Abstract
Let R be a finite commutative ring with nonzero identity 1. In this paper, domination parameters, the domination number and the total dominating number, of the unit graph or the closed unit graph of R are investigated. To study the domination number of , we prove that it suffices to consider the case when R is a direct product of fields. Furthermore, we discuss the domination number and total dominating number of the unit graph of the ring of integers modulo n.
Keywords:
domination number; total dominating number; unit graph of a ring; the ring of integers modulo n MSC:
05C25; 05C69
1. Introduction
Throughout this paper, all rings are finite and commutative with nonzero identity 1, and and denote, respectively, the set of units and the Jacobson radical of a ring R. Moreover, denotes the ring of integers modulo n.
1.1. Unit Graphs of Rings
Assigning a graph to a ring plays an important role in studying the structure of the ring. In 1988, Beck first introduced and studied the zero-divisor graph of a commutative ring in []. Since then, zero-divisor graphs, as well as many other graphs associated with rings, have been extensively studied.
With the unit of a ring being an important element of the ring, it is natural to associate a ring with a graph whose edge relationships rely on units of the ring instead of zero divisors. In 1990, Grimaldi first studied the unit graph of . He reported various conclusions about the degree of a vertex, the Hamilton cycles, the covering number, the independence number, and the chromatic polynomial of the unit graph of in []. In 2010, Ashrafi et al. promoted the unit graph to the unit graph for an arbitrary ring R, and reported some characterization conclusions for finite (commutative) rings regarding connectedness, chromatic index, diameter, girth, and planarity of in []. In recent years, there has been a continuous stream of research on unit graphs associated with a ring. In 2011, Maimani et al. obtained necessary and sufficient conditions for unit graphs to be Hamiltonian in []. In 2013, Heydari and Nikmehr studied the unit graph of a left Artinian ring in [], and Afkhami and Khosh-Ahang investigated the unit graphs of rings of polynomials and power series in []. From 2014 to 2021, Su et al. investigated the unit graphs for an arbitrary ring with girth, planarity, higher genus unit graphs, diameter, and radius in [,,,,].
Definition 1
([], Definitions and Remarks 2.1). Let R be a ring. The unit graph of R, denoted by , is the simple graph obtained by setting all the elements of R to be vertices and defining distinct vertices x and y to be adjacent if and only if .
When omitting the words “simple" and “distinct" in the definition, we obtain a closed unit graph , and this graph may have loops. Note that if and only if , where , is the identity of R.
Figure 1.
.
Figure 2.
.
1.2. The Domination Number of Unit Graphs of Rings
Definition 2
([]). Let be a graph and be the set of its vertices. A nonempty subset S of is called a dominating set if every vertex in is adjacent to at least one vertex in S. A subset S of is called a total dominating set if every vertex in is adjacent to some vertex in S.
The
domination number
of a graph , denoted by , is defined as the minimum cardinality of a dominating set in , and the corresponding dominating set is called a -set
of . In a similar way, the
total dominating number
of , denoted by , is defined as the minimum cardinality of a total dominating set in , and the corresponding dominating set is called a
-set
of .
Remark 1.
Clearly, a total dominating set of a graph must be a dominating set of , so .
Remark 2.
(i) Let be a simple graph. Then, , since a is not adjacent to a in for any .
(ii) Let R be a ring. Then, , since a is not adjacent to in for any .
In 2010, Gasper Mekis gave some characterization results for the domination number of unit graphs of rings in []. In 2015, Kiani et al. characterized rings with unit graphs having a domination number less than four (see Lemma 7) in [].This conclusion allows us to determine the structures of certain rings by means of the domination number of their unit graphs.
In 2020, Su et al. investigated the domination number of when n has exactly three prime divisors in []. Throughout [,], when n has at most three prime divisors, the domination number of is calculated, but the total dominating number of and is not considered completely. In Section 3, we provide additional evidence for some remaining conditions (see Corollary 3).
In addition, let , where are primes, are positive integers, and . In [], Su et al. found a -set of S, and they proved that this specific -set of S is a total dominating set of M, so . Using Remark 1, they obtained that . So they raised the question in [] (Remark):
For this question, we provide four counterexamples and modify the question in Remark 11. However, in the four counterexamples, is exactly a product of certain fields (i.e., using Remark 3). So, we modify the question as
Furthermore, we propose a new conjecture: For a ring R, is true when ? By coincidence, we observed that is a total dominating set of , where D is the -set of of [] (see Appendix A), and is a special concept of R since it meets the property of Lemma 3. Naturally, this drove us to further explore the relationships between and .
