BECK’S CONJECTURE FOR MULTIPLICATIVE LATTICES

arXiv:1310.4594v1 [] 17 Oct 2013

VINAYAK JOSHI AND SACHIN SARODE

Abstract. In this paper, we introduce the zero divisor graph of a multiplicative lattice. We
provide a counter-example to Beck’s conjecture for multiplicative lattices. Further, we prove
that Beck’s conjecture is true for reduced multiplicative lattice which extends the result of
Behboodi and Rakeei [7] and Aalipour et. al. [1].

Keywords Zero-divisor graph, reduced multiplicative lattice, minimal prime element.
1. Introduction
In recent years lot of attention have been given to the study of zero divisor graphs of algebraic
structures and ordered structures. The idea of a zero divisor graph of a commutative ring with
unity was introduced by Beck [5]. He was particularly interested in the coloring of commutative
rings with unity. Many mathematicians like Anderson et.al. [3], F. DeMeyer, T. McKenzie
and K. Schneider [8], Maimani, Pournaki and Yassemi [20], Redmond [22] and Samei [23]
investigated the interplay between properties of the algebraic structure and graph theoretic
properties.
The zero divisor graphs of ordered structures are well studied by Halaš and Jukl [11], Halaš
and Länger [12], Joshi [13], Joshi et.al. [14, 15, 18, 19], Nimbhorkar et.al [21] etc.
In ring theory, the structure of a ring R is closely related to ideal’s behavior more than
elements. Hence Behboodi and Rakeei [6, 7] introduced the concept of annihilating ideal-graph
AG(R) of a commutative ring R with unity where the vertex set V (AG(R)) is the set of nonzero ideals with non-zero annihilator, that is, for a non-zero ideal I of R, I ∈ V (AG(R)) if and
only if there exists a non-zero ideal J of R such that IJ = (0) and two distinct vertices I and
J are adjacent if and only if IJ = (0) and studied the properties of rings and its annihilating
ideal-graphs. In [7], Behboodi and Rakeei raised the following conjecture.
Conjecture 1.1. For every commutative ring R with unity, χ(AG(R)) = Clique(AG(R)).
It is interesting to observe that the set Id(R) of all ideals of a commutative ring R with
unity forms a modular compactly generated 1-compact multiplicative lattice in which product
of two compact element is compact (see Definition 1.2) and the annihilating ideal-graph of a
commutative ring R with unity is nothing but the zero divisor graph of the multiplicative lattice
of all ideals of R where the vertex set is the set of non-zero zero divisors and vertices a and b
are adjacent if and only if ab = 0. Hence to study the annihilating ideal-graphs of commutative
ring with unity, a multiplicative lattice becomes a tool. This motivate us to define and study
Date: October 12, 2013.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 05C15, Secondary 06A12.
1

2

VINAYAK JOSHI AND SACHIN SARODE

the zero divisor graph of a multiplicative lattice. It is natural to ask the following question and
the affirmative answer to this question solves Conjecture 1.1. of Behboodi and Rakeei [7].
m
Question: Is Beck’s Conjecture, that is, χ(Γm
i (L)) = Clique(Γi (L)) true for the zero divisor

graphs of a multiplicative lattice L with respect to an element i of L?
In this paper, we introduce the zero divisor graph of a multiplicative lattice. We provide
a counter-example to Beck’s conjecture for multiplicative lattices, particularly, a non-reduced
multiplicative lattice. Further, we prove that Beck’s conjecture is true for reduced multiplicative
lattice which extend the result of Behboodi and Rakeei [7] and Aalipour et. al. [1].
Now, we begin with necessary concepts and terminology.

Definition 1.2. A non-empty subset I of a lattice L is said to be semi-ideal, if x ≤ a ∈ I
implies that x ∈ I. A semi-ideal I of L is said to be an ideal if for a, b ∈ I, a ∨ b ∈ I. A proper
ideal (semi-ideal) I of a lattice L is said to be prime if a ∧ b ∈ I implies a ∈ I or b ∈ I. Dually,
we have concept of prime filter (semi-filter). A prime ideal (semi-ideal) I is a minimal prime
ideal (semi-ideal) if there is no prime ideal (semi-ideal) Q such that {0} $ Q $ I. A filter is
said to be maximal if it is a maximal element of the poset of filter.
For a ∈ L, the set (a] = {x ∈ L | x ≤ a} is called the principal ideal generated by a. Dually,
we have a concept of a principal filter [a) generated by a.
A lattice L is said to be complete, if for any subset S of L, we have

W

S,

V

S ∈ L.

