2010 Pushpa Publishing House

WEAKLY PRIME SUBMODULES

R. NEKOOEI

Department of Mathematics
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
Kerman, Iran
e-mail: rnekooei@mail.uk.ac.ir

Abstract

A proper submodule P of an R-module M is called a weakly prime

submodule if, for r ∈ R and m ∈ M , 0 ≠ rm ∈ P implies m ∈ P or
rM ⊆ P. A number of results concerning weakly prime submodules as
well as a characterization of some modules in which every proper
submodule is a product of weakly prime submodules are discussed.

1. Introduction

Throughout this paper, all rings are commutative with identity and all modules
are unital.
For any submodule N of an R-module M, we define ( N : M ) = {r ∈ R | rM ⊆ N }
and denote (0 : M ) by AnnR ( M ) . The R-module M is called faithful if AnnR ( M )
= 0. A submodule P of M is called prime if P ≠ M and, if r ∈ R, m ∈ M and
rm ∈ P, then m ∈ P or r ∈ ( P : M ) . It is easy to show that if P is a prime
submodule of an R-module M, then ( P : M ) is a prime ideal of R. The radical of an
R-module M, given by rad ( M ) , is the intersection of all prime submodules of M. If
2010 Mathematics Sub ject Classification: 13C13, 13C99.
Keywords and phrases: prime submodules, multiplication modules, ZPI-rings.
This research has been supported by the Linear Algebra and Optimization Center of
Excellence of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman.
Received September 21, 2009
186 R. NEKOOEI

there is no prime submodule in M, then we put rad ( M ) = M . We denote the radical

of an ideal I of R by I . An R-module M is called a multiplication module, if for
each submodule N of M, there exists an ideal I of R such that N = IM .

Anderson and Smith in [2] defined a proper ideal P of R to be weakly prime if

0 ≠ ab ∈ P implies a ∈ P or b ∈ P. For example, every proper ideal of a quasilocal
ring ( R, m ) with m 2 = 0 is weakly prime. In this paper, we extend the notion of
weakly prime ideals to submodules and study a number of results concerning weakly
prime submodules. We also give a characterization of finitely generated faithful
multiplication modules in which every proper submodule is a product of weakly
prime submodules.

2. Weakly Prime Submodules

We define a proper submodule P of M to be weakly prime if, for r ∈ R and

m ∈ M , 0 ≠ rm ∈ P implies m ∈ P or rM ⊆ P. So a prime submodule is weakly
prime but the converse is not true in general. For example, the submodule {0} of
Z as a Z -module is weakly prime, but is not prime.
p∞

An R-module M is called torsion-free (R is not necessarily a domain), if for

r ∈ R and m ∈ M ; rm = 0 implies r = 0 or m = 0. It is clear that the notions
of prime submodules and weakly prime submodules in torsion-free R-modules
coincide. In Theorem 1, we give a necessary condition for submodules which are
weakly prime but not prime.

Theorem 1. Let P be a weakly prime submodule of R-module M. If ( P : M ) P

≠ 0, then P is a prime submodule of M.

Proof. Let rm ∈ P, for r ∈ R and m ∈ M . Assume that rm = 0. If rP ≠ 0,

then there exists p0 ∈ P such that rp0 ≠ 0. Then 0 ≠ rp0 = r (m + p0 ) ∈ P, so
m + p0 ∈ P or rM ⊆ P. Hence, m ∈ P or rM ⊆ P. Now assume that rP = 0.
Suppose that ( P : M ) m ≠ 0, say sm ≠ 0, where sM ⊆ P. Then 0 ≠ sm =
(r + s ) m ∈ P, so m ∈ P of (r + s ) M ⊆ P. Hence, m ∈ P or rM ⊆ P. We can
assume that ( P : M ) m = 0. Since ( P : M ) P ≠ 0, there exist x ∈ P and s ∈ R
with sx ≠ 0 and sM ⊆ P. Then 0 ≠ sx = ( s + r ) ( x + m ) ∈ P; so ( s + r ) M ⊆ P
of ( x + m ) ∈ P. Hence, m ∈ P or rM ⊆ P. Therefore, P is prime.
 WEAKLY PRIME SUBMODULES 187

Note that the converse of Theorem 1 is not generally true. For example, {0} is
the only prime submodule of Q as a Z -module, but (0 : Q ) = {0}.

