What is the probability that two elements of a finite ring have product zero?

Abstract: In this paper we consider the probability that two elements of a finite ring have product zero. We find bounds of this probability of a finite commutative ring with identity 1. The explicit computations for the ring $\mathbf{Z}_n$, the ring of integers modulo $n$, have been obtained.

\section{Introduction}

The problem of finding the probability $P(G)$ that two elements of a finite group $G$ commute was considered by Gustafson \cite{MR02944871}. He showed that $P(G)\leq 5/8$. For more studies about probability and group theory, see\cite{rusin1979probability, lescot1988degre}.

I. Beck in 1988 \cite{beck1988coloring} introduced the notion of \textit{zero-divisor graphs} of a commutative ring. The zero-divisor graph whose vertices are non-zero zero-divisors in which two vertices are adjacent if their product is zero. Zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring has been studied by many authors, see \cite{anderson2003zero, anderson1999zero, livingston1997structure}.

In this paper the probability $P(R)$ that two elements of a finite ring $R$ multiply to 0 is considered. The probability $P(R)$ that two elements chosen at random (with replacement) from a ring $R$ have product zero is
$P(R)=\frac{|Ann|}{|R \times R|}$,
where $Ann=\{(x, y)\in R\times R \;|\; xy=0\}$.\\
 To count the elements of $Ann$, one can see that for each $x \in R$, the number of elements of $Ann$ of the form $(x, y)$ is $|Ann(x)|$, where $Ann(x)$ is the annihilator of $x$ in $R$. Hence
      $|Ann|=\sum_{x \in R} |Ann(x)|,$
where the sum is taken over all $x\in R$.
Note that if $xy=0$, then both $(x,y)$ and $(y,x)$ are elements of $Ann$.

Throughout this paper, all rings are assumed to be finite commutative with identity 1 in
order to establish lower and upper bounds of $P(R)$.
Furthermore, the author assumes that the identity element 1 is different from 0, as the zero ring is a finite commutative ring with identity (namely $0$ since $0 \cdot 0=0$) and the corresponding probability that two elements multiply to $0$ is $1$.
Also, in case of a ring $R$ does not have an identity element, the probability that two elements multiply to $0$ can be $1$, for instance, if $R$ is a ring such that $ab=0$ for all $a, b \in R$, then $P(R)=1$. These two cases are exempted throughout this paper in order to investigate minimum and maximum values of the probability $P(R)$.

\section{Bounds for P(R)}
In this section, the general lower and upper bounds for $P(R)$ will be found.

\begin{theorem}\label{lower}
Suppose $|R|=l$. Then $P(R)\geq \frac{2l+|Z(R)|-1}{l^2}$, where $Z(R)$ is the set of nonzero zero-divisors of $R$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $|Ann(0)|=l$. Suppose $Z(R)$ be the set of nonzero zero-divisors of $R$. For every $x \in Z(R)$ we have that $|Ann(x)| \geq 2$,  and $|Ann(x)|=1$ for each $0 \neq x \notin Z(R)$. Thus,
$$|Ann|=|Ann(0)|+\sum_{x \in Z(R)} |Ann(x)|+\sum_{0 \neq x \notin Z(R)} |Ann(x)|$$\\
$$\geq l+2 \cdot |Z(R)|+(l-1-|Z(R)|)\cdot 1=2l+|Z(R)|-1.$$
Therefore,
$P(R)=\frac{|Ann|}{l^2}\geq \frac{2l+|Z(R)|-1}{l^2}$.
\end{proof}

\medskip

\begin{theorem}\label{upper}
Suppose $|R|=l$. Then $P(R)\leq \frac{2l+(m-1)|Z(R)|-1}{l^2}$,  where $Z(R)$ is the set of nonzero zero-divisors of $R$, and $m=max\{|Ann(x)| \;:\; x\in Z(R)\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $|R|=l$. Again, $|Ann(0)|=l$, and let the number of nonzero zero-divisors of $R$ is $k$, that is, $k:=|Z(R)|$.
Suppose that $m:=max\{|Ann(x)| \;:\; x\in Z(R)\}$. Note that $k$ and $m$ are vary while $l$ varies.
 Thus,

$$|Ann|=|Ann(0)|+\sum_{x \in Z(R)} |Ann(x)|+\sum_{0 \neq x \notin Z(R)} |Ann(x)|$$\\
$$\leq l+m \cdot k+(l-1-k)\cdot 1=2l+(m-1)k-1.$$\\
So,
$$P(R)\leq \frac{2l+(m-1)k-1}{l^2}.$$
\end{proof}