1.3. Layout of the Paper
In this paper, we focus on the unit graph associated with a ring. In Section 2, we introduce some notations of graphs, rings, and unit graphs of rings.
In Section 3, we investigate the relationships between the domination number and total dominating number of unit graphs of rings, and we prove that , where R is a ring with (Theorem 1). According to this result, to study the domination number of the unit graph , it suffices to study the total dominating number of the unit graph associated with the semisimple ring . That is to say, it suffices to consider the cases when R is a direct product of fields using Lemma 5. In particular, to study the domination number of the unit graph of , it suffices to consider the case when is directly decomposed into fields.
In Section 4, we focus on studying the domination number of when n has at least four prime divisors. Let , where and are primes. We find the -set (also a -set) of and when and , and then we obtain the domination number and total dominating number of and when and (Theorem 2). At the same time, in Theorem 2, we provide the range of the domination number and total dominating number of when .
In Section 5, we provide additional properties of the domination number and total dominating number of and , and then we obtain the domination number and total dominating number when n has exactly four prime divisors (Theorem 3).
2. Preliminaries
In this section, we will review some notions about graphs and rings, and some results about unit graphs of rings, which will be used subsequently.
2.1. Some Notions of Graphs
A graph is an ordered triple consisting of a nonempty set of vertices, a set , disjoint from , of edges, and an incidence function that associates with each edge of an unordered pair of (not necessarily distinct) vertices of . If e is an edge and u and v are vertices such that , then e is said to join u and v, and the vertices u and v are called the ends of e. The ends of an edge are said to be incident with the edge, and vice versa. Two vertices which are incident with a common edge are adjacent. An edge with identical ends is called a loop, and an edge with distinct ends a link. Two or more links with the same pair of ends are said to be parallel edges [].
A graph is simple [] if it has no loops or parallel edges. If two vertices u and v are adjacent in a graph , then we use the usual notation in , and means that u and v are not adjacent. Some other notions used in graph theory are listed in the following (see []):
- A bipartite graph is one whose vertex set can be partitioned into two subsets X and Y, so that each edge has one end in X and one end in Y, such a partition is called a bipartition of the graph.
- The degree of a vertex v in is the number of edges of incident with v, with each loop counting as two edges.
- The open neighborhood of a vertex v in a simple graph , denoted by , is the set of all vertices of which are adjacent to v.
2.2. Some Notions of Rings
There exist rings with exactly one maximal ideal; for example, fields. A ring with exactly one maximal ideal is called a local ring [].
Lemma 1
([], Proposition 1.6). Let R be a local ring with exactly one maximal ideal M. Then, the following statements hold:
- (i)
- , where is the set of unit elements of R.
- (ii)
- for any .
The Jacobson radical of a ring R is defined as the intersection of all the maximal ideals of R [].
Lemma 2
([], Proposition 1.9). Let R be a ring. Then, , where .
Lemma 3.
Let R be a ring and . Then, if and only if
Proof.
This follows immediately from [] (Proposition 4.8). □
Remark 3
([], Remark 3.15). It is known that every finite commutative ring is isomorphic to a direct product of local rings. Thus, for a given ring R, we may write , where is a local ring with maximal ideal for every . It is easy to see that
is the set of all maximal ideals of and thus we conclude that the Jacobson radical of R is isomorphic to . Moreover,
In particular, for the ring , let , where are primes and s is an integer. Then, , where are local rings.
Definition 3
([], Page 429, Definition 2.9). A ring R is said to be (Jacobson) semisimple if its Jacobson radical is zero.
Lemma 4
([], Page 431, Theorem 2.14). If R is a ring, then is semisimple.
Definition 4
([], Page 372, Definition 1.1 and Definition 1.2). Let be a poset. The descending chain condition is that every decreasing sequence in Σ is stationary (i.e., there exists such that ). A ring R is left [resp. right] Artinian if R satisfies the descending chain condition on left [resp. right] ideals. R is said to be Artinian if R is both left and right Artinian.
Clearly, a finite communicative ring with nonzero identity is Artinian.
Lemma 5
([], Page 442, Exercise 3). A commutative semisimple left Artinian ring is a direct product of fields.
