Let R be a commutative ring with 1\neq0. In this article, we introduce the concept of weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideals of R and explore its basic properties. We show that I\bowtie^{f}J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary if and only if I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary and for every \delta-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element a of I we have (f(a)+j)^{m}=0 for every j\in~J, where f:A\rightarrow B is a homomorphism of rings and J is an ideal of B. Furthermore, we provide examples to demonstrate the validity and applicability of our results.
([c], [g]) A proper ideal I of R is called a 2-absorbing ideal (respectively, 2-absorbing primary ideal) of R if whenever abc\in~I (respectively, 0\neq~abc\in~I) for some a,b,c\in~R, implies ab\in~I or ac\in~I or bc\in~I (respectively, ab\in~I or ac\in~\sqrt{I} or bc\in~\sqrt{I}).
[b] Let n be a positive integer. A proper ideal I of R is called an n-absorbing ideal (respectively, strongly n-absorbing ideal) of R if whenever x_1...x_{n+1}\in~I for some x_1,...,x_{n+1}\in~R (respectively, I_1...I_{n+1}\subseteq~I for some ideals I_1,...,I_{n+1} of R), then there are n of the x_i~'s (respectively, n of the I_i~'s) whose product is in I.
[w] Let n be a positive integer. A proper ideal I of R is called a weakly n-absorbing ideal (respectively, strongly weakly n-absorbing ideal) of R if whenever 0\neq~x_1...x_{n+1}\in~I for some x_1,...,x_{n+1}\in~R (respectively, 0\neq~I_1...I_{n+1}\subseteq~I for some ideals I_1,...,I_{n+1} of R), then there are n of the x_i~'s (respectively, n of the I_i~'s) whose product is in I.
[a] Let m and n be positive integers. A proper ideal I of R is called a semi-n-absorbing ideal of R if whenever x^{n+1}\in~I for some x\in~R implies x^n\in~I. More generally, a proper ideal I of R is called an (m,n)-closed ideal of R if whenever x^m\in~I for some x\in~I implies x^n\in~I.
[r] Let m and n be positive integers. A proper ideal I of R is called a weakly semi-n-absorbing ideal of R if whenever 0\neq~x^{n+1}\in~I for some x\in~R implies x^n\in~I. More generally, a proper ideal I of R is called a weakly (m,n)-closed ideal of R if whenever 0\neq~x^m\in~I for some x\in~I implies x^n\in~I.
[o] Let Id(R) be the set of all ideals of R. A function \delta:Id(R)\longrightarrow~Id(R) is called an expansion function of Id(R) if it has the following two properties: I\subseteq\delta(I) and if I\subseteq~J for some ideals, I, J of R, then \delta(I)\subseteq\delta(J). A proper ideal I of R is called a \delta-primary ideal of R if whenever xy\in~I for some x,y\in~R implies x\in~I or y\in\delta(I).
[j] A proper ideal I of R is called a 2-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R if whenever xyz\in~I for some x,y,z\in~R implies xy\in~I or yz\in\delta(I) or xz\in\delta(I). A proper ideal I of R is called a strongly 2-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R if whenever I_1,I_2,I_3 are ideals of R, I_1I_2I_3\subseteq~I, I_1I_3\not\subseteq~I and I_2I_3\not\subseteq~\delta(I), then I_1I_2\subseteq\delta(I).
[m] A proper ideal I of R is called an n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal (respectively, weakly n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal) of R if whenever x_1...x_{n+1}\in~I (respectively, 0\neq~x_1...x_{n+1}\in~I) for some x_1,...,x_{n+1}\in~R implies x_1...x_n\in~I or there exists 1\leq~k<n such that x_1...\hat{x}_k...x_{n+1}\in\delta(I), where x_1...\hat{x}_k...x_{n+1} denotes the product of x_1...x_{k-1}x_{k+1}...x_{n+1}.
[t] Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), and m and n be positive integers. A proper idealI be of R is called a semi-n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R if whenever a^{n+1}\in~I for some a\in~R, then a^n\in\delta(I). More generally, a proper ideal I of R is called an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R if whenever a^m\in~I for some a\in~R, then a^n\in\delta(I).
Let R be a commutative ring, I be a proper ideal of R, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), and m and n be positive integers.
(1) I is called a weakly semi-n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R if whenever 0\neq~a^{n+1}\in~I for some a\in~R, then a^n\in\delta(I).
