arXiv:1404.3790v1 [] 15 Apr 2014

n-COHERENCE AND (n, d)-PROPERTIES IN
AMALGAMATED ALGEBRA ALONG AN IDEAL
KARIMA ALAOUI ISMAILI AND NAJIB MAHDOU
Abstract. Let f : A → B be a ring homomorphism and let J be an
ideal of B. The purpose of this article is to examine the transfer of the
properties of n-coherence and strong n-coherence from a ring A to his
amalgamated algebra A ⊲⊳f J. Also, we investigate the (n, d)-property
of the amalgamated algebra A ⊲⊳f J, to resolve Costa’s first conjecture.

1. Introduction
Throughout this paper, all rings are commutative with identity element,
and all modules are unitary.
Let A and B be two rings, 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 with B along J with respect to f (introduced
and studied by D’Anna, Finocchiaro, and Fontana in [9, 10]). This construction is a generalization of the amalgamated duplication of a ring along
an ideal (introduced and studied by D’Anna and Fontana in [11, 12, 13] and
denoted by A ⊲⊳ I). 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 [9, Examples 2.5 & 2.6] and other
classical constructions, such as the Nagata’s idealization and the CPI extensions (in the sense of Boisen and Sheldon [4]) are strictly related to it (see
[9, Example 2.7 & Remark 2.8]).
Let R be a commutative ring. For a nonnegative integer n, an R-module
E is called n-presented if there is an exact sequence of R-modules:
Fn → Fn−1 → . . . F1 → F0 → E → 0
where each Fi is a finitely generated free R-module. In particular, 0presented and 1-presented R-modules are, respectively, finitely generated
and finitely presented R-modules.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D05, 13D02.
Key words and phrases. Amalgamated algebra, amalgamated duplication, strong ncoherent ring, n-coherent ring, (n, d)-ring, n-finitely presented module.
1

2

KARIMA ALAOUI ISMAILI AND NAJIB MAHDOU

The ring R is n-coherent if each (n−1)-presented ideal of R is n-presented,
and R is strong n-coherent ring if each n-presented R-module is (n + 1)presented [14, 15] (This terminology is not the same as that of Costa (1994)
[7], where Costa’s n-coherence is our strong n-coherence). In particular,
1-coherence coincides with coherence, and one may view 0-coherence as
Noetherianity. Any strong n-coherent ring is n-coherent, and the converse
holds for n = 1 or for coherent rings [15, Proposition 3.3].
In 1994, Costa [7] introduced a doubly filtered set of classes of rings in
order to categorize the structure of non-Noetherian rings: for non-negative
integers n and d, we say that a ring R is an (n, d)-ring if pdR (E) ≤ d
for each n-presented R-module E (as usual, pdR (E) denotes the projective
dimension of E as an R-module). An integral domain with this property will
be called an (n, d)-domain. For example, the (n, 0)-domains are the fields,
the (0, 1)-domains are the Dedekind domains, and the (1, 1))-domains are
the Prüfer domains [7]. Every (n, d)-ring is strong (sup{n, d})-coherent and
every (n, d)-domain is strong (sup{n, d − 1})-coherent [7, Theorem 2.2].
We call a commutative ring an n-Von Neumann regular ring if it is an
(n, 0)-ring. Thus, the 1-Von Neumann regular rings are the Von Neumann
regular rings [7, Theorem 1.3].
In [7], Costa asks whether there is an (n, d)-ring which is neither an
(n, d − 1)-ring nor an (n − 1, d)-ring for each integers n, d ≥ 0. The answer
is affirmative for (0, d)-ring and (1, d)-ring for each integer d ≥ 0 ([7]).
Again in [7], Costa gives examples of (2, 1)-domains which are neither
(2, 0)-domains (fields) nor (1, 1)-domains (Prüfer), and in [8], Costa and
Kabbaj give examples of (2, 2)-domains which are neither (2, 1)-domains
nor (1, 2)-domains. Later, in [21, 23], the author gives a class of (2, d)domains which are neither (2, d − 1)-domains nor (1, d)-domains for each
integer d ≥ 1, and a class of (2, d)-rings (not domains) which are neither
(2, d − 1)-rings (for d ≥ 1) nor (1, d)-rings for each integer d ≥ 0. Next, in
[19], the authors construct a class of (3, d)-rings which are neither (3, d − 1)rings (for d ≥ 1) nor (2, d)-rings for each integer d ≥ 0. Finally, in [22], the
author gives a sufficient condition to resolve Costa’s first conjecture for each
positive integer n and d with n ≥ 4. The second main goal of this paper is
the constructions of the second class of (3, d)-rings for each integer d ≥ 0,
and (2, d)-rings for d ≤ 2, after the first class of cost’s conjecture given by
the authors in [19, 21, 23].
Let A be a ring, E be an A-module, and R := A ∝ E be the set of
pairs (a, e) with pairwise addition and multiplication given by (a, e)(b, f ) =
(ab, af + be). R is called the trivial ring extension of A by E (also called the
idealization of E over A). Considerable work, part of it summarized in Glaz
[17] and Huckaba [18], has been concerned with trivial ring extensions. These
have proven to be useful in solving many open problems and conjectures for
various contexts in (commutative and noncommutative) ring theory. See for
instance [2, 3, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24].

