arXiv:1404.3793v1 [] 15 Apr 2014

PRÜFER PROPERTY IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRAS ALONG
AN IDEAL
NAJIB MAHDOU AND MOUTU ABDOU SALAM MOUTUI
Abstract. Let f : A → B be a ring homomorphism and J be an ideal of
B. In this paper, we give a characterization of zero divisors of the amalgamation which is a generalization of Maimani’s and Yassemi’s work
(see [30]). Also, we investigate the transfer of Prüfer domain concept to
commutative rings with zero divisors in the amalgamation of A with B
along J with respect to f (denoted by A ⊲⊳ f J), introduced and studied by
D’Anna, Finocchiaro and Fontana in 2009 (see [13] and [14]). Our aim
is to provide new classes of commutative rings satisfying this property.

1. Introduction
All rings considered in this paper are commutative with identity elements
and all modules are unital. In 1932, Prüfer introduced and studied in [32]
integral domains in which every finitely generated ideal is invertible. In
1936, Krull [27] named these rings after H. Prüfer and stated equivalent
conditions that make a domain Prüfer. Through the years, Prüfer domains
acquired a great many equivalent characterizations, each of which was extended to rings with zero-divisors in different ways. In their recent paper
devoted to Gaussian properties, Bazzoni and Glaz have proved that a Prüfer
ring satisfies any of the other four Prüfer conditions if and only if its total
ring of quotients satisfies that same condition [7, Theorems 3.3 & 3.6 &
3.7 & 3.12]. The authors investigate in [4] the transfer of these Prüfer-like
properties to pullbacks, and then generate new families of rings with zero
divisors subject to some given Prüfer conditions. In [3], the authors examined the transfer of the Prüfer conditions and obtained further evidence for
the validity of Bazzoni-Glaz conjecture sustaining that ”the weak global dimension of a Gaussian ring is 0, 1, or ∞” [7]. Notice that both conjectures
share the common context of rings. Recall that classical examples of nonsemi-hereditary arithmetical rings stem from Jensen’s 1966 result [26] as
non-reduced principal rings, e.g., Z/n2 Z for any integer n ≥ 2. Abuihlail,
Jarrar and Kabbaj studied in [1] commutative rings in which every finitely
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 16E05, 16E10, 16E30, 16E65.
Key words and phrases. Amalgamated algebra along an ideal, Prüfer rings, Gaussian
rings, amalgamated duplication, trivial rings extension.
1

2

NAJIB MAHDOU AND MOUTU ABDOU SALAM MOUTUI

generated ideal is quasi-projective (denoted by f qp-rings). They proved
that this class of rings stands strictly between the two classes of arithmetical rings and Gaussian rings. Thereby, they generalized Osofskys theorem
on the weak global dimension of arithmetical rings and partially resolve
′
Bazzoni-Glaz s related conjecture on Gaussian rings. They also established
an analogue of Bazzoni-Glaz results on the transfer of Prüfer conditions
between a ring and its total ring of quotients. In [11], the authors studied
the transfer of the notions of local Prüfer ring and total ring of quotients.
They examined the arithmetical, Gaussian, fqp conditions to amalgamated
duplication along an ideal. At this point, we make the following definition:
Definition 1.1. Let R be a commutative ring.
(1) R is called a semi-hereditary if every finitely generated ideal of R is
projective (see [9]).
(2) R is said to have weak global dimension ≤ 1 if every finitely generated ideal of R is flat (see [20]).
(3) R is called an arithmetical ring if the lattice formed by its ideals is
distributive (see [18]).
(4) R is called a Gaussian ring if for every f, g ∈ R[X], one has the
content ideal equation c( f g) = c( f )c(g) (see [33]).
(5) R is called a Prüfer ring if every finitely generated regular ideal
of R is invertible (equivalently, every two-generated regular ideal is
invertible), (See [9, 23]).
In [21], it is proved that each one of the above conditions implies the
following next one:
Semi-hereditary ⇒ weak global dimension≤ 1 ⇒ Arithmetical ⇒
Gaussian ⇒ Prüfer.
Also examples are given to show that, in general, the implications cannot be
reversed. Moreover, an investigation is carried out to see which conditions
may be added to any of these properties in order to reverse the implications.
Recall that in the domain context, the above five class of Prüfer-like rings
collapse to the notion of Prüfer domain. For more details on these notions,
we refer to reader to [3, 4, 6, 7, 20, 21, 28, 29, 33].
In this paper, we investigate the transfer of Prüfer property in amalgamation of rings issued from local rings, introduced and studied by D’Anna,
Finocchiaro, and Fontana in [13, 14] and defined as follows :