(2) I is called a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R if whenever 0\neq~a^m\in~I for some a\in~R, then a^n\in\delta(I).
Let R be a commutative ring, I be a proper ideal of R, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), and m and n be positive integers. Then
(1) I is a weakly semi-n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R if and only if I is a weakly (n+1,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
(2) If I is a weakly n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R, then I is a weakly semi-n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R.
(3) If I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R, then I is a weakly (m,k)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R for every positive integer k\geq~n.
(4) A weakly n-absorbing ideal of R is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R for every positive integer m.
Follows directly from the definitions.
(1) The identity function \delta_I, where \delta_I(I)=I for every I\in~Id(R), is an expansion function of ideals of R.
(2) For each ideal I, define \delta_{\sqrt{I}}(I)=\sqrt{I}. Then \delta_{\sqrt{I}} is an expansion function of ideals of R.
(1) Let R be a commutative ring, \delta_I be an expansion function of Id(R) and m and n positive be integers, then a proper ideal I of R is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_I-primary ideal of R if and only if I is a weakly (m,n)-closed ideal of R.
(2) It is clear that any (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal. The converse need not hold.
(3) A weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal does not be weakly (\acute{m},n)-closed \delta-primary for \acute{m}<m.
Let R=\mathbb{Z}_8. Then I=(0), the zero ideal is clearly a weakly (3,1)-closed \delta_{\sqrt{I}}-primary ideal of \mathbb{Z}_8. However, I is not (3,1)-closed \delta_{\sqrt{I}}-primary ideal of \mathbb{Z}_8 since 2^3=0\in~I and 2\not\in~I. More generally, I=(0) is a weakly (n+1,n)-closed \delta_{\sqrt{I}}-primary ideal of \mathbb{Z}_{2^{n+1}}, by definition, but it is easy to see that I is not an (n+1,n)-closed \delta_{\sqrt{I}}-primary ideal of \mathbb{Z}_{2^{n+1}}.
Let R=\mathbb{Z}_8 and \delta an expansion function of Id(R) and I=\{0,4\}. Then I is weakly (3,1)-closed \delta-primary ideal of \mathbb{Z}_8, since r^3=0 for every nonunit r\in~R. However, I is not weakly (2,1)-closed \delta-primary ideal since 0\neq2^2=4\in~I and 2\not\in~I.
Let A=\mathbb{Z}_{2^m}[\{X_m\}_{m\in\mathbb{N}}] and I=(X_{m-1}^mA) be an ideal of A. Let R=A/I and define \delta:Id(R)\longrightarrow~Id(R) such that \delta(K)=K+(xA+I)/I. It is clear that \delta is an expansion function of Id(R). Let J=(X_m^mA)/I. We show that J is not a weakly (m,n)-closed ideal of R. Now, in the ring R, we have 0\neq~X_m^m+I\in~J, but X_m^n+I\not\in~J for every positive integers 1\leq~n<m. Thus, J is not a weakly (m,n)-closed ideal of R. We show that J is not an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R. Let x=2+I\in~R. Then x^m=0+I\in~J, but x^n\not\in\delta(J) for every positive integers 1\leq~n<m. Thus, J is not an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R. By the construction of \delta, one can easily seen that J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta and \gamma be expansion functions of Id(R) with \delta(I)\subseteq\gamma(I), m and n be integers with 1\leq~n<m, and I be a proper ideal of R.
(1) If I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R, then I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \gamma-primary ideal of R.
(2) If \delta(I) is a weakly (m,n)-closed ideal of R, then I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
(1) Since \delta(I)\subseteq\gamma(I) and I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R, then the claim follows.
(2) Let 0\neq~a^m\in~I\subseteq\delta(I) for some a\in~R. Since \delta(I) is a weakly (m,n)-closed ideal of R, then a^n\in\delta(I). Therefore, I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta and \gamma be expansion functions of Id(R), m and n positive be integers, I be a proper ideal of R, and \delta(0) be an (m,n)-closed \gamma-primary ideal of R. Then, I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \gamma\circ\delta-primary ideal of R if and only if I is an (m,n)-closed \gamma\circ\delta-primary ideal of R
Assume that I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \gamma\circ\delta-primary ideal of R. Assume that a^m\in~I for some a\in~R. If 0\neq~a^m\in~I, then a^n\in\gamma(\delta(I)). Hence, assume that a^m=0. Since \delta(0) is an (m,n)-closed \gamma-primary ideal of R, we conclude that a^n\in\gamma(\delta(0)). Since \gamma(\delta(0))\subseteq\gamma(\delta(I)), we conclude that a^n\in\gamma(\delta(0))\subseteq\gamma(\delta(I)). Therefore, I is an (m,n)-closed \gamma\circ\delta-primary ideal of R. The converse is clear.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta and \gamma be expansion functions of Id(R), m and n be positive integers, I be a proper ideal of R, and \gamma(I) be a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R. Then, I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta\circ\gamma-primary ideal of R.
