arXiv:1401.6579v1 [math.AC] 25 Jan 2014

ISOMORPHISMS BETWEEN JACOBSON GRAPHS
A. AZIMI, A. ERFANIAN AND M. FARROKHI D. G.
Abstract. Let R be a commutative ring with a non-zero identity and JR be
its Jacobson graph. We show that if R and R′ are finite commutative rings,
then JR ∼
= JR′ if and only if |J(R)| = |J(R′ )| and R/J(R) ∼
= R′ /J(R′ ). Also,
for a Jacobson graph JR , we obtain the structure of group Aut(JR ) of all
automorphisms of JR and prove that under some conditions two semi-simple
rings R and R′ are isomorphic if and only if Aut(JR ) ∼
= Aut(JR′ ).

1. introduction
Let Γ and Γ′ be two simple graphs. An isomorphism between Γ and Γ′ is a
bijection α : V (Γ) −→ V (Γ′ ) such that
{u, v} ∈ E(Γ) ⇐⇒ {α(u), α(v)} ∈ E(Γ′ ).
Two graphs Γ and Γ′ are isomorphic whenever there is an isomorphism between
them, and the isomorphism is denoted by Γ ∼
= Γ′ . If Γ′ = Γ, then an isomorphism
′
between Γ and Γ is said to be an automorphism of Γ. The set of all automorphisms
of Γ is denoted by Aut(Γ).
Let R and R′ be commutative rings with non-zero identities. The zero-divisor
graph Γ(R) of R is a graph whose vertices are non-zero zero-divisors and two distinct
vertices x and y are adjacent if and only if xy = 0. Anderson, Frazier, Lauve and
Livingston [2] proved that if R and R′ are finite reduced rings which are not fields,
then Γ(R) ∼
= Γ(R′ ) if and only if R ∼
= R′ . Later, Akbari and Mohammadian [1]
generalized this result and proved that if R is a finite reduced ring which is not
isomorphic to Z2 ⊕Z2 and Z6 and R′ is a ring such that Γ(R) ∼
= Γ(R′ ), then R ∼
= R′ .
Anderson and Livingston [3] have shown that Aut(Γ(Zn )) is a direct product of
some symmetric groups when n ≥ 4 is a non-prime integer. In the case of noncommutative rings, Han [6] shows that Aut(Γ(R)) ∼
= Sp+1 is the symmetric group
of degree p + 1 when R = Mat2 (Zp ) (p prime), and Park and Han [11] generalized
Han’s result and proved that Aut(Γ(R)) ∼
= S|F |+1 when R = Mat2 (F ) with F a
finite field.
Let R be a commutative ring with non-zero identity. The Jacobson graph of R,
denoted by JR , is a graph whose vertex set is R\J(R) such that two distinct vertices
x, y ∈ V (JR ) are adjacent whenever 1 − xy 6∈ U (R), in which U (R) is the group of
units of R. It is easy to see that the subgraph of JR induced by all vertices x such
that 1 − x2 is a unit, is the co-normal product of some graphs, each of which is a
union of isomorphic complete bipartite graphs. Recall that the Jacobson radical
J(R) of R is the intersection of all maximal ideals of R and it has the property that
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 05C25, 05C60, Secondary 16P10, 13H99,
16N20.
Key words and phrases. Jacobson graph, isomorphism, automorphism, wreath product.
1

2

A. AZIMI, A. ERFANIAN AND M. FARROKHI D. G.

1 − xr ∈ U (R) whenever x ∈ J(R) and r ∈ R. A ring with trivial Jacobson radical
is called a semi-simple ring.
The Jacobson graphs first introduced in [4] by the authors and several graph theoretical properties as well as numerical invariants of such graphs is discovered. In
this paper, we shall concentrate on isomorphisms between Jacobson graphs. Also,
we shall determine the structure of automorphism group of Jacobson graphs and
give some conditions under which two rings are isomorphic whenever the automorphism group of their Jacobson graphs are isomorphic. In this paper, all rings will
be commutative rings with non-zero identity.
Let Γ be a graph. In what follows, NΓ (x) and NΓ [x] or simply N (x) and N [x]
stand for the open and closed neighborhood of x, respectively, for every vertex x
of Γ. Also, degΓ (x) or simply deg(x) denotes the degree of x and δ(Γ) denotes the
minimum vertex degree of Γ.
2. Isomorphic Jacobson graphs
We begin with recalling some results from ring theory. Let R be a finite ring.
Then, by [9, Theorem VI.2], R = R1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rn , where (Ri , mi ) are local rings with
associated fields Fi . Moreover,
J(R) = J(R1 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ J(Rn )
and
U (R) = U (R1 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ U (Rn ).
Clearly,
|U (R)| =

