Appreciation and thanks

It is obligatory for a human being to live a simple life and put simplicity at the top
of her/his epigraph. None of the creations without humanity haven’t reached higher
ranks and degrees...!!! In all steps of life, there were many people to thank and the
first of all that are dear parents; Because their existence is the reason for the
salvation and success of every human being in this world and the hereafter. Their
souls are blessed with divine mercy and next to the great paradise with the Lord of
the worlds. Also, I would like to express my appreciation, gratitude and respect to
my precious and dear professors, especially my supervisor, Dr . ParvizSahandi, and
my advisor Dr . Shirmohammadi In the following, I consider it my duty to appreciate
and thank my wife. And finally, I would like to thank all my friends and
acquaintances who helped me in this thesis. May God bless you all.

1
Contents
1 Introduction and Background.................................................................................................5
1.1 Rings and Ring homomorphisms.....................................................................................5
1.2 Ideals and quotient rings..................................................................................................6
1.3 Zero-divisors................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Prime ideals and maximal ideals.....................................................................................8
1.5 Nilradical and Jacobson radical.....................................................................................11
1.6 Past Research on Zero Divisor Graphs..........................................................................12
1.6.1 Becks Zero Divisor Graph......................................................................................12
1.6.2 Anderson and Livingston’s Zero Divisor Graph..............................................14
1.6.3 Mulays Zero Divisor Graph...................................................................................17
1.6.4 Other Zero Divisor Graphs.....................................................................................19
1.7 The prime spectrum for amalgamated algebras.............................................................24
2 Amalgamated algebras along an ideal.................................................................................25
2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 26
2.2 The genesis....................................................................................................................26
2.3 Pullback constructions...................................................................................................42
2.4 The ring A ⋈ fJ : some basic algebraic properties..........................................................51
3 The diameter of the zero-divisor graph of an amalgamated algebra.....................................68
3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................68
3.2 Zero-divisors and minimal prime ideals of R ⋈ fJ ..........................................................71
3.3 Main results...................................................................................................................73

2
Introduction
This dissertation consists of There chapters the first chapter we talk about The
concept of some mathematical prerequisites and The most and research That
established and important studies discussed this topic.
Second chapter it was first discussed about the origin of the integrated structure,
then about The initial characteristics of this structure. After introducing of This
structure. The multiple structure, it becomes clear that the integration structure is a
special case then the basic characteristics of The integration structure are
examined.
In this chapter, we generalise and improve upon recently obtained solutions
for computing the diameter of the Zero-divisor graph of unified algebras. In
specifically, we define the size of the merged copy of the Zero-divisor graph.

3
Abstract
Suppose A and B are two commutative rings, J e ideal of B and f : A → B is ring
homomorphism. In this case, the following subring of A × B
f
A ⋈ J :={(a , f (a)+ j)∨a ∈ A , j ∈ J }

is called the integration loop of A with B in the direction of J with respect to f .

Also, the definition of this structure goes back to the works of the [37] in 1932,
which presented a key structure of the double merge ring. In 2007 , D'Anna and
Fontana thought about a variety of alternative classical structures, including
compound rings A+ XB[ X ], A+ XB[[ X ]] and CPI -extensions Boisen and Sheldon and
well-known constructions D+ M and Nagatara’s idealization and We give necessary
and sufficient criteria for the Zero-divisor graph of the combined algebra to exist.
R ⋈ J has dimeter 2 or 3.
f

In this subsection, we recover and enhance previously established results on

amalgamated duplications [Maimani, H.R., Yassemi,S. (2008)] and amalgamated
algebra [Kabbaj,S., Mimouni,A.(2018)]. Furthermore, we provide some novel
results, and as an example, we describe in detail the size of the Zero divisor graph
of the merged duplicate.

4
Chapter 1

1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Rings and Ring homomorphisms

One type of set that may undergo both types of binary operations (adding
and multiplying) is called a ring A if and only if
1. A is an addition-abelian group (such if A contains a null value, denoted
by 0 , -x is the additive negative of every x ∈ A .
2. In contrast to addition, multiplication is both associative ((xy) z=x ( yz ))
and distributive (x ( y + z )=xy + xz ,( y + z) x= yx + zx ).
Only commutative rings will be taken into account:
3. "xy = yx for all x , y ∈ A ," and consist of a unique component (number 1).
4. " ∃1 ∈ A such that x 1=1 x = x for all x ∈ A ".
This ensures that the assigned identification is truly unique. In this context, "ring"
means a commutative ring with an identity member, that is, a ring satisfying
axioms (1) and (22).
Remark 1.1.1. (see [8]) In (4), we do not rule out the possibility that (1) is equal to
zero. To that end, for each x ∈ A
x=x 1=x 0=0.

Consequently, there is only one possible value for A, and it is 0. As a misuse

of notation, we can say that A is the zero ring. If we transfer ring A onto ring B
using function f, then we have a ring homomorphism if and only if

5
 i) f (x+ y)=f (x )+f ( y), this means that f is a homomorphism of abelian groups,
and so
f (x− y )=f (x)−f ( y), 0.4 cmf (−x )=−f (x), 0.4 cmf (0)=0

ii) f (xy )=f (x)f ( y),

iii) f (1)=1.
To put it another way, f honours the additive, multiplicative, and identity
equivalence relationships. A ring S is said to be a subring of A if and only if It is
complete under multiply and addition if it also includes the identity element of A.
Ring homomorphisms include the identity mapping from S to A.
Remark 1.1.3. (see [8]) If f : A ⟶ B , g : B ⟶C are ring homomorphisms then so is
their composition g ∘ f : A ⟶ C .
1.2 Ideals and quotient rings
A subset of the ring A that is an additive subgroup and is defined such that is called
an ideal an of A. Aa⊆ a ¿ and y ∈a imply xy ∈a ). The ringified form of the fraction
ring A /a, which inherits a specifically specified multiplier from A, is known as the
quadrature ring (or residue-class ring) A/a. The components of set A are those of
A /a match the cosets of a given, and the mapping :It is possible to define a

surjective ring homomorphism ϕ : A ⟶ A /a by mapping each x ∈ A to its coset

x +a [8 ].

The information here will be used extensively:

Proposition 1.2.1 (see [8]) It can be shown that the ideals b of A that contain a
have matching the principles one-to-one in a way that maintains order b of A /a,
given by b=ϕ 1 (b)
If f : A ⟶ B is the kernel of any ring homomorphism, and f ¿ , in its perfect form,
represents the letter A of f (¿ f (A )) is isomorphic between rings A and B, and f
produces a ring estrangement A /a ≅ C .
There will be moments when we utilise the notation x ≡y(mod a ), this means that
6
x− y ∈ a.

1.3 Zero-divisors
A ring A has a zero-divisor if and only if there is a member x such that x divides 0.
where xy=0and y ≠ 0 are both integers in the set A. Integer divisor-free ring ≠ 0 (and
in which 1 ≠ 0) is referred to as an essential domain. For example, Z and k [x 1 , ⋯ , xn ]
( k a field, x i indeterminates) are integral domains.
For some non-zero integer n, the material x ∈ A is nilpotent' if and only if x n=0 . If,
(unless A=0)then any nilpotent element is a divisor of n> 0, but not necessarily the

other way around.

An member x of the set A is said to be a unit if and only if xy=1 for some y ∈ A .
This makes x a unique determinant of y , which is represented by the notation x−1 A
is made up of units that form a (multiplicative) abelian group. An element's axe
multiples x ∈ A form a principal ideal, denoted by (x ) or Ax . x is a unit⇔(x )=A=(1).
The zero ideal (0) is usually denoted by 0.
In mathematics, a field is defined as a ring A where 1 ≠ 0 and all non-zero elements
are units. All integral domains are also fields, although Z not all fields are integral
domains.
Proposition 1.3.1. (see [8]) Supposing A is the ring≠ 0.. In that case, we can say
that:
i. "A is a field"
ii. "the only ideals in A are 0 and (1)";
iii. "every homomorphism of A into a non-zero ring B is injective".

Proof. i) ⇒ ii). Take the ideal a ≠ 0in the set A to be true. So, an is not entirely zero
x ; x is a unit, hence a ⊇(x)=(1), hence a=(1).

ii) ⇒ iii). Let ϕ : A ⟶ B be a homomorphism of rings. Then Ker (ϕ) is the

culmination ≠(1) because of A Ker (ϕ )=0, hence ϕ is injective.
7
 iii)⇒ i). Let x represent a non-unitary member of the set A. Then (x )≠=(1),
hence B= A /(x) not the ring of zeros. Let ϕ : A ⟶ B be the underlying
homomorphism kernel (x) from A to B that occurs naturally. By hypothesis, ϕ is
injective, hence(x )=0, hence x=0 .

1.4 Prime ideals and maximal ideals

Prime p in the ideal set A if p ≠(1) and if xy ∈ p ⇒ x ∈ p or y ∈ p.
Maximum m in the ideal space A ifm 6 ≠(1) Moreover, if there is no perfect
example, then m ⊂a ⊂(1) (strictinclusions). Equivalently:
p is prime ⇔ A / p is an integral domain;
m is maximal ⇔ A /m is a field (by (1.2.1) and (1.3.1)).
Hence a maximal ideal is prime (but not conversely, in general). If the zero-
valued ideal in ⇔ A is prime, then A is an assortment of integrals.
"If f : A → B is a homomorphic of rings, and q is a prime ideal in B, then f −1 (q) is
a prime ideal in A, for A∨f −1(q) is isomorphic to a subring of B/q and hence has no
zero-divisor ≠ 0.When n is a maximum ideal of B, then it is not necessarily true that
−1
f (r ) is maximal in A; all we can say for sure is that it is prime. (Example:
A=Z ; B=Q ; n=0.)"

Primordial ideals are essential to the entire field of commutative algebra. The
following theorem and its consequences ensure an unlimited supply:
Theorem 1.4.1. At least one maximum ideal exists for any ring A ≠ 0. For the
record, "ring" denotes a "commutative ring with 1." Zorn's lemma is commonly
used in situations like this.This is a standard application of Zorns lemma 1."Let Σ be
the set of all ideals≠(1) in A. Order Σ by inclusion. Σ is not empty, since 0 ∈ Σ . To
apply".
 See that S be a non-empty partially ordered set (i.e., we are given a relation
1 Let S be a non-empty partially ordered set.
8
 x ≤ y on S which is reflexive and transitive and like " x ≤ y and y ≤ x " together

imply Zorns lemma we must show that every chain in Σ has an upper bound
in Σ; let then (a α) be a chain of ideals in Σ , so that for each pair of indices
α , β we have either a α ⊆ a β ora β ⊆ aα . Let a=∩α a α. Then a is an ideal (verify

this) and 1 ∉a because 1 ∉a α for all a. Hence a ∈ Σ , and a is an upper bound of

the chain. Hence by Zorns lemma Σ has a maximal element.
Corollary 1.4.2. It follows that there is A /a maximum ideal of A that contains a if
and only if a ≠(1) is an ideal of A .
Corollary 1.4.3. A maximum ideal contains every subunit of A.
Remark 1.4.4. 1) If A is since we are Noetherian, we don't need to apply Zorn's
lemma to prove that every set of ideals, ≠(1), has a unique maximum member.
2) The ring of fields is an example of a ring with a special minimal
objective. The notion of a local ring, in which the greatest possible value of
element A is fixed,
Rings with just one maximum ideal, such as fields, are one example. A band
with a single, uncompromising requirement m a neighbourhood ring is thoughts
that. The field k = A/m is referred to as A 's residual field.
Proposition 1.4.5 i) show that A be a ring and m ≠(1) an ideal of A such that every
x ∈ A−m is a unit in A . So, A is a community ring and m its maximal ideal.

ii) Given a ring A and a maximum ideal m of A, show that every 1+m
member of A is a perfect square (i.e., every 1+ x , where x ∈ m) is a unit in A . Then A
is a local ring.
Proof. i) Since m contains only non-units, it contains every ideal ≠(1). Hence m is
the only maximal ideal of A .
ii) Then x ∈ A−m . Since m is the highest possible number and the product of
x and m equals one, Consequently, there are y ∈ A and t ∈ m as well as that xy +t=1;

hence xy=1−t belongs to 1+m and therefore is a unit. Now use i).
9
Example 1.4.6. 1. A=k [ x 1 , ⋯ , xn] ,k a field. Let f ∈ A a polynomial that cannot be
simplified. Primeness of f is established through unique factorization.
2." A=Z . Every ideal in Z conforms to the type (m ) for some m ≥0 . The ideal
(m) is prime ⇔ m=0 or a prime number. All the ideals ( p), where p is a prime
number, are maximal: Z /( p) is the field of p elements".
The identical is true for Example 1) "for n=1, but not for n>1. The ideal m of
all polynomials in A=k [ x 1 , ⋯ , xn] with zero constant term is maximal (since x= y )".
A part T of S is a series and only x ≤ y or y ≤ x for every pair of elements x , y in T .

This allows us to restate Zorn's lemma in the form of: T of S has an upper bound in
S (i.e., this exist x ∈ S that t ≤ x that all t ∈ T ) then S has at least one maximal

element.
Particularly, a demonstration that Zorn's lemma is identical to the axiom of
choice, the well-ordering principle, etc. is provided in P. R. Halmos's Naive Set
Theory, Van Nostrand (1960). You might think of this as the homomorphism's
"heart.". A → k which maps f ∈ A to f (0)¿. But if n>1. m is not a principal ideal: in
fact it requires at least n generators.
3. An integral domain is said to be a major ideal domain if and only if it
contains a complete set of ideals. In such a ring, the highest possible prime ideal is
always non-zero. If (x )≠ 0 is a fundamental value,( y )⊃( x), we have x ∈( y), say
x= yz , so that yz ∈(x) and y ∉(x), hence z ∈(x ) : say z=tx . Then x= yz = ytx, so that

yt=1 and therefore ( y )=(1).

1.5 Nilradical and Jacobson radical

Proposition 1.5.1. An ideal is the set R containing all nilpotent elements in a ring
A , where A /R contains no such element≠ 0.

If x ∈ R, clearly ax ∈ R for all a ∈ A . Let x , y ∈ R : say x m=0 , y n=0. A commutative

ring is not required for the binomial theorem to hold. ¿ multiplied by an integer
sum x r y s, where "r + s=m+ n−1;" it can't have it both ways. " r < m" and " s<n ," hence,
10
each of these items disappears, and¿. Here " x + y ∈ R" and there is x is an ideal. Let
x inA / A be represented by x ∈ A . Then x n is represented by x n, so that

x =0 ⇒ x ∈ R ⇒ ¿ some "k > 0 ⇒ x ∈ x ⇒ x=0 . The nilradical of A is the perfect radical

n n

R . The following statement offers a different way of understanding what x .

Proposition 1.5.2. The nilradical's of a set A is the set whose prime ideal's meet
exactly once.
Let R ' represent the point where all of A's fundamental values converge."
f ∈ A is nilpotent and p is a prime ideal, then f n=0 ∈ p for some n> 0, hence f ∈ p

(because p is prime). Hence f ∈ R ' ".

On the reverse hand, imagine f is not nilpotent. Let Σ be the set of ideals a
with the property
n
n> 0⇒ f ∉ a

Then Σ is not empty because 0 ∈ Σ . As in (1.4.1) Zorns lemma can be applied to the
set Σ , ordered by inclusion, and therefore Σ has a maximal element. Let p be a
maximal element of Σ. We shall show that p is a prime ideal. Let x , y ∉ p. Then the
ideals p+(x), p+( y ) strictly contain p and therefore do not belong to Σ; hence
m n
f ∈ p+(x ),0.3 cm f ∈ p +( y )

for some m , n. It follows that f m+n ∈ p+( xy ), hence the ideal p+(xy) is not in Σ and
therefore xy ∉ p. Hence we have a prime ideal p such that f ∉ p , so that f ∉ R ' . For
each set A , the Jacobson radical R is the set of all of its maximum ideals that are
concatenated together. This phenomenon can be described as follows.
Proposition 1.5.3.
x ∈ R ⇔1−xy is a unit in A for all y ∈ A .

Proof: Suppose 1−xy is not a unit. By (1.4.3) it belongs to some maximal idealm;
but x ∈ R ⊆ m, hence xy ∈m and therefore 1 ∈m, which is absurd.
"Suppose x ∉ m for some maximal ideal m . Then m and x generate the unit
ideal (1), so that we have u+ xy =1 for some u ∈m and some y ∈ A . Hence 1−xy ∈ m
11
 and is therefore not a unit".

