ZERO-ANNIHILATOR GRAPHS OF COMMUTATIVE RINGS

arXiv:1609.02537v1 [math.AC] 8 Sep 2016

HOJJAT MOSTAFANASAB
Abstract. Assume that R is a commutative ring with nonzero identity. In this
paper, we introduce and investigate zero-annihilator graph of R denoted by ZA(R).
It is the graph whose vertex set is the set of all nonzero nonunit elements of R
and two distinct vertices x and y are adjacent whenever
AnnR (x) ∩ AnnR (y) = {0}.

1. Introduction
Throughout this paper all rings are commutative with nonzero identity. In [6],
Beck associated to a ring R its zero-divisor graph G(R) whose vertices are the zerodivisors of R (including 0), and two distinct vertices x and y are adjacent if xy = 0.
Later, in [3], Anderson and Livingston studied the subgraph Γ(R) (of G(R)) whose
vertices are the nonzero zero-divisors of R. In the recent years, several researchers
have done interesting and enormous works on this field of study. For instance, see
[4, 5, 9]. The concept of co-annihilating ideal graph of a ring R, denoted by AR was
introduced by Akbari et al. in [1]. As in [1], co-annihilating ideal graph of R, denoted
by AR , is a graph whose vertex set is the set of all non-zero proper ideals of R and two
distinct vertices I and J are adjacent whenever AnnR (I) ∩ AnnR (J) = {0}. In the
present paper, we introduce zero-annihilator graph of R denoted by ZA(R). It is the
graph whose vertex set is the set of all nonzero nonunit elements of R and two distinct
vertices x and y are adjacent whenever AnnR (Rx+Ry) = AnnR (x)∩AnnR (y) = {0}.
Let G be a simple graph with the vertex set V(G) and edge set E(G). For every
vertex v ∈ V(G), NG (v) is the set {u ∈ V(G) | uv ∈ E(G)}. The degree of a
vertex v is defined as degG (v) = |NG (v)|. The minimum degree of G is denoted
by δ(G). Recall that a graph G is connected if there is a path between every two
distinct vertices. For distinct vertices x and y of a connected graph G, let dG (x, y)
be the length of the shortest path from x to y. The diameter of a connected graph
G is diam(G) = sup{dG (x, y) | x and y are distinct vertices of G}. The girth of
G, denoted by girth(G), is defined as the length of the shortest cycle in G and
girth(G) = ∞ if G contains no cycles. A bipartite graph is a graph all of whose
vertices can be partitioned into two parts U and V such that every edge joins a
vertex in U to a vertex in V . A complete bipartite graph is a bipartite graph with
parts U, V such that every vertex in U is adjacent to every vertex in V . A graph
in which all vertices have degree k is called a k-regular graph. A graph in which
each pair of distinct vertices is joined by an edge is called a complete graph. Also,
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 13A15; 16N40.
Key words and phrases. Commutative rings, Zero-annihilator graphs.
1

2

MOSTAFANASAB

if a graph G contains one vertex to which all other vertices are joined and G has
no other edges, is called a star graph. A clique in a graph G is a subset of pairwise
adjacent vertices and the number of vertices in a maximum clique of G, denoted by
ω(G), is called the clique number of G. Obviously, χ(G) ≥ ω(G).
2. Some properties of ZA(R)
Recall that, an empty graph is a graph with no edges. A Bézout ring is a ring in
which all finitely generated ideals are principal.
Theorem 2.1. Let R be a ring. If ZA(R) is an empty graph, then R is a local ring
and AnnR (x) 6= {0} for every nonunit element x ∈ R. The converse is true if R is
a Bézout ring.
Proof. Assume that ZA(R) is empty. Let m1 , m2 be two distinct maximal ideals
of R. Then m1 + m2 = R implies that there exist x ∈ m1 and x2 ∈ m2 such
that x + y = 1. So x and y are adjacent, which is a contradiction. Hence R is a
local ring. Let m be the maximal ideal of R and x be an element of m. Suppose
that AnnR (x) = {0}. Then {xn |n ∈ N} is an infinite clique in ZA(R) that is a
contradiction. So AnnR (x) 6= {0}.
Suppose that R is a local Bézout ring and AnnR (x) 6= {0} for every nonunit element
x ∈ R. Let x, y be two vertices in ZA(R). Then x, y ∈ m. Hence Rx + Ry = Rz
for some nonzero nonunit element z ∈ R. So x, y are not adjacent which shows that
ZA(R) is empty.