PRÜFER PROPERTY IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRAS ALONG AN IDEAL

3

Definition 1.2. Let A and B be two rings with unity, let J be an ideal of B
and let f : A → B be a ring homomorphism. In this setting, we can consider
the following subring of A × B:
A ⊲⊳ f J := {(a, f (a) + j) | a ∈ A, j ∈ J}
called the amalgamation of A and B along J with respect to f . In particular, they have studied amalgmations in the frame of pullbacks which
allowed them to establish numerous (prime) ideal and ring-theoretic basic
properties for this new construction. This construction is a generalization
of the amalgamated duplication of a ring along an ideal (introduced and
studied by D’Anna and Fontana in [15, 16, 17]). The interest of amalgamation resides, partly, in its ability to cover several basic constructions in
commutative algebra, including pullbacks and trivial ring extensions (also
called Nagata’s idealizations)(cf. [31, page 2]). Moreover, other classical
constructions (such as the A + XB[X], A + XB[[X]], and the D + M constructions) can be studied as particular cases of the amalgamation ([13, Examples
2.5 and 2.6]) and other classical constructions, such as the CPI extensions
(in the sense of Boisen and Sheldon [8]) are strictly related to it ([13, Example 2.7 and Remark 2.8]). In [13], the authors studied the basic properties
of this construction (e.g., characterizations for A ⊲⊳ f J to be a Noetherian
ring, an integral domain, a reduced ring) and they characterized those distinguished pullbacks that can be expressed as an amalgamation. Moreover,
in [14], they pursued the investigation on the structure of the rings of the
form A ⊲⊳ f J, with particular attention to the prime spectrum, to the chain
properties and to the Krull dimension.
2. Main results
We start by giving a description of the set of zero-divisors of A ⊲⊳ f J. Recall that Z(R) is the set of zero-divisors of a ring R and Reg(R) is the set of
regular elements of R. Recall that an element m of a module M over a ring
R is called a torsion element of the module if there exists a regular element
r ∈ R that annihilates m, i.e., rm = 0. A module M over a ring R is called a
torsion module if all its elements are torsion elements.
Proposition 2.1. Let (A, B) be a pair of rings, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism and J be a proper ideal of B. Assume that at least one of the
following conditions hold :
(a) J ⊂ f (A).
(b) J is a torsion A−module (with the A−module structure inherited by f ).
(c) J 2 = 0.

