arXiv:1701.06194v1 [math.AC] 22 Jan 2017

Journal of Algebra and Related Topics
Vol. XX, No XX, (201X), pp XX-XX

I-PRIME IDEALS
ISMAEL AKRAY
Abstract. In this paper, we introduce a new generalization of
weakly prime ideals called I-prime. Suppose R is a commutative
ring with identity and I a fixed ideal of R. A proper ideal P of R
is I-prime if for a, b ∈ R with ab ∈ P − IP implies either a ∈ P or
b ∈ P . We give some characterizations of I-prime ideals and study
some of its properties. Moreover, we give conditions under which
I-prime ideals becomes prime or weakly prime and we construct
the view of I-prime ideal in decomposite rings.

1. Introduction
Throughout this article, R will be a commutative ring with identity.
Prime ideals play an essential role in ring theory. A prime ideal P of
R is a proper ideal P with the property that for a, b ∈ R, ab ∈ P
implies a ∈ P or b ∈ P . There are several ways to generalize the
notion of a prime ideal. We could either restrict or enlarge where a
and/or b lie or restrict or enlarge where ab lies. In this article we will
interested in a generalization obtained by restricting where ab lies. A
proper ideal P of R is weakly prime if for a, b ∈ R with ab ∈ P − 0,
either a ∈ P or b ∈ P . Weakly prime ideals were studied in some
detail by Anderson and Smith (2003) in [1]. Thus any prime ideal is
weakly prime. Bhatwadekar and Sharma (2005) in [2] recently dened
a proper ideal I of an integral domain R to be almost prime if for
a, b ∈ R with ab ∈ I − I 2 , then either a ∈ I or b ∈ I. This denition
can obviously be made for any commutative ring R. Thus a weakly
MSC(2010): Primary: 13A15;
Keywords: Prime ideal, weakly prime ideal, almost prime ideal, radical of the ideal.
1

2

AKRAY

prime ideal is almost prime and any proper idempotent ideal is almost
prime. Moreover, an ideal I of R is almost prime if and only if I/I 2 is a
weakly prime ideal of R/I 2 . Also almost prime ideals were generalized
to n-almost prime as follows; a proper ideal I is called n-almost prime
ideal if for any a, b ∈ R with ab ∈ I − I n , then either a ∈ I or b ∈ I.
With weakly prime ideals and almost prime ideals in mind, we make
the following denition. Let R be a commutative ring and I be a fixed
ideal of R. Then a proper ideal P of R is called I-prime ideal if for
a, b ∈ R, ab ∈ P − IP , implies a ∈ P or b ∈ P . So every weakly prime
and n-almost prime ideal is I-prime where I taken to be zero or P n−1
respectively. If I = R, then every ideal is I-prime, so we can assume I
to be proper ideal of R. For more details see [3].
Example 1.1. Consider the ring Z12 and take P = I =< 4 >. Then
P is I-prime which is not prime nor weakly prime.
2. Main Results
We begin with the following lemma.
Lemma 2.1. Let P be a proper ideal of a ring R. Then P is an I-prime
ideal if and only if P/IP is weakly prime in R/IP .
Proof. (⇒) Let P be an I-prime in R. Let a, b ∈ R with 0 6= (a +
IP )(b + IP ) = ab + IP ∈ P/IP . Then ab ∈ P − IP implies a ∈ P or
b ∈ P , hence a + IP ∈ P/IP or b + IP ∈ P/IP . So P/IP is weakly
prime ideal in R/IP .
(⇐) Suppose that P/IP is weakly prime in R/IP and take r, s ∈ R
such that rs ∈ P − IP . Then 0 6= rs + IP = (r + IP )(s + IP ) ∈ P/IP
so r + IP ∈ P/IP or s + IP ∈ P/IP . Therefore r ∈ P or s ∈ P . Thus
P is an I-prime ideal in R.