2.3. Some Known Results About Unit Graphs of Rings
Lemma 6
([], Lemma 4.8). Let R be a ring. Then, .
Lemma 7
([], Theorem 2.2). Let R be a ring. Then, the following statements hold for the unit graph :
- (i)
- if and only if R is a field.
- (ii)
- if and only if either R is a local ring which is not a field, R is isomorphic to the products of two fields such that only one of them has characteristic 2, or , where F is a field.
- (iii)
- if and only if R is not isomorphic to the product of two fields such that only one of them has characteristic 2, and , where is a local ring with maximal ideal in such a way that , for .
Lemma 8
([], Lemma 4.2). Let R be a local ring with maximal ideal M such that and let S be a local ring. If R is not a field, then .
Lemma 9
([], Lemma 4.3). Let S be a local ring which is not a field. Then, .
Lemma 10
([], Lemma 4.5). Let and be two fields in which either both of them have characteristic 2 and none of them is isomorphic to or none of them has characteristic 2. Then, .
Lemma 11
([], Lemma 3.12). Let be three fields. Then, .
Lemma 12
([], Lemma 3.13). Let be fields. If , then .
Lemma 13
([], Proposition 2.4). Let R be a ring. Then, the following statements hold for the unit graph of R:
- (i)
- If , then the unit graph is a -regular graph.
- (ii)
- If , then for every we have and for every we have
Corollary 1.
Let R be a ring. Then, the following statements hold for the closed unit graph of R:
- (i)
- If , then is a -regular graph.
- (ii)
- If , then for every we have and for every we have
Proof.
(i) If , then , so is a -regular graph by Lemma 13.
(ii) If , then for every , we have if and only if . Consequently, if , then in , which implies that by Lemma 13. If , then in , and so by Lemma 13. □
3. The Relationships Between and
In this section, we will investigate the relationships between the domination number and total dominating number of unit graphs of rings.
Lemma 14.
Let R be a ring. Then, .
Proof.
Suppose that D is a dominating set of . Then, for any , there exists such that in . Since , we have in . This shows that D is a dominating set of , and, consequently, .
Conversely, suppose that is a dominating set of . Then, for any , there exists such that in . Since and , we have in , and so is a dominating set of . Thus, , and hence . □
In [] (Theorem 3.20), Lemma 14 has already been pointed out, but we have not found a relevant proof, so we give a detailed proof here.
Lemma 15.
Let R be a ring. Then, .
Proof.
Suppose that D is a total dominating set of . Then, for any , there exist such that in . Since , we have in , and so D is a total dominating set of . Thus, . Using Lemma 14 and Remark 1, we have . □
Lemma 16.
Let R be a ring. Then, .
Proof.
Suppose that is a total dominating set of . Let . To show that is a total dominating set of , let . Then, there exists such that in , that is to say, . It follows from Lemma 3 that , and so in . Thus, is a total dominating set of , and hence . □
Corollary 2.
Let R be a ring. Then,
In particular, if , then .
Proof.
This follows immediately from Lemma 14, Remark 1, Lemma 15, and Lemma 16. □
Lemma 17.
Let R be a local ring which is not a field. Then, .
Proof.
Let R be a local ring which is not a field. Then, by Lemma 7, and so by Remark 1. Since R is a local ring, for any , we have or by Lemma 1, and so is a total dominating set of . Hence, , which together with , implies that . Then, by Lemma 15, we obtain . □
Lemma 18.
Let R be a ring. Then,
Proof.
Assume that and is a -set of . Let
We claim that is a dominating set of . In fact, for any , we have . Since D is a -set of , there exists such that in , i.e., and .
If , then and , i.e., in .
If , then and , i.e., in .
Hence, is a dominating set of , and consequently, □
Remark 4.
It is possibly that . For example, we have by Lemma 11 and Lemma 10 that
Lemma 19.
Let R be a ring. Then, .
Proof.
Clearly, is a bipartite graph with the bipartition and .
Suppose that and is a -set of . Let
Then, is a total dominating set of . In fact, for any , we have , and so there exists such that in . If , then in . If , then in . Hence, is a total dominating set of , and, consequently, .
To prove that , let be a total dominating set of . We claim that is a total dominating set of , where
In fact, for any , we have , and so there exists such that in . It follows that and . Thus, is a total dominating set of , and we conclude that . Similarly, . Thus, □
Lemma 20.