4

NAJIB MAHDOU AND MOUTU ABDOU SALAM MOUTUI

Then Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) = {Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J } ∪ {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} ∪ {(0, x)/x ∈
J} ∪ {(a, f (a) + i)/ a is a regular element of A and ( f (a) + i) j = 0, for
some 0 , j ∈ J}.
Proof. (1) Assume that J ⊆ f (A). It is clear that {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f
J), {(0, x)/x ∈ J} ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) and {(a, f (a) + i)/ a is a regular element and
( f (a) + i) j = 0 for some 0 , j ∈ J} ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). It remains to show that
Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Let (a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J. Clearly, a ∈ Z(A)
and i ∈ J. So, there exist 0 , b ∈ A such that ab = 0. If i = 0 or f (b) = 0
or f (b) ∈ Ann(J), then there exists (0, 0) , (b, f (b)) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J such that
(a, f (a) + i)(b, f (b)) = (0, 0) and so (a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Assume that
0 , i, f (b) , 0 and f (b) < Ann(J). Then, there exists 0 , k ∈ J such that
f (b)k , 0. Using the fact J ⊆ f (A), there exists some x ∈ f −1 (J) such that
f (x) = k and so clearly bx , 0 and (bx, 0) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J. Therefore, there
exists (0, 0) , (bx, 0) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J such that (a, f (a) + i)(bx, 0) = (0, 0). Hence,
(a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Thus, Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Conversely,
Let (a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). If f (a) = −i or a = 0, then (a, f (a) + i) ∈
{(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} or (a, f (a) + i) ∈ {(0, x)/x ∈ J}. Assume that f (a) , −i
and a , 0. Then, there exists (0, 0) , (b, f (b) + j) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J such that
(a, f (a) + i)(b, f (b) + j) = (0, 0). Therefore, ab = 0 and ( f (a) + i)( f (b) +
j) = 0. If a is a regular element, then b = 0, and j( f (a) + i) = 0. So,
(a, f (a)+i) ∈ {(a, f (a)+i)/ a is a regular element and j( f (a)+i) = 0 for some
0 , j ∈ J}. Assume that a is a zero-divisor of A (b , 0). Then, a ∈ Z(A) and
i ∈ J. And so (a, f (a) + i) ∈ {Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J}. Hence, Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) = {Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J
} ∪ {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} ∪ {(0, x)/x ∈ J} ∪ {(a, f (a) + i)/ a is a regular element
and ( f (a) + i) j = 0 for some 0 , j ∈ J}, as desired.
(2) Assume that J is a torsion A−module. Similar arguments as (1) above,
we show that Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) ⊆ {Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J } ∪ {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} ∪ {(0, x)/x ∈
J} ∪ {(a, f (a) + i)/ a is a regular element of A and ( f (a) + i) j = 0, for some
0 , j ∈ J}. On the other hand, one can easily check that {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} ⊆
Z(A ⊲⊳ f J), {(0, x)/x ∈ J} ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) and {(a, f (a) + i)/ a is a regular
element and ( f (a) + i) j = 0 for some 0 , j ∈ J} ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). It remains
to show that {Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J } ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Let (a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J.
Clearly, a ∈ Z(A) and i ∈ J. So, there exist 0 , b ∈ A such that ab = 0.
Using the fact J is a torsion A−module, there is some x ∈ A\Z(A) such
that f (x)i = 0 and it is obvious that 0 , xb since 0 , b. So, there exists
(0, 0) , (xb, f (xb)) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J such that (xb, f (xb))(a, f (a) + i) = (0, 0).
Hence, (a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Thus, {Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J } ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J), as
desired.
(3) Assume that J 2 = 0. It is clear that {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J),
{(0, x)/x ∈ J} ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) and {(a, f (a) + i)/ a is a regular element and

PRÜFER PROPERTY IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRAS ALONG AN IDEAL

5

( f (a) + i) j = 0 for some 0 , j ∈ J} ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). It remains to show that
Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Let (a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J. Clearly, a ∈ Z(A)
and i ∈ J. So, there exist 0 , b ∈ A such that ab = 0. If i = 0 or f (b) = 0
or f (b) ∈ Ann(J), then there exists (0, 0) , (b, f (b)) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J such that
(a, f (a) + i)(b, f (b)) = (0, 0) and so (a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Assume that
0 , i, f (b) , 0 and f (b) < Ann(J). Then, there exists 0 , k ∈ J such that
f (b)k , 0. One can easily check that (a, f (a) + i)(b, f (b) + k f (b)) = (0, 0).
So, there exists (0, 0) , (b, f (b) + k f (b) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J such that (a, f (a) +
i)(b, f (b) + k f (b) = (0, 0). Hence, (a, f (a) + i) ∈ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) and Z(A) ⊲⊳ f
J ⊆ Z(A ⊲⊳ f J). Conversely, with similar arguments as (1), we obtain that
Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) ⊆ {Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J } ∪ {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} ∪ {(0, x)/x ∈ J} ∪ {(a, f (a) + i)/
a is a regular element of A and ( f (a) + i) j = 0, for some 0 , j ∈ J}, as
desired.