Remark 2.2. Suppose that R has a nontrivial idempotent element e. Then e + (1 −
e) = 1 implies that e and 1 − e are adjacent. Hence degZA(R) (e) ≥ 1 and so ZA(R) is
not an empty graph.
Remark 2.3. Let R be a ring. Notice that if R is an Artinian ring or a Boolean ring,
then dim(R) = 0. By [2, Theorem 3.4], dim(R) = 0 if and only if for every x ∈ R
there exists a positive integer n such that xn+1 divides xn . Therefore, every nonzero
nonunit element of a zero-dimensional ring has a nonzero annihilator. Hence, if R
is a zero-dimensional chained ring, then ZA(R) is an empty graph.
Let Z∗ (R) denote the zero divisors of R and Z(R) = Z∗ (R) ∪ {0}.
Theorem 2.4. Let R be a ring and S be a multiplicative closed subset of R such
that S ∩ Z(R) = {0}. Then ZA(R) ≃ ZA(RS ).
Proof. Define the vertex map Φ : V(ZA(R)) −→ V(ZA(RS )) by x 7→ x1 . We can
easily verify that x = y if and only if x1 = y1 . Also, it is easy to see that AnnR (x) ∩

AnnR (y) = {0} if and only if AnnRS ( x1 ) ∩ AnnRS ( y1 ) = { 10 }.
Theorem 2.5. Let R be a Bézout ring with |Max(R)| < ∞ such that δ(ZA(R)) > 0.
Then ZA(R) is a finite graph if and only if every vertex of ZA(R) has finite degree.
Proof. The “only if” part is evident.
Suppose that each vertex of ZA(R) has finite degree. If AnnR (x) = {0} for some
nonzero nonunit element x ∈ R, then x is adjacent to all vertices of ZA(R) that

ZERO-ANNIHILATOR GRAPHS OF COMMUTATIVE RINGS

3

implies ZA(R) is a finite graph. Assume that AnnR (x) 6= {0} for each nonzero
nonunit element x ∈ R. We claim that Jac(R) = {0}. On the contrary, assume that
there exists a nonzero element a ∈ Jac(R). Since ZA(R) has no isolated vertex, a is
adjacent to another vertex, say b. Since R is a Bézout ring, Ra + Rb is generated by
a nonzero nonunit element c of R and so AnnR (Ra + Rb) = AnnR (c) 6= {0}, which
is impossible. So Jac(R) = {0}. Hence by Chinese Remainder Theorem we have
R ≃ F1 × F2 × · · · × Fn , where Fi ’s are fields and n = |Max(R)|. Let 0 6= u ∈ F1 .
Then (u, 0, . . . , 0) and (0, 1, . . . , 1) are adjacent. Since (0, 1, . . . , 1) has finite degree,
so F1 is a finite field. Similarly we can show that Fi ’s are finite fields. Consequently
R has finitely many nonzero nonunit elements and the proof is complete.

Theorem 2.6. Let R be a Bézout ring with |Max(R)| < ∞. Then the following
conditions are equivalent:
(1) ZA(R) is a bipartite graph with δ(ZA(R)) > 0;
(2) ZA(R) is a complete bipartite graph;
(3) R ≃ F1 × F2 where F1 and F2 are two fields.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (3) Suppose that ZA(R) is a bipartite graph with δ(ZA(R)) > 0. If
AnnR (x) = {0} for some nonzero nonunit element x of R, then {xn |n ∈ N} is an
infinite clique that is a contradiction. Then, for every nonzero nonunit element x of
R we have AnnR (x) 6= {0}. Similar to the proof of Theorem 2.5 we can show that
R = F1 × F2 × · · · × Fn , where Fi ’s are fields and n = |Max(R)|. Clearly n 6= 1.
If n ≥ 3, then {(0, 1, . . . , 1), (1, 0, 1, . . . , 1), (1, 1, 0, 1, . . . , 1)} is a clique in ZA(R), a
contradiction. So R ≃ F1 × F2 .
(3) ⇒ (2) Suppose that R ≃ F1 × F2 where F1 and F2 are two fields. Every vertex
in ZA(R) is of the form (u, 0) or (0, v) where 0 6= u ∈ F1 and 0 6= v ∈ F2 . Also,
two vertices (u, 0) and (0, v) are adjacent. On the other hand, every two vertices
(u1 , 0), (u2, 0) cannot be adjacent.
(2) ⇒ (1) is clear.