n
Y

i=1

|U (Ri )| = |J(R)|

n
Y

(|Fi | − 1) .

i=1

In what follows, 1 stands for the element (1, . . . , 1) with all entries equal to 1 and ei
is the element with 1 on its ith entry and 0 elsewhere, for i = 1, . . . , n. Also, e(R)
and o(R) denote the number of Fi such that |Fi | is even and odd, respectively.
Note
Sn
that, by [4, Theorem 5.8], for a unit element x ∈ R, degJR (x) = | i=1 Mi | − εx ,
where εx = 0 if 1 − x2 ∈ U (R), εx = 1 if 1 − x2 ∈
/ U (R) and M1 , . . . , Mn are the
maximal ideals of R. In particular,
degJR (1) =

n
[

i=1

Mi − 1 = |R| − |J(R)|

n
Y

(|Fi | − 1) − 1.

i=1

Now, we shall study isomorphisms between Jacobson graphs. It is easy to see that
Z4 and Z2 [x]/(x2 ) have the same Jacobson graphs while they are non-isomorphic
rings. The following theorem gives necessary and sufficient conditions under which
two rings have isomorphic same Jacobson graphs.
Theorem 2.1. Let R and R′ be finite rings. Then JR ∼
= JR′ if and only if |J(R)| =
|J(R′ )| and R/J(R) ∼
= R′ /J(R′ ).
Proof. Let ϕ : JR −→ JR′ be a graph isomorphism. Since R and R′ are finite rings,
we may write R = R1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rm and R′ = R1′ ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rn′ , where Ri and Rj′ are
local rings with associated fields Fi and Fj′ , respectively. We further assume that
|F1 | ≤ · · · ≤ |Fm | and |F1′ | ≤ · · · ≤ |Fn′ |. It is easy to see that the unit vertices
have largest degrees among all other vertices and that there is two possible values
for the degree of such elements (see [4, Theorem 5.8]). Hence ϕ maps the units of

JACOBSON GRAPH

3

R onto the units of R′ and consequently |U (R)| = |U (R′ )|. In particular, we have
deg(1R ) = deg(1R′ ). Therefore,
|J(R)|

m
Y

(|Fi | − 1) = |J(R′ )|

|R| − |J(R)|

m
Y

|Fj′ | − 1

j=1

i=1

and

n
Y

(|Fi | − 1) − 1 = |R′ | − |J(R′ )|

n
Y

j=1

i=1
′




|Fj′ | − 1 − 1,

from which it follows that |R| = |R | and consequently |J(R)| = |J(R′ )| as the
graphs have the same number of vertices.
If |Fm | ≤ 3 and |Fn′ | ≤ 3, then
2e(R) 3o(R) =

′
′
R
R′
=
= 2e(R ) 3o(R ) ,
′
J(R)
J(R )

which implies that R/J(R) ∼
= R′ /J(R′ ). Now, suppose that |Fm | > 3. It is easy to
see that
|R|
δ(JR ) = degJR (em ) =
−1
|Fm |
and
δ(JR′ ) = degJR′ (e′n ) =

|R′ |
− 1.
|Fn′ |

∼ F ′ . Let S = R1 ⊕· · ·⊕
Since δ(JR ) = δ(JR′ ) we obtain |Fm | = |Fn′ | and hence Fm =
n
′
′
′
Rm−1 and S = R1 ⊕· · ·⊕Rn−1 . By [4, Lemma 2.1(2) and Theorem 2.2], there exist
elements am ∈ Rm \ J(Rm ) and bn ∈ Rn′ \ J(Rn′ ) such that 1 − a2m ∈ U (Rm ) and
1 − b2n ∈ U (Rn′ ). Without loss of generality, we may assume that ϕ(am em ) = bn e′n .
Since ϕ(NJR (am em )) = NJR′ (bn e′n ), the map
φ : JS
x

−→ JS ′
′
7−→ ϕ(x + a−1
m em ) · (1R′ − en )

is an isomorphism between JS and JS ′ . Using induction we may assume that
S/J(S) ∼
= S ′ /J(S ′ ), from which it follows that R/J(R) ∼
= R′ /J(R′ ). The converse
is clear.