Assume that 0\neq~a^m\in~I\subseteq\gamma(I) for some a\in~R. Since \gamma(I) is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R. Then, a^n\in\delta(\gamma(I)). Therefore, I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta\circ\gamma-primary ideal of R.
[m] Let f:R\longrightarrow~A be a ring homomorphism and \delta,~\gamma expansion functions of Id(R) and Id(A) respectively. Then, f is called a \delta\gamma-homomorphism if \delta(f^{-1}(I))=f^{-1}(\gamma(I)) for all ideals I of A.
(1) If \gamma_r is a radical operation on a commutative ring A and \delta_r is a radical operation on a commutative ring R, then any homomorphism from R to A is an example of \delta_r\gamma_r-homomorphism. Also, if f is a \delta\gamma-epimorphism and I is an ideal of R containing Ker(f), then \gamma(f(I))=f(\delta(I)). In particular, if f is a \delta\gamma-ring-isomorphism, then f(\delta(I))=\gamma(f(I)) for every ideal I of R.
(2) Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R) and I be a proper ideal of R. The function \delta_q:R/I\longrightarrow~R/I defined by \delta_q(J/I)=\delta(J)/I for ideals I\subseteq~J, becomes an expansion function of R/I.
Let R and A be commutative rings, m and n be positive integers, and f:R\longrightarrow~A be a \delta\gamma-homomorphism, where \delta is an expansion function of Id(R) and \gamma is an expansion function of Id(A).
(1) If f is injective and J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \gamma-primary ideal of A, then f^{-1}(J) is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
(2) If f is surjective and I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R containing Ker(f), then f(I) is a weakly (m,n)-closed \gamma-primary ideal of A.
(1) Assume that J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \gamma-primary ideal of A and 0\neq~a^m\in~f^{-1}(J) for some a\in~R. Since, Ker(f)\neq~0, we get 0\neq~f(a^m)=[f(a)]^m\in~J. By our assumption, we conclude that [f(a)]^n\in\gamma(J). Thus, a^n\in~f^{-1}(\gamma(J)). Since \delta(f^{-1}(J))=f^{-1}(\gamma(J)), we get a^n\in\delta(f^{-1}(J)). Therefore, f^{-1}(J) is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
(2) Assume that I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R and 0\neq~b^m\in~f(I) for some b\in~A. Since f is epimorphism, we have f(a^m)=b^m for some a\in~R and 0\neq~f(a^m)=b^m\in~f(I). Since Ker(f)\subseteq~I, we have 0\neq~a^m\in~I. As I is an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R, we have a^n\in\delta(I). Then, we have b^n\in~f(\delta(I))\subseteq\gamma(f(I)). Therefore, f(I) is a weakly (m,n)-closed \gamma-primary ideal of A.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), m and n be positive integers, and I\subseteq~J be prober ideals of R.
(1) If J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R, then J/I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_q-primary ideal of R/I.
(2) If I is an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R and J/I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_q-primary ideal of R/I, then J is an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
(3) If I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R and J/I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_q-primary ideal of R/I, then J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
(1) Follows directly from Theorem 3.13 (2).
(2) Let a^m\in~J for a\in~R. If a^m\in~I, then a^n\in\delta(I)\subseteq\delta(J). Assume that a^m\not\in~I. Then, we have I\neq(a+I)^m\in~J/I. Since J/I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_q-primary ideal of R/I. Then, (a+I)^n=a^n+I\in\delta_q(J/I). Thus, a^n\in\delta(J). Therefore, J is an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
(3) Let 0\neq~a^m\in~J for a\in~R. Then by a similar argument as in part (2), one can show that J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
Let D be an integral domain, I be a proper ideal of D, m,~n be positive integers with 1\leq~n<m, and \delta be an expansion function of Id(D). Then <I,X> is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R[x] if and only if I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R. This is hold by Theorem 3.14 (1),~(2), since <I,X>/<x>\approx~I in R[x]/<x>\approx~R.
