arXiv:1106.0348v2 [math.RA] 19 Feb 2014

On zero divisors and prime elements of
bounded semirings∗
Tongsuo Wua†, Yuanlin Lib‡, Dancheng Luc§
a Department

of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiaotong University
Shanghai 200240, P. R. China

b Department

of Mathematics, Brock University, St. Catharines, On., Canada L2S 3A1

c Department

of Mathematics, Suzhou University, Suzhou 215006, P.R. China

Abstract. A bounded semiring A is a poset together with a compatible semiring structure. A bounded semiring has the important property of being locally
semimodular as a poset, thus the chain complex of the poset A is shellable. In
this paper, properties of zero divisors and prime elements of a bounded semiring are studied. In particular, it is proved that under some mild assumption
the set Z(A) of nonzero zero divisors of A is A \ {0, 1}, each prime element of
A is a maximal element. For a bounded semiring A with Z(A) = A \ {0, 1}, it
is proved that A has finitely many maximal elements if ACC holds either for
elements of A or for principal annihilating ideals of A. As applications of prime
elements, the structure of a bounded semiring A is completely determined by
the structure of integral bounded semirings if either |Z(A)| = 1 or |Z(A)| = 2
and Z(A)2 6= 0. Applications to the ideal structure of commutative rings are
considered.

Key Words: bounded semiring, zero divisor, prime element, small Z(A),
ideal structure of rings

1. Introduction and preliminaries
Throughout this paper, all semigroups S and all rings R are assumed to be commutative
with zero element 0S ( i.e., 0S = 0) and with identity 1R respectively. For a semigroup
∗

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
11271250).
†
Corresponding author, tswu@sjtu.edu.cn (T. Wu)
‡
yli@brocku.ca (Y. Li)
§
ludancheng@suda.edu.cn (D. Lu)

S, let Z(S) be the set of nonzero zero divisors and S ∗ the set of (nonzero) elements of S.
For a ring R, let U(R) be the set of invertible elements of R, N(R) the nil radical and
J(R) the Jacobson radical of R.
A commutative semiring is a set A which contains at least two elements 0, 1 and
which is equipped with two binary operations, + and ·, called addition and multiplication
respectively, such that the following conditions hold:
1. (A, +, 0) is a commutative monoid with zero element 0.
2. (A, ·, 1) is a commutative monoid with identity element 1.
3. Multiplication distributes over addition.
4. 0 annihilates A with respect to multiplication, i.e., 0a = 0, ∀a ∈ A.
If there is no zero-divisor in a semiring A, then A is called an integral semiring.
Certainly, each ring is a semiring. Other important examples of semirings include the set
I(R) of ideals of a commutative ring R, the set N of nonnegative integers, and the real
segment [0, 1] whose addition is max operation. Note that both N and [0, 1] are integral
semirings. Based on a semiring structure, an excellent and rather general framework for
constraint satisfaction and optimization was developed in [6, 7].
Next we introduce a new notion which will be the central topic of this paper.
Definition 1.1. A partially-ordered semiring (abbreviated as a po-semiring) is a commutative semiring (A, +, ·, 0, 1), together with a compatible partial order ≤, i.e., a partial
order ≤ on the underlying set A that is compatible with the semiring operations in the
sense that it satisfies the following conditions:
(1) x ≤ y implies x + z ≤ y + z, and
(2) 0 ≤ x and y ≤ z imply that xy ≤ xz for all x, y, z in A.
If A satisfies the following additional condition, then A is called a bounded semiring:
(3) The partial set (A, ≤, 0, 1) is bounded, i.e., 1 is the largest element and 0 is the
least element of A.
We remark that condition (3) is so strong that it forces a bounded semiring A to be a
dioid, where a semiring is called a dioid if its addition is idempotent (a + a = a, ∀a ∈ A).
Furthermore, the above defined partial order ≤ for a bounded semiring A is identical with
the new partial order ≤1 defined by the following
a ≤1 b if and only if a + b = b.
In other words, a bounded semiring (A, +, 0, 1) is a bounded join-semilattice. Clearly, any
bounded, distributive lattice is a commutative dioid under join and meet, where a ≤ b iff
a ∧ b = a. Each bounded, distributive lattice is certainly also a bounded semiring under
the Definition 1.1.
We also remark that a bounded semiring A is a bounded, locally semimodular poset,
thus the chain complex of the poset A is shellable, see [8] for details.

