arXiv:1703.03962v3 [math.AC] 4 Sep 2017

PRÜFER CONDITIONS UNDER THE AMALGAMATED
CONSTRUCTION
Y. AZIMI, P. SAHANDI AND N. SHIRMOHAMMADI
Abstract. In this paper we improve the recent results on the transfer of
Prüfer, Gaussian and arithmetical conditions on amalgamated constructions.
As an application we provide an answer to a question posed by Chhiti, Jarrar,
Kabbaj and Mahdou as well as we construct various examples.

1. Introduction
The notion of Prüfer domain appeared for the first time in [20]. Then Krull further studied and named such domains as Prüfer domains [15]. Prüfer domains play
a central role in Multiplicative ideal theory and several different characterizations
of these domains exist [11]. Many of these characterizations have been extended
to the case of rings with zero-divisors. Among them are the Prüfer, Gaussian and
arithmetical rings. It is commonly accepted to define Prüfer rings as the rings in
which every non-zero finitely generated regular ideal is projective [3, 12]. A commutative ring R is called Gaussian if cR (f g) = cR (f )cR (g) for every two polynomials
f, g ∈ R[X], where cR (f ) is the content ideal of f [22]. Finally, a commutative ring
is called an arithmetical ring if every finitely generated ideal is locally principal [14].
It is well known that an arithmetical ring is Gaussian and a Gaussian ring is Prüfer
and that all these coincide in the context of domains. The aim of this paper is
to investigate when the amalgamated algebra is a Prüfer, Gaussian or arithmetical
ring.
D’Anna, Finocchiaro, and Fontana in [6] and [7] have announced the following
ring construction. Let R and S be two commutative rings with unity, let J be
an ideal of S and let f : R → S be a ring homomorphism. They introduced the
following subring
R ⊲⊳f J := {(r, f (r) + j) | r ∈ R and j ∈ J}
of R × S, called the amalgamation of R with S along J with respect to f . This
construction generalizes the amalgamated duplication of a ring along an ideal (introduced and studied in [9]). Moreover, several classical constructions such as the
Nagata’s idealization, the R + XS[X] and the R + XSJXK constructions can be
studied as particular cases of this new construction (see [6, Example 2.5 and Remark
2.8]).
Assuming that J and f −1 (J) are regular ideals, Finocchiaro in [10, Theorem
3.1] obtained that R ⊲⊳f J can be Prüfer ring only in the trivial case, namely when
R and S are Prüfer rings and J = S. He also established some results about the
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13F05, 13A15.
Key words and phrases. Amalgamated algebra, arithmetical ring, Gaussian ring, Prüfer ring,
trivial extension.
1

2

Y. AZIMI, P. SAHANDI AND N. SHIRMOHAMMADI

transfer of some Prüfer-like conditions between R ⊲⊳f J and R. Meanwhile, among
other things, the authors in [4, Theorem 2.2] find necessary and sufficient conditions
under which Prüfer-like properties transfer between the amalgamated duplication
R ⊲⊳ I = R ⊲⊳f I of a local ring R and the ring R itself, where I is an ideal of R,
S = R and f is the identity map on R. In particular, they proved that R ⊲⊳ I is a
Prüfer ring if and only if R is a Prüfer ring and I = rI for every regular element
r of the unique maximal ideal of R. They then asked that is their characterization
valid in the global case? i.e., when R is Prüfer (not necessarily local) or locally
Prüfer [4, Question 2.11].
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we determine the zerodivisors of the amalgamated algebra R ⊲⊳f J under certain conditions. In Section
3, among other things, we attempt to generalize the results mentioned above to the
case of the amalgamated algebra R ⊲⊳f J and, consequently, to answer [4, Question
2.11]. In Sections 4 and 5, we investigate the transfer of Gaussian and arithmetical
conditions of the amalgamated algebra R ⊲⊳f J. By various examples we examine
our results.
2. Preliminaries
To determine whether a ring is Prüfer (resp. total ring of quotients) or not, it
is of great importance to know zero-divisors and regular elements of the ring. This
section is devoted to determine the zero-divisor and regular elements of R ⊲⊳f J.
Let first us fix some notation which we shall use throughout the paper: R and S are
two commutative rings with unity, J a proper ideal of the ring S, and f : R → S
is a ring homomorphism. For a commutative ring A, Max(A) denotes the set of
maximal ideals of A, Jac(A) denotes the Jacobson radical of A, Reg(A) denotes the
set of regular elements of A, Z(M ) denotes the set of zero-divisors of an A-module
M and, for an ideal I of A, V(I) denotes the set of all prime ideals of A containing
I. An ideal of ring is called a regular ideal if it contains a regular element.
A full description for the set of zero-divisors of the duplication ring R ⊲⊳ I has
been provided in [17, Proposition 2.2]. In the following lemma we generalize it to
amalgamated algebra. Before we announce this generalization, we should perhaps
point out that {(r, f (r) + j) | j ′ (f (r) + j) = 0, for some j ′ ∈ J \ {0}} ⊆ Z(R ⊲⊳f J)
in general.
Lemma 2.1. There is the inclusion Z(R ⊲⊳f J) ⊆ {(r, f (r) + j) | r ∈ Z(R)} ∪
{(r, f (r) + j) | j ′ (f (r) + j) = 0, for some j ′ ∈ J \ {0}}, with equality if at least one
of the following conditions hold:
(1) f (Z(R)) ⊆ J and f −1 (J) 6= 0;
(2) f (Z(R))J = 0 and f −1 (J) 6= 0;
(3) J ⊆ f (R);
(4) J be a torsion R-module.
Proof. Assume that (r, f (r) + j) ∈ Z(R ⊲⊳f J). Then (r, f (r) + j)(s, f (s) + j ′ ) = 0
for some non-zero element (s, f (s) + j ′ ) ∈ R ⊲⊳f J. Hence rs = 0 and jf (s) +
j ′ (f (r) + j) = 0. If s = 0, then j ′ 6= 0 and j ′ (f (r) + j) = 0. Otherwise, r ∈ Z(R).
This proves the inclusion.
We already have the inclusion {(r, f (r) + j) | j ′ (f (r) + j) = 0, for some j ′ ∈
J \ {0}} ⊆ Z(R ⊲⊳f J). To complete the proof, it is enough for us to show that
{(r, f (r) + j) | r ∈ Z(R) and j ∈ J} ⊆ Z(R ⊲⊳f J) under the validity of any of

