Contents

Introduction

1 NEAR RINGS 4 1.1 Basic Denitions and Examples . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2 Ordered near rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 N-GROUPS 25 2.1 Semisimple N-groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2 Chain conditions an N-groups . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3 Generalized derivations an near rings 49 3.1 - derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.2 Generalized derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Bibliography

Introduction
Ring theory is a show piece of mathematical unication, bringing together several branches of the subject and creating a powerful machine for the study of problems of considerable historical and mathematical importance. Near - rings are generalized rings. Near - rings arise in a natural way; take the set M () of all mapping of a group (, +) into itself, dene addition (+) pointwise and o as composition. Then (M (), +, ) is a near ring. Even if is a abelian, only one distributive law is always fullled. (f + g) h = f h + g h holds by the denition of f + g, while for f (g + h) = f g + f h we would have to assume that f is a homomorphism. Another example is supplied by the polynomials w.r.t addition and substitution. Near - ring provide non-linear theory of group mappings historically, the rst step towards near - rings was an axiomatic research is done by Dickson in 1905. He showed that there do exist elds with only one distributive law. Some years later these eld theory proved be useful in coordinating certain importance classes of geometric planes (Descartes plane and pauppian planes). A part from the applications concerning axiomatics and geometry mentioned above, the special classes of nite nearrings give new and highly ecient classes of balanced in complete block designs the characterize Frobenius group and hence

also nite groups with xed point free automorphism groups. The notation of the ring with derivation is quite and plays a signicant role in the integration of analysis, algebraic geometry and algebra. In 1940s it was found that the Galois theory of algebraic equations can be transferred to the theory of ordinary dierential equations. The study of derivations in rings through initiated long back, but got impetus only after posner who in 1957 established two very striking results on derivations in prime rings. The notion derivation in rings has also been generalised in various directions such as generalized derivation, Jorchon derivations, generalized Jorden derivation also there has been considerable intergest in investigating commutativity of rings more often that of prime and semi prime rings. Analogus to be concept of derivation of rings, so on the concept of derivation on near - rings was intiated by H.E. Bell and G. Mason in 1987 [BM]. Since then only a few paper appeared in this topic [A], [BA], [H]. In 1991 Bresar. M introduced the notation of generalized derivations corresponding to the derivation on a ring R [B]. In [OG] generalized derivation of Prime near rings is discussed. This motivated as to study the concepts of near rings and generalized derivation of prime near rings. Our work is divided into 3 Chapters. The rst chapter on Near - Rings is divided into two sections the rst section deals with denitions and examples and the second section deals with Near - ring.
2

The Second Chapter on -groups is divided into two sections the rst section deals with semisimple N- groups and the second section deals with chain conditions on N -groups. The third chapter discuses Generalized derivations on near rings. This chapters divided into two sections. The rst section deals with derivations and the second section deals with generalized derivations. Our work ends with a detailed bibliography.

Chapter 1 NEAR RINGS

1.1 Basic Denitions and Examples

Denition 1.1.1 A near ring N is a set N together with two binary operations, addition and multiplication, such that i (N, +) is a group (not necessarily abelian) ii (N, .) is a semigroup (not necessarily with an identity element) and iii For all x, y, z in N , (x + y)z = xz + yz (Right distributive law If the above conditions are satised for all elements in N , then N is called a right near ring. Similarly we can dene a left near ring. Through out our work we will consider only right near rings. Example 1.1.2 Let (G, +) be any group. Dene a multiplication on G as follows for all x, y in G , x y = x.
4

Then (G, +, ) is a near ring. Proof Given that (G, +) is a group. we have to check the remaining conditions i. (G, ) is a semigroup. ii. If x1 , x2 , x3 G then (x1 + x2 ) x3 = x1 x3 + x2 x3 For x, y G, given that xy =x is colosed. claim (x y)z = x (yz) L.H.S = (x y) z = xz = x R.H.S = x (y z) = xy = x From(1) and (2) Therefore, (x.y).z = x.(y.z) x, y, z G
5

(1)

(2)

 in G is associative. Therefore (G, ) is a semigroup. Let x, y, z G. Then x z = x and y z = y x z + y x = x + y. Also (x + y) z = x + y by denition of . Hence (x + y).z = xz + yz Therefore (G, +, ) is a near ring.

Example 1.1.3 Let N = R[x], the set of all polynomials in x over the eld of real numbers R. Dene addition + and composition on N as follows: For p(x), q(x) N , let p(x) = a0 + a1 x + a2 x2 + . . . q(x) = b0 + b1 x + b2 x2 + . . . Then p(x) + q(x) = (a0 + b0 ) + (a1 + b1 )x + (a2 + b2 )x2 + . . . Denition 1.1.4 Near ring with identity Let N be a near ring, N is said to be near ring with identity, if there is an element 1 N such that 1.n = n.1 = nn N Example 1.1.5 The set N of all polynomials over the eld of real numbers, with constant term o togethers, with constant term
6

o together with the usual addition and composition of polynoomials, is a near ring. Since (N, .) is a semigroup with an identity element 1, we call N a near ring with an identity element 1. Denition 1.1.6 Let N be a near ring and let S be a nonempty subset of N . Then S is said to be subnear ring of N , if S itselt is a near ring under the operations in N . Example 1.1.7 Set of continuous function from R R forms a subnear ring under usual addition and compsition of mapping Denition 1.1.8 Constant element Let N be a near ring. Let k N . Then k is said to be constant in N if kx = k N Denition 1.1.9 A near ring N is said to be constant near ring if every element of N is constant. Example 1.1.10 Example 1.1.2, (G, +) is group and . is dened as xy = x x, y G clearly each element of G is constant in G. Therefore (G, +, .) is a constant near ring. Example 1.1.11 Consider example 1.1.3, we observe that 0.p(x) = 0 p(x) IR[x] = N , Therefore 0(zero) is ther only constant term of N . x

Lemma 1.1.12 An element x in N is a constant if and only if x = x0 proof Assume that x in N is a constant. claim x = x0 X is constant xy = xy N Equation (1) is true for all y N Therefore equation (1) is true for y=0 Therefore x0 = x which is required. Conversely assume that x = x0 claim x is a constant in N ie., we have to prove xy = x Given x = x0 For any y N . xy = (x0)y = x(0y) Associative law holds inN = x0 = x xy = x 0is the constant[0y = 0] using (2) y N which is required y N (2) (1)

Lemma 1.1.13 Let N be a near ring. Let k(N ) be the collection of all constant element in N . Then K(N ) is a subnear ring
8

of N Proof K(N ) = {k N/ k is constant inN } x N }

= {k N/kx = k claim k(N ) is a subnear ring of N we have to prove (i) (k(N ), +) is a group (ii) (k(N ), .) is a semigroup (iii) ((x + y).z = xz + yz tributive law) (k(N ), +) is a group of N . Therefore 0.x = 0 x.z = x, y.z = y N is near ring, x.z y.z = x y N

x, y, z K(N ) (Right dis-

x N, 0 k(N ) k(N ) = Therefore z N

ie.x y = (x.z y.z) = (x y).z for f orx, y k(N ), x y k(N ) (k(N ), +) is a group. To prove (k(N ), .) is a semi group ie., we have to prove
9

