arxiv: v1 [math.ra] 4 Sep 2007

ORE EXTENSIONS OF PRINCIPALLY QUASI-BAER RINGS arxiv:0709.0325v1 [math.ra] 4 Sep 2007 L MOUFADAL BEN YAKOUB AND MOHAMED LOUZARI Abstract. Let R be a ring and (σ,δ) a quasi-derivation of R. In this paper, we show that if R is an (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz ring and satisfies the condition (C σ), then R is right p.q.-baer if and only if the Ore extension R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.-baer. As a consequence we obtain a generalization of [12]. Introduction Throughout this paper, R denotes an associative ring with unity. For a subset X of R, r R (X) = {a R Xa = 0} and l R (X) = {a R ax = 0} will stand for the right and the left annihilator of X in R respectively. By Kaplansky [13], a right annihilator of X is always a right ideal, and if X is a right ideal then r R (X) is a two-sided ideal. An Ore extension of a ring R is denoted by R[x;σ,δ], where σ is an endomorphism of R and δ is a σ-derivation, i.e., δ: R R is an additive map such that δ(ab) = σ(a)δ(b) + δ(a)b for all a,b R (The pair (σ,δ) is also called a quasiderivation of R). Recall that elements of R[x; σ, δ] are polynomials in x with coefficients written on the left. Multiplication in R[x;σ,δ] is given by the multiplication in R and the condition xa = σ(a)x + δ(a), for all a R. We say that a subset X of R is (σ,δ)-stable if σ(x) X and δ(x) X. Recall that a ring R is (quasi)-baer if the right annihilator of every (right ideal) nonempty subset of R is generated by an idempotent. Kaplansky [13], introduced Baer rings to abstract various property of AW - algebras and Von Neumann algebras. Clark [8], defined quasi-baer rings and used them to characterize when a finite dimensional algebra with unity over algebraically closed field is isomorphic to a twisted matrix units semigroup algebra. Another generalization of Baer rings are the p.p.-rings. A ring R is a right (resp. left) p.p.-ring if the right (resp. left) annihilator of an element of R is generated by an idempotent. R is called a p.p.-ring if it is both right and left p.p.-ring. Birkenmeier et al. [5], introduced principally quasi-baer rings and used them to generalize many results on 2000 Mathematics subject Classification. 16S36. Key words and phrases. p.q.-baer rings, Ore extensions, (σ, δ)-skew Armendariz rings, (σ, δ)-compatible rings, σ-rigid rings. 1

2 L MOUFADAL BEN YAKOUB AND MOHAMED LOUZARI reduced p.p.-rings. A ring is called right principally quasi-baer (or simply right p.q.-baer) if the right annihilator of a principal right ideal is generated by an idempotent. Similarly, left p.q.-baer rings can be defined. A ring R is called p.q.-baer if it is both right and left p.q.-baer. For more details and examples of right p.q.-baer rings, see Birkenmeier et al. [5]. From Birkenmeier et al. [4], an idempotent e R is left (resp. right) semicentral in R if exe = xe (resp. exe = ex), for all x R. Equivalently, e 2 = e R is left (resp. right) semicentral if er (resp. Re) is an ideal of R. Since the right annihilator of a right ideal is an ideal, we see that the right annihilator of a right ideal is generated by a left semicentral in a quasi-baer (p.q.