Corollary 2.2. Let R and R′ be finite semi-simple rings. Then JR ∼
= JR′ if and
only if R ∼
= R′ .
Remark. As infinite fields with the same characteristic and cardinality have isomorphic Jacobson graphs, finiteness is a necessary condition in the above theorem.
3. Automorphisms of Jacobson graphs
In what follows, the support of an element x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) in a semi-simple ring
R = F1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fn , where Fi are fields, is the set of all indices i such that xi 6= 0
and it is denoted by Supp(x). Our results are based on the following two lemmas.
Lemma 3.1. Let R be a finite semi-simple ring such that R ∼
6= Z2 ⊕ Z2 and R is
not a field. If x, y ∈ V (JR ), then N (x) = N (y) if and only if x = y.

4

A. AZIMI, A. ERFANIAN AND M. FARROKHI D. G.

Proof. Let R = F1 ⊕· · ·⊕Fn be the decomposition of R into finite fields Fi . Suppose
that x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) and y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) are vertices of JR such that N (x) = N (y)
but x 6= y. Then there exists i ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that xi 6= yi and without loss of
generality xi 6= 0. If xi 6= ±1, then x−1
i ei ∈ N (x) so that yi = xi , a contradiction.
Hence xi = ±1. If |Supp(x)| ≥ 2, then since xi ei ∈ N (x) we have that yi = xi , a
contradiction. Thus Supp(x) = {i} and x = ±ei . Similarly y = ±ej . Now a simple
verification shows that N (x) = N (y) only if R = Z2 ⊕ Z2 , which is a contradiction.
The converse is obvious.

Lemma 3.2. Let R be a finite semi-simple ring that is not a field. If x, y ∈ V (JR ),
then N [x] = N [y] if and only if x = y.
Proof. Let R = F1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fn be the decomposition of R into finite fields Fi .
Suppose that x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) and y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) are vertices of JR such that
N [x] = N [y] but x 6= y. Clearly, x and y are adjacent. If Supp(x) = {i} is a
singleton, then x = xi ei and yi = xi−1 . If y 6= xi−1 ei and j ∈ Supp(y) \ {i}, then
yj−1 ej ∈ N [y] \ N [x], which is impossible. Thus y = x−1
i ei . If xi 6= ±1 and j 6= i,
then xi ei + ej ∈ N [y] \ N [x], which is impossible. Thus xi = ±1 and hence x = y,
a contradiction. Thus |Supp(x)| > 1 and similarly |Supp(y)| > 1. Suppose that
xi 6= yi and without loss of generality xi 6= 0. Then x−1
i ei ∈ N (x), which implies
that x−1
e
∈
N
(y).
Hence
y
=
x
,
which
is
a
contradiction.
The converse is
i
i
i
i
obvious.

Let R be a finite ring and θ : Aut(JR ) −→ Aut(JR/J(R) ) be the map give by
θ(α) = α such that α(x + J(R)) = α(x) + J(R) for every x ∈ R \ J(R). With
this definition, θ gives rise to an epimorphism from Aut(JR ) onto Aut(JR/J(R) ).
Therefore