PRÜFER CONDITIONS UNDER THE AMALGAMATED CONSTRUCTION

3

conditions (1)–(4). Let (r, f (r) + j) ∈ R ⊲⊳f J where r ∈ Z(R) and j ∈ J. Then
there is a non-zero element s ∈ R such that rs = 0.
(1) If r 6= 0, we have (r, f (r) + j)(s, f (s) + (−f (s))) = 0. So assume that r = 0
and choose 0 6= a ∈ f −1 (J). Then (0, i)(a, 0) = 0.
(2) If r 6= 0, we have (r, f (r) + j)(s, f (s)) = 0. So assume that r = 0 and choose
0 6= a ∈ f −1 (J). Then (0, i)(a, 0) = 0.
(3) If f (s)J = 0, then (r, f (r) + j)(s, f (s)) = 0. Assume now that f (s)J 6= 0.
Then there is 0 6= k ∈ J such that f (s)k 6= 0. By assumption k = f (t) for some
t ∈ R. It is clear that st 6= 0 and (r, f (r) + i)(st, f (st) − f (s)k) = 0.
(4) Let t ∈ Reg(R) such that f (t)j = 0. It is easy to see that ts 6= 0 and
(r, f (r) + i)(ts, f (ts)) = 0.

We say that the amalgamated ring R ⊲⊳f J has the condition ⋆ if the equality
Z(R ⊲⊳f J) = {(r, f (r)+j) | r ∈ Z(R)}∪{(r, f (r)+j) | j ′ (f (r)+j) = 0, ∃j ′ ∈ J \{0}}
holds. Lemma 2.1 now says that the amalgamated ring R ⊲⊳f J involving one of
the mentioned conditions has the condition ⋆. In particular when f is surjective,
by part (3) of Lemma 2.1, R ⊲⊳f J has the condition ⋆. Therefore the amalgamated
duplication of a ring along an ideal has the condition ⋆. Although the trivial
extension of a ring by a module does not satisfy any conditions mentioned in Lemma
2.1, the next remark illustrates that the trivial extension of a ring by a module also
has this condition. So we have a bunch of examples satisfying the condition ⋆.
Let M be an R-module. Nagata (1955) gave a ring extension of R called the
trivial extension of R by M (or the idealization of M in R), denoted here by R ⋉ M
[19, page 2]. It should be noted that the module M becomes an ideal in R ⋉ M
and (0 ⋉ M )2 = 0. As in [6, Remark 2.8], if S := R ⋉ M , J := 0 ⋉ M , and
ι : R → S be the natural embedding, then R ⊲⊳ι J ∼
= R ⋉ M which maps the
element (r, ι(r) + (0, m)) to the element (r, m).
Remark 2.2. Let M be an R-module. By [1, Proposition 1.1], one has
Z(R ⋉ M ) = {(r, m) | r ∈ Z(R) ∪ Z(M ) and m ∈ M }.
This equality together with the isomorphism mentioned above shows that the trivial
extension R ⋉ M has the condition ⋆.
3. Transfer of Prüfer condition
In this section we investigate the transfer of Prüfer condition on the amalgamated
algebra R ⊲⊳f J. The following concept and lemmas are crucial in this investigation.
Let p be a prime ideal of R. Then (R, p) is said to has the regular total order
property if, for each pair of ideals a and b of R, at least one of which is regular,
the ideals aRp and bRp are comparable. Using this notion, Griffin [12, Theorem
13] obtained the following useful characterization of Prüfer rings which we use it
frequently.
Theorem 3.1. The ring R is Prüfer if and only if (R, m) has the regular total
order property for every m ∈ Max(R).
The following basic lemma will be used throughout this section.
Lemma 3.2. Let U be a multiplicatively closed subset of the ring R. If r ∈ Reg(R),
then r/1 ∈ Reg(RU ). The converse holds whenever U ∩ Z(R) = φ. In particular, if