It is worthwhile noting that the statement (1) of Proposition 2.1 recovers
[30, Proposition 2.2] where f is the identity maps.
The main Theorem of this paper develops a result on the transfer of the
Prüfer property to amalgamation of rings issued from local rings.
Theorem 2.2. Let (A, m) be a local ring, B be a ring, f : A → B be a ring
homomorphism and J be a proper ideal of B such that J ⊆ Rad(B). Assume
that J ⊂ f (A) and f (Reg(A)) = Reg(B). Then A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer if and only
if so is A and J = f (a)J for all a ∈ m\Z(A).
The proof of this theorem involves the following lemmas. Recall that
VB (J) := {P ∈ Spec(B): P ⊇ J} (for more details see [14]). We denote
VB (J) simply by V(J).
Lemma 2.3. Let (A, B) be a pair of rings, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism and J be a proper ideal of B. Then, A ⊲⊳ f J is local if and only if so
is A and J ⊆ Rad(B).
Proof. By [14, Proposition 2.6 (5)], Max(A ⊲⊳ f J) = {m ⊲⊳ f J / m ∈
f
f
Max(A)}∪{Q } with Q ∈ Max(B) not containing V(J) and Q := {(a, f (a)+
j) / a ∈ A, j ∈ J and f (a) + j ∈ Q }. Assume that A ⊲⊳ f J is local. It is clear
that A is local by the above characterization of Max(A ⊲⊳ f J). We claim
that J ⊆ Rad(B). Deny. Then there exist Q ∈ Max(B) not containing V(J)
and so Max(A ⊲⊳ f J) contains at least two maximal ideals, a contradiction
since A ⊲⊳ f J is local. Hence, J ⊆ Rad(B). Conversely, assume that (A, m)
is local and J ⊆ Rad(B). Then J is contained in Q for all Q ∈ Max(B).
f
Consequently, the set {Q } is empty. And so Max(A ⊲⊳ f J) = {m ⊲⊳ f J/m ∈

6

NAJIB MAHDOU AND MOUTU ABDOU SALAM MOUTUI

Max(A)}. Hence, m ⊲⊳ f J is the only maximal ideal of A ⊲⊳ f J since (A, m)
is local. Thus, (A ⊲⊳ f J, M) is local with M = m ⊲⊳ f J, as desired.

Recall that a polynomial f is called Gaussian over a ring A if for any
polynomial h over A, c( f h) = c( f )c(h) holds, where c( f ) is the content of
f (the ideal generated by the coefficients of the polynomial f (x)). For more
details of this notion, we refer to reader to see [33, 12, 24].
Lemma 2.4. Let (A, B) be a pair of rings, f : A → B be a P
ring homomorphism and J be a proper ideal of B. P
If the polynomial F := ni=0 (ai , f (ai))xi
is Gaussian over A ⊲⊳ f J, then f := ni=0 ai xi is Gaussian over A.
P
Proof. Assume P
that F := ni=0 (ai , f (ai))xi is Gaussian over AP⊲⊳ f J. We
claim that f := ni=0 ai xi is Gaussian over A. Indeed, let h(x) := mj=0 b j x j be
P
a polynomial over A. Then, H(x) := mj=0 (b j , f (b j))x j is a polynomial over
A ⊲⊳ f J. Consider γ ∈ c( f )c(h). Clearly, (γ, f (γ)) ∈ c(F)c(H) = c(FH) =
P
i+ j=k (ai b j , f (ai ) f (b j )) with k ∈ {0, 1, ..., m + n} since F is Gaussian in
P
P
A ⊲⊳ f J. Consequently, γ ∈ i+ j=k ai b j = c( f h). Finally, f := ni=0 ai xi
is Gaussian over A.

Lemma 2.5. Let (A, B) be a pair of rings, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism and J be a proper ideal of B. Assume that f (Reg(A)) ⊆ Reg(B). If
A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer, then so is A.
Proof.PAssume that ∀a ∈ A\Z(A), f (a) ∈ B\Z(B) and A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer. Let
regular ideal of A and a be a regular
I := ni=0 Aai be a finitely generated
Pn
element of I. Clearly, H := i=0 A ⊲⊳ f J(ai , f (ai)) is a finitely generated
regular ideal of A ⊲⊳ f J since (a, f (a)) is a regular
Pn element ofi H. So, H is
invertible. Therefore, the polynomial F(x)
P := i=0 (ai , f (ai))x is Gaussian
over A ⊲⊳ f J. By Lemma 2.4, f (x) := ni=0 ai xi is Gaussian over A. Hence,
by [6, Theorem 4.2 (2)], I = c( f ) is invertible. Thus, A is Prüfer, as desired.