Let F be a field. Then, and .
Proof.
Let F be a field. It is clear that is a total dominating set of and , so is a -set of and by Remark 2. Thus, , and so by Lemma 19. □
Lemma 21.
Let R be a ring, and be a γ-set of . Let .
- (i)
- If is not adjacent to any vertex of in , then a is not adjacent to any vertex of D in .
- (ii)
- If and is not adjacent to any vertex of in , then a is not adjacent to any vertex of D in .
Proof.
Let and be as given in the lemma.
(i) If there exists such that in , then , which implies that by Lemma 3. So, in . That is to say, is adjacent to a vertex of in .
(ii) Suppose that and is not adjacent to any vertex of in . If there exists such that in , then and , which implies that by Lemma 3. So in . Thus, , for otherwise, in , a contradiction.
Claim: is a dominating set of .
In fact, let . If , then and , since and . Since D is a -set of , there exists such that in .
Noticing that and
we obtain that there exists such that in . In addition, since in , we have that is a dominating set of , which contradicts the fact that D is a -set of . □
Remark 5.
In Lemma 21 (ii), the condition can not be deleted. For example, in the unit graph (see Figure 3), is a γ-set of and . It is easy to see that is not adjacent to any vertex in in , but in .
Figure 3.
.
Theorem 1.
Let R be a ring with . Then,
In particular, if , then
Proof.
Assume that R is a ring with . Using Corollary 2, we only need to verify the inequality
In fact, suppose that and let be a -set of . Let
Then , and is a dominating set of by the proof of [] (Lemma 3.14). Hence, is a dominating set of by the proof of Lemma 14.
If is a total dominating set of , then the inequality (1) holds.
If is not a total dominating set of , then there exists in such that for any in . We claim that
In fact, by Lemma 21 (i), we have in , for any and any . So, , since D is a -set of . Since , we have using the well-known Lagrange Theorem. Thus, claim (2) holds.
Assume that are all mutually distinct vertexes in that are not adjacent to any vertex of . Noticing that for any
there exists at least one element such that by the definition of , we obtain through claim (2) that ; i.e.,
For each , we have by Corollary 1 that , so there exists such that in the graph Let
It is easy to verify that is a total dominating set of , and by (3). Consequently, the inequality (1) holds. Thus,
Finally, if , then by Lemma 3. It follows by Definition 1 that and . Thus, by Lemma 6. □
Remark 6.
In Theorem 1, the condition cannot be deleted. For example, let F be a field. Then, by Lemma 7, but by Lemma 20.
Corollary 3.
Let be positive integers, and , where are primes and ’s are positive integers. Then, the following statements hold:
- (i)
- If , then .
- (ii)
- If and , then , .
- (iii)
- If and , then .
- (iv)
- If , and , then
- (v)
- If , and , then
- (vi)
- If , and , then ,
- (vii)
- If and , then , and in particular,
- (viii)
- If and , then
- (ix)
- If and , then , and
Proof.
Let m and n be as given in the Corollary. Then, .
(i) If , then . By Lemma 3, we have
Thus, by Theorem 1.
(ii) If and , then by Lemma 7, by Lemma 20.
(iii) If and , then is a local ring which is not a field, so by Lemma 17.
(iv) If , and , then by Lemma 10, and so by Lemma 15.
(v) If , and , then by Lemma 7 (iii). It follows by item (iii) that , and so by Lemma 6. Therefore, by Lemma 15 we have
(vi) If , and , then by Lemma 7 (ii), and by Lemma 20.
(vii) If and , then and , and so by Theorem 1. In particular, by item (iii).
(viii) If and , then by [] (Theorem 2.5 and Remark 2.6) we have
Thus, by Lemma 15, we obtain
(ix) If and , then by Lemma 11.
By Theorem 1 and Corollary 3 item (viii), we obtain
When , we have , since . By Appendix A, we have when , and when . In addition, by Lemma 15. Hence,
□
Remark 7.
In Theorem 1, for a γ-set D of , may not be a total dominating set of .
For example, consider the unit graph of the ring (see Figure 4), let . Then, D is a dominating set of , and so D is a γ-set of , since by Corollary 3. But
is not a total dominating set of , since and in . According to the proof of Theorem 1, if we add and to and obtain , then is a total dominating set of and .
Figure 4.
.
Remark 8.