(i) If x, y k(N ) then x.y k(N ) (ii) x(yz) = (xy)z (i) Let x, y k(N ) claim xy k(N ) (xy)z = xyz N (x.y)z = x.(y.z) = x.yz N ie.,(xy.z = xyz N x.y k(N ), x, y, z k(N )

. in N is associative,and k(N ) N , . is associative in k(N ) Since each element of k(N ) is an element of N . associative lawa is true for k(N ). (k(N ), .) is a semigroup. Right distributive law Let x, y, z k(N ) claim (x + y).z = xz + yz L.H.S = (x + y).z = (x + y)
10

(1)

x + y k(N ) R.H.S xz + yz = x + y (2)

From, (1) and (2), L.H.S = R.H.S (x + y).z = xz + yz distributive law is true (k(N ), +, .) is a subnear of N , since each element of k(N ) is constant. (k(N ), +, .) is a constant subnear ring of N Denition 1.1.14 Let N be a near ring. Let k(N ) be the collection of all constant elements in N . The subnearring of N . k(N ) is called the constant subnear ring

1.2

Ordered near rings

Denition 1.2.1 Linear order (or) simple order (or) order relation. Let N be a any non-empty set. Let C be any relation on N . Then C is said to be order relation if the following conditions are true, (i) Comparability For each x, y N for which x = y; either xCy or yCx
11

(ii) Non reexivity There is no x in N such that xCx holds (iii) Transitivity If xCy and yCz then xCz, x, y, z N Example 1.2.2 let R be a real number system, < be the usual ordering of numbers, We dene C as follows; C = {(a, b)/a < b, a, b R} Note x < y means x y and x = y Denition 1.2.3 Ordered near ring Let N be a near ring. Let be a linear order on N . Then N is said to be an ordered near ring if (i) x y z+x z + y and x + z y+z

(ii) x < y and 0 < z xz < yz Example 1.2.4 The set of all real numbers with linear order < forms an ordered near ring Denition 1.2.5 Positive element Let N be an ordered nearing.Let x N . Then x is said to be a positive element if o < x.
12

Notation Let P denote the set of all positive elements in N . p = {x N/0 < x} Lemma 1.2.6 Let N be an ordered near ring. Let P denote the set of all positive elements in N . Then the following are true (i) P is not empty if N = O (ii) If a P , then for all x in N x + a + x p (iii) If a, b P , then a + b P and ab P (iv) For any element x in N , exactly one of the following conditions holds: x = 0, x p, x p Proof (i) P is not empty if n = 0 Assume that n = 0 There is an element x in N with x = 0 Since N is an ordered near ring, either O < x or O > x hold. If O < x, x p P is non-empty If O > x, O < x x p P is non-empty Hence (i) is proved. To Prove (ii) If a p , then for all x in N x+a+x p.
13

Let a p. Then a > 0 Let x N a > 0 x + a > x + 0 (x + a) + x > x + x x + a + x > 0 x + a + x p

Hence (ii) is proved To Prove (iii) Let a, b P, a > 0 and b > 0, a > 0 a + b > 0 + b linear order a+b>b>0 a+b>0a+bp a>0 ab > 0.b ab > 0 ab p

Hence (iii) is proved. To Prove (iv) Let x N we know that N = 0 There is an element x N such that x = 0. since N is an
14

ordered near ring, only one of the following hold 1. x > 0 2. x < 0 If x > 0 x P If x < 0, x > 0, x p Hence (iv) is proved. The following lemma proves that the converse of the above lemma is also true. Lemma 1.2.7 Let N be a near ring Let P = {x N ; x > 0} be subset of N , with the properties 1. P is not empty if N = 0 2. If a p, then for all x in N x + a + x p 3. If a, b P then a + b P , and ab p, and 4. For any element xin N , exactly one of the following conditions holds x = 0, x P, x P Then N is an ordered near ring. proof To Prove the Lemma We have to prove that there is a linear order in N which satises the following conditions
15

(i) x

y z + x z + y and x + z y + z

(ii) x < y and 0 < z xz < yz we dene linear order on N as follows, For all x, y in N , x y i either x=y or x+y p satises the above two con-

we have to prove that this order ditions.

Now assume that x y x = y or x + y p If x = y, z + x = z + y and x+z =y+z z+xz+y If x+y p z+x and x+z then z+y y+z x + y p x + y > 0 z x + y > z (z x) + y + z > z + z (z + x) + (z + y) > 0 (z + x) + (z + y) p z + x z + y
16

and

x+z y+z

Simillarly we can Prove x + z y + z Which Proves (i) Assume x < y and 0 < z Let x < y and 0 < z 0<zzp x < y means x = y (or) x + y p

if

x = y,

xz = yz xz yz

if x + y p,

(x + y) > 0 (x + y)z > 0.3 xz + yz > 0 xz + yz p xz yz0

This is true the cases is an ordered relation in N . (N, +, .) is an ordered near ring. Theorem 1.2.8 Let N be an ordered near ring with and identity element 1. If for a, b in N, ab = 0, then either a = 0 (or)b = 0
17

Proof Let N be an ordered near ring For a, b N assume that ab = 0 Claim Either a = 0 or b = 0 Suppose that,a = 0 and b = 0 case (i) let b p Then b > o a N such that = o, either a P or a P If a p, ab p(b p) ab > 0 to ab = 0 Our assumption is wrong.

If a p,

a > o

(a)b = (ab) = (0) = 0 (a)b = 0 a p = b p = ab p = ab > 0 (2) (1)

From (1) and (2) use get a contradiction case (ii)

18

Let b p, Let b = b b = b = a(1)b = a(1)b o = a b where ab =0 and a = a(1) b P

by case (i) once again we get a contradiction. unless a = 0 suppose a = 0 a(1) = 0 (i) Hence 0 = 0(1) = [a(1)(1)] = a(1) 0 = a 0 = 0 This is a contradiction to a = o our assumption is wrong, If ab = 0 then either a = 0 or b = 0 holds Hence the Proof.
19