-baer) ring. We use S l (R) and S r (R) for the sets of all left and right semicentral idempotents, respectively. Also note S l (R) S r (R) = B(R), where B(R) is the set of all central idempotents of R. If R is a semiprime ring then S l (R) = S r (R) = B(R). Recall that R is a reduced ring if it has no nonzero nilpotent elements. A ring R is abelian if every idempotent of R is central. We can easily observe that every reduced ring is abelian. According to Krempa [14], an endomorphism σ of a ring R is called to be rigidifaσ(a) = 0implies a = 0forall a R. We call aringrσ-rigidif there exists a rigid endomorphism σ of R. A ring R is called Armendariz (resp. σ- skew Armendariz) if whenever polynomials f = n i=0 a ix i, g = m j=0 b jx j in R[x] (resp. R[x;σ]) satisfy fg = 0 then a i b j = 0 (resp. a i σ i (b j ) = 0) for each i,j. From Hashemi and Moussavi [10], a ring R is called an (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz ring if for p = n i=0 a ix i and q = m j=0 b jx j in R[x;σ,δ], pq = 0 implies a i x i b j x j = 0 for each i,j. Note that (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz rings are generalization of σ-skew Armendariz rings, σ-rigid rings and Armendariz rings, see Hong et al. [11], for more details. Following Hashemi and Moussavi [9], a ring R is σ-compatible if for each a,b R, aσ(b) = 0 ab = 0. Moreover, R is said to be δ-compatible if for each a,b R, ab = 0 aδ(b) = 0. If R is both σ-compatible and δ-compatible, we say that R is (σ,δ)-compatible. Birkenmeier et al. [6, Theorem 3.1], have proved that R is right p.q.-baer if and only if R[x] is right p.q.-baer. Hong et al. [12, Corollary 15], have showed that, if R is σ-rigid, then R is right p.q.-baer if and only if R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.-baer. Also, Hashemi and Moussavi in [9, Corollary 2.8], have showed that under the (σ, δ)-compatibility assumption on the ring R, R is right p.q.-baer if and only if R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.baer. In this article, we prove that if R is an (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz ring and satisfies the condition (C σ ) (see Definition 1.7), then R is right p.q.-baer if and only if the Ore extension R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.-baer. If R is a σ-rigid ring then R is (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz ring and satisfies the condition (C σ ). So that we obtain a generalization of [12, Corollary 15].

ORE EXTENSIONS OF PRINCIPALLY QUASI-BAER RINGS 3 1. Preliminaries and Examples For any 0 i j (i,j N), f j i End(R,+) will denote the map which is the sum of all possible words in σ,δ built with i letters σ and j i letters δ (e.g., f n n = σ n and f n 0 = δn,n N). Lemma 1.1. [15, Lemma 4.1]. For any n N and r R we have x n r = n i=0 fn i (r)xi in the ring R[x;σ,δ]. Lemma 1.2. Let R be a ring and a,b,c R such that b r R (cr) = er and Re is (σ,δ)-stable for some e S l (R). If cab = 0 then we have the following: (i) cσ(ab) = cδ(ab) = 0; (ii) cf j k (ab) = 0, for all 0 k j (k,j N). Proof. (i) cσ(ab) = cσ(a)σ(b), but b = eb, so