A complete lattice L is said to be a multiplicative lattice, if there is defined a binary operation
“ · ” called multiplication on L satisfying the following conditions:
(1) a · b = b · a, for all a, b ∈ L,
(2) a · (b · c) = (a · b) · c, for all a, b, c ∈ L,
(3) a · (∨α bα ) = ∨α (a · bα ), for all a, bα ∈ L,
(4) a · b ≤ a ∧ b for all a, b ∈ L,
(5) a · 1 = a, for all a ∈ L.
W
An element c of a complete lattice L is said to be compact, if c ≤ α aα implies that
Wn
c ≤ i=1 aαi , where n ∈ Z+ . The set of all compact elements of a lattice L is denoted by L∗ . A
lattice L is said to be compactly generated or algebraic, if for every x ∈ L, there exist xα ∈ L∗ ,
α ∈ Λ such that x = ∨α xα , that is, every element is a join of compact elements.
A multiplicative lattice L is said to be 1-compact

if 1 is a compact element of L. A

multiplicative lattice L is said to be compact if every element is a compact element of L.
An element p 6= 1 of a multiplicative lattice L is said to be prime if a · b ≤ p implies either
a ≤ p or b ≤ p.
Equivalently, an element p 6= 1 of a 1-compact, compactly generated lattice L is said to be
prime if a · b ≤ p for a, b ∈ L∗ implies either a ≤ p or b ≤ p.
A nonempty subset S of L∗ in 1-compact, compactly generated lattice is said to be multiplicatively closed if s1 , s2 ∈ S, then s1 · s2 ∈ S.

BECK’S CONJECTURE FOR MULTIPLICATIVE LATTICES

3

As L is a complete lattice, it follows that L admits residuals: for every pair a, b ∈ L, there
W
exists an element (a : b) = {x | x · b ≤ a} ∈ L such that for any x ∈ L , x · b ≤ a ⇔ x ≤ (a : b).
Clearly, a ≤ (a : b) for all a, b ∈ L.
In a multiplicative lattice L, an element a ∈ L is said to be nilpotent, if an = 0, for some
n ∈ Z+ and L is said to be reduced, if the only nilpotent element is 0.
W
Let a be an element of a multiplicative lattice then we define a∗ = {x ∈ L | an · x = 0} and
W
if L is reduced, then a∗ = {x ∈ L | x · a = 0}.
A lattice L with 0 is said to be 0-distributive if a ∧ b = 0 = a ∧ c then a ∧ (b ∨ c) = 0; see
Varlet [24]. The concept of 0-distributive poset can be found in [17, 16].
2. Zero-divisor graph of a multiplicative lattice
Joshi [13] introduced the zero-divisor graph of a poset with respect to an ideal I. We
mentioned this definition, when a poset is a lattice.
Definition 2.1. Let I be an ideal of a lattice L. We associate an undirected and simple graph,
called the zero-divisor graph of L with respect to I, denoted by ΓI (L) in which the set of vertices
is {x 6∈ I | x ∧ y ∈ I for some y 6∈ I} and two distinct vertices a, b are adjacent if and only if
a ∧ b ∈ I.
We illustrate this concept with an example.
Example 2.2. The lattice L and its zero divisor graph Γ{0} (L) (in the sense of Joshi [13]) is
shown below.
1
❡
d❡
✡
❡
b✡
❡c a ❢

❢b

c
❡

d❡

a ❡
❡
0
L
(a)

❢
c
Γ{0} (L)

❡
❡
a m
b
Γ (L)

(b)
Figure 2

(c)

Now, we introduced the zero-divisor graph Γm (L) of a multiplicative lattice L and illustrate
with an example.
Definition 2.3. Let L be a multiplicative lattice and let i ∈ L. We associate an undirected
and simple graph, called the zero-divisor graph of L with respect to an element i, denoted by
Γm
i (L) in which the set of vertices is {x( i) ∈ L | x · y ≤ i for some y( i) ∈ L} and two
distinct vertices a, b are adjacent if and only if a · b ≤ i. Whenever i = 0, we denote Γm
i (L) by
simply Γm (L).