Lemma 1.2.9 Let H be a subgroup of (N, +), where N is an ordered near ring with P as its set of Positive elements. Then H = 0 if and only if H P = Proof Let N be an ordered near ring. Let H be a subgroup of N. Assume H = 0 Claim H p = Suppose that H p = Letx H p Letx Handx p Letx = 0andx > 0 Which is a contraciction. Our assumption is wrong. H p= Conversely assume that H p = Claim H = 0 Suppose that, H = {o} There is an element x H with x = 0 Since H is a subgroup of N , by lemma 1.2.7 x>0 If x > 0 thenx p x Handx p
20

or

x<0

xH p

 to If x < 0, x > 0, x p

H p=

Since H is a subgroup of N , and x H, x H and x p x H P which is a to H p = our assumption is wrong. H = {0} holds. Hence the Proof. Theorem 1.2.10 Let N be a non trivial ordered near ring. Then N = k(N ) if and only if k(N ) = {0} proof Let N be a nontrivial ordered near ring. Assume N = k(N ) To Prove k(N ) = {0} Since N is not trivial N = 0 k(N ) = {0} conversely assume that k(N ) = {0} To Prove N = k(N ) We have to prove that N = Set of constants in N (i,e)., we have to prove (i) N k(N ) (ii) k(N ) N

k(N ) = {x N : xy = xy N } is subset of
21

Condition (ii) is satised. We have to prove condition (i) only N k(N ) We know that by the Lemma 1.2.9 H = 0 h p = Since k(N ) = 0 Let k k(N ) p k k(N )andk p kx = kx N and k > 0 kx = k > 0 kx > 0 kx p and also x p, k p xk p Let n = xk + x N Since N is an ordered near ring one of the following hold : (i)n = 0 (or) (ii)n > o (or) (iii)n < 0 k(N ) p =

xk + x = 0, xk + x > 0, xk + x < 0 If n > 0 xk + x > 0 (xk + x)k > 0k (xk)k + xk > 0 (x)(kk) + xk > 0 xk + xk > 0 0>0
22

[k k(N )]

which is a If n < 0 xk + x < 0 xk x > 0 (xk x)k > 0.k x(kk) xk > 0 xk xk > 0 0>0 which is a n = 0 is hold.

xk + x = 0 xk = x x0 = (xk)0 = x(k0)0 = xk = x x0 = x p k(N ) thus N k(N ) Hence the Proof.

23

Corollary 1.2.11 If N is an ordered near ring which is not a constant near ring then k(N ) = {0} proof Let N be an ordered near ring with k(N ) = N . But we know that The above theorem 1.2.10 N = K(N ) if and only if K(N ) = {0} gives us N = K(N ) K(N ) = 0 Hence the Proof. Corollary 1.2.12 If N is an ordered near ring with identity element 1. dierent from 0(zero), then k(N ) = 0 Proof Let N be an ordered near ring with identity element 1. dierent from Zero Claim K(N ) = 0 Suppose that k(N ) = 0 By the above theorem 1.2.10 we observe that K(N ) = 0 k(N ) = N Given 1 N and 0 N 1 k(N ) 1 is a constant. However 1.x = xx N, 1.x = 1x N K(N ) = 0 Hence the Proof.
24

Chapter 2 N-GROUPS
2.1 Semisimple N-groups

Notation To distinguish additive identity of two groups, N and M , we denote 0N and 0M Denition 2.1.1 Let N be a near ring. Let (M, +) is an additive group. M is said to be an N group, if the mapping N M M (given by (x, m) xm)satises the following conditions. i ((x + y)m = xm + ymx, y N and m M . ii (xy)m = x(ym)x, y N and m M Example 2.1.2 Taking M = N in the denition, the near ring N has the structure of N -group (n, +). For condition(i) is know as right distributive law. condtion (ii) associative law which are holds in N
25

Denition 2.1.3 Let M be a N - group. Let H be a non-empty subset of M . Then H is called N -subgroup of M if H is itself form a N -group with operations on M . Proposition 2.1.4 Let N be a near ring, x an element of N which is a constant and M an N -group. Then i For all m in M, xm = xoM . ii If xoN = oN , then xoM = oM Proof Let N be a near ring. Let x N Let M be a N -group. Assume that x is a constant in N . claim xm = xoM x N and mM

x is a constant in N xy = xy N Take y = oN xoN = X x.m = (x + oN ).M ie., xm = oM = xm + oM , each term above is an element in M and M is an additive group. Using Left cancellation law. oM = oN .m (1)

xm = (x.oN )m
26

= x(oN .m) = xoM xm = xoM m M Hence (i) is proved. (ii) Assume that xoN = oN claim xoM = oM xoM = (xoN )oM = x(N oM ) = (x.oN )oM = xoM = oM xoM = oM Hence (ii) proved . {x is a constant}

Denition 2.1.5 Let N be a near ring. Let M, M be an two N -groups. Then the mapping f : M M is said to be N - homomorphism if i f (a + b) = f (a) + f (b)a, b M ii f (xa) = xf (a)x N and a M
27

Denition 2.1.6 Let M be a N -group. Let k be a subset of M . Then k is called an N -submodule of M . if i k is a normal subgroup of (M, +) ii x(m + a) xm kx N, m M, a k Theorem 2.1.7 If f : M M is an N -homomorphism from M onto M and k is an N -submodule of M then f induces an N -isomophism of N -groups f : m/k M /k where k = f 1 (k ) Proof Since f : M M is an N -homomorphism from M onto M it satises the following conditions, i f (a + b) = f (a) + f (b) ii f (xa) = xf (a)a, b M x N since k is an submodule of M it satises the following conditions i k is an normal subgroup of M ii x(m + a) xm k where x N, m M and a k claim f induces an N -homomorphism of N -groups f : m/k M /k where k = f 1 (k ) since f is onto, f 1 (k ) exists. Let k = f 1 (k ) = {b M : f (b) f (k)}.
28

Then k is a N -submodule of M . M/k exists and M /k exists. In a mapping f : m/k M /k which is dened f (ck) = c k c M, c M claim f is an isomorphism. we know that f : M M is onto homomorphism k and k are subgroups of M and M respectively. Therefore f : M/k M /k is an onto N -homomorphism. Let f (c, k) = f (c1 k ) c1 k = (c1 ) (k ) c1 k = c1 k f (c1 k) = f (c1 k ) c1 k = c1 k f is one - one. f : M/K M /K satises all conditions of isomorphism . f is an isomorphism Hece proved Theorem 2.1.8 Let M be an N -group and let M = M1 M2 (direct sum of subgroups) where Mi i = 1, 2 is an N submodules of M . Then if for any m in M , M = m1 + m2 , mi inMi , i = 1, 2 then xm = xm1 + xm2 , x N proof Consider xm = x(m1 + m2 ) Let M be an N -group
29

Let M = M1 M2 . therefore any element m in M can be written in a unieque way as m1 + m2 where m1 M1 and m2 M2 since each Mi is an N -submodule of M , it satises the following conditions i Mi is normal subgroup of M, i = 1, 2 ii for each x N, m M, mi Mi the expression x(m + mi ) xm mi (i = 1, 2) consider xm1 + x(m1 + m2 ) we know that M2 is N submodule of M , xm1 + x(m1 + m2 ) = l2 xm1 + x(m1 + m2 ) = l2 xm1 + xm1 + x(m1 + m2 ) = xm1 + l2 x(m1 + m2 ) = xm1 + l2 consider x(m1 + m2 ) xm2 we know that M1 is an N - submodule of M . Therefore x(m1 + m2 ) xm2 M1 x(m1 + m2 ) xm2 = l1 (say) (1) (say) M2

x(m1 + m2 ) xm2 + xm2 = l1 + xm2 x(m1 + m2 ) = l1 + xm2

30

(2)