cσ(ab) = cσ(a)σ(e)σ(b), since σ(e) = σ(e)e. Then cσ(ab) = cσ(a)σ(e)eσ(b) = 0, because e r R (cr). Also cδ(ab) = cδ(aeb) = cσ(ae)δ(b) +cδ(ae)b, but cδ(ae)b = 0. So cδ(ab) = cσ(ae)δ(b) = cσ(a)σ(e)eδ(b) = 0. (ii) It follows from (i). Lemma 1.3. Let R be a ring, σ an endomorphism and δ be a σ-derivation of R. For any p(x) R[x;σ,δ] we have r R[x;σ,δ] (p(x)r) = r R[x;σ,δ] (p(x)r[x;σ,δ]). Proof. Let S = R[x;σ,δ], since p(x)r p(x)s, we have r S (p(x)s) r S (p(x)r). Conversely, let f(x) r S (p(x)r) and φ = n i=0 a ix i S, we have p(x)φ(x)f(x) = p(x)a 0 f(x) + p(x)a 1 xf(x) + + p(x)a n x n f(x), but a i x i f(x) r S (p(x)r), because r S (p(x)r) is a two-sided ideal of S. So, p(x)φ(x)f(x) = 0. Thus f(x) r S (p(x)s). Lemma 1.4. [10, Lemma 4]. Let R be an (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz ring. Then for each idempotent element e R, we have σ(e) = e and δ(e) = 0. Lemma 1.5. [10, Lemma 5]. Let R be a (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz ring. If e 2 = e R[x;σ,δ] where e = e 0 +e 1 x+e 2 x 2 + +e n x n, then e = e 0. Lemma 1.6. Let R be a ring, σ an endomorphism and δ be a σ-derivation of R. Then σ(re) Re implies δ(re) Re for all e B(R). Proof. Let e B(R) and r R. Then δ(re) = δ(ere) = σ(er)δ(e)+δ(er)e = σ(ere)δ(e) +δ(er)e = seδ(e) +δ(er)e, for some s R, but e B(R), then eδ(e) = eδ(e)e, so δ(re) = (seδ(e) +δ(er))e. Therefore δ(re) Re. Definition 1.7. Let σ be an endomorphism of a ring R. We say that R satisfies the condition (C σ ) if whenever aσ(b) = 0 with a,b R, then ab = 0. Lemma 1.8. Let σ be an endomorphism of a ring R. The following are equivalent: (i) R satisfies (C σ ) and reduced; (ii) R is σ-rigid.

4 L MOUFADAL BEN YAKOUB AND MOHAMED LOUZARI Proof. Let a R such that aσ(a) = 0 then a 2 = 0, since R is reduced so a = 0. Conversely, let a,b R such that aσ(b) = 0 then baσ(ba) = 0, since R is σ-rigid (so reduced) then ba = ab = 0. Lemma 1.9. [2, Lemma2.5]. Let R be a ring, σ an endomorphism of R and δ be a σ-derivation of R. If R is σ-rigid then R is (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz. There is an example of a ring R and an endomorphism σ of R such that R is σ-skew Armendariz and R is not σ-compatible. Example 1.10. Consider a ring of polynomials over Z 2, R = Z 2 [x]. Let σ: R R be an endomorphism defined by σ(f(x)) = f(0). Then: (i) R is not σ-compatible. Let f = 1+x, g = x R, we have fg = (1+x)x 0, however fσ(g) = (1+x)σ(x) = 0. (ii) R is σ-skew Armendariz [11, Example 5]. In the next example, S = R/I is a ring and σ an endomorphism of S such that S is σ-compatible and not σ-skew Armendariz. Example 1.11. Let Z be the ring of integers and Z 4 be the ring of integers modulo 4. Consider the ring {( ) } a b R = a Z,b Z 0 a 4. (( )) ( ) a b a b Let σ: R R be an endomorphism defined by σ =. {( ) } 0 a 0 a a 0 Take the ideal I = a 4Z of R. Consider the factor ring 0 a {( ) } R/I a b = a,b 4Z. 0 a (( ) 2 0 + 0 2 ( ) 2 2 1 x) = 0 0 2 (i) R/I is not σ-skew Armendariz. In fact, ( ) ( ) 2 1 2 0 (R/I)[x;σ], but σ 0. 0 2 0 2 ( ) ( ) a b a b (ii) R/I is σ-compatible. Let A =,B = 0 a 0 a R/I. If AB = 0 then aa = 0 and ab = ba = 0, so that Aσ(B) = 0. The same for the converse. Therefore R/I is σ-compatible. Claim 1. (i) (σ,δ)-compatible (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz; (ii) (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz (σ,δ)-compatible. Example 1.12. Consider the ring {( ) } a t R = a Z,t Q, 0 a