4

VINAYAK JOSHI AND SACHIN SARODE

Example 2.4. Consider the same lattice L shown in Figure 2(a) with the trivial multiplication
x · y = 0 = y · x, for each x 6= 1 6= y and x · 1 = x = 1 · x for every x ∈ L. Then it is easy to see
that L is a multiplicative lattice. Further, it’s zero divisor graph Γm (L) (in the multiplicative
lattice sense) is shown in Figure 2(c). It is interesting to note that if 1 is completely joinW
irreducible(i.e. 1 = xi ⇒ 1 = xi for some i) then any lattice with this trivial multiplication
is a multiplicative lattice.
Definition 2.5. The chromatic number of G is denoted by χ(G). Thus, χ(G) is the minimum
number of colors which can be assigned to the elements of G such that adjacent elements receive
different colors. A clique of a graph G is a complete subgraph and the supremum of the sizes
of clique in G, denoted by ω(G), is called the clique number of G.
For undefined concepts in lattices and graphs, see Grätzer [9] and Harary [10] respectively.
It is known that Beck’s Conjecture, that is, χ(ΓI (P )) = Clique(ΓI (P )) is true for the zero
divisor graph of a poset P (with 0) with respect to an ideal I of P ; see [13, Theorem 2.9] (when
I = {0}); see also [11, Theorem 2.13]). Hence it is natural to ask the following question.
m
Question: Is Beck’s Conjecture, that is, χ(Γm
i (L)) = Clique(Γi (L)) true for the zero divisor

graphs of a multiplicative lattice L with respect to an element i of L?
We answer this question negatively in the following example.
Example 2.6. Consider the lattice L depicted in the Figure 3(a). Define a multiplication
on L as follows. It is not very difficult to prove that L is a multiplicative lattice. Moreover,
f 2 = 0 for f 6= 0 shows that L is non-reduced. Now consider the zero divisor graph Γm (L) of
L depicted in Figure 3(b). It is easy to see that 4 = χ(Γm (L)) > Clique(Γm (L)) = 3. Thus
Beck’s Conjecture is not true in the case of multiplicative lattices.

❞1
b ∨ e(W)

tt

t
a ∨ d(R)

t
a∨c

t

a

t

a∨d

❞

b

❞

b∨d

c

b∨e c∨e

❞
❞
❏
❏
❏
❞ d ❏❞

❞

e (G)

a (R)

t
b (W)

t

(B)

t

t
f

a ∨ c(R)

c ∨ e(R)
e

t

t

t

t

t

c(R)

d(W)

t

t(R)

tb ∨ d(W)

tf
Γm (L)
❞

0

(R)-Red, (B)-Blue,(G)-Green, (W)-White

L
(a)

(b)
Figure 3

BECK’S CONJECTURE FOR MULTIPLICATIVE LATTICES

•
0
a
b
c
d
e
f
(a ∨ c)
(a ∨ d)
(b ∨ e)
(c ∨ e)
(b ∨ d)
t
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

a
0
f
0
f
f
0
0
f
f
0
f
f
f
a

b
0
0
f
0
f
f
0
0
f
f
f
f
f
b

c
0
f
0
f
0
f
0
f
f
f
f
0
f
c

d
0
f
f
0
f
0
0
f
f
f
0
f
f
d

e
0
0
f
f
0
f
0
f
0
f
f
f
f
e

f
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
f

(a ∨ c) (a ∨ d) (b ∨ e) (c ∨ e) (b ∨ d)
0
0
0
0
0
f
f
0
f
f
0
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
0
f
f
f
0
f
f
0
f
f
f
0
0
0
0
0
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
(a ∨ c) (a ∨ d) (b ∨ e) (c ∨ e) (b ∨ d)