4

Y. AZIMI, P. SAHANDI AND N. SHIRMOHAMMADI

Z(R) ⊆ Jac(R), then, for a maximal ideal m, one has r/1 ∈ Reg(Rm ) if and only
if r ∈ Reg(R).
This lemma enables us to present the following version of the theorem above
which is very useful for us.
Lemma 3.3. Assume that Z(R) ⊆ Jac(R) and that m is a maximal ideal of the
ring R. Then (R, m) has the regular total order property if and only if the principal
ideals xRm and yRm are comparable for all x, y ∈ R with x is regular.
Proof. Assume that the principal ideals xRm and yRm are comparable for all x, y ∈
R with x is regular. Let a and b be ideals of R, and x be a regular element of
R in a. Suppose that y/1 ∈ bm \ am . It follows that xRm ⊆ yRm . To conclude
the inclusion am ⊆ bm , it is enough for us to show that am ⊆ yRm . Suppose on
the contrary that there exists an element a/1 ∈ am \ yRm . Since aRm * xRm , it
follows that xRm ⊆ aRm . It turns out that a/1 is regular. This in conjunction with
Lemma 3.2 implies that a is regular. Hence yRm and aRm are comparable which
is a contradiction.

In the sequel, we will use the following properties of amalgamated rings without
explicit comments.
Remark 3.4. The following statements hold.
(1) ([8, Corollaries 2.5 and 2.7]) For p ∈ Spec(R) and q ∈ Spec(S) \ V(J), set
p′f :=p ⊲⊳f J := {(p, f (p) + j)|p ∈ p, j ∈ J},
qf :={(r, f (r) + j)|r ∈ R, j ∈ J, f (r) + j ∈ q}.
Then, one has the following.
(a) The prime ideals of R ⊲⊳f J are of the type qf or p′f , for q varying in
Spec(S) \ V(J) and p in Spec(R).
(b) Max(R ⊲⊳f J) = {p′f |p ∈ Max(R)} ∪ {qf |q ∈ Max(S) \ V(J)}.
(2) ([8, Proposition 2.9]) The following formulas for localizations hold.
(a) For any q ∈ Spec(S) \ V(J), the localization (R ⊲⊳f J)qf is canonically isomorphic to Sq . This isomorphism maps the element (r, f (r) +
j)/(r′ , f (r′ ) + j ′ ) to (f (r) + j)/(f (r′ ) + j ′ ).
(b) For any p ∈ Spec(R) \ V(f −1 (J)), the localization (R ⊲⊳f J)p′f is
canonically isomorphic to Rp . This isomorphism maps the element
(r, f (r) + j)/(r′ , f (r′ ) + j ′ ) to r/r′ .
(c) For any p ∈ Spec(R) containing f −1 (J), consider the multiplicative
subset Tp := f (R \ p) + J of S and set STp := Tp−1 S and JTp :=
Tp−1 J. If fp : Rp → STp is the ring homomorphism induced by f ,
then the ring (R ⊲⊳f J)p′f is canonically isomorphic to Rp ⊲⊳fp JTp .
This isomorphism maps the element (r, f (r) + j)/(r′ , f (r′ ) + j ′ ) to
(r/r′ , (f (r) + j)/(f (r′ ) + j ′ )).
We are now ready to state and prove the main result of this section. In fact, it
provides a partial converse of [10, Proposition 4.2] as well as a generalization of [4,
Theorem 2.2].
Theorem 3.5. Assume that f (Reg(R)) ⊆ Reg(S).

PRÜFER CONDITIONS UNDER THE AMALGAMATED CONSTRUCTION

5

(1) If R ⊲⊳f J is a Prüfer ring, then R is a Prüfer ring and JTm = f (r)JTm for
every m ∈ Max(R) and every r ∈ Reg(R).
(2) Assume that R ⊲⊳f J has the condition ⋆ and that Z(R ⊲⊳f J) ⊆ Jac(R ⊲⊳f
J). If R is a Prüfer ring and JTm = f (r)JTm for every m ∈ Max(R) and
every r ∈ Reg(R), then R ⊲⊳f J is a Prüfer ring.
Proof. (1) Assume that R ⊲⊳f J is a Prüfer ring. By [10, Proposition 4.2], R
is a Prüfer ring. Let r ∈ Reg(R), m ∈ Max(R), and k/x ∈ JTm . It is easy to
see that (r, f (r)) ∈ Reg(R ⊲⊳f J). By Theorem 3.1, the ideal (r, f (r))(R ⊲⊳f
J)m′ f is comparable with any ideal of (R ⊲⊳f J)m′ f . Hence the principal ideal of
Rm ⊲⊳fm JTm generated by (r/1, fm (r/1)) is comparable

