arXiv:0807.1835v4 [math.AC] 2 Sep 2015

CONTENT ALGEBRAS OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS WITH
ZERO-DIVISORS
PEYMAN NASEHPOUR
A BSTRACT. Let M be an R-module and c the function from M to the ideals of R defined
by c(x) = ∩{I : I is an ideal of R and x ∈ IM}. M is said to be a content R-module if
x ∈ c(x)M, for all x ∈ M. B is called a content R-algebra, if it is a faithfully flat and
content R-module and it satisfies the Dedekind-Mertens content formula. In this article,
we prove some new results for content modules and algebras by using ideal theoretic
methods.

C ONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Content Modules and Algebras
3. Prime Ideals in Content Algebras
4. Rings and modules having few zero-divisors
5. Gaussian and Armendariz Algebras
6. Nilradical and Jacobson radical of content algebras
7. Acknowledgment
References

1
3
7
8
10
12
14
14

1. I NTRODUCTION
This preprint is a collection of some of the definitions and results that the author was
working on them during his studentship at the Department of Mathematics and Computer
Science at the University of Osnabrück. Though this preprint was never submitted for
publication, but its definitions and results were reproduced and used in a couple of different papers composed by the author and were published in different journals. Since the
author has cited to this preprint in some of his papers, it was necessary to update and edit
it for the convenience of the readers of his papers.
Throughout this paper, all rings are commutative with unit and all modules are assumed
to be unitary. In this paper, we discuss the ideal theoretic properties of some special
algebras called content algebras. This concept stems from Dedekind-Mertens content
1

2

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

formula for polynomial rings. For doing this, we need to know about content modules
introduced in [22], which in the next section, we introduce them and then we start the
main theme of the paper that is on content algebras over rings with zero-divisors. Our
main goal is to show that a couple of ideal theoretic results of polynomial rings, also hold
for content algebras.
The class of content modules are themselves considerable and interesting in the field of
module theory. For example, all projective modules are content and a kind of Nakayama
lemma holds for content modules.
Let R be a commutative ring with identity, and M a unitary R-module and the content
function, c from M to the ideals of R defined by
c(x) =

\

{I : I is an ideal of R and x ∈ IM}.

M is called a content R-module if x ∈ c(x)M, for all x ∈ M.
In Section 2, we prove that if M is a content R-module and Jac(R) is the Jacobson
radical of R and I, an ideal of R such that I ⊆ Jac(R), then IM = M implies M = (0).
Also we introduce content and weak content algebras and mention some of their basic
properties that we need them in the rest of the paper for the convinience of the reader. Let
R be a commutative ring with identity and R′ an R-algebra. R′ is defined to be a content
R-algebra, if the following conditions hold:
(1) R′ is a content R-module.
(2) (Faithfully flatness) For any r ∈ R and f ∈ R′ , the equation c(r f ) = rc( f ) holds
and c(R′ ) = R.
(3) (Dedekind-Mertens content formula) For each f and g in R′ , there exists a natural
number n such that c( f )n c(g) = c( f )n−1 c( f g).
In this section, also we prove that if R is a ring and S, a commutative monoid, then the
monoid ring B = R[S] is a content R-algebra if and only if one of the following conditions
satisfies:
(1) For f , g ∈ B, if c( f ) = c(g) = R, then c( f g) = R.
(2) (McCoy’s Property) For g ∈ B, g is a zero-divisor of B iff there exists r ∈ R − {0}
such that rg = 0.
(3) S is a cancellative and torsion-free monoid.
In Section 3, we discuss about prime ideals of content and weak content algebras (Cf.
[23]) and we show that in content extensions, minimal primes extend to minimal primes.
More precisely, if B is a content R-algebra, then there is a correspondence between Min(R)
and Min(B), with the function ϕ : Min(R) −→ Min(B) defined by p −→ pB.

CONTENT ALGEBRAS OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS WITH ZERO-DIVISORS

3

In Section 4, we introduce a family of rings and modules who have very few zerodivisors. It is a well-known result that the set of zero-divisors of a finitely generated
module over a Noetherian ring is a finite union of the associated primes of the module
[16, p. 55]. Rings having few zero-divisors have been introduced in [8]. We define that
a ring R has very few zero-divisors, if Z(R) is a finite union of prime ideals in Ass(R). In
this section, we prove that if R is a ring that has very few zero-divisors and B is a content
R-algebra, then B has very few zero-divisors also.
Another celebrated property of Noethering rings is that every ideal entirely contained
in the set of its zero-divisors has a nonzero annihilator. A ring R has Property (A), if
each finitely generated ideal I ⊆ Z(R) has a nonzero annihilator [15]. In Section 5, also
we prove some results for content algebras over rings having Property (A) and then we
discuss on rings and modules having few zero-divisors in more details.
In Section 5, we discuss Gaussian and Armendariz content algebras that are natural
generalization of the same concepts in polynomials rings. In this section we show that if
B is a content R-algebra, then B is a Gaussian R-algebra iff for any ideal I of R, B/IB is
an Armendariz (R/I)-algebra. This is a generalization of a result in [3].
In Section 6, we prove some results about Nilradical and Jacobson radical of content algebras, i.e., statements about content algebras over domainlike and presimplifiable rings.
Also we show some results similar to what we have for the ring R(X ) = R[X ]S, where
S = { f ∈ R[X ] : c( f ) = R}.
Some of the results of the present paper can be generalized to monoid modules. Whenever it is possible, we bring those results, though their similar proofs are omitted. Unless
otherwise stated, our notation and terminology will follow as closely as possible that of
Gilmer [11].
2. C ONTENT M ODULES