N-COHERENCE AND (N, D)- PROPERTIES IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRA

3

The first section of this work examines the transfer of the properties of
n-coherence and strong n-coherence to the amalgamated algebra A ⊲⊳f J.
Thereby, new examples are provided which, particularly, enriches the current
literature with new classes of n-coherent rings (n ≥ 2) that are non-coherent
rings.

2. Transfer of the properties of (strong) n-coherence (n ≥ 1)

The first main result of this section (Theorem 2.2) examines the transfer
of the properties of strong n-coherence and n-coherence (n ≥ 1) to the
amalgamation algebra along an ideal A ⊲⊳f J issued from local rings.
First, it is worthwhile recalling that the function f n : An → B n defined by
fn Jn
n
i=n
f
n ∼ n
f ((αi )i=n
i=1 ) = (f (αi ))i=1 is a ring homomorphism, (A ⊲⊳ J) = A ⊲⊳
and f n (αa) = f (α)f n (a) for all α ∈ A and a ∈ An (see [1]).

Next, before we announce the main result of this section (Theorem 2.2),
we make the following useful remark.
Remark 2.1. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that J 2 = 0. Then A ⊲⊳f J is
a local ring and M ⊲⊳f J is its maximal ideal.
Indeed, by [10, Proposition 2.6 (5)], M ax(A ⊲⊳f J) = {m ⊲⊳f Jm ∈
M ax(A)}∪{Q} with Q ∈ M ax(B) not containing V (J) and Q := {(a, f (a)+
j)a ∈ A, j ∈ J, f (a) + j ∈ Q}. Since J 2 = 0, then J ⊆ Rad(B), and
then J ⊆ Q for all Q ∈ M ax(B). So, M ax(A ⊲⊳f J) = {m ⊲⊳f Jm ∈
M ax(A)} = M ⊲⊳f J since (A, M ) is a local ring. Therefore (A ⊲⊳f J, M ⊲⊳f
J) is a local ring, as desired.

Theorem 2.2. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that J is a finitely generated
ideal of (f (A) + J), J 2 = 0 and f (M )J = 0. Then:
(1) A ⊲⊳f J is strong n-coherent ring if and only if so is A.
(2) A ⊲⊳f J is n-coherent ring if and only if so is A.
The proof of Theorem 2.2 draws on the following results.

4

KARIMA ALAOUI ISMAILI AND NAJIB MAHDOU

Lemma 2.3. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that J 2 = 0 and f (M )J = 0.
p
Let p, n ∈ N, and let U be a sub-module of M p . Then U ⊲⊳f J p is a nfinitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module if and only if U is a n-finitely presented
A-module, and J is a finitely generated ideal of f (A) + J.
Proof. Proceed by induction on n. The property is true for n =
Indeed,
P0.
p
i=r
f
by [1, Lemma 2.4], it remains to show that if U ⊲⊳f J p :=
i=1 (A ⊲⊳
J)(ui , f p (ui ) + ki ) is a finitely generated ideal of A ⊲⊳f J, where, ui ∈
U and ki ∈ J p for all 1P
≤ i ≤ r, then J is a finitely generated ideal
i=r
p
p
of (f (A) + J). Clearly,
i=1 (f (A) + J)ki ⊆ J . Let k ∈ J . Then,
Pi=r
(0, k) = i=1 (αi , f (αi ) + ji )(ui , f p (ui ) + ki ) for some αi ∈ A and ji ∈ J. So
Pi=r
Pi=r
P
αi ui = 0, and k = i=1
(f (αi )+ji )(f p (ui )+ki ) = i=r
(αi )+ji )ki ∈
i=1 (fP
Pi=1
i=r
i=r
p (U )J ⊆ f p (M p )J = 0). Thus J p ⊆
(f
(A)+
J)k
(since
f
i
i=1
i=1 (f (A)+
P
i=r
p
J)ki . Therefore, J = i=1 (f (A) + J)ki , and then J is a finitely generated
ideal of f (A) + J. Assume that the property is true for n, and assume that
P
p
f
p
U ⊲⊳f J p = i=r
i=1 A ⊲⊳ J(ui , f (ui ) + ki ) is a (n + 1)-finitely presented
f
(A ⊲⊳ J)-module, where ui ∈ U and ki ∈ J p for all i ∈ {1, .....r}. Clearly,
Pi=r
U =
assume that {(ui , f p (ui ) + ki )i=r
i=1 } is a minimal
i=1 Aui . We may
p
p
f
generating set of U ⊲⊳ J . Consider the exact sequence of A-modules:
0 → Kerv → Ar → U → 0
(1)
Pi=r
i=r
where v((αi )i=1 ) = i=1 αi ui . On the other hand consider the exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules:
p
(2)
0 → Keru → (A ⊲⊳f J)r → U ⊲⊳f J p → 0
where
i=r
X
i=r
(αi , f (αi ) + ji )(ui , f p (ui ) + ki )
u((αi , f (αi ) + ji )i=1 ) =
i=1
i=r
X

= (

αi ui ,

i=r
X
i=1

i=1

f (αi )(f p (ui ) + ki )).