\medskip

\begin{corollary}
$P(R)\leq \frac{3}{4}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $Ann(x)$ is an ideal of $R$ for any $x\in R$, it must be the case that $m=max\{|Ann(x)| \;:\; x\in Z(R)\}\leq \frac{1}{2}l$ and, in general, $k=|Z(R)|\leq l-2$, for then, by Theorem \ref{upper},
$P(R)\leq \frac{2l+(\frac{1}{2}l-1)(l-2)-1}{l^2}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{l^2}$ which is decreasing according to $l$. In particular, if $l=2$, then $P(R)\leq \frac{3}{4}$.
\end{proof}

From Theorem \ref{lower} and Theorem \ref{upper}, the following corollaries can be stated.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor1}
If $R$ is an integral domain and $|R|=l$, then $P(R)=\frac{2l-1}{l^2}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $R$ is an integral domain, then $|Z(R)|=0$. Thus, $\frac{2l-1}{l^2}\leq P(R)\leq \frac{2l-1}{l^2}$. The result follows.
\end{proof}

For the non-integral domain case, if all annihilators have size $m$, then the inequalities of Theorem \ref{lower} and Theorem \ref{upper} lead to the following.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor36}
If $R$ is a non-integral domain, $|R|=l$ and $|Ann(x)|=m$ for all $x \in Z(R)$, then $P(R)=\frac{2l+(m-1)k-1}{l^2}$.
\end{corollary}

\medskip
Before we start a new section, we require to have the following theorem of computing the probability of direct product of rings.

\begin{theorem}\label{pro}
Let $R=R_1 \times R_2$, where $R_1$ and $R_2$ are rings. Then $P(R)=P(R_1)P(R_2)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $P(R)=\frac{|Ann|}{|R \times R|}$, where
 $Ann=\{((r_1, s_1), (r_2, s_2))\in R\times R \;|\; (r_1r_2, s_1s_2)=(0, 0)\}$.
 Rewrite $Ann$ in terms of $Ann(R_1)$ and $Ann(R_2)$, where
 $Ann(R_1):=\{(r_1, r_2)\in R_1\times R_1 \;|\; r_1r_2=0\}$ and
 $Ann(R_2):=\{(s_1, s_2)\in R_2\times R_2 \;|\; s_1s_2=0\}$, as follows: \\
 $Ann=\{((r_1, s_1), (r_2, s_2))\in R\times R \;|\; (r_1r_2, s_1s_2)=(0, 0)\}=$
$\{(r_1, r_2)\in R_1\times R_1 \;|\; r_1r_2=0\}$$\{(s_1, s_2)\in R_2\times R_2 \;|\; s_1s_2=0\}=$
$Ann(R_1)$$Ann(R_2)$. Thus, $P(R)=\frac{|Ann|}{|R \times R|}=\frac{|Ann(R_1)||Ann(R_2)|}{|R_1 \times R_1||R_2 \times R_2|}=P(R_1)P(R_2)$
\end{proof}