AND

A LGEBRAS

In this section, first we give the definition of content modules and prove Nakayama
lemma for them and then we introduce content and weak content algebras with some
results that we need in the rest of the paper for the convinience of the reader. More on
content modules and algebras can be found in [22] and [23].
Definition 1. Let R be a commutative ring with identity, and M a unitary R-module and
the content function, c from M to the ideals of R defined by
c(x) =

\

{I : I is an ideal of R and x ∈ IM}.

4

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

M is called a content R-module if x ∈ c(x)M, for all x ∈ M, also when N is a non-empty
subset of M, then by c(N) we mean the ideal generated by all c(x) that x ∈ N.
Theorem 2. Nakayama Lemma for Content Modules: Let M be a content R-module
and Jac(R) be the Jacobson radical of R and I be an ideal of R such that I ⊆ Jac(R). If
IM = M, then M = (0).
Proof. Let x ∈ M. Since M is a content R-module, x ∈ c(x)M, but IM = M, so x ∈ c(x)IM
and therefore c(x) ⊆ c(x)I, but c(x) is a finitely generated ideal of R [22, 1.2, p. 51], so by
Nakayama lemma for finitely generated modules, c(x) = (0) and consequently x = 0. 
Corollary 3. Let P be a projective R-module and Jac(R) be the Jacobson radical of R and
I be an ideal of R such that I ⊆ Jac(R). If IP = P, then P = (0).
Proof. Any projective module is a content module [22, Corollary 1.4].



Lemma 4. Let M be an R-module. The following statements are equivalent:
(1) M is a content R-module, i.e. x ∈ c(x)M, for all x ∈ M.
T
T
(2) For any non-empty family of ideals {Ii } of R, (Ii )M = (Ii M).
Moreover when M is a content R-module, c(x) is a finitely generated ideal of R, for all
x ∈ M.
Theorem 5. Let M be a content R-module. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) M is flat.
(2) For every r ∈ R and x ∈ M, rc(x) = c(rx).
Moreover, M is faithfully flat iff M is flat and c(M) = R.
Proof. Proof at [22, Corollary 1.6, p. 53] and [22, Remark 2.3(d), p. 56].



The application of the above theorem will appear in the next section on content algebras. Also with the help of the above theorem, we will describe some of the prime and
primary submodules of faithfully flat and content modules.
Definition 6. Let M be an R-module and P be a proper R-submodule of M. P is said to
be a prime submodule of M, if rx ∈ P implies x ∈ P or rM ⊆ P, for each r ∈ R and x ∈ M.
Definition 7. Let M be an R-module and P be a proper R-submodule of M. P is said to
be a primary submodule of M, if rx ∈ P then x ∈ P or there exists a natural number n such
that rn M ⊆ P, for each r ∈ R and x ∈ M.
Theorem 8. Let M be a content and faithfully flat R-module and p be an ideal of R. Then
pM is a primary (prime) R-submodule of M iff p is a primary (prime) ideal of R.

CONTENT ALGEBRAS OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS WITH ZERO-DIVISORS

5

Proof. Let p be a prime ideal of R and r ∈ R and x ∈ M such that rx ∈ pM. Therefore
c(rx) ⊆ p and since c(rx) = rc(x) we have rc(x) ⊆ p and this means that c(x) ⊆ p or
(r) ⊆ p and at last x ∈ pM or rM ⊆ pM. Notice that since M is a faithfully flat R-module,
pM 6= M. The other assertions can be proved in a similar way.