Theorem 2.7. Let R be a ring and n ≥ 2 be a natural number. Then
girth(ZA(Mn (R))) = 3.
Proof. For n = 2, the following matrices are pairwise adjacent in ZA(M2 (R)):

 



1 0
0 0
0 1
,
and
.
0 0
1 0
0 1
For n ≥ 3, the following matrices are pairwise adjacent in ZA(Mn (R)):




1 0 0 0...0
1 0 0...0
0 0 0 0 . . . 0
0 1 0 . . . 0 


 0 0 1 0 . . . 0
0 0 0 . . . 0 , 

. .
0 0 0 1 . . . 0
.. 

 .. ..

.
.. 
 ... ... ...
. 
0 0 0...0
0 0 0 0...1

4

and

MOSTAFANASAB


0
0

0

0
.
 ..
0

0
1
0
0
..
.
0

0
0
1
0
..
.
0


0...0
0 . . . 0

0 . . . 0

1 . . . 0 .
.. 
. 

0...1



3. When is ZA(R) connected?
A ring R is called semiprimitive if Jac(R) = 0, [7]. A ring R is semiprimitive if
and only if it is a subdirect product of fields, [8, p. 179].
Theorem 3.1. Let R be a semiprimitive ring. If at least one of the maximal ideals
of R is principal, then ZA(R) is a connected graph with diam(ZA(R)) ≤ 4.
Proof. Suppose that m is a maximal ideal of R where m = Rt for some t ∈ R. Let
x, y be two different nonzero nonunit elements of R. Consider the following cases:
Case 1. Let x, y ∈
/ m. Then Rx + m = R and Ry + m = R. Hence x, y are adjacent
to t. So dZA(R) (x, y) ≤ 2.
Case 2. Let x ∈ m and y ∈
/ m. Notice that y is adjacent to t. Since Jac(R) = {0},
there exists a maximal ideal m′ different from m such that x ∈
/ m′ . So Rx + m′ = R,
and thus there exist elements r ∈ R and z ∈ m′ such that rx + z = 1. Therefore
AnnR (x) ∩ AnnR (z) = {0}. So x is adjacent to z. Clearly z ∈
/ m. Then z is adjacent
to t. Hence dZA(R) (x, y) ≤ 3.
Case 3. Let x, y ∈ m. A manner similar to Case 2 shows that dZA(R) (x, t) ≤ 2 and
dZA(R) (y, t) ≤ 2. Therefore dZA(R) (x, y) ≤ 4.
Consequently ZA(R) is a connected graph with diam(ZA(R)) ≤ 4.

Theorem 3.2. Let R be a Bézout ring. If ZA(R) is connected, then one of the
following conditions holds:
(1) There exists a nonzero nonunit element x of R such that AnnR (x) = {0},
(2) Jac(R) = {0},
(3) Jac(R) = {0, x} where x is the only nonzero nonunit element of R.
Proof. Assume that for every nonzero nonunit element x of R, AnnR (x) 6= {0} and
also Jac(R) 6= {0}. Let x be a nonzero element in Jac(R). Suppose that ZA(R) has a
vertex y different from x. Thus Rx+Ry = Rz for some z ∈ R, because R is a Bézout
ring. Notice that y ∈ m for some maximal ideal m of R. Hence z is nonzero nonunit
and so by assumption AnnR (z) 6= {0}, which shows that x and y are not adjacent.
This contradiction implies that |V (ZA(R))| = 1, and so Jac(R) = {0, x}.

As a direct consequence of Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 we have the following
result.
Corollary 3.3. Let R be a Bézout ring such that at least one of the maximal ideals of
R is principal. Then ZA(R) is connected if and only if one of the following conditions
holds:

ZERO-ANNIHILATOR GRAPHS OF COMMUTATIVE RINGS

5

(1) There exists a nonzero nonunit element x of R such that AnnR (x) = {0},
(2) Jac(R) = {0},
(3) Jac(R) = {0, x} where x is the only nonzero nonunit element of R.
Theorem 3.4. Let R = F1 × F2 × · · · × Fn where Fi ’s are fields. Then ZA(R) is a
connected graph with


1 if n = 2 and |F1 | = |F2 | = 2
diam(ZA(R)) = 2 if n = 2 and either |F1 | > 2 or |F2 | > 2

3 if n ≥ 3.