1.6 Past Research on Zero Divisor Graphs

Since there is a plethora of literature on the issue of zero divisor graphs, frequently
authored from wildly divergent perspectives, we have compiled a summary of that
work here. Unless otherwise specified, R is assumed to be a unital commutative
ring throughout.
1.6.1 Becks Zero Divisor Graph
Zero-divisor graphs were first proposed by I. Beck [11].
Definition 1.6.1. ([11]) Denote by G(R) set R of vertices in a graph where each pair
of vertices can be r and s are near and, rs=0 where R refers to a ring. BecauseG(R)
is a simple graph, it does not contain any loops and does not encode components
that might destroy themselves exist in R . Furthermore, "the graph G(R)" is linked
with a maximum width of 2, as the zero vertex is adjacent every member of the
ring2.
Becks primary focus was on the graphG(R) chromatic number χ (G (R)).
His best guess was " χ (G (R))equals ω (G(R)) ," the clique number of G(R). Since the
vertices in a clique are near to one another and must have different colours, The
chromatic number is constrained less tightly by the clique number. On top of that,
consider the following:
Theorem 1.6.2. Let R be a ring (Theorems 3.9, 6.13, 7.3; Propositions 7.1, 7.2).
i. Each of the following is an equivalent situation:
a. " χ (G (R)) is finite";
b. "ω (G(R)) is finite";
c. " In addition to having a finite value as an intersection of prime
ideals, the nilradical of R also has a finite value"; and
d. A clique of size infinity does not exist inG(R).
12
 ii. "Let R be such that χ (G (R)) is finite. If R is a finite product of
reduced rings and principal ideal rings, then ω (G(R))= χ (G(R)) .
iii. If χ (G (R))<∞ , then χ (G (R))=n if and only if ω (G(R))=n, for n ≤ 4 .
iv. " χ (G (R))=5 , then ω (G(R))=5".
Beck also provides a list of all finite rings R with χ (G (R))≤3.
Example 1.6.3 If R is the factor ring of [[5] Remark 2:1],then Z 4 [ X , Y , Z ]
determined by the ideal ( X 2−2 ,Y 2 , Z 2 ,2 X , 2 Y ,2 Z , YX , XZ , YZ−2), then χ (G (R))=6
and ω (G(R))=5.
They also expanded Becks' categorization of low-chromatic-number
indefinite rings to include high-chromatic-number finite ringed.
. χ (G (R))=4.

1.6.2 Anderson and Livingston’s Zero Divisor Graph

Beck's zero divisor graph had not been simplified until D. F. Anderson and P. S.
Livingston [6] presented it. Their intent was to more effectively illustrate the ring's
zero-divisor structure. The new zero divisor graph is otherwise identical to the
original graph in terms of its edges, with the exception that it now only includes
the ring's zero divisors.; i.e., "non-zero elements r of R such that Ann R (r) ≠(0)".
¿
Definition 1.6.4. ([6]) Given a ring R , let Z ( R) signify the group of divisors of R
where each member is zero. Let's call Γ (R) the graph whose vertices form the set
¿
Z ( R) where r and s are two different vertices that are contiguous if and only if

rs=0 . In spite of the missing zero vertex, The following is true in most cases:

Theorem 1.6.5 ([6], Theorems 2:3) The smallest number of vertices in the resulting
graph G(R) has at least three.
Since finite rings yield finite graphs, Anderson and Livingston have devoted a
great deal of time and energy to investigating the case that R is finite. For a given
set of rings, they determine whether or not the graph is complete/a star. Here is our
13
catalogue of star objects.:
Theorem 1.6.6 Theorem's 2.13 of [6] For a star-shaped graph Γ ¿ with four or more
vertices, then R is a finite ring. then ¿ Γ ( R)∨¿ p n, For any prime p and positive
integern ≥ 0. An further benefit is that every star graph of order pn can be
implemented as Γ (R) for some R.
The connection between R graph theoretic characteristics and its ring theoretic
properties is something that has been studied by Anderson and Livingston, among
others Γ (R) , for example, [2, 2 , 7 ,39 ]. The number of cliques in ring Γ (R) is
counted and the relationship between graph isomorphisms and ring isomorphisms
is studied by "D. F. Anderson, A. Frazier, A. Lauve, and P. S. Livingston" [7].
Theorem 1.6.7. Theorem 4:2 [7], Proof) If we are given two non-field finite
reduced rings R and S, Then, if we assume that R and S are ring isomorphic, then so
are their corresponding graphs" Γ (R) and Γ (S)".
In addition, any n for which Γ (Z n ) is planar is established by the authors [7], and In
this paper, we ask for the first time which finite rings in general provide a planar
zero divisor graph. S. Akbari, H. R. Maimani, and S.Yassemi [2] provided a partial
response to this. If we restrict the inquiry to local rings with cardinality no larger
than 32, we can get an answer.
Theorem 1.6.8. ([2], According to the first two theorems, if Γ (R) is a finite local
ring that is not a field and contains at least 33 members, then R is not planar
(theorem 1:2). An independent solution was provided by N. O. Smith [44], who
additionally distinguished between 44 types of isomorphism to determine whether
rings are planar.
Theorem 1.6.9. result3.7 and Corollary 3.8 )If R is a finite global ring it is not an
object and has ten zero subdivisions or at least twenty-eight elements, then Γ (R) is
not planar.
R. Belshoff and J. Chapman [12], who have conducted much study in this field,
14
reviewed the issue of planarity (also known as genus zero). Smith [44] also studied
the toroidal zero-divisor graphs of genus one and the planarity of infinite rings. H.-
J. ChiangHsieh, N. O. Smith, and H.-J. Wang [15] examine the problem in depth
for rings with toroidal zero divisor graphs. When it comes to graphs of genus one
with no divisors, C.Wickham [46] is another go-to authority. In addition, C.
Wickham [46] studies two-genus graphs, much like N. Bloomfield [48].
Kuratowski's Theorem is pivotal in proving that a graph is rectangular if and
only if it does not include any subgraphs that are identical to either the whole
graphK_5or the full bipartite graph. K 3 ,3 .
The rings that define a full r-partite graph are listed by Akbari, Maimani, and
Yassemi [2]. Specifically, they demonstrate the following:
Theorem 1.6.10. "([2], Theorems 2.4 and 3.2) Let R be a finite ring such that Γ (R)
is r-partite".
i. "So,r must be a prime number".
ii. "If r ≥ 3, then no more than one subset of partitions of Γ (R) can have
more than one vertex".
iii. "If R is reduced, then Γ (R) is bipartite (i.e., r =2 )if there are two unique
primes in R that overlap trivially, then".
iv. If R is reduced and Γ (R) so it must be divided Γ (R) is complete bipartite.
Similar findings may be found in Theorem 2:6, which characterises the rings. R
such that Γ (R) is a star, i.e., a complete bipartite graph of the form K 1 , N .
The girth of graphs with no divisors is another interesting graph invariant.
Anderson and Livingston proved that the girth cannot be more than four if R is
Artinian and They hypothesised that this upper constraint would apply in general
because Γ (R) comprises a cycle.
Independently, F. DeMeyer and K. Schneider [22] and S. B. Mulay[38] proved this
hypothesis to be true.
15
Theorem 1.6.11 ([22], Definition 1.6, [38], (1.4) If R is not acyclic for some ring
Γ (R) , then Γ (R) width is no more than 4.

Given the above, it's clear that this circumference limit is strict:
Example 1.6.12. ([21], Example 2.1 (b)) The graph Γ (Z 3 × Z 3 ) is a 4-cycle.
Furthermore, This illustrative case demonstrates that chordal graphs require
divisors. This is consistent with the fact that chord diagrams are always closed.
Additional details on the size of Γ (R) may be found in [2, 16].

1.6.3 Mulays Zero Divisor Graph

The next zero divisor graph connected with a ring is shown by S. B. Mulay [38].
Definition 1.6.13. ([38]) Doubling the number of zero divisors a ring has R two
¿
zero divisors r , s ∈ Z ( R) are equivalent if AnnR(r) = AnnR(s). Denoting the r-
equivalence group as [r ]."The graph Γ E (R) has vertex set equal to the set of
¿
equivalence classes {[r ] jr ∈ Z (R)}", and distinct classes [r ] and [s ] are adjacent in
Γ E (R) provided that rs=0 in R . Adjacency is readily apparent in this way, as seen in

[38]. in the sense that adjacency in Γ E (R) is not dependent on [r ] and [s ] officials.
The graph Γ E (R)is elementary in nature. In addition, consider the following:
Theorem 1.6.14. ([38]; also [21], Theorem 1.2, and [45], Premise 1.4) When a ring
R is presented, the graph Γ E (R) is linked with a dimension of no more than 3.

"S. Spiroff and C. Wickham compared Γ E (R) and Γ (R) in their paper [45]. This
novel graph improves upon its two forerunners by providing a more condensed
visual depiction of the zero divisor structure of the ring by allowing Γ E (R) to be
finite even when R is infinite".
"In [45], Contrast and comparison by S. Spiroff and C. Wickham. Since Γ E (R) can
be finite even when is infinite, this novel graph provides a clearer visual
representation of the zero divisor structure of the ring than its two forerunners. The
16
variety of possible graph realisations also varies. In contrast to Akbari, [7 ] findings,
for instance, we have the following:[7] ([45]) Let R be a Noetherian ring".
i. "If Γ E (R) is complete K N , then n=2 .
ii. "If Γ E (R) is complete bipartite K n , m, then n=1, i.e., Γ E (R) is a star"
iii. "If Γ E (R) has at least three vertices, then it is not a cycle, more
generally, it is not regular".
The related primes of R are shown in this graph, which is significant
because its vertices correspond to annihilator ideals in the ring Γ E (R).
For the same ring, we illustrate the distinctions between the three types of
zero-divisor graphs that have been investigated so far by providing examples of
each.
Example 1.6.16. Let R=Z /12 Z .

Each component of Z /12 Z has its own vertex in the aforementioned Becks graph.
Each such component is present in the graph constructed by Anderson and
Livingston, but only the zero divisors.

17
Each component of is denoted by its own vertex in Becks graph up top.

determines a distinct vertex

Γ E (Z /12 Z)

The four categories in Mulay's graph are established by

Ann R ( 2 )=( 6 ) , An nR ( 3 ) =¿

(4); An nR (4)=(3), and Ann R (6)=(2).

1.6.4 Other Zero Divisor Graphs

Regarding an ideal, S. P. Redmond [42] offers a graph with no divisors.
Definition 1.6.17. ([42]) In a graph over a ring and an ideal, vertices x in R satisfy
the following condition: (I : R x )≠ I . Distinct vertices x and y are adjacent if xy ∈ I .

18
Of course, if I =(0), then Γ I (R) is just Γ (R). If I is prime, then Γ I (R)= ∅. The
connection between and is discussed by Redmond. Γ I (R) and Γ (R / I ).
Theorem 1.6.18. ([42], Assigned a ring R and an ideal's I , as stated in Corollary
2.7 and Remark 2.8), In fact, there are ¿ I ∨¿| separate subgraphs of Γ I (R)that are
isomorphic to Γ (R / I ). Moreover, if Γ (R / I ) represents a graph with n nodes, then
Γ I (R) has n .∨I ∨¿ vertices.

In contrast with Theorem 2.7, we have the following:

Example 1.6.19. "([42], Remark 2.3) Set R=Z 6 × Z3 and S=Z 24, with ideals I =(0)× Z 3
and J=(8), ) in each case. Then, the charts. graphs Γ (R / I ) and Γ (S /J ) are
isomorphic, but Γ I (R) and Γ J (S) are not".
This novel graph is further investigated by" H. R. Maimani, M. R. Pournaki, and S.
Yassemi" [36], who ask when {Γ} rsub {I} ( R ) ≅ {Γ} rsub {J} ( S might imply
Γ (R / I ) ≅ Γ (S /J ) . They show the following:

Theorem 1.6.20. ([36], Theorem 2:2) Let R and S be two finite rings, and let I and
J be two finite radical ideals of those rings Γ (R / I ) ≅ Γ (S /J ) and ¿ I ∨¿∨J ∨¿ if
Γ I (R) ≅ Γ J (S) . Zero divisor graphs have been further developed to include non-

commutative rings as vertices. For instance, "F. DeMeyer, T. McKenzie, and K.

Schneider" [36] created a graph in the style of Anderson and Livingston for a
commutative semigroup S represented multiplicatively that contains zero .
Defintion 1.6.21. ([21]) Consider the semigroup S to be a commutative
multiplicatively 0 semigroup. "Denote by Γ (S) the directed graph with a vertex set
consisting of the non-zero divisors of S, and an edge connecting the two sets of
non-zero divisors x and y if and only if xy=0." DeMeyer and L. DeMeyer [20]
build upon this concept by specifying other requirements for a graph G to be of the
type Γ (S). For example:
Theorem 1.6.22. ([20], "Theorem" 1) If G is a semigroup's diagram, then for every
x , y of nonadjacent vertices of G , there is a vertex z with N ( x )∪ N ( y)⊆ N (z ), where
19
N ( z )=N (z )∪{ z } is the closure of the neighborhood N (z ) of z ".

They give examples of semigroup-realizable classes of graphs, such as those in

whichG is a full and final bipartite structure or has at least one end and diameter 2.
Note the first two theorems in [20]. By adding 0 to the vertex set, they consider a
zero divisor graph that is more similar to Becks' original graph. Let's call this graph
G(S). Each individual in S must also be idempotent for S to be classified as a meet-

semilattice. "S. K. Nimbhokar, M. P. Wasadikar, and L. DeMeyer investigate these

graphs and prove that a variant of Becks conjecture regarding the chromatic
number holds".
Theorem 1.6.23. ([40], Let S be a commutative multiplicative semigroup of order 0
in which case each element of S is idempotent (Theorem 2) and Corollary1) If
ω (G(S))< ∞, then χ (G (S))=ω(G(S)) and χ (Γ (S))=ω(Γ (S)).

Zero divisor graphs associated to semigroups are also studied by L. DeMeyer, L.

Greve, A. Sabbaghi, and J. Wang [24] and L. DeMeyer, M. DSa, I. Epstein, A.
Geiser, and K. Smith [23], among others.
Remark 1.6.24. . Assuming that R is a homogeneous ring, then Γ E (R)is the
semigroup whose zero divisor graph is the equivalence classes of the zero divisors.
As a result, Γ E (R) is amenable to an application of certain of the results on
semigroups, such as connectedness and diameter less than or equal to
three.Theorem
1:2. However, for some commutative ring R , not every semigroup graph can be
constructed as Γ E (R).e.g., It can be used when G is a full or completed bipartite
configuration that is not a star graph as Γ ¿) [20], Theorems 3, but not as Γ E (R) [45],
Propositions 1.5 and 1.7.
It was initially introduced by R. Halas and M. Jukl [29], however another
interpretation of a zero divisor graph revolves around posets P containing 0. Their
graph resembles Becks' main description..
20
Defintion 1.6.25. ([21]) Given a poset P with zero elements, denote byG(P) which
is the edge set of the graph P, where two vertices x and y are near if and only if 0
does not lie below them.
Theorem 1.6.26. ([30], example 2.9) Given a poset P containing 0, if ω (G(P)) is
finite, then χ (G (P))=ω (G(P)) .
Then, following in the footsteps of Anderson and Livingston, D. Lu and T. Wu
[32] create a zero divisor graph for posets:
Definition 1.6.27. Let's use the poset P, which contains zeros, as an illustration. In
the event that there exists a non-zero element x ∈ P is divisible by 0. y ∈ P in which
¿
0 is the single sub-element x and y . Let Γ (P) be the graph with Z ( P) as which
vertices x and y are neighbours in its vertex set if and only if 0 is the only element
below x and y.
Let be the vertex set of the graph where x and y are both distinct and neighbouring
if and only if 0 lies below both of them.
The concept of a compact graph plays a pivotal role in the research presented in.
Consider the following as an illustration:
Theorem 1.6.28. ([32], Theorems 3.1 and 3.2) A straightforward diagram If and
only if G is compact, Hence, it is the poset's graph with no divisors.In addition, if G
is compact with ω (G)< ∞, then [32] ω (G)= χ (G).
The lack of loops in a zero divisor graph of a ring, along with the possibility of
nilpotent components in the ring, means that such graphs are often not compact.
Because of this, it can be shown that reduced rings (in any of the senses) generate
compact zero-divisor graphs.ω (G)= χ (G) If either or both are finite, ω (G) is infinite.
Similarly, we have the following:
Theorem 1.6.29. ([32], Amendments 2.2 (1) and 4.1) If Commuting S with 0 is
possible in the exponentially reduced semigroup Γ (S) as a part, then the diagram
Γ ¿. ) is little, with a diameter of 4 inches at most. Last but not least, zero-divisor

21
graphs for non-commutative rings have been constructed.
Defintion 1.6.30. ([41]) The nonzero elements x of a noncommutative ring D are
and only divisors by if xy=0 or yx=0 for some variable that is not zero y . Let ( Γ ¿
The zero divisors of form the vertices of a directed graph, which is denoted by D
and the edge x → y being drawn between the vertices if and only if xy=0"
The definition of an undirected edge in a commutative ring reverts back to that of
Γ (R) in which a pair of directed edges constitutes an undirected edge.Non-
commutative connection, as demonstrated by R. S. P. Redmond, is conditional on
the congruence of the sets of left and right zero-divisors. Continuing their
investigation of this directed graph, S. The lowest zero divisor graph of a non-
commutative ring is shown by Akbari and A. Mohammadian [2]0.

Γ ( D), for D= {[ ]
a b
0 0 }
a , b ∈ Z 2 ¿ which has the form E11 ← E12 →(E 11 + E12) .

A non-commutative ring that Intel defined is an unsecured graph.

Definition 1.6.31. ([41]) ]) Given a non-commutative ring D let G ' (D) be the
network where the nodes in D are all zero and draw an edge between different
nodes x and y provided that xy=0 or yx=0.
This graph, like all others with zero divisors, is linked, has a diameter less
than or equal to 3, and, when finite, has a girth less than or equal to 4. Evidence
from Akbari and Mohammadian is also present, showing:
Theorem 1.6.32. ([3] tenth corollary) A finite star graph can be realized as G ' (D) if
and only if the number of vertices is divisible by pn or 2 p n−1, for some prime p and
some integer n ≥ 0.
We only highlight a small subset of results from a small number of articles, as
numerous authors have written more than 100 articles on the topic of zero-division
plotsWhile the focus of this project is on G E (R), Our aim in this survey was to
present readers a taste of the existing literature on zero-divisor graphs, with a focus

22
on the zero-divisor graph given by equivalency classes. See also D. F. Anderson,
M. C. Axtell, and J. A. Stickles for another overview of zero divisor graphs[6].
1.7 The prime spectrum for amalgamated algebras
We examine the notation that will be used throughout this thesis and a few of the
ring A ⋈ f J fundamental characteristics from the topic introduction piece before we
begin a thorough investigation of the ring[16].
Defintion 1.7.1. Let A and B be commutative rings with unity, let J ba an ideal of
B and let f : A ⟶ B be a ring homomorphism. In this setting, we can define the

following subring of A × B:
f
A ⋈ J ={( a , f (a)+ j)∨a ∈ A , j ∈ J }

called the amalgamation of A with B along J with respect to f .