Content algebras and later weak content algebras were introduced and discussed in [22]
and [23] respectively. Content algebras are actually a natural generalization of (almost)
polynomial rings [9]. Let R be a commutative ring with identity. For f ∈ R[X ], the content
of f , denoted by c( f ), is defined as the R-ideal generated by the coefficients of f . One
can easily check that c( f g) ⊆ c( f )c(g) for the two polynomials f , g ∈ R[X ] and may
ask when the equation c( f g) = c( f )c(g) holds. Tsang, a student of Kaplansky, proved
that if D is an integral domain and c( f ), for f ∈ D[X ], is an invertible ideal of D, then
c( f g) = c( f )c(g), for all g ∈ D[X ]. Tsang’s guess was that the converse was true and
the correctness of her guess was completely proved some decades later [17]. Though the
equation c( f g) = c( f )c(g) does not hold always, a weaker formula always holds that is
called the Dedekind-Mertens content formula [4].
Theorem 9. Dedekind-Mertens Lemma. Let R be a ring. For each f and g in R[X ], there
exists a natural number n such that c( f )n c(g) = c( f )n−1 c( f g).
For a history of Dedekind-Mertens lemma, refer to [13] and its combinatorial proof,
refer to [6, Corollary 2]. Now we bring the definition of content algebras from [22, 6, p.
63]:
Definition 10. Let R be a commutative ring with identity and R′ an R-algebra. R′ is
defined to be a content R-algebra, if the following conditions hold:
(1) R′ is a content R-module.
(2) (Faithfully flatness) For any r ∈ R and f ∈ R′ , the equation c(r f ) = rc( f ) holds
and c(R′ ) = R.
(3) (Dedekind-Mertens content formula) For each f and g in R′ , there exists a natural
number n such that c( f )n c(g) = c( f )n−1 c( f g).
A good example of a content R-algebra is the group ring R[G] where G is a torsion-free
abelian group [19]. This is actually a free R-module. For some examples of content Ralgebras that as R-modules are not free, one can refer to [22, Examples 6.3, p. 64]. Rush
defined weak content algebras as follows [23, p. 330]:
Definition 11. Let R be a commutative ring with identity and R′ an R-algebra. R′ is
defined to be a weak content R-algebra, if the following conditions hold:
(1) R′ is a content R-module.

6

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

(2) (Weak content formula) For all f and g in R′ , c( f )c(g) ⊆ rad(c( f g)) (Here rad(A)
denotes the radical of the ideal A).
Also he gave an equivalent condition for when an algebra that is a content module is a
weak content algebra [23, Theorem 1.2, p. 330]:
Theorem 12. Let R′ be an R-algebra such that R′ is a content R-module. The following
are equivalent:
(1) R′ is a weak content R-algebra.
(2) For each prime ideal p of R, either pR′ is a prime ideal of R′ , or pR′ = R′ .
It is obvious that content algebras are weak content algebras, but the converse is not
true. For more on this interesting topic, refer to [10, Example 4.1]. We end our introductory section with the following results:
Theorem 13. Let R be a ring and S be a commutative monoid. Then the following statements about the monoid algebra B = R[S] are equivalent:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

B is a content R-algebra.
B is a weak content R-algebra.
For f , g ∈ B, if c( f ) = c(g) = R, then c( f g) = R.
(McCoy’s Property) For g ∈ B, g is a zero-divisor of B iff there exists r ∈ R − {0}
such that rg = 0.
(5) S is a cancellative and torsion-free monoid.

Proof. (1) → (2) → (3) and (1) → (4) are obvious ([22] and [23]). Also according to
[19] (5) implies (1). Therefore the proof will be complete if we prove that (3) and also (4)
implies (5).
(3) → (5): We prove that if S is not cancellative nor torsion-free then (3) cannot hold.
For the moment, suppose that S is not cancellative, so there exist s,t, u ∈ S such that
s +t = s + u while t 6= u. Put f = X s and g = (X t − X u ). Then obviously c( f ) = c(g) = R,
while c( f g) = (0). Finally suppose that S is cancellative but not torsion-free. Let s,t ∈ S
be such that s 6= t, while ns = nt for some natural n. Choose the natural number k minimal
(k−i−1)s+it ).
so that ns = nt. Then we have 0 = X ks − X kt = (X s − X t )(∑k−1
i=0 X
Since S is cancellative, the choice of k implies that (k −i1 −1)s+i1t 6= (k −i2 −1)s+i2t
(k−i−1)s+it 6= 0, and this completes the proof.
for 0 ≤ i1 < i2 ≤ k − 1. Therefore ∑k−1
i=0 X
In a similar way one can prove (4) → (5) [12, p. 82].

Remark 14. Let S be a commutative monoid and M be a nonzero R-module. It is trivial
that M[S] is an R[S]-module. Let g ∈ M[S] and put g = m1 s1 + m2 s2 + · · · + mn sn , where
m1 , . . ., mn ∈ M and s1 , . . . , sn ∈ S. We define the content of g to be the R-submodule of M

CONTENT ALGEBRAS OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS WITH ZERO-DIVISORS

7

generated by the coefficients of g, i.e. c(g) = (m1 , . . . , mn ). The following statements are
equivalent:
(1) S is a cancellative and torsion-free monoid.
(2) For all f ∈ R[S] and g ∈ M[S], there exists a natural number k such that c( f )k c(g) =
c( f )k−1 c( f g).
(3) (McCoy’s Property) For all f ∈ R[S] and g ∈ M[S] − {0}, if f g = 0, then there
exists an m ∈ M − {0} such that f · m = 0.
Proof. (1) → (2) and (2) → (3) have been proved in [19] and [18] respectively. For
(3) → (1) use the technique in the previous theorem.