5

t
0
f
f
f
f
f
0
f
f
f
f
f
f
t

1
0
a
b
c
d
e
f
(a ∨ c)
(a ∨ d)
(b ∨ e)
(c ∨ e)
(b ∨ d)
t
1

Remark 2.7. If R is a commutative ring with unity, then it is well known that the ideal lattice
Id(R) of R is 1-compact, compactly generated modular multiplicative lattice; see Anderson
[2]. Further, it is easy to observe that if R is reduced then Id(R) is a reduced multiplicative
lattice. The lattice depicted in Figure 3(a) is a non-modular lattice (as it contains a nonmodular sublattice shown in dark black circles) and hence it can not be an ideal lattice of any
commutative ring unity. Therefore the above conjecture remains open though Beck’s conjecture
fails in the case of non-reduced multiplicative lattices. We have more pleasant situation when a
multiplicative lattice is reduced. For this, we need Theorem 2.9 of [13]. Note that the notion of
prime semi-ideals mentioned in [13] coincides with the corresponding notions in lattices. Hence
we quote essentially Theorem 2.9 of [13], when a poset is a lattice and an ideal I = {0}.
Theorem 2.8 (Joshi [13]). Let L be a lattice. If Clique(Γ(L)) < ∞ then L has a finite number
of minimal prime semi-ideals and if n is this number then χ(Γ(L)) = Clique(Γ(L)) = n.
Lemma 2.9. Let L be a reduced multiplicative lattice. Then L is 0-distributive.
Proof. Let a ∧ b = 0 = a ∧ c for a, b, c ∈ L. Since a · b ≤ a ∧ b and L is a multiplicative lattice,
we have a · (b ∨ c) = 0. Further, L is reduced, we have a · b = 0 implies a ∧ b = 0. This together
with a · (b ∨ c) = 0 proves that L is 0-distributive.



It is proved in Joshi and Mundlik [16] that every prime semi-ideal in a 0-distributive poset is
a prime ideal of a 0-distributive poset. But for the sake of completeness, we provide the proof
of the same in the following result which is essential for the proof of the Beck’s Conjecture.
Theorem 2.10. Let L be a reduced multiplicative lattice and let Clique(Γm (L)) < ∞. Then L
has a finite number of minimal prime ideals and if n is this number then Beck’s Conjecture is
true, that is, χ(Γm (L)) = Clique(Γm (L)) = n.
Proof. Suppose L is a reduced multiplicative lattice. Then one can easily prove that whenever
a · b = 0 then a ∧ b = 0 and conversely for a, b ∈ L. By Lemma 2.9, L is 0-distributive.

6

VINAYAK JOSHI AND SACHIN SARODE

Now, we prove that every minimal prime semi-ideal of L is a minimal prime ideal of L. Let I
be a minimal prime semi-ideal of L. To prove I is an ideal, it is enough to show that for a, b ∈ I,
a ∨ b ∈ I. Let a, b ∈ I. Since I is a minimal prime semi-ideal of L, it is easy to observe that
L \ I is a maximal filter of L. Further, a, b 6∈ L \ I, we have [a) ∨ (L \ I) = [b) ∨ (L \ I) = L = [0).
Hence there exists t ∈ L \ I such that t ∧ a = 0 = t ∧ b. By Lemma 2.9, we have t ∧ (a ∨ b) = 0.
This proves that a ∨ b ∈ I, otherwise 0 = t ∧ (a ∨ b) ∈ L \ I, a contradiction to maximality of
L \ I. This proves that every minimal prime semi-ideal is a minimal prime ideal.
In view of the observation whenever a · b = 0 then a ∧ b = 0 and conversely for a, b ∈ L,
the zero divisor graph Γ(L) of the lattice L (in the lattice sense) is isomorphic to the zero
divisor graph Γm (L) of the reduced multiplicative lattice L. Since Clique(Γm (L)) < ∞, we
have Clique(Γ(L)) < ∞. Hence by Theorem 2.8, Beck’s Conjecture is true for general lattices
(in fact for posets); hence it is true for reduced multiplicative lattice, that is, χ(Γm (L)) =
Clique(Γm (L)) = n, where n is the number of minimal prime ideals of L.