Aut(JR ) ∼
R
.
= Aut J J(R)
Ker(θ)
Moreover,
Ker(θ) = S|J(R)| × · · · × S|J(R)|
is the direct product of |R/J(R)|−1 copies of the symmetric group on |J(R)| letters.
So, in the remainder of this section, we just consider the case of finite semi-simple
rings.
Theorem 3.3. Let R = F1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fn be the decomposition of semi-simple ring
R into finite fields Fi and |F1 | ≥ · · · ≥ |Fn |. Also, let Ai = {j : |Fj | = |Fi |},
Π ≤ Sn be the set of all permutations preserving Ai ’s, and Σi ≤ S|Fi | be the set
of all permutations fixing 0 and preserving the sets {±1} and {fi , fi−1 } for all
fi ∈ Fi \ {0, ±1}. Then
)
(
n
n
X
X
σi (ai )eπ(i) , π ∈ Π, σi ∈ Σi .
ai ei ) =
Aut(JR ) = α : JR −→ JR : α(
i=1

i=1

Proof. Let Inn(JR ) be the set of automorphisms in the theorem. We show that
Aut(JR ) = Inn(JR ). We proceed by induction on n. Clearly, the result holds
for n = 1. Hence we assume that n > 1 and the result holds for n − 1. Let
α ∈ Aut(JR ), and a, b ∈ F1 \ {0}. Then deg(ae1 ), deg(be1 ) = |R|/|F1 | − 1 or
|R|/|F1 | according to the cases when a, b = ±1 or not, respectively. On the other
hand, for a vertex x ∈ V (JR ), deg(x) = |R|/|F1 | − 1 or |R|/|F1 | only if x = fk ek
for some k ∈ A1 . Hence α(ae1 ) = fi ei and α(be1 ) = fj ej for some i, j ∈ A1 .

JACOBSON GRAPH

5

If i 6= j, then NJR (fi ei ) ∩ NJR (fj ej ) 6= ∅ while NJR (ae1 ) ∩ NJR (be1 ) = ∅, a
contradiction. Thus i = j and we may assume modulo Inn(JR ) that α(f e1 ) = f e1
for all f ∈ F1 \ {0}. In particular, α(NJR (f e1 )) = NJR (f e1 ) for all f ∈ F1 \ {0}.
Let S = F2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fn . Since NJR (f e1 ) = f −1 e1 + S for all f ∈ F1 \ {0}, it follows
that α(S) = S. Let α|S : J(S) −→ J(S) be the restriction of α on S \ {0}. By
assumption, α|S ∈ Inn(JS ). Hence we may further assume modulo Inn(JR ) that
α(x) = x for all x ∈ S \ {0}. Let Sf = f e1 + S for all f ∈ F1 \ {0}. Since α fixes
Sf , for each x ∈ S, there exists αf (x) ∈ S such that α(f e1 + x) = f e1 + αf (x).
Let f ∈ F \ {0, ±1}. If x, y ∈ S \ {0}, then x ∼ y if and only if f e1 + x ∼ f e1 + y
if and only if f e1 + αf (x) ∼ f e1 + αf (y) if and only if αf (x) ∼ αf (y). Hence αf
induces an automorphism on JS . On the other hand, if x, y ∈ S \ {0}, then x ∼ y
if and only if x ∼ f e1 + y if and only if x ∼ f e1 + αf (y) if and only if x ∼ αf (y)
or x = αf (y). Now it is easy to see that, if x 6∼ αf (x), then αf (NJS (x)) = NJS (x)
and if x ∼ αf (x), then αf (NJS [x]) = NJS [x]. Hence, by Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2,
αf (x) = x except probably when αf (NJS (x)) = NJS (x) and S ∼
= Z2 ⊕ Z2 , or S is
field. If S ∼
= Z2 ⊕ Z2 , then since F + ei ⊆ NJR [ei ], it follows that α(F + ei ) ⊆
(F + ei ) ∪ (F + e2 + e3 ), for i = 2, 3. But degJR (x) < degJR (y) for all x ∈ F + ei
and y ∈ F + e2 + e3 , which implies that α(F + ei ) = F + ei , for i = 2, 3. Moreover,
α(F + e2 + e3 ) = F + e2 + e3 . Thus α stabilizes NJR [f e1 + e2 ], NJR [f e1 + e3 ] and
NJR [f e1 +e2 +e3 ], from which by Lemma 3.2, it follows that α fixes all the elements
f e1 + e2 , f e1 + e3 and f e1 + e2 + e3 , as required. Now, suppose that S is a field
and αf (x) 6= x. If αf (NJS [x]) = NJS [x], then αf (x) = x−1 . But then αf (x−1 ) = x
and since x ∼ f e1 + x−1 , we should have x ∼ f e1 + αf (x−1 ), a contradiction.
Thus αf (NJS (x)) = NJS (x), which implies that x = ±1 and αf (x) = −x. Since
x ∼ f e1 + x it follows that x ∼ f e1 + αf (x), which is a contradiction. Therefore,
in all cases αf (x) = x that is α(f e1 + x) = f e1 + x for all x ∈ S.
Finally, suppose that f = ±1. Let