Proof. Let n = 2. In this case every vertex in ZA(R) is of the form (u, 0) or (0, v)
where u 6= 0 and v 6= 0. Furthermore, two vertices (u, 0) and (0, v) are adjacent.
In the case when n = 2 and |F1 | = |F2 | = 2, we have R ≃ Z2 × Z2 . So ZA(R) ≃ K2 .
Let n = 2 and |F1 | > 2. In this case, every two different vertices (u1 , 0) and (u2 , 0)
cannot be adjacent. On the other hand (u1 , 0) and (u2 , 0) are adjacent to (0, 1). So
dZA(R) ((u1 , 0), (u2, 0)) = 2. Hence diam(ZA(R)) = 2.
Now, let n ≥ 3. Assume that u = (u1 , u2 , . . . , un ) and v = (v1 , v2 , . . . , vn ) are two
different vertices. There exist two indexes i, j such that ui 6= 0 and vj 6= 0. So
i−th
z}|{
u = (u1 , u2 , . . . , un ) is adjacent to (1, . . . , 1, 0 , 1, . . . , 1). Also v = (v1 , v2 , . . . , vn )
j−th
z}|{
is adjacent to (1, . . . , 1, 0 , 1, . . . , 1). Furthermore, if i 6= j, then the vertex
j−th
i−th
z}|{
z}|{
(1, . . . , 1, 0 , 1, . . . , 1) is adjacent to (1, . . . , 1, 0 , 1, . . . , 1). Thus ZA(R) is connected and dZA(R) (u, v) ≤ 3. In special case, we have the following path
(0, 1, 0, . . . , 0) − (1, 0, 1, . . . , 1) − (0, 1, . . . , 1) − (1, 0, . . . , 0).
Consequently diam(ZA(R)) = 3.



4. When is ZA(R) star?
Lemma 4.1. Let R be a ring. If ZA(R) is a star, then |Max(R)| ≤ 2.
Proof. Suppose that ZA(R) is a star. If m and m′ is two different maximal ideals
of R, then for every x ∈ m\m′ we have Rx + m′ = R. Hence there exist elements
r ∈ R and y ∈ m′ \m such that rs + y = 1. Therefore AnnR (x) ∩ AnnR (y) = {0}.
So x and y are adjacent. Let m1 , m2 and m3 be three different maximal ideals of R.
Then there are elements a ∈ m1 \(m2 ∪ m3 ), b ∈ m2 \(m1 ∪ m3 ) and c ∈ m3 \(m1 ∪ m2 ).
Then either a, b, c are pairwise adjacent or there exist at least two disjoint edges in
ZA(R), which is a contradiction. Consequently |Max(R)| ≤ 2.

Theorem 4.2. Let R be a Bézout ring that is not a field. Then ZA(R) is a star if
and only if one of the following conditions holds:
(1) (R, m) when m = {0, x} in which x is a nonzero element of R with x2 = 0,
(2) R ≃ Z2 × F where F is a field.

6

MOSTAFANASAB

Proof. (⇒) Suppose that ZA(R) is a star. Hence |Max(R)| ≤ 2, by Lemma 4.1.
Notice that if AnnR (t) = {0} for some element t of a maximal ideal m, then {tn |n ∈
N} is an infinite clique that is impossible. Consider the following cases:
Case 1. Max(R) = {m}. Let x be a nonzero element in m. Then by Theorem 2.1,
ZA(R) is empty and so m = {0, x}. On the other hand, by Nakayama’s Lemma we
have that x2 = 0.
Case 2. Max(R) = {m1 , m2 }. Since m1 + m2 = R, there exist x ∈ m1 and y ∈ m2
such that x+y = 1. Hence x and y are adjacent. Now, if there exists 0 6= z ∈ m1 ∩m2 ,
then z is not adjacent to x and y, because R is a Bézout ring and AnnR (t) = {0} for
every nonzero nonunit element t of R. This contradiction shows that m1 ∩ m2 = {0}.
Hence by Chinese Remainder Theorem we deduce that R ≃ R/m1 ⊕ R/m2 . If there
exist nozero elements a1 , a2 ∈ R/m1 and b1 , b2 ∈ R/m2 , then we have the following
path
(a1 , 0) − (0, b1 ) − (a2 , 0) − (0, b2 ),
a contradiction. Hence we can assume that R/m1 = Z2 .
(⇐) If (1) holds, the clearly ZA(R) is a star. Assume that (2) holds. Notice that
(1, 0) is adjacent to all vertices (0, u) where u is a nonzero element of F . Also,
for every two different elements u1 , u2 ∈ F , (0, u1 ) and (0, u2) are not adjacent.
Consequently ZA(R) is a star.