An element p of a bounded semiring is called prime, if p 6= 1 and xy ≤ p implies either
x ≤ p or y ≤ p. An element x is called minimal, if x 6= 0 and 0 < y ≤ x implies x = y .
An element m is called maximal, if m 6= 1 and m ≤ x < 1 implies m = x.
An ideal I of a bounded semiring A is an additive sub-semigroup containing the zero
element 0A such that IA ⊆ I. For an element u of a bounded semiring A, set
< u > = {x ∈ A | x ≤ u}.
Clearly, < u > is an ideal of A, called the lower principal ideal generated by u. The
principal ideal uA is certainly another ideal generated by u, and clearly uA ⊆ < u >. An
ideal I of A is called hereditary, if < u > ⊆ I holds for all u in I. For any element u of A,
both < u > and annA (u) are hereditary ideals of A, where annA u = {x ∈ A | xu = 0}.
Our prototype of bounded semiring is the bounded semiring I(R) of a commutative
ring R, which consists of all ideals of R. The multiplication is the ideal multiplication,
and the addition is the addition of subsets. The partial order is the usual inclusion. The
bounded semiring I(R) also has the property that for each element v 6= 1, there exists a
maximal element m such that v ≤ m. I(R) also has the completeness property, where a
bounded semiring A is called to have completeness property if for each nonempty subset
P
S of A, there is the notion of sum x∈S x in A. Note that I(R) is also a bounded lattice
under I ∧ J = I ∩ J and I ∨ J = I + J, but it is not necessarily a distributive lattice for
a general ring R. Denote {0, 1} = I(F ) for any field F , and note that it is the smallest
bounded semiring, i.e., it can be embedded into any bounded semiring.
Throughout the paper, we always assume that one of the following three additional
conditions on a bounded semiring A holds:
(C1 ): For each non-nilpotent element u of A, there is a nonzero idempotent w such
that w ≤ u and w has an orthogonal idempotent complement in A, i.e., there exists an
idempotent element v in A such that w + v = 1, wv = 0.
(C2 ): For each nonzero idempotent element u of A, there is a nonzero idempotent w
such that w ≤ u and w has an orthogonal idempotent complement in A.
(C3 ): Each idempotent minimal element of A has an orthogonal idempotent complement in A.
Clearly, (C1 ) =⇒ (C2 ) =⇒ (C3 ) hold for any bounded semiring A. In sections 2 and
3, examples will be given to show that the reverse implications do not hold. Note that if
Z(A) 6= ∅, then each minimal element of A is a zero divisor (see Lemma 3.4(2)).
Proposition 1.2. Let R be a commutative ring and let let A = I(R). Then
(1) A satisfies condition (C3 ).
(2) If R is a noetherian exchange ring, then A satisfies condition (C2 ).
(3) If R is a noetherian exchange ring and J(R) = N(R), then A satisfies condition
(C1 ). In particular, it holds for any artinian ring R.

(4) If A satisfies condition (C1 ), then J(R) = N(R).
Proof. (1) It follows from Brauer’s Lemma, see [10, 10.22].
(2) Let I be a nontrivial idempotent ideal of R. Then I is finitely generated, and thus
I 6⊆ J(R) by Nakayama Lemma. Then the exchange property ensures the existence of
a nonzero idempotent e in I. Thus (Re)2 = Re and it has the orthogonal idempotent
complement R(1 − e). Hence condition (C2 ) holds for I(R).
(3) An artinian ring R is a noetherian exchange ring and each non-nilpotent ideal of
R contains a nonzero idempotent.
(4) For any x 6∈ N(R), Rx is not nilpotent. By condition (C1 ), there exists a nonzero
idempotent e in Rx. Thus x 6∈ J(R) and it shows J(R) = N(R).
We remark that exchange rings include von Neumann regular rings, artinian rings,
semilocal rings such that idempotents lift modulo their Jacobson radical. For further
information on exchange rings, see [11] and the listed references.
In this paper we investigate properties of zero divisors and prime elements of a bounded
semiring. Section 2 deals with the following questions: (1) Under what conditions can it
occur that Z(A) = A \ {0, 1}? (2) When does a bounded semiring A have only finitely
many maximal elements? (3) When is every prime element also maximal? It is proved that
Z(A) = A \ {0, 1}, each prime element of A is a maximal element, if one of the following
conditions is satisfied: (i) Condition (C2 ) holds in A, and DCC holds for elements of A.
(ii) Condition (C1 ) holds in A, and there exists no infinite set of orthogonal idempotents
in A. For a bounded semiring A with Z(A) = A \ {0, 1}, it is also proved that A has
finitely many maximal elements if ACC holds either for elements of A or for principal
annihilating ideals of A.
In Section 3, we study the structure of a bounded semiring A with 1 ≤ |Z(A)| ≤ 2.
It is shown that the structure of a bounded semiring A is completely determined by
the structures of integral bounded semirings, if either |Z(A)| = 1 or |Z(A)| = 2 and
Z(A)2 6= 0 (Theorems 3.2 and 3.3). When A is taken to be I(R) for some commutative
ring R, applications to the ideal structure of a ring are provided.
2. Chain conditions on bounded semirings
In this section, we study properties of elements of A \ {0, 1}. We begin with an easy
proposition which will be used repeatedly.
Proposition 2.1. Let A be a bounded semiring. Then
(1) Each maximal element of A is prime.
(2) For a maximal element m of A and any element b of A, if mb = 0, then either
2
m = m or b2 = 0.