2

NJS (x), 1 − x ∈ U (S),
N JS (x) =


/ U (S),
NJS [x], 1 − x2 ∈

for each x ∈ S \ {0}. Then

NJR (x) = NJS (x) ∪

[

f ′ ∈F \{0}


f ′ e1 + N JS (x) .

Since α(x) = x, it follows that α(NJR (x)) = NJR (x). Hence
(1)

α(f ′ e1 + N JS (x)) = f ′ e1 + N JS (x)

for each f ′ ∈ F1 \ {0}. Now, we have
NJR [f e1 + x] = (f e1 + S) ∪

[

f ′ ∈F1 \{f }


f ′ e1 + N JS (x)

so that, by using (1), α(NJR [f e1 + x]) = NJR [f e1 + x]. Thus NJR [α(f e1 + x)] =
NJR [f e1 + x] and by Lemma 3.2, α(f e1 + x) = f e1 + x. Therefore, α = I is the
identity automorphism and the proof is complete.

For each finite field F , we let εF = 0 if |F | is even and εF = 1 if |F | is odd. By [4,
Theorem 2.2], JF is a union of εF +1 isolated vertices together with (|F |−2−εF )/2
disjoint edges. Hence, we have the following result.

6

A. AZIMI, A. ERFANIAN AND M. FARROKHI D. G.

Corollary 3.4. Let R = F1m1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fkmk be the decomposition of the semi-simple
ring R into finite fields Fi , where F1 , . . . , Fk are distinct fields. Then
Aut(JR ) = Aut(JF1 ) ≀ Sm1 × · · · × Aut(JFk ) ≀ Smk ,
in which
Aut(JFi ) =



Z2 ≀ S |Fi |−2−εFi × ZεFi +1
2

if |Fi | ≥ 4, and Aut(Z3 ) = Z2 and Aut(Z2 ) = 1 is the trivial group.
Remark. Let R = Z2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Z2 (n times). Then, by Corollary 3.4, Aut(JR ) ∼
= Sn .
Note that JR is the complement of the zero-divisor graph of R and it is known, say
from [10], that Aut(JR ) ∼
= Sn . Hence JR is an example of graphs with symmetric
automorphism group, in which the number of vertices exceeds that of [8].
Remark. Let R = F ⊕ · · · ⊕ F (n times), where F is a field of order 3 or 4. Then,
by Corollary 3.4, Aut(JR ) ∼
= Z2 ≀ Sn . Hence, by [7], Aut(JR ) ∼
= Aut(Qn ), where Qn
denotes the hypercube of dimension n.
In the remainder of this section, we shall seek for conditions under which two
finite rings are isomorphic if and only if the automorphism group of their Jacobson
graphs are isomorphic.
Lemma 3.5. Let G be a finite group and W = G ≀ Sn . Then W is decomposable
if and only if G has a non-trivial central direct factor H such that (|H|, n) = 1, in
which case H is a direct factor of W .
Proof. Suppose W is decomposable. By [5, Theorem 2.8], G has a non-trivial
Abelian direct factor H such that its elements each of which has unique nth root.
Suppose on the contrary that gcd(|H|, n) 6= 1 and p be a common prime divisor
of |H| and n. Let x be a p-element of largest order pk in H and y be the unique
nth root of x in H. Then p |y|, which implies that |y n | < pk , a contradiction. The
converse follows from [5, Theorem 2.8].