Proposition 1.7.2. ([16], Proposition 5:1) "Let f : A → B be a ring homomorphism
and J an ideal of B, and set A ⋈ f J :={(a , f (a)+ j)∨a ∈ A , j ∈ J }."
(1) Let l :=t A , f , J : A → A ⋈f J is a natural ring homomorphism defined by by
l(a):=(a , f (a)), for all a ∈ A . The map ↓ is an embedding, making A ⋈ f J a ring

extension of A .
(2) "Let I be an ideal of A , and set I ⋈f J :={(i, f (i)+ j)∨i ∈ I ; j∈ J }. Then, I ⋈f J
is an ideal of A⋈ J,
f
the composition of canonical homomorphisms
A ↪ A ⋈ J →( A ⋈ J )/(I ⋈ J ) is a surjective ring homomorphism and its kernel
f f f

coincides with I ".

(3) "Let p A : A ⋈ f J → A and pB : A ⋈f J → B be the natural projections of
A ⋈ J ⊆ A × B into A and B, respectively. Then, p A is surjective and Ker¿. Moreover,
f

f −1
pB (A ⋈ J )=f ( A)+ J and Ker( p B)=f ( J )×{f 0 }".

(4) "Let γ : A ⋈ f J →( f ( A)+ J )/ J be the natural ring homomorphism, defined by

(a , f (a)+ j)↦f (a)+J . Then, γ is surjective and Ker(γ )=f −1 (J )× J ".

23
Chapter 2
2 Amalgamated algebras along an ideal

24
2.1 Introduction
Consider the homomorphism of rings A B and the ideal J of ring B. A novel
ring construction, the combination of A and B along J with regard to f, is the
subject of this chapter, wherein we launch into a comprehensive investigation of
this phenomenon. This construction has its origins in a paper by J.L. Dorroh that
was published in 1932 (see [26]), and it serves as a general framework for studying
the amalgamated duplication of a ring along an ideal, which was introduced and
investigated by Dâ€TMAnna and Fontana in 2007, as well as other classical
constructions like the A+XB[X] and A+XBX constructions, the CPI-extensions of
Boisen and Sheldon.

2.2 The genesis

So long as A is a commutative identitarian ring, we may define R as a ring
that is a module of A but not a commutative identitarian ring itself. Definition of a
multiplicative structure in the A-module A ⊕ R , using the construction proposed by
D.D. Anderson in [5] by setting "(a , x )(a ' , x '):=(aa ' , ax '+ a' x + xx ') for all a , a ' ∈ A "
˙ R possesses
and x , x ' ∈ R Specifically, To signify the direct sum, A ⊕ R is used. A ⊕
the ability to multiply, as described above.
Lemma 2.2.1 ([4 ], Using the aforementioned language, we have Theorem 2.1)
1. It is known that the canonical rings encapsulation ı A : A ↪ A ⊕˙ R , defined
as a ↦(a , 0) for everya ∈ A , induces the A-algebra structure of the ring
˙ R.
with identity (1,0) A ⊕
˙ R by associating the
2. It is possible to transform R into an ideal in A ⊕
iconic representation of it(0)× R in the canonical embedding
˙ R defined by x ↦(0 , x) for all x ∈ R .
ıR : R ↪ A ⊕

3. "Substitute B for A if A ×(0)) (or R with (0)× R , Consequently, this

25
 ˙ R results in an A-module by dividing (1,0)
leads us to: this ring A ⊕
and R , i.e., A(0 ,1)+ R= A ⊕˙ R . Moreover, if P A : A(0 ,1)+ R= A ⊕˙ R → A is
the canonical projection (defined by (a , x )↦ a for all a ∈ A and x ∈ R)",
then
˙
"0 → R L→R A ⊕ R P→R A →0 "
yields an A-module by dividing by zero. and
˙ R can be verified. Also (1, 0) is the identity of
Proof. 1. The ring status of A ⊕
˙ R since for each (a , x )∈ A ⊕
A⊕ ˙ R , we have (a, x)(1, 0) = (a1,a 0+x 1+x 0) = (a, x),

and likewise (1, 0)(a, x) = (a, x).

˙ R, since ∀(a ; x )∈ A ⊕
2. "Let (0)× R is an ideal of A ⊕ ˙ R , ∀ (0 , y)∈(0)× R "we

have
(a , x )(0 , y)=(0 , ay + xy )∈(0)× R
ay ∈ R ¿
}ay+ xy ∈ R
xy ∈ R ¿
⇒(0)× R ⊴ A ⊕ R
˙ R.
So R is an ideal of A ⊕

( )
→

3. if A ≅ A ×(0), f : A onto A ×(0) ¿ and R ≅ A ×(0)× R then" A ⊕

˙ R is an A-
a ⟼(a , 0) ¿

module that results from"

˙ R"
" (1 , 0), i. e .0.4 cmA(1 , 0)+(0)× R=A ⊕
˙ R(a , x)=(a , 0)+(0 , x )
3 cm ∀ (a , x)∈ A ⊕
7 cm=a(1 , 0)+(0 , x)

moreover, if
˙ R onto A
PA : A ⊕
→

(a , x )⟼ a

then

26
 ˙ R PA A ¿
R i R A ⊕ R 0.8 cmA ⊕
0⟶ R, → → , A⟶0
x ⟼ (0 , x) 1cm(a , x )⟼ a ¿

now, we can write Imi_R=0 × R and kerP_A¿ {(a , x)∨P A (a , x )=0 }=(0)× R Therefore
ImiR =ker P A .

Remark 2.2.2. (1) From the classical approach of embedding a ring (with or
without identity), the above structure can be derived, possibly without regular
members) in an identity ring, first presented by Dorroh [26] in 1932 (see also
Jacobson [28], page 155). Remembering that Dorrohs framework always starts
with a case that isn't the motivating one, but leads naturally to the key one (Case
2), can help to flesh out the picture.
In the first, we'll pretend that R is a commutative ring (with or without
identity) and refer to the collection of fractions defined on R as Tot (R)R, denoted
byTot ( R) :=N −1 R , where N is the set of all regular elements in R. Even if R does not
have any typical components, "this is easily apparent RTot(R) because R has a
r
regular element R ⊆ Tot (R) and Tot (R)has the identity1 := r . Here, we can think about

R[1]:={x +m.1∨x ∈ R ,m ∈ Z . It seems to reason that if R has an identity, then R=R [1],

but if it doesn't, then R[1] " is the smallest subring of Tot (R) that contains both R and
1. That's really obvious.

a) R , and R[1] have the same characteristic,

b) , R is an ideal of R[1] and
c) R[1], then the quotient-ring R[1]/ R is canonically isomorphic to Z /n Z , where
n(≥0)is the characteristic of R[1] (or, equivalently, of R ).

Proof. Case 1.
"Let S ⊆ R is multiplicatively closed, then"

27
 −1 r
" ∀ a , b ∈ S ; ab ∈ S , S R={ s ∨r ∈ R , s ∈ S },0.5 cm (localization of R with respect to S.) "

Let N is the multiplicatively closed set of regular elements of R , i.e. N ={regular

element R} (notice that a ∈ R ; (a ≠ 0) is called regular if ax ≠ 0⇒ x ≠ 0 ¿, then
" N −1 R=Tot ( R) ."
"(a) Since R ⊊ R [1], then char(R)≤ char(R [1]) Now we assume n :=¿ char(R).
Especially we have n 0.08 cmr=0, So "
r nr 0
n . 1R [1 ]=n .1Tot (R)=n . = = =0 ,
r r r
"Thus char(R [1])≤ n=¿ char(R). Therefore char(R) = char(R [1])."
(b) Since R is a ring, therefore it is an abelian additive group. Now for all
a ∈ R and n+ m.1∈ R[1], with m ∈ Z , x ∈ R, we have
a (x+ m.1)=ax +am .1∈ R .
therefore R is an ideal of R[1].
(c) We define:
R [1]
y :Z ⟶
R
φ (m)=m.1+ R
"it is clear that φ is a surjective homomorphism. To find kerφ , notice that"
φ (n)=n .1+ R=0+ R=0
"thus n ∈ kerφ . So n Z ⊆ kerφ . Now we assume that m ∈ kerφ ." There exist integers
q; m ' such that:
m=nq+m' , 0.5 cm0 ≤ m' <n .
we assert that m '=0. Else
m ' 1=m.1−nq .1=0.0=0.
Therefore n=¿ char(R [1])≤ m ' that is contradiction. This contradiction shows that
m '=0. So m=nq ∈n Z . Therefore kerφ=n Z . Hence:
Z R [1]
≅
nZ R

28
Case 2. In this example, we assume that R is a commutative ring (with or without
identities), which may or may not contain regular elements.Due to the possibility
of R=Tot (R), The methods used so far are not valid here. Dorroh's advice may come
to mind anytime R as a z module, And using the notation we discussed at the
beginning of this section, we can create the ring z ⊕˙ R , which we will refer to as
Dh R to show our respect for Dorroh€™s. It should be pointed out that Dh R is a
commutative ring with the identity1 Dh(R ) :=( 1, 0). Since (R)=Z (1 ,0)+ R Dh( R)
possesses a form of minimum property over R if we identify, as usual, R with its
canonical image in Dh( R ). In addition, the quotient ring Dh( R ) is isomorphic to Z
by definition.
Unfortunately, if R is identity-preserving, 1 R, then the canonical embedding of R
into Dh(R) (defined by x ↦(0 , x) for all x ∈ R) loses the individual's identity, since
(0 , 1R )≠ 1Dh( R). More importantly, the canonical embedding R ↪ Dh(R) may not

maintain the characteristic in either situation (whether R is a ring with or without

identity).
In 1935, Dorroh provided a variant of the preceding design in [26]39 to get
around this problem. To be more specific, if R has characteristic n that tends
towards the positive side, then R can be viewed as a Z=n Z −module, hence
˙ R is an n-characteristic identitarian ring.Also, see up top ,
D hn ( R):=(Z /n Z) ⊕

D hn ( R)=(Z /n Z)(1 , 0)+ R and D hn ( R)/ R equivalent to in the canonical sense Z /n Z .

(2) You may recall that in 1974, Shores examined a generalisation of the
Dorroh’s construction (prior Case 2) (Surfeit, et al., Shores, Definition 6.3) to
provide instances of local commutative rings of arbitrary large Loewy length.
The following is an example of when the preceding generic construction
(Lemma 2.2.1) would be appropriate. Let J be an ideal of Ring B and a ring
homomorphism f : A → B . It is important to keep in mind that f sets up a natural
structure of an A-module on J . a . j :=f ( a) j, for all a ∈ Aandj ∈ J . Then, we
29
 ˙ J.
canconsider A ⊕
We assume that
˙ R onto R
PA : A ⊕
→

(a , x )⟼ a
then
P A oφ (a)=P A (φ(a))=P A (a ,0)=a=1 A (a), 0.5 cm ∴ P A oφ=1 A .

Let R = Z , N={… ,−1, 1 , … }=Z {0 } if

f : R 1−1 Tot (R) ¿
→
x ⟹ R ⊆ Tot (R)
x⟼ ¿ subring
r

if R include regular element r

" R[1]={x +m.1∨x ∈ R , m ∈ R=Z }subring
⊆ Tot (R) "

therefore R[1] is a unital ring (if R is unital then R=R [1].) and R[1] is the smallest
subring Tot (R) that include R and 1.
R ⊆ R [1] ⊆ Tot (R).
subring subring

Lemma 2.2.3. Using the aforementioned notation, we have:

˙ J is a ring.
(1) A ⊕
(2) Injective ring homomorphisms include the map" f ⋈ : A ⊕˙ J → A , defined by
(a , j)↦( a , f (a)+ j) " for alla ∈ A and j ∈ J . The map, defined by for all and is an

injective ring homomorphism.

˙ J (respectively, ı J : J → A ⊕J
(3) "The map ı A : A → A ⊕ ˙ ), defined by a ↦(a , 0)

for all a ∈ A (respectively, by j ↦(0 , j) for all j ∈ J ), is an injective ring

homomorphism (respectively, an injective A-module homomorphism). If we
˙ J coincides with
identify A with ıA ( A) (respectively, J with ıJ (J ) ), then the ring A ⊕
A+ J ".

(4) "Let P A : A ⊕˙ J → A be the canonical projection (defined by (a , j)↦a for all

30
a ∈ A and j ∈ J ), then the following is a split exact sequence of A-modules":
˙ J PA A → 0
0 → J ıJ A ⊕
→ →

We set
f ⋈
˙ J ), Γ (f ):={(a , f (a))∨a ∈ A }
A ⋈ J :=f ( A ⊕
It's quite clear that Γ (f )⊆ A ⋈f J and they are subrings of A × B . To avoid the
˙ J , its
"artificial" appearance of the multiplicative structure specified in A ⊕
canonical image A ⋈ f J is substituted for it within A × B (under f ⋈) is because the
˙ J A appears contrived‌, The natural
multiplicative structure established in A ⊕
multiplying established component-wise in the direct product A produces the limit
to A ⋈ f J . "The ring A ⋈ f J will be called the amalgamation of A with B along J, with
respect to f : A → B ."

˙ J is ring.
Proof. (1) Using case 1 of lemma 2.2.1 A ⊕
(2) Firstly, we show that map f ⋈ is a ring homomorphism. we assume
˙ J
(a , x ),(b , y)∈ A ⊕

where a , b ∈ A and x , y ∈ J . we have

⋈ ⋈
f ((a , x)+(b , y))=f (a +b , x+ y)
¿(a+b , f (a+ b)+ x + y )
¿(a+b , f (a)+ f (b)+ x + y)
¿(a , f (a)+ x )+(b , f (b)+ y )
⋈s ⋈
¿ f ( a , x )+ f (b , y)

also
⋈ ⋈
f ((a , x)(b , y ))=f (ab , ay +bx + xy )
¿(ab , f (ab)+ ay +bx + xy )
¿(ab , f (a)f (b)+ f (a) y +f (b)x + xy )
¿(a , f (a)+ x )(b , f (b)+ y )
⋈
¿ f (a , x )(b , f (b)+ y)

31
Thus f ⋈ is a ring homomorphism. It is enough to show that ker( f ⋈ ¿={0 } for being
one-one. We assume (a , j)∈ker (¿⋈ )¿,we have
⋈
f (a , j)=0 A × B
(a , f (a)+ j)=(0 , 0)

a=0 ¿
⇒{
f (a)+ j=0⇒ f (0)+ j=0 ⇒0+ j=0 ⇒ j=0 ⇒ (a , j)=(0 , 0) ¿

So ker( f ⋈={0 }). Therefore f ⋈ is one to one.

(3) Firstly we show that
"ı A : A ⟶ A ⊕˙ J
a ⟼(a , 0)"

is a ring homomorphism and one to one. For a , b ∈ A we have

" ıA (a+ b)=(a+b , 0)=(a , 0)+(b , 0)=ı A (a)+ı A (b) "
also we have
" ıA (ab)=(ab ,0)=(ab , a; 0+b , 0+0)=(a , 0)(b , 0)=ı A ( a). ı A (b) "
so ıA is a ring homomorphism. Now if ıA (a), then
" ıA (a)=(a , 0)=(0 , 0)⟹ a=0"
Therefore ıA is one to one.
˙ J is A-module homomorphism. For a ∈ A and x , y ∈ J 'we
Now we show "ı J : J ⟶ A ⊕
have
"ıJ (x + y )=(0 , x + y )=(0 , x )+(0 , y )=ıJ (x)+ıJ ( y)"
also
"ı J (ax )=(0 , ax)=(a ,0)(0 , x )=(a , 0)ı J ( x)=a ı J (x)"
so ı A is a A-module homomorphism (as mentioned before, here we consider A as
A ×(0), that is, for all a ∈ A we have a=(a , 0). ¿. Also, in a similar way, we consider

the elements of j ∈ J as j=(0 , j). In this case, it can be easily seen that

32
 ˙ J . Since for all (a ,0)∈ A ; (0 , j)∈ J that (a ,0)(1 , 0)+(0 , j)∈ A(1 , 0)+J we
A(1 , 0)+J = A ⊕

have:
˙ J ,"
"(a ,0)(1 , 0)+(0 , j)=(a , 0)+(0 , j)=(a , j)∈ A ⊕
"i.e. A(1 , 0)+J ⊆ A ⊕˙ J . Also for all (a , j)∈ A ⊕
˙ J we have:"

"(a , j)=(a , 0)+(0 , j)=(a ,0)(1 , 0)+(0 , j)∈ A(1 , 0)+J ."
˙ ⊆ A (1 , 0)+ J , therefore A(1 , 0)+J = A ⊕
hence A ⊕J ˙ J.

(4) ı A is one to one. Since if ıA ( j)=0 , then we have

ı A ( j)=(0 , j)=(0 ,0) ⟹ j=0.

hence ıA is one to one.