\section{The ring $\mathds{Z}_n$}

In this section $P(\mathds{Z}_n)$ will be found, where $\mathds{Z}_n$ is the ring of integers modulo $n$. It is well known that if $n=p_1^{k_1} \cdot p_2^{k_2} \cdots p_r^{k_r}$, then $\mathds{Z}_n \cong \mathds{Z}_{p_1^{k_1}} \times \mathds{Z}_{p_2^{k_2}} \times \cdots \times \mathds{Z}_{p_r^{k_r}}$. From Theorem \ref{pro}, we only require to find $P(\mathds{Z}_{p^k})$, for some positive integer $k$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm}
$P(\mathds{Z}_{p^k})=\frac{(k+1)p-k}{p^{k+1}}$, where $p$ is a prime and $k \geq 1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that the set of nonzero zero divisors of $\mathds{Z}_{p^k}$ is $ S:= \{ p,$ $ 2p,$ $ 3p,$ $ \cdots, $ $(p^{k-1} - 1) p \} $ with size $p^{k-1}-1$. Rewrite the set $S$ as the union of $k-1$ disjoint sets $S_i$, $i=1, 2, \cdots, k-1$, that is, $S=\bigcup_{i=1}^{k-1}S_i$, such that $S_i$ contains $mp^i$, $m \neq lp$, the multiple of $p$, and $m=1, 2, \cdots, p^{k-i}-1$. Thus, the size of each $S_i$ is $(p^{k-i}-1)-(p^{k-(i+1)}-1)=p^{k-i}-p^{k-(i+1)}$. One can see that the product of any element of $S_i$ with every element of $\bigcup_{j=1}^{i}S_{k-j}$ is zero. So, the annihilator of each element of $S_i$ has size $p^i$. Hence
$|Ann|=|Ann(0)|+\sum_{x \in S} |Ann(x)|+\sum_{0 \neq x \notin S} |Ann(x)|=p^k+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}p^i(p^{k-i}-p^{k-(i+1)})+(p^k-1-(p^{k-1}-1))=p^k+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(p^k-p^{k-1})+(p^k-p^{k-1})=(k+1)p^k-kp^{k-1}$. Therefore, $P(\mathds{Z}_{p^k})=\frac{|Ann|}{(p^k)^2}=\frac{p^{k-1}((k+1)p-k)}{p^{2k}}=\frac{(k+1)p-k}{p^{k+1}}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
If  $n=p_1^{k_1} \cdot p_2^{k_2} \cdots p_r^{k_r}$, then $P(\mathds{Z}_n)=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\frac{(k_i+1)p_i-k_i}{p^{k_i+1}}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is well known that if $n=p_1^{k_1} \cdot p_2^{k_2} \cdots p_r^{k_r}$, then $\mathds{Z}_n \cong \mathds{Z}_{p_1^{k_1}} \times \mathds{Z}_{p_2^{k_2}} \times \cdots \times \mathds{Z}_{p_r^{k_r}}$. By Theorem \ref{pro}, $P(\mathds{Z}_n)=\prod_{i=1}^{r}P(\mathds{Z}_{p_i^{k_i}})$. From Theorem \ref{thm}, the result follows.
\end{proof}


Collinear triples in permutations

Abstract: Let $\alpha:\mathbb{F}_q\to\mathbb{F}_q$ be a permutation and $\Psi(\alpha)$ be the number of collinear triples in the graph of $\alpha$, where $\mathbb{F}_q$ denotes a finite field of $q$ elements. When $q$ is odd Cooper and Solymosi once proved $\Psi(\alpha)\geq(q-1)/4$ and conjectured the sharp bound should be $\Psi(\alpha)\geq(q-1)/2$. In this note we indicate that the Cooper-Solymosi conjecture is true.

\section{The main result and its proof}
Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be the finite field of $q$ elements with $q$ odd.
Let $\alpha:\mathbb{F}_q\rightarrow\mathbb{F}_q$ be a permutation
and $\Psi(\alpha)$ be the number of collinear triples in
\[G_{\alpha}=\{(i,\alpha(i)):i\in\mathbb{F}_q\},\] the
graph of $\alpha$. Cooper and Solymosi \cite{CooperSolymosi} first
(see also \cite{li}) obtained the lower bound
\begin{equation}\label{0.25}
\Psi(\alpha)\geq\frac{q-1}{4},
\end{equation}
and conjectured the best one should be
\begin{equation}\label{0.5}
\Psi(\alpha)\geq\frac{q-1}{2}.
\end{equation}
Later Cooper \cite{Hypergraphs} showed that the problem of counting
collinear triples in a permutation and the finite plane Kakeya
problem are intimately connected, and improved (\ref{0.25}) into
\begin{equation}
\Psi(\alpha)\geq\frac{5q-1}{14}.
\end{equation}
This is the right way to solve the Cooper-Solymosi conjecture and we
shall explain Cooper's idea in more detail in Section 3.