(3) If ei + fi = 1 where ei fi = 0, e2i = ei , fi2 = fi , then e1 > e2 implies f1 < f2 .
Proof. (1) Let m be a maximal element of A. Assume that ab ≤ m and a 6≤ m. Then
a + m > m, so a + m = 1. Then b = ab + mb ≤ m + m = m, so m is a prime element of A.
(2) For a maximal element m of A and any b ∈ A, either m + b = m or m + b = 1. If
m + b = m, then b2 = 0. If m + b = 1, then m = m2 .
(3) If e1 ≥ e2 , then e1 + f2 ≥ e2 + f2 = 1, and hence f1 ≤ f2 f1 ≤ f2 . If f1 = f2 , then
e1 = e1 (e2 + f2 ) = e1 e2 ≤ e2 . This completes the verification.
Theorem 2.2. For a bounded semiring A, Z(A) = A \ {0, 1} if one of the following
conditions holds:
(1) Condition (C1 ) holds and there exists no infinite set of orthogonal idempotents in
A.
(2) DCC holds for elements of A, and condition (C2 ) holds.
In each case, for any element c in A\{0, 1}, either c is nilpotent or there exist a positive
integer n and a nontrivial idempotent e such that cn = cn e, where e has an orthogonal
idempotent complement in A.
Proof. (1) Suppose that condition (C1 ) holds in A. Suppose to the contrary that there
exists an element a in A \ {0, 1} such that a 6∈ Z(A). Then a is not nilpotent. Hence by
condition (C1 ), there exist nonzero idempotents e1 , f1 such that e1 ≤ a, e1 f1 = 0, e1 + f1 =
1. Clearly, af1 is not nilpotent. ( Note that if af1 is nilpotent and a is idempotent, then
af1 = 0 and thus a = ae1 ≤ e1 , so a = e1 . This will be used to obtain Theorem 2.3.)
Since af1 is not nilpotent by assumption on a, by condition (C1 ), there exist nonzero
orthogonal idempotents e2 , f2 such that e2 +f2 = 1, e2 ≤ af1 . Then e1 e2 = 0, so e1 < e1 +e2
and (e1 + e2 ) + (f1 f2 ) = 1. Note that f1 f2 is a nonzero idempotent element and is
orthogonal to the idempotent (e1 + e2 ). Clearly, a(f1 f2 ) is not nilpotent. (If a(f1 f2 ) is
nilpotent and a is idempotent, then af1 f2 = 0, implying a = a(e1 + e2 ) ≤ e1 + e2 , so
a = e1 + e2 .)
Since a(f1 f2 ) is not nilpotent by assumption on a, there exist nonzero orthogonal
idempotents e3 , f3 such that e3 + f3 = 1, e3 ≤ a(f1 f2 ). Then we have an orthogonal
idempotent decomposition (e1 +e2 +e3 )+(f1f2 f3 ) = 1, and thus e1 < e1 +e2 < e1 +e2 +e3 ,
where ei ej = δij ei . (If a is idempotent and a(f1 f2 f3 ) = 0, then a = e1 + e2 + e3 . Clearly,
a(f1 f2 f3 ) is not nilpotent under the assumption on a.)
Continuing this process, we finally obtain an infinite set {e1 , e2 , · · · } of orthogonal
idempotents in A, contradicting the assumption on A. Note that e1 < e1 + e2 < e1 + e2 +
e3 < · · · and (e1 + · · · + ei ) + (f1 · · · fi ) = 1 imply that f1 > f1 f2 > · · · by Proposition
2.1(3). (Note also that e1 + · · · + ei ≤ a. Note that if assume a(f1 f2 · · · fi ) = 0 for some
i, then a = e1 + e2 + · · · + ei .)
(2) Assume that condition (C2 ) holds for A and DCC holds for elements of A. Suppose

to the contrary that in A \ {0, 1} there exists an element b such that b 6∈ Z(A). Then b is
not nilpotent and there exists a positive integer m such that bm is idempotent. Let a = bm
in the proof of (1). By repeating the discussions in the proof in part (1), we obtain an
infinite descending chain of idempotent elements f1 > f1 f2 > · · · , giving a contradiction.
Recall that a nonzero idempotent of a semiring is called a primitive idempotent if it
cannot be written as a sum of two orthogonal nontrivial idempotents. By the proof of
Theorem 2.2, we have the following improved result for idempotent elements.
Theorem 2.3. For a bounded semiring A, if condition (C2 ) holds in A and A contains
no infinite set of orthogonal idempotents, then each idempotent element of A has an
orthogonal idempotent complement. In particular, each nontrivial idempotent is a zero
divisor of A. Furthermore, each nonzero idempotent of A is a finite sum of orthogonal
primitive idempotents.
Proof. The result follows from the proof of (1) in Theorem 2.2, if we start with a
nontrivial idempotent a.
We remark that there exists no infinite set of orthogonal idempotents in a bounded
semiring A provided that one of the following conditions holds: (1) ACC holds for idempotent elements of A. (2) DCC holds for idempotent elements of A, and condition (C2 )
also holds. The latter conclusion follows from Theorem 2.3 and Proposition 2.1(3). If
ACC (respectively, DCC) holds for elements of A, then for each element a 6= 0, 1, clearly
there is a maximal (respectively, minimal) element x of A such that x ≥ a (respectively,
x ≤ a).
Let A = I(R) for some commutative ring R. In view of Theorems 2.2 and 2.3, we have
the following applications to commutative rings.
Corollary 2.4. Assume that a commutative ring R satisfies one of the following conditions:
(1) Each non-nilpotent ideal of R contains a nonzero idempotent element, and R contains no infinite set of orthogonal idempotent elements.
(2) R is artinian.
Then for each nontrivial ideal I of R, there exists a nontrivial idempotent element e such
P
that I ⊆ Re. Furthermore, each nonzero idempotent ideal of R has the form ri=1 Rei ,
where e1 , · · · , er are orthogonal primitive idempotents.
An ideal I of a semiring A is called an annihilating ideal if I = annA (S) for some
nonempty subset S of A. Call an ideal I of A a principal annihilating ideal if I = annA (u)