5. When is ZA(R) complete?
Proposition 5.1. Let R be a ring. If ZA(R) is a complete graph, then AR is a
complete graph.
Proof. Assume that ZA(R) is a complete graph. Let I, J be two nonzero proper
ideals of R. Then there are two different nonzero nonunit elements x, y ∈ R such
that x ∈ I and y ∈ J. Hence AnnR (I) ∩ AnnR (J) ⊆ AnnR (x) ∩ AnnR (y) = {0}.
Therefore I and J are adjacent.

The following remark shows that the converse of Proposition 5.1 is not true.
Remark 5.2. Consider the ring R = Z5 × Z5 . By [1, Theorem 6], AR (= K2 ) is a
complete graph. But ZA(R) is a 4-regular graph that is not a complete graph.
(1,0)

(0,1)

(2,0)

(0,2)

(3,0)

(0,3)

(4,0)

(0,4)

Fig. 1. ZA(R)
Theorem 5.3. Let R be a ring. Then ZA(R) is a complete graph if and only if one
of the following conditions holds:
(1) R has exactly one nonzero nonunit element,
(2) R is an integral domain,
(3) R = Z2 × Z2 .

ZERO-ANNIHILATOR GRAPHS OF COMMUTATIVE RINGS

7

Proof. (⇒) Assume that ZA(R) is a complete graph. Then, by Proposition 5.1, AR
is a complete graph. Suppose that R is not an integral domain. So there exists a
nonzero nonunit element x ∈ R such that AnnR (x) 6= {0}. Therefore, [1, Theorem
6] implies that either R has exactly one nonzero proper ideal or R is a direct product
of two fields. Suppose that the former case holds. If y is a nonzero nonunit element
of R different from x, then Rx = Ry. So AnnR (x) ∩ AnnR (y) = AnnR (x) 6= {0},
which is a contradiction. Therefore R has exactly one nonzero nonunit element.
Now, let R be a direct product of two fields, say R = F1 × F2 . If there exist
two different nonzero elements u, v in F1 , then (u, 0) and (v, 0) cannot be adjacent.
Hence F1 = Z2 . Similarly, we can show that F2 = Z2 . Consequently R = Z2 × Z2 .
(⇐) Clearly, if (1) or (2) holds, then ZA(R) is a complete graph. Assume that (3)
holds. Then ZA(R) ≃ K2 and we are done.

6. When is ZA(R) k-regular?
Recall that a finite field of order q exists if and only if the order q is a prime power
p . A finite field of order ps is denoted by Fps .
s

Theorem 6.1. Let R be a Bézout ring with |Max(R)| < ∞. Then ZA(R) is a
k-regular graph (0 < k < ∞) if and only if R ≃ Fk+1 × Fk+1 .
Proof. The “ if ” part has a routine verification. Let ZA(R) be a k-regular graph
(0 < k < ∞). If AnnR (x) = {0} for some nonzero nonunit element x of R, then
{xn |n ∈ N} is an infinite clique that is a contradiction. Then, for every nonzero
nonunit element x of R we have AnnR (x) 6= {0}. Similar to the manner that
described in the proof of Theorem 2.5, we have R ≃ F1 × F2 × · · · × Fn where Fi ’s
are fields and n = |Max(R)|. Since AnnR ((1, 0, . . . , 0)) = 0 × F2 × F3 × · · · × Fn and
AnnR ((0, 1, 0, . . . , 0)) = F1 × 0 × F3 × · · · × Fn , then
NZA(R) ((1, 0, . . . , 0)) = {(0, u2 , . . . , un )|ui ∈ Fi \{0} for 2 ≤ i ≤ n}
and
NZA(R) ((0, 1, 0, . . . , 0)) = {(u1 , 0, u3, . . . , un )|ui ∈ Fi \{0} for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, i 6= 2}.
So
(|F2 | − 1)(|F3 | − 1) · · · (|Fn | − 1) = (|F1 | − 1)(|F3 | − 1) · · · (|Fn | − 1),
because ZA(R) is k-regular. Hence |F1 | = |F2 |. Similarly we can show that |F1 | =
|F2 | = · · · = |Fn |. Let n ≥ 3. Note that NZA(R) ((1, 1, 0, . . . , 0)) is the union of the
following sets
{(u1 , 0, u3, . . . , un )|ui ∈ Fi \{0} for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, i 6= 2},
{(0, u2, . . . , un )|ui ∈ Fi \{0} for 2 ≤ i ≤ n}
and
{(0, 0, u3, . . . , un )|ui ∈ Fi \{0} for 3 ≤ i ≤ n}.
Therefore
(|F1 | − 1)n−1 = 2(|F1| − 1)n−1 + (|F1 | − 1)n−2,
since ZA(R) is k-regular. Thus |F1 | = 0 which is a contradiction. Consequently
n = 2. If there exist two different nonzero elements u, u′ in F1 , then (u, 0) and
(u′ , 0) cannot be adjacent. On the other hand for every nonzero elements u ∈ F1