Lemma 2.6. Let (A, m) be a local Prüfer ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism and J be a proper ideal of B such that J ⊆ Rad(B). Assume that J ⊂ f (A), f −1 (J) ⊂ Z(A) and f (Reg(A)) ⊆ Reg(B). Then
Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) = Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J.
Proof. Assume that J ⊂ f (A), f −1(J) ⊂ Z(A) and f (Reg(A)) ⊆ Reg(B). By
Proposition 2.1, Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) = {Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J } ∪ {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} ∪ {(0, x)/x ∈
J} ∪ {(a, f (a) + i)/ a is a regular element of A and ( f (a) + i) j = 0, for some
0 , j ∈ J}. It is easy to see that the set {(a, 0)/ f (a) ∈ J} = f −1 (J) × {0} ⊂
Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J since f −1 (J) ⊂ Z(A) and one can easily check that {(0, x)/x ∈

PRÜFER PROPERTY IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRAS ALONG AN IDEAL

7

J} ⊂ Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J. Our aim is to show that if A is Prüfer, the set {(a, f (a) + i)/
a is a regular element of A and ( f (a) + i) j = 0, for some 0 , j ∈ J} is empty.
Indeed, we show that f (a) + i is a regular element of B. Let a ∈ A\Z(A) and
let i ∈ J. Using the fact J ⊂ f (A), there exists x ∈ f −1(J) such that i = f (x)
and so f (a) + i = f (a) + f (x) = f (a + x). Since f (Reg(A)) ⊆ Reg(B),
then it suffices to show that a + x is a regular element of A. Since the ideal
(a, x) is a regular ideal,then (a) and (x) are comparable by [1, Lemma 3.8]
since A is Prüfer and we have necessarily x = ak for some k non-unit in A.
One can easily check that a + x = (1 + k)a which is a regular element of
A. Consequently, f (a) + i is a regular element of B and it follows that the
set {(a, f (a) + i)/ a is a regular element of A and ( f (a) + i) j = 0, for some
0 , j ∈ J} is empty. Hence, Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) = Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J.

Proof of Theorem 2.2. By Lemma 2.3, (A ⊲⊳ f J, m ⊲⊳ f J) is local.
Assume that J ⊂ f (A), f (Reg(A)) = Reg(B) and A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer. By
Lemma 2.5, A is Prüfer. Before proving that f −1 (J) ⊂ Z(A), we show
that if A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer, then J ⊆ Z(B). Deny. Let j ∈ J such that j ∈
Reg(B). Since J ⊂ f (A), there exists x ∈ Reg(A) such that j = f (x) since
f (Reg(A)) = Reg(B) and so (x, j) ∈ Reg(A ⊲⊳ f J). By [1, Lemma 3.8],
((0, j)) and ((x, j)) are comparable since A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer. And necessarily,
(0, j) = (x, j)(b, f (b) + k). Therefore, b = 0 and k j = j. So, j(1 − k) = 0.
It follows that j = 0, a contradiction since j ∈ Reg(B). Hence, J ⊆ Z(B).
Next, we claim that f −1 (J) ⊂ Z(A). Deny. There exists x ∈ f −1(J) such that
x < Z(A). Then, f (x) ∈ reg(B) since f (Reg(A)) = Reg(B), a contradiction
since J ⊂ Z(B). Hence, f −1 (J) ⊂ Z(A). By Lemma 2.6, Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) =
Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J. Now, we claim that f (a)J = J for all a ∈ m\Z(A). Indeed,
it is clear that f (a)J ⊆ J ∀ a ∈ m\Z(A). Conversely, let a ∈ m\Z(A) and
let i ∈ J. Clearly, (a, f (a) + i) ∈ (A ⊲⊳ f J)\Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) since Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) =
Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J and we have (0, i) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J. By [1, Lemma 3.8], the ideal
(a, f (a) + i) and (0, i) are comparable since A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer and necessarily
(0, i) = (a, f (a) + i)(b, f (b) + j) for some (b, f (b) + j) ∈ A ⊲⊳ f J. So, b = 0
and i = ( f (a) + i) j for some j ∈ J. Hence, it follows that i = f (a) j(1 − j)−1
for some 0 , j ∈ J and so i ∈ f (a)J. Thus, J = f (a)J. Conversely,
assume that A is Prüfer and J = f (a)J for all a ∈ m\Z(A). We show that
J = f (a)J for all a ∈ m\Z(A) implies that J ⊂ Z(B). Deny. Let j ∈ J such
that j ∈ Reg(B). Using the fact J ⊂ f (A), j = f (x) for some x ∈ Reg(A).
So, j = f (x)l for some l ∈ J. It follows that j(1 − l) = 0 and so j = 0
since (1 − l) is invertible in B (l ∈ J ⊆ Rad(B)). Hence, J ⊂ Z(B) and
so one can easily check that J ⊂ Z(B) implies that f −1 (J) ⊂ Z(A). By
Lemma 2.6, Z(A ⊲⊳ f J) = Z(A) ⊲⊳ f J. Next, we show that A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer.
Consider F := ((a, f (a) + i), (b, f (b) + j)) be a regular ideal of A ⊲⊳ f J.
Assume one, at least, of the two generators of F is regular. By Lemma 2.6,