for some element u of A.
Corollary 2.5. For a commutative noetherian exchange ring R, each nontrivial idempotent ideal of R is an annihilating ideal. Furthermore, each nonzero idempotent ideal of R
P
has the form ri=1 Rei , where e1 , · · · , er are orthogonal primitive nonzero idempotents.
Proof. By applying Proposition 1.2(1) and Theorem 2.3 to I(R), we obtain the result.
Note that any artinian ring is a noetherian exchange ring. Thus Corollary 2.5 holds
in particular for artinian rings.
It is well-known that in a commutative artinian ring R, each prime ideal is a maximal
ideal of R, i.e., each prime element of the bounded semiring I(R) is a maximal element if
DCC holds for elements of I(R). Also, if DCC holds for elements of I(R), then ACC also
holds. The following example shows that the above mentioned results are not true for a
general bounded semiring. It also shows that the additional condition (C2 ) in Theorem
2.3 is needed, and that Z(A) = A \ {0, 1} does not imply condition (C2 ).
Example 2.6 There exists an infinite bounded semiring A such that DCC holds but ACC
fails for elements of A, Z(A) = A \ {0, 1} and A has infinitely many prime elements none
of which is a maximal element.
Let A = {0, 1, a, b1, b2 , · · · } be a countable set with 4 ≤ |A| ≤ ℵ0 , and define a
partial order ≤ by 0 < a < b1 < b2 < · · · < 1 on A. Define an addition by x + y =
max{x, y}, ∀x, y ∈ A. Define a commutative multiplication by
0x = 0, 1x = x (∀x ∈ A), abi = 0, a2 = 0, bi bj = bmin{i,j} .
Then it is routine to check that A is a bounded semiring. Note that a and bi are prime
elements of A for all i, and condition (C2 ) does not hold for A although condition (C3 ) does
hold. The elements of A satisfies DCC, but they do not satisfy ACC if |A| is infinite. Note
also that Z(A) = A \ {0, 1}, and there exists no infinite set of orthogonal idempotents.
On the other hand, for a noetherian ring R which is not artinian, ACC holds for
elements of the bounded semiring I(R) but DCC fails.
Despite of the above example, we are able to show that under some suitable condition
the set of the maximal elements is the same as the set of the prime elements of A.
Theorem 2.7 For a bounded semiring A, each prime element of A is a maximal element
if one of the following condition holds:
(1) Condition (C2 ) holds in A, and DCC holds for elements of A.
(2) Condition (C1 ) holds in A, and there exists no infinite set of orthogonal idempotents
in A.
Proof. (1) Suppose to the contrary that there exists a prime element q such that q < p

for some p < 1. Then p is not nilpotent. By the DCC assumption, there exists a positive
integer r such that pr is nonzero and idempotent. By Theorem 2.3, pr is annihilated by
a nonzero idempotent, say f .
By condition (C2 ), there exist orthogonal nonzero idempotents f1 , g1 such that f1 ≤ f ,
g1 + f1 = 1. Then pr · f1 = 0. Since q < p and q is prime, we have f1 ≤ q and hence
g1 6≤ q. Clearly, pr g1 = pr 6≤ q and it is idempotent.
By condition (C2 ), there exist nonzero orthogonal idempotents t2 , s2 such that t2 ≤
r
p g1 , t2 + s2 = 1. Then we have f1 t2 = 0. This together with t2 + s2 = 1 and f1 + g1 = 1
implies f1 + t2 + g1 s2 = 1, where f1 , t2 , g1 s2 are mutually orthogonal idempotents. If
s2 6≤ q, then t2 ≤ q. In this case, let f2 = t2 , g2 = g1 s2 . If s2 ≤ q, then t2 6≤ q and
g1 s2 ≤ q. In this case, let f2 = g1 s2 , g2 = t2 . In either case, we have an orthogonal
idempotent decomposition f1 + f2 + g2 = 1, where f1 ≤ q, f2 ≤ q and g2 6≤ q.
The next step is to consider the idempotent pr g1 g2 . Clearly pr g1 g2 6≤ q and in particular, pr g1 g2 6= 0. By condition (C2 ), there exist orthogonal idempotents t3 , s3 such
that t3 + s3 = 1 and t3 ≤ pr g1 g2 . Clearly, t3 fi = 0 for i = 1, 2. This together with
(f1 + f2 ) + g2 = 1 implies f1 + f2 + t3 + s3 g2 = 1. Since f1 + f2 + t3 ≤ p, s3 g2 6= 0. If s3 6≤ q,
then t3 ≤ q. In this case, let f3 = t3 , g3 = s3 g2 . If s3 ≤ q, then t3 6≤ q and g2 s3 ≤ q.
In this case let f3 = g2 s3 , g3 = t3 . In either case, we have an orthogonal idempotent
decomposition (f1 + f2 + f3 ) + g3 = 1, where fi ≤ q (∀i = 1, 2, 3) and g3 6≤ q.
Continuing this process, we have got an infinite set of mutually orthogonal idempotents {f1 , f2 , · · · }. Since f1 < f1 + f2 < f1 + f2 + f3 < · · · , by Proposition 2.1(3) we
have an infinite descending chain of idempotents g1 > g2 > · · · , contradicting the DCC
assumption.
(2) Suppose to the contrary that there exists a prime element q such that q < p for
some p < 1. Then p is not nilpotent. By Theorem 2.2, there exists a positive integer
r such that pr is annihilated by a nonzero idempotent, say, f . The rest of the proof is
almost the same as in (1). Note that pr (g1 g2 · · · gs ) 6≤ q implies that pr (g1 g2 · · · gn ) is not
nilpotent and thus condition (C1 ) applies.
Corollary 2.8. For a commutative ring R, each prime ideal of R is a maximal ideal if
one of the following condition is satisfied:
(1) There exists no infinite set of orthogonal idempotents in R and each non-nilpotent
ideal contains a nonzero idempotent.
(2) R is an exchange ring, J(R) = N(R) and there exists no infinite set of orthogonal
idempotents in R.
(3) R is an artinian ring.
The proof of the following theorem is a typical example of use of ideas in proving the
Chinese Remainder Theorem (see, e.g., [4]).
Theorem 2.9. For a bounded semiring A, assume Z(A) = A \ {0, 1}. If ACC holds