3. P RIME I DEALS

IN

C ONTENT A LGEBRAS

Let B be a weak content R-algebra such that for all m ∈ Max(R) (by Max(R), we mean
the maximal ideals of R), we have mB 6= B, then by Theorem 12, prime ideals extend
to prime ideals. Particularly in R-content algebras - that are faithfully flat R-modules by
definition - primes extend to primes. We recall that when B is a content R-algebra, then g
is a zero-divisor of B, iff there exists an r ∈ R − {0} such that rg = 0 [22, 6.1, p. 63]. Now
we give the following theorem about associated prime ideals. We assert that by AssR (M),
we mean the associated prime ideals of R-module M.
Theorem 15. Let B be a content R-algebra and M a nonzero R-module. If p ∈ AssR (M)
then pB ∈ AssB (M ⊗R B).
Proof. Let p ∈ AssR (M), therefore 0 −→ R/p −→ M is an R-exact sequence. Since B is
a faithfully flat R-module, we have the following B-exact sequence:
0 −→ B/pB −→ M ⊗R B
with pB = Ann(x ⊗R 1B ). Since B is a content R-algebra, pB is a prime ideal of B.



We give a general theorem on minimal prime ideals in algebras. One of the results of
this theorem is that in faithfully flat weak content algebras (including content algebras),
minimal prime ideals extend to minimal prime ideals and more precisely, there is actually
a correspondence between the minimal prime ideals of the ring and their extensions in the
algebra.
Theorem 16. Let B be an R-algebra with the following properties:
(1) For each prime ideal p of R, the extended ideal pB of B is prime.
(2) For each prime ideal p of R, pB ∩ R = p.
Then the function ϕ : Min(R) −→ Min(B) given by p −→ pB is a bijection.

8

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

Proof. First we prove that if p is a minimal prime ideal of R, then pB is also a minimal
prime ideal of B. Let Q be a prime ideal of B such that Q ⊆ pB. So Q ∩ R ⊆ pB ∩ R = p.
Since p is a minimal prime ideal of R, we have Q ∩ R = p and therefore Q = pB. This
means that ϕ is a well-defined function. Obviously the second condition causes ϕ to
be one-to-one. The next step is to prove that ϕ is onto. For showing this, consider Q ∈
Min(B), so Q∩R is a prime ideal of R such that (Q∩R)B ⊆ Q and therefore (Q∩R)B = Q.
Our claim is that (Q ∩ R) is a minimal prime ideal of R. Suppose p is a prime ideal of R
such that p ⊆ Q ∩ R, then pB ⊆ Q and since Q is a minimal prime ideal of B, pB = Q =
(Q ∩ R)B and therefore p = Q ∩ R.

Corollary 17. Let B be a weak content and faithfully flat R-algebra, then the function
ϕ : Min(R) −→ Min(B) given by p −→ pB is a bijection.
Proof. Since B is a weak content and faithfully flat R-algebra, then for each prime ideal p
of R, the extended ideal pB of B is prime and also c(1B ) = R by [22, Corollary 1.6] and
[23, Theorem 1.2]. Now consider r ∈ R, then c(r) = c(r · 1B) = r · c(1B ) = (r). Therefore

if r ∈ IB ∩ R, then (r) = c(r) ⊆ I. Thus for each prime ideal p of R, pB ∩ R = p.
Corollary 18. Let R be a Noetherian ring. Then ϕ : Min(R) −→ Min(R[[X1, . . . , Xn ]])
given by p −→ p.(R[[X1, . . . , Xn]]) is a bijection.
4. R INGS

AND MODULES HAVING FEW ZERO - DIVISORS

For a ring R, by Z(R), we mean the set of zero-divisors of R. In [8], it has been defined
that a ring R has few zero-divisors, if Z(R) is a finite union of prime ideals. We present
the following definition to prove some other theorems related to content algebras.
Definition 19. A ring R has very few zero-divisors, if Z(R) is a finite union of prime ideals
in Ass(R).
Theorem 20. Let R be a ring that has very few zero-divisors. If B is a content R-algebra,
then B has very few zero-divisors also.
Proof. Let Z(R) = p1 ∪ p2 ∪ · · · ∪ pn , where pi ∈ AssR (R) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. We will
show that Z(B) = p1 B ∪ p2 B ∪ · · · ∪ pn B. Let g ∈ Z(B), so there exists an r ∈ R − {0}
such that rg = 0 and so rc(g) = (0). Therefore c(g) ⊆ Z(R) and this means that c(g) ⊆
p1 ∪ p2 ∪ · · · ∪ pn and according to Prime Avoidance Theorem, we have c(g) ⊆ pi , for
some 1 ≤ i ≤ n and therefore g ∈ pi B. Now let g ∈ p1 B ∪ p2 B ∪ · · · ∪ pn B so there exists
an i such that g ∈ pi B, so c(g) ⊆ pi and c(g) has a nonzero annihilator and this means that

g is a zero-divisor of B. Note that pi B ∈ AssB (B), for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Remark 21. Let R be a ring and consider the following three conditions on R:

CONTENT ALGEBRAS OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS WITH ZERO-DIVISORS

9

(1) R is a Noetherian ring.
(2) R has very few zero-divisors.
(3) R has few zero-divisors.
Then, (1) → (2) → (3) and none of the implications are reversible.
Proof. For (1) → (2) use [16, p. 55]. It is obvious that (2) → (3).
Suppose k is a field, A = k[X1 , X2, X3 , . . ., Xn , . . .] and m = (X1, X2 , X3, . . . , Xn , . . .) and at
last I = (X12, X22 , X32, . . . , Xn2, . . .). Since A is a content k-algebra and k has very few zerodivisors, A has very few zero-divisors while it is not a Noetherian ring. Also consider the
ring R = A/I. It is easy to check that R is a quasi-local ring with the only prime ideal m/I
and Z(R) = m/I and finally m/I ∈
/ AssR (R). Note that AssR (R) = 0.
/

Now we bring the following definition from [15] and prove some other results for
content algebras.
Definition 22. A ring R has Property (A), if each finitely generated ideal I ⊆ Z(R) has a
nonzero annihilator.
Let R be a ring. If R has very few zero-divisors (for example if R is Noetherian), then R
has Property (A) [16, Theorem 82, p. 56], but there are some non-Noetherian rings which
have not Property (A) [16, Exercise 7, p. 63]. The class of non-Noetherian rings having
Property (A) is quite large [14, p. 2].
Theorem 23. Let B be a content R-algebra such that R has Property (A). Then T (B) is a
content T (R)-algebra, where by T (R), we mean total quotient ring of R.
Proof. Let S′ = B − Z(B). If S = S′ ∩ R, then S = R − Z(R). We prove that if c( f ) ∩ S = 0,
/
′
then f 6∈ S . In fact when c( f ) ∩ S = 0,
/ then c( f ) ⊆ Z(R) and since R has Property (A),
c( f ) has a nonzero annihilator. This means that f is a zero-divisor of B and according to
[22, Theorem 6.2, p. 64], the proof is complete.

Theorem 24. Let B be a content R-algebra such that the content function c : B −→ FId(R)
is onto, where by FId(R), we mean the set of finitely generated ideals of R. The following
statements are equivalent:
(1) R has Property (A).
(2) For all f ∈ B, f is a regular member of B iff c( f ) is a regular ideal of R.
Proof. (1) → (2): Let R has Property (A). If f ∈ B is regular, then for all nonzero r ∈ R,
r f 6= 0 and so for all nonzero r ∈ R, rc( f ) 6= (0), i.e. Ann(c( f )) = (0) and according to
the definition of Property (A), c( f ) 6⊆ Z(R). This means that c( f ) is a regular ideal of R.
Now let c( f ) be a regular ideal of R, so c( f ) 6⊆ Z(R) and therefore Ann(c( f )) = (0). This

10

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

means that for all nonzero r ∈ R, rc( f ) 6= (0), hence for all nonzero r ∈ R, r f 6= 0. Since
B is a content R-algebra, f is not a zero-divisor of B.
(2) → (1): Let I be a finitely generated ideal of R such that I ⊆ Z(R). Since the content
function c : B −→ FId(R) is onto, there exists an f ∈ B such that c( f ) = I. But c( f ) is not
a regular ideal of R, therefore according to our assumption, f is not a regular member of
B. Since B is a content R-algebra, there exists a nonzero r ∈ R such that r f = 0 and this
means that rI = (0), i.e. I has a nonzero annihilator.

Remark 25. In the above theorem the surjectivity condition for the content function c is
necessary, because obviously R is a content R-algebra and the condition (2) is satisfied,
while one can choose the ring R such that it does not have Property (A) [16, Exercise 7,
p. 63].
Theorem 26. Let R have property (A) and B be a content R-algebra. Then Z(B) is a finite
union of prime ideals in Min(B) iff Z(R) is a finite union of prime ideals in Min(R).
Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 20 by considering Theorem 16.



Please note that if R is a Noetherian reduced ring, then Z(R) is a finite union of prime
ideals in Min(R) (Refer to [16, Theorem 88, p. 59] and [14, Corollary 2.4]). Now we
generalize the definition of rings having very few zero-divisors in the following way and
prove the monoid module version of the above theorem.
Definition 27. An R-module M has very few zero-divisors, if ZR (M) is a finite union of
prime ideals in AssR (M).
Remark 28. Examples of modules having very few zero-divisors. If R is a Noetherian
ring and M is an R-module such that AssR (M) is finite, then obviously M has very few
zero-divisors. For example AssR (M) is finite if M is a finitely generated R-module [16, p.
55]. Also if R is a Noetherian quasi-local ring and M is a balanced big Cohen-Macaulay
R-module, then AssR (M) is finite [7, Proposition 8.5.5, p. 344].
Theorem 29. Let R-module M have very few zero-divisors. If S is a commutative, cancellative, torsion-free monoid then the R[S]-module M[S] has very few zero-divisors also.
Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 20.
5. G AUSSIAN

AND



A RMENDARIZ A LGEBRAS

Definition 30. Let B be an R-algebra that is a content R-module. B is said to be a Gaussian
R-algebra if c( f g) = c( f )c(g), for all f , g ∈ B.