From (1) and (2) x(m1 + m2 ) = xm1 + l2 = l1 + xm + 2 unique way, from (3) We obtain l1 = xm1 , put (4) in (3) x(m1 + m2 ) = xm1 + xm2 xm = xm1 + xm2 Hence the proof. Theorem 2.1.9 Let M = M1 M2 be a direct decomposition of a N -group M as a direct sum of its N -submodule M1 , M2 . Then any N -submodule of Mi (i = 1, 2) is an N -submodule of M . Proof Let M = M1 M2 , where M is an N -group Mi is an N submodule of M (i = 1, 2) To prove any N -submodule of Mi of Mi is an N -submodule of M Let L be an N -submodule of M1 claim L is an N -submodule of M1 . since Lis a normal subgroup of M1 , L is a normal subgroup of M .
31

(3)

since M = M1 M2 every element in M can be written as a

l2 = xm2

(4)

Let x N, m M and a L claim x(m + a) xm L m = m1 + m2 where m1 M1 and m2 M2 x(M + a) xm = x(m1 + m2 + a) x(m1 + m2 ) x(m1 + m2 + a) x(m1 + m2 ) = x((m1 + a) + m2 ) x(m1 + m2 ) = x(m1 + a)xm2 xm1 xm2 x(m1 + m2 + a) x(m1 + m2 ) = x(m1 + a) + xm2 xm1 xm2 x(m1 + m2 + a) x(m1 + m2 ) = x(m1 + a) xm1 from(1), x(m + a) xm = x(m1 + a) xm1 L L is an N -submodule of M1 Similarly we can prove (L is an N submodule of M2 ) L is an N -submodule of M . Hence the Proof. (1)

Theorem 2.1.10 Let M1 , M2 , M3 be N -subgroups of an N group M . If M1 M2 and M2 and M3 are normal subgroups of (M, +), then M1 (M2 + m3 ) = M2 + m1 ) M3 . Proof Let x M1 (M2 + M3 ) x M1 and x M2 + m3 and x = m2 + m3 m2 M2 , m3 M3
32

 x = m2 + m3 m1 x = m2 + m1 andx M3 x m2 + m1 andx M3 x (m2 + m1 ) M3 M1 (M2 + M3 ) (M2 + m1 ) M3

Similarly (M2 + m1 ) M3 M1 (M2 + m3 ) M1 (M2 + M3 ) = M2 + (M1 M3 ) Hence the Proof

Denition 2.1.11 A family {mi /i I} of N -submodules of an N -group M is said to be independent if for each J in I, Mj
i=j iI

Mi ) = 0

Remark 2.1.12 If {mi /i I} is an independent family of N submodules, them Mi Mj = 0 for all i, j in I, i = j. since Mi are normal subgroups of (M, +), it follows that when i = j, the elements of Mi commute with elements of Mj , with respect to addition in M .

33

Remark 2.1.13 Any subfamily of an independent family of N submodules of an N -group is itself independent. Remark 2.1.14 Since a representation of an element of the sum of a family of N -submodules involves only a nite subfamily, a family of N submodules is independent if anf only if every nite subfamily is independent. Proposition 2.1.15 Let {mi /i I} be an idependent family of N -submodules of an N group M and L an N submodule of M such that L M. Proof To prove {L} {Mi /i I} is an independent family. i.e., we have to prove
i=j iI

Mi .

Then L Mi /i I is an independent family of N submodules of

Mj (L +
iI

Mi ) = 0i, j

Let x Mj (L +

i=j iI

Mi ) Mi )
iI

x Mj andx L +

x Mj andx = y + x1 + x2 + ... + xn x = y + x1 + x2 + .... + xn Mj

i=j

wherey Landxi Mi

y = x x1 x2 .... Xn
iI

Mi andy L

34

also y L

i=j

Mi
iI

But we are given that L

iI

Mi = 0

y=0 ie., x x1 x2 ... Xn = 0 x = x1 = x2 = .... = xn

i=j

0 Mj (L
iI i=j

Mi ) Mi )

Mj (L
iI

{L} {mi /i I} is an independent family of N submodules of M Hence the proof. Denition 2.1.16 Let M be an N group and {mi /i I} be a family of N -submodule of M . Then M is said to be the direct sum of the family {mi /i I}, if i M= Mi and
iI

ii The family {mi /i I} is independent where M =

Mi

35

Denition 2.1.17 A non trivial N group M is said to be irreduciable if it has no N submodule other than (o) and M Theorem 2.1.18 Let {mi /i I} be a family of irreducible N submodules of on N group M such that M = with J I such that M = L Proof Given that {mi /i I} be a family of irreduciable N submodule of an N -group M . M=
iI iI

Mi . If L is

an N submodule of M then there exists a subfamily {mi /i I}

jJ

Mj

Mi , L is an N -submodule of M .
jJ

To prove that M = L

Mj

Consider the family E of independent sets of N submodules of the form {L} {Mk /k K} where K I. Partially order this family of independent sets of N -submodules by inclusion. Every chain of such sets in this family is bounded above, by its union which belongs to this family so that this family E is inductive by An inductive partially ordered set has a maximal element there exists in this family E a maximal element say {L} {Mj /j J} with J I. Now for each i in I, since Mi is irreducible, Mi (L +
jJ

Mj = 0 or Mi

In the rst case we can augment the family {L}{Mj /j J} with Mi to obtain an independent set in the family contradicting the maximality of the element {L} {Mj /j J}
36

Hence Mi {L + Mi L +
jJ

Mj } = Mi {Mj /j J} ie.,

Mj , i in I being arbitrary, M =L
jJ

Mj

Hence the proof Denition 2.1.19 An N group M is said to be semisimple if M =

iI

Mi where {Mi /i I} is a family of irreduciable N

submodules of M Remark 2.1.20 A homomorphic image of an irreducible N group it either 0 or else irreducible so that homomorphic images of semisimple N groups are semisimple. Theorem 2.1.21 Every N submodule L of a semisimple N group M is a direct summand of M , ie., there exists an N submodule L of M such that M = L L Proof Given that every N submodule L of a semisimple N -group M is a direct summand of M , Let N submodule L of M To prove that M = L L In the proof of theorem 2.1.18
37

Put L =

jJ

Mj , where {L} {Mj /j J} is the maximul

element of the family E Hence M = L L Theorem 2.1.22 Let M = M= Mj

iI iI

Mi be a sum of irreducible N

submodules of M . Then there exists a subset J of I such that

jJ

Proof Given that M = submodules of M . A subset J of I To prove that M = Put L = 0

jJ

Mi be a sum of irreducible N -

Mj

In the proof of theorem 2.1.18 M=

jJ

Mj

Hence the proof. Theorem 2.1.23 Let M be an N group such that every N submodule of M is a direct summand of M . Then M is semisimple. Proof Let M be an N group. Let every N submodule of M is a direct summand of M . To prove that M is semisimple. Let L be an N submodule of M and L1 an N submodule of L. Then L being a direct summand of M , by using theorem 2.1.18.
38