Corollary 2. Let P be a weakly prime submodule of a multiplication R-module

M. Then rad ( M ) ⊆ P or P ⊆ rad ( M ) . If P rad ( M ) , then P is not a prime
submodule, while if rad ( M ) P, then P is a prime submodule of M. If R is reduced
(i.e., R has no non-zero nilpotent element) and M is faithful multiplication, then a
submodule P of M is weakly prime if and only if P = 0 or P is prime.

Proof. If P is a prime submodule of M, then rad ( M ) ⊆ P. Now suppose that P

is not prime. By Theorem 1, ( P : M ) P = 0 and hence, ( P : M )2 ⊆ AnnR ( M ) . Since

M is multiplication, so by [3, Theorem 2.12], P = ( P : M ) M ⊆ AnnR ( M ) M

= rad ( M ) . Now let P ≠ 0. Then rad ( M ) = AnnR ( M ) M = 0 M = {0} P.

Hence, P is a prime submodule of M.

Lemma 3. Let M be a faithful R-module. If P is a weakly prime submodule of

M, then ( P : M ) is a weakly prime ideal of R.

Proof. If ( P : M ) P ≠ 0, then by Theorem 1, P is a prime submodule of M and

so ( P : M ) is a prime and hence, a weakly prime ideal of R. Now assume that
( P : M ) P = 0. Let 0 ≠ ab ∈ ( P : M ) . If for every m ∈ M \ P; abm = 0, then
abM = 0 and so ab = 0, which is a contradiction. Hence, there exists m ∈ M \ P
such that 0 ≠ abm ∈ P, so bm ∈ P or aM ⊆ P. If 0 ≠ bm ∈ P, then bM ⊆ P.
Therefore, ( P : M ) is a weakly prime ideal of R.

Note that the converse of Lemma 3 is not true. For example, Q as a Z -module
is faithful and (Z : Q ) = {0} is a prime ideal of Z but Z is not a weakly prime
submodule of Q. We next modify Theorem 1, for faithful multiplication modules.

Theorem 4. Let P be a weakly prime submodule of a faithful multiplication

R-module M, that is not prime ( so P ⊆ rad ( M )). Then ( P : M ) rad ( M ) = 0.

Proof. Since M is faithful, hence by Lemma 3, ( P : M ) is a weakly prime ideal

of R. If ( P : M ) is a prime ideal of R, then by [3, Corollary 2.11], P = ( P : M ) M
188 R. NEKOOEI

is a prime submodule of M, which is a contradiction. Now by [2, Theorem 4],

( P : M ) 0 = 0 and hence, ( P : M ) rad ( M ) = ( P : M ) AnnR ( M ) M = ( P : M ) 0 M
= 0.

Corollary 5. Suppose that P and Q are weakly prime submodules of a faithful

multiplication R-module M, that are not prime. Then ( P : M ) Q = (Q : M ) P = 0.

Proof. By Corollary 2, Q ⊆ rad ( M ) . Thus, ( P : M ) Q ⊆ ( P : M )rad ( M ) = 0,

by Theorem 4.

Corollary 6. Suppose that ( R, m ) is a zero-dimensional quasilocal ring. If P is

a weakly prime submodule of a faithful multiplication R-module M, then either
( P : M ) = m or ( P : M ) m = 0.

Proof. By assumption, the only prime ideal of R is m.

If P is a prime submodule of M, then ( P : M ) = m. Otherwise, by Theorem 4,

( P : M ) rad ( M ) = ( P : M ) 0 M = ( P : M ) mM = 0. Since M is faithful, so ( P : M ) m

= 0.

We next give three characterizations of weakly prime submodules.

Theorem 7. For a proper submodule P of an R-module M, the following

statements are equivalent:

(i) P is weakly prime submodule.

(ii) For x ∈ M \ P; ( P : x ) = ( P : M ) ∪ (0 : x ).

(iii) For x ∈ M \ P; ( P : x ) = ( P : M ) or ( P : x ) = (0 : x ) .

(iv) For ideal I of R and submodule N of M with 0 ≠ IN ⊆ P, either N ⊆ P

or IM ⊆ P.

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Let r ∈ ( P : x ) , where x ∈ M \ P. Then rx ∈ P. If rx ≠ 0,

then P weakly prime gives rM ⊆ P. If rx = 0, then r ∈ (0 : x ) .

So ( P : x ) ⊆ ( P : M ) ∪ (0 : x ) . As the reverse containment holds for any

submodule P, we have equality.
 WEAKLY PRIME SUBMODULES 189

(ii) ⇒ (iii). It is well known that if an ideal is the union of two ideals, then it is
equal to one of them.