In Theorem 1, the proof is not appropriate when is replaced by . For example, consider the unit graph . Let . Then, D is a dominating set of , since
It follows that D is a γ-set of , since by Corollary 3. Observe that
is a total dominating set of (see Figure 5), but is not a total dominating set of , since and . Adding to , we obtain that is a total dominating set of , but from which we cannot deduce that , since . In fact, we can also obtain that is a total dominating set of , and so .
Figure 5.
.
4. The Unit Graph of the Ring
For a ring R, according to Theorem 1, to study the domination number of the unit graph , it suffices to study the total dominating number of the unit graph associated with the semisimple ring . That is to say, it suffices to consider the cases when R is a direct product of some fields by Lemma 5. In particular, to study the domination number of the unit graph , it suffices to consider the case when is directly decomposed into certain fields. By Corollary 3, the domination number and the total dominating number of , when n has less than three prime divisors, can be investigated.
In this section, we focus on studying the domination number and the total dominating number of when n has at least four prime divisors. Without loss of generality, we assume that , where are primes and is an integer.
4.1. Case
Proposition 1.
Let . Then, .
Proof.
Let be as given in the proposition, and let
Then, D is a total dominating set of . In fact, since , we have . Suppose, on the contrary, that there exists such that (in ) for any . Then, there exists such that
By the well-known pigeonhole principle [] (Theorem 3.1.1), there exist with such that , but this implies that in the field , and so , a contradiction. Thus, D is a total dominating set of , and hence . It follows from Remark 1, Lemma 15, and Lemma 12 that
and consequently, . □
Remark 9.
Proposition 1 also holds true when in its proof.
If , in the proof of Proposition 1, let
where k is a positive integer with , and are mutually different. One can similarly prove that is also a total dominating set of .
4.2. Case
Let and be nonempty sets. For a subset B of (the Cartesian product of and ), let and
and are called, respectively, the projection of B on and the projection of B on .
Lemma 22.
Let and let D be a dominating set of such that the projection of D on is , where t is a positive integer. For each , let the cardinality of the projection of on be , i.e,
Let
If or for some , then .
Proof.
Let D, t, , , be as given in the lemma. Then, , since .
If , i.e., , then for any and any , we have in . It follows that
since D is a dominating set of . Hence, , since .
Assume that and for some . Without loss of generality, we assume that . Since
we may assume that
where ℓ is a positive integer and . Let A be a subset of T such that
that is to say,
Then, for any and any , we have in , and so , since D is a dominating set of . Noticing that , we have .
If , then , since .
Assume . Consider the following cases.
Case(i): There exists such that there are at least two elements among that are equal. Without loss of generality, assume that .
Let be a subset of T such that
(Note: For example, if , we may let and then
If , we may let for any , and then
For any and any , we have in , and so , since D is a dominating set of . It follows that , and (since ).
When , we obtain , since .
When , we claim that . In fact, if , then , since . So, , and thus
which implies that , but , a contradiction. Thus, in , and so , since . Therefore, we have
since and .
Case(ii): are mutually different, for any
Let denote the symmetric group on the set , and let be a subset of T such that
that is to say,
Then, for any and any , we have in , and so , since D is a dominating set of . Thus, and .
In addition, since , we have
If , then , since . If , then , since and . Hence, . □
Proposition 2.
Let . Then, . In particular, if , where q and r are non-negative integers with , then
Proof.
Let and D be a dominating set of . Assume that
and
Then, and . Let
If or for some , then by Lemma 22. Since , we have , and so .
If and for any , then we have
and so . Thus, , since .
In particular, let , where q and r are non-negative integers and .
If , then , so
If , then is not an integer but is an integer and , so
where is the bracket function. □
Lemma 23.
Let , and . If for any ,
is a total dominating set of , then D is a total dominating set of .
Proof.
Let D be as given in the lemma. For any , let
Then, is total a dominating set of by assumption, and so there exists such that in , i.e.,
Since , there exists such that . It follows that , and thus
In addition, since , we have . Hence, in , and consequently, D is a total dominating set of . □
Proposition 3.
Let and . If , where q and r are non-negative integers with , then,
Proof.
Let and . Using the division algorithm, there is a unique pair of non-negative integers q and r such that , where . Consider the following cases:
Case(i): . In this case, we have , and so . In addition, we have , for otherwise, implies that , which contradicts the fact that . Let , where
Then, , since .