CONTENT ALGEBRAS OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS WITH ZERO-DIVISORS

11

For example if B is a content R-algebra such that every nonzero finitely generated ideal
of R is cancellation ideal of R, then B is a Gaussian R-algebra. Another example is given
in the following remark:
Remark 31. Let (R, m) be a quasi-local ring with m2 = (0). If B is a content R-algebra,
then B is a Gaussian R-algebra.
Proof. Let f , g ∈ B such that c( f ) ⊆ m and c(g) ⊆ m, then c( f g) = c( f )c(g) = (0), otherwise one of them, say c( f ), is R and according to Dedekind-Mertens content formula,
we have c( f g) = c(g) = c( f )c(g).

Theorem 32. Let M be an R-module such that every finitely generated R-submodule of M
is cyclic and S be a commutative, cancellative, torsion-free monoid. Then for all f ∈ R[S]
and g ∈ M[S], c( f g) = c( f )c(g).
Proof. Let g ∈ M[S] such that g = m1 g1 + m2 g2 + · · · + mn gn , where m1 , m2 , . . . , mn ∈ M
and g1 , g2 , . . ., gn ∈ S. Then there exists an m ∈ M, such that c(g) = (m1 , m2 , . . . , mn ) =
(m). From this, we can get mi = ri m and m = ∑ si mi , where ri , si ∈ R. Put d = ∑ si ri , then
m = dm. Since S is an infinite set, it is possible to choose gn+1 ∈ S − {g1 , g2, . . . , gn } and
put g′ = r1 g1 + r2 g2 + · · · + rn gn + (1 − d)gn+1 . One can easily check that g = g′ m and
c(g′ ) = R and c( f g) = c( f g′ m) = c( f g′ )m = c( f )m = c( f )c(g).

Corollary 33. Let R be a ring such that every finitely generated ideal of R is principal
and S be a commutative, cancellative, torsion-free monoid. Then R[S] is a Gaussian Ralgebra.
For more about content formulas for polynomial modules, refer to [21] and [5].
In the next step, we define Armendariz algebras and show their relationships with
Gaussian algebras. Armendariz rings were introduced in [24]. A ring R is said to be
an Armendariz ring if for all f , g ∈ R[X ] with f = a0 + a1 X + · · · + an X n and g = b0 +
b1 X + · · · + bm X m , f g = 0 implies ai b j = 0, for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n and 0 ≤ j ≤ m. This is equivalent to say that if f g = 0, then c( f )c(g) = 0 and our inspiration to define Armendariz
algebras.
Definition 34. Let B be an R-algebra such that it is a content R-module. We say B is an
Armendariz R-algebra if for all f , g ∈ B, if f g = 0, then c( f )c(g) = (0).
For example if B is a weak content R-algebra and R is a reduced ring, then B is an
Armendariz R-algebra.
Theorem 35. Let R be a ring and (0) a p-primary ideal of R such that p2 = (0) and B a
content R-algebra. Then B is an Armendariz R-algebra.

12

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

Proof. Let f , g ∈ B, where f g = 0. If f = 0 or g = 0, then definitely c( f )c(g) = 0,
otherwise suppose that f 6= 0 and g 6= 0, therefore f and g are both zero-divisors of B.
Since (0) is a p-primary ideal of R, so (0) is a pB-primary ideal of B [23, R, p. 331] and
therefore pB is the set of zero-divisors of B. So f , g ∈ pB and this means that c( f ) ⊆ p

and c(g) ⊆ p. Finally c( f )c(g) ⊆ p2 = (0).
In order to characterize Gaussian algebras in terms of Armendariz algebras, we should
mention the following useful remark.
Remark 36. Let R be a ring and I an ideal of R. If B is a Gaussian R-algebra then B/IB
is a Gaussian (R/I)-algebra also.
Theorem 37. Let B be a content R-algebra. Then B is a Gaussian R-algebra iff for any
ideal I of R, B/IB is an Armendariz (R/I)-algebra.
Proof. (→) : According to the above remark, since B is a Gaussian R-algebra, B/IB is
a Gaussian (R/I)-algebra and obviously any Gaussian algebra is an Armendariz algebra
and this completes the proof.
(←) : One can easily check that if B is an algebra such that it is a content R-module,
then for all f , g ∈ B, c( f g) ⊆ c( f )c(g) [23, Proposition 1.1, p. 330]. Therefore we need to
prove that c( f )c(g) ⊆ c( f g). Put I = c( f g), since B/IB is an Armendariz (R/I)-algebra
and c( f g + IB) = I so c( f + IB)c(g + IB) = I and this means that c( f )c(g) ⊆ c( f g). 
For more about Armendariz and Gaussian rings, one can refer to [3].
6. N ILRADICAL