As we proved in the previous propositions, in order to show the exact
sequence
˙ PA A⟶0
0 ⟶ J ı J A ⊕J
→ →

˙ J that satisfy in the

splits, it is enough to find a homomorphism f : A ⟶ A ⊕
condition
p A ∘ f =id A

By set f =ı A we have
∀ a ∈ A , p A ∘ ı A ( a)= p A (a , 0)=a ⟹ p A ∘ı A=i d A .

so the above sequence is splitting.

Example 2.2.4. A ring's duplicate that has been fused together.

The merged duplication of a ring [19] is a special example of the above
structure. A subring of the complete fractional ring Tot ( A) of A is said to be
equivalent to itself if and only if the pair E . E ⊆ E . Here's how we'd write down B:
B:=(E : E)(:={z ∈ Tot ( A)∨zE ⊆ E })

it is clear that E is a perfect in the B-flat major. We consider one to one

homomorphism as
˙ J → A ×( A+ E)
j: A⊕
33
 ( a , e ) ⟶ ( a , a+e )
combining aring with E as a second A⋈E is indicated,
˙ E )= { ( a , a+ e )|a ∈ A , e ∈ E } .
A ⋈ E= j ( A ⊕

ifı:A⟶B is the natural embedding A⋈Eequal to A⋈^ı E. Since according to

amalgamation ofA with B with respect to ı:A⟶B with E or A⋈^ı E we have
A⋈E={(a,u(a)+e)|a∈A;e∈E}
¿ {(a , a+ e)∨a∈ A , e ∈ E }= A ⋈ E .
so
ı
A ⋈ E=A ⋈ E

An important special situation occurs when "E:= I is an ideal in the ring A". Here,
we can simply write B = A. have A ⋈ I , the combined copy of A along the ideal I, if
we think about the identity mapidA : A → A , corresponds with A ⋈ id I , which called
the straightforward combination of A and I for short. (rather than the amalgamation
of A along I with respect to i d A).
Example 2.2.5. The constructions A+XB[X] and A+XB[[X]].
To illustrate, suppose that A ⊆ B is a superclass of associative rings
X :={ X 1 , X 2 , … , X n } is a finite collection of indeterminates over B. It is possible to

think about the following subring of the polynomial ring B[ X ]:

" A+ XB[ X ]:={h ∈ B[ X ]∨h(0)∈ A }"

in which then−¿-tuple with no elements is denoted by 0. This is a specific instance

of the framework we discussed earlier. That can be easily confirmed A ⋈ σ ' J ' is
isomorphic to A+ XB[ X ] if ':σ ' : A ↪ B ¿ is the natural embedding and J ' :=XB[ X ]
.Proposition 2.4.1 (3)).
"Similarly, the subring A+ XB[[ X ]]:={h ∈ B [[ X ]]∨h(0)∈ A } of the ring of power

34
 ''

series B[[ X ]] is isomorphic to A ⋈ σ J '' , where σ '' : A ↪ B[[X ]] is the natural embedding
and J ' ' :=XB[[X ]]".
Proof. We have A ⊆ B⊆ B[ x ] and
A+ XB[ X ]:={f (x)∈ B[ X ]∨f (0)∈ A }⊆B [x ].

Suppose that A is contaned homomorphism and set J '= XB[ X ] ⊴ B[ X ]. We show

that A ⋈ σ ' J ' ≅ A + XB [X ]. It is clear that
" A ⋈ σ ' J ' ¿ {(a , σ ' (a)+ j )∨a∈ A , j ∈ J ' } ¿={( a , a+ j)∨a∈ A ; j ∈ J ' } ¿"
In order to setting the above isomorphism, we define φ as follows:
σ'
φ : A ⋈ J ' ⟶ A+ XB[ X ] ¿( a , a+ j)↦ a+ j ¿

and we show that φ is a surjective, one to one and ring homomorphism.

Being ring homomorphism:

φ ((a , a+ j)+(a ' , a '+ j ')) ¿ φ (a+a ' , a+a '+ j' + j) ¿=a+ a' + j+ j' ¿=a+ j+ a '+ j' ¿=φ(a , a+ j)+φ(a ' , a '+
and
φ ((a , a+ j).(a ' , a '+ j')) ¿

Being one to one:

φ (0 , 0+ j)=0 ⟹ 0+ j=0 ⟹ 0.4 cmj=0 ⟹ φ isonetoone .

Being surjective: it is clear. Since for" j ' ∈ XB[ X ]we have φ (a , a+ j')=a+ j' ."
Similarly, for
" A+ XB[[ X ]]:={f (x)∈ B[[ X ]]∨f (0)∈ A }⊆ B [[x ]]." (2.1)
we can show that A⋈
σ' '
J ' ' ≈ A+ XB[[ X ]]. Here σ ' ' : A ↪ BX is contaned
homomorphism and J ' '=XB[[ X ]] ⊴ B [[ X ]].

Example 2.2.6. The D+M construction.

there exist two rings, T and D, such that M ∩ D=(0), when M is the maximal
ideals of T (T is often an integral domain). Canonically, the ring
D+ M :={ x+ m∨x ∈ D ,m ∈ M } is isomorphic to D ⋈ı M , for which the natural

35
embedding is :ı: D ↪T .
Proof. We define j as follows:
"φ : D+ M ⟶ D ⋈ı M
"d +mv ⟼ (d , d+ m)"
where d and m ∈ M .
"At the first φ is well-defined. We assume that d +m , d ' +m' ∈ D+ M and
"d +m=d '+ m'
⇒ d−d '=m−m' ∈ I ∩ M =(0)
"d−d '=0 ⇒ d=d ' "
( d , d+m )=(d ' , d '+ m' )
"⇒ φ(d +m)=φ (d ' +m' )"
so φ is well-defined.
We show that φ is a surjective, one to one and ring homomorphism.
Being ring homomorphism:
"For all d +m , d ' +m' ∈ D+ M we have":
"φ ((d+ m)+(d '+ m'))=φ (d +d '+m+m ' )
¿(d+ d ' , d+ d ' +m+ m')
¿(d ,d + m)+(d ' , d '+m ')
¿ φ (d +m)+ φ(d '+m ')"

and also
"φ (( d+ m)(d '+ m'))=φ(dd ' +dm' +d ' m+ mm' )
¿(dd ' , dd ' + dm' + d ' m+mm ')
¿(dd ' ,(d +m)(d ' +m'))
¿(d ,d + m) .(d ' , d '+ m')
¿ φ (d +m)φ (d ' +m' )"

so φ is ring homomorphism.
Being surjective:

36
 "For all (d , d +m) ∈ D ⋈ ı M where d and m ∈ M ."
d +m ∈ D+ M

and
φ (d +m)=(d , d +m)

so φ is surjective.
Being one to one:
If φ (d +m)=0 D ⋈ M , then
ı

d =0 ¿
"φ (d +m)=(d , d +m)=(0 ; 0)⇒ { d +m=0 ¿"

⇒ d+ m=0

⇒ φ 0.1cm isonetoone .

therefore D+ M ≅ D ⋈ı M

"More generally, Set J :=∩ λ∈ Λ M λwhere {M λ ∨λ ∈ Λ }is a subset of the set of

maximum ideals of T, and allow M λ ∩ D=(0) for al λ ∈ Λ l. Canonical isomorphism
D ⋈ J between the rings D+ J :={x + j∨x ∈ D , j ∈ J "
ı

For example, if we have a field D:=K embedded in a Lie group T and we

have a Jacobson ideal J:= Jac(T) of (the K-algebra) T, then K +Jac(T) is
canonically isomorphic to K ⋈ ı Jac (T ), whereı: K ↪T is the natural embedding.

Example 2.2.7. What Boisen and Sheldon Boisen call CPI extensions. Consider the
ring A and the prime ideal A P. Take the localization's residue field into account. A P
AP
to bek (P) k = P A , and the canonical surjective ring homomorphism to be denoted
P

byψ P (or justby ψ ) A P ⟶ k (P).

Since k (P) to the cutoff field of is known to be an isomorphism A /P , we may
use this to uniquely identify A /P . Next, a subring
37
 −1
C (A , P):=ψ ( A / P)

of A P is referred to as the "CPI-extension" of A over P.

"We denote by λ P (or, simply, by λ ) homomorphism of localisation A ⟶ A P ,
"
λP : A ⟶ AP
a ⟶ a /1 ,
" then C(A,P) coincides with the ring λ (A )+ P A P."
"On the other hand, if J :=P A P, we can consider A ⋈ λ J and we have the
canonical projection"
" A ⋈ λ J → λ( A)+ P A P
"(a , λ (a)+ j)⟼ λ (a)+ j,"
where a ∈ A and j ∈ P A A .
It follows that (see Proposition 2.4.1 [11])
λ
( A ⋈ P AP)
C (A , P) ≅ .
(P × {0 })

"More generally, let I be an ideal of A. Let S I define as follows":

A
S I ={s ∈ A∨isaregularelement (s + I )∈ }.
I
A
If s+ I and r + I is a regular element of I we show that rs + I is also a regular
A A
element of I . Other wise there is non-zero element x + I in I such that (rs + I )(x + I ).

This show that (r + I )(sx + I ) and this is in contrast to being regular r + I . Therefore S I
A
is multiplicatively close subset. If S I is its canonical projection onto I , then
A
Tot ( )=¿
I
Let
−1 A
φ I :S A ⟶Tot ( )
I

38
 a a+ I
φ I ( )=
s s+ I
be the canonical surjective ring homomorphism for all a ∈ A and s ∈ S. Then, the
subring C (A , I ):=φ−1 −1
I ( A/ I ) of S I is called the CPI-extension of A with respect to I.

If
−1
λI : A ⟶ SI A
λ I (a)=a /1 ,

has the property that if "C(A,I) coincides with the ring, then C (A , I ) must be the
localization homomorphism" λ I ( A)+ S−1
I I . It will follow by Proposition 2.4.1 (3)

that, if we consider the ideal J :=S−1 −1

I I as the ideal of S I A , then

λI
( A⋈ J)
C (A , I ) ≅ −1 .
(λ I (J )×{0 })

Remark 2.2.8. Nagatas idealization.

Imagine that A is a commutative ring and M is a module over A. Remember
that Nagata introduced the idealisation of M in A, a ring extension of A, back in
1955, "denoted here by A ⋉ M , as the A-module A ⊕ M endowed with a
multiplicative structure defined by":
(a , x )(a ' , x '):=(aa ' , ax '+ a' x ),

where , a ' ∈ A and x , x ' ∈ M

"According to the canonical embedding"
"ı A : A ⟶ A ⋉ M "
a ⟼( a ,0), a∈A

we can define subring A ⋉ of A ⋉ M as A ⋉ :=ı A ( A). Also the embedding

ıM : M ↪ A ⋉ M
x ⟼ (0 , x), 0.3 cmx ∈ M
"determines M with an ideal O ⋉ M (:=ıM (M )) in A ⋉ M is isomorphic, as an A-
module, i.e. ıM (M )=M . Note that respect to (0 , x)(0 , y )=(0 , xy) we have":
⋉ ⋉
{(0 , x)(0 , y ) ¿ (0 , 0)=0 A ⋉ M ¿M . M ¿
39
so M ⋉ is an ideal with nilpotent of index 2.
According to the above contents, a spitting exact sequence of A-modules is
as follows:
⋉
0 → M ıM A ⋉ M p A A → 0
→ →

where ı A is the canonical embedding and p A (a , x)=a is the canonical projection.

Note that simillar Lemma 2.2.1 we have ℑ(ı M )=Ker (p A ). Since A ⋉ andMn as A-
modules are isomorphism with A and M respectively we can rewrite the above
spitting exact sequence as follows:
0 → M ıM A ⋉ M p A A → 0
→ →

By using R :=M , where M is an A-module, and thinking of M as a commutative)

rings without identities, equipped with trivial multiplication defined by

x . y :=0 , 0.4 cm(∀ x , y ∈ M ).

"This demonstrates that the Nagata’s idealisation is a specific instance of the

construction taken into account in Lemma 2.2.1. A ⋉ M = A ⊕˙ M ."
In other words let B:= A ⋉ M be the canonical embedding and M ⋉ M be an
ideal of B as ı(¿ ıA ): A ↪ B . Since this is now obvious, that A ⋉ M timed to coincide
with the merger A ⋈ ı M "i.e.
ı
A⋉ M ≅ A⋈ M

Nonetheless, the Nagatas idealisation and the type constructions are interesting
from an algebraic point of view. A ⋈ f J can be very unlike. In actuality, for instance,
the element's (0 , x)is nilpotent if M is an A-module that is not zero, it's hence the
ring" A ⋉ M is never reduced. for all x ∈ M )", but the amalgamation" A ⋈ f J can be an
integral domain (see Example 2.2.7 and Proposition 2.4.2)".
2.3 Pullback constructions
Take it for granted that J is a perfect ideal of ring B. f : A ⟶ B B is a ring

40
homomorphism. The rest of this chapter will focus on studying the ring A ⋈ f J and
how its algebraic features relate to those of A;B;J and f . The fact that the ring A ⋈ f J
is pullback-representable is a useful tool for this (see the following Proposition
2.3.2). Proposition 2.3.7 states that we will characterise the pullbacks that lead to
amalgamated algebras. After establishing these results, we will offer some
observations that will aid future research on amalgamated algebras.
Definition 2.3.1. We remember that, if α : A → C , β : B → C are ring homomorphisms,
the subring D :=α ×c β :={(a ,b)∈ A × B∨α (a)=β (b)} of A × B is called the pullback (or
fiber product) of α and β .
As an alternative way of putting it, we may state that D is a pullback because
the triplet (D , p A , p B ) is an answer to the age-old problem of how to draw a diagram
with just α and β .
where pA (respectively, pB ) is the restriction to aβ of the

projection of A onto A (respectively, B ).

Proposition 2.3.2. Let f : A → B be a ring homomorphism and J be an ideal of B. If"
B f ^
π :B → is the canonical projection and ^f :=π ∘ f , then A ⋈ J = f × BJ π ."
J
B
Proof. Because the canonical projection π :B → J it is given with the rule of
B
pi(b)=b+ J , So the homomorphism rule ^f : A → is in the form of ^f :=f (a)+ J
J
^
Therefore, according to Pullback definition f × BJ π , we have:

41
^f × π ¿{(a , b)∨f (a)+J =b+ J , a∈ A , b ∈ J } ¿={(a , b)∨f (a)−b ∈J , a ∈ A , b ∈ J } ¿={(a , b)∨f (a)−b= j ,
B
J

Remark 2.3.3. Take note of the many elaborations we might give on the ring. A ⋈ f J
in the sense of a retreat. It's true if C := A × B/ J and u : A , v : A × B →C the definitions
of the standard ring homomorphisms by u(a):=(a , f (a)+ J ), v ((a , b)):=(a , b+J ), for
every (a ,b)∈ A × B , it is straightforward to show that A ⋈ f J is canonically
isomorphic to u ×C v . That is u ×C v ≅ A ⋈ f J , because
"u ×C v={(a ,(a , b))∨u(a)=v (a , b)}
¿ {(a ,(a , b))∨(a , f (a)+ J )=(a , b+ J )}

¿ {(a ,(a , b))∨f (a)+ J =b+ J }

¿ {(a ,(a , b))∨b=f (a)+ j ,∈ J ,a ∈ A }

≅ {(a ,b)∨b=f (a)+ j , a ∈ A , j ∈ J }

f
¿ {(a , f (a)+ j)∨a ∈ A , j∈ J }=A ⋈ J . "

Therefore u ×C v ≅ A ⋈ f J .
if I :=f −1 (J ) and considering natural ring homomorphisms
A A B
u^ : ⟶ ×
I I J
a+ I ⟶(a+ I , b+ J )
and
A B
^v : A × B ⟶ ×
I J
(a ,b)⟶(a+ I , b+ J )
we have:
f
u^ A × v^ B ≅ A ⋈ J . (2.2)
I J

Brcause:
"u^ × v^ ={(a+ I ,(a ,b))∨u^ (a+ I )=v^ (a , b)}
¿ {(a+ I ,(a ,b))∨(a+ I , f (a)+ J )=(a+ I , b+ J )}

42
 ¿ {(a+ I ,(a ,b))∨¿
¿ {(a+ I ,(a ,b))∨b=f (a)+ j , ∃ j∈ J }

≅ {(a ,b)∨b=f (a)+ j , a ∈ A , j ∈ J }

¿ {(a , f (a)+ j)∨a ∈ A , j∈ J }

¿ A ⋈ J ."
f

Proposition 2.3.4. Let A , B ,C , α , β as in Definition 2.3.1 and let f : A → B . Ring

homomorphism. In this case the following requirements are equivalent.
(i) There is a perfect B of J such that A ⋈ f J is the product of a fibre α and β .
(ii) α is the composition β ∘ f .
Assuming what has come before, J = Ker( β ).
Proof. (i)⇒ (ii) Suppose we find an opinion J of B such that A ⋈ f J is that pullback
of α , β . In this case, the following diagram is refrexibility:

therefore α ∘ p A =β ∘ p B. Therefore, for each element of (a , f (a)+ j)∈ A ⋈ f J , we had:

"α ∘ p A (a , f (a)+ j)=β ∘ p B (a , f (a)+ j)."
In particular, for every a ∈ A , the following equality holds :
"α ∘ p A (a , f (a)+ 0)=β ∘ p B (a , f (a)+0)
As a result for a ∈ A , we have :
"α (a)= β(f (a))."
This shows that α =β ∘ f
(ii)⇒ (i). Asumme α =β ∘ f . Since Kerβ is an ideal of the ring, then we claim
that Kerβ is the desired ideal J, that is A ⋈ f Kerβ is the pullback of α , β . To prove this,
first, suppose (a , f (a)+ j)∈ A ⋈ f Kerβ . As a result
α (a)= β ∘ f (a)=β(f (a))+0
¿ β (f (a))+ β ( j)
¿ β (f (a)+ j).

therefore (a , f (a)+ j)∈α ×C β . This shows that A ⋈ f Kerβ ⊆ α ×C β .