Let R be a commutative ring, I be a proper ideal of R, m and n be positive integers, S\subseteq~R\backslash\{0\} be a multiplicative set with I\cap~S=\phi, and \delta_S be an expansion function of Id(R_S) such that \delta_S(I_S)=(\delta(I))_S where \delta is an expansion function of Id(R). If I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R, then I_S is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_S-primary ideal of R_S.
Let 0\neq~a^m\in~I_S for a\in~R_S. Then, a=\frac{r}{s} for some r\in~R and s\in~S, and thus 0\neq~a^m=\frac{r^m}{s^m}=\frac{i}{g} for some i\in~I and g\in~S. Hence, 0\neq~r^mgz=s^miz\in~I for some z\in~S, and thus 0\neq~(rgz)^m\in~I. Hence, (rgz)^n\in\delta(I) since I is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R, and thus a^n=\frac{r^n}{s^n}=\frac{r^ng^nz^n}{s^ng^nz^n}\in~I_S\subseteq(\delta(I))_S=\delta_S(I_S). Therefore, I_S is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_S-primary ideal of R_S.
Let R be a commutative ring, I be a proper ideal of R, m and n be positive integers, P\subseteq~R\backslash\{0\} be a multiplicative set with I\cap~P=\phi, and \delta_P be an expansion function of Id(R_P) such that \delta_P(I_P)=(\delta(I))_P where \delta is an expansion function of Id(R). Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
(2) I_P is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_P-primary ideal of R_P for every prime (or maximal) ideal P of R.
(1)\Longrightarrow(2) Follows directly from Theorem 3.16.
(2)\Longrightarrow(1) Let 0\neq~a^m\in~I for a\in~R, consider the ideal J=\{r\in~R:ra^n\in\delta(I)\} of R and P be a prime ideal of R with I\subseteq~P. Then, 0\neq(\frac{a}{1})^m\in~I_P. Thus, (\frac{a}{1})^n\in\delta_P(I_P) since I_P is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_P-primary ideal of R_P. Thus, xa^n\in\delta(I) for some x\in~R\backslash~P. Thus, J\nsubseteq~P. In fact J\nsubseteq~L for every prime ideal L of R with I\nsubseteq~L. Hence, J=R and thus a^n\in\delta(I). Therefore, I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R) satisfying the finite intersection property, m and n be positive integers, and I_1,...,I_k be proper ideals of R. If I_1,...,I_k are weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R, and P=\delta(I_j) for all j\in\{1,...,k\}, then I_1\cap...\cap~I_k is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R.
It is clear.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), m and n be integers with 1\leq~n<m, and I be a weakly (m,n)- closed \delta-primary ideal of R. Then a\in~R is called a \delta-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element of I if a^m=0 and a^n\not\in\delta(I). (Thus, I has a \delta-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element if and only if I is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R).
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), m and n be integers with 1\leq~n<m, and I be a weakly (m,n)- closed \delta-primary ideal of R. If x is a \delta-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element of I, then (x+i)^m=0 for every i\in~I.
Assume that (x+i)^m\neq0 for some i\in~I. Then by Binomial Theorem, we have (x+i)^m=x^m+mx^{m-1}i+...+i^m=0+mx^{m-1}i+...+i^m\in~I. Since I is a weakly (m,n)- closed \delta-primary ideal of R, then (x+i)^n\in\delta(I), a contradiction. Therefore, (x+i)^m=0 for every i\in~I.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), m and n be positive integers, and I be a weakly (m,n)- closed \delta-primary ideal of R that is not (m,n)- closed \delta-primary. Then I\subseteq~Nil(R). Furthermore, if char(R)=m is prime, then x^m=0 for every x\in~I.
Since I is a weakly (m,n)- closed \delta-primary ideal of R that is not (m,n)- closed \delta-primary, then I has a \delta-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element say a. Let x\in~I. Then, a^m=0 and (a+x)^m=0 by Theorem 3.20. Thus, a,~a+x\in~Nil(R). Thus, x=(a+x)-a\in~Nil(R). Therefore, I\subseteq~Nil(R). Now, assume that char(R)=m is prime. Then, it is clear that 0=(a+x)^m=a^m+x^m=x^m. Therefore, x^m=0 for every x\in~I.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), n be a positive integer and a\in~J(R). Then the ideal I=a^{n+1}R is a weakly semi-n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R if and only if a^{n+1}=0.