L1 is an N submodule of M and so by the hypothesis in the theorem, L1 is a direct summand of M . Thus M = L1 L1 for a N submodule L1 of M . by using Proposition 2.1.10. LL1 (LL1 ) every N -submodule of L is a direct summand of L. Now if M is an irreducible N group, it is semisimple. Assume therefore that M has a proper N -submodule L with L = 0 and L = M . Let m M and m = L. consider the family F of all N submodule L such that, (i) L L and (ii) m = L . since L F , F is notempty. Also any chain of the elements in F has an upperbound in F the union of the elements in the chain thus by using An inductive partially ordered set has a maximul element. F has a maximal element say k . k being a direct summand, M = k k , for N -submodule k. certainly k = 0, since m M . but m = k . we contend k is an irreducible N submodule. For if not, the proof k = k1 K2 where ki , i = 1, 2 are non-trivial N submodules of k. If m k +k1 (or) m = k +k2 contradiction to the maximality of k . Hence m (k +k1 )(k +k2 ). by using the Proposition 2.1.10, (k +k1 )(k; +k2 ) = (k +k1 )k2 = k +0 = k a contradiction. Thus k is irreducible. Let now M be the sum of all irreducible N submodule of M . Tthen M = M + M1 . if M1 = 0, since M1 inherits the property asserted in the hypothesis there exists in M1 an irreducible N submodule M 1 of M1
39

which is simultaneously an irreducible N -subodule of M . But M 1 M , a contradiction. So M = M Hence M is semisimple. Theorem 2.1.24 For a non-trivial N group M , the following conditions are equivalent. 1. M is a sum of family of irreducible N submodules of M 2. M is a direct sum of a family of irreducible N -submodules of M . 3. Every N submodule of M is a direct summand of M Proof 1. M is a sum of family of irreducible N submodules of M M is a direct sum of a family of irreducible N submodule of M . By using theorem 2.1.22 2. M is a direct sum of a family of irreducible N -submodules of M every N -submodule of M is a direct -summand of M . By using theorem 2.1.21. 3. Every N submodule of M is a direct summand of M M is a sum of a family of irreducible N submodules of M . by using theroem 2.1.23 Hence the proof
40

2.2

Chain conditions an N-groups

Denition 2.2.1 (i) M = M1 M2 M3 . . . Mr ... and (ii) M = M1 M2 M3 ... Mr ...are chains of N - subgroups such that each N -sub group of the chain is an N - sub module of the Preceding N - subgroup. (i) is said to be renement of (ii) if for each i = 1, 2..., the term m1 of (ii) occurs Mj in (i) for some j. Denition 2.2.2 A desending normal chain of N - subgroups of an N -group M is a chain of N - sub groups of M of the form M = M0 M0 M0 ...... where each Mi+1 is an N-Submodule of mi , i = 0, 1 Denition 2.2.3 Let M be an N -group. Let {M i}i I be a normal chain of N -groups. It is said to be a strictly descending if for each iMi Mi+1

Denition 2.2.4 An N -group M satises the maximal condlition for N -Submodules if for every non-empty set of N -Sub modules of M has maximal element. Denition 2.2.5 An N -group M is said to be notherian if for any N - Subgroup L of M such that L = L1 L2 ... Lk = M
41

with li and N -Submodule of Li+1 , i = 1, 2...k 1. L Satises the maximal condition for the N -Submodules of L. Denition 2.2.6 An N -group M is said to be artination if its satises the descending chain condition. M = M0 M1 M2 ...Mn = (0) Where each Mi+1 is an N - Submodule of Mi for each i Proposition 2.2.7 Let M1 , M2 , M1 , M2 be N -Subgroups of an N -group M such that M1 is an N -Submodule of Mi , i = 1, 2 Then M1 + M1 M2 and M1 + M1 M2 are N subgroups of M such that M1 + M1 M2 is an N submodule of M1 + M1 M2 Proof Since M1 is an N -Submodule of M1 and M1 M2 an N-Subgroup of Mi By using Theorem 2.2.15 Similarly M1 + <1 M2 . Let a M1 + M1 M2 n M1 + M1 M2 and x N Let b = b1 + b2 with b1 M1 and b2 M1 M2 Thus x(a + b) xa = x(a + b1 + b2 ) x(a + b1 ) + x(a + b1 ) xa Since a + b1 is in m1 and b2 M1 M2 is in M1 M2 so x(a + b1 + b2 ) x(a + b1 ) M1 M2 as M1 , M2 is an N submodule of M1 By using Theorem 2.2.15 Also x(a + b1 + b2 ) xa is in M1 , M1 being an N -Submodule of
42

M1 . Thus x(a + b) xa belongs to M1 + M1 M2 Hence the Proof. Proposition 2.2.8 Let M1 , M2 , M1 , M2 be N -Subgroups of an N-group M such that Mi is an N -Submodule of Mi , i = 1, 2 Then M2 + M2 M1 and M2 + M2 M1 are N-Subgroups M such that M2 + M2 M1 and N-Submodule of M2 + M2 M1 Proof Since M2 is an N -Submodule of M2 and M2 M1 an N -Subgroup of Mi By using Theorem 2.2.15 Similarly for M2 + M2 M1 . Let a M2 + M2 M1 , b M2 + M2 M1 and x N Let b = B1 + b2 with b1 M2 and b2 M2 M1 a, b1 , b2 are all in M2 and b2 M2 M1 Thus x(a + b) xa = x(a + b1 + b2 ) x(a + b1 + x(a + b1 ) xa Since a + b1 is in m2 and b2 is inM2 M1 so x(a + b1 + b2 ) x(a + b1 ) M2 M1 as M2 , M1 is an N submodule of M2 By using Theorem 2.2.15 Also x(a + b1 ) xa is in M2 , M2 being an N -Submodule of M2 . Thus x(a + b) xa belongs to M2 + M2 M1 Hence the Proof. Proposition 2.2.9 Let M1 , M2 , M1 , M2 be N - Subgroups of an N -group M with M1 M1 , and M2 M2 .
43

If for i = 1, 2. Mi is an N-Submodule of Mi . then M1 +M1 M2 M2 +M2 M1 =

M2 +M1 M2 M2 +M2 M1

Proof Let K = M1 M2 and L = M1 + M1 M2 K L = (M1 M2 ) (M1 + M1 M2 ). M1 is normal in M1 and M1 M2 an Subgroup of M1

k L = (M1 M2 ) (M1 + M1 M2 ) = M1 M2 + M1 M1 M1 ) = M1 M2 + M2 M1 Also M1 is normal in M1 and M1 M2 is a Subgroup of M1 k + L = M1 M2 + M1 M2 + M1 = M1 M2 + M1