8

NAJIB MAHDOU AND MOUTU ABDOU SALAM MOUTUI

(a) or (b) is a regular ideal of A and by [1, Lemma 3.8], (a) and (b) are
comparable in A. We may assume that (a) is regular and b = ax for some
x ∈ A. Using the fact J = f (a)J for all a ∈ m\Z(A), there is k ∈ J such that
j−i f (x) = ( f (a)+i)k since there is some l ∈ J such that f (a)+i = f (a)(1+l)
which is a regular element and f (a) + i = f (a + c) for some c ∈ f −1 (J). One
can easily check that (b, f (b) + j) = (a, f (a) + i)(x, f (x) + k). Consequently,
F := ((a, f (a) + i)). Now, we assume that both generators of F are zero
divisors and let (y, f (y) + h) be a regular element of A ⊲⊳ f J. Then, with
similar arguments as above, there exist a′ , b′ ∈ A and k1 , k2 ∈ J such that
a = a′ y, b = b′ y, and i − h f (a′) = ( f (y) + h)k1 , j − h f (b′) = ( f (y) + h)k2 .
Therefore, (a, f (a) + i) = (a′ , f (a′) + k1 )(y, f (y) + h) and (b, f (b) + j) =
(b′ , f (b′) + k2 )(y, f (y) + h). Consequently, F := ((y, f (y) + h)). Hence, F
is principal and so invertible. Thus, by [6, Theorem 2.13 (2)], A ⊲⊳ f J is
Prüfer.

The following corollary is a consequence of Theorem 2.2.
Corollary 2.7. Let (A, m) be a local ring and I be a proper ideal of A. Then
A ⊲⊳ I is Prüfer if and only if so is A and I = aI for all a ∈ m\Z(A).
Proof. It is easy to see that A ⊲⊳ I = A ⊲⊳ f J where f is the identity map
of A, B = A, J = I. By Lemma 2.3, (A ⊲⊳ I, M) is a local ring with
M = m ⊲⊳ I since (A, m) is a local ring and I ⊆ Rad(A) = m. Moreover,
f (Reg(A)) = Reg(A) = reg(B) and J = I ⊂ f (A) = A. By Theorem 2.2, the
conclusion is straightforward.

The following example illustrates the failure of Theorem 2.3 in general,
beyond the context J ⊂ f (A) and f (Reg(A)) = Reg(B).
Example 2.8. Let (A, m) be a non-valuation local domain, E :=
B := A ∝ E be the trivial ring extension of A by E. Consider

A
m

and

f : A ֒→ B
a ֒→ f (a) = (a, 0)
be a ring homomorphism and J := 0 ∝ E be a proper ideal of B. Then the
following statement hold :
(1) J 1 f (A).
(2) f (Reg(A)) , Reg(B).
(3) A is not Prüfer.
(4) A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer.