Assume that a^{n+1}=0. Then, I=(0) and thus I is a weakly semi-n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R by definition.
Conversely; assume that I is a weakly semi-n-absorbing \delta-primary ideal of R and a^{n+1}\neq~0. Since a^{n+1}\in~I\backslash\{0\}, then a^n\in\delta(I). Set x=a^n\in~I. Then, x=xar for some r\in~R. Thus x(1-ar)=0. Since ar\in~J(R), then 1-ar is a unit of R. Thus, x=0 and then a^{n+1}=0, a contradiction. Therefore, a^{n+1}=0.
Let D be an integral domain, \delta be an expansion function of Id(D), I=p^kD be a principal ideal of D, where p is a prime element of D and k a positive integer. Let m be a positive integer such that m<k, and write k=ma+b for some integers a,b, where a\geq1 and 0\leq~b<m. If I/p^cD is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of D/p^cD that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal for positive integers n<m and c\geq~k+1, then b\neq0, k+1\leq~c\leq~m(a+1) and n(a+1)<k.
Assume that I/p^cD is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of D/p^cD that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary for positive integers n<m and c\geq~k+1. It is clear that b\neq0, for if b=0, then 0\neq(p^a)^m+p^cD\in~I/p^cD, but (p^a)^n+p^cD\not\in~I/p^cD. Since a+1 is the smallest positive integer such that (p^{(a+1)})^m+p^cD\in~I/p^cD and I/p^cD is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of D/p^cD, we have 0=(p^{(a+1)})^m+p^cD\in~I/p^cD and (p^{(a+1)})^n+p^cD\not\in\delta(I/p^cD). Thus, (p^{(a+1)})^n+p^cD\not\in~I/p^cD and therefore, n(a+1)<k and k+1\leq~c\leq~m(a+1).
Let R=R_1\times~R_2, where R_1 and R_2 are commutative rings, \delta_i be an expansion function of Id(R_i) for each i\in\{1,2\}, I_1 be a proper ideal of R_1, I_2 be a proper ideal of R_2, and m and n be positive integers with 1\leq~n<m. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) I_1\times~R_2 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary ideal of R.
(2) I_1 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1.
(3) I_1\times~R_2 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary ideal of R.
(1)\Longrightarrow(2) I_1 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1 by Theorem 3.13 (2). If I_1 is not an (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1, then I_1 has a \delta_1-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element x. Thus, (0,0)\neq(x,1)^m\in~I_1\times~R_2, but (x,1)^n\not\in\delta_\times(I_1\times~R_2), a contradiction. Hence, I_1 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1.
(2)\Longrightarrow(3) It is clear. (Analogue to the proof of [a], Theorem 2.12).
(3)\Longrightarrow(1) It is clear by definition.
Let R=R_1\times~R_2, where where R_1 and R_2 are commutative rings, \delta_i be an expansion function of Id(R_i) for each i\in\{1,2\}, I be a proper ideal of R, and m and n be positive integers with 1\leq~n<m. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary ideal of R that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary.
(2) I=J_1\times~J_2 for some proper ideals J_1 of R_1 and J_2 of R_2 such that either
(a) J_1 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1 that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary, y^m=0 whenever y^m\in~J_2 for some y\in~R_2 (in particular, j^m=0~\forall~j\in~J_2), and if 0\neq~x^m\in~J_1 for some x\in~R_1, then J_2 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary ideal of R_2, or
(b) J_2 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary ideal of R_2 that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary, y^m=0 whenever y^m\in~J_1 for some y\in~R_1 (in particular, j^m=0~\forall~j\in~J_1), and if 0\neq~x^m\in~J_2 for some x\in~R_2, then J_1 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1.