So L is an N -Submodule of K + L by using proposition : 2.2.7 consider the map L (L + K) k mapping x on to (x + K) for every x in L. The isomorphism (L + K)/L K/L K. = Thus (M1 + M1 M2 )/(M1 + M1 M2 ) = (M1 M2 )/(M1 M2 + M2 M1 ) Hence the Proof. Denition 2.2.10 Let M be an N -group and
44

i M = M1 . . . Mr = (o) and ii M = M1 10 Mr = (o) be two narmal chains of N -subgroups of M . We say that (1) and (2) are equivalent, if r = s and there exists a permutation t of indices i = 1, 2 . . . r 1, i t(i) such that Mi /Mi+1 Mt(i) /Mt(i)+1 for = each i Theorem 2.2.11 Let M be an N -group. Then any two normal chains of N -Subgroups of M given by M = M1 . . . Mr = (o) and M = M1 . . . Ms = (o) have equivalent renements. Proof Let the chains be M = M1 M2 . . . Mr = (o)and M = M1 M2 . . . Ms = (o) Dene for i = 1, . . . r 1 and j = 1, . . . s, Mij = Mi+1 + MiMj and for j = 1, . . . s r and i = 1, . . . r 1 Mij = Mj+1 + MjMj Mis = Mi+1 and Mjr = Mj+1 for i = 1, . . . r 1 and j = 1 . . . , s 1 By using Proposition 2.2.9, we have clearly for i = 1, . . . r 1 and j = 1 . . . , s 1 Mij /Mi,j+1 Mji /Mj,i+1 = Hence the Proof.
45

Denition 2.2.12 An N -group M is said to have a composition series, if there exists a normal chain M = M1 i = 1, . . . , r 1 Theorem 2.2.13 Any two composition series of an N -group M are equivalent. Proof Let the two composition series M = M1 M2 . . . Mr = (o)and M = M1 M2 . . . Ms = (o) Then the renement Mij for (1) is such that exactly for one index j. Mij /Mi,j+1 Mi /Mi+1 : Mij /Mi,j+1 being trivial for others. = similarly for the other composition series. But since Mij /Mi,j+1 = Mji /Mj,i+1 there are as many non-trivial factors of the composition series M = M1 M2 . . . Mr = (o) as there are for are these are M = M1 M2 . . . Ms = (o) are these are isomorphic in some order. Hence the proof. ... Mr = (0) such that each factor N - group Mi /Mi+1 is irreducible.

Denition 2.2.14 Let M = M1

M2

...

Mn+1 = (o) be

an N -group M , we have a composition series. The length of the composition series is dened as n. The n is uniquely determined by M .
46

Theorem 2.2.15 Let M be a non-trivial N-group. Then M is artinian as well as notherian if and only if M has a composition series. Proof Let M be both artinian and notherian. Since M = M1 (say) is noterian, the set of all N -Submodule L such that L = M has a maximal element say M2 . Now the notherian condition of M implies that M2 satises the maximal condition for its N submodules. So there exists a maximal element say M3 in the set of all proper N -submodule of M2 and so on. We obtain then strictly descending chain of N -subgroups of M , M = M1 M2 . . . with the properties M = M1 M2 ... Mr = (o), Mi+1 is an N - submodule of Mi and Mi /Mi+1 is an irreducible N -group, i = 1, 2 . . . since M is artinian. This chain must terminate necessarily at (o), i.e., there exists a positive integer n such that M = M1 M2 ... Mn+1 = (o), with Mi+1 an N -submodule of Mi and ... ... Mr = (o) is a composition series for M . Mr = (o) so by comparing any normal ... Mn+1 = (o) by using TheoMi /Mi+1 an irreducible N -group i = 1, 2 . . . n M = M1 M2 M = M1 M2 conversely let M have a composition series of length n given chain with M = M1 M2

rem 2.2.11, one concludes that any normal chain of N -subgroups

47

of M without repetition can be rened to a composition series of length n, So, no chain occuring in the denition of an artinian and notherian N -group M can have length greater than n, ie., if L does not satisfy the maximal condition on its N - Submodules, we obtain a contradiction by producing a normal chain of N -subgroups of M containing more than n district terms. Hence the notherian condition holds, similarly one proves that the artinian conditionn holds. Hence the proof.

48

Chapter 3 Generalized derivations an near rings

3.1 - derivations

Denition 3.1.1 Let R be an associative ring. A mapping d : R R is called a derivation if (i) d(x + y) = d(x) + d(y) (ii) d(x + y) = d(x)y + xd(y)x, y N Example 3.1.2 Let R be a ring of 2X2 matrices. Dene d : R R by d x y z w = x y z 0

then d is a non-zero derivation on R Example 3.1.3 Let R = x y wherex,y,z Z z w Let S be a exed non-zero element of Z

49

x y 0 z then d is a derivation on R Dene d by d

0 ys 0 0

Denition 3.1.4 Let R be an associative ring. A mapping F SR R is called a generalized derivation with associated derivation d on R if (i) F (x + y) = F (x) + F (y) (ii) F (xy) = F (x)y + xd(y)x, y, z R x y where x, y, z Z 0 z DeneR be a xed non-zero element of Z Dene d : R R by Example 3.1.5 Let R = F x y 0 z = 0 mx + mz 0 0

then F is a generalized derivation with associated derivation d given by F x y 0 z = 0 mx mz 0 0

Denition 3.1.6 An additive endomorphism d : N N is said to be an d-derivation if d(xy) = d(x)d(y) + d(x)yx, y N Although the underlying group of the near ring N is not necessarily commutative, the rst result gives an equivalent denition of d - derivation on N which involves a sort of commutativity on N .
50

Example 3.1.7 Prosposition 3.1.7 Let d be a an additive endomorphism of a near-ring N . then d is an derivation if and only if d(xy) = d(x)y + d(x)d(y) for all x, y N Proof By denition, if d is an derivation then forall x, y N d(xy) = d(x)d(y) + d(x)y then d(xy) = d(x)d(y + y) + d(x)(y + y) = 2(x)d(y) + 2d(x)y and d(xy + xy) = 2d(xy) = 2(d(x)d(y) + d(x)y) So that d(x)d(y) + d(x)y = d(x)y + d(x)d(y) Example 3.1.8 Prosposition 3.1.8 Let d be a an derivation on a near-ring N . then for all x, y N (i) (d(x)d(y) + d(x)y)z = d(x)d(y)z + d(x)yz (ii) (d(x)y + d(x)d(y)z = d(x)yz + d(x)d(y)z proof (i) Let x, y, z N . then d(z(yz)) = (x)d(yz) + d(x)(yz)
51

= d(x)(d(yz)d(z) + d(y)z + d(x)(yz) = (d(x)d(y))d(z) + d(x)d(y)z + d(x)(yz) = d(xy)d(z) + d(x)d(y)z + d(x)y)z d((xy)z) = d(xy)d(z) + d(xy)z = d(xy)d(z) + ((x)d(y) + d(x)y)z From(1) and (2), we get (d(x)d(y) + d(x)y)z = (x)d(y)z + d(x)yz (ii) by using the proposition 3.1.7 Hence the Proof. Example 3.1.9 Prosposition 3.1.9 Let d be a an d - derivation of a prime near-ring N and a such that ad(x) = 0(or d(x)a = 0) for all x N . Then a = 0 or d = 0 proof for all x, y N 0 = ad(xy) = a(d(x)d(y) + d(x)y) = a(x)d(y) + ad(x)y = ad(x)d(y) + 0 = ad(x)d(y) Then aN d(y) = 0. Since N is prime, we get a = 0 or d = 0. when d(x)a = 0,
52