A subset in $\mathbb{F}_q^2$ containing a line in each direction is
called a Kakeya set. According to Cooper, given the permutation
$\alpha$, one can construct a corresponding Kakeya set
\[K_{\alpha}=\bigcup_{i\in\mathbb{F}_{q}}L(i,(0,\alpha(i))),\] where
$L(s,x)$ denotes the line in $\mathbb{F}^2_q$ through $x$ with slope
$s$. Let $\Gamma_{\alpha}$ be the hypergraph on the vertex set
$G_{\alpha}$ whose edges are the maximal collinear subsets of
$G_{\alpha}$, and write $\|\Gamma_{\alpha}\|$ for the quantity
\[\sum_{e\in E(\Gamma_{\alpha})}{|e|-1\choose 2}.\]
Then by applying an incidence formula of Faber \cite{faber}, Cooper
successfully showed that
\begin{equation}\label{formula}
\sharp K_{\alpha}=\frac{q(q+1)}{2}+\|\Gamma_{\alpha}\|.
\end{equation}
To confirm (\ref{0.5}), by considering
\[\Psi(\alpha)=\sum_{e\in E(\Gamma_{\alpha})}{|e|\choose 3}\geq\sum_{e\in E(\Gamma_{\alpha})}{|e|-1\choose 2}=\|\Gamma_{\alpha}\|,\]
it suffices to prove \[\sharp
K_{\alpha}\geq\frac{q(q+1)}{2}+\frac{q-1}{2}.\] So we are led to
caring about the size of the finite plane Kakeya sets.

The finite field Kakeya problem posed by Wolff in his influential
survey \cite{wolff} asks for the smallest size a Kakeya set can
have. Coincidentally, for any Kakeya set $K\subset\mathbb{F}_q^2$
Faber \cite{faber} once proved the bound
\[\sharp K\geq\frac{q(q+1)}{2}+\frac{q}{3},\]
and conjectured the sharp one should be
\begin{equation}\label{kakeya}\sharp
K\geq\frac{q(q+1)}{2}+\frac{q-1}{2}.\end{equation}  Recently, this
problem was solved by Blokhuis and Mazzocca \cite{blokhuis}, see
also \cite{Hypergraphs} for other medium bound. As an immediate
corollary, the Cooper-Solymosi conjecture (\ref{0.5}) turns out to
be true.

To make this note  more self-contained, the incidence formula of
Faber (a new proof) and the connection between the permutations and
the finite plane Kakeya sets discovered by Cooper (with more
details) will be discussed in the next two sections. We refer the
reader \cite{blokhuis} for the original proof of the Faber
conjecture (\ref{kakeya}).

\section{The Incidence formula of Faber}

Suppose $K$ is a minimal Kakeya set in $\mathbb{F}^2_q$. Clearly, we
may assume $K$ is of the form
\[K=\bigcup_{s\in PG(1,q)}L(s,x^{(s)}).\]
 Let $\mu_{x}$ be the number of these lines passing
through $x\in\mathbb{F}^2_q$. Obviously one has
\[
\mu_{x}=\sum_{s\in PG(1,q)}\chi_{L_{s}}(x),\] where  we let
$\chi_{A}$ denote the characteristic function of
$A\subset\mathbb{F}^2_q$ and write $L_{s} =L(s,x^{(s)})$ for
simplicity. The incidence formula of Faber \cite{faber} says that
\begin{equation}\label{faber formula}\sharp K=\frac{q(q+1)}{2}+\sum_{x\in K}{\mu_{x}-1\choose
2}.\end{equation} In the following we will give a succinct proof of
the Faber formula. As we know, two lines with different slopes
intersect at one point. Hence considering
\begin{align}
\sum_{x\in K}\mu_{x}&=\sum_{x\in K}\sum_{s\in
PG(1,q)}\chi_{L_{s}}(x)\label{step 1}\\ &=\sum_{s\in
PG(1,q)}\sum_{x\in
K}\chi_{L_{s}}(x)\nonumber\\&=q(q+1),\nonumber\\
\sum_{x\in K}\mu_{x}^2&=\sum_{x\in K}\sum_{i\in PG(1,q)}\sum_{j\in
PG(1,q)}\chi_{L_{i}}(x)\chi_{L_{j}}(x)\label{step 2}\\&=\sum_{i\in
PG(1,q)}\sum_{j\in
PG(1,q)}\sum_{x\in K}\chi_{L_{i}}(x)\chi_{L_{j}}(x)\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i\in PG(1,q)}\sum_{j\in PG(1,q)}\sharp(L_i\cap
L_j)\nonumber\\&=2q(q+1),\nonumber\end{align} it follows that
\begin{align*}\sum_{x\in
K}\frac{(\mu_x-1)(\mu_x-2)}{2}&=\frac{\sum_{x\in
K}\mu_{x}^2}{2}-\frac{3\sum_{x\in K}\mu_{x}}{2}+\sharp K\\
&=\frac{2q(q+1)}{2}-\frac{3q(q+1)}{2}+\sharp K\\
&=\sharp K-\frac{q(q+1)}{2}.\end{align*} Finally we indicate that
(\ref{step 1}) and (\ref{step 2}) already appeared in
\cite{iosevich}.