 with the principal ideal
generated by (0, k/x). If (r/1, fm (r/1)) Rm ⊲⊳fm JTm ⊆ (0, k/x) Rm ⊲⊳fm JTm ,
then (r/1, fm (r/1)) = (0, k/x)(s/z, fm(s/z) + j/y) for some (s/z, fm(s/z) + j/y) ∈
Rm ⊲⊳fm JTm which implies that r/1 = 0. This is a contradiction since r/1 ∈ 
fm
Reg(Rm ) by Lemma 3.2. So we
 may assume that the inclusion (0, k/x) Rm ⊲⊳ JTmf ⊆
fm
(r/1, fm (r/1)) Rm ⊲⊳ JTm holds. Thus there exists (s/z, fm (s/z)+j/y) ∈ Rm ⊲⊳ m
JTm such that (0, k/x) = (r/1, fm (r/1))(s/z, fm (s/z) + j/y). This means that
s/z = 0 and k/x = fm (r/1)j/y = f (r)j/y ∈ f (r)JTm , as desired.
(2) By Theorem 3.1, it is sufficient to prove that (R ⊲⊳f J, M) has the regular
total order property for every maximal ideal M of R ⊲⊳f J. On the other hand,
it follows from the hypothesis that J ⊆ Jac(S) and Z(R) ⊆ Jac(R). Indeed if
J * Jac(S), there exists a q ∈ Max(S) \ V(J). Then {(0, j) | j ∈ J} ⊆ Z(R ⊲⊳f
J) ⊆ Jac(R ⊲⊳f J) ⊆ qf . This yields J ⊆ q a contradiction. For the second
inclusion assume a ∈ Z(A) and m ∈ Max(R). Then (a, f (a)) ∈ Z(R ⊲⊳f J) ⊆
Jac(R ⊲⊳f J) ⊆ m′f , which implies that a ∈ m. Therefore we have two cases to
consider:
Case 1. Assume that M = m′f for some m ∈ Max(R) such that f −1 (J) *
m. Let (r, f (r) + j) ∈ Reg(R ⊲⊳f J). Then (r, f (r) + j)/(1, 1) ∈ Reg((R ⊲⊳f
J)m′f ). Using the isomorphism (R ⊲⊳f J)m′f ∼
= Rm , one has r/1 ∈ Reg(Rm ) which
implies that r ∈ Reg(R) by Lemma 3.2. Since (R, m) has the regular total order
property, the ideal rRm is comparable with every ideal of Rm . Consequently, the
ideal (r, f (r) + j)(R ⊲⊳f J)m′f is comparable with every ideal of (R ⊲⊳f J)m′f .
Case 2. Assume that M = m′f for some m ∈ Max(R) such that f −1 (J) ⊆ m.
Let (r, f (r) + j) ∈ Reg(R ⊲⊳f J) and (r′ , f (r′ ) + j ′ ) ∈ R ⊲⊳f J. Since R ⊲⊳f J
has the condition ⋆, we have r ∈ Reg(R). Thus the principal ideals rRm and
r′ Rm are comparable because (R, m) has the regular total order property. We may
and do assume r′ Rm ⊆ rRm . So we have r′ /1 = (r/1)(t/u) for some t/u ∈ Rm .
We claim that there exists an element k/y ∈ JTm such that j ′ /1 − fm (t/u)j/1 =
(k/y)(fm (r/1) + j/1). If this is the case, then one has the equality
(r′ /1, fm(r′ /1) + j ′ /1) = (t/u, fm(t/u) + k/y)(r/1, fm (r/1) + j/1)
in the ring Rm ⊲⊳fm JTm which shows the following inclusion of principal ideals
(r′ /1, fm(r′ /1) + j ′ /1)(Rm ⊲⊳fm JTm ) ⊆ (r/1, fm (r/1) + j/1)(Rm ⊲⊳fm JTm ).
This inclusion yields the inclusion (r′ , f (r′ ) + j ′ )(R ⊲⊳f J)m′f ⊆ (r, f (r) + j)(R ⊲⊳f
J)m′f . It remains to prove the claim. To this end, one notices that our assumption
gives an element l/v ∈ JTm such that j/1 = fm (r/1)(l/v). Hence fm (r/1) + j/1 =
fm (r/1)((v + l)/v) and observe that the element (v + l)/v is a unit element of

STm .

6

Y. AZIMI, P. SAHANDI AND N. SHIRMOHAMMADI

We have the following corollaries.
Corollary 3.6. Assume that (R, m) is a local ring, J ⊆ Jac(S) and f (Reg(R)) ⊆
Reg(S).
(1) If R ⊲⊳f J is a Prüfer ring, then R is a Prüfer ring and J = f (r)J for
every r ∈ Reg(R).
(2) Assume further that R ⊲⊳f J has the condition ⋆. If R is a Prüfer ring and
J = f (r)J for every r ∈ Reg(R), then R ⊲⊳f J is a Prüfer ring.
Proof. It follows from the inclusion J ⊆ Jac(S) that the elements of Tm = f (R \
m) + J are units in S for every m ∈ Max(R). Hence, for every r ∈ R and every
m ∈ Max(R), JTm = f (r)JTm holds if and only if J = f (r)J holds. One also notices
from Remark 3.4(1)(b) that (R, m) is a local ring and J ⊆ Jac(S) if and only if
R ⊲⊳f J is local. The result is therefore immediate from Theorem 3.5.