P
Pi=r
p
Then Keru =
∈ (A
J)r  i=r
i=1 αi ui = 0,
i=1 f (αi )(f (ui )+
ki ) = 0}.
Pi=r
r
i=r
i=r
r
fr J r
So, Keru = {((αi )i=r
i=1 , f ((αi )i=1 ) + (ji )i=1 ) ∈ A ⊲⊳
i=1 αi ui =
Pi=r
0, i=1 f (αi )ki = 0}. Since A ⊲⊳f J is a local ring by Remark 2.1 and
p
{(ui , f p (ui ) + ki )i=r
} is a minimal generating set of U ⊲⊳f J p , then Keru ⊆
i=1
r
r
i=r
i=r
r
f r J r (α )i=r ∈
M r ⊲⊳f J r . So, Keru = {((αi )i=r
i i=1
i=1 , f r ((αi )i=1 )+(ji )i=1 ) ∈ A ⊲⊳
Kerv}. Therefore Keru = Kerv ⊲⊳f J r .
p
Since U ⊲⊳f J p is a (n + 1)-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module, then Keru
is a n-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module (by a sequence (2)). So, Kerv
is a n-finitely presented A-module and J is a finitely generated ideal of
(f (A) + J) by induction (since Kerv ⊆ M r ). Thus, U is a (n + 1)-finitely
presented A-module (by a sequence (1)). Conversely, assume that U is a
{(αi , f (αi )+ji )i=r
i=1

⊲⊳f

N-COHERENCE AND (N, D)- PROPERTIES IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRA

5

(n + 1)-finitely presented A-module and J is a finitely generated ideal of
p
(f (A) + J), then U ⊲⊳f J p is a finitely generated (A ⊲⊳f J)-module by inP
p
f
p
k ), where ui ∈ U
duction, and then U ⊲⊳f J p = i=r
i=1 A ⊲⊳ J(ui , f (ui ) +
Pi
p
and ki ∈ J for all i ∈ {1, .....r}. It is obvious that U = i=r
i=1 Aui . Since U
is a (n + 1)-finitely presented A-module, then Kerv is a n-finitely presented
r
A-module (by a sequence (1)). So, Keru(= Kerv ⊲⊳f J r ) is a n-finitely
p
generated (A ⊲⊳f J)-module by induction, and then U ⊲⊳f J p is a (n + 1)finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module (by a sequence (2)), as desired.

Lemma 2.4. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that J 2 = 0 and f (M )J = 0.
P
f
p
p
p
Let p, n ∈ N∗ , W := i=r
i=1 (A ⊲⊳ J)(ui , f (ui )+ki ) where, ui ∈ M , ki ∈ J ,
Pi=r
f
and let U = i=1 Aui . Then W is a n-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳ J)-module if
and only if U is a n-finitely presented A-module and J is a finitely generated
ideal of f (A) + J.
P
Pi=r
f
p
Proof. Let W := i=r
i=1 (A ⊲⊳ J)(ui , f (ui ) + ki ) and U =
i=1 Aui . We
may assume that {(ui , f p (ui ) + ki )i=r
}
is
a
minimal
generating
set of W .
i=1
Consider the exact sequence of A-modules:
0 → Kerv → Ar → U → 0
(1)
Pi=r
i=r
where v((αi )i=1 ) = i=1 αi ui . On the other hand consider the exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules:
0 → Keru → (A ⊲⊳f J)r → W → 0
(2)
where
i=r
X
i=r
(αi , f (αi ) + ji )(ui , f p (ui ) + ki )
u((αi , f (αi ) + ji )i=1 ) =
i=1
i=r
X

= (

i=1

αi ui ,

i=r
X

f (αi )(f p (ui ) + ki ))

i=1

Pi=r
Pi=r
f
p
Then Keru = {(αi , f (αi )+ji )i=r
i ui = 0,
i=1 ∈ (A ⊲⊳ J) 
i=1 α
i=1 f (αi )ki =
r
r
0}. Since Keru ⊆ M r ⊲⊳f J r , then Keru = Kerv ⊲⊳f J r .
By Lemma 2.3, Keru is a n-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module if and only
if Kerv is a n-finitely presented A-module and J is a finitely generated
ideal of f (A) + J (since Kerv ⊆ M r ). So, W is a (n + 1)-finitely presented
(A ⊲⊳f J)-module if and only if U is a (n + 1)-finitely presented A-module
and J is a finitely generated ideal of f (A) + J, as desired.