PRÜFER PROPERTY IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRAS ALONG AN IDEAL

9

Proof. (1) f (A) = A ∝ 0 and J = 0 ∝ E. It is easy to see that f (A) ∩ J = (0).
Hence, J 1 f (A).
(2) Let 0 , b ∈ m. Then, f (b) = (b, 0) is a zero-divisor of B since
(b, 0)(0, e) = (0, 0) for all 0 , e ∈ E. Hence, f (Reg(A)) , Reg(B).
(3) Straightforward.
(4) One can easily check that A ⊲⊳ f J = A ∝ B which is Prüfer by [3,
Example 2.8].

It is easy to see that if A ⊲⊳ f J is Gaussian, then so is A since the Gaussian property is stable under factor rings and by [13, Proposition 5.1 (3)],
A⊲⊳ f J
A  {0}×{J}
. Recall also that a local ring is Gaussian if ”for any two elements
a, b in the ring, we have < a, b >2 =< a2 > or < b2 >; moreover, if ab = 0
and, say, < a, b >2 =< a2 >, then b2 = 0” (see [7, Theorem 2.2 ]).
Theorem 2.2 enriches the literature with new examples of non-Gaussian
Prüfer rings.
Example 2.9. Let (B, m) be a local Prüfer ring and I be a proper ideal of B
Z
such that I = m = Z(B) with I 2 , (0), (for instance B := 8Z
and I = m :=
Z
2 8Z = Z(B)). By Corollary 2.7, A := B ⊲⊳ I is a local Prüfer ring. Consider
f : A → B be a surjective ring homomorphism and J := I be a proper ideal
of B. Then :
(1) A ⊲⊳ f J is Prüfer.
(2) A ⊲⊳ f J is not Gaussian.
Proof. (1) It is easy to see that J = I ⊂ f (A) = B and Z(B ⊲⊳ I) = Z(B) ⊲⊳ I
by Lemma 2.6 since (B, m) is (local) Prüfer and I ⊆ Z(B). One can easily
check that f (Reg(A)) = Reg(B) and J := Z(B). So, by Theorem 2.2, A ⊲⊳ f J
is Prüfer.
(2) We claim that A := B ⊲⊳ I is not Gaussian. Deny. B is (local) Gaussian.
Let a, b ∈ I. Then, (a, 0) and (0, b) ∈ B ⊲⊳ I (which is local Gaussian) and
by [7, Theorem 2.2 ], < (a, 0), (0, b) >2 =< (a2 , 0), (0, b2) >=< (a2 , 0) > or
< (0, b2 ) >. Therefore, it follows that b2 = 0 or a2 = 0. So, using the fact
B is (local) Gaussian, < a, b >2 =< a2 >=< 0 > or < b2 >=< 0 > and so
ab = 0. It follows that I 2 = (0), a contradiction. Hence, A is not Gaussian.
Thus, A ⊲⊳ f J is not Gaussian.

Example 2.10. Let (A, m) be a non-Gaussian local Prüfer ring such that
m := Z(A) (for instance (A, m) := (A0 ∝ B, m0 ∝ B) with A0 be a nonvaluation local domain and B := A0 ∝ E with E be a non-zero A−module
such that ME = 0 see [3, Example 2.8]). Consider I := m be a proper ideal
of A. Then :
(1) A ⊲⊳ I is Prüfer.

10

NAJIB MAHDOU AND MOUTU ABDOU SALAM MOUTUI

(2) A ⊲⊳ I is not Gaussian.
Proof. (1) By Corollary 2.7, A ⊲⊳ I is Prüfer.
(2) A ⊲⊳ I is not Gaussian since A is not Gaussian.