Remark 2.11. It is obvious that the prime ideals in a commutative ring R with unity are
nothing but the prime elements of the Id(R). In view of this observation and the fact that
the annihilating ideal-graph AG(R) of a commutative ring R with 1 is nothing but the zero
divisor graph of a multiplicative lattice Id(R) of all ideals of a commutative ring R with 1,
Theorem 2.10 extend Corollary 2.11 of Behboodi and Rakeei [7] but not completely Theorem
8 of Aalipour et. al. [1]. In order to extend Theorem 8 of Aalipour et. al. [1], we have to
prove that χ(Γm (L)) = Clique(Γm (L)) = n, where n is the number of minimal prime elements
of a reduced multiplicative lattice L. We achieve this result in sequel. Before proceeding
further, we provide an example of a reduced multiplicative lattice which has prime ideals but
not have any prime element. It should be noted that a reduced multiplicative lattice always
has a prime ideal but need not have a prime element. Let N be the set of natural numbers.
Let L = {X ⊆ N | |X| < ∞} ∪ {N}. Then it is easy to see that L is a reduced multiplicative
lattice with multiplication as the meet. One can prove that the set {n}⊥ = {A ⊆ N | A ∩ {n} =
∅ and |A| < ∞} is a minimal prime ideal of L for every n ∈ N. But L does not contain any
prime element.
Lemma 2.12. Let L be reduced 1-compact, compactly generated lattice and x ∈ L if x∗ is
maximal among {a∗ | a ∈ L, a∗ 6= 1}, then x∗ is a prime element of L
Proof. Suppose that a · b ≤ x∗ and a  x∗ . Then (x · a · b) = 0. Let (0 6= y) ≤ (x · a). Then
(b · y) ≤ (x · a · b) = 0. Thus b ≤ y ∗ . As y ≤ x implies x∗ ≤ y ∗ and y ∗ 6= 1 due to y 6= 0. By
maximality of x∗ , we deduced that y ∗ = x∗ , hence b ≤ x∗ . This proves that x∗ is prime.



Lemma 2.13. Let L be reduced 1-compact, compactly generated lattice. If x∗ , y ∗ are distinct
prime elements of L, then x · y = 0.
Proof. Assume contrary that x · y 6= 0, that is x  y ∗ and y  x∗ . Consider a compact element
t ≤ x∗ . Then x · t = 0. As y ∗ is prime and x · t ≤ y ∗ . Since L is compactly generated and every
compact element t ≤ x∗ is also ≤ y ∗ , we have t ≤ y ∗ and hence x∗ ≤ y ∗ . Similarly we can show
y ∗ ≤ x∗ . Hence y ∗ = x∗ , a contradiction.



BECK’S CONJECTURE FOR MULTIPLICATIVE LATTICES

7

Lemma 2.14. Let L be reduced 1-compact, compactly generated lattice with Clique(Γm(L)) <
∞, then the set {x∗ | x ∈ L, x 6= 0} satisfies the ascending chain condition.
Proof. Suppose a∗1 < a∗2 < a∗3 < a∗4 · · · ·. Let xj ≤ a∗j and xj  a∗j−1 , j = 2, 3, · · ·. If we
let yn = (xn · an−1 ), n = 2, 3, · · ·, then yn 6= 0. For i < j, we have xi ≤ a∗i ≤ a∗j−1 . Thus
(xi · aj−1 ) = 0, consequently, (yi · yj ) = 0 for all i 6= j. Thus the set {yn | n = 2, 3, · · ·} is an
infinite clique, a contradiction.



Lemma 2.15. Let L be reduced 1-compact, compactly generated lattice with Clique(Γm(L)) <
∞, then the set of all distinct maximal annihilator elements of L is finite.
Proof. Let A = {x∗i | x∗i is maximal} be the set of all maximal annihilator elements of L.
Clearly, xi 6= 0 for all i and x∗i 6= x∗j whenever i 6= j. By Lemma 2.12, all the elements of A
are prime. Then by Lemma 2.13, xi · xj = 0 for all i 6= j. This shows Clique(L) ≥ |A|, which
according to Clique(L) < ∞ yields the finiteness of A.