Proof of Theorem 2.2.
(1) Recall that R is a strong n-coherent ring if and only if every (n − 1)presented submodule of a finitely generated free R-module is
Pn-presented.
Assume that A ⊲⊳f J is strong n-coherent ring and let U := i=r
i=1 Aui be a

6

KARIMA ALAOUI ISMAILI AND NAJIB MAHDOU

P
f
(n − 1)-finitely presented A-module, where ui ∈ M p , then W : i=r
i=1 (A ⊲⊳
J)(ui , f p (ui )) is a (n − 1)-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module by Lemma
2.4. So, W is n-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module since A ⊲⊳f J is strong
n-coherent ring. Therefore U is n-finitely presented A-module by Lemma
2.4. Thus, A is strong n-coherent
ring. Conversely, assume that A is strong
Pi=r
n-coherent ring and let W := i=1 A ⊲⊳f J(ui , f p (ui ) + ki ) be a (n − 1)finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module, where ui ∈ M p , and ki ∈ J p . Then
P
U := i=r
i=1 Aui is a (n − 1)-finitely presented A-module by Lemma 2.4. So,
U is n-finitely presented A-module since A is strong n-coherent ring, and
then W is a n-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module by Lemma 2.4. Hence,
A ⊲⊳f J is strong n-coherent ring.
(2) The same reasoning as in the proof of (1) shows that A ⊲⊳f J is ncoherent ring if and only if so is A.

The following corollaries are an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.2.
Corollary 2.5. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that J is a finitely generated
ideal of (f (A) + J), J 2 = 0 and f (M )J = 0. Then, A ⊲⊳f J is a (strong)
n-coherent ring which is non-(strong) (n − 1)-coherent if and only if so is
A.
Corollary 2.6. Let (A, M ) be a local ring and I be a finitely generated ideal
of A such that M I = 0. Then:
(1) A ⊲⊳ I is a strong n-coherent ring if and only if so is A.
(2) A ⊲⊳ I is a n-coherent ring if and only if so is A.
In particular, Theorem 2.2 enriches the literature with new examples of
2-coherent rings which are non-coherent rings.
Example 2.7. Let k be a field, K be a field containing k as a subfield such
that [K : k] = ∞, T = K[[X]] = K + M , where X is an indeterminate over
K and M = XT be the maximal ideal of T , A = k + M .
Set B := A/M 2 , J := Bf (m) be an ideal of B, where m ∈ M such that
f (m) 6= 0, and consider the canonical ring homomorphism f : A → B
(f (x) = x). Then:
(1) By Theorem 2.2, A ⊲⊳f J is 2-coherent ring since A is by [7, Corollary 5.2].
(2) By [17, Theorem 4.1.5], A ⊲⊳f J is non-coherent ring since A is
non-coherent domain by [7, Corollary 5.2].

N-COHERENCE AND (N, D)- PROPERTIES IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRA

7

Example 2.8. Let K be a field and E be a K-vector space of infinite dimen′
sion. Let A := K ∝ E be trivial extension ring of K by E. Set I := 0 ∝ E ,
′
where E is a finitely generated K-subspace of E. Then:
(1) By Corollary 2.6, A ⊲⊳ I is a 2-coherent ring since A is by [21,
Theorem 3.4].
(2) By [17, Theorem 4.1.5] A ⊲⊳ I is non-coherent ring since A is noncoherent ring by [20, Theorem 2.6].

3. Transfer of the (n, d)-property
For integers n, d ≥ 0, Costa asks in [7] whether there is an (n, d)-ring
which is neither an (n, d − 1)-ring nor an (n − 1, d)-ring? The answer is
affirmative for (0, d)-rings, (1, d)-rings, (2, d)-rings, (3, d)-rings, and (n +
4, d)-rings for all integers n, d (See for instance [7, 8, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 22]).
The goal of This section is to give a second class of cost’s conjecture after the
first given by the authors in [19, 21, 23]. At the end of this work, we will be
able to give examples of (2, d)-rings which is neither a (1, d)-ring (d = 0, 1, 2)
nor a (2, d − 1)-ring (d = 1, 2), and examples of (3, d)-rings which is neither
a (2, d)-ring (d ≥ 0) nor a (3, d − 1)-ring ( for each integer d).
The following Theorem 3.1 allows us to provide new examples of (2, 0), (2, 1),
and (2, 2)-ring, to resolve cost’s conjecture.

Theorem 3.1. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that f (M )J = 0 and J 2 = 0.
Then:
(1) (a) A ⊲⊳f J is a (2, 0)-ring provided J is a not finitely generated
ideal of f (A) + J.
(b) If A ⊲⊳f J is a (2, 0)-ring, then M is not a finitely generated
ideal of A or J is not a finitely generated ideal of f (A) + J.
(c) Assume that M is a finitely generated ideal of A. Then A ⊲⊳f J
is a (2, 0)-ring if and only if J is a not finitely generated ideal
of f (A) + J.
(2) A ⊲⊳f J is a non-(1, 2)-ring. In particular, A ⊲⊳f J is a non-von
Neumann regular ring.
Proof of Theorem 3.1
(1) (a) Let K be a 2-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module, and let {(ki )i=p
i=1 }
be a minimal generating set of K. We want to show that K is a projective
(A ⊲⊳f J)-module. For this, consider the exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)modules:
0 → Keru(= H) → (A ⊲⊳f J)p → K → 0