ORE EXTENSIONS OF PRINCIPALLY QUASI-BAER RINGS 5 where Z and Q are the set of all integers and all rational numbers, respectively. The (( ring R)) is commutative, ( ) let σ: R R be an automorphism a t a t/2 defined by σ =. 0 a ( ) 0 (( a )) ( ) 0 t 0 t 0 t (i) R is not σ-rigid. σ = 0, but 0, if t 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( ) 0 0 (ii) σ(re) Re for all e S l (R). R has only two idempotents, e 0 = ( ) ( ) 0 0 1 0 a t end e 1 =, let r = R, we have σ(re 0 1 0 a 0 ) Re 0 and σ(re 1 ) Re 1. ( ) ( ) a t b x (iii) R satisfies the condition (C σ ). Let and R such 0 a 0 b that ( ) (( )) a t b x σ = 0, 0 a 0 b hence ( ab = 0 = )( ax/2 + tb, ) so a = 0 or b = 0. In each case, ax + tb = 0, a t b x hence = 0. Therefore R satisfies (C 0 a 0 b σ ). (iv) R is σ-skew Armendariz [12, Example 1]. Claim 2. (i) σ-rigid (σ, δ)-skew Armendariz [3, Lemma 2.3]; (ii) (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz σ-rigid (Example 1.12); (iii) σ-rigid (C σ ) (Lemma 1.8); (iv) (C σ ) σ-rigid (Example 1.12). 2. Ore extensions over right p.q.-baer rings The principally quasi-baerness of a ring R do not inherit the Ore extensions of R. The following example shows that, there exists an endomorphism σ of a ring R such that R is right p.q.-baer, Re is σ-stable for all e S l (R) and not satisfying (C σ ), but R[x;σ] is not right p.q.-baer. Example 2.1. Let K be a field and R = K[t] a polynomial ring over K with the endomorphism σ given by σ(f(t)) = f(0) for all f(t) R. Then R is a principal ideal domain so right p.q.-baer. (i) R[x; σ] is not right p.q.-baer. Consider a right ideal xr[x; σ]. Then x{f 0 (t)+f 1 (t)x+ +f n (t)x n } = f 0 (0)x+f 1 (0)x 2 + +f n (0)x n+1 for all f 0 (t)+f 1 (t)x+ +f n (t)x n R[x;σ] and hence xr[x;σ] = {a 1 x+a 2 x 2 + + a n x n n N, a i K (i = 0,1,,n)}. Note that R[x;σ] has only two idempotents 0 and 1 by simple computation. Since (a 1 x+a 2 x 2 + + a n x n )1 = a 1 x+a 2 x 2 + +a n x n 0 for some nonzero element a 1 x+a 2 x 2 + +a n x n xr[x;σ], we get 1 / r R[x;σ] (xr[x;σ]) and so r R[x;σ] (xr[x;σ]) R[x;σ]. Also, since (a 1 x+a 2 x 2 + +a n x n )t = 0 for all a 1 x+a 2 x 2 + + a n x n xr[x;σ], t r R[x;σ] (xr[x;σ]) and hence r R[x;σ] (xr[x;σ]) 0. Thus

6 L MOUFADAL BEN YAKOUB AND MOHAMED LOUZARI r R[x;σ] (xr[x;σ]) is not generated by an idempotent. Therefore R[x;σ] is not a right p.q.-baer ring, [7, Example 2.8]. (ii) R not satisfies the condition (C σ ). Take f = a 0 +a 1 t+a 2 t 2 + +a n t n and g = b 1 t+b 2 t 2 + +b m t m, since g(0) = 0 so, fσ(g) = 0, but fg 0. (iii) R has only two idempotents 0 and 1 so Re is σ-stable for all e S l (R). Proposition 2.2. Let R be a ring, σ an endomorphism and δ be a σ- derivation of R. Assume that Re is (σ,δ)-stable for all e S l (R) and R satisfies the condition (C σ ). If R is right p.q.