8

MOSTAFANASAB

and v ∈ F2 , (u, 0) and (0, v) are adjacent. So degZA(R) ((u, 0)) = |F1 | − 1 = k.
Therefore R ≃ Fk+1 × Fk+1 .

Corollary 6.2. Let R be a Bézout ring with |Max(R)| < ∞. If ZA(R) is a k-regular
graph (0 < k < ∞), then k + 1 is a prime power.
7. Chromatic number and clique number of ZA(R)
Recall that, a ring R is said to be reduced if it has no nonzero nilpotent elements.
Theorem 7.1. If R is a reduced Noetherian ring, then the chromatic number of
ZA(R) is infinite or R is a direct product of finitely many fields.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of [1, Theorem 16].



Lemma 7.2. Let P1 and P2 be two prime ideals of a ring R with P1 ∩ P2 = {0}.
Then every two nonzero elements x ∈ P1 and y ∈ P2 are adjacent.
Proof. Suppose that r ∈ AnnR (x) ∩ AnnR (y). Since rx = 0 ∈ P2 and x ∈
/ P2 , then
r ∈ P2 . Similarly it turns out that r ∈ P1 . Hence r ∈ P1 ∩ P2 = {0}.

Theorem 7.3. Let R be a ring and n ≥ 2 be a natural number. If either |Min(R)| =
n or R = R1 × R2 × · · · × Rn where Ri ’s are rings, then ω(ZA(R)) ≥ n.
Proof. Assume that Min(R) = {p1 , p2 , . . . , pn } where pi ’s are nonzero. So, by Lemma
7.2, n ≤ ω(ZA(R)). Now, suppose that R = R1 × R2 × · · · × Rn where Ri ’s are
i−th
z}|{
rings. Then {(1, . . . , 1, 0 , 1, . . . , 1)|1 ≤ i ≤ n} is a clique in ZA(R) and the result
follows.

References
[1] S. Akbari, A. Alilou, J. Amjadi and S. M. Sheikholeslami, The co-annihilating ideal graphs of
commutative rings, Canadian Math. Bull. DOI: 10.4153/CMB-2016-017-1.
[2] D. F. Anderson and D. Dobbs, Zero-dimensional commutative rings, Lecture Notes in Pure
and Applied Mathematics, Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1995.
[3] D. F. Anderson and P. S. Livingston, The zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, J. Algebra,
217 (1999), 434-447.
[4] D. D. Anderson and M. Naseer, Beck’s coloring of a commutative ring, J. Algebra, 159 (1993),
500–514.
[5] A. Badawi, On the annihilator graph of a commutative ring, Comm. Algebra, 42 (1) (2014),
108–121.
[6] I. Beck, Coloring of commutative rings, J. Algebra, 116 (1988), 208–226.
[7] T. Y. Lam, A first course in noncommutative rings, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc 1991.
[8] T. Y. Lam, Exercises in classical ring theory, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc 2003.
[9] S. P. Redmond, An ideal-based zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring, Comm. Algebra, 31
(9) (2003), 4425–4443.
Hojjat Mostafanasab
Department of Mathematics and Applications,
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili,
P. O. Box 179, Ardabil, Iran.
Email: h.mostafanasab@gmail.com