either for principal annihilating ideals of A or for elements of A, then A has finitely
many maximal elements.
Proof. Suppose that Z(A) = A \ {0, 1}. Suppose to the contrary that A has infinitely
many maximal elements and let mi (i ∈ N + ) be distinct maximal elements of A. Then
m1 + m3 = 1 and m2 + m3 = 1 and hence 1 = m3 (m1 + m2 + m3 ) + m1 m2 = m3 + m1 m2 . In
a similar way, we obtain m1 m2 · · · mm + mm+1 = 1. Now consider the following ascending
chain of principal annihilating ideals of the semiring A
annA (m1 ) ⊆ · · · ⊆ annA (m1 · · · mm ) ⊆ annA (m1 · · · mm mm+1 ) ⊆ · · · .
If ACC holds for principal annihilating ideals of A, then there exists an integer m
such that annA (m1 · · · mm ) = annA (m1 · · · mm mm+1 ). By assumption, there is a nonzero
element x ∈ annA (mm+1 ). But then x = xmm+1 + x(m1 · · · mm ) = 0, a contradiction.
If ACC holds for elements of A, we claim that there exists no strict ascending chain
annA (m1 ) < annA (m1 m2 ) < · · · , and the result thus follows. In fact, if this were not the
case, then for each m there would exist an element ym+1 such that
ym+1 ∈ annA (m1 · · · mm mm+1 ) \ annA (m1 · · · mm ).
Then we would have obtained an infinite ascending chain of elements of A:
y2 < y2 + y3 < y2 + y3 + y4 < · · · .
This completes the proof.
Combining Theorems 2.2, 2.7 and 2.9, we have the following results.
Corollary 2.10. Let A be a bounded semiring satisfying condition (C2 ). If both ACC
and DCC holds for elements of A, then A has only a finite number of prime elements.
These primes are precisely the maximal elements of A. Moreover, Z(A) = A \ {0, 1}.
Corollary 2.11. Let A be a bounded semiring satisfying condition (C1 ). If ACC holds
for elements of A, then A has only a finite number of maximal elements.
We remark that if (C1 ) holds in a bounded semiring A and A has a unique maximal
element m, then m is nilpotent.
Applying Theorem 2.9 to I(R) for a commutative ring R, we have the following.
Corollary 2.12. Let R be a commutative noetherian ring.
(1) ([5, [Proposition 1.7]) If each nontrivial ideal is an annihilating ideal, then R is a
semilocal ring.
(2) If each non-nilpotent ideal of R contains an idempotent, then R is a semilocal ring.

(3) Any Noetherian exchange ring R with J(R) = N(R) is a semilocal ring.
Recall that an ideal I of a bounded semiring A is called hereditary, if < u > ⊆ I holds
for all u in I. Motivated by Theorem 2.9 we have the following.
Proposition 2.13 Let A be a bounded semiring. Then
(1) ACC holds for elements of A if and only if ACC holds for hereditary ideals of A.
(2) If DCC holds for hereditary ideals of A, then DCC also holds for elements of A.
The converse holds, if A has the completeness property and any hereditary ideal I is closed
under taking infinite sums.
Proof. ⇐= of (1) and (2): For any u ∈ A, < u > is clearly a hereditary ideal of the
bounded semiring A. For elements u, v of A, u ≤ v if and only if < u > ⊆ < v >, and
u < v if and only if < u > ⊂ < v >. This implies the sufficiency part of the proposition.
=⇒: (1) If ACC does not hold for hereditary ideals of the bounded semiring A, then
there exists a strict ascending chain of hereditary ideals of A, say, X1 ⊂ X2 ⊂ · · · . Then
for any n ≥ 2, take an element un of R such that un ∈ Xn \ Xn−1 . Clearly, there is an
infinite ascending chain u1 < u1 + u2 < u1 + u2 + u3 < · · · , and hence ACC does not hold
in A.
(2) If DCC does not hold for hereditary ideals of A, then there exists a strict descending
chain of hereditary ideals of A, say, Y1 ⊃ Y2 ⊃ · · · . Then for any n ≥ 1, take a vn such
that vn ∈ Yn \ Yn+1 . Clearly, there is an infinite descending chain of elements of A, namely
P
P
P
i≥1 vi >
i≥2 vi > · · · , where
i≥m vi ∈ Ym . Then DCC does not hold for elements of
A. This completes proof.
Corollary 2.14. (1) If ACC (DCC, respectively) holds for ideals of a bounded semiring
A, then ACC (DCC, respectively) also holds for elements of A.
(2) If ACC holds for elements of A, then ACC holds for principal annihilating ideals
of A.
(3) For a bounded semiring A, assume that A has the completeness property and any
hereditary ideal I is closed under taking infinite sums. If further DCC holds for elements
of A, then DCC holds for principal annihilating ideals of A.
Corollary 2.15. Let R be a commutative ring and denote A = I(R). Then ACC (DCC,
respectively) holds for elements of A if and only if ACC (DCC, respectively) holds for
hereditary ideals of A.
The proof of the following result is routine and is omitted here.
Proposition 2.16 For a bounded semiring A and an element p of A, p is a prime element