\section{The collinear tuple hypergraphs and  the finite plane Kakeya sets }

As before, given the permutation $\alpha$, one can construct a
corresponding Kakeya set
\[K_{\alpha}=\bigcup_{i\in\mathbb{F}_{q}}L(i,(0,\alpha(i))).\]
Let $x=(x_1,x_2)\in\mathbb{F}_{q}^2$ be any point satisfying
$\mu_x\geq3.$ Since $\alpha$ is a permutation, $x_1>0$. We assume
that $x$ lies in the lines
\[L(i_k,(0,\alpha(i_k)))\ \ (k=1,2,\ldots,\mu_x),\]
which means
\[\frac{x_2-\alpha(i_k)}{x_1-0}=i_k.\]
Hence for all $1\leq j<k\leq \mu_{x}$,
\[\frac{\alpha(i_k)-\alpha(i_j)}{i_k-i_j}=-x_1.\]
In another words, the set
\[E_x\doteq\big\{(i_k,\alpha(i_k))\big\}_{k=1}^{\mu_x}\]
is collinear. In fact, \[E_x\subset L(-x_1,(i_1,\alpha(i_1)))\] is a
maximal collinear subset of $G_{\alpha}$. For if
\[\frac{\alpha(k)-\alpha(i_1)}{k-i_1}=-x_1\]
holds for some $k\neq i_1$, then
\[\alpha(k)=\alpha(i_1)-(k-i_1)x_1=x_2-kx_1,\]
which means $x$ lies in the line $L(k,(0,\alpha(k)))$. Thus $k=i_j$
holds for some $2\leq j\leq \mu_x$ and $E_x$ is a maximal collinear
subset of $G_{\alpha}$.

On the other hand, suppose $\{(i_{t},\alpha(i_{t})\}_{t=1}^{\gamma}$
is a maximal collinear subset of $G_{\alpha}$, where $\gamma\geq3$.
Define
\[z_1=\frac{\alpha(i_2)-\alpha(i_1)}{i_1-i_2}\]
and
\[z_2=\alpha(i_1)+z_1i_1,\]
then it is easy to verify that
\[(z_1,z_2)\in L(i_t,\alpha(i_t))\]
holds for $t=1,2,\ldots,\gamma$.

In summary, the point $x$ in $K_{\alpha}$ with $\mu_x\geq3$
corresponds to a collinear $\mu_{x}$-tuple in $G_{\alpha}$, and vice
visa. Consequently, \begin{equation}\label{kakeyahyper}\sum_{x\in
K_{\alpha}}{\mu_{x}-1\choose 2}=\sum_{e\in
E(\Gamma_{\alpha})}{|e|-1\choose 2}.\end{equation} Combining
(\ref{kakeyahyper}) with the Faber formula (\ref{faber formula})
yields (\ref{formula}).

\section{Acknowledgements}
The author thanks Aart Blokhuis, Qing Xiang and Yaokun Wu for kindly
pointing out the recent progresses on the finite field Kakeya
problem to him.

Collinear triples in permutations