Theorem 2.2. (1) Let I ⊆ J. If P is I-prime ideal of a ring R, then
it is J-prime.
(2) Let R be commutative ring and P an I-prime ideal that is not
prime, then P 2 ⊆ IP . Thus, an I-prime ideal P with P 2 * IP is
prime.
Proof. (1) The proof come from the fact that if I ⊆ J, then P − JP ⊆
P − IP . (2) Suppose that P 2 * IP , we show that P is prime. Let
ab ∈ P for a, b ∈ R. If ab ∈
/ IP , then P I-prime gives a ∈ P or b ∈ P .
So assume that ab ∈ IP . First, suppose that aP * IP ; say ax ∈
/ IP
for some x ∈ P . Then a(x + b) ∈ P − IP . So a ∈ P or x + b ∈ P and
hence a ∈ P or b ∈ P . So we can assume that aP ⊆ IP in similar way
we can assume that bP ⊆ IP . Since P 2 * IP , there exist y, z ∈ P with

I-PRIME

3

yz ∈
/ IP . Then (a + y)(b + z) ∈ P − IP . So P I-prime gives a + y ∈ P
or b + z ∈ P ; Hence a ∈ P or b ∈ P . Therefore P is prime.

In the following we give a counter example on the converse of part
(1) of Theorem 2.2.
Example 2.3. In the ring Z12 [x], put I = 0, J =< 4 > and P =<
4x >. Then P − IP =< 4x > −0 and P − JP =< 4x > − < 4 ><
4x >= φ. Hence P is J-prime but not I-prime.
Corollary 2.4. Let P be an I-prime ideal of a ring R with IP ⊆ P 3.
i
Then P is ∩∞
i=1 P -prime.
i
Proof. If P is prime, then P is ∩∞
i=1 P -prime. Assume that P is not
2
3
prime. By Theorem 2.2 P ⊆ IP ⊆ P . Thus IP = P n for each n ≥ 2.
i
2
2
∞
i
2
3
So ∩∞
i=1 P = P ∩ P = P and (∩i=1 P )P = P P = P = IP . Hence
∞
i
P I-prime implies P is ∩i=1 P -prime.

√
√
Remark √
2.5. Let P be I-prime ideal. Then P ⊆ IP or IP ⊆ P .
If
√ prime since otherwise IP ⊆ P implies
√ P $ √ IP , then P is not
IP ⊆ P = P . While if IP $ P , then P is prime.

Corollary
2.6.
√ Let P be I-prime ideal of a ring R which is not prime.
√
Then P = IP
√
√
√
Proof. By Theorem 2.2, P 2 ⊆ IP and hence P = P 2 ⊆ IP . The
other containment always holds.

i
Now we give a way to construct I-prime ideals P when ∩∞
i=1 P ⊆
3
IP ⊆ P .

Remark 2.7. Assume that P is I-prime, but not prime. Then by Theorem 2.2, if IP ⊆ P 2 , then P 2 = IP . In particular, if P is weakly prime
(0-prime) but not prime, then P 2 = 0. Suppose that IP ⊆ P 3. Then
P 2 ⊆ IP ⊆ P 3 ; So P 2 = P 3 and thus P 2 is idempotent.
Theorem 2.8. (1) Let R, S be commutative rings and P 0-prime ideal
of R. Then P × S is I-prime ideal of R × S for each ideal I of R × S
i
with ∩∞
i=1 (P × S) ⊆ I(P × S) ⊆ P × S.
(2) Let P be finitely generated proper ideal of commutative ring R.
Assume P is I-prime where IP ⊆ P 3 . Then either P is 0-prime or
P 2 6= 0 is idempotent and R decomposes as T × S where S = P 2 and
i
P = J × S where J is 0-prime. Thus P is I-prime for ∩∞
i=1 P ⊆ IP ⊆
P.