(1)\Longrightarrow(2) Since I is not an (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary ideal of R. Then, by Theorem 3.24, we have I=J_1\times~J_2, where J_1 is a proper ideal of R_1 and J_2 is a proper ideal of R_2. Since I is not an (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary ideal of R, we have either J_1 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1 that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary or J_2 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary ideal of R_2 that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary. Suppose that J_1 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1 that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary. Thus, J_1 has a \delta_1-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element a. Suppose that y^m\in~J_2 for some y\in~R_2. Since a is a \delta_1-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element of J_1 and (a,y)^m\in~I, we have (a,y)^m=(0,0). Thus, y^m=0 (in particular, j^m=0~\forall~j\in~J_2). Now, suppose that 0\neq~x^m\in~J_1 for some x\in~R_1. Let y\in~R_2 be such that y^m\in~J_2. Then, (0,0)\neq(x,y)^m\in~I. Thus, y^n\in\delta_2(J_2), and hence J_2 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary ideal of R_2. Similarly, if J_2 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary ideal of R_2 that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary, then y^m=0 whenever y^m\in~J_1 for some y\in~R_1 (in particular, j^m=0~\forall~j\in~J_1), and if 0\neq~x^m\in~J_2 for some x\in~R_2, then J_1 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1.
(2)\Longrightarrow(1) Assume that J_1 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1 that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary, y^m=0 whenever y^m\in~J_2 for some y\in~R_2 (in particular, j^m=0~\forall~j\in~J_2), and if 0\neq~x^m\in~J_1 for some x\in~R_1, then J_2 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary ideal of R_2. Let a be a \delta_1-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element of J_1. Then, (a,0) is a \delta_\times-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element of I. Thus, I is not an (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary ideal of R. Now, suppose that (0,0)\neq(x,y)^m=(x^m,y^m)\in~I for some x\in~R_1 and some y\in~R_2. Then, (0,0)\neq(x,y)^m=(x^m,0)\in~I and 0\neq~x^m\in~J_1. Since J_1 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1 and J_2 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary ideal of R_2, we have (x,y)^n\in\delta_\times(I). Similarly, suppose that J_2 is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary ideal of R_2 that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_2-primary, y^m=0 whenever y^m\in~J_1 for some y\in~R_1 (in particular, j^m=0~\forall~j\in~J_1), and if 0\neq~x^m\in~J_2 for some x\in~R_2, then J_1 is an (m,n)-closed \delta_1-primary ideal of R_1. Then again, I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary ideal of R that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_\times-primary.
Let R be a commutative ring, \delta be an expansion function of Id(R), m and n be integers with 1\leq~n<~m, I be a prober ideal of R, and M be an R-module. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) I(+)M is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary ideal of R(+)M that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary.
(2) I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary and m(x^{m-1}M)=0 for every (m,n)-unbrekable-zero element x of I.
(1)\Longrightarrow(2) Assume that 0\neq~r^m\in~I for some r\in~R. Then, (0,0)\neq(r,0)^m=(r^m,0)\in~I(+)M. Thus, (r,0)^n=(r^n,0)\in~I(+)M; so r^n\in\delta(I). Thus, I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R. Since I(+)M is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary ideal of R(+)M, we have I(+)M and hence I, has a \delta-(m,n)-unbrekable-zero element; so I is not an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R. Let x be a \delta-(m,n)-unbrekable-zero element of I and a\in~M. Then, (x,a)^m=(x^m,m(x^{m-1}a))\in~I(+)M. Since a^n\not\in\delta(I), we have (x,a)^m=(x^m,m(x^{m-1}a))=(0,0). Thus m(x^{m-1}M)=0.
(2)\Longrightarrow(1) Since I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of R that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary, we have I has a \delta-(m,n)-unbrekable-zero element x. Thus, (x,0) is a \delta_{(+)}-(m,n)-unbrekable-zero element of I(+)M. Thus, I(+)M is not an (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary ideal of R(+)M. Assume that (0,0)\neq(r,y)^m=(r^m,m(r^{m-1}y))\in~I(+)M. Then, r is not a \delta-(m,n)-unbrekable-zero element of I by hypothesis. Hence, (r^n,n(r^{n-1}y)=(r,y)^n\in\delta(I(+)M). Therefore, I(+)M is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary ideal of R(+)M that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary.
Let f:A\rightarrow~B be a homomorphism of rings and J be an ideal of B. Let I be a proper ideal of A. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) I is an (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A.
(2) I\bowtie^{f}J is an (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J.
(1)\Rightarrow(2). Suppose that I is (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A and let (a,f(a)+j)^{m}\in I\bowtie^{f}J for some (a,f(a)+j)\in~A\bowtie^{f}J. Then, a^{m}\in I. The fact that I is (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A, gives a^{n}\in \delta(I). Which implies (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in\delta(I)\bowtie^{f}J=\delta_{\bowtie^{f}}(I\bowtie^{f}J). Hence, I\bowtie^{f}J is (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J.