of A if and only if < p > is a prime ideal of A.
3. The structure of a bounded semiring A with small |Z(A)|
In this section, we study the structure of a bounded semiring A with small Z(A). We
first have the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1. Let A be a bounded semiring.
(1) If Z(A) = {c}, then c2 = 0, c is the least nonzero element of A and is a prime
element of A.
(2) If Z(A) = {c, u}, then exactly one of the following holds:
(2.1) Both c and u are minimal elements of A, c < x, u < x, ∀x ∈ A \ {0, c, u},
2
u = u and c2 = c. Furthermore, both c and u are prime elements of A.
(2.2) c is the least nonzero element of A, and c2 = 0. u is a prime element of A,
and u < p for each prime element p 6= c, u.
Proof. (1) If Z(A) = {c}, then clearly c2 = 0. Now if xy ≤ c for some x, y ∈ A, then
x(xy 2 ) = 0. If further x 6≤ c, then xy 2 = 0 and hence y 2 = 0. Then y ≤ c. This shows
that c is a prime element of A. Now for any x ∈ A \ {0, c}, clearly c = xc and hence
c < x. Thus c is the least nonzero element of A.
(2) Let Z(A) = {c, u}. First, assume that c and u are incomparable. Then c + u 6∈
{c, u} and hence c2 = c, u2 = u. It follows that xc = c, xu = u, ∀x 6= 0, c, u, and hence
c < x, u < x hold for each x 6= 0, c, u. It implies that both c and u are minimal elements
of A. To verify that c is a prime element, assume xy ≤ c and y 6≤ c. If y = u, then x ≤ c.
If further y 6= u, then 0 = (xy)u = xu and so x ≤ c. Thus c is a prime element of A. By
symmetry, u is also a prime element of A.
Next we assume c < u. Then c2 = 0. For any x ∈ A \ {0, c, u}, clearly c = xc and
hence c < x. Thus c is the least nonzero element of A. For any x 6≤ u, y 6≤ u, xy 6≤ u
since otherwise, 0 = (xy)c = x(yc) = c, a contradiction. Thus u is a prime element of A.
Finally, for any prime element p 6= c, u, if u2 ∈ {0, c}, then u3 = 0 and hence u < p. If
u2 = u, then pu 6= c and hence u = pu < p.
Theorem 3.2. A is a bounded semiring with |Z(A)| = 1 if and only if there exist an
integral bounded semiring A1 and an element c 6∈ A1 such that A ∼
= {c} ∪ A1 , where the
partial order of {c} ∪ A1 is extended from A1 by adding 0 < c < a (∀a ∈ A∗1 ), and the
commutative addition and multiplication in {c} ∪ A1 are extended respectively from that
of the bounded semiring A1 , and the following conditions are fulfilled:
0 + c = c, c + c = c, c2 = 0, c + y = y, cy = c (∀y ∈ A∗1 ).

Proof. =⇒: Let A be a bounded semiring and denote A1 = A \ Z(A). Then A1 is an
integral sub-bounded semiring of A, and the rest of the results follow from Lemma 3.1(1).

⇐=: It is routine to check that {c} ∪ A1 is a bounded semiring under the assumptions.
Clearly |Z(A)| = 1.
Theorem 3.3. A is a bounded semiring such that |Z(A)| = 2 and Z(A)2 6= 0 if and only
if one of the following holds:
(1) There exist an integral bounded semiring A1 and elements c, u 6∈ A1 such that
∼
A = {c, u} ∪ A1 , where A1 has a least nonzero element a0 , the partial order of {c, u} ∪ A1
is extended from A1 by adding 0 < c < x and 0 < u < x (∀x ∈ A∗1 ), and the commutative
addition and multiplication in {c} ∪ A1 are extended respectively from that of the bounded
semiring A1 , and the following conditions are fulfilled:
c + u = a0 , 0 + x = x, x + x = x, x + y = y (∀x ∈ {c, u}, ∀y ∈ A∗1 ),
u2 = u, c2 = c, cu = 0 = 0x, xy = x (∀x ∈ {c, u}, ∀y ∈ A∗1 ).
(2) There exist an integral bounded semiring A1 and elements c, u 6∈ A1 such that
A ∼
= {c, u} ∪ A1 , where the partial order of {c, u} ∪ A1 is extended from A1 by adding
0 < c < u < a (∀a ∈ A∗1 ), and the commutative addition and multiplication in {c}∪A1 are
extended respectively from that of the bounded semiring A1 , and the following conditions
are fulfilled:
x + y = max{x, y}, ∀x ∈ {c, u}, ∀y ∈ {c, u} ∪ A1 ,
c2 = 0, cu = 0 = 0x, u2 ∈ {c, u}, xy = x (∀x ∈ {c, u}, ∀y ∈ A∗1 ).

Proof. =⇒: Assume that A is a bounded semiring such that |Z(A)| = 2. Assume further
Z(A) = {c, u}, and set A1 = A \ {c, u}.
(1) If c and u are incomparable, then c + u ∈ A∗1 and Z(A)2 6= 0 by Lemma 3.1(2).
Assume c + u = a0 . By the proof of Lemma 3.1(2), we have a0 y = (c + u)y = c + u =
a0 , ∀y ∈ A∗1 . Thus a0 is the least nonzero element of A1 . Since both c and u are prime
elements of A by Lemma 3.1(2), A1 is an integral sub-bounded semiring of A. The other
statements also follow directly from Lemma 3.1(2).
(2) In the following, assume that c and u are comparable, assume further c < u. Then
2
c = 0, and c is the least nonzero element of A. Thus ac = c for any nonzero element a
in A∗1 . If Z(A)2 6= 0, then u2 6= 0. This implies au = u, ∀a ∈ A∗1 . Then u < a, ∀a ∈ A∗1 .
Since u is a prime element of A, u 6∈ A∗1 A∗1 . Clearly, c 6∈ A∗1 A∗1 . Thus A1 is an integral
sub-bounded semiring of A. This completes the necessary part of the proof.
⇐=: It is not hard to check that {c, u} ∪ A1 is a bounded semiring under either
assumption. Clearly, |Z(A)| = 2 and Z(A)2 6= 0 hold in either case. Note that (C3 ) holds
in Case (2).
We remark that Theorem 3.3 (1) gives a complete characterization of bounded semirings A with |Z(A)| = 2, in which there exist no nilpotent elements. In particular, we have