-baer then so is R[x;σ,δ]. Proof. The idea of proof is similar to that of [6, Theorem 3.1]. Let S = R[x;σ,δ] and p(x) = c 0 + c 1 x + + c n x n S. There is e i S l (R) such thatr R (c i R) = e i R, fori = 0,1,,n. Let e = e n e n 1 e 0, thene S l (R) and er = n i=0 r R(c i R). (i) We claim that es r S (p(x)s). Let ϕ(x) = a 0 +a 1 x+ +a m x m S, j=k a kf j k (e)xk )), since Re is f j k - we have p(x)ϕ(x)e = ( n i=0 c ix i )( m k=0 ( m stable (0 k j), we have f j k (e) = uj k e for some uj k R (0 k j). So p(x)ϕ(x)e = ( n i=0 c ix i )( m k=0 ( m j=k a ku j k e)xk ), if we set m j=k a ku j k = α k, then n m n m i p(x)ϕ(x)e = ( c i x i )( α k ex k ) = (c i fj i (α ke))x j+k, i=0 k=0 i=0 k=0 but er r R (c i R), for i = 0,1, n. So p(x)ϕ(x)e = 0. Therefore es r S (p(x)s). (ii) We claim that r S (p(x)r) es. Let ϕ(x) = a 0 + a 1 x + +a m x m r S (p(x)r). Since p(x)rϕ(x) = 0, we have p(x)bϕ(x) = 0 for all b R. Thus m k=0 (c i i j=0 fi j (ba k))x j+k = 0. So, we have the following system of n i=0 j=0 equations: c n σ n (ba m ) = 0; (0) c n σ n (ba m 1 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m )+c n f n n 1(ba m ) = 0; (1) c n σ n (ba m 2 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m 1 )+c n f n n 1 (ba m 1)+c n 2 σ n 2 (ba m ) (2) +c n 1 f n 1 n 2 (ba m)+c n f n n 2(ba m ) = 0; c n σ n (ba m 3 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m 2 )+c n f n n 1 (ba m 2)+c n 2 σ n 2 (ba m 1 ) (3) +c n 1 fn 2 n 1 (ba m 1)+c n fn 2(ba n m 1 )+c n 3 σ n 3 (ba m )+c n 2 fn 3 n 2 (ba m) +c n 1 fn 3 n 1 (ba m)+c n fn 3 n (ba m) = 0; n m i (c i fj(ba i k )) = 0; (l) j+k=l i=0 k=0 j=0

ORE EXTENSIONS OF PRINCIPALLY QUASI-BAER RINGS 7 n c i δ i (ba 0 ) = 0. i=0 (n+m) From eq. (0), we have c n ba m = 0 then a m r R (c n R) = e n R. Since c n ba m = 0, so in eq. (1), by Lemma 1.2, we have c n f n n 1 (ba m) = 0 and eq. (1) simplifies to c n σ n (ba m 1 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m ) = 0. (1 ) Let s R and take b = se n in eq. (1 ). Then c n σ n (se n a m 1 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (se n a m ) = 0. But c n se n a m 1 = 0, so c n σ n (se n a m 1 ) = 0. Thus c n 1 σ n 1 (se n a m ) = 0, so c n 1 se n a m = 0 but e n a m = a m, the eq. (1 ) yields c n 1 sa m = 0. Hence a m r R (c n 1 R), thusa m e n e n 1 R andsoc n σ n (ba m 1 ) = 0, soc n ba m 1 = 0, thus a m 1 e n R = r R (c n R). Now in eq. (2), since c n ba m 1 = c n 1 ba m = c n b m = 0, because a m r R (c n R) r R (c n 1 R) and a m 1 r R (c n R). By Lemma 1.2, we have c n f n n 1 (ba m 1) = c n 1 f n 1 n 2 (ba m) = c n f n n 2 (ba m) = 0, because a m e n e n 1 R and a m 1 e n R. So, eq. (2), simplifies to c n σ n (ba m 2 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m 1 )+c n 2 σ n 2 (ba m ) = 0. (2 ) In eq. (2 ), take b = se n e n 1. Then c n σ n (se n e n 1 a m 2 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (se n e n 1 a m 1 )+c n 2 σ n 2 (se n e n 1 a m ) = 0. But c n σ n (se n e n 1 a m 2 ) = c n 1 σ n 1 (se n e n 1 a m 1 ) = 0. Hence c n 2 σ n 2 (se n e n 1 a m ) = 0, so c n 2 se n e n 1 a m = c n 2 sa m = 0, thus a m r R (c n 2 R) = e n 2 R and so a m e n e n 1 e n 2 R. The eq. (2 ) becomes c n σ n (ba m 2 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m 