(iii) ⇒ (i). Clear.

(i) ⇒ (iv). Suppose that P is weakly prime, I is an ideal of R and N is a

submodule of M such that N P, and IM P but IN ⊆ P.

We show that IN = 0. First, suppose that n ∈ N \ P. Now In ⊆ P, so I ⊆ ( P : n ).

Since IM P, by (i) ⇒ (iii), In = 0. Next suppose that n ∈ N ∩ P. Let r ∈ I . If
r ∈ ( P : M ) , then by Theorem 1, rn ∈ ( P : M ) P = 0. Suppose that, r ∉ ( P : M ) .
Since rn ∈ IN ⊆ P and (i) ⇒ (iii), hence, rn = 0. So IN = 0.

(iv) ⇒ (i). Suppose that 0 ≠ rm ∈ P. Then 0 ≠ ( Rr ) ( Rm ) ⊆ P, so Rm ⊆ P

or ( Rr ) M ⊆ P, i.e., m ∈ P or rM ⊆ P.

Lemma 8. Let ( R, m ) be a quasilocal ring such that m 2 = 0. If M is a

multiplication R-module, then every proper submodule of M is weakly prime.

Proof. Since every multiplication module over a quasilocal ring is cyclic

[3, Theorem 2.8], hence, there exists e ∈ M such that M = Re. Suppose that P is a
proper submodule of M such that 0 ≠ rx ∈ P, where r ∈ R and x ∈ M . There
exists s ∈ R such that, x = se and hence, 0 ≠ rx = rse ∈ P. Since e ∉ P, hence,

rsM ⊆ P. Since m 2 = 0, it follows that every proper ideal of R is weakly prime.

Therefore, rM ⊆ P or sM ⊆ P. If sM ⊆ P, then x = se ∈ P.

The converse of Lemma 8 is not true in general. For example, let V be a vector
space over the field F, such that dim F V ≥ 2. Since every proper submodule of V
is prime, hence, every proper submodule of V is weakly prime and V is not a
multiplication module.

Proposition 9. Let M be a faithful multiplication over an integral domain R. If

every proper submodule of M is weakly prime, then M is cyclic.

Proof. First we show that R is a field. It is enough to show that every proper
ideal of R is prime. Let I be a proper ideal of R. It follows from [3, Proposition 3.4]
that, M is finitely generated and so IM ≠ M . Hence, IM is a weakly prime
190 R. NEKOOEI

submodule of M. But IM = ( IM : M ) M and by Lemma 3, ( IM : M ) is a (weakly)

prime ideal of R. Therefore by [3, Theorem 3.1], I = ( IM : M ) is a prime ideal of
R. We conclude that R is a field and so M is a multiplication vector space over the
field R. Hence, M = 0 or dim R M = 1 and so M is cyclic.

In the following theorem, we characterize the weakly prime submodules of a

finitely generated faithful multiplication module.

Theorem 10. Let M be a finitely generated faithful multiplication R-module and

let P be an ideal of R.

(i) If PM is a weakly prime submodule of M, then P is a weakly prime ideal

of R.

(ii) If P is a weakly prime ideal of R and for every maximal ideal Q of R,

∩ Qn = {0}, then PM is a weakly prime submodule of M.

n ≥1

Proof. (i) Suppose that PM is a weakly prime submodule of M and 0 ≠ rs ∈ P;

r, s ∈ R. Since M is faithful, so 0 ≠ rsM = (rR ) ( sM ) ⊆ PM . By Theorem 7,
rRM ⊆ PM or sM = ( sR ) M ⊆ PM . By [3, Theorem 3.1], r ∈ P or s ∈ P and
so P is a weakly prime ideal of R.

(ii) Suppose that P is a weakly prime ideal of R. If PM = M , then there exists

a ∈ P, such that (1 − a ) M = 0. Hence a = 1, which is a contradiction.