the following.
Corollary 3.4 (1) A bounded semiring A satisfies condition (C3 ), |Z(A)| = 2 and
Z(A)2 6= 0 if and only if either A ∼
= {0, 1} × {0, 1}, or A is the bounded semiring constructed in Theorem 3.3(2).
(2)A bounded semiring A satisfies condition (C3 ), |Z(A)| = 2 and there exist no
nilpotent elements in A if and only if A ∼
= {0, 1} × {0, 1}.
Note that the bounded semiring I(R) always satisfies condition (C3 ). Applying Corollary 3.4 to the bounded semiring I(R), we have the following Corollary 3.5 which is
essentially the same with [2, Theorem 3] by [12, Theorem 2.1]. To find definition and
some results on the annihilating ideal graph AG(R), the reader is referred to [1, 2, 5].
Note that the graph AG(R) defined in [5] is exactly the zero divisor graph of the multiplicative semigroup I(R). Thus all known results on graph properties for the semigroup
graph Γ(S) hold for the annihilating ideal graph AG(R). One can refer to [3, 8, 12] for
some further fundamental properties of the zero-divisor graph Γ(R) of a semigroup R or
a ring R. We remark that in [14] we classified all bipartite zero-divisor graphs Γ(A) (respectively, graphs Γ(A) which are complete graphs together with horns) for all bounded
semirings A, and we also characterized all rings R whose annihilating graphs AG(R) are
either bipartite or complete together with horns.
Corollary 3.5. For any commutative ring R, the following statements are equivalent:
(1) Either R ∼
= F1 × F2 for some fields Fi , or R is local with two nontrivial ideals.
(2) The annihilating ideal graph AG(R) is isomorphic to the complete graph K2 .
(3) Either R ∼
= F1 × F2 for some fields Fi , or R is a local ring with the maximal ideal
J(R) = Rα for some α satisfying α3 = 0 and α2 6= 0.
Proof. (1) =⇒ (2) : Clear.
(2) =⇒ (3) : Assume AG(R) ∼
= K2 . Then R has exactly two proper ideals by [5,
Theorem 1.4]. In particular, R is artinian and thus the ideal J(R) is finitely generated.
It follows that J(R) = Rα for some α ∈ J(R).
If J(R)2 = 0, then either R ∼
= F1 × F2 for some fields Fi , or R is a local ring by
Lemma 3.1(2) and Corollary 3.4. If further R is a local ring, then J(R) = U(R)α since
J(R)α = 0. Under the assumption, R has exactly one nontrivial ideal, a contradiction.
The contradiction shows R ∼
= F1 × F2 if J(R)2 = 0.
Now assume J(R)2 6= 0. By Corollary 3.4, R is a local ring with exactly two nontrivial
ideals. Since J(R)2 6= J(R) by Nakayama Lemma, J(R) and J(R)2 are the nontrivial
ideals of R by Theorem 3.3(2). Hence J(R)3 = 0 and J(R)2 6= 0. In the case, R is a local
ring whose unique maximal ideal is J(R) = Rα, where α3 = 0, α2 6= 0.
(3) =⇒ (1) : Now assume that R is a local ring with J(R) = Rα, where α3 = 0, α2 6= 0.
Clearly, Rα 6= Rα2 and Rα·Rα2 = 0. R = U(R)∪Rα and hence Rα = U(R)α∪U(R)α2 ∪
{0}. Thus for any β ∈ J(R), Rβ = Rα if β ∈ U(R)α, while Rβ = Rα2 if 0 6= β ∈ U(R)α2 .

It shows that Rα and Rα2 are all the possible nontrivial ideals of R.
The complete isomorphic classification of finite local rings with at most three nontrivial
ideals will be discussed in a separate paper, see section four of [14].
Note that a bounded semiring A with |Z(A)| = 1 always satisfies condition (C3 ). By
Theorems 3.2 and 3.3, the structure of a bounded semiring A is completely determined by
structures of integral bounded semirings if A satisfies one of the following conditions:
(1) |Z(A)| = 1.
(2) |Z(A)| = 2 and Z(A)2 6= 0.
On the other hand, the structure of A with Z(A)2 = 0 seems to be a little bit more
complicated. Let A be a bounded semiring with Z(A) = {c, u} and Z(A)2 = 0. Set
A1 = A \ Z(A). Then A1 is an integral sub-bounded semiring (see Proposition 3.6 below).
Clearly, u < x + u < 1 for any x 6∈ {0, 1, c, u}. By Lemma 3.1(2.2), c is the least nonzero
element of A, so cA∗1 = {c}, c + x = x, ∀x ∈ A∗ . But it is hard to determine the partial
order between u and elements of A∗1 . By Examples 3.6 and 3.7 below, it seems that Lemma
3.1(2.2) is the best possible result.
Proposition 3.6. A is a bounded semiring with condition (C3 ), |Z(A)| = 2 and Z(A)2 =
0 if and only if there exist an integral bounded semiring A1 and elements c, u 6∈ A1 , such
that A ∼
= Z(A)∪A1 , where Z(A) = {c, u}, the addition and multiplication in Z(A)∪A1 are
extended respectively from that of the bounded semiring A1 , and the following conditions
are fulfilled:
(1) 0 + x = x (∀x ∈ Z(A)), c + y = y (∀y ∈ A∗ ), u + 1 = 1, u + u = u, and u + (x + y) =
(u + x) + y, u + (u + x) = u + x (∀x, y ∈ A∗1 ).
(3) Z(A)2 = 0, 0Z(A) = 0, cx = c (∀x ∈ A∗1 ), 0 6∈ u · A∗1 .
(4) xu = u and yu = u implies (xy)u = u.
(5) x ≥ y in A1 and yu = u implies xu = u.
(6) For any y, z ∈ A1 , x(y + u) = xy + xu. Also, uy = c = uz implies u(y + z) = c.
Proof. =⇒: By Lemma 3.1, it suffices to show that A1 = A \ Z(A) is a sub-bounded
semiring. In fact, if xy ∈ {c, u} for some x, y ∈ A∗1 , then we have xc = x(yc) = (xy)c = 0,
giving a contradiction.
⇐=: We omit the detailed verification here.
Next we use Proposition 3.6 to construct some bounded semirings A with |Z(A)| =
2, Z(A)2 = 0.
Example 3.7. Let A = {0, 1, c, u, b1, b2 , · · · } be a poset with 4 ≤ |A| ≤ ℵ0 , where
0 < c < u < b1 < b2 < · · · . Define the binary addition by max operation. Define three
commutative multiplications by
0 · x = 0, 1 · x = x (∀x ∈ A), cu = 0 = c2 , u2 ∈ {0, c, u}, y · z = min{y, z}(for other y, z).