1 ) = 0. (2 ) Take b = se n in eq. (2 ), so c n σ n (se n a m 2 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (se n a m 1 ) = 0, then c n 1 σ n 1 (se n a m 1 ) = 0 because c n σ n (se n a m 2 ) = 0, thus c n 1 se n a m 1 = c n 1 sa m 1 = 0, then a m 1 r R (c n 1 R) = e n 1 R and so a m 1 e n e n 1 R. From eq. (2 ), we obtain also c n σ n (ba m 2 ) = 0 = c n ba m 2, so a m 2 e n R. Summarizing at this point, we have a m e n e n 1 e n 2 R, a m 1 e n e n 1 R and a m 2 e n R. Now in eq. (3), since c n ba m 2 = c n 1 ba m 1 = c n ba m 1 = c n 2 ba m = c n 1 ba m = c n ba m = 0. becausea m r R (c n R) r R (c n 1 R) r R (c n 2 R), a m 1 r R (c n R) r R (c n 1 R) and a m 2 r R (c n R). By Lemma 1.2, we have c n f n n 1(ba m 2 ) = c n 1 f n 1 n 2 (ba m 1) = c n f n n 2(ba m 1 ) = c n 2 f n 2 n 3 (ba m)

8 L MOUFADAL BEN YAKOUB AND MOHAMED LOUZARI = c n 1 f n 1 n 3 (ba m) = c n f n n 3 (ba m) = 0, becausea m 2 r R (c n R), a m 1 r R (c n R) r R (c n 1 R) and a m r R (c n R) r R (c n 1 R) r R (c n 2 R). So eq. (3) becomes c n σ n (ba m 3 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m 2 )++c n 2 σ n 2 (ba m 1 ) (3 ) +c n 3 σ n 3 (ba m ) = 0. Let b = se n e n 1 e n 2 in eq. (3 ), we obtain c n σ n (se n e n 1 e n 2 a m 3 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (se n e n 1 e n 2 a m 2 ) +c n 2 σ n 2 (se n e n 1 e n 2 a m 1 )+c n 3 σ n 3 (se n e n 1 e n 2 a m ) = 0. By the above results, we have c n σ n (se n e n 1 e n 2 a m 3 ) = c n 1 σ n 1 (se n e n 1 e n 2 a m 2 ) = c n 2 σ n 2 (se n e n 1 e n 2 a m 1 ) = 0, thenc n 3 σ n 3 (se n e n 1 e n 2 a m ) = 0, soc n 3 se n e n 1 e n 2 a m = c n 3 sa m = 0, hence a m e n e n 1 e n 2 e n 3 R, and eq. (3 ) simplifies to c n σ n (ba m 3 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m 2 )+c n 2 σ n 2 (ba m 1 ) = 0. (3 ) In eq. (3 ) substitute se n e n 1 for b to obtain c n σ n (se n e n 1 a m 3 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (se n e n 1 a m 2 )+c n 2 σ n 2 (se n e n 1 a m 1 ) = 0. But c n σ n (se n e n 1 a m 3 ) = c n 1 σ n 1 (se n e n 1 a m 3 ) = 0. So c n 2 σ n 2 (se n e n 1 a m 1 ) = 0 = c n 2 se n e n 1 a m 1 = c n 2 sa m 1. Hence a m 1 e n e n 1 e n 2 R, and eq. (3 ) simplifies to c n σ n (ba m 3 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (ba m 2 ) = 0. (3 ) In eq. (3 ) substitute se n for b to obtain c n σ n (se n a m 3 )+c n 1 σ n 1 (se n a m 2 ) = 0. But c n σ n (se n a m 3 ) = 0, so c n 1 σ n 1 (se n a m 2 ) = 0 = c n 1 se n a m 2 = c n 1 sa m 2. Hence a m 2 e n e n 1 R, and eq. (3 ) simplifies to c n σ n (ba m 3 ) = 0, then c n ba m 3 = 0. Hence a m 3 e n R. Summarizing at this point, we have a m e n e n 1 e n 2 e n 3 R, a m 1 e n e n 1 e n 2 R, a m 2 e n e n 1 R, and a m 3 e n R. Continuing this procedure yields a i er for all i = 0,1,,m. Hence ϕ(x) er[x;σ,δ]. Consequently, r S (p(x)r) es and by Lemma 1.3, we have r S (p(x)s) = es. Therefore R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.- Baer. From Example 2.1, we can see that the condition R satisfies (C σ ) in Proposition 2.2 is not superfluous. On the other hand, there is an example which satisfies all the hypothesis of Proposition 2.2.