We now deal with the amalgamated duplication. Assume that R = S and f is the
identity map on R. Let I be an ideal of R, 0 6= r ∈ R and m ∈ Max(R). One notices
that if m ⊇ I, then Tm = R \ m + I = R \ m, otherwise, ITm = 0 by [10, Remark
2.4]. Hence ITm = rITm holds if and only if Im = rIm . It also easily obtain that
Z(R ⊲⊳ I) ⊆ Jac(R ⊲⊳ I) if and only if Z(R) ⊆ Jac(R) and I ⊆ Jac(R).Therefore
we can derive the following corollary of Theorem 3.5. This corollary generalizes [4,
Theorem 2.2] to non-local case as well as provides an answer to [4, Question 2.11].
Corollary 3.7. Let I be an ideal of the ring R.
(1) If R ⊲⊳ I is a Prüfer ring, then R is a Prüfer ring and Im = rIm for every
m ∈ Max(R) and every r ∈ Reg(R).
(2) Assume further that Z(R) ⊆ Jac(R) and I ⊆ Jac(R). If R is a Prüfer ring
and Im = rIm for every m ∈ Max(R) and every r ∈ Reg(R), then R ⊲⊳ I is
a Prüfer ring.
Corollary 3.8. (See [4, Theorem 2.2]) Let (R, m) be a local ring and I a proper
ideal of R. Then R ⊲⊳ I is a Prüfer ring if and only if R is a Prüfer ring and
I = rI for every r ∈ Reg(R).
We shall now describe the behaviour of Prüfer condition on trivial extension.
Corollary 3.9. Let M be an R-module such that Z(M ) ⊆ Z(R).
(1) If R ⋉ M is a Prüfer ring, then R is a Prüfer ring and Mm = rMm for
every m ∈ Max(R) and every r ∈ Reg(R).
(2) Assume further that Z(R) ⊆ Jac(R). If R is a Prüfer ring and Mm = rMm
for every m ∈ Max(R) and every r ∈ Reg(R), then R ⋉ M is a Prüfer ring.
Proof. It follows from the inclusion Z(M ) ⊆ Z(R) that ι(Reg(R)) ⊆ Reg(R ⋉ M ).
On the other hand, for r ∈ R and m ∈ Max(R), we have Tm = ι(R \ m) + J =
R ⋉ M \ m ⋉ M where J = 0 ⋉ M . Hence JTm = ι(r)JTm holds if and only
if Mm = rMm holds. Finally, it is easy to see that our assumption Z(M ) ⊆ Z(R)
together with Remark 2.2 implies Z(R⋉M ) ⊆ Jac(R⋉M ). Consequently, Theorem
3.5 completes the proof.

It is worth pointing out that in the corollary above the assumption Z(M ) ⊆ Z(R)
in crucial. For example let (R, m) be a local integral domain which is not a valuation
domain (e.g. R := k + Y k(X)JY K, where k is a field and X, Y are indeterminates

PRÜFER CONDITIONS UNDER THE AMALGAMATED CONSTRUCTION

7

over k). The trivial extension R ⋉ (R/m) is a total ring of quotients, hence, Prüfer,
while R is not (see [16, Proposition 3.1(a)]).
Corollary 3.10. Assume that R is an integral domain or is a local ring and that
M is a torsion-free R-module. Then R ⋉ M is a Prüfer ring if and only if R is a
Prüfer ring and Mm = rMm for every m ∈ Max(R) and r ∈ Reg(R).
Applying the corollary above we obtain an easy proof for the following result of
Bakkari, Kabbaj, and Mahdou.
Corollary 3.11. (cf. [2, Theorem 2.1(1)]) Assume that A ⊆ B is an extension of
domains and let K be the quotient field of A. Then A ⋉ B is a Prüfer ring if and
only if A is a Prüfer domain and K ⊆ B.
Proof. It is well-known that B = ∩m∈Max(A) Bm . Hence, for every 0 6= a ∈ A, one
has Bm = aBm for every m ∈ Max(A) if and only if B = aB. This is the case if
and only if K ⊆ B. The conclusion is now clear by Corollary 3.9.

Total rings of quotients are trivial examples of Prüfer rings. In [10, Proposition
4.6], Finocchiaro gave conditions, under which, total ring of quotients property
transfers from R to R ⊲⊳f J. The next proposition provides a slight generalization
as well as is a partial converse of it.
Proposition 3.12. The following statements hold:
(1) Assume that J ⊆ Jac(S) and that R ⊲⊳f J has the condition ⋆. If R is a
total ring of quotients, then so is R ⊲⊳f J.
(2) Assume that f (Reg(R)) ⊆ Reg(S). If R ⊲⊳f J is a total ring of quotients,
then so is R.
Proof. The proof of (1) is similar to that of [10, Proposition 4.6], but, for the
reader’s convenience, we derive it under the general assumption that R ⊲⊳f J has
the condition ⋆. Assume that R is a total ring of quotients and let (r, f (r) + j) be a
non-unit element of R ⊲⊳f J. Hence (r, f (r)+j) ∈ m′f for some m ∈ Max(R); so that
r ∈ m. This in conjunction with the assumption that R is a total ring of quotients
yields r ∈ Z(R). It now follows from Lemma 2.1 that (r, f (r) + j) ∈ Z(R ⊲⊳f J).
Therefore R ⊲⊳f J is a total ring of quotients. To prove (2), let r ∈ R. If (r, f (r))
is a unit of R ⊲⊳f J, then obviously r is a unit of R. Otherwise (r, f (r)) is a zerodivisor of R ⊲⊳f J. Our desired result will be established if r is a zero-divisor of
R. If not, by Lemma 2.1, there exists j ∈ J such that jf (r) = 0, which contradicts
since f (r) is regular.