In the remaining of this section, Fm stands for the finite field of order m and
m
b denotes the number (m − 2 − εm )/2 for each prime power m, in which εm =
m − 2[m/2] denotes the parity of m. If p is a prime, then ep (n) is the exponent
of p in n, that is pep (n) |n but pep (n)+1 ∤ n. Bertrand’s postulate states that there
always exists a prime p such that n < p < 2n − 2 for all n > 3. Also, a weaker
formulation of Bertrand’s postulate states that there always exists a prime p such
that n < p < 2n for all n > 1. Hence, if pn denotes the largest prime not exceeding
n, then epn (n!) = 1. Also, it is known that the following equality holds for each
natural number n and prime p,
ep (n!) =

n − Sp (n)
,
p−1

where Sp (n) denotes the sum of digits of n when n is written in base p.
By Lemma 3.5, we have
× Hm ,
Aut(JFm ) ∼
= Zεm +1 × Zεm
c +1

JACOBSON GRAPH

7

b
m
c m!,
where |Hm | = 2m−ε
b and



m = 2,
 Sn ,
Aut(JFm ) ≀ Sn ∼
m = 3, 4,
= Zεn +1 × Kn ,

 εn
Zεm
× Zεεnm +1 × Lm,n , m ≥ 5,
c +1
n
b
m
c +εm ) 2m+ε
m!
b
n!.
where |Kn | = 2n−εn n! and |Lm,n | = 2−εn (εm

Lemma 3.6. Let m, m′ , n, n′ , k be two natural numbers greater than one. Then
b = (4, 3),
(1) Sk ∼
= Hm , if and only if (k, m)
(2) Sk ∼
= Kn , if and only if (k, n) = (4, 3),
(3) Sk ∼
6 Lm,n ,
=
b =m
b ′,
(4) Hm ∼
= Hm′ , if and only if m
∼
′
b = n′ ,
(5) Hm = Kn , if and only if m
∼
′
′
(6) Hm =
6 Lm ,n ,
(7) Kn ∼
= Kn′ , if and only if n = n′ ,
(8) Kn ∼
6 Lm′ ,n′ ,
=
(9) Lm,n ∼
= Lm′ ,n′ , if and only if (m, n) = (m′ , n′ ).

b
m
c m!.
Proof. (1) If Sk ∼
b Then k > m,
b which implies that
= Hm , then k! = 2m−ε
k−1−εk−1
k−2
m
b = k − 1. Thus k = 2
=2
, which holds only if k = 4. On the other
hand, Z2 ≀ S3 ∼
= Z2 × S4 and the result follows.
(2) It is similar to case (1).
b n n! for l = (m
b + εm )n − εn (εm
(3) If Sk ∼
= Lm,n , then k! = 2l m!
b + εm ), which
implies that k > n. Since epk (k!) = 1, it follows that epk (m)
b = 0 and epk (n!) = 1.
(2l m!
b n n!), we
(k!) = epm
Hence m
b < pk ≤ n < k ≤ 2n. If m
b > 2, then since epm
c
c
have
(n)
(k) n − Spm
k − Spm
c
c
−
.
(n!) =
(k!) − epm
n = epm
c
c
pm
−
1
p
−
1
b
m
b
Thus
(n),
(k) < n + Spm
(n) − Spm
(pm
b − 1)n = k − n + Spm
c
c
c

(n), a contradiction. If m
b = 2, then
which implies that n ≤ (pm
b − 2)n < Spm
c
k! = 2(3+εm )n−εm εn n!. Hence n = k − 1 and k = 2(3+εm )k−3−2εm ≥ 23k−5 , which
is impossible since k > 2. Also, if m
b = 1, then m = 5 and k! = 22n−2εn n!. Hence
2k−4
n = k − 1 and k = 2
, which is impossible.
b
b ′ −εm
m
c m!
c′ m
b = 2m
b ′ !. Suppose on the contrary that
(4) If Hm ∼
= Hm′ , then 2m−ε
′
′
′
m
b 6= m
b and m
b >m
b , say. Then m
b =m
b − 1 and we have
b
b
m
c −1 )−(m−ε
m
c)
m
b = 2(m−1−ε
= 2−2 ,

which is not an integer, a contradiction.
(5) It is similar to case (4).
b > n′ and the same as in (3)
(6) If Hm ∼
= Lm′ ,n′ , then it is easy to see that m
′
b
m
c m!
we can show that m
b ′ ≤ 2. If m
b ′ = 2, then 2m−ε
b = 2(3+εm′ )n −εm′ εn′ n′ !. Hence
n′ = m
b − 1 and
b
b
m
c)
c −1 )−(m−ε
m′ εm
m
b = 2((3+εm′ )(m−1)−ε
b
m′
= 2(2+εm′ )m−3−2ε