Then it is easy to check that A is a bounded semiring for each multiplication. Clearly,
|Z(A)| = 2, Z(A)2 = 0.
Example 3.8. Let Z(A) = {c, u} and A = Z(A) ∪ A1 , where A1 = {0, 1, b1 , b2 , · · · } is
a chain 0 < b1 < b2 < · · · < 1, with max as the binary addition and with multiplication
bi bj = b1 (∀i, j ≥ 1). Then clearly A1 is an integral bounded semiring. Fix a positive
integer n > 1 and extend the partial order of A1 to A by 0 < c < u < bn . Extend the
commutative addition to A by
0 + x = x, 1 + x = 1 , x + x = x (∀x ∈ {c, u}, c + y = y (∀y ∈ A∗ )
and
u + bi = bn (1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1), u + bj = bj (j ≥ n).
Extend the commutative multiplication to A by
0Z(A) = 0 = Z(A)2 , ubi = c (∀i).
Note that c + y = y (∀y ∈ A∗ ) implies that c is the least element of A, thus c2 = 0 means
that condition (C3 ) holds. Note that 0+x = x, x+1 = 1 implies 0 ≤ x ≤ 1. Then it is easy
to apply Proposition 3.6 check that A is a bounded semiring with |Z(A)| = 2, Z(A)2 = 0.
Note that u and bi are incomparable for any i with 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, while by Lemma 3.1(2),
u < p for any prime element p with p 6= c, u.
For any bounded semiring A, recall that A(r) is the direct product of r copies of A.
We have the following.
Proposition 3.9. A is a bounded semiring, in which both DCC and condition (C3 ) holds
for elements of A, if and only if there exist an integer n ≥ 1 and a bounded semiring A1
such that either A ∼
= {0, 1}(n) × A1 , where c2 = 0 for each minimal element c
= A1 or A ∼
of A1 and DCC holds for elements of A1 .
Proof. ⇐=: Let A1 be a bounded semiring, and assume that DCC holds for elements of
A1 and c2 = 0 for each minimal element c of A1 . Then there exists at leat one minimal
element c in A and hence Z(A1 ) 6= ∅. If A ∼
= A1 , then clearly condition (C3 ) holds in A.
n
∼
If A = {0, 1} × A1 for some finite n ≥ 1, then both DCC and condition (C3 ) also hold
for elements of A.
=⇒: Assume that DCC holds for elements of A. Then there exists at leat one minimal
element in A. If further c2 = 0 for each minimal element c of A, then Z(A) 6= ∅ and
condition (C3 ) holds in A. Then we take A1 = A. In the following assume that there
exists an idempotent minimal element e1 in A. Then by condition (C3 ), there exists
a nonzero idempotent f1 ∈ A such that A ∼
= {0, 1} × Af1 . Clearly, both DCC and
condition (C3 ) hold for elements of the bounded semiring Af1 and an induction shows
that A ∼
= {0, 1}(n) × A1 for some n ≥ 1, where A1 is a bounded semiring in which c2 = 0
for each minimal element c of A1 and DCC holds for elements of A1 .

References
[1] G. Aalipour, S. Akbari, R. Nikandish, M.J. Nikmehr and F. Shaveisi. Minimal
prime ideals and cycles in annihilating-ideal graphs, Rocky Mountain J. Math.
43:5(2013) 1415 − 1425.
[2] G. Aalipour, S. Akbari, M. Behboodi, R. Nikandish, M.J. Nikmehr and F. Shaveisi.
The classification of the annihilating-ideal graph of a commutative ring. Algebra
Colloq. (accepted)
[3] D.F. Anderson and P.S. Livingston. The zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring,
J. Algebra 217(1999) 434 − 447.
[4] M.F. Atiyah and I.G. MacDonald. Introduction to Commutative Algebra, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA, 1969.
[5] M. Behboodi and Z. Rakeei. The annihilating-ideal graph of commutative rings I,
Journal of Algebra and its Applications 10:4(2011) 727 − 739.
[6] S. Bistarelli, U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and
optimization, Journal of the ACM 44:2(1997) 201 − 236.
[7] S. Bistarelli, U. Montanari, F. Rossi, Schiex, T.; G. Verfaillie, H. Fargier. Semiringbased CSPs and valued CSPs: frameworks, properties, and comparison, Constraints
4:3 (1999) 199 − 240.
[8] A. Björner, Shellable and Cohen-Macaulay partially ordered sets. Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., Vol.260 (1980), pp.159-183.
[9] F.R. DeMeyer, T. McKenzie, and K. Schneider. The zero-divisor graph of a commutative semigroup, Semigroup Forum 65(2002) 206 − 214.
[10] T.Y. Lam. A First Course in Non-Commutative Rings, Springer-Verlag, New York,
Inc 1991.
[11] D.C. Lu and T.S. Wu. On the normal ideals of exchange rings, Siberian Math.J.
49(2008) 663 − 668.
[12] K.R. McLean. Commutative artinian principal ideal rings. Proc. London Math.
Soc. 26:3 (1973), 249 − 272.
[13] T.S. Wu and D.C. Lu. Sub-semigroups determined by the zero-divisor graph, Discrete Math. 308(2008) 5122 − 5135.
[14] T.S. Wu, H.Y. Yu and D.C. Lu. The structure of finite local principal ideal rings.
Comm. Algebra 40:12(2012) 4727-4738.

[15] H.Y. Yu and T.S. Wu. On realizing zero-divisor graphs of bounded semirings.
Preprint.