4

AKRAY

Proof. (1) Let R and S be commutative rings and P be weakly prime
(0-prime) ideal of R. Then P × S need not be a 0-prime ideal of R × S;
In fact, P × S is 0-prime if and only if P × S (or equivalently P ) is
prime [see Anderson 2003]. However, P × S is I-prime for each I with
i
∩∞
i=1 (P × S) ⊆ I(P × S). If P is prime , then P × S is prime ideal and
thus is I-prime for all I. Assume that P is not prime. Then P 2 = 0
i
∞
i
and (P × S)2 = 0 × S. Hence ∩∞
i=1 (P × S) = ∩i=1 P × S = 0 × S. Thus
∞
i
P × S − ∩i=1 (P × S) = P × S − 0 × S = (P − 0) × S. Since P is weakly
i
∞
i
prime, P × S is ∩∞
i=1 (P × S) -prime and as ∩i=1 (P × S) ⊆ I(P × S),
P × S is I-prime.
(2) If P is prime, then P is 0-prime. So we can assume that P is
not prime. Then P 2 ⊆ IP and hence P 2 ⊆ IP ⊆ P 3 . So P 2 = P 3 .
Hence P 2 is idempotent. Since P 2 is finitely generated, P 2 =< e > for
some idempotent e ∈ R. Suppose P 2 = 0. Then IP ⊆ P 3 = 0. So
IP = 0 and hence P is 0-prime. So assume P 2 6= 0. Put S = P 2 = Re
and T = R(1 − e), so R decomposesas T × S where S = P 2 . Let
J = P (1 − e), so P = J × S where J 2 = (P (1 − e))2 = P 2 (1 − e)2 =<
e > (1 − e) = 0. We show that J is 0-prime. Let ab ∈ J 2 − 0, so
(a, 1)(b, 1) = (ab, 1) ∈ J × S − (J × S)2 = J × S − 0 × S ⊆ P − IP
since IP ⊆ P 3 implies IP ⊆ P 3 = (J × S)3 = 0 × S. Hence (a, 1) ∈ P
or (b, 1) ∈ P so a ∈ J or b ∈ J. Therefore J is weakly prime.

Corollary 2.9. Let R be an indecomposable commutative ring and P
a finitely generated I-prime ideal of R, where IP ⊆ P 3 . Then P is
weakly prime.
Corollary 2.10. Let R be a Noetherian integral domain. A proper
ideal P of R is prime if and only if P is P 2 -prime.
Theorem 2.11. Let a be a non-unit element in R.
(1) Let (0 : a) ⊆ (a). Then (a) is I-prime for I(a) ⊆ (a)2 if and only
if (a) is prime.
Let (R, m) be quasi-local ring. Then
(2) (a) is I-prime for I(a) ⊆ (a)3 if and only if (a) is 0-prime.
(3) (a) is m-prime if and only if a is irreducible.
Proof. (1) Suppose that (a) is I-prime and bc ∈ (a). If bc ∈
/ I(a), then
b ∈ (a) or c ∈ (a). So suppose that bc ∈ I(a). Now (b + a)c ∈ (a). If
(b + a)c ∈
/ I(a), then b + a ∈ (a) or c ∈ (a) and hence b ∈ (a) or c ∈ (a).
So assume that (b + a)c ∈ I(a). Then ac ∈ I(a) and hence ac ∈ (a)2 .
So ac = za2 and hence c − za ∈ (0 : a). Thus c ∈ (0 : a) + (a) = (a).
The converse part is trivial since every prime ideal is I-prime.
(2) If (a) is 0-prime, then (a) is I-prime for each I with I(a) ⊆ (a)3 .
Conversely, let (a) be I-prime for I(a) ⊆ (a)3 . Since a quasi local ring

I-PRIME

5

has no nontrivial idempotents, (a) is 0-prime by Theorem 2.8 part(2).
(3) If a is irreducible means that a = xy implies that x ∈ (a) or y ∈ (a)
and (a) is m-prime means that xy ∈ (a) − m(a) which implies that
x ∈ (a) or y ∈ (a). But xy ∈ (a) − m(a) if and only if xy = za for
some unit z ∈ R if and only if a = z −1 xy for some unit z −1 ∈ R. Thus
(a) is m-prime if and only if a = xy implies x ∈ (a) or y ∈ (a).