(2)\Rightarrow (1). Suppose that I\bowtie^{f}J is (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}J-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J. Let a^{m}\in I for some a\in~A. Then, (a,f(a))^{m}\in I\bowtie^{f}J which implies (a,f(a))^{n}\in\delta_{\bowtie^{f}}(I\bowtie^{f}J)=\delta(I)\bowtie ^{f}J. Then, a^{n}\in\delta(I). Hence, I is (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A. As desired.
Let f:A\rightarrow B be a homomorphism of rings and J be an ideal of B. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) I\bowtie^{f}J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary.
(2) I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary and for every \delta-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element a of I we have (f(a)+j)^{m}=0 for every j\in~J.
(1)\Rightarrow(2). Assume that I\bowtie^{f}J is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J. Let 0\neq a^{m}\in I. Then, 0\neq(a,f(a))^{m}\in I\bowtie^{f}J which implies (a,f(a))^{n}\in \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}(I\bowtie^{f}J)=\delta(I)\bowtie^{f}J. Thus, a^{n}\in\delta(I) and consequently I is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A. On the other hand by the Theorem, we have I is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A. So there exists an \delta-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element a of I. We will show that (f(a)+j)^{m}=0 for every j in J. By the way of contradiction, suppose that 0\neq (f(a)+j)^{m} for some j\in J. Then 0\neq (a,f(a)+j)^{m}\in I\bowtie^{f}J. As I\bowtie^{f}J is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary, we get (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}(I\bowtie^{f}J), which implies a^{n}\in \delta(I). As desired contradiction.
(2)\Rightarrow(1). Let 0\neq (a,f(a)+j)^{m}\in I\bowtie^{f}J for some a\in A and j\in J. Then, a^{m}\in I. If 0\neq a^{m}, as I is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal, we get a^{n}\in \delta(I). Hence, (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in\delta_{\bowtie^{f}}(I\bowtie^{f}J). Now assume that a^{m}=0, necessarily a^{n}\in \delta(I), if not. We have a is a \delta-(m,n)-unbreakable-zero element of I. So by assumption we have (f(a)+j)^{m}=0. Then, (a,f(a)+j)^{m}=0, a contradiction. Hence, I\bowtie^{f}J is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J.
Let f:A\rightarrow~B be a homomorphism of rings and J be an ideal of B. If char(f(A)+J)=m and J^{m}=0. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) I\bowtie^{f}J is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary.
(2) I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary.
For every j\in J, we have
As J^{m}=0 we gate j^{m}=0 for every j\in J on the other hand we have \left( \begin{array}{cccc} m\\ k\\ \end{array} \right)=0 since ch(f(A)+j)=m and m divides \left( \begin{array}{cccc} m\\ k\\ \end{array} \right).
Let A be a commutative ring, and I be a proper ideal of A. Let K be a proper ideal of A. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) K\bowtie~I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie}-primary ideal of A\bowtie~I which is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie}-primary.
(2) K is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A which is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary and (a+i)^{m}=0 for every an (m,n)-unbreakable element a of K and every element i\in~I.
Take A=B and f=id_{A} in Theorem 4.2, where id_{A} is the identity map id_{A}:A\rightarrow~A.
Let A be a commutative ring, M be an A-module. Let I be a proper ideal of A. Then the following statements are equivalent.
(1) I(+)M is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary ideal of A(+)M that is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary.
(2) I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A that is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary and m(a^{m-1})M=0 for every (m,n)-unbreakable element a of I.
Let f:A\rightarrow B be the canonical homomorphism defined by, for every a\in A,~f(a)=(a,0) and J:=0\propto~M. It not difficult to check that A\propto~E is naturally isomorphic to A\bowtie^{f}J, and the ideal I\bowtie^{f}J is canonically isomorphic to I\propto~M. By Theorem 4.2, we have I(+)M is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary ideal of A(+)M which is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{(+)}-primary if and only if I is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A which is not (m,n)-closed \delta-primary and for ever (m,n)-unbreakable element a of I, we have (f(a)+j)^{m}=0 for every j\in J=(0)(+) M. Now, if x\in M, then ((a,0)+(0,x))^{m}=(a^{m},ma^{m-1}x)=0, thus m(a^{m-1}x)=0. Hence, m(a^{m-1}M)=0.