8

KARIMA ALAOUI ISMAILI AND NAJIB MAHDOU

Pi=p
where u((αi )i=1,.....,p) = i=1
αi ki . Then H ⊂ (M ⊲⊳f J)p since {(ki )i=p
i=1 }
f
is a minimal generating set of K, A ⊲⊳ J is a local ring with maximal
ideal M ⊲⊳f J by Remark 2.1. We prove that H = 0. Otherwise, H 6=
0. Let (mi , f p (mi ) + ki ){i=1,...,r} be a minimal generating set of H, where
mi ∈ M p , ki ∈ J p for each i = 1, ......., r. Consider the exact sequence of
(A ⊲⊳f J)-modules
0 → Kerv → (A ⊲⊳f J)r → H → 0
P
p
where v((αi , f (αi ) + ji )i=1,.....,r ) = i=r
i=1 (αi mi , (f (αi ) + ji )(f (mi ) + ki )) =
Pi=r
Pi=r
( i=1 αi mi , i=1 f (αi )(f p (mi ) + ki )). But Kerv ⊂ (M ⊲⊳f J)r . Hence
P
r
Kerv = U ⊲⊳f J r . Where U = {(αi )i=1,...,r ∈ Ar  i=r
i=1 αi mi = 0}. Since
K is a 2-presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module, then Kerv is a finitely generated
(A ⊲⊳f J)-module. So, J is a finitely generated ideal of (f (A) + J) by
Lemma 2.3 (since U ⊆ M r ). A contradiction since J is a not finitely generated ideal of f (A) + J by hypothesis. So H = 0. Hence, K ∼
= (A ⊲⊳f J)p is
f
a projective (A ⊲⊳ J)-module.
(b) Let k(6= 0) ∈ J, I = (A ⊲⊳f J)(0, k), and consider the exact sequence
of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules:
0 → Keru → A ⊲⊳f J → I → 0
where u(α, f (α) + j) = (0, f (α)k). So, Keru = M ⊲⊳f J is a not finitely
generated ideal of A ⊲⊳f J since A ⊲⊳f J is a (2, 0)-ring, and I is not projective ideal of A ⊲⊳f J (otherwise, I is a free ideal of A ⊲⊳f J since A ⊲⊳f J is
a local ring, absurd since (0, k)I = 0). Therefore, M is a not finitely generated ideal of A or J is a not finitely generated ideal of f (A)+J by Lemma 2.3.
(c) Follows immediately from (a) an (b).
(2) Let I = (A ⊲⊳f J)(0, k), where k(6= 0) ∈ J, and consider the exact
sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules:
0 → M ⊲⊳f J → A ⊲⊳f J → I → 0
Since A ⊲⊳f J is a local ring and M ⊲⊳f J is not a free ideal of A ⊲⊳f J (since
(0, k)(M ⊲⊳f J) = 0), then M ⊲⊳f J is not a projective ideal of A ⊲⊳f J. So,
f
pdA⊲⊳f J ( A⊲⊳I J ) > 2 (i.e. A ⊲⊳f J is a not a (1, 2)-ring), and this completes
the proof of Theorem 3.1.

The next corollary is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.1.
Corollary 3.2. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that f (M )J = 0 and J 2 = 0.
Let A1 = A ⊲⊳f J, d ≤ 2 be an integer, A2 be a Noetherian ring of global
dimension d, and let C = A1 × A2 the direct product of A1 and A2 .
Assume that J is a not finitely generated ideal of f (A) + J. Then C is a

N-COHERENCE AND (N, D)- PROPERTIES IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRA

9

(2, d)-ring which is neither a (1, d)-ring (d = 0, 1, 2) nor a (2, d − 1)-ring
(d = 1, 2).
Proof. Let d ≤ 2 be an integer. By [21, Theorem 2.4], C = A1 × A2 is a
(2, d)-ring since Ai is a (2, d)-ring for each i = 1, 2, and C is not (1, d)-ring
since A1 is not (1, d)-ring by Theorem 3.1 (2). It remains to show that C is
not a (2, d − 1)-ring for 1 ≤ d ≤ 2. Assume that C is a (2, d − 1)-ring. By
[21, theorem 2.4], A2 is also a (2, d − 1)-ring and then is a (0, d − 1)-ring by
[7, Theorem 2.4] since A2 is a Noetherian ring. Thus, gldim(A2 ) ≤ d − 1,
but this is a contradiction since gldim(A2 ) = d, as desired.