We now give some characterizations of I-prime ideals.

Theorem 2.12. Let P be a proper ideal of R. Then the following are
equivalent:
(1) P is I-prime.
(2) For x ∈ R − P , (P : x) = P ∪ (IP : x)
(3) For x ∈ R − P , (P : x) = P or (P : x) = (IP : x)
(4) For ideals J and K of R, JK ⊆ P and JK * IP imply J ⊆ P or
K ⊆ P.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) Suppose r ∈ R − P . Let s ∈ (P : r), so rs ∈ P .
If rs ∈ P − IP , then s ∈ P . If rs ∈ IP , then s ∈ (IP : r), So
(P : r) ⊆ P ∪ (IP : r). The other containment always holds.
(2) ⇒ (3) Note that if an ideal is a union of two ideals, then it is equal
to one of them.
(3) ⇒ (4) Let J and K be two ideals of R with JK ⊆ P . Assume
that J * P and K * P . We claim that JK ⊆ IP . Suppose r ∈ J.
First, Let r ∈
/ P . Then rK ⊆ P gives K ⊆ (P : r). Now K * P ,
so (P : r) = (IP : r). Thus rK ⊆ IP . Next, let r ∈ J ∩ P . Choose
s ∈ J − P . Then r + s ∈ J − P . So by the first case sK ⊆ IP and so
(r + s)K ⊆ IP . Let t ∈ K. Then rt = (r + s)t − st ∈ IP . So rK ⊆ IP .
Hence JK ⊆ IP .
(4) ⇒ (1) Let rs ∈ P − IP . Then (r)(s) ⊆ P but (r)(s) * IP . So
(r) ⊆ P or (s) ⊆ P ; i-e. r ∈ P or s ∈ P .

Corollary
2.13. Suppose P is I-prime ideal that is not prime. Then
√
P IP ⊆ IP .
√
Proof. Let r ∈ IP . If r ∈ P , then rP ⊆ P 2 ⊆ IP by Theorem 2.2. So
assume that r ∈
/ P by Theorem 2.12, (P : r) = P or (P : r) = (IP : r).
As P ⊆ (P : r), the last gives rP ⊆ IP . So assume that (P : r) = P .
Let r n ∈ IP , but r n−1 ∈
/ IP . Then r n ∈ P , so r n−1 ∈ (P : r) = P .
n−1
Thus r
∈ P − IP , so r ∈ P a contradiction.

It is known that if S is a multiplicatively closed subset of a commutative ring R and P as a prime ideal of R with P ∩ S = φ, then S −1 P is
a prime ideal of S −1 R and S −1 P ∩ R = P . The first result extended to
weakly prime ideals in [2, Proposition 13] and to almost prime ideals in

6

AKRAY

[5, Lemma 2.13]. Fix an ideal I of R we prove that if P is I-prime with
P ∩ S = φ, then S −1 P is S −1 I-prime. Note that for an ideal J of R
with J ⊆ P , I(P/J) = (IP + J)/J. If P is prime (respectively, weakly
prime, n-almost prime), then so is P/J. We generalize this result to
I-prime ideals in the following proposition.
Proposition 2.14. Let R be a ring and I be an ideal of R. Let P be
I-prime ideal of R. Then the following are true.
(1) If J is an ideal of R with J ⊆ P , then P/J is I-prime ideal of R/J.
(2) Assume that S is multiplicatively closed subset of R with P ∩S = φ.
Then S −1 P is a S −1 I-prime ideal of S −1 R. If S −1 P 6= S −1 (IP ), then
S −1 P ∩ R = P .
Proof. (1) Let x, y ∈ R with x̄ȳ ∈ P/J − I(P/J) = P/J − (IP + J)/J.
Thus xy ∈ P − (IP + J). Hence xy ∈ P − IP , so x ∈ P or y ∈ P .
Therefore x̄ ∈ P/J or ȳ ∈ P/J; so P/J is I-prime.
(2) Let as bt ∈ S −1 P − S −1 I.S −1 P ⊆ S −1 P − S −1 (IP ) = S −1 (P − IP ).
So abk ∈ P − IP for some k ∈ S. Thus P I-prime gives a ∈ P or
bk ∈ P . So a/s ∈ S −1 P or b/t ∈ S −1 P . Hence S −1 P is S −1 I-prime.
Let a ∈ S −1 P ∩ R, so there exists u ∈ S with au ∈ P . If au ∈
/ IP ,
then au ∈ P − IP , so a ∈ P . If au ∈ IP , then a ∈ S −1 (IP ) ∩ R. So
S −1 P ∩ R ⊆ P ∪ (S −1 (IP ) ∩ R). Hence S −1 P ∩ R = P or S −1 P ∩ R =
S −1 (IP ) ∩ R. But the second case gives S −1 P = S −1 (IP ).