b
≥ 22m−5
,

8

A. AZIMI, A. ERFANIAN AND M. FARROKHI D. G.

b
m
c m!
which is impossible since m
b > 2. Also, if m
b ′ = 1, then m′ = 5 and 2m−ε
b =
2n′ −2εn′ ′
′
2
n !. Hence n = m
b − 1 and
b
b
b
m
c)
m
c −1 )−(m−ε
= 2m−4
,
m
b = 2(2(m−1)−2ε

which is impossible.
(7) It is similar to case (4).
(8) It is similar to case (6).
′
′
b n n! = 2l m
b ′ !n n′ !, where l = (m
b + εm )n − εn (εm
(9) If Lm,n ∼
= Lm′ ,n′ , then 2l m!
b +
′
εm ) and l′ = (m
b ′ + εm′ )n′ − εn′ (εm
b ′ + εm′ ). If n = n , then
′

b
b +εm′ )n−εn (εm
m )n−εn (εm
c +εm )
c ′ +εm′ ) m
2(m+ε
m!
b n = 2 (m
b ′ !n .

If m
b 6= m
b ′ and m
b >m
b ′ , say, then m
b′ = m
b − 1 and we have
b
b
m )n−εn (εm
c −1 +εm′ ))−((m+ε
c +εm ))
m′ )n−εn (εm
m
b n = 2((m−1+ε
= 2(εm′ −εm −1)n−εn (1+εm′ −εm ) ≤ 1,

which is a contradiction. Thus m
b =m
b ′ and consequently m = m′ . Thus we may
′
assume that n 6= n and without loss of generality n < n′ . First suppose that
′
′
(2l m
b ′ !n n′ !), we obtain
(2l m!
b n n!) = epm
m
b > 2. Since epm
c
c
(m
b ′ !).
(n!) ≥ n′ epm
(n′ !) − epm
(m
b ′ !) + epm
n = n′ epm
c
c
c
c

(m
b ′ !) = 0. Hence m
b ′ < pm
b
(m
b ′ !) ≤ n/n′ < 1 and consequently epm
Thus epm
b ≤ m.
c
c
Now, we have
(n)
(n′ ) n − Spm
n′ − Spm
c
c
−
.
(n!) =
(n′ !) − epm
n = epm
c
c
pm
−
1
p
−
1
b
m
b
Thus
(n) > (pm
(n′ ) + n − Spm
n′ = (pm
b − 1)n ≥ 2n.
b − 1)n + Spm
c
c
′

′

On the other hand, epn′ (2l m!
b n n!) = epn′ (2l m
b ′ !n n′ !) and by invoking Bertrand’s
′
postulate, if follows that nepn′ (m!)
b = n epn′ (m
b ′ !) + 1. Thus epn′ (m!)
b 6= 0 and
′
consequently epn′ (m
b !) 6= 0. Also, by Bertrand’s postulate, we have
Thus

m
b − Spn′ (m)
b
epn′ (m!)
b
n′
m
b
=
>
> pm
.
b −1≥
m
b ′ − Spn′ (m
b ′)
epn′ (m
b ′ !)
n
2

2(m
b − Spn′ (m))
b
Sp ′ (m)
b
=2−2 n
< 2.
m
b
m
b
Hence m
b ′ − Spn′ (m
b ′ ) ≤ 1. Since m
b ′ − Spn′ (m
b ′ ) = (pn′ − 1)epn′ (m
b ′ !), it follows that
epn′ (m
b ′ !) = 0, which is a contradiction.
Thus m
b ≤ 2. If m
b = 2, then
m
b ′ − Spn′ (m
b ′) <

′

′

′

b +εm′ )n −εn′ (εm
c ′ +εm′ ) m
2(3+εm )n−εm εn n! = 2(m
b ′ !n n′ !.