43
 Now, suppose (a ,b)∈ α ×C β therefore β (b)=α (a) and α (a)= β ∘ f (a). As a result
β (b)=β (f (a)). So b−f (a)∈ Ker (β). Put j :=b−f (a) this shows that
f
(a ,b)=(a , f (a)+ j) ∈ A ⋈ Kerβ .

So α ×C β ⊆ A ⋈ f Kerβ therefore α ×C β= A ⋈ f Kerβ .

According to (ii) ⇒(i) it is clear that J=Ker ( β).
The above statement is based on the assumption that the ring
homomorphism exists f . A necessary condition for f .fexistence must now be
stated. To begin, let's review what we know about ring homomorphisms. r : B→ A if
there is a ring homomorphism then it is termed a ring retraction ı: A → B , such that
r ∘ı=i d A. In light of this,, ı, must by definition be injected r is required to be

surjective, and A is said to have withdrawn from B. If r : B→ A is a ring retreat and

ı: A ↪ B is a ring embedded like this r ∘ı=i d A, then B is naturally isomorphic to

A ⋈ Ker (r ). This is a consequence of the easily verifiable fact B=ı(A )+ Ker (r ) and
ı

that ı−1 ( Ker (r ))={0 }

Proof. We define
φ : A ⋈ Ker (r)⟶ B
(a ,ı(a)+i)⟶ ı(a)+i
Clearly φ is a ring embedding. Now, we show φ is one to one
Suppose φ (a , ı( a)+i)=0 in this case
φ (a , ı( a)+i)=0 ⟹ ı(a)+ i=0
⟹ ı(a)=−i∈ Ker (r )
⟹ r ∘ı(a)=i d A (a)=a
⟹ a=r (i(a))=0
⟹ a=0
⟹(a ,ı(a)+i)=(0 ,0)
Therefore, φ is one to one.

44
 Let b ∈ B be arbitrary. There are two cases:
1. if b ∈ Ker(r), then φ (0 , ı(0)+b)=ı(0)+b=b
2. if b ∉ Ker(r), then, according to the first ring embedding fundamental
theorem, we have:
B
≅ A ≅ ı(A ).
Ker(r)
B
Therefore, for each 0 ≠ b+ Ker (r )∈ Ker (r ) there is a ∈ A so that ı(a)=b and

φ (a , ı(a)+ 0)=ı(a)=b ,

B
Then, φ is surjective. As a result B ≅ A ⋈ f Ker (r ) so B=ı(A )+ Ker (r ) and Ker(r) ≅ ı( A)

as a result ı−1 (Ker (r ))=0.

Remark 2.3.6. Take the ideal of ring B to be J, and the ring homomorphism
f : A → B . "Let be a ring homomorphism and J be an ideal of B. Then A is a retract

of A ⋈ f J ." More precisely, π A : A ⋈ f J → A ,( a , f (a), j)↦ a, is a retraction, since the

map" ı: A → A ⋈ f J , a ↦ (a , f (a))," is a ring embedding such that π A ∘ı=i d A.
Proposition 2.3.7. "Let A , B ,C , α , β , p A , p B be as in define 2.3.1 Therefore the
following conditions are equivalent ".
(i) " p A :α ×C β → A is a ring retraction."
(ii) B exists an ideal J with a ring homomorphism f : A → B such that α ×C β= A ⋈ f J .
Proof. (i)⟹ (ii) Assume that p A :α ×C β → A is a ring retraction and D=α ×C β . Let’s
assume that ı: A ↪ D is an indicator that applies to condition p A ∘ı=i d A. Now, we
have:
A ı D pB B .
→ →

Now we put f : p B ∘ı=id A : A ⟶ B. Therefore, we have the ring homomorphism of f ,

now because D is pullback of α , β , so we have:
that β ∘ pB =α ∘ p A. Now we
45
have β ∘ f =β ∘ p B ∘ı=α ∘ p A ∘ı=α ∘i d A, so β ∘ f =α and this means that the conditions of
proposition 4.1.3 of the second part are fulfilled so there is an ideal of J=Kerβ that
f
α ×C β= A ⋈ J .

(ii)⟹ (i)
Assume that there is an ideals' J of B and a ring homomorphism f : A ⟶ B, so that
f f
α ×C β= A ⋈ J . in this case there are ismomorphic φ : α ×C β= A ⋈ J and ring retraction

π A : A ⋈ J ⟶ A so that p A =π A ∘φ : α ×C β ⟶ A is a ring retraction.

f

Remark 2.3.8. Take the ideal of ring B to be J and the ring homomorphisms
f , g : A → B to be considered. For some values of f ≠ g,it is possible for A ⋈ f J = A ⋈g J .

In fact, it is easily seen that A ⋈ f J = A ⋈g J if and only if f (a)−g (a)∈ J , for every a ∈ A
. For example, let f , g : A[ X ]→ A [ X ] be the ring homomorphisms defined by
f (x):=X , f (a) :=a , g(X ):= X , g(a):=a , for all a ∈ A , and set J := XA[ X ] . Then f ≠ g but
2 3

A [X ] ⋈ J =A [ X ] ⋈ J , since f ( p)−g( p)∈ J , for all p ∈ A [ X ]". The next step is to specify
f g

adequate conditions under which a setback can be mitigated. Nilp(A) stands for the
ideal of all nilpotent elements in ring A.
Proposition 2.3.9. "Definition 2.3.1 is written as follows in the notation":
(1) If D(¿ α ×C β) is reduced, then
Nilp( A)∩ Ker(α )={0 }andNilp( B)∩ Ker ( β)={0 }.

(2) "To the extent that any one of the following holds"
(a) "A is reduced and Nilp(B)∩ Ker (β )={0 },"
46
 (b) "B is reduced and Nilp( A)∩ Ker(α )={0 }"
then D is reduced.
Proof (1) D reduced and α ∈ Nilp(A )∩ Ker (α ), in this case:
α (a)=0=β (0)⟹(0 , 0)∈ D .

"Also there is n ∈ N such that a n=0 "therefore

¿

(a ,0)=(0 , 0)⟹ a=0 ⟹ Nilp(A )∩ Ker (α)={0}.

In a similar way if b ∈ Nilp(B)∩ Ker (β)={0 }, then:

β (b)=0=α (0)⟹(0 , b)∈ D .

Also there is n ∈ N such that b n=0, therefore

¿

(b , 0)=(0 , 0)⟹ b=0 ⟹ Nilp(B)∩ Ker (β)={0 }.

(2) To prove that D is reduced if condition (a) holds, it is sufficient to show that
(b) is equivalent to (a). Let (a ,b)∈ Nilp(D) then there is n ∈ N that ¿. Since A is
reduced thereforea=0. And we have:
(a ,b)∈ Nilp(D)⟹ (a , b)∈ D
⟹(a , b)=(0 ,b)
⟹ α (0)=0=β (b)
⟹ b ∈ Ker (β )
⟹ b ∈ Nilp(B)∩ Ker (β )=0
⟹ b=0
⟹(a , b)=( 0 ,0)
⟹ Nilp(D)=(0 ,0)

Therefore D is reduced.
Next, we investigate whether or not a ring produced by a pullback
construction, defined in 2.3.1, is Noetherian.
Proposition 2.3.10. The following conditions, when written according to

47
Definition 2.3.1, are equivalent:
i. " D(¿ α ×C β) is a Noetherian ring".
ii. " Ker ( β) is a Noetherian D-module (in which the D-module
structure arises from its Noetherian nature) by pB ) and p A (D) is
a Noetherian ring".

Proof. Considering homogeneity p A : D ⟶ A with the rule p A (a , b)=a , we have:

α (a)= β(b)
if (a ,b)∈ Ker ( p A ), then
p A (a , b)=a=0 ⟹ a=0 ⟹ α (0)=α (a)=β (b)=0

⟹ b ∈ Ker ( β )⟹(a , b)=(0 , b)

⟹ Ker (p A )⊆{0 }× Ker ( β).

Also if (0 , b)∈{0}× Ker (β ), then α (0)=β (0)=0. Therefore (a ,b)∈ D and

(0 , b)∈ Ker ( p A ). As a result {0}× Ker ( β )=Ker ( p A ). Accordingly, the following is the

precise order of a few D-modules:

0 ⟶ Ker ( β) i D p A p A (D)⟶ 0 ,
→ →

"where i is the natural D-module embedding (defined by x ↦(0 , x) for all

x ∈ Ker ( β)¿ By [9]mf Proposition (6.3), D is a Noetherian ring if and only if Ker ( β)

and p A (D) are Noetherian as Dmodules. The statement now follows immediately,
since the D-submodules of p A (D) are exactly the ideals of the ring p A (D) ".
Keep in mind that we didn't insist that ( β ) be surjective in Proposition
2.3.10. On the other hand, p A (D)=A p if and only if β is surjective. This means that
A is a Noetherian ring and Ker (β) is a Noetherian D-module, then D must also be a
Noetherian ring.
2.4 The ring A⋈ J
f
: some basic algebraic properties
Simple ramifications of the amalgamated algebra definition are presented first.

48
A⋈ J.
f

Proposition 2.4.1. "Let J be the ideal' of B, and let f : A → B be a ring

homomorphism and let A ⋈ f J :={( a , f ( a)+ j)∨a ∈ A , j ∈ J } that the ring A ⋈ f J be as in
section 2.
(1)" ∀ a ∈ A " and by using "ı(a):=(a , f ( a)) , we define ı:=ı A ,f ,J : A → A {⋈} ^ {f} J
that is the natural the ring homomorphism". A ⋈ f J is now a ring extension of A
because i is an embedding (with ı(A )=Γ (f )¿ subring of A ⋈ f J ).
(2) "I will be taken as an ideal of A". Furthermore, we established
I ⋈ J :={(i , f (i)+ j)∨i ∈ I ; j∈ J }. This means that the composition of canonical
f

f
f A⋈ J
homomorphisms, A ⋈ f J , has an ideal, denoted by the symbol I ⋈f J . " A []ı ⋈ J → f :
I⋈ J
contains the identity kernel I as a surjective ring homomorphism. The following
canonical isomorphism results from this".
f
A⋈ J A
f
≅ .
I⋈ J I
(3) "Let p A : A ⋈ f J → A and pB : A ⋈f J → B be the natural projections of A ⋈ f J ⊆ A × B
into A and B, respectively. Then p A is surjective and Ker ( p A )={0 }× J . Moreover,
f
pB (A ⋈ J )=f ( A)+ J and Ker ( pB )=f −1 (J )×{0}. Hence, the following canonical
isomorphisms hold":
f f
A⋈ J A⋈ J
≅ A∧0.5 cm −1 ≅ f ( A)+J .
({0 }× J ) f (J ){0 }

f (f (A )+ J )
(4) "Let γ : A ⋈ J → be the natural ring homomorphism, defined by
J
(a , f (a)+ j)↦f (a)+J ." Then γ is surjective and Ker (γ )=f −1 (J )× J . Thus, there exists a

natural isomorphism
A⋈ J
f
f ( A)+ J
−1
≅ .
f (J ) × J J

49
In particular, when f is surjective we have
f
A⋈ J B
−1
≅ .
f (J ) × J J

Proof. (1) To show that ı embedding, assume that a ∈ Ker(ı) in this case
ı(a)=(0 , 0)⟶ ı(a)=(a , f (a))=(0 , 0)⟶ a=0

As a result, ı is embeddin and ı¿) is a ring extension of A ⋈ f J .

(2) We want to show I ⋈f J is an ideal ring of A ⋈ f J .
So for all (i , f (i )+ j ),( k , f ( k)+h) ∈ I ⋈ f J that i , k ∈ I and j , h ∈ J , we have:
⏟ , f (i−k )+ ⏟
(i , f (i)+ j)−(k , f (k )+h)=(i−k , (f (i)−f (k ))+( j−h))=(i−k j−h )∈ I ⋈ J .
f

❑ ❑

So I ⋈f J is an additive subgroup of A ⋈ f J .
On the other hand, i , f (i )+ j ¿ ∈ I ⋈ f J and a , f (a)+h ¿ ∈ A ⋈f J , we have:

⏟ , f (ai)+⏟
(a , f (a)+h)(i , f (i)+ j)=(ai , f (a) . f (i)+ f ( a) j+ f (i). h+ hj)=(ai
f
f (a) j+ f (i)h+ hj )∈ I ⋈ J .
❑ ❑

If we consider the composition 2.3

f
f A⋈ J f
A []ıA ⋈ J π f
ı(a)⟶(a , f (a)),0.6 cmπ( a , f (a)+ j)⟶(a , f (a)+ j)+ I ⋈ J (3)
→ I⋈ J
Then
f
A⋈ J f
" π ∘ı: A ⟶ f
a ⟶(a , f (a))+ I ⋈ J "
I⋈ J
f
f A⋈ J
is a homomorphism. For to be surjective let (a , f (a)+ j)+ I ⋈ J ∈ f , we have:
I⋈ J
"(a , f (a)+ j)+ I ⋈f J =(a , f (a))+(0 , f (0))+ j¿ + I ⋈ f J=(a , f (a))+ I ⋈ f J =π ∘ı(a) ."
Hence π ∘ı is surjective. Therefore, according to the first isomorphism theorem of
isomorphic of rings, we have:
f
A A⋈ J
≅ f .
Ker(π ∘ ı) I ⋈ J

Now, we have:
50
 "
f f f
Ker ( π ∘ı)={a ∈ A∨π ∘ ı(a)=0 A ⋈ J }={a ∈ A∨(a , f (a))+ I ⋈ J =I ⋈ J }={a ∈ A∨(a , f (a))∈ I ⋈ J }={a∈ A∨a ∈
f

f
I⋈ J

"
(3) That p A is surjective obvious, we have that:

f
Ker ( p A )={( a , f (a)+ j) ∈ A ⋈ J∨ p A (a , f (a)+ j)=0 A }={(a , f (a)+ j)∨a=0 }={(0 , j)∨ j∈ J }={0 }× J .

As a result, we have:
f f
A⋈ J A⋈ J
= ≅A.
{0 }× J Ker ( p A )

"Now that we consider the homomorphism of p A , then we have":

f
pB (A ⋈ J )=ℑ( p B )=f ( A)+J .

also,

−1
Ker ( pB )={(a , f (a)+ j)∨p B (a , f (a)+ j)=0 }={(a , f (a)+ j)∨f (a)+ j=0 }={(a , 0)∨f (a)= j}={(a , 0)∨a ∈ f (J

Therefore, we have:
A ⋈f J A ⋈f J
= ≅ f ( A)+ J .
f −1 ×{0 } Ker ( pB )

(4) Homomorphism
(f ( A)+J )
γ : A ⋈f J ⟶ (a , f (a)+ j)↦ f (a)+J
J
(f ( A)+ J )
is surjective. Because for all f (a)+ j+ J ∈ that a ∈ A amd j ∈ J , we have:
J
f (a)+ j+ J =f (a)+J =γ (a , f (a)).

As a result γ is surjective and we have:

Ker ( γ )={( a , f ( a ) + j )|γ ( a , f ( a ) + j )=J }

¿ {( a , f ( a )+ j )|f ( a ) + j=J }

¿ {( a , f ( a )+ j )|f ( a ) ∈ J }

51
 ¿ {( a , f ( a )+ j )|a ∈ f −1 ( J ) }=¿
−1
f (J )× J .
Therefore, we have:
f
A⋈ J
−1
≅¿¿
f (J ) × J

Now, if f is surjective f ( A)=B and since J is an ideal of B, then f ( A)+J =B+ J=B .
As a result
f
A⋈ J B
−1
≅
f (J ) × J J

The subring of B called B⋄ :=f ( A)+ J plays a crucial role in the formation of
−1 f
A ⋈ J . For instance, if f (J )={0 }, we have A ⋈ J ≅ B⋄ (Proposition 2.4.1 (3)). "It can
f

be shown that A(f_) J=Af J, where f is an induced ring homomorphism, and J is an

ideal in B_ in general. . In addition, J is a universal ideal in B_; if we write J as,
then f ⋄ : A ⟶ B⋄is an ideal". The ring homomorphism induced from f , then
A ⋈ J = A ⋈ J . An additional way in which the ring B⋄ plays a crucial role in the
f⋄ f

construction A ⋈ f J is demonstrated by the following finding.

Proposition 2.4.2. According to the notation of Proposition 2.4.1, suppose J ≠ {0 }.
That being said, if one of the following conditions holds true.
(i) " A ⋈ f J is an integer domain".
(ii)" f ( A)+J is an integer domain and f −1 (J )={0 } .
In particular, if B is an integer range and f −1 (J )={0 }, then A ⋈ f J is an integral
domain.
Proof. (i) ⟹ (ii) that A ⋈ f J is an integral domain. If a ∈ A ¿ 0 }¿ so that f (a)∈ J , then
f ( a )= j∈J , so f ( a ) -j =0 ∈J thus (a , f (a))− j ¿=( a ,0)∈ A ⋈ f J . Now, " j is a non-zero

element" of J, we have (a ,0)( j, 0)=(0 , 0) and this contradicts the integral domain

52
 −1
A ⋈ J . So there is no a ∈ A ¿ 0 }¿ that f (a)∈ J , that’s mean f (J )={0 } . Now, according
f

to second part of Proposition (2.4.1), we have:

f
f A⋈ J
A ⋈ J = −1 ≅ f ( A)+J
f (J )× {0 }

So B⋄=f ( A)+J is an integer domain.