Therefore, PM ≠ M . Let for a ∈ R and x ∈ M ; 0 ≠ ax ∈ PM . If a ∈ P,

then aM ⊆ PM . Thus, we may assume that a ∉ P. Put K = {r ∈ R | rx ∈ PM }. If
K = R, then x ∈ PM . Now let K ≠ R, hence, there exists a maximal ideal Q
of R, such that K ⊆ Q. Since M is multiplication, so by [3, Theorem 1.2],
M = {m ∈ M | ∃q ∈ Q, (1 − q ) m = 0} or there exist q ∈ Q and m ∈ M such that
(1 − q ) M ⊆ Rm. If M = {m ∈ M | ∃q ∈ Q, (1 − q )m = 0}, then (1 − q ) x = 0 and
so (1 − q ) ∈ K ⊆ Q, a contradiction. Now assume that there exist m ∈ M and
q ∈ Q, such that (1 − q ) M ⊆ Rm. Hence, there exists s ∈ R such that (1 − q ) x
= sm. However, ax ∈ PM and so (1 − q ) ax ∈ (1 − q ) PM ⊆ Pm. Therefore, there
exists p ∈ P such that (1 − q ) ax = pm and so asm = pm. Again, [(1 − q ) ann(m )] M
 WEAKLY PRIME SUBMODULES 191

= 0 and hence, (1 − q ) ann(m ) = 0. Therefore, (1 − q )(as − p ) = 0. We conclude that

(1 − q ) as = (1 − q ) p ∈ P. If (1 − q ) p ≠ 0, then (1 − q ) s ∈ P. Now if (1 − q ) s ≠ 0,
then (1 − q ) ∈ P ⊆ K ⊆ Q, (a contradiction), or s ∈ P. If s ∈ P, then (1 − q ) x =
sm ∈ PM and so (1 − q ) ∈ K ⊆ Q, a contradiction. Therefore, (1 − q ) s = 0 and

hence, (1 − q )2 x = 0 ∈ PM . So (1 − q )2 ∈ K ⊆ Q, a contradiction. It follows that

(1 − q ) p = 0. But p = qp = q 2 p = and so p ∈ ∩ Q n = {0}. Therefore, (1 − q ) ax =

n ≥1

pm = 0 and hence, ax = qax = q 2 ax = . We conclude that ax ∈ ∩ (QM ) =

n ≥1

 
∩
=  Q n  M , by [3, Theorem 1.6] and so ax = 0, a contradiction.
 n ≥1 

Recall that a ring R is called a ZPI-ring if every proper ideal of R is a product of

prime ideals. In the following theorem, we characterize the multiplication modules in
which every proper submodule is a product of weakly prime submodules. Let M be a
multiplication R-module, and N1 and N 2 be submodules of M. There exist ideals
I1 and I 2 of R such that N1 = I1M and N 2 = I 2 M . Ameri in [1] defined the
product of N1 N 2 by I1I 2 M . We use this notion and prove the following theorem.

Theorem 11. Let M be a finitely generated faithful multiplication R-module.

Suppose that for any maximal ideal Q of R, ∩ Qn = {0}. Then R is either a ZPI-ring
n ≥1

or ( R, m ) is a quasilocal ring with m 2 = 0 if and only if every proper submodule of

M is a product of weakly prime submodules of M.

Proof. Suppose that R is a ZPI-ring or ( R, m ) is a quasilocal ring with m 2 = 0.

By [2, Theorem 16], every proper (nonzero) ideal of R is a product of weakly prime
ideals. Now let N be a proper submodule of M. Hence, there exists a proper ideal I of
R such that N = IM and I = P1P2 Pk , where Pi (1 ≤ i ≤ k ) are weakly prime
ideals of R. Therefore, N = IM = P1P2 Pk M = ( P1M ) ( P2 M ) ( Pk M ). But by
Theorem 10(ii), Pi M (1 ≤ i ≤ n ), are weakly prime submodules of M. Note that if

( R, m ) is a quasilocal ring with m 2 = 0, then by Lemma 8, every proper submodule

of M is weakly prime. Conversely, let I be a proper ideal of R, hence, N = IM is
192 R. NEKOOEI

a proper submodule of M. By assumption N = ( J1M ) ( J 2 M ) ( J k M ) and, by

Theorem 10(i), J i (1 ≤ i ≤ k ) , are weakly prime ideals of R. Now N = IM =
J1J 2 J k M and so by [3, Theorem 3.1], I = J1 J 2 J k . Hence, every proper
ideal of R is a product of weakly prime ideals and by [2, Theorem 16], R is either a
ZPI-ring or ( R, m ) is a quasilocal ring with m 2 = 0.

References

[1] R. Ameri, On the prime submodules of multiplication modules, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci.
27 (2003), 1715-1724.
[2] D. D. Anderson and E. Smith, Weakly prime ideals, Houston J. Math. 29(4) (2003),
831-840.
[3] Z. Abd El-Bast and P. F. Smith, Multiplication modules, Comm. Algebra 16(4) (1988),
755-779.