ORE EXTENSIONS OF PRINCIPALLY QUASI-BAER RINGS 9 Example 2.3. [9, Example 1.1]. Let R 1 be a right p.q.-baer, D a domain and R = T n (R 1 ) D[y], where T n (R 1 ) is the upper n n triangular matrix ring over R 1. Let σ: D[y] D[y] be a monomorphism which is not surjective. Then we have the following: (i) R is right p.q.-baer. By [5], T n (R 1 ) is right p.q.-baer and hence T n (R 1 ) D[y] is right p.q.-baer. (ii) R satisfies the condition (C σ ). Let σ: R R be an endomorphism defined by σ(a f(y)) = A σ(f(y)) for each A T n (R 1 ) and f(y) D[y]. Suppose that (A f(y))σ(b g(y)) = 0. Then AB = 0 and f(y)σ(g(y)) = 0. Since D[y] is a domain and σ is a monomorphism, f(y) = 0 or g(y) = 0. Hence (A f(y))(b g(y)) = 0. (iii) Re is σ-stable for all e S l (R). Idempotents of R are of the form e 0 = A 0 and e 1 = A 1, for some idempotent A T n (R 1 ). Since σ(e 0 ) = e 0 and σ(e 1 ) = e 1, we have the stability desired. Note that R is not reduced, and hence it is not σ-rigid. Corollary 2.4. Let (σ,δ) be a quasi-derivation of a ring R. Assume that R is right p.q.-baer, if R satisfies one of the following: (i) R is (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz and satisfies (C σ ); (ii) S l (R) = B(R), σ(re) Re for all e B(R) and R satisfies (C σ ); (iii) R is σ-rigid. Then R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.-baer. Proof. (i) By Lemma 1.4, Re is (σ,δ)-stable for all e S l (R). (ii) It follows from Lemma 1.6 and Proposition 2.2. (iii) Follows from Lemmas 1.8 and 1.9. In the next, we focus on the converse of Proposition 2.2. Proposition 2.5. Let R be an (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz ring, σ an endomorphism and δ be a σ-derivation of R. If R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.-baer then R is right p.q.-baer. Proof. Let S = R[x;σ,δ] and a R. By Lemma 1.5, there exists e S l (R), such that r S (as) = es. By Lemma 1.3, r S (as) = r S (ar) = es. Hence r R (ar) = er, thus R is right p.q.-baer. Theorem 2.6. Let R be an (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz ring, σ an endomorphism and δ be a σ-derivation of R such that R satisfies (C σ ). Then R is right p.q.-baer if and only if R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.-baer. Proof. It follows immediately from Corollary 2.4 and Proposition 2.5. Corollary 2.7. [12, Corollary 15] Let R be a ring, σ an endomorphism and δ be a σ-derivation of R. If R is σ-rigid, then R is right p.q.-baer if and only if R[x;σ,δ] is right p.q.-baer. From Example 1.12, we see that Theorem 2.6 is a generalization of [12, Corollary 15]. There is an example of a ring R and a quasi-derivation (σ,δ), which satisfies all the hypothesis of Theorem 2.6.