4. Transfer of Gaussian condition
Our goal in this section is to determine the behaviour of Gaussian condition
under amalgamated construction. Let X be an indeterminate over R. The content
ideal cR (f ) of a polynomial f ∈ R[X] is defined to be the ideal of R generated by
the coefficients of f . A ring R is called a Gaussian ring if cR (f g) = cR (f )cR (g) for
every two polynomials f, g ∈ R[x]. It is shown in [22, Theorem 2.2] that a local
ring R is Gaussian if and only if, for every two elements a, b ∈ R, the following two
properties hold: (i) (a, b)2 = (a2 ) or (b2 ); (ii) if (a, b)2 = (a2 ) and ab = 0, then
b2 = 0. Using this characterization, the authors in [4, Theorem 3.2(2) and Corollary
3.8(2)] established that the amalgamated duplication ring R ⊲⊳ I is Gaussian if and
2
only if R is Gaussian, Im
= 0 and rIm = r2 Im for every m ∈ Max(R) ∩ V(I) and

8

Y. AZIMI, P. SAHANDI AND N. SHIRMOHAMMADI

every r ∈ m. Then, again, by means of this characterization, for a local ring (R, m)
and assuming J 2 = 0, it is shown that R ⊲⊳f J is Gaussian if and only if so is R
and f (r)J = f (r)2 J for every r ∈ m [18, Theorem 2.1(2)]. In the following, we give
an improvement to this result provided that J ⊆ f (R).
Theorem 4.1. Assume that (R, m) is a local ring and J ⊆ f (R) ∩ Jac(S) (e.g. f
is surjective). Then R ⊲⊳f J is Gaussian if and only if R is Gaussian, J 2 = 0 and
f (r)J = f (r)2 J for every r ∈ m.
Proof. The backward direction is [18, Theorem 2.1(2)]. For the forward direction
assume that R ⊲⊳f J is Gaussian. Then R is a Gaussian ring, since the Gaussian
property is stable under factor rings. Next, let i, j ∈ J. Assume that j = f (a)
for some a ∈ R. By assumption we have ((a, j), (0, j))2 = ((0, j)2 ) or ((a, j)2 )
[22, Theorem 2.2]. If the first case happens, then a2 = 0; so that j 2 = 0. The
second case yields j 2 (1 − j ′ ) = 0 for some j ′ ∈ J. Thus j 2 = 0. Similarly i2 = 0.
Hence ij = 0. To this end one notices that R ⊲⊳f J is Gaussian. Let now 0 6=
r ∈ m and j ∈ J. The last equality is the direct consequence of the statement
((r, f (r)), (0, j))2 = ((r, f (r))2 ) or ((0, j)2 ) together with J 2 = 0.

In the course of this paper, for an R-module M , SuppR (M ) will denote the set
of all prime ideals p of R such that Mp 6= 0.
In a sense, the next corollary is a generalization of [4, Corollary 3.8(3)].
Corollary 4.2. Assume that J ⊆ f (R) ∩ Jac(S). Then R ⊲⊳f J is Gaussian if
2
and only if R is Gaussian, Jm
= 0 and f (r)Jm = f (r)2 Jm for every m ∈ Max(R) ∩
−1
V(f (J)) and r ∈ m.
Proof. One can see Jm = JTm for every m ∈ V(f −1 (J)) since Tm = f (R \ m) + J =
f (R \ m). It also follows from the assumption J ⊆ f (R) that JTm ⊆ fm (Rm ) for
every m ∈ SuppR (J) ∩ V(f −1 (J)). Hence Theorem 4.1 completes the proof.

The next example illustrates the assumption J ⊆ f (R) in the forward direction
of the theorem above is essential.
Example 4.3. Let Z be the ring of integers and p = pZ be the prime ideal generated
by a prime number p. Let X be an indeterminate over the field of rational numbers
Q, and let R := Zp , S := QJXK the formal power series ring over Q, J := XQJXK
the unique maximal ideal of S, f : R → S be the inclusion homomorphism. It
is clear that J * f (R). Notice that R ⊲⊳f J is isomorphic to the composite ring
extension Zp + XQJXK, by [6, Example 2.5]. It follows from [13, Theorem 1.3] that
R ⊲⊳f J is a Prüfer domain, hence, a Gaussian ring [11, Corollary 28.5], while
J 2 6= 0.
As an application of our results we construct some examples of Prüfer rings
which are not Gaussian.
Example 4.4. Let k be a field and X an indeterminate over k. Let R := k[X]/(X 8)
which is a total quotient ring, S := k[X]/(X 4), J := (X 2 )/(X 4 ) and f be the
canonical surjection. Then R ⊲⊳f J has the condition ⋆ since f is surjective. It
follows from Proposition 3.12(1) that R ⊲⊳f J is a total quotient ring, hence Prüfer.
However R ⊲⊳f J is not a Gaussian ring by Theorem 4.1, since XJ 6= X 2 J.
The next example handles the non-local case.