Now, we are able to give a new examples of (2, 0), (2, 1), and (2, 2)-ring,
to resolve cost’s conjecture.
Example 3.3. Let (R, m) be a local ring such that m is a finitely generated
R
Z 2Z
, 4Z )), E be an m
-vector
ideal of R and m2 = 0 (for instance ((R, m) = ( 4Z
′
space with finite rank, and let A := R ∝ E and M := m ∝ E. Let E be
′
′
A
-vector space of infinite dimension, B := A ∝ E , J := 0 ∝ E , and
a M
consider the ring homomorphism f : A → B (f (a) = (a, 0)). Let K be
a field, A1 = A ⊲⊳f J, and let A2 := K[X1 ] and A3 := K[X1 , X2 ] where
X1 , X2 are indeterminate over K. Then, by Corollary 3.2:
(1) A1 is a (2, 0) ring that is not a (1, 0)-ring.
(2) A1 ×A2 is a (2, 1)-ring which is neither a (1, 1)-ring nor a (2, 0)-ring.
(3) A1 ×A3 is a (2, 2)-ring which is neither a (1, 2)-ring nor a (2, 1)-ring.
The aim of Theorem 3.4 is to construct a class of (3, d)-rings which are
neither (3, d − 1)-rings (for each positive integer d) nor (2, d)-rings for each
integer d ≥ 0.
Theorem 3.4. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that f (M )J = 0 and J 2 = 0.
(1) A ⊲⊳f J is a (3, 0)-ring provided M is not a finitely generated ideal
of A.
(2) Assume that J is a finitely generated ideal of f (A) + J and M contains a regular element. Then:
(a) A ⊲⊳f J is not a (2, d)-ring for each positive integer d.
(b) Let A1 = A ⊲⊳f J, d be an integer, A2 be a Noetherian ring of
global dimension d, and let C = A1 × A2 the direct product of
A1 and A2 . Assume that M is not finitely generated ideal of A.
Then C is a (3, d)-ring which is neither a (2, d)-ring (d ≥ 0)
nor a (3, d − 1)-ring (d ≥ 1).

10

KARIMA ALAOUI ISMAILI AND NAJIB MAHDOU

The proof of this theorem requires the next result.
Lemma 3.5. Let (A, M ) be a local ring, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be a proper ideal of B such that J is a finitely generated
ideal of f (A) + J, f (M )J = 0 and J 2 = 0. Then pdA⊲⊳f J (M ⊲⊳f J) and
pdA⊲⊳f J ({0} × J) are infinite.
Proof. Consider the exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules
0 → M ⊲⊳f J → A ⊲⊳f J →

A⊲⊳f J
M ⊲⊳f J

→0

A⊲⊳f J

We claim that M ⊲⊳f J is not projective. Otherwise, the sequence splits.
Hence, M ⊲⊳f J is generated by an idempotent element (m, f (m) + k) =
(m, f (m)+k)(m, f (m)+k) = (m2 , f (m2 )). So M ⊲⊳f J = (A ⊲⊳f J)(m, f (m)) =
Am ⊲⊳f 0, the desired contradiction (since J 6= 0). It follows from the above
sequence that
f

A⊲⊳ J
pdA⊲⊳f J (M ⊲⊳f J) + 1 = pdA⊲⊳f J ( M
)
(1)
⊲⊳f J
Let {(mi )i∈I } be a set of generators of M , where mi ∈ M for all i ∈ I, and
let {(gi )i=p
i=1 } be a minimal generating set of J. Consider the exact sequence
f
of (A ⊲⊳ J)-modules
L
0 → Keru → (A ⊲⊳f J)I (A ⊲⊳f J)p → M ⊲⊳f J → 0
where
X
u((αi , f (αi ) + ji )i∈I , (βi , f (βi ) + ki )i=p
(αi , f (αi ) + ji )(mi , f (mi ))
i=1 ) =
i∈I

+

i=p
X

(βi , f (βi ) + ki )(0, gi )

i=1
i=p
X
X
(0, f (βi )gi )
=
(αi mi , f (αi mi )) +
i=1

i∈I

L
P
Keru = U ⊲⊳ J I (M ⊲⊳f J)p . Where U = {(αi )i∈I ∈ AI  i∈I αi mi =
0} (since {(gi )i=p
i=1 } be a minimal generating set of J). Therefore, we have
the isomorphism of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules
(A⊲⊳f J)I L (A⊲⊳f J)p
M ⊲⊳f J ∼
=
I
f
p
fI

U ⊲⊳f J I

(M ⊲⊳ J)

It follows that
A⊲⊳f J
) ≤ pdA⊲⊳f J (M ⊲⊳f J)
pdA⊲⊳f J ( M
⊲⊳f J
⊲⊳f

(2)

Clearly, (1) and (2) force pdA⊲⊳f J (M
J) to be infinite. Now the exact
f
sequence of (A ⊲⊳ J)-modules
0 → M ⊲⊳f J → A ⊲⊳f J → {0} × J → 0
where v(α, f (α)+j) = (α, f (α)+j)(0, k) = (0, f (α)k), easily yields pdA⊲⊳f J ({0}×
J) = ∞, as desired.


N-COHERENCE AND (N, D)- PROPERTIES IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRA

11

Proof of Theorem 3.4
(1) Let K3 be a 3-finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module, and let {(ki )i=p
i=1 }
be a minimal generating set of K3 . We want to show that K3 is a projective
(A ⊲⊳f J)-module. For this, consider the exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)modules:
0 → Keru(= K2 ) → (A ⊲⊳f J)p → K3 → 0
P
i=p
f
p
where u((αi )i=1,.....,p) = i=p
i=1 αi ki . Then K2 ⊂ (M ⊲⊳ J) since {(ki )i=1 }
is a minimal generating set of K3 , A ⊲⊳f J is a local ring with maximal ideal
M ⊲⊳f J. We prove that K2 = 0. Otherwise, K2 6= 0. Let (mi , f p (mi ) +
ki ){i=1,...,r} be a minimal generating set of K2 , where mi ∈ M p , ki ∈ J p for
each i = 1, ......., r. Consider the exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules
0 → Kerv(= K1 ) → (A ⊲⊳f J)r → K2 → 0
Pi=r
where v((αi , f (αi ) + ji )i=1,.....,r ) = i=1
(αi mi , (f (αi ) + ji )(f p (mi ) + ki )) =
Pi=r
Pi=r
p
( i=1 αi mi , i=1 f (αi )(f (mi ) + ki )). But K1 ⊂ (M ⊲⊳f J)r . Hence K1 =
P
r
U ⊲⊳f J r . Where U = {(αi )i=1,...,r ∈ Ar  i=r
i=1 αi mi = 0}. Since K3 is
f
a 3-presented (A ⊲⊳ J)-module, then K1 is a finitely presented (A ⊲⊳f J)module. By Lemma 2.3, U is a finitely generated A-module and J is a finitely
generated ideal of f (A) + J. Let {(ui )i=s
i=1 } be a set of generators of U , and
let {(gi )i=s+t
}
be
a
minimal
generating
set of J r , where ui ∈ M r , gi ∈ J r .
i=s+1
Consider the exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules
0 → Kerw(= K0 ) → (A ⊲⊳f J)s+t → K1 → 0
P
P
(αi , f (αi )+
(αi , f (αi )+ji )(ui , f r (ui ))+ i=s+t
where w((αi , f (αi )+ji )i=1,.....,s+t) = i=s
i=1
Pi=s
Pi=s+t
Pi=s
Pi=s+1
i=s r
r
ji )(0, gi ) = i=1 (αi ui , f (αi ui ))+ i=s+1 (0, f (αi )gi )) = ( i=1 αi ui , i=1 f (αi ui )+
L
Pi=s+t
t
s
that K0 ∼
= W ⊲⊳f J s M t ⊲⊳f J t , where
i=s+1 f (αi )gi ). It follows
P
i=s+t
W = {(αi )i=1,...,s ∈ As  i=s
i=1 αi ui = 0} (since {(gi )i=s+1 } is a minimal
r
generating set of J ). By the above sequence K0 is a finitely generated
(A ⊲⊳f J)-module. So M is a finitely generated ideal of A, the desired contradiction.
(2) (a) Assume that M contains a regular element m and J is a finitely
generated ideal of (f (A) + J). We must show that A ⊲⊳f J is not a (2, d)ring, for each integer d > 0. Let K = (A ⊲⊳f J)(m, f (m)) and consider the
exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules
0 → Kerv → A ⊲⊳f J → K → 0

(∗)

where v(α, f (α) + j) = (α, f (α) + j)(m, f (m)) = (αm, f (αm)). Clearly
Kerv = {0} × J that is a finitely generated ideal of (A ⊲⊳f J) and hence
K is a finitely presented ideal of (A ⊲⊳f J) by a sequence (∗). On the
other hand, pdA⊲⊳f J (Ker(v)) = pdA⊲⊳f J ({0} × J) = ∞ by Lemma 3.5. So
pdA⊲⊳f J (K) = ∞. Finally, the exact sequence of (A ⊲⊳f J)-modules
0 → K → A ⊲⊳f J →

A⊲⊳f J
K

→0

12

KARIMA ALAOUI ISMAILI AND NAJIB MAHDOU
f

yields A⊲⊳K J a 2-presented (A ⊲⊳f J)-module with infinite projective dimension (i.e., A ⊲⊳f J is not a (2, d)-ring, for each d > 0).
(b) The same reasoning as in the proof of Corollary 3.2 shows that C is a
(3, d)-ring which is neither a (2, d)-ring (d ≥ 0) nor a (3, d − 1)-ring (d ≥ 1),
and this completes the proof of Theorem 3.4.

The following Corollary is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.4.
Corollary 3.6. Let (A, M ) be a local domain such that M is not finitely
generated ideal of A, f : A → B be a ring homomorphism, and let J be
a proper ideal of B such that J is a finitely generated ideal of f (A) + J,
f (M )J = 0 and J 2 = 0. Then:
(1) A ⊲⊳f J is a (3, 0)-ring which is not a (2, 0)-ring.
(2) Let A1 = A ⊲⊳f J, d be an integer, A2 be a Noetherian ring of global
dimension d, and let C = A1 × A2 the direct product of A1 and
A2 . The ring C is a (3, d)-ring which is neither a (2, d)-ring nor a
(3, d − 1)-ring.
Theorem 3.4 enriches the literature with new examples of (3, d)-rings
which are neither a (2, d)-ring (d ≥ 0) nor a (3, d − 1)-ring (d ≥ 1), as
shown below.
Example 3.7. Let k be any field and X1 , X2 , ..., Xn , ... be indeterminate over
K. Let A = K[[X1 , X2 , .., Xn , ..]] the power series ring in infinite variables
over K, and Let M be its maximal ideal. Set B := A/M 2 , J := Bf (m) be
an ideal of B, where m ∈ M such that f (m) 6= 0, and consider the canonical
ring homomorphism f : A → B (f (x) = x). Let C = Z[X1 , X2 , ..., Xd−1 ],
where d ≥ 1. Then by Corollary 3.6, (A ⊲⊳f J) × C is a (3, d)-ring which is
neither a (2, d)-ring nor a (3, d − 1)-ring.
Example 3.8. Let k be a field and let A = K[[X]] = K + M , where M =
XA. Set B := A/M 2 , J := Bf (m) be an ideal of B, where m ∈ M such
that f (m) 6= 0, and consider the canonical ring homomorphism f : A → B
(f (x) = x). Then A ⊲⊳f J is not an (n, d)-ring, for any integers n, d ≥ 0.
Proof. A ⊲⊳f J is Noetherian ring since A is by [9, Proposition 5.6] and by
Lemma 3.5, pdA⊲⊳f J ({0} × J) = ∞, whence gldim(A ⊲⊳f J) = ∞. Then by
[7, Theorem 1.3], A ⊲⊳f J is not an (n, d)-ring, for any integers n, d ≥ 0, as
desired.