(1)

(2)

by using the proposition 3.1.8. so if d(x)a = 0 for all x, then for all x, y N , we have 0 = d(yx)a = ((y)d(x) + d(y)x)a = (y)d(x)a + d(y)xa = 0 + d(y)xa Thus d(y)N a = 0. Now the primeness of N . Implies that d = 0 or a = 0 Hence the Proof. Example 3.1.10 Prosposition 3.1.10 Let N be a 2-torision free prime near ring. Let d be an - derivation on N. Such that d. Then d2 = 0 implies d = 0 proof suppose that d2 = 0. Let x, y N . Then d2 (xy) = 0 = d(d(xy)) = d(d(x)d(y) + d(x)y) = d(d(x)d(y)) + d(d(x)y) = 2 (x)d2 (y) + d(d(x)d(y) + (d(x)d(y) + d2 (x)y = d((x)d(y) + (d(x)d(y) = 2d((x))d(y) Hence, 2d(d(x))d(y) = 0. Since N is 2-torision free, we have d((x))d(y) = 0
53

[by proposition 3.1.8]

Since is onto, we get d(x)d(y) = 0. by using the proposition 3.1.9 Hence the Proof.

3.2

Generalized derivations

Denition 3.2.1 LetP be a prime. A near ring N is called a p-near ring x N : xp = x and px = 0 Denition 3.2.2 LetN be a near ring andd a derivation of N . An additive maping f : N N is said to bea a right generalized derivation of N associatted with d if f (xy) = f (x)y + xd(y)x, y R Denition 3.2.3 Let N be a near ring and d a derivation of N . An additive mapping f : N n is said to be a left generalized derivation of N assiciated with d if f (xy) = d(x)y + xf (y)x, y R Denition 3.2.4 Note 3.2.4 f is said to be a generalized derivation of N associated with d if it is both a left and right generalized derivation of N associated with d.

54

Lemma 3.2.5 Letd b an arbitrory derivation on a near ring N . Then N satises the following partial distributive law (ad(b) + d(a)b)c = ad(b)c + d(a)bc and (d(a)b + ad(b))c = d(a)bc + ad(b)ca, b, c N Proof Since a, b, c, d(a), d(b), d(c) N . These are satises right distributive law (ad(b) + d(a)b)c = a(d(b)c + d(a)bc and (d(a)b + ad(b)c = d(a)bc + ad(b)c Equation (1) and (2) are hold. Theorem 3.2.6 Let(f, d) be a generalized derivation of N . If f (px, y]) = 0x, y N , then N is commulative ring. Proof Assume that f ([x, y]) = 0 for all x, y N substitute xy instead of y. f ([x, xy]) = 0 f ([x, xy]) = d(x)[x, y] = 0 f ([x, y]) = 0
55

(1)

(2)

 f ([x, xy]) = d(x)[x, y] = 0 = d(x)(xy yx) = 0 = d(x)(xy yx) = 0 = d(x)(xy) d(x)(yx) d(x)(xy) = d(x)(yx) d(x)(xy) = d(x)(yx)x, y N Replacing y by yz in equation (1) d(x)N [x, z] = 0x, z N Hence either x z (or) d(x) = 0. Let K = {x N/x z} and L = {x N/d(x) = 0} Then K and L are two additive subgroups of (N, +) = K L, since a group cannot be the union of proper subgroups, either N = k(or) N = L. But d = 0 This proves that N is commutative ring. Theorem 3.2.7 Let (f, d) be a generalized derivation of N . If f ([x, y]) = [x, y] for all x, y N , then N is Cummutative ring. proof Assume that f ([x, y] = [x, y]
56

(1)

for all x, y N . substitute y by xy in (1) f ([x, xy]) = [x, xy] = (x(xy)(xy)x) = (x2 y xyx) = x[x, y] f ([x, xy]) = f (x[x, y]) = d(x)[x, y] + xf ([x, y] = d(x)[x, y] + x([x, y]) f ([x, y]) = 0 f ([x, xy]) = d(x)[x, y] = 0 d(x)(xy yx) = o d(x)(xy) d(x)(yx) = o d(x)(xy) = d(x)(yx) d(x)(xy) = d(x)(yx) forall x, y N By using the above theorem 3.2.6 N is commutative ring. Theorem 3.2.8 Let (f, d) be a nonzero generalized derivation of N . If f acts as a homomorphism on N , then f is the identity map. proof assume that f acts as a homomorphism on N f (x, y) = f (x)f (y) = d(x)y + xf (y) forall x, y N
57

(1)

Replacing y by yz in (1) f (x)f (yz) = d(x)yz + xd(y)z + xyf (z) By using the lemma Let f be a left generalized derivation of the near ring N with associated d. Then (d(x)y + xf (y))z = d(x)yz + xf (y)z forall x, y N We get d(x)yf (z) + xf (y)f (z) = d(x)yz + xd(y)z + xy + f (z) = d(x)yf (z) + xf (yz) = d(x)yz + xd(y)z + xyf (z) ie., d(x)yf (z) + zd(y)z + xyf (z) = d(x)yz + xd(y)z + xyf (z)

Hence d(x)y(f (z) z) = 0 for all x, y, z N N is prime and d = 0, we have f (z) = z for all z Z f is the identity map. Hence the Proof. Theorem 3.2.9 Let (f, d) be a non-zero generalized derivation of N . If f acts as am amto-homomorphism on N , the f is the identity map. proof f (xy) = f (y)f (x) = d(x)y + xf (y) for all x, y N
58

(1)

Replacing y by xy in (1) f (xy)f (x) = d(x)xy + xyf (xy) since(f, d) is a generalized derivation and f acts as an antihomomorphism on N (d(x)y + xf (y))f (x) = d(x)(xy) + xf (y)f (x) By using the lemma Let f be a generalized derivation of the near ring N with associated d. Then (d(x)y+xf (y)z = d(x)yz + xf (y)z for all x, y N d(x)yf (x) + xf (y)f (x) = d(x)(xy) + xf (y)f (x) d(x)yf (x) = d(x)(xy)x, y N Replacing y by yz in (2) d(x)N [f (x), z] = 0x, z N d(x) = 0 (or) f (x) Z forall x N hold for x N. Since d= 0. since N is commutative ring by using the lemma Let N be a prime near ring with a nonzero generalized derivation f associated with d. if F (N )CZ, then (N, +) is abelian, if N is 2-torision free, then N is commutative ring. f is the identity map. By using the theorem 3.2.8. Hence the Proof.
59

(2)