AND JACOBSON RADICAL OF CONTENT ALGEBRAS

Definition 38. A ring R is said to be domainlike if any zero-divisor of R is nilpotent, i.e.
Z(R) ⊆ Nil(R) [2, Definition 9].
Theorem 39. If B is a content R-algebra, then R is domainlike iff B is domainlike.
Proof. The ring R is domainlike iff (0) is a primary ideal of R [2, Lemma 10]. Also it is
easy to prove that if B is a content R-algebra, then q is a p-primary ideal of R iff qB is a
pB-primary ideal of B [R, p. 331].

In a similar way one can see:
Remark 40. Let S be a commutative, cancellative and torsion-free monoid and M be an
R-module. Then ZR (M) ⊆ Nil(R) iff ZR[S] (M[S]) ⊆ Nil(R[S]).
Remark 41. If B is a weak content R-algebra, then Nil(B) = Nil(R)B, particularly R is a
reduced ring iff B is a reduced ring.

CONTENT ALGEBRAS OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS WITH ZERO-DIVISORS

13

Proof. It is obvious that Nil(R)B ⊆ Nil(B). Also it is easy to prove that for all f ∈ B and
natural number n, we have c( f )n ⊆ rad(c( f n )) and therefore if f ∈ B is nilpotent, then
c( f ) ⊆ Nil(R) and consequently f ∈ Nil(R)B.

Definition 42. A ring R is called presimplifiable if any zero-divisor of R is a member of
the Jacobson radical of R, i.e. Z(R) ⊆ Jac(R).
For more about presimplifiable rings, one can refer to [2]. In the following, our aim is
show when some of the content algebras are presimplifiable. For doing that, we need to
know about localization of content algebras that have been discussed in [22, Section 3, p.
56-58]. Actually we are interested in the following special case of localization:
Let B be a content R-algebra and S′ = { f ∈ B : c( f ) = R}. It is easy to check that
S
S′ = B − m∈Max(R) mB and S = S′ ∩ R = U (R), where by U (R), we mean the units of R.
According to [22, Theorem 6.2, p. 64], it is clear that BS′ is also a content R-algebra and
B is a subring of BS′ . This special content R-algebra has some interesting properties:
Theorem 43. Let B be a content R-algebra such that S′ = { f ∈ B : c( f ) = R} and put
R′ = BS′ , then the following statements hold:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

The map ϕ : Max(R) −→ Max(R′ ), defined by I −→ IR′ is a bijection.
Jac(R′ ) = Jac(R)R′ .
U (R′ ) = { f /g : c( f ) = c(g) = R}
The ring R′ is presimplifiable iff R is presimplifiable.
The ring R′ is 0-dimensional iff R is 0-dimensional.

Proof. The first proposition is actually a special case of [11, 4.8]. For the proof of the
second proposition, notice that the Jacobson radical of a ring is the intersection of all
maximal ideals. Now use [22, 1.2, p. 51].
It is obvious that if c( f ) = c(g) = R, then f /g is a unit of R′ . Now let f /g be a unit of
R′ , where c(g) = R and assume that there exists a member of R′ , say f ′ /g′ with c(g′ ) = R,
such that ( f /g) · ( f ′ /g′ ) = 1/1. According to McCoy’s property for content algebras,
S′ ⊆ B − ZB (B). So f f ′ = gg′ and f f ′ ∈ S′ . This means that f ∈ S′ and the proof of the
third proposition is complete.
For the proof of the forth proposition, suppose R is presimplifiable and let f ∈ Z(R′ ).
Therefore there exists a nonzero r ∈ R such that r f = 0 and so rc( f ) = (0). This means
that c( f ) ⊆ Z(R). Since R is presimplifiable, c( f ) ⊆ Jac(R) and at last f ∈ Jac(R)R′
and according to (2), f ∈ Jac(R′ ). It is easy to check that if R′ is presimplifiable then R
is presimplifiable also. For the proof of the fifth proposition note that a ring, say T , is
0-dimensional iff Min(T ) = Max(T ).