"(ii)⟹(i) is obvious, since" f −1 (J )={0 } implies that f
A ⋈ J ≅ f (A )+ J

(Proposition 2.4.1(3)). So long as (i) holds, we can proceed. So long as there is an

aspect a ∈ A ¿ 0 }¿ such that f (a)∈ J , then (a ,0)∈( A ⋈ f J ){(0 , 0)} So, if j is a positive
integer in J, we get(a ,0)(0 , j)=(0 , 0), a contradiction. Thus f −1 (J )={0 }. In this case,
as observed above, A ⋈ f J ≅ f (A )+ J (Proposition2.4.1 (3)), so f ( A)+J is an integer
domain.
Remark 2.4.3. (1) Proposition 2.4.1 states that if the domain A ⋈ f J is integral, then
the domain A must also be integral(1).
(2)Let B= A , f =i d A and J = I be an ideal of A. Here, A ⋈ id AI (a straightforward
concatenation of A along I) meets its complement, the concatenated repetition of A
along I. (Example 2.2.5) Unless I ={0} and A is an integral domain, it is not a
domain of integral functions. In this paper, we define the conditions under which
the combined algebra A ⋈ f J is a reduced ring.
Proposition 2.4.4. For consistency reasons, we continue to use the notation from
Theorem 2.4.1:
The ring A ⋈ f J is a subring. Assuming
(ii) A is a reduced ring and Nilp(B)capJ ={0 }.
The reduction of A ⋈ f J is a special case of the reduction of A and B, If J is a
radical ideal of B and A ⋈ f J is decreased, then B (and A) are also reduced.
Proof. (i) ⟹ (ii) assume that A ⋈ f J is a reduced ring. Now if we consider
B B
naturally homomorphism π :B ⟶ J by rule π (b)=b+ J and π ∘ f : A ⟶ J by rule

53
π . f (a)=f (a)+ J , then we have:
f ~
A ⋈ J =f ×B π
J

~ ~
So f × B π is a reduced ring. From proposition 2.3.9 (1) we have Nilp( A)∩ Ker( f )=0
J

and Nilp( A)∩ Ker(π )={0 } according to natural homomorphism π we have Ker ( π ), so
Nilp(B)∩ J={0 }. Now we show A is reduced ring. If a ∈ Nilp( A) , there is an integer

number n ∈ N that a n. Now for (a , f (a))∈ A ⋈ f J we have:

¿

so (a , f (a))∈ Nilp( A ⋈ f J )=(0 , 0) therefore (a , f (a))=(0 , 0) thus a=0 so Nilp( A)=0 .

Therefore A is reduced ring.
(ii)⟹ (i) Assume that A is a reduced ring and Nilp(B)∩ J={0 }. According to
the first part, we have Ker (π )=J . As a result
Nilp(B)∩ J=Nilp(B)∩ Ker (π )=0
~
So according to proposition (2.3.9 (2)) we have f × B π is a reduced ring and we also
J

f ~
have from proposition (2.3.2) A ⋈ J = f × BJ π then A ⋈ f J is a reduced ring.

Now if A and B are reduced ring, then A × B will also be a reduced ring. So
A ⋈ J ⊆ A × B will be a reduced ring. Conversely, suppose A ⋈ J is a reduced ring
f f

and J is a radical ideal B. As a result according to the section (ii) ⟹(i), A is

reduced ring and Nilp(B)∩ J={0 }, but because J= √ J =∩ P ∈ Min(J ) P and
Nilp(B)=∩P ∈Min(J ) P , we have Nilp(B)⊆ J As a result Nilp(B)={0 }.

Remark 2.4.5. (1) Take into account that, based on the prior result, B= A ,
f =i d A (¿ id) and J=I If a perfect instance of A, we simply recover A ⋈ I = A ⋈i d I If A

and only if A is a reduced ring, then B is a reduced ring. [26] Proposition 2.1.
(2) The preceding statement shows that the reduced characteristic of A ⋈ f J is
independent of the nature of f .
(3) "If A and f ( A)+J are reduced rings, then A ×(f (A )+ J ) is a reduced ring.

54
Therefore, because A ⋈ f J ⊆ A ×(f ( A)+ J ) so A ⋈ f J will also be a reduced rings. So, it
follows from the fact that A and f ( A)+J is reduced, then A ⋈ f J is reduced rings".
But in the general case, it cannot be concluded that the rings of A and
f ( A)+J are also reduced from the fact that A ⋈ f J is reduced. Because if we put A=Z
Z
and B=Z ×( 4 Z ) and f : A ⟶ B be the Homomorphism defined by n ↦¿ and if we put

J :=Z ×{¿ , then we clearly have:

Nilp(B)=Nilp¿

and because A=Z is reduced( Nilp(Z)={0 }¿, The ring A ⋈ f J is reduced

according to Proposition 2.4 .4 , while
¿

and ¿ therefore ¿, so f ( A)+J isn’t a reduced rings.

When is A ⋈ f J a Noetherian ring? is answered by the following conjecture.
Proposition 2.4.6. According to the notation of Proposition 2.4.1, the following
conditions are equivalent.
i. A ⋈ J is a Noetherian ring.
f

ii. A and f ( A)+J are Noetherian rings.

"Proof. (i) ⟹ (ii) We know that if a ring is Noetherian, then any homomorphism
image of it will be Noetherian. Now if A ⋈ f J is Noetherian, then according to
proposition (2.3.2(3)) we have":
A ⋈f J A ⋈f J
≅ f ( A)+ J 0.7 cm , 0.7 cm ≅A
f −1 {J }× {0 } {0}× J

then A and f ( A)+J are homomorphism image of A ⋈ f J therefore, they are

Noetherian.

55
 f ^
(ii) ⟹ (i) according to proposition (2.3.2) we have A ⋈ J = f × BJ π that

^f : A ⟶ B is defined by a ↦ f (a)+ J and π :B ⟶ B is natural map.

J J

Because p A : A ⋈ f J ⟶ A is surjective and assumes that A is a Noether ring. It

is sufficient to prove by Theorem (2.3.10) that
Because it is surjective and assumes that A is a Noether ring. It is sufficient
to prove by Theorem (2.3.10) that J=Ker (π ) with the structure of A ⋈ f J -module
induced by pB : A ⋈f J , is Noetherian". Because A ⋈ f J -submodule of J is an ideal of
Noetherian ring f ( A)+J . Assume more precisely I is A ⋈ f J -submodule of J. As a
result, I :=¿ x 1 , ⋯ , x n >(f ( A)+ J ). Now if x ∈ I , there are elements of a 1 , ⋯ , a n ∈ A and
j 1 , ⋯ , j n ∈ J that x :=(f (a1 )+ j 1) x 1+ ⋯ +(f (an )+ j n ) x n. As a result

(a 1 , f (a1 )+ j 1) x 1+ ⋯ +(a n , f (an )+ j n )x n

So I :=¿ x 1 , ⋯ , x n >(A ⋈ f J ). Then J is a Noetherian A ⋈ f J -module.

"Keep in mind that the preceding conclusion holds when B= A , f =i d A (¿ id)
and Since J = I is a perfect square of A, we easily recover that Thus, if and only if
A is a Noetherian ring, then A ⋈ I (¿ A ⋈ idI ) is a Noetherian ring".
"Due to the lack of a direct connection between the Noetherianity of A ⋈ f J J
and the data, the preceding proposition is only of minor interest. (i . e . , A , B , fandJ ),
but to the ring B⋄=f ( A)+J which is canonically isomorphic A ⋈ f J , if f −1 (J )={0 }
(Proposition 2.4.1 (3)).As a result, we specialise Proposition 2.4.6 in some
important circumstances to derive more helpful conditions for the Noetherianity of
A⋈ J. Defintion 2.4.7. Ring homomorphism f : A⟶ B is called finite
f

homomorphis, whenever B is a finite generating A-module".

Proposition 2.4.8: In order for Proposition 2.4.1 to be properly notated, we must
assume that one of the following is true.
a) J is a finitely produced A-module (whose structure is induced by f in a
natural way).
56
 b) J has the structure of a Noetherian A-module (which is induced by f in a
natural way).
c) If we define f ( A)+J "as an A-module (with the structure induced by f ),
then we have a Noetherian group".
d) f is a finite homomorphism,.
A ⋈ J holds only if A is a Noether ring. In particular, in the case where A
f

and B are both Noether rings and A modules (e.g. if f is a finite homomorphism
[9]mf , Proposition 6.5), then for every ideal J in B A ⋈ f J is a Noether ring".

"Proof. Clearly, without any extra assumption, if A ⋈ f J is a Noetherian ring, then A

is a Noetherian ring, because A is the Homomorphism of A ⋈ f J ."
Let's flip it around and assume A is a Noether ring. It is easy to check
whether these requirements are met here. (a), (b), and (c) are equivalent and if f is
a finite homomorphism, which means that B is finite because A is a Noether
module, B is finite, so A modulo B is a Noether module, and since J is an ideal of
B, J is a finite A module. The result is condition (d), condition (a). So the above 4
conditions (assuming A is Knott) are all equivalent.
According to the given explanation, it is enough to show that assuming that
A is Noetherian and condition (c) is satisfied, ring A ⋈ f J is Noetherian.
Because we assume that f ( A)+J is A-module and per A-module of f ( A)+J is
an ideal of f ( A)+J . So f ( A)+J is Noetherian ring. Now, according to part (ii)⟹(ii)
of Proposition 2.4.6, it follows ring A ⋈ f J is Noetherian.
Finally, in which case (a) holds if and only if both A and B are Noetherian
rings and (b) holds if and only if B is a Noetherian A-module according to what we
proved in this proposition, A ⋈ f J is a Noetherian.
Proposition 2.4.9. The notation of statements 2.4.1 and 2.3.2 remains the same.
Given the Noetherian ring B is homomorphic to itself, then" ^f : A → B=J is finite,
then A ⋈ f J is a Noetherian ring if and only if A is a Noetherian ring".
57
Proof. If A ⋈ f J is Noetherian we already know that A is Noetherian.
Assume that b=Ker (ψ ) finite ideal of B and ψ is finite homomorphism
according to proposition 9.2.3, we have:

f
A⋈ J ψ A B
→ π¿ ¿
↓ ¿ ¿ → J

So A is Noetherian if A ⋈ f J is Noetherian
Corollary 2.4.10. Let X :={ X 1 ; , ⋯ , X n } denote a finite collection of indeterminates
over B, and let A ⊆ B denote a ring extension. In such case, the following
requirements are equivalent:
(i) A+ XB¿ ] is a Noetherian ring.
(ii) A+ XBX is a Noetherian ring.
(iii) "A is a Noetherian ring and A ⊆ B is a finite ring extension".

Proof. (iii) ⇒(i,ii). Consider Example 2.2.6′s notational hints again: A+ XB[ X ] is
isomorphic to A ⋈ σ ' XB[ X ] (and A+ XBX is isomorphic to A ⋈ '' XBX ). Given the
official isomorphisms listed below:
B[X] BX
≅B ≅
XB[ X ] XB[[ X ]]
B[X] BX
the homophobia that exists right now σ^' : A ↪ XB[ X ] (or, σ^' ' : A ↪ XBX ) is finite.

Hence, statements (i) and (ii) follow easily from proposition 2.4.8.
(i) (or, (ii)) ⇒ (iii). Assume that A+ XB[ X ] (or, A+ XBX ) is a Noetherian ring.
Therefore, any homomorphism image of it is also Noetherian and because
A + XB[ X ] A + XB[[X ]]
≅A ( ≅ A ) then A is Noetherian. Now, we show B is a finite
XB[ X ] XB[[ X ]]

extension of A. Moreover, by assumption, the ideal I of A+ XB[ X ] (respectively, of

A+ XBX ) generated by the set {b X k ∨b∈ B ,1 ≤ k ≤n } is finitely generated. Now,

58
because I is an ideal of Noetherian ring A+ XB[ X ], then I is finite generator.
Therefore, there are f 1 , f 2 , ⋯ , f m ∈ I so that I =¿ f 1 , f 2 , ⋯ , f m >¿. f 1 , f 2 , ⋯ , f m can be written
as follows:
f 1=b11 X 1 g11 + ⋯ +b 1n X n g1 n
f 2=b21 X 1 g 21+ ⋯ +b2 n X n g2 n
⋮
f m=b m 1 X 1 gm 1 + ⋯ + bmn X n g mn

So
I =¿ b ij X k ∨1≤ i≤ m ,0.3 cm1 ≤ j≤ n , 0.3 cm1 ≤ k ≤ n>.
n

We have b X 1=i∑
,j,k
‍b ij X k gijk (that in g =a + ∑ ‍X g ' and a ∈ A ) so:
ijk ijk s ijks ijk
s=1

n n
b X 1= ∑ ‍b ij X k gijk = ∑ ‍bij X k (aijk + ∑ ‍X s g ' ijks )= ∑ ‍b ij X k a ijk + ∑ ‍∑ ‍bij X k X s g' ijks .
i,j,k i , j ,k s=1 i,j,k i , j ,k s=1

This shows that

b=∑ ‍b ij a ij1 ∈< bij ∨1≤ i≤ m , 0.3 cm1 ≤ j≤ n> .
i, j

So B is a finite ring extension of A.

Remark 2.4.11. In this example, we'll define the ring extension A ⊆ B and the
indeterminate over B to be X. Remember that the perfect The A-module J '= XB[ X ]
of B[ X ] is infinitely generated (with the structure induced by inclusion) but never
created finitely.σ ' : A ↪ B[ X ] ). Consider the possibility that {g 1 , g2 , ⋯ , g r }(⊂ B [X ]) is a
set of generators of J ' as A-module and set N :=max {deg (gi )∨i=1 , 2, ⋯ ,r . }. Clearly,
we have:
N +1 J'
X ∈ r
,
∑ ‍A g i
i=1

So J ' ≠< g1 , g 2 , ⋯ , g3 >¿ This, of course, is an oxymoron. Since A ⋈ f J is not necessarily

Noetherian, the preceding observation proves that J is not necessarily finitely
generated as an Amodule (with the structure induced by f ).for instance

59
R+ X C [ X ]( ≅ R ⋈ X C [ X ],) where σ ' : R ↪C [ X ] is the natural embedding) is a
σ'

Noetherian ring (Proposition 2.4.9 ), However, X C [ X ] cannot be constructed

finitely as an R -vector space. This demonstrates that premise (a) (or its equivalents,
(b) and (c) of is a Noether ring if and only if A is a Noether ring and I is an
idempotent ideal A ⋈ f J .Example 2.4.12. For simplicity, we'll assume that A ⊆ B is a
ring extension, J is an ideal of B, and X :={ X 1 , ⋯ , X r is a finite set of intederminates
over B.We set B' :=B[ X ], J ' :=XJ [ X ] We refer to the canonical embedding of A in
B' as s0. With just one standard argument, it can be deduced that the ring A ⋈ σ ' J is
an essentially perfect ring isomorphism. We refer to the canonical embedding of A
in B' as s0. With just one standard argument, it can be deduced that the ring is an
essentially perfect ring isomorphism A+ XJ [ X ]. Our aim now is to demonstrate that
the Noetherianity of the ring in question can be accurately characterized. A+ XJ [ X ],
without making any assumptions about the finiteness of A ⊆ B (as in Corollary
2.4.9 (iii)) or BA (as in Corollary 2.4.9 .or about recording A+ XJ [ X ]⊆ B[ X ]. More
precisely, the following conditions are equivalent.
i. A+ XJ [ X ] is a Noetherian ring.

ii. It is finitely generated as an A-module, and A is a Noetherian

ring, while J is an idempotent ideal of B.

Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Assume that R :=A + XJ [ X ]= A+ J ' is a Noetherian ring. Because
A +J '
≅ A and A+ J ' is a Noetherian. So A is a Noetherian ring now we consider L is
J'
an ideal of ring R that in this L={b X i∨b ∈ J , 1≤ i≤ r }. Brcause R is a Noetherian ring
so L is ideal with finite production, so there are the members of l 1 ,l2 , ⋯ , l t ∈ L so that
t
L=¿ l 1 ,l 2 , ⋯ , l t≥∑ ‍l i R . Note that for each 1 ≤i ≤t , l i=(0 , 0 , ⋯ , 0). (That is, the
i=1

polynomials of l i ∈ L are zero for a non-zero fixed term.)