If I is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta-primary ideal of A, then I\bowtie^{f}B need not to be a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J. Let A=Z_{8}. Then, I=\{0\} is clearly weakly (3,1)-closed \delta_{\sqrt{I}}-primary ideal that not (3,1)-closed \delta_{\sqrt{I}}-primary, since 2^{3}\in\{0\} but 2^{2}\notin\{0\}. Let M be an A-module and set J:=0(+)M. Let f:A\hookrightarrow~A(+)M the canonical homomorphism defined by f(a)=(a,0) for every a\in A. It is clear to see that 0\bowtie^{f}J is isomorphic to 0(+)M. Since 3(2^{2})(0(+)M)\neq 0 by the Corollary 4.5, we conclude that 0\bowtie^{f}J is not a weakly (3,1)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J.
\overline{K}^{f} is (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J if and only if K is (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J.
Suppose that \overline{K}^{f} is an (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J. We claim that K is an (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J. Indeed, let (f(a)+j)^{m}\in K with f(a)+j\in f(A)+J. Thus, (a,f(a)+j)^{m}\in\overline{K}^{f}. Since \overline{K}^{f} is an (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal, (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in\delta_{\bowtie^{f}}(\overline{K}^{f})=\{(a,f(a)+j)|~a\in~A,j\in J,~f(a)+j\in\delta_{1}(K)\}. Therefore, (f(a)+j)^{n}\in\delta_{1}(K). Hence, K is an (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J. Conversely, assume that K is an (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J. Let (a,f(a)+j)^{m}\in\overline{K}^{f} with (a,f(a)+j)\in A\bowtie^{f}J. Obviously, f(a)+j\in f(A)+j and (f(a)+j)^{m}\in K which is an (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal. So (f(a)+j)^{n}\in\delta_{1}(K). Which implies (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in\delta_{\bowtie^{f}}(\overline{K}^{f}). Hence, \overline{K}^{f} is an (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J, as desired.
The following statements are equivalent.
(1) \overline{K}^{f} is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J which is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary.
(2) K is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J which is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary and for every (m,n)-unbreakable-zero f(a)+j of K we have a^{m}=0.
(1)\Rightarrow (2). Suppose \overline{K}^{f} is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J. We claim that K is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J. Indeed, let 0\neq (f(a)+j)^{m}\in K with f(A)+j\in f(A)+J. Then, 0\neq(a,f(a)+j)^{m}\in\overline{K}^{f}. Since \overline{K}^{f} is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J, we have (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in\overline{K}^{f}. Therefore, f((a)+j)^{n}\in K. Hence, K is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J. By Lemma 4.7, K is not (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J. Now, let f(a)+j\in f(A)+J be an (m,n)-unbreakable-zero element of K. We claim that a^{m}=0. Indeed if 0\neq a^{m}, we get (a,f(a)+j)^{m}\in\overline{K}^{f}, then (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in\overline{K}^{f}, which implies (f(a)+j)^{n}\in~K. This is a contradiction. Hence, a^{m}=0.
(2)\Rightarrow(1). Suppose that K is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J. Let 0\neq (a,f(a)+j)^{m}\in\overline{K}^{f} for some (a,f(a)+j)\in~A\bowtie^{f}J. Then, obviously, f(a)+j\in f(A)+J and (f(a)+j)^{m}\in K. If 0\neq (f(a)+j)^{m}, as K is weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{1}-primary ideal of f(A)+J, we get (f(a)+j)^{n}\in K, which implies (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in \overline{K}^{f}. Now, if (f(a)+j)^{m}=0. We claim that (f(a)+j)^{n}\in K, if not, we get f(a)+j is an (m,n)-unbreakable-zero. Then by assumption, we have a^{m}=0 and thus (a,f(a)+j)^{m}=0. This is a contradiction. Thus, (f(a)+j)^{n}\in K. Therefore, (a,f(a)+j)^{n}\in\overline{K}^{f}. Hence, \overline{K}^{f} is a weakly (m,n)-closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J. By Lemma 4.7, we have \overline{K}^{f} is not (m,n)closed \delta_{\bowtie^{f}}-primary ideal of A\bowtie^{f}J.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2212.01916v1 by Mohammad Hamoda and Mohammed Issoual, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2212/2212.01916.jsonl.