Noticing that and for any and , we have . In addition, we have , and for any ,
is a total dominating set of by Remark 9.
(Note: For example, we have
and . Since , we immediately find by Remark 9 that is a total dominating set of .)
It follows from Lemma 23 that D is a total dominating set of , hence
by Proposition 2 and Remark 1. Consequently, we obtain that .
Case(ii): . Since , we have
Let , where
Then ( ). Noticing that for any , for any and for any with , we have since , for any and for any similarly.
In addition, we have , and for any ,
is a total dominating set of by Remark 9.
(Note: For example, we have
and . In addition,
and .
Since , we immediately find through Remark 9 that both
are total dominating sets of .)
It follows immediately from Lemma 23 that B is a total dominating set of , and so
by Proposition 2 and Lemma 1. Hence, .
Summarizing the above arguments, we obtain by Lemma 15 that
□
4.3. Case
Lemma 24.
If is an integer, and are primes, then
Proof.
Assume that is an integer, and are primes. Then, and . If , then
If , then , since . □
Lemma 25.
Let . Then, .
Proof.
By Lemma 24, we have Let . Suppose, on the contrary, that D is a dominating set of with .
Let , and Then, and , which implies that and . Since , we have or . Without loss of generality, we assume that and let
where . Consider the following cases:
Case(1): .
Let C be a subset of T such that
That is to say,
Then, for any and any in , which implies that , since D is a dominating set of . Thus, , since , and . But , a contradiction.
Case(2): .
If , then for any , we have for any . So,
Hence, , since , and , which is a contradiction with .
If there exist such that , without loss of generality, say . Let and be, respectively, subsets of T such that
(i.e., ) and
(i.e., .) Then, , since . Let . Then, for any and any , which implies that in , since D is a dominating set of . Thus, , since , which is a contradiction with .
Case(3): .
In this case, we have , and so , since , and .
Subcase(3.1): There exists such that there are at least two elements among that are equal, and without loss of generality, assume that .
Let be a subset of T such that
(For example, if and , we may let , then
If and , we may let for any , then
For any and any , we have in , and so , since D is a dominating set of and . Hence, , which is a contradiction with .
Subcase(3.2): are mutually different, for any
Let denote the symmetric group on the set , and let be a subset of T such that
that is to say, . Then, for any and any , we have in , and so , since D is a dominating set of and . Hence, , since and , which is a contradiction with .
Therefore, we conclude that . □
Theorem 2.
Let m be a positive integer with , are primes and , where is a positive integer for each . Using the division algorithm, there is a unique pair of non-negative integers q and r such that
where .
- (i)
- If and , then
- (ii)
- If and , then
- (iii)
- If and , then
- (iv)
- If , then
- (v)
- If and , then
Proof.
Let m and n be as given in the Theorem. Then, and .
(i) follows immediately from Lemma 18 and Lemma 25.
(ii) Let and . Then, , which implies by Theorem 1 that . In addition, by Lemma 19, we have
Thus, (ii) holds.
(iii) Let and . If , then by Proposition 3, (iii) holds.
Assume that . By Theorem 1, we have , and so by Proposition 3 we obtain
It follows from Lemma 6 that . Finally, by Lemma 15, we have
(iv) Let . If , then by Proposition 1, (iv) holds.
Assume that . By Theorem 1, we have , and so by Proposition 1 we obtain
It follows from Lemma 6 that . Finally, by Lemma 15, we have .
(v) Let and . By Proposition 1 and Remark 9, we have
since .
If , then by Theorem 2 item (i), and so by Equation (4). In addition, by Lemma 19 we have
It follows from Equation (4) that .
If , then by Theorem 1. □
Remark 10.
In Theorem 2, (ii) holds true for all positive integers by the proof of (ii).
Theorem 2 (iv) also holds true when , since Proposition 1 also holds true when by Remark 9. But Theorem 2 (i) is not true when , since by Lemma 11, but .
As for Theorem 2 (iii), when , then and , since and . By Corollary 3 (viii) and (ix), we have
But by Lemma 11.
As for Theorem 2 (v), when and , then by Corollary 3 (viii) and (ix), but by Lemma 11.
In Theorem 2, we study several cases of the domination number and total dominating number of . But there are still some situations that we have not fully considered; for example, and . As for the case of , we only provided a range, without providing an accurate value of the domination number and total dominating number, so this requires more in-depth research.