Lemma 2.16. Let L be reduced 1-compact, compactly generated lattice with L∗ multiplicatively
closed set and Clique(Γm (L)) < ∞, then 0 is the meet of a finite number of minimal prime
elements of L.
Proof. According to Lemma 2.15, let {x∗i | 1 ≤ i ≤ n} be the set of all maximal annihilator
elements of L. By Lemma 2.12, all these elements are prime. Further, due to Lemma 2.13,
V
xi ·xj = 0 for all i 6= j. Assume that there is (0 6=)a ≤ 1≤i≤n x∗i . Then a·xi = 0 for all i. Thus
xi ≤ a∗ for all i. But by Lemma 2.14, a∗ ≤ x∗i for some i. However, this gives xi ≤ a∗ ≤ x∗i ,
V
that is, x2i = 0, a contradiction to reduced lattice. Thus we have, 0 = 1≤i≤n x∗i .
Now, we show that x∗i = pi are minimal prime elements of L. Since pi are assumed to be
maximal annihilator elements, we may suppose that none of pi contains pj for all i 6= j. Indeed,
if pj were not minimal for some j, then there exists a minimal prime element q with q < pj .
Vn
Now i=1 x∗i ≤ q and q is prime implies that x∗i ≤ q for some i. But then x∗i = pi ≤ q ≤ pj , a
Vn
contradiction. Thus i=1 pi = 0.

Lemma 2.17. Let L be reduced 1-compact, compactly generated lattice with with L∗ multiplicatively closed set and Clique(Γm(L)) < ∞, then every minimal prime element p of L is of the
form x∗ for some x ∈ L.
Proof. Let p be a minimal prime element of L. For x  p, we have x∗ ≤ p. By Lemma 2.14,
there are maximal annihilator elements among A = {x∗ | x  p}. In fact, we prove that there
is a greatest one. Let y1∗ , y2∗ be two maximal elements of A. We have y1 · y2  p, since p is
prime and y1 , y2  p. Thus there is (0 6= y) = (y1 · y2 ) with y  p. Clearly, y1∗ , y2∗ ≤ y ∗ and
as both y1∗ , y2∗ are maximal in A, we conclude that y1∗ = y2∗ = y ∗ . This shows that A has the
greatest element say z ∗ .
By Lemma 2.12, z ∗ is prime. We prove that z ∗ ≤ p. If not then there is a compact element
g ≤ z ∗ such that g  p. Then z ≤ z ∗∗ ≤ g ∗ ∈ A. Hence we have z ≤ g ∗ ≤ z ∗ , a contradiction

8

VINAYAK JOSHI AND SACHIN SARODE

to the fact that L is reduced. Thus z ∗ ≤ p and p is a minimal prime element of L, we have
p = z ∗.

Now, we prove Beck’s conjecture for reduced lattice L.
Theorem 2.18. Let L be a reduced 1-compact, compactly generated lattice with with L∗ multiplicatively closed set and Clique(Γm(L)) < ∞. Then the number of minimal prime elements
of L is finite, say n and χ(Γm (L)) = Clique(Γm (L)) = n
Proof. By the Lemma 2.16, we have 0 = ∧1≤i≤n pi for pi being minimal prime elements of
L and by Lemma 2.17, pi = x∗i for some xi 6= 0, hence 0 = ∧1≤i≤n x∗i . By Lemma 2.13,
{xi | 1 ≤ i ≤ n} is a clique in L and thus Clique(L) ≥ n. Define a coloring of L as
f (x) = min{i | x  pi }. If x, y are adjacent vertices, then x · y = 0. If f (x) = k + 1, then
x ≤ pi for 1 ≤ i ≤ k and x  pk+1 . So we conclude that y ≤ pk+1 , since x · y = 0 ≤ pk+1 and
x  pk+1 . This show that f (y) 6= k + 1 and thus f (x) 6= f (y). Hence f is coloring of L. This
yields χ(Γm (L)) ≤ n, and finally n ≤ Clique(Γm (L)) ≤ χ(Γm (L)) ≤ n. In conclusion, we have
χ(Γm (L)) = Clique(Γm (L)) = n.