According to the proof of Proposition 2.4.10, if we put l i=b i X i then the
60
collection {b1 ,b 2 , ⋯ ,b t the generator of J is the A-modulus.
Now it is enough to show the ideal J is self-sufficient. Because R is a
Noetherian ring and j ' is its ideal, therefore j ' is of finite production. Now assume
that g1 , g 2 , ⋯ , g s ∈ J ' that J '=¿ g 1 , g2 , ⋯ , g s >¿. We have that
mh
∀ h :=1, 2 , ⋯ , s , 0.6 cm gh = ∑ ‍ch , j ⋯ j X 1 ⋯ X r .
1 r
j1 jr

j 1+ j 2+ ⋯+ jr =1

Assume that j 1=max { j1 ∨c h , j 0 ⋯ 0 ≠ 0 , 1≤ h ≤ s } now for each arbitrary b ∈ J because

1

s
g '=¿ g 1 , g2 , ⋯ , g s >¿, we have b X 1j +1=∑ ‍f h gh taht in this
1

h=1

nh
f h= ∑ e1
‍d h ,e ⋯ e X 1 ⋯ X r ∈ R .
1 r
er

e 1+ ⋯ +e r=0

Because in equality b X 1j +1=∑ ‍f h gh we have in left side only b X 1j +1. Therefore, on

1 1

h=1

the right side, we consider sentences of f h and gh which are only exponent and no
other variables and the sum of exponents on both sides is equal, so we will have
s
b X 1j +1=∑ ‍
1
∑ ‍ch , j 0 ⋯ 0 d h ,e 0 ⋯ 0 X 1j +e ∈ R
1 1
1 1

h=1 j 1 +e1= j 1+1

s
bX j 1+1
1 =∑ ‍ ∑ ‍ch , j 0 ⋯ 0 d h ,e 0 ⋯ 0 X 1j +e
1 1
1 1

h=1 j 1 +e1= j 1+1

By removing b X 1j +1 on the sides, we will have:

1

s
b=∑ ‍ ∑ ‍c h , j 0 ⋯ 0 d h , e 0 ⋯ 0 .
1 1
h=1 j 1+e 1= j 1+1

According to the definition of j 1, we have j 1 +1>1 so e 1 ⩾ 1 and this means that f h

does not have a fixed term. So f h=J ' , that is, the coefficients must be inside the
ideal, so it results from equality:
2
d h , e 0 ⋯ 0 ∈ J , 0.4 cm ∀ h 0.4 cm 1≤ h ≤ s ⟹ b ∈ J .
1

Because J is a A-module with finite production and A is Noetherian, therefore J is

Noetherian and with finite production.
(ii) ⇒ (i). stated that A is a Noetherian' ring and J is a self-sufficient and as a
61
A-module with finite production. Because J is self-sustainable with finite
production. So there is a arbitrary member e ∈ J that J=eB and because J as a A-
module is also finite with production so there are members b 1 , b2 , ⋯ , b s ∈ J that
J=¿ b1 ,b 2 , ⋯ ,b s >¿

As a result, we have:
s
J=eB=∑ ‍bh A .
h=1

Let's have a look at the stipulative factors Y ={Y ih∨1 ≤i ≤r , 1 ≤h ≤ s } on B. Let's have a
look at the next mapping,1 ≤i ≤r and 1 ≤h ≤ s are
"
φ : A [ X ,Y ] ⟶ B [ X ] {X} rsub {i} ↦e {X} rsub {i} {Y} rsub {ih} ↦ {b} rsub {h} {X} rsub {i

which is a ring homomorphic and is clearly Im ( φ ) ⊆R (= A+XJ [ X ])

(because for each a ∈ A , φ (a)=a and φ (Y ih)=bh X i ∈ J [ X ] ) and φ (X i )=X i ∈ J [X ]
and this mean ℑ(φ) ⊆ A + XJ [ X ]).
Per f ∈ R that
r ni
f :=a+ ∑ ‍( ∑ ei ei
‍ci , e ⋯ e X 1 ⋯ X r ). X i ∈ R
i1 ir
1 r

i=1 ei + ⋯ +e i =0
1 r

that in this c i ,e i1 ⋯ ei ∈J.

r

And we have:
s
c i ,e i1 ⋯ e ∈ J = ∑ ‍b h A
ir
h=1

so
s
c i ,e i1 ⋯ e = ∑ ‍ai ,e ⋯ e , h b h ,
ir i1 ir
h=1

that in this a i ,e ⋯ e , h ∈ A .
i1 ir

Now if g ∈G[ X , Y ], we have:

62
 r s ni
g :=a+ ∑ ‍∑ ‍ ∑ ei ei
‍ai , e ⋯ e ,h X 1 ⋯ X r Y ih ∈ A [ X , Y ].
i1 ir
1 r

i=1 h=1 ei + ⋯+e i =0

1 r

Then φ (g)=f so R ⊆ ℑ(φ), as a result R=ℑ(φ). Now, since A is assumed to be

Noetherian, therefore A [X , Y ] is also Noetherian. As a result, every homomorphism
A[X ,Y ]
image of A [X , Y ] is also Noetherian and because ≅ ℑ(φ)=R. Therefore, R
h ∘φ
means X + J [ X ] is also Noetherian.
Remark 2.4.13. Our notation from Example 2.4.12 remains unchanged.
(1) If A=B and I is an ideal of A , then A+ XI [ X ] is a Noether ring if and only
if A is a Noether ring and I is an idempotent ideal
(2) While having a Noetherian ring requires that B be a Noetherian, this is
not a sufficient requirement A+ XJ [ X ]. For instance, take A any field, we consider B

as an infinite multiplication of A ’s( B= A × A × ⋯) and we put a⟼ (a , a , ⋯ ) ¿ and ( f : A⟶ B

)
¿

J :=(1 , 0 , ⋯ ), In this case, J is idempotent and as A-module is distant, therefore,

according to the previous example, A+ XJ [ X ] is Noetherian. While we know

B= A × A × ⋯ is not Noetherian. Because the following chain of ideals of B is not

stationary.
¿(1, 0 , 0 , ⋯ )>⊂<1 , 0 , 0 , ⋯ , 0>.<1 , 0 , 0 , ⋯ , 0> ⋯

(3) "if A+ XJ [ X ] is Noetherian, then B is not Noetherian A ⊆ B and

A+ XJ [ X ]⊆ B[ X ] Not necessarily finite. "Furthermore, it is easy to show that

A+ XJ [ X ]⊆ B[ X ] is a finite extension if and only if the gauge homomorphism holds

B[ X ]
A↪ is finite". "Finally, it can be shown that last condition holds if and only
(XJ [ X ])

if J=B and A ⊆ B is finite".

63
64
Chapter 3
3 The diameter of the zero-divisor graph of an amalgamated algebra

3.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the diameter of unitary algebra zero divisor graph.
At the first stage, assume that R , S are commutative rings with unity, then
take f : R → S is a ring homomorphism also we let J is an ideal of S and the subring
R ⋈ J :={(r , f (r )+ j )∨r ∈ Randj ∈ J } of R × S called amalgamation R with S along J
f

with respect to f . In this section, we introduce some recent insights and obtain
some novel results for computing the diameter of merged algebraic zero-divisor
graphs. In particular, we show how to compute the size of a zero-divisor graph that
combines repetitions
Beck introduced the concept of a zero-divisor graph of ring R for the first
time in Ref. z. Then, in Ref. [5], Anderson and Naseer go further by assuming that
all ring elements are nodes in the graph. Anderson and Livingston[6] consider only
the non-empty set of zero factors of R as vertices. The Anderson-Livingston

65
definition is demonstrated as follows.
When referring to the undirected, vertices-filled zero-divisor graph of Γ (R) ,
we use the symbo R . Z ¿. Additionally, xy=0 if and only if the vertices x and y are
contiguous for distinct x , y ∈ Z ¿
The notation d (x , y) is used to denote the separation of the (connected)
vertices x and y , which is the length of the shortest path between them. the
diameter of the connected graph G, representing the maximum distance between
corners, specified by the expression diam (G) Γ (R) is connected and diam( Γ (R)¿ ≤ 3
by using of Theorem 2.3 that exist in reference [6].
In reference [16] and [17], the following construction have introduced by
DAnna, Finocchiaro, and Fontanahave. Assume that:
1. R and S are 2 commutative rings with unity,
2. J is an ideal of S and
3. f : R → S is a ring homomorphism.
They introduce the subring as follows:
f
R ⋈ J :={(r , f (r )+ j)∨r ∈ Randj ∈ J }

of R × S, referred to as the amalgamated algebra (or amalgam) of R with S along J

with respect to f . The design outlines research and merge replication along a circle of
reference ideals [19]. Additionally, several traditional building techniques, including

Nagata's idealisation [39], page 2, the R+ XS[ X ] and the R+ XSX Constructions can
be analysed as specific examples of this new construction [16], see Example 2.5
and Remark 2.8).
Assume that M is an R-module. Nagata first presented the idealisation of M
in R (or the trivial extension of R by M ), denoted above by R ⋉ M in 1955. Axtell
and Stickles studied the diameter and perimeter of zero-divisor graphs of rings,
when extended to idealized versions of rings (ref.). [8].
66
 As a side point, we keep in mind that if f :=i d R is the identity
homomorphism on R and I is an ideal of R , then R ⋈ I :=Ri d I is a term for the
R

synthesised repetition of R along I . In [16], The ring's zero-divisor graph was

studied by Maimani and Yassemi, who determined its diameter and girth R ⋈ I .
Recently, Kabbaj and Mimouni have generalised some well-known results
on duplications by computing the diameter and girth of the zero-divisor graph in a
variety of circumstances involving mergers. [34].
We review the literature on the diameter of the amalgamation zero-divisor
graph, showing that the current effort improves upon and recovers some of the
earlier results while also producing new ones on amalgamated algebra,
idealisation, and duplication.
The design of the chapter is category in the following:
- We find the circumstances under which the zero-divisors of the unified
algebra R ⋈ f J is an ideal, and count how many minim prime ideals there are of R ⋈ f J
, in Section 3.2,.
- We make an effort to extend the previously-mentioned results to the setting
of the amalgamated algebra R ⋈ f J , in Section 3.3.
Therefore, As promised, here is a comprehensive breakdown of how big the
zero-divisor graph of merged duplication actually is. Our work's results offer fresh
examples of graphs with 2 and 3 radii.
3.2 Zero-divisors and minimal prime ideals of f
R⋈ J

Knowing the number of minimal prime ideals of a ring and its diameter on the
graph's of its zero-divisors is crucial for determining whether or not the set of zero-
divisors of that ring is an ideal. In this part, we'll look into how these variables
affect amalgamated algebra.
First, we'll settle on a notation that we'll use consistently throughout the
chapter:
67
 1. R and S are a pair of unified associative rings ,
2. J is a non-zero proper ideal of the ring S, and
3. f : R → S is a ring homomorphic.

The set of prime ideals of a commutative ring A is denoted by Spec(A),

while the set of zero-divisor elements is marked by Z(A), the placed of regular
elements is denoted by Reg(A), and the put of nilpotent elements is denoted by
Nil(A). If the ideal I of A contains a regular element, then it is said to be a regular
ideal, i.e. I ⊈ Z ( A). For a subset X of A, by X ⋆ we mean X ¿ 0 ¿, ]. If and only if is
often abbreviated to iff for convenience. Graph theorists should start with [25] and
[30]; those interested in commutative rings should start with[9 ,38 ], and [31].
Remark 3.2.1. The following is a summary of the research conducted in reference
[10] on the behaviour of the established of zero-divisors of amalgamated algebras :
(1) Let Z1 ={(r , f (r )+ j)∨r ∈ Z (R)} and
(2) Z 2={(r , f (r )+ j)∨ j' (f (r )+ j)=0 , forsomej ' ∈ J ⋆ }.
Then Z 2 ⊆ Z ¿. The amalgamated ring R ⋈ f J is said to have the condition ⋆ if
the equality Z (R ⋈ f J )=Z 1 ∪ Z 2 holds. These sets are now denoted as Z1 and Z 2,
respectively. The combined idealisation and duplication of a ring coupled with a
module in a ring have the property ⋆.
The following list of criteria we use to determine whether the zero-divisors
Z (R ⋈ J ) of amalgamated algebra are ideal or not
f

Lemma 3.3.2 If I were a perfect representation of R, then the following statements

would be true:
(1) Assume that Z (R) is not an ideal and for any r ∈ Reg(R) and any j ∈ J ⋆, we
have f (r ) j≠ 0. Then Z (R ⋈ f J ) is not an ideal.
(2) J and f −1 (J ), if they are both regular, then and are regular, then Z (R ⋈ f J )
is far from perfect.
68
 (3) f (Reg(R))⊆ Reg(S) and R ⋈ f J has the condition ⋆. If J ⊆ Z (S) and Z (R) and
Z (S) are ideals, then Z (R ⋈ f J ) is an ideal's.

(4) Z (R ⋈ I ) is an ideal iff Z (R) is an ideal and I ⊆ Z (R).

Proof. (1) We assume that a , b ∈ Z (R) with a−b ∉ Z ( R ) .Then

( a , f ( a ) ) , ( b , f ( b ) ) ∈ Z ( R ⋈ f J ) ,but (a−b , f (a−b))∉ Z 1 ∪ Z 2, by the assumption.

−1
(2) We assume that a ∈ f ( J ) ∩ Reg( R) and j ∈ J ∩ Reg( S). Then
(a ,0),(0 , j)∈ Z (R ⋈ J ), while (a , j) is regular.

(3) We assume that (r , f (r )+i ) ,(s , f ( s)+ j )∈ Z ( R ⋈f J ). We claim that r , s ∈ Z (R).

Imagine instead tthat r ∈ Reg(R). following our presumptions f (r )∈ Reg(S) and so
f (r )+ i∈ Reg (S ), since Z (S) is an ideal and i∈ Z (S). Thus we obtain (r , f (r )+i)∉ Z 1 ∪Z 2

, a contradiction. Hence r + s ∈ Z (R) and, since R ⋈ f J has the condition ⋆,

(r + s , f (r + s)+i+ j) ∈ Z ( R ⋈ J ).
f

(4) continues from earlier portions. Keep in mind that the amalgamated
duplication is a unique case of amalgamation. f =i d R.
Theorem 3.10, one of [34]'s primary results, has been improved by the
following lemma, which is also of independent relevance. Remember from
danna 30145 ,Additionally, the fundamental principles of A ⋈ f J have of the types p ' f

or q f , for p in Spec(A) and q varying in Spec(B)¿V(J), where

p {'} ^ {f} :=p {⋈} ^ {f} J :=\{( p , f ( p ) +j )| p∈ p, j∈J \},
f
q :={(a , f ( a)+ j )∨a ∈ A , j ∈ J , f (a)+ j∈ q }.

Lemma 3.2.3. The aforementioned claims are true.

(1) ) We presumptively ı : R→R {⋈} ^ {f} , defined by "ı(x)=(x , f (x))" for
every x ∈ R, be essential. If p pis one of R, minimum primes, then p 'f is a minimal
prime of R ⋈ f J .
(2) it notes J ⊆ Nil(S ). In case p has a small prime in R, we say that p ' f is a
minimal prime of R ⋈ f J .
(3) If there exists a minimal prime idealq of S that satisfies J ⊈ q , then q f is a
69
minimal prime of R ⋈ f J .
Proof. (1) We make the assumption that p is a prime minimum ideal of R.
Then, by [37], Exercise 9.8, ht p ' f ≤ ht ¿.
(2) If J ⊆ Nil(S ), prime values of A ⋈ ⋈f J are only of the type p ' f and One-to-
one and preservation of inclusion describe the relationship between Spec A and
Spec A ⋈ ⋈f J .
(3) Consider q to be the epitome of S that possesses the specified attribute.
v ∈ J ¿ . Let q 1f ⊆ q f . Then, for any x ∈ q 1, (0 , xv )∈ q1f ⊆ qf which means xv ∈q and so

x ∈ q . . Since q must be minimum, it follows that q 1=q , hence q 1f =q f . It's important

to keep in mind that no prime ideal of form p ' f can fit inside a prime ideal of form
q , since J ⊈ q .
f

3.3 Main results

In this article, we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the length of the
integrated algebra's zero-divisor graph. R ⋈ f J to be either 2 or 3. The following
results recover and improve upon previously available information regarding
amalgamated duplications [35] and amalgamated algebra [34]. Along with these
new findings, We give a thorough explanation of the combined duplication
dimensions of the zero-divisor graph. Some examples are built to demonstrate our
findings.
In the following theorem, we develop an enhancement to [34], Theorem
3.10. Bear in mind that by [17], Lemma 3.6, if f is surjective, then ı: R → R ⋈f J is
integral. Keep in mind that the stipulation " f −1 (Z( S))⊆ Z (R) suggests our state of
¿
affairs ‌ ∀ r ∈ Reg( R), ∀ j∈ J , f (r) j ≠ 0. It is assumed ı: R → R ⋈ J be integral or
f

J ⊆ Nil(S ) in addition to either (1) or (2) being true:

1. R is not domain and J and f −1 (J ) are regular;

70
 ¿
2. " Z (R) is not an ideal, and for any r ∈ Reg( R) and any j ∈ J , f (r ) j ≠0 . Then diam
Γ (R ⋈ J )=3 "
f

Proof. In either scenario, as proven by Lemma 3.2.2, Z (R ⋈ f J ) ) does not represent

R ⋈ J ideals. Now if R ⋈ J If an unreduced quantity, then the result follows directly
f f

from [33], Corollary 2.5. As a result, we can conclude that R ⋈ f J is smaller,

signifying that R is smaller and J (S)={0 }[16 ], (Proposition 5.4). Then there exists at
least one minimal prime ideal q in S satisfying the condition J ⊈ q .
R has at least two minimal primes, however, because is reduced but not

domain.Hence, by Lemma 3.2.3, R ⋈ ⋈f J has a limited set of three prime ideals at

most. At this point [33], we have proven Theorem 2.2.
Specifically, the first half of the preceding theorem generalises and improves
[35], Lemma 4.9 by removing the assumption that states Z (R) . represents a perfect
scenario. Additionally, it improves and generalises [35]. Consequence 4.10
Corollary 3.3.2. To see this in action, please refer to (cf. [35], Lemma 4.9 and
[35], Corollary 4.10). Diameter(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=3 if R is not an integral domain and I is a
regular ideal of R. We then give a new result on idealisation and recover a previous
result on amalgamated duplication in the following corollary.
Corollary 3.3.3. look that I is a non-zero thought of R , M is an R-module, and Z (R)
is not perfect. These claims are true
1. ([35], Theorem 4.12). diam(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=3.
2. If any r ∈ Reg(R) and any m ∈ M ¿, we have rm ≠ 0, stated diam
(Γ (R ⋉ M ))=3 .