PRÜFER CONDITIONS UNDER THE AMALGAMATED CONSTRUCTION

9

Example 4.5. Let R := Z/48Z, S := Z/24Z, J := 6Z/24Z and f be the canonical
surjection. Then, as Example 4.4, R ⊲⊳f J has the condition ⋆ and it follows from
Proposition 3.12(1) that R ⊲⊳f J is a Prüfer ring. But, it is not a Gaussian ring
2
by Corollary 4.2, since the natural image of 12 = 62 − 24 in Jm
is not zero, where
m = 2Z/48Z.
5. Transfer of arithmetical condition
This section deals with arithmetical condition on amalgamated construction.
The ring R is said to be an arithmetical ring if every finitely generated ideal of
R is locally principal [14]. Thus R is an arithmetical ring if and only if R is a
locally chain ring. Recall that an R-module M is said to be uniserial if its set of
submodules is totally ordered by inclusion and R is a chain ring if it is uniserial as
R-module.
The special case of the following result has been appeared in [5, Proposition 1.1].
Theorem 5.1. Assume that J is a non-zero ideal of S. If R ⊲⊳f J is a chain ring,
then R is a valuation domain and J = (f (a) + j)J for every 0 6= a ∈ R and j ∈ J.
The converse holds provided that J is a uniserial R-module.
Proof. Assume that R ⊲⊳f J is a chain ring. Then, as a factor ring, R is a chain ring.
Let 0 6= a ∈ R and l ∈ J. Clearly (a, f (a)) ∈
/ (0, l)(R ⊲⊳f J). Then (0, l) = (r, f (r)+
f
i)(a, f (a)) for some (r, f (r) + i) ∈ R ⊲⊳ J; so that ra = 0 and l = f (a)i ∈ f (a)J.
Hence J = f (a)J and this shows that R is a valuation domain. Now if further
j ∈ J, there is (r, f (r) + k) ∈ R ⊲⊳f J such that (0, l) = (a, f (a) + j)(r, f (r) + k).
Hence ra = 0 which implies that r = 0. Thus l = (f (a) + j)k ∈ (f (a) + j)J.
Therefore J = (f (a) + j)J.
For the converse assume that J is a uniserial R-module. Let (a, f (a)+j), (b, f (b)+
i) ∈ R ⊲⊳f J be arbitrary. Assume that b 6= 0 and a = bc. Then there exists k ∈ J
such that j − f (c)i = (f (a) + i)k. Hence (a, f (a) + j) = (b, f (b) + i)(c, f (c) + k).
In the case that b = 0, there is r ∈ R such that j = ri(= f (r)i) since J is uniserial.
Hence (0, j) = (r, f (r))(0, i).

We notice that one can not necessarily deduce J is a uniserial R-module from the
assumption that R ⊲⊳f J is a chain ring. In fact, bearing in mind the notations of
Example 4.3, it is clear that the Zp -submodules of J generated by the two elements
X and X 2 are not comparable.
Corollary 5.2. The following statements hold:
(1) Assume that J is a non-zero ideal of S such that J 2 = 0. Then R ⊲⊳f J is a
chain ring if and only if R is a valuation domain, J is a uniserial R-module
and J = f (a)J for every 0 6= a ∈ R.
(2) Assume that J ⊆ f (R). Then R ⊲⊳f J is a chain ring if and only if R is a
chain ring and J = 0.
Proof. (1) It is obvious that J = (f (a) + j)J for every 0 6= a ∈ R and j ∈ J if and
only if J = f (a)J for every 0 6= a ∈ R. Then, in view of Theorem 5.1, it remains
for us to deduce J is uniserial when R ⊲⊳f J is a chain ring. Indeed, for i, j ∈ J,
one of the elements (0, i) and (0, j) divides the other. So we may assume (0, j) =
(r, f (r) + k)(0, i) for some (r, f (r) + k) ∈ R ⊲⊳f J. Thus j = (f (r) + k)i = f (r)i.
(2) One implication is clear. For the other, suppose, on the contrary, that J 6= 0.
Then one can choose a non-zero element j ∈ J and, hence, a non-zero element a ∈ R

10

Y. AZIMI, P. SAHANDI AND N. SHIRMOHAMMADI

such that j = f (a). This together with Theorem 5.1 shows that J = (f (a)−j)J = 0,
which is a contradiction.

Corollary 5.3. (see [4, Theorem 3.2(1)]) The ring R ⊲⊳ I is a chain ring if and
only if R is a chain ring and I = 0.
We now want to generalize Corollary 5.2 to arithmetical rings. To this end, we
need the concept of distributive lattice of submodules. Let M be a module over
the ring R. We say that M has a distributive lattice of submodules if M satisfies
one of the following two equivalent conditions:
(1) (N + L) ∩ K = (N ∩ K) + (L ∩ K) for every submodules N, L, K of M ;
(2) (N ∩ L) + K = (N + K) ∩ (L + K) for every submodules N, L, K of M .
It is known that M has a distributive lattice of submodules if and only if Mm is a
uniserial module for each maximal ideal m of R [5, Proposition 1.2].
The special case of part 2 of the following result was obtained in [4, Corollary
3.8(1)].
Corollary 5.4. The following statements hold:
(1) Assume that J is a non-zero ideal of S with J 2 = 0. Then R ⊲⊳f J is
an arithmetical ring if and only if R is arithmetical, Rp is a domain for
every p ∈ SuppR (J), J is locally divisible and has a distributive lattice of
submodules.
(2) Assume that J ⊆ f (R). Then R ⊲⊳f J is an arithmetical ring if and only if
R is arithmetical, Jm = 0 for every m ∈ Max(R) ∩ V(f −1 (J)) and Sq is a
chain ring for every q ∈ Max(S) \ V(J).
Proof. (1) One can employ [21, Lemma 2.8] together with Corollary 5.2 and the
above-mentioned result [5, Proposition 1.2] to deduce the assertion.
(2) Assume that R ⊲⊳f J is an arithmetical ring. First, note that, as a factor
ring, R is an arithmetical ring. Then we show that Jm = 0 for every m ∈ Max(R) ∩
V(f −1 (J)). Let m ∈ Max(R) ∩ V(f −1 (J)). By assumptions, (R ⊲⊳f J)m′f ∼
=
Rm ⊲⊳fm JTm is a chain ring and one has the inclusion JTm ⊆ fm (Rm ). Hence
JTm = 0 by Corollary 5.2. On the other hand, using the inclusions J ⊆ f (R) and
f −1 (J) ⊆ m, it is easily seen that Tm = f (R \ m) + J = f (R \ m). Therefore Jm = 0.
Finally, the isomorphism (R ⊲⊳f J)qf ∼
= Sq shows that Sq is a chain ring for every
q ∈ Max(S) \ V(J). The converse direction is easy to obtain.