N-COHERENCE AND (N, D)- PROPERTIES IN AMALGAMATED ALGEBRA

13

References
1. K. Alaoui and N. Mahdou, Coherence in amalgamated algebra along an ideal, Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society, Accepted for publication. See: arXiv:
submit/0631069 [] 12 Jan 2013.
2. C. Bakkari, S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, Trivial extention defined by Prüfer conditions,
J. Pure. Appl. Algebra 214 (2010), 53-60.
3. S. Bazzoni and S. Glaz, Gaussian properties of total rings of quotients, J. Algebra
310 (2007), 180-193.
4. M. B. Boisen and P. B. Sheldon, CPI-extension: Over rings of integral domains with
special prime spectrum, Canad. J. Math. 29 (1977), 722-737.
5. N. Bourbaki, Algèbre Commutative, chapitres 1-4, Masson: Paris, 1985.
6. W. Brewer and E. Rutter, D + M constructions with general overrings, Michigan
Math. J. 23 (1976), 33–42.
7. D. Costa, Parameterizing families of non-Noetherian rings, Comm. Algebra 22
(1994), 3997–4011.
8. D. Costa and S. Kabbaj, Classes of D+M rings defined by homological conditions,
Comm. Algebra (1996), 24, 8917906.
9. M. D’Anna, C. A. Finocchiaro and M. Fontana, Amalgamated algebras along an ideal,
in: Commutative Algebra and Applications, Proceedings of the Fifth International
Fez Conference on Commutative Algebra and Applications, Fez, Morocco, 2008, W.
de Gruyter Publisher, Berlin (2009), 155–172.
10. M. D’Anna, C. A. Finocchiaro and M. Fontana, Properties of chains of prime ideals
in amalgamated algebras along an ideal, J. Pure Applied Algebra 214 (2010), 16331641.
11. M. D’Anna, A construction of Gorenstein rings, J. Algebra 306 (2) (2006), 507-519.
12. M. D’Anna and M. Fontana, Amalgamated duplication of a ring along a
multiplicative-canonical ideal, Ark. Mat. 45 (2) (2007), 241-252.
13. M. D’Anna and M. Fontana, An amalgamated duplication of a ring along an ideal:
the basic properties, J. Algebra Appl. 6 (3) (2007), 443-459.
14. D. E. Dobbs, S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, n-coherent rings and modules, Lecture
Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., Dekker, 185 (1997), 269–281.
15. D. E. Dobbs, S. Kabbaj, N. Mahdou and M. Sobrani, When is D + M n-coherent
and an (n, d)-domain?, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., Dekker, 205 (1999),
257–270.
16. D. E. Dobbs and I. Papick, When is D + M coherent?, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 56
(1976), 51–54.
17. S. Glaz, Commutative coherent rings, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1371, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1989.
18. J. A. Huckaba, Commutative rings with zero divisors, Marcel Dekker, New YorkBasel, 1988.
19. S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, Trivial extensions of local rings and a conjecture of Costa,
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., Dekker, 231 (2003), 301–311.
20. S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, Trivial extensions defined by coherent-like conditions,
Comm. Algebra 32 (10) (2004), 3937–3953.
21. N. Mahdou, On Costa’s conjecture, Comm. Algebra 29 (2001), 2775–2785.
22. N. Mahdou, Sufficient Condition to Resolve Costa’s First Conjecture,.......
23. N. Mahdou, On 2-Von Neumann regular rings, Comm. Algebra 33 (10) (2005): 34893496.
24. I. Palmér and J. Roos, Explicit formulae for the global homological dimensionsof
trivial extensions of rings, J. Algebra 27 (1973), 380-413.
25. D. Zhou, On n-coherent rings and (n, d)-rings. Comm. Algebra 32 (2004), 2425-2441.

14

KARIMA ALAOUI ISMAILI AND NAJIB MAHDOU

Karima Alaoui Ismaili, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and
Technology of Fez, Box 2202, University S.M. Ben Abdellah Fez, Morocco.
E − mail address : alaouikarima2012@hotmail.f r
Najib Mahdou, 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