10 L MOUFADAL BEN YAKOUB AND MOHAMED LOUZARI Example 2.8. [2, Example 3.2] Let R = C where C is the field of complex numbers. Define σ: R R and δ: R R by σ(z) = z and δ(z) = z z, where z is the conjugate of z. σ is an automorphism of R and δ is a σ- derivation. We have (i) R is Baer (so right p.q.-baer) reduced; (ii) R is σ-rigid, then it is (σ,δ)-skew Armendariz and satisfies (C σ ). Remark 2.9. Example 1.10, shows that Theorem 2.6 is not a consequence of [9, Corollary 2.8]. acknowledgments This work was supported by the integrated action Moroccan-Spanish A/5037/06. The second author wishes to thank Professor Amin Kaidi of Universidad de Almería for his generous hospitality. References [1] S. Annin, Associated primes over skew polynomial rings, Comm. Algebra, 30(5) (2002), 2511-2528. [2] L. Ben Yakoub, M. Louzari, On quasi-baer rings of Ore extensions. To appear in East West J. Math. [3] L. Ben Yakoub, M. Louzari, Polynomial extensions of symmetric and reversible rings. Submetted to J. of the Korean Math. Soc. [4] G.F. Birkenmeier, J.Y. Kim, J.K. Park, Polynomial extensions of Baer and quasi- Baer rings, J. Pure appl. Algebra 159 (2001) 25-42. [5] G.F. Birkenmeier, J.Y. Kim, J.K. Park, Principally quasi-baer rings, Comm. Algebra 29(2) (2001) 639-660. [6] G.F. Birkenmeier, J.Y. Kim, J.K. Park, On polynomial extensions of principally quasi- Baer rings, Kyungpook Math. journal 40(2) (2000) 247-253. [7] J. Han, Y.Hirano, H.Kim, Some results on skew polynomial rings over a reduced ring, In: G. F. Birkenmeier, J. K. Park, Y. S. Park (Eds), The international symposium on ring theory, In: Trends in math., Birkhäuser Boston, (2001). [8] W.E. Clark, Twisted matrix units semigroup algebras, Duke Math.Soc., 35 (1967) 417-424. [9] E. Hashemi, A. Moussavi, Polynomial extensions of quasi-baer rings, Acta. Math. Hungar. 107 (3) (2005) 207-224. [10] E. Hashemi, A. Moussavi, On (σ, δ)-skew Armendariz rings, J. Korean Math. soc. 42(2) (2005) 353-363. [11] C. Y. Hong, N.K. Kim, T. K. Kwak, On Skew Armendariz Rings, Comm. Algebra 31(1) (2003), 103-122. [12] C. Y. Hong, N. K. Kim, T. K. Kwak, Ore extensions of Baer and p.p.-rings, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 151(3) (2000) 215-226. [13] I. Kaplansky, Rings of operators, Math.lecture Notes series, Benjamin, New York, 1965. [14] J. Krempa, Some examples of reduced rings, Algebra Colloq. 3(4) (1996) 289-300. [15] T. Y. Lam, A. Leroy, J. Matczuk, Primeness, semiprimeness and the prime radical of Ore extensions, Comm. Algebra 25(8) (1997) 2459-2506. Mohamed Louzari, Department of mathematics, University Abdelmalek Essaadi, B.P. 2121 Tetouan, Morocco E-mail address: louzari mohamed@hotmail.com

ORE EXTENSIONS OF PRINCIPALLY QUASI-BAER RINGS 11 L moufadal Ben yakoub, Department of mathematics, University Abdelmalek Essaadi, B.P. 2121 Tetouan, Morocco E-mail address: benyakoub@hotmail.com