5. The Unit Graph of the Ring Associated with Products of Four Residue Class Fields
In this section, we focus on studying the domination number and the total domination number of when n has exactly four prime divisors. In what follows, we always assume that , where are primes.
Proposition 4.
If , then , and
Proof.
Let . If , then , since is a prime. It follows from Theorem 2 (v) that .
If , then by Theorem 2 (i) and Lemma 11. Thus, . As for , by Lemma 19 we have
In addition, by Corollary 3 (ix), we obtain
Hence, . □
Proposition 5.
If and , then .
Proof.
Let and . Then, . Put
Then, . In addition, we have
and
are total dominating sets of by Remark 9. It follows from Lemma 23 that D is a total dominating set of , and so by Remark 1.
Suppose that is a dominating set of , and without loss of generality, assume that , where . Let
and . Then, . Consider the following cases:
Case (1) . Then, by Lemma 22, a contradiction.
Case (2) , i.e., . Then, or , since . It follows from Lemma 22 that , a contradiction.
Case (3) . Then, and .
We claim that for any . In fact, if for some , then , and so by Lemma 22, a contradiction.
If for some , say , then , since . It follows from the well-known pigeonhole principle [] (Theorem 3.1.1) that or , which also gives a contradiction. Hence, for any . Without loss of generality, we can assume that
We will prove that and are mutually different.
Claim(i): and .
Suppose, on the contrary, that . If , then for any and any , we have in , and so , since is a dominating set of . Thus, , a contradiction. Hence, .
For any , we have and in , and so
since is a dominating set of . It follows that
since .
Since , and , we have or . Let
Then, for any and any , we have in , and so
since is a dominating set of . Notice that , by (5) and (6), we immediately have
where and .
Let
Then, , and for any and any , we have in . This contradicts with the fact that is a dominating set of . Thus, , and similarly we have .
Claim(ii): .
Suppose, on the contrary, . If , then for any and any , we have in , and so , since is a dominating set of . Thus, , a contradiction. Hence, .
For any , we have and in , and so
since is a dominating set of . Noticing that , we have , which implies that
since . It follows that , which contradicts with claim(i). Thus, .
Claim(iii): and .
Suppose, on the contrary, that . If , then for any and any , we have in , and so , since is a dominating set of . Thus, , a contradiction. Hence, .
For any , we have and in , and so
since is a dominating set of . It follows that
since and . But then , which contradicts with claim(ii). Thus, . Similarly, we have , and .
Claim(iv): and .
Suppose, on the contrary, that . If , then for any and any , we have , which implies that and so , a contradiction. Thus, .
For any , we have and . So
It follows that
since and . But then , which contradicts with Claim (i). Similarly, we have and .
By claims (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), we obtain that and are mutually different elements in , a contradiction. Thus, . It follows by Lemma 15 that . □
Combining the above results, we obtain the main theorem.
Theorem 3.
Let , where are primes, is a positive integer for each . Then, we have the following:
- (i)
- If and , then , and
- (ii)
- If and , then
- (iii)
- If , then
Proof.
(i) follows immediately from Proposition 4.
(ii) follows immediately from Corollary 3 (vii), Lemma 15 and Theorem 3 item (i).
(iii) Assume that . Firstly, let .
If , then , and so by Proposition 1.
If and , then , and so by Proposition 3, since .
If and , then by Proposition 5.
Finally, assume that . Then, by Theorem 1. By Lemma 6 and the case of , we have
□
Remark 11.
For Theorem 1, we have not yet investigated whether it applies to an arbitrary ring, especially noncommutative rings, which is also a research topic worth exploring. In addition, we recall the question of [] (remark): Is for all n?
If is directly decomposed into certain fields, then the answer is negative. For example,
- (i)
- n is a prime, then and by Corollary 3 (ii).
- (ii)
- , where p is a prime, then and by Corollary 3 (vi).
- (iii)
- , where are primes, then and by Corollary 3 (ix).
- (iv)
- , where are primes, then and by Proposition 4.
Here is a special situation, using Theorem 2 (i) and (ii), we find that the domination number and total dominating number of are linked to the domination number and total dominating number of , where are primes.
In addition, from the proof of Lemma 19 and Proposition 4, we know it is the fact that is caused by , is caused by . However, by Theorem 2 (iii) and (iv), we know that when , and .