Proof. (1) Because of this, [17], According to Lemma 3.6, if f is surjective, then
ı: R → R ⋈ J is integral.
f

(2) As in [16], Remark 2.8, S := R ⋉ M , J :=0⋉ M , and ı : R→S be the natural

71
embedding, then R ⋈ I J ≅ R ⋉ M which maps the element (r , ı(r)+(0 , m)) to the element
(r , m) . As a result, idealisation is a subclass of fusion in which J 2=0 .

Here are some illustrations of how to use the above theorem and its
corollaries to construct graphs of diameter 3.
Example 3.3.4. see that R=Z [ X , Y ]/( X 2), S=Z 2 [ X ,Y ]/( X 2) , f : R→ S homomorphism
that occurs in nature, and J=(x , y )S where x , y indicate the categories of X , Y
modulo ("X^2"). Then J and {f} ^ {- 1} ( J ) are regular ideals. Thus diam
(Γ( R {⋈} ^ {f} J ))=3 by Theorem 3.3.1.

Example 3.3.5. Assume that R=Z 12 , S=Z 6 × Z 6, and J be any ideal of S. Let f : R → S
being the element-to-element logical homomorphism r of R to the element (r , r ) of
S.

We can see that Z (Z 12) is not an ideal, ı: R → R ⋈f J is integral, and normal R

elements do not completely eliminate any other element. J ¿ Therefore diam
(Γ (R ⋈ ⋈ J ))=3 by example 3.3.1.
f

Example 3.3.6. Assume that R=Z 6 , S=Z 6 [ X ]/( X 4 )and J=(x) S where ,x expresses the
class of X modulo (X^4).Then diam(Γ (R ⋈ f J ))=3 by Theorem, 3.3.1.
Example 3.3.7. Assume that R=Z 6, and I ={0 ,2 , 4 }. It follows easily from
Corollary 3.3.3 that diam(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=3
Example 3.3.8. Assume that R=Z 6 and M =Z 6. We can check that the properties
asserted in Corollary 3.3.3 hold. Therefore diam(Γ (R ⋉ M ))=3
The follows illustration demonstrates the regular hypothesis for J (and I ) is not
unnecessary in Theorem 3.3.1 and Corollary 3.3.2. It also demonstrates that if the
assumptions that Z(R) is not an ideal, is omitted from Theorem 3.3.1 and Corollary
3.3.3, the related proposition is no longer always true.
Example 3.3.9. Just pretend R=Z 9 and M =Z 9. Then Z (R)={0 , 3 , 6 } is an ideal
whose square is (0). It followed [35], Theorem 4.8 that diam¿. It is also shown in
[10], Example 3.1 that diam( Γ (R ⋉ M )¿=2 .

72
Remark 3.3.10. To ensure consistency, Axtell and Stickles provide two theorems,
3.9 and 3.10.(Γ (R ⋉ M ))=2. Z(R) is the optimal choice in both cases.
More evidence that Z ¿Z) is not ideal is provided for by this corollary and theorem.
In order to apply Theorem 3.3.1, we make the assumption that R is not a domain.
In [34], we look at whether or not R is a domain.
Theorem 3.1, although the characterization given there is unrelated to R , S , f , J and
there is only moderate interest in these kinds of conclusions, as noted in [16],
Section 5. Therefore, we provide a partial solution to the domain instance below.
Propsition 3.3.11. The assumptions are that R has An integral, domain, that
J ∩ Nil(S )={0} and that J and f −1 (J ) are regular. This means that if

(1) Assume that S possesses exactly one prime ideal with q minimum as a
property J ⊈ q . If f −1 (q) ≠ {0 }, then diam( Γ (R ⋈ f J ))=2.
(2) Consider S to have two or more prime ideals. Having the characteristic,
q 1 andq 2 are minimal J ⊈ q i such that f −1 (q i)≠{0 }, for i=1 , 2. Then diam(Γ (R ⋈ f J ))=3

Proof. We first observe that diam(Γ (R ⋈ f J ))≥ 2 Let j ∈ J be regular. If {j} ^ {2} = j
then j( j−1)=0 so j=1, absurd. Assume "a ∈ f −1( J ) . Then
(0, j )( a ,0)=0=(0, {j} ^ {2} )( a ,0 and so (0 , j),(0 ,2 )∈ Z ( R ⋈ f J )". Since j is regular, the

distance between the vertices ¿) and (0 , j 2 ) is at least 2.

Lemma 3.2.2 indicates that Z (R ⋈ f J ) is not a representation of R ⋈ f J and by
[16], Proposition 5.4, R ⋈ f J is diminished. Lemma 2.3 shows that if R ⋈ f J contains

exactly two minimal primes, 0 ' f and q f , and if it contains more than two minimal
primes, R ⋈ f J is in the first case.
Note that 0 ' f ⊈ q f , and q f ⊆ 0 ' f only if f −1 (q)={0 }. Hence [33],
Finally, we have established Theorem 2.2. Corollary 4.14 of [35] proves that
(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=2 under certain conditions. However, as the authors show in [34], this

result is not universal among mergers. Illustration 3.14 and [34], Illustration 3.15).
73
The authors then make [34], Conjecture 3.16, in an attempt to find the conditions
under which a similar result holds for mergers. Our next objective is to identify
such circumstances. We require the following hypothesis.
Proposition 3.3.12. Assume that f is surjective, f (Reg(R))⊆ Reg(S), Moreover,
there is a non-zero annihilator for every pair of zero-divisors of R. If J (S), and Z (S)
is an ideal, then diam(Γ (R ⋈ f J ))=2 provided that diam(Γ (R))=2.
Proof. We have diam' (Γ (R))=2 , we have diam (Γ(( R {⋈} ^ {f} J )) ≥ 2. To see the
converse, let (r , f (r )+i),(s , f (s)+ j)∈ Z ¿. As in the proof of Lemma 2.2, we obtain
r , s ∈ Z (R) . Thus r , s have a non-zero annihilator, say z . If f (z)J =0 , then we have the

path (r , f (r )+i)−(z , f (z))−(s , f (s)+ j). Otherwise, for some "k =f (a)∈ J ", f (z)k ≠ 0, and
we have the path ( r , f ( r ) +i ) - ( za ,0) - ( s , f ( s ) +j ) . Hence
d((r , f (r )+i),(s , f (s)+ j))≤ 2 , and so diam¿.

Remark 3.3.13. By [33], In the following proposition, the constraint diam (Γ (R))=2
Z ( R)
can be replaced by the criteria that is an ideal whose square is not (0),
f
according to Theorem 2.6. The surjective condition on can be replaced with
J ⊆ f (R)
which is also worth mentioning. Corollary 4.14 from [35] is generalised to
mergers in the next statement. The assumptions we make here differ from those in
.[34], Conjecture 3.16
Corollary 3.3.14. Suppose that f is surjective, f (Reg(R))⊆ Reg(S), J ⊆ Z (S ), and Z (S)
is an ideal. Let R be a non-reduced ring. Then diam( Γ (R ⋈ f J ))=2 provided diam
(Γ (R))=2 .

By [33], Theorem 2.4, the zero-divisors of all the pairs of R has an annihilator that
is not 0. Hypothesis 3.3.12 now accomplishes the evidence.
Corollary 3.3.15. (See [35], 4.14 the sequel.) R, a ring that is not decreased, " Z (R)
an idea of R , and I⊆Z ( R ).Then diam(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=2 provided diam(Γ (R))=2.
Example 3.3.16. Assume that R=Z 8, S=Z 4 , and J={0 , 2}. Let f : Z 8 → Z 4 be the
homomorphism that naturally connects any two elements that are congruent. divide
74
by 4 . Verifying that Proposition 3:12 holds true is a breeze. As a result, its has
diam(Γ( R {⋈} ^ {f} J ))=2.
Next, we establish a characterization of the dimension of the zero-divisor graph of
merged duplication. Γ (R ⋈ I ) of R along I in terms of Z (R) and I . Note that, By [6],
Theorem 2.3, diam(Γ (A ))≤3 whenever ring A is commutative. In addition, since we
have at least two neighbouring vertices(i , 0)and(0 , i), diam(Γ (R ⋈ I ))> 0.
Therorem 3.3.17. Let there exist non-zero suitable ideals of the ring R and let I
not equal zero.
(1)diam (Γ( R ⋈ I ))=1 iff I ⊆ Z (R) andZ ( R {)} ^ {2} =".
(2) diam(Γ( R ⋈ I ))=2 iff either
(i)" ' R is a domain, or
(ii) I ⊆ Z (R) and Z (R) is an ideal whose square is not (0) and each pair of
distinct zero-divisors of R has a non-zero annihilator".
(3) diam(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=3 iff
(i) I is a regular ideal, or
(ii) Z ( R ) is not an ideal, or
(iii) I ⊆ Z (R), Z (R) is a good example, and there are not 0 zero-divisors. a ≠ b
of R such that (0 :(a , b))=(0).
Proof. The first thing we notice is that [35], Theorem 4.8., 'diam(Γ( R ⋈ I ))=1 if
I⊆Z ( R ) and Z ( R {)} ^ {2} =0 . And is a domain", however diam(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=2,
likewise a domain as is readily provable. As a matter of fact, Γ (R ⋈ I ) is a complete
bipartite graph of diameter 2 since Since I is a non-zero proper ideal of the real
number field R, it must consist of at least three elements. Therefore, the rest of the
proof operates under the assumption that "R" is not a domain. Further, when
I ⊆ Z (R), we assume that Z ( R {)} ^ {2} ≠ 0 .

I were a typical thought or Z (R) then diam It's not like this situation is
perfect.(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=3, by Corollary 3.3.2 and Corollary 3.3.3. Next suppose that
75
I ⊆ Z (R), Z (R) is an idea, and Z ¿. a collection of zero-divisors for each of R must

have a not zero poison if R is a prime [33], Theorem 2.6 together with Proposition
3.3.12 show diam(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=2. Let's pretend for a moment that R has zero-divisors
a ≠ b with zero annihilator. Then (a ,a)≠(b ,b) are divisors of 0 that R ⋈ I with zero

annihilator. Two cases arise: if R (or equivalently R ⋈ I ) is nonreduced, then diam

(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=3, by [33], Theorem 2.6; if R (or equivalently R ⋈ I ) becomes smaller,

then R contains at most two primes. Lemma 3.2.3 proves that there are prime
numbers in R ⋈ I that are smaller than 2. Therefore diam(Γ (R ⋈ I ))=3, again by [33],
Theorem 2.6.

76
References
[1] Akbari, S., Maimani, H. R., Yassemi, S. (2003). When a zero-divisor graph is
planar or a complete r-partite graph. Journal of Algebra, 270(1), 169-180.
[2] Akbari, S., Mohammadian, A. (2004). On the zero-divisor graph of a
commutative ring. Journal of Algebra, 274(2), 847-855.
[3] Akbari, S., Mohammadian, A. (2006). Zero-divisor graphs of non-
commutative rings. Journal of Algebra, 296(2), 462-479.
[4] Anderson, D. D. (2006). Commutative rings, in âĂIJMultiplicative Ideal The-
ory in Commutative Algebra: A tribute to the work of Robert GilmerâÃÎ(Jim
Brewer, Sarah Glaz, William Heinzer, and Bruce Olberding Editors), 1-20.

[5] Anderson, D. D., Naseer, M. (1993). BeckâĂźs coloring of a commutative

ring. Journal of algebra, 159(2), 500-514.
[6] Anderson, D. F., Axtell, M. C., Stickles, J. A. (2011). Zero-divisor graphs in
commutative rings. Commutative Algebra, 23-45.
[7] Anderson, D. F., Frazier, A., Lauve, A., Livingston, P. S. (2019). The Zero-
Divisor Graph of a Commutative Ring, II. In Ideal theoretic methods in
commutative algebra (pp. 61-72). CRC Press.
[8] Atiyah, M. F., Macdonald, I. G. (1969). Introduction to commutative algebra.
Reading, Mass. Menlo Park, Calif.-London-Don Mills, Ont.: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
[9] Axtell, M., Stickles, J. (2006). Zero-divisor graphs of idealizations. Journal of
pure and Applied Algebra, 204(2), 235-243.

77
[10] Azimi, Y., Sahandi, P., Shirmohammadi, N. (2019). PrÂĺufer conditions in
amalgamated algebras. Communications in Algebra, 47(5), 2251-2261.
[11] Beck, I. (1988). Coloring of commutative rings. Journal of algebra, 116(1),
208- 226.
[12] Belshoff, R., Chapman, J. (2007). Planar zero-divisor graphs. Journal of
Algebra, 316(1), 471-480.
[13] Bloomfield, N., Wickham, C. (2010). Local rings with genus two zero divisor
graph. Communications in Algebra, 38(8), 2965-2980.
[14] Boisen, M. B., Sheldon, P. B. (1977). CPI-extensions: overrings of integral
domains with special prime spectrums. Canadian Journal of Mathematics,
29(4), 722-737.
[15] Chiang-Hsieh, H. J., Smith, N. O., Wang, H. J. (2007). Commutative rings
with toroidal zero-divisor graphs. arXiv preprint math/0702451.
[16] D’Anna, M. A. R. C. O., Finocchiaro, C. A., Fontana, M. (2009).
Amalgamated algebras along an ideal. Commutative algebra and its
applications, 155-172.
[17] D’Anna, M., Finocchiaro, C. A., Fontana, M. (2010). Properties of chains of
prime ideals in an amalgamated algebra along an ideal. Journal of Pure and
Applied Algebra, 214(9), 1633-1641.
[18] D’Anna, M., Finocchiaro, C. A., Fontana, M. (2016). New algebraic
properties of an amalgamated algebra along an ideal. Communications in
Algebra, 44(5), 1836-1851.
[19] D’Anna, M., Fontana, M. (2007). The amalgamated duplication of a ring
along a multiplicative-canonical ideal. Arkiv för Matematik, 45(2), 241-252.
[20] DeMeyer, F., DeMeyer, L. (2005). Zero divisor graphs of semigroups. Journal
of Algebra, 283(1), 190-198.
[21] DeMeyer, F. R., McKenzie, T., Schneider, K. (2002, July). The zero-divisor
graph of a commutative semigroup. In Semigroup forum (Vol. 65, No. 2, pp.
206-214). Springer-Verlag.
[22] DeMeyer, F., Schneider, K. (2002). Automorphisms and zero-divisor graphs
of commutative rings. Int. J. Commut. Rings, 1(3), 93-106.
78
[23] Demeyer L., DŠsa M., Epstein I., Geiser A., Smith K. (2009). Semigroups and
the zero divisor graph. Bull. Inst. Combin. Appl, 57, 60-70.
[24] DeMeyer, L., Greve, L., Sabbaghi, A., Wang, J. (2010). The zero-divisor
graph associated to a semigroup. Communications in Algebra, 38(9), 3370-
3391.
[25] Diestel, R. (1997). Graph Theory Springer. New York.
[26] Dorroh, J. L. (1932). Concerning adjunctions to algebras. Bulletin of the
American Mathematical Society, 38(2), 85-88.
[27] Dorroh, J. L. (1935). Concerning the direct product of algebras. Annals of
Mathematics, 882- 885.
[28] Jacobson, N. Basic Algebra I, WH Freeman and Company, New York, 1985.
Spatial Multiplexing Gain R = r log SNR Optimal High- rate STTCs (0, n t n
r)(min (n t, n r), 0) ct, 1.
[29] Halas, R., Jukl, M., On BeckâĂŹs coloring of posets. Discrete Math.
2009;309:4584-4589.
[30] Harary, F. (1972) Graph Theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading
[31] Kaplansky, I. (1973). Commutative rings. In Conference on Commutative
Algebra (pp. 153-166). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[32] Lu, D., Wu, T. (2010). The zero-divisor graphs of posets and an application to
semigroups. Graphs and Combinatorics, 26(6), 793-804.
[33] Lucas, T. G. (2006). The diameter of a zero divisor graph. Journal of Algebra,
301(1), 174-193.
[34] Kabbaj, S., Mimouni, A. (2018). Zero-divisor graphs of amalgamations. Math.
Scand, 123(2), 174-190.
[35] Maimani, H. R., Yassemi, S. (2008). Zero-divisor graphs of amalgamated
duplication of a ring along an ideal. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra,
212(1), 168-174.
[36] Maimani, H. R., Pournaki, M. R., Yassemi, S. (2006). Zero-divisor graph with
respect to an ideal. Communications in Algebra, 34(3), 923-929.
[37] Matsumura, H. (1986). Commutative Ring Theory Cambridge University

79
 Press. Cambridge,UK.
[38] Mulay, S. B. (2002). Cycles and symmetries of zero-divisors.
[39] Nagata, M. (1962). Local rings, Interscience Publ. New York.
[40] Nimbhokar, S. K., Wasadikar, M. P., DeMeyer, L. (2007). Coloring of meet
semilattices. Ars Combinatoria, 84, 97-104.
[41] Redmond, S. P. (2002). The zero-divisor graph of a non-commutative ring.
Internat. J. Commutative Rings, 1(4), 203-211.
[42] Redmond, S. P. (2003). An ideal-based zero-divisor graph of a commutative
ring. Communications in Algebra, 31(9), 4425-4443.
[43] Shores, T. S. (1974). Loewy series of modules.
[44] Smith, N. O. (2006). Infinite planar zero-divisor graphs. Communications in
Algebra, 35(1), 171-180.
[45] Spiroff, S., Wickham, C. (2011). A zero divisor graph determined by
equivalence classes of zero divisors. Communications in Algebra, 39(7),
2338-2348.
[46] Wickham, C. (2008). Classification of rings with genus one zero-divisor
graphs. Communications in Algebra, 36(2), 325-345.

80