Let R1 and R2 be two rings. It is known that the prime ideals of
R1 × R2 have the form P × R2 or R1 × Q, where P is a prime ideal
of R1 and Q is a prime ideal of R2 . We next, generalize this result to
I-primes.
Theorem 2.15. For i = 1, 2 let Ri be ring and Ii ideal of Ri . Let
I = I1 × I2 . Then the I-prime ideals of R1 × R2 have exactly one of
the following three types:
(1) P1 × P2 , where Pi is a proper ideal of Ri with Ii Pi = Pi .
(2) P1 × R2 where P1 is an I1 -prime of R1 and I2 R2 = R2 .
(3) R1 × P2 , where P2 is an I2 -prime of R2 and I1 R1 = R1 .
Proof. We first prove that an ideal of R1 × R2 having one of these three
types is I-prime. The first type is clear since P1 × P2 − I(P1 × P2 ) =
P1 ×P2 −(I1 P1 ×I2 P2 ) = φ. Suppose that P1 is I1 -prime and I2 R2 = R2 .
Let (a, b)(x, y) ∈ P1 × R2 − I1 P1 × I2 R2 = P1 × R2 − I1 P1 × R2 =
(P1 − I1 P1 ) × R2 . Then ax ∈ P1 − I1 P1 implies that a ∈ P1 or x ∈ P1 ,
so (a, b) ∈ P1 × R2 or (x, y) ∈ P1 × R2 . Hence P1 × R2 is I-prime.
Similarly we can prove the last case.

I-PRIME

7

Next, let P1 × P2 be I-prime and ab ∈ P1 − I1 P1 . Then (a, 0)(b, 0) =
(ab, 0) ∈ P1 × P2 − I(P1 × P2 ), so (a, 0) ∈ P1 × P2 or (b, 0) ∈ P1 × P2 ,
i-e, a ∈ P1 or b ∈ P1 . Hence P1 is I1 -prime. Likewise, P2 is I2 -prime.
Assume that P1 ×P2 6= I1 P1 ×I2 P2 . Say P1 6= I1 P1 . Let x ∈ P1 −I1 P1
and y ∈ P2 . Then (x, 1)(1, y) = (x, y) ∈ P1 × P2 . So (x, 1) ∈ P1 × P2
or (1, y) ∈ P1 × P2 . Thus P2 = R2 or P1 = R1 . Assume that P2 = R2 .
So P1 × R2 is I-prime, where P1 is I1 -prime.

Acknowledgments
The author is deeply grateful to referee for his careful reading of the
manuscript. Whose comments made the paper more readable.

References
1. D. D. Anderson and E. Smith, Weakly prime ideals, Houston J. Math 29 (2003),
831–840.
2. S. M. Bhatwadekar and P. K. Sharma, Unique factorization and birth of almost
primes, Comm. Algebra 33 (2005), 43–49.
3. I. Kaplansky, Commutative Rings (Revised Edition), Chicago, University of
Chicago press, 1974.
Ismael Akray
Department of Mathematics, University of Soran Kurdistan region-Erbil, Iraq.
Email: ismael.akray@soran.edu.iq
ismaeelhmd@yahoo.com