References
1. J. Abuihlail, M. Jarrar and S. Kabbaj, Commutative rings in which every finitely generated ideal is quasiprojective, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 215 (2011) 2504-2511.
2. D.D. Anderson, GCD domains, Gauss’ Lemma, and contents of polynomials, NonNoetherian commutative ring theory, Math. Appl. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht 520
(2000) 1-31.
3. C. Bakkari, S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, Trivial extensions defined by Prü f er conditions, J. of Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010) 53-60.
4. C. Bakkari and N. Mahdou, Prüfer-like conditions in pullbacks, Commutative algebra
and its applications, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, (2009) 41-47.
5. C. Bakkari, N. Mahdou and H. Mouanis, Prüfer-like Conditions in Subrings Retract
and Applications, Comm. Algebra 37 (2009) 47-55.
6. S. Bazzoni and S. Glaz, Prüfer rings, Multiplicative Ideal Theory in Commutative
Algebra, Springer, New York, (2006) 55-72.
7. S. Bazzoni and S. Glaz, Gaussian properties of total rings of quotients, J. Algebra 310
(2007) 180-193.
8. M. Boisen and P.B. Sheldon; CPI-extension: Over rings of integral domains with
special prime spectrum, Canad. J. Math. 29 (1977) 722-737.
9. H. S. Butts and W. Smith, Prüfer rings, Math. Z. 95 (1967) 196-211.
10. H. Cartan, S. Eilenberg, Homological Algebra, Princeton University Press, 1956.
11. M. Chhiti, M. Jarrar, S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, Prü f er conditions in an amalgamated
duplication of a ring along an ideal, Comm. Algebra, Accepted for publication.
12. A. Corso and S. Glaz, Gaussian ideals and the Dedekind-Mertens Lemma, Marcel
Dekker Lecture Notes Pure Appl. Math 217 (2001) 131 - 143.
13. M. D’Anna, C. A. Finocchiaro and M. Fontana, Amalgamated algebras along an ideal,
Commutative algebra and its applications, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, (2009) 241-252.
14. M. D’Anna, C. A. Finocchiaro and M. Fontana, Properties of chains of prime ideals in
amalgamated algebras along an ideal, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010) 1633-1641.
15. M. D’Anna, A construction of Gorenstein rings, J. Algebra 306 (2006) 507-519.
16. M. D’Anna and M. Fontana, The amalgamated duplication of a ring along a
multiplicative-canonical ideal, Ark. Mat. 45 (2007) 241-252.
17. M. D’Anna and M. Fontana, An amalgamated duplication of a ring along an ideal :
the basic properties, J. Algebra Appl. 6 (2007) 443-459.
18. L. Fuchs, Uber die Ideale arithmetischer Ringe, Comment. Math. Helv. 23 (1949)
334-341.
19. L. Fuchs, W. Heinzer and B. Olberding, Commutative ideal theory without finiteness
conditions: Primal ideals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 357 (2005) 2771-2798.
20. S. Glaz, The weak global dimension of Gaussian rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133
(9) (2005) 2507-2513.
21. S. Glaz, Prüfer conditions in rings with zero-divisors, CRC Press Series of Lectures
in Pure Appl. Math. 241 (2005) 272-282.

PRÜFER PROPERTY IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRAS ALONG AN IDEAL

11

22. S. Glaz and W. Vasconcelos, The content of Gaussian polynomials, J. Algebra 202
(1998) 1-9.
23. M. Griffin, Prüfer rings with zero-divisors, J. Reine Angew Math. 239/240 (1969)
55-67.
24. W. Heinzer and C. Huneke, Gaussian polynomials and content ideals, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 125 (1997) 739-745.
25. J. A. Huckaba, Commutative Rings with Zero-Divisors, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1988.
26. C. U. Jensen, Arithmetical rings, Acta Math. Hungr. 17 (1966) 115-123.
27. W. Krull, Breitrage zur arithmetik kommutativer integritatsebereiche Maths. Z 41
(1936) 545-577.
28. K. A. Loper and M. Roitman, The content of a Gaussian polynomial is invertible, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 133 (5).
29. T. G. Lucas, Gaussian polynomials and invertibility, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133 (7)
(2005) 1881-1886.
30. H. Maimani and S. Yassemi, Zero-divisor graphs of amalgamated duplication of a
ring along an ideal, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 212 (1) (2008) 168174.
31. M. Nagata, Local Rings, Interscience, New York, 1962.
32. H. Prüfer, Untersuchungen uber teilbarkeitseigenschaften in korpern, J. Reine Angew.
Math. 168 (1932) 1–36.
33. H. Tsang, Gauss’s Lemma, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1965.
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Technology of Fez, Box 2202,
University S. M. Ben Abdellah Fez, Morocco
E-mail address: mahdou@hotmail.com
E-mail address: moutu 2004@yahoo.fr
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Technology of Fez, Box 2202,
University S. M. Ben Abdellah Fez, Morocco