14

PEYMAN NASEHPOUR

Theorem 44. Let B be a content R-algebra with the property that if f ∈ B with c( f ) = (a)
where a ∈ R, then there exists an f1 ∈ B such that f = a f1 and c( f1 ) = R and put S′ =
{ f ∈ B : c( f ) = R} and R′ = BS′ . Then the idempotent members of R and R′ coincide.
Proof. Let f /g be an idempotent member of R′ , where f , g ∈ B and c(g) = R. Therefore
f g2 = g f 2 and since g is a regular member of B, we have f g = f 2 . So c( f 2 ) = c( f g) =
c( f ), but c( f 2 ) ⊆ c( f )2 , therefore c( f )2 = c( f ). We know that every finitely generated
idempotent ideal of a ring is generated by an idempotent member of the ring [G1, p. 63].
Therefore we can suppose that c( f ) = (e) such that e2 = e. On the other side we can find
an f1 ∈ B such that f = e f1 and c( f1 ) = R. Consider e f1 /g = f /g = f 2 /g2 = e2 f12 /g2 .
Since f1 and g are both regular, and e is idempotent, we have e = e f1 /g = f /g ∈ R. 
Corollary 45. Let R be a ring and M a commutative, cancellative and torsion-free monoid
and put S′ = { f ∈ R[M] : c( f ) = R} and R′ = BS′ . Then the idempotent members of R and
R′ coincide.
Definition 46. A commutative ring R is said to be a valuation ring if for any a and b in R
either a divides b or b divides a ([16, p. 35]).
Theorem 47. Let B be a content R-algebra with the property that if f ∈ B with c( f ) = (a)
where a ∈ R, then there exists an f1 ∈ B such that f = a f1 and c( f1 ) = R and put S′ =
{ f ∈ B : c( f ) = R} and R′ = BS′ . If R is a valuation ring, then so is R′ = BS′ .
Proof. Let f /g be a member of R′ , where f , g ∈ B and c(g) = R. Since c( f ) is a finitely
generated ideal of R and R is a valuation ring, there exists an r ∈ R such that c( f ) = (r)
and therefore there exists an f1 ∈ B such that f = r f1 and c( f1 ) = R. By considering this
fact that f1 /g is a unit in R′ , it is obvious that R′ is also a valuation ring and the proof is
complete.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank Prof. Winfried Bruns for his useful advice.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. P. Armendariz, A note on extensions of Baer and p.p.-rings, J. Austral. Math. Soc. 18 (1974),
470–473.
[2] D. D. Anderson, M. Axtell, S. F. Forman and Joe Stickles, Commutative rings with domain-type
properties, preprint.
[3] D. D. Anderson and V. Camillo, Armendariz rings and Gaussian rings, Comm. Algebra. 26 (1998),
2265–2272.
[4] J. T. Arnold and R. Gilmer, On the content of polynomials, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 40 (1970), 556–
562.

CONTENT ALGEBRAS OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS WITH ZERO-DIVISORS

15

[5] D. D. Anderson and B. G. Kang, Content formulas for polynomials and power series and complete
integral closure, J. Algebra, 181 (1996), 82–94.
[6] W. Bruns and A. Guerrieri, The Dedekind-Mertens formula and determinantal rings, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 127 (1999), no. 3, 657–663.
[7] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay Rings, revised edn., Cambridge, 1998.
[8] E. Davis, Overrings of commutative rings II. Integrally closed overrings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc,
110 (1964), 196–212.
[9] P. Eakin and J. Silver, Rings which are almost polynomial rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 174 (1974),
425–449.
[10] N. Epstein and J. Shapiro, A Dedekind-Mertens theorem for power series rings, to appear in Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc.
[11] R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1972.
[12] R. Gilmer, Commutative Semigroup Rings, The University of Chicago Press, 1984.
[13] W. Heinzer and C. Huneke, The Dedekind-Mertens Lemma and the content of polynomials, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 126 (1998), 1305–1309.
[14] J. A. Huckaba, Commutative Rings with Zero Divisors, Marcel Dekker, 1988.
[15] J. A. Huckaba and J. M. Keller, Annihilation of ideals in commutative rings, Pac. J. Math. 83 (1979),
375–379.
[16] I. Kaplansky, Commutative Rings, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1970.
[17] K. A. Loper and M. Roitman, The content of a Gaussian polynomial is invertible, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 133 (2005), 1267–1271.
[18] N. H. McCoy, Remarks on divisors of zero, Amer. Math. Monthly, 49 (1942), 286–295.
[19] D. G. Northcott, A generalization of a theorem on the content of polynomials, Proc. Cambridge Phil.
Soc. 55 (1959), 282–288.
[20] A. G. Naoum and A. S. Mijbass, Weak cancellation modules, Kyungpook Math. J., 37 (1997), 73–82.
[21] P. Nasehpour and S. Yassemi, M-cancellation Ideals, Kyungpook Math. J., 40 (2000), 259–263.
[22] J. Ohm and D. E. Rush, Content modules and algebras, Math. Scand. 31 (1972), 49–68.
[23] D. E. Rush, Content algebras, Canad. Math. Bull. Vol. 21 (3) (1978), 329–334.
[24] M. B. Rege and S. Chhawchharia, Armendariz rings, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 73, Number
1 (1997), 14–17.
[25] H. Tsang, Gauss’ lemma, dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1965.
U NIVERSIT ÄT O SNABR ÜCK , FB M ATHEMATIK /I NFORMATIK , 49069 O SNABR ÜCK , G ERMANY
E-mail address: pnasehpo@uni-osnabrueck.de
E-mail address: nasehpour@gmail.com