So we modify the question of [] (remark) using the following problems:
Open problem 1: Is when , where and are primes?
In fact, as for the open problem 1, we only need to study the following cases for Theorem 2:
- (i)
- and ;
- (ii)
- ;
- (iii)
- .
Open problem 2: is when ? In particular, is when ?
As for open problem 2, we have by Theorem 1 and by Lemma 6. So, if one prove that , then the answer to problem 2 is positive. By Lemma 15, we have . But we do not know whether .
In particular, is when is directly decomposed into some fields? Regarding this question, with Theorem 3 we can assume that , and are primes, and consider the following cases by Theorem 2:
- (i)
- ;
- (ii)
- .
Notice that a -set of may be not a total dominating set of . For example, is a -set of , but is not a total dominating set of . However, one can observe that is a total dominating set of . So, how to construct a total dominating set of is another problem.
Author Contributions
Writing—original draft, T.D.; Writing—review & editing, A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12171022).
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non- financial interests to disclose.
Appendix A
Lemma A1.
Let , where are primes, are positive integers and . Then . In [], Su et al. proved that
is a γ-set of . Next we prove that
is a total dominating set of , and hence .
Proof.
For any , we consider the following cases:
Case(i):
If and , then .
If ; or , then .
If ; or , then .
Case(ii):
If and , then .
If ; or , then .
If ; or , then .
Case(iii):
If and , then .
If ; or , then .
If ; or , then .
Thus, is a total dominating set of . □
Lemma A2.
Let , where are primes, are positive integers and . Then, by Remark 3. In [], Su et al. proved that
is a γ-set of . Next, we prove that
is a total dominating set of , and hence .
Proof.
The conclusion can be obtained immediately by Remark 9. □
References
- Beck, I. Coloring of commutative rings. J. Algebra 1988, 116, 208–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimaldi, R.P. Graphs from rings. Proceedings of the 20th Southeastern Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory, and Computing, (Boca Raton, FL,1989). Congr. Numer. 1990, 71, 95–103. [Google Scholar]
- Atiyah, M.F.; MacDonald, I.G. Introduction To Commutative Algebra, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maimani, H.R.; Pournaki, M.R.; Yassemi, S. Necessary and sufficient conditions for unit graphs to be Hamiltonian. Pacific J. Math. 2011, 249, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heydari, F.; Nikmehr, M.J. The unit graph of a left Artinian ring. Acta Math. Hungar. 2013, 139, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afkhami, M.; Khosh-Ahang, F. Unit graphs of rings of polynomials and power series. Arab. J. Math. 2013, 2, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Su, H.D. The radius of unit graphs of rings. Aims Math. 2021, 6, 11508–11515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.D.; Tang, G.; Zhou, Y. Rings whose unit graphs are planar. Publ. Math. Debr. 2015, 86, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.D.; Noguchi, K.; Zhou, Y. Finite commutative rings with higher genus unit graphs. J. Algebra Appl. 2015, 14, 1550002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.D.; Wei, Y. The dimaeter of unit graphs of rings. Taiwan J. Math. 2019, 23, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.D.; Zhou, Y. On the girth of the unit graph of a ring. J. Algebra Appl. 2014, 13, 1350082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashrafi, N.; Maimani, H.R.; Pournaki, M.R.; Yassemi, S. Unit Graphs associated with rings. Commun. Algebra 2010, 38, 2851–2871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, D.F.; Asir, T.; Badawi, A.; Chelvam, T.T. Graphs from Rings; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Mekis, G. Lower bounds for the domination number and the total domination number of direct product graphs. Discret. Math. 2010, 310, 3310–3317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiani, S.; Maimani, H.R.; Pournaki, M.R.; Yassemi, S. Classification of rings with unit graphs having domination number less than four. Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico Della Universit di Padova 2015, 133, 173–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.D.; Yang, L.Y. Domination number of unit graph of Zn. Discret. Math. Algorithms Appl. 2020, 12, 2050059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lloyd, E.K.; Bondy, J.A.; Murty, U.S. Graph Theory with Applications; Macmillan: London, UK, 1976; Volume 290. [Google Scholar]
- Lam, T.-Y. A First Course in Noncommutative Rings; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; Volume 131. [Google Scholar]
- Hungerford, T.W. Algebra; Springer Science and Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Brualdi, R.A. Introductory Combinatorics; Pearson: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).