Theorem 3.2.10 Let(f, d) be a generalized derivation of N Theorem 3.2.11 Let (f, d) be a generalized derivation of N . such that d(z) = 0, and a N . If [f (x), a] = 0 for all x N , then a Z Let [f (x), a] = 0 for all x N, a Z d(c) Z. Replacing x by cx in (1) [f ((x), a)] = 0 and using the lemma Let f be a left generalized derivation of the near ring N with associated d. Then (d(x)y + xf (y)z = d(x)yz + x + f (y)z for all x, y N We have f (cx)a = af (cx) d(c)xa + cf (x)a = ad(c)x + a(f (x)) (1)

Since d(z) = 0, c Z, such that d(c) = 0, as d is a derivation,

since c Z and d(c) Z, we get d(c)N [y, a]y N N and 0 = d(c) Z, a Z. Hence the Proof. Theorem 3.2.12 Let (f, d) be a generalized derivation of N , and 0 N . If[fx),a] = 0 for all x N , then d(a) Z
60

proof Let[f (x), a] = 0

Assume that a = 0. Replacing x by ax in (1)

f (ax)a = af (ax) d(a)xa + af (x)a = ad(a)x + aaf (x) Using f (x)a = af (x), we have d(a)xa = ad(a)xx N Taking xyinstead of xin (2) d(a)N [a, y] = 0for ally N Since N is a prime near ring, either d(a) = 0 (or) a z. If 0 Z, then (N, +) is abelian by using lemma Let N be a 3prime near ring. If Z/{0} contains an elements Z for which z + z Z, then (N, +) is abelian f (xa) = f (ax) f (x)a + xd(a) = d(a)x + af (x) d(a),x = 0a N ie., d(a) Z Hence the Proof. Theorem 3.2.13 Let(f, d) be a generalized derivation of N . If
61

N is a 2-torision free near ringf 2 (N ) Z, then N is a commutative ring. proof Suppose that f 2 (N )CZ. Then we get, f 2 (xy) = f 2 (x)y + 2f (x)d(y) + xd2 (y)] Xx, y N f 2 (x)c + 2f (x)d(c)xd2 (c) Zx N, c Z since the rst summ and is an element of Z, we have 2f (x)d(c)+xd2 (C0 Zx N, c z (1) Taking f (x)instead of x in equation(1) 2f 2 (x)d(c) + f (x)d2 (c) Zx N, c Z since d(c) Z, f 2 (x) Z, f 2 (x)d(c) Zallx N, c Z f (x)d2 (c) Zx N, c Z since N is prime, we get d2 (X) = 0 or f (N ) Z If f (N ) Z then N is a cummutative ring. By using the lemma Let N be a prime near ring with a non-zero generalized derivation f associated with d. If f (N ) Z, then (N, +) is abelian, if N is 2-torsion free, then N is commutative ring. We assume d2 (x) = o by equation (1), 2f (x)d(c) Zx N, c Z
62

Since N is a 2-torsion free near ring and d(c) Z, either f (N ) Z. If f (N ) Z, we may assume that d(z) = 0 Then f (cx) = f (xc) f (c)x + cd(x) = f (x)c + xd(c) f (c)x + cd(x) = f (x)cx, c Z (2) Now substitute x by f (x) in equation (2) f 2 (N ) Z, we get f (c)f (x) + cd(f (x)) = f 2 (x)cx N, c Z ie, f (c)f (x) + cd(f (x)) Z for all x N, c Z Taking f (x) instead of x in equation (3) f (c)f 2 (x) + cd(f 2 (x)) Zx N, c Z Since d(z) = 0 f (c)f 2 (x) Zx N, c Z since f 2 (N )CZ, we get f 2 (N ) = 0 or f (z)CZ If f 2 (N ) = 0, by using the lemma Let f be a generalized derivation of N associated with the non-zero derivation. If N is a 2-torsion free near ring and f 2 = 0, then f = 0 If f (z) Z, then f (x)f (c) = f (f (c)x) for all x N, c Z d(x)f (c) = f (c)f (x)x N, c Z
63

Using f (c) Z f (c)(d(x) f (x)) = 0x N, c Z Since f (z)CZ, either f (z) = 0 (or) d = f . If d = f , then f is a derivation of N and N is a commutative ring. Let f be a generalized derivation of N associated with the non-xero derivation of N associated with the non-zero derivation d. If N is a 2-torsion free near ring and f 2 = 0, then f = 0. Now assume that f (x) = 0 by using equation (2) c(d(x) f (x)) = 0 x N c Z

since c X, either d = f or z=0. clearly d = f . If z = 0, then f 2 (N ) = 0, N is a commulative ring by using lemma. If N is 2-torsion free and d is a derivation on N such that d2 = 0, then d = 0 Hence the Proof. Lemma 3.2.14 Let (f, d) and (g, h) be two generalized derivations of N . If h is a non-zero derivation on N and f (x)h(y) g(x)d(y) for all x, y N then (N,+) is abelian. Proof suppose that f (x)h(y) + g(x)d(y) = 0 for all x, y N Sustitute y + z for y in equation (1) f (x)h(y) + f (x)h(2) + g(x)d(y) + g(x)d(g) = 0
64

we get f (x)h(y, z) = 0x, y, z N By using the lemma Let N be a prime near ring, f a nonzero generalized derivation of N associated with the non-zero derivational, and a N . If f (N )a = 0, then a = 0. h(y, z) = 0y, z N . For any w N , h(wy, wz) = h(w(y, z)) = h(w)(y, z) + wh(y, z) = 0 h(w)(y, z) = 0 for all w, y, z N By using the lemma let N be a 3-prime near ring. If let d be a non-zero derivation on N . Then xd(N ) = {0} implies x=0, and d(N )x = {0} imples x = 0 (N, +) is abelian Hence the Proof.

65

Bibliography
[1] Gunter F. pilz, 1970 Geordneter Fast rings,

Abh.Math.Sem.unir Hamburg 35: 83 - 88 [2] Frohlich, A. Distributively generated near rings, (Ideal Theory) Jour. Lond Math.sec., 8, 76-94 (1958) [3] Frohlich Distributively generated near rings, (Representation Theory) Jour. Lond. Math. Soc., 8, 95-108 (1958) [4] Jacobason, N. Structure of Rings, A.M.S. Collo.quium publication 37 (1964) [5] Natarajan, N.S. 1976 semisimple N - group, J. Madurai univ. vol - 5. series (B) 82-85. [6] Scott, W.R. 1964 Group Theory prentice Hall, N.J. [7] Bell, H.E and Mason G. on derivations in near rings (in : Near rings and Near - elds, North - Holland Mathematical studies 137, 1987), 31-35

66

[8] Argac, N: on Prime and semi prime ring with derivations. Internet J. Math and Math sci 20(4) (1997), 737 - 740 [9] Bell H.E and Argac, N: Derivations, products of derivations, and commutativity in near rings. Algebra collog 81(8) (2001), 399 - 407. [10] Hongan, M : On near rigns with derivations Math J. Okayama univ. 32 (1990) 89 - 92 [11] Bresar M. on the distance of composition of two derivations to the generalized derivations Glasgow Math J.33, 89-93, 1991. [12] Oznur Golbasi : On generalized derivations of Prime Near - Rings. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and statistics volume 35(2) (2006), 173 - 180.

67