Corollary 2.19. Let R be a reduced commutative ring with unity such that Clique(AG(R)) <
∞. Then χ(AG(R)) = Clique(AG(R)) = |M in(R)|.
References
[1] G. Aalipour, S. Akbari, R. Nikandish, M.J. Nikmehrb and F. Shaveisi, On the coloring of the annihilatingideal graph of a commutative ring, Discrete Math. 312 (2012), 2620-2626.
[2] D. D. Anderson, Abstract commutative ideal theory without chain condition, Algebra Universalis 6 (1976),
131-145.
[3] D. D. Anderson and M. Naseer, Beck’s Coloring of a Commutative Ring, J. Algebra 159 (1993), 500-514.
[4] D. F. Anderson and P. Livingstone, The zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, J. Algebra 217(1999),
434-447.
[5] I. Beck, Coloring of a commutative ring, J. Algebra 116 (1988), 208-226.
[6] M. Behboodi and Z. Rakeei, The annihilating-ideal graph of commutative rings I, J. Algebra Appl. 10(4)
(2011), 727-739.
[7] M. Behboodi and Z. Rakeei, The annihilating-ideal graph of commutative rings II, J. Algebra Appl. 10(4)
(2011), 741-753.
[8] F. DeMeyer, T. McKenzie and K. Schneider, The zero-divisor graph of a commutative semigroup, Semigroup
Forum 65 (2002), 206-214.
[9] G. Grätzer, General Lattice Theory, Birkhauser, Basel (1998).
[10] F. Harary, Graph Theory, Narosa, New Delhi (1988).
[11] R. Halaš and M. Jukl, On Beck’s coloring of posets, Discrete Math. 309 (2009), 4584-4589.
[12] R. Halaš and H. Länger, The zero divisor graph of a qoset, Order DOI 10.1007/s11083-009-9120-1.
[13] V. V. Joshi, Zero divisor graph of a poset with respect to an ideal, Order 29 (2012), 499-506.
[14] V. V. Joshi and A. U. Khiste, On the zero divisor graphs of pm-lattices, Discrete Math. 312 (2012),
2076-2082.
[15] V. V. Joshi and A. U. Khiste, On the zero divisor graph of a Boolean poset, Math. Slovaca (to appear).
[16] V. V. Joshi and N. D. Mundlik, Prime ideals in 0-distributive posts, Cent. Eur. J. Math. DOI
10.2478/s11533-013-0206-z.
[17] V. V. Joshi and B. N. Waphare, Characterizations of 0-distributive posets, Math. Bohem. (1)130 (2005),
73-80.

BECK’S CONJECTURE FOR MULTIPLICATIVE LATTICES

9

[18] V. V. Joshi, B. N. Waphare and H. Y. Pourali Zero divisor graphs of lattices and primal ideals, AsianEuropean J. Math. 5(3) (2012), 1250037 (9 pages).
[19] V. V. Joshi, B. N. Waphare and H. Y. Pourali On generalized zero divisor graphs of posets, Discrete Appl.
Math. 161 (2013), 1490-1495.
[20] H. R. Maimani, M. R. Pournaki and S. Yassemi, Zero-divisor graphs with respect to an ideal, Comm.
Algebra 34 (2006), 923-929.
[21] S. K. Nimbhorkar, M. P. Wasadikar, Lisa DeMeyer, Coloring of semilattices, Ars Comb. 12 (2007), 97-104.
[22] S. P. Redmond, An ideal based zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, Comm. Algebra 31 (2003), 44254423.
[23] K. Samei, The zero-divisor graph of a reduced ring , J. Pure and Appl. Algebra, 209 (2007), 813-821 .
[24] J. Varlet, A generalization of notion of pseudo-complementness, Bull. Soc. Roy. Sci. Liége 36 (1968),
149-158.
Department of Mathematics, University of Pune, Pune-411007, India.
E-mail address: vvj@math.unipune.ac.in, sarodemaths@gmail.com