′

Hence n = n′ − 1 and m
b ′ ≤ 2. If m
b ′ = 2, then n′ = 2(εm −εm′ )n −3−2εm , which
′
implies that εm = 1 and εm′ = 0. Hence n′ = 2n −5 , which holds only if n′ = 8 and
consequently n = 7. Then
(Z2 ≀ S2 × Z2 ) ≀ S7 ∼
= Z2 × (Z2 ≀ S2 ) ≀ S8 ,
which is impossible by Jordan-Hölder’s theorem for the simple sections of the left
hand side group are Z2 and A7 while the simple sections of the right hand side
′
′
group are Z2 and A8 . Also, if m
b ′ = 1, then n′ = 2(2+εm −εm′ )n −3−2εm ≥ 22n −5 ,
which is impossible.

JACOBSON GRAPH

9

Finally, suppose that m
b = 1. Then m = 5 and we have
′

′

′

b +εm′ )n −εn′ (εm
c ′ +εm′ ) m
22n−2εn n! = 2(m
b ′ !n n′ !.

Hence n = n′ − 1 and m
b ′ = 1. Thus m′ = 5 so that n′ = 2−4 , which is not an
integer. The proof is complete.

n

n

Theorem 3.7. Let R = F1m1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fsms and R′ = F ′ 1 1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ F ′ t t be two finite
semi-simple rings.
(1) If mi , nj > 1 for i = 1, . . . , s and j = 1, . . . , t, and either the number of
fields of order 2 in R and R′ is not equal to 4 or the number of fields of
order 3 and 4 in R and R′ is not equal to 3, then R ∼
= R′ if and only if
′
).
Aut(JR ) ∼
Aut(J
=
R
(2) If all the fields Fi and Fj have the same parity of order different from 3
and 4, and either the number of fields of order 2 in R and R′ is not equal
to 4 or the number of fields of order 8 and 9 in R and R′ is greater than 1,
then R ∼
= R′ if and only if Aut(JR ) ∼
= Aut(JR′ ).

Proof. We know, by Krull, Remak and Schmidt Theorem [12, Theorem 3.3.8], that
every finite group can be expressed, up to isomorphism, as a direct product of some
indecomposable groups. Now, the result follows by using Corollary 3.4 and Lemmas
3.5 and 3.6.

Acknowledgment. The authors would like to thank Prof. Peter M. Neumann
for pointing out that the groups in Lemma 3.6 have different orders except for few
possibilities.
References
[1] S. Akbari and A. Mohammadian, On the zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, J. Algebra
274(2) (2004), 847–855.
[2] D. F. Anderson, A. Frazier, A. Lauve and P. S Livingston, The zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, II, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math 220 (2001), 61–72.
[3] D. F. Anderson and P. S. Livingston, The zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, J. Algebra
217 (1999), 434–447.
[4] A. Azimi, A. Erfanian and M. Farrokhi D. G., The Jacobson graph of commutative rings, To
appear in J. Algebra Appl.
[5] M. R. Dixon and T. A. Fournelle, The indecomposability of certain wreath products indexed
by partially ordered sets, Arch. Math. 43 (1984), 193–207.
[6] J. Han, The zero-divisor graph under group action in a noncommutative ring, J. Korean Math.
Soc. 45(6) (2008), 1647–1659.
[7] F. Harary, The automorphism group of a hypercube, J. UCS 6(1) (2000), 136–138.
[8] M. W. Liebeck, Graphs whose full automorphism group is a symmetric group, J. Austral.
Math. Soc. Ser. A 44(1) (1988), 46–63.
[9] B. R. Macdonald, Finite Rings with Identity, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1974.
[10] A. Mohammadian, On zero-divisor graphs of Boolean rings, Pacific J. Math. 251(2) (2011),
375–383.
[11] S. Park and J. Han, The group of graph automorphisms over a matrix ring, J. Korean Math.
Soc. 48(2) (2011), 301–309.
[12] D. J. S. Robinson, A Course in the Theory of Groups, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1995.
Department of Pure Mathematics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
E-mail address: ali.azimi61@gmail.com
Department of Pure Mathematics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
E-mail address: erfanian@math.um.ac.ir

10

A. AZIMI, A. ERFANIAN AND M. FARROKHI D. G.

Department of Pure Mathematics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
E-mail address: m.farrokhi.d.g@gmail.com