The conclusion of the corollary above fails if the assumption J 2 = 0 or J ⊆ f (R)
is dropped. For example, let X be an indeterminate over the field of rational
numbers Q, and let R := Z, S := QJXK the formal power series ring over Q,
J := XQJXK, f : R → S be the inclusion homomorphism. It is clear that J * f (R)
and that J 2 6= 0. Notice that R ⊲⊳f J ∼
= Z + XQJXK [6, Example 2.5]. It follows
from [13, Theorem 1.3] that R ⊲⊳f J is a Prüfer domain, hence, an arithmetical
ring. However J is not locally divisible.
In concluding we give an example of a non-arithmetical Gaussian ring.
Example 5.5. Let k be a field and X an indeterminate over k. Set R := k[X],
S := k[X]/(X 2), J := (X)/(X 2 ) and let f be the canonical surjection. Then
R ⊲⊳f J is Gaussian by Corollary 4.2. However R ⊲⊳f J is not an arithmetical ring
by Corollary 5.4, since J 6= 0 = XJ.

PRÜFER CONDITIONS UNDER THE AMALGAMATED CONSTRUCTION

11

References
1. M. Axtell and J. Stickles, Zero-divisor graphs of idealizations, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 204,
(2006), 235–243.
2. C. Bakkari, S. Kabbaj, and N. Mahdoua, Trivial extensions defined by Prüfer conditions J.
Pure App. Algebra, 214, (2010), 53–60.
3. H. S. Butts and W. Smith, Prüfer rings, Math. Z., 95, (1967), 196–211.
4. M. Chhiti, M. Jarrar, S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, Prüfer conditions in an amalgamated
duplication of a ring along an ideal, Comm. Algebra, 43, (2015), 249–261.
5. F. Couchot, Gaussian trivial ring ectensions and fqp-rings, Comm. Algebra, 43, (2015), 2863–
2874.
6. 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, pp. 155–172.
7. M. D’Anna, C. A. Finocchiaro, and M. Fontana, Properties of chains of prime ideals in an
amalgamated algebra along an ideal, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 214, (2010), 1633–1641.
8. M. D’Anna, C. A. Finocchiaro, and M. Fontana, New algebraic properties of an amalgamated
algebra along an ideal, Comm. Algebra, 44, (2016), 1836–1851.
9. M. D’Anna and M. Fontana, An amalgamated duplication of a ring along an ideal: the basic
properties, J. Algebra Appl., 6, No.3, (2007), 443–459.
10. C. A. Finocchiaro, Prüfer-like conditions on an amalgamated algebra along an ideal, Houston
J. Math., 40, (2014), 63–79.
11. R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory, New York, Dekker, 1972.
12. M. Griffin, Prüfer rings with zero divisors, J. Reine Angew. Math., 239/240, (1969), 55–67.
13. E. Houston and J. Taylor, Arithmetic properties in pullbacks, J. Algebra, 310, (2007), 235–
260.
14. C. U. Jensen, Arithmetical rings, Acta Math. Hungr., 17, (1966), 115–123.
15. W. Krull, Beitrage zur arithmetik kommutativer integritatsbereiche, Math. Z., 41, (1936),
545–577.
16. T. Lucas, Some results on Prüfer rings, Pasific J. Math., 124, (1986), 333–343.
17. H. Maimani and S. Yassemi, Zerodivisor graphs of amalgamated duplication of a ring along
an ideal, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 212, (2008), 168–174.
18. M. A. S. Moutui and N. Mahdou, Amalgamated algebras along an ideal defined by Gaussian
condition, Journal of Taibah University for Science, 9, (2015), 373–379.
19. M. Nagata, Local Rings, Interscience, New York, 1962.
20. H. Prüfer, Untersuchungen uber teilbarkeitseigenschaften in korpern, J. Reine Angew. Math.,
168 (1932), 1-36.
21. P. Sahandi, N. Shirmohammadi, and S. Sohrabi, Cohen-Macaulay and Gorenstein properties
under the amalgamated construction, Comm. Algebra, 44, (2016), 1096–1109.
22. H. Tsang, Gauss’s Lemma Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1965.
Department of Pure Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, University of
Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.
E-mail address: u.azimi@tabrizu.ac.ir
Department of Pure Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, University of
Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.
E-mail address: sahandi@ipm.ir
Department of Pure Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, University of
Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.
E-mail address: shirmohammadi@tabrizu.ac.ir

