ON MODULES SATISFYING THE DESCENDING CHAIN

CONDITION ON r-SUBMODULES

ADAM ANEBRI, NAJIB MAHDOU, AND ÜNSAL TEKİR

Abstract. Let R be a commutative ring with nonzero identity and M

be an R-module. In this paper, we introduce the concept of r-Artinian
modules which is a new generalization of Artinian modules. An R-
module M is called an r-Artinian module if M satisfies the descending
chain condition on r-submodules. Also, we call the ring R to be an
r-Artinian ring if R is an r-Artinian R-module. We prove that an R-
module M is an r-Artinian module if and only if its total quotient module
is an Artinian module. In particular, we observe that r-Artinian mod-
ules generalize S-Artinian modules, for some particular multiplicatively
closed subsets S of R. Also, we extend many properties of Artinian
modules to r-Artinian modules. Finally, we use the idealization con-
struction to give non-trivial examples of r-Artinian rings that are not
Artinian.

1. Introduction
Throughout this paper, all rings are assumed to be commutative with
nonzero identity and all modules are nonzero unital. If R is a ring and M
is an R-module, then ZR (M ) = {r ∈ R | rm = 0 for some 0 6= m ∈ M },
denotes the set of zero-divisors of R on M ; Z(R) := ZR (R), denotes the set
−1
of zero-divisors of the ring R; QR (M ) := SM R, denotes the total quotient
−1
ring of R with respect to M , where SM := R − ZR (M ); Q(M ) := SM M,
denotes the total quotient module of M ; and Q(R) := QR (R), denotes the
total quotient ring of R.
For a submodule N of M , we denote by (N :R M ), the residual of N by
M , i.e. the set of all r ∈ R such that rM ⊆ N . In addition, if I is an
ideal of R then (N :M I) denotes the set of all m ∈ M satisfying Im ⊆ N .
An R-module M is said to be faithful if AnnR (M ) := (0 :R M ) is the
zero ideal of R. Also, an R-module M is called a torsion-free module if
r ∈ R, m ∈ M, rm = 0 implies that either r = 0 or m = 0. We say that an
R-module M is a multiplication module [5] if every submodule N of M has
the form IM , for some ideal I of R. Note that I ⊆ (N :R M ) and hence
N = IM ⊆ (N :R M )M ⊆ N, so that N = (N :R M )M.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13E05; Secondary 13A15, 13G05,
13B30.
Key words and phrases. r-Artinian module, r-Artinian ring, r-submodule, r-ideal, S-
Artinian module, idealization.
1
2 ADAM ANEBRI, NAJIB MAHDOU, AND ÜNSAL TEKİR

Chain conditions on rings and modules have been widely studied in commu-
tative algebra by this time. For example, the authors of [13] recently defined
S-Artinian modules as follows: An R-module M is said to be an S-Artinian
module for some multiplicatively closed subset S of R, if for any descending
chain of submodules N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Nn ⊇ · · · of M , there exist s ∈ S and
k ∈ N such that sNk ⊆ Nn for each n ≥ k. They showed that a ring R is an
Artinian ring if and only if R is (R−P )-Artinian ring for every P ∈ Spec(R)
if and only if R is (R − M )-Artinian ring for every M ∈ M ax(R) (see [13,
Theorem 2.2]).
In [12], Mohamadian introduced the notion of r-ideals in a commutative
ring. A proper ideal I of R is said to be an r-ideal of R if, whenever ra ∈ I
for some r ∈ R − Z(R) and a ∈ R, then a ∈ I. In [11], Koç and Tekir
generalized the study of r-ideals to the context of submodules as follows. A
proper submodule N of M is called an r-submodule of M if rm ∈ N with
r ∈ R − ZR (M ) implies that m ∈ N for each r ∈ R and m ∈ M.
Let R be a ring and M be an R-module. Then R n M , the trivial (ring) ex-
tension of R by M , is the ring whose additive structure is that of the external
direct sum R ⊕M and whose multiplication is defined by (r1 , m1 )(r2 , m2 ) :=
(r1 r2 , r1 m2 + r2 m1 ) for all r1 , r2 ∈ R and all m1 , m2 ∈ M . (This construc-
tion is also known by other terminology, such as the idealization). The
basic properties of trivial ring extensions are summarized in the books [8],
[9]. Trivial ring extensions have been studied or generalized extensively, of-
ten because of their usefulness in constructing new classes of examples of
rings satisfying various properties (see for instance [2, 4, 10]).
The aim of this paper is to introduce and study a new class of modules (resp.,
rings) which is closely related to the class of Artinian modules (resp., rings).
In fact, if R is a ring and M is an R-module, M is said to be an r-Artinian
module if M satisfies the descending chain condition on r-submodules. Then
R is said to be an r-Artinian ring if it is r-Artinian as an R-module. In sec-
tion 2, we characterize r-Artinian modules (see Theorem 2.3). At this point,
we can see that r-Artinian modules (resp., rings) is a new generalization of
S-Artinian modules (resp., rings) for some particular multiplicatively closed
subsets S of R (see Proposition 2.4). Furthermore, many properties of Ar-
tinian modules (resp., rings) are also true for r-Artinian modules (resp.,
rings). For example, we show that if M is an r-Artinian R-module and I is
an ideal of R such that IM 6= 0, then there exists a finitely generated ideal
J ⊆ I such that JM 6= 0 and (0 :M I n ) = (0 :M J n ) for all positive integers
n (see Proposition 2.9). Finally, we use the idealization construction to give
non-trivial examples of r-Artinian rings that are not Artinian.

2. Basic results
Definition 2.1. (1) Let R be a ring. An R-module M is said to be
an r-Artinian module if the set of r-submodules of M satisfies the
descending chain condition.
ON MODULES SATISFYING THE DESCENDING CHAIN CONDITION ON r-SUBMODULES
3

(2) A ring R is called an r-Artinian ring if it is r-Artinian as R-module.

Remark 2.2. Let R be a ring. Then:
(a) Every r-submodule of an r-Artinian R-module is an r-Artinian R-
module.
(b) Every Artinian R-module is an r-Artinian R-module.
(c) Every finitely generated torsion-free module over a domain is an r-
Artinian module. In particular, every domain is an r-Artinian ring.
The following theorem provides necessary and sufficient conditions for an
R-module to be r-Artinian.
Theorem 2.3. Let M be an R-module. The following statements are equiv-
alent:
(1) M is an r-Artinian module
(2) Q(M ) is an Artinian QR (M )-module
(3) Every nonempty set of r-submodules of M has a minimial element.
Proof. (1) ⇔ (3). It is a routine proof.
(1) ⇒ (2). Suppose that M is an r-Artinian module and let L1 ⊇ L2 ⊇ · · · ⊇
Ln ⊇ · · · be a descending chain of QR (M )-submodules of the total quotient
module Q(M ). Consider the natural R-homomorphism π : M → Q(M ),
defined by π(m) = m 1 for each m ∈ M. So, by [11, Proposition 4], we have
descending chain of r-submodules
π −1 (L1 ) ⊇ π −1 (L2 ) ⊇ · · · ⊇ π −1 (Ln ) ⊇ · · ·
of M . As M is an r-Artinian module, then there exists k ∈ N such that
π −1 (Lk ) = π −1 (Ln ) for all n ≥ k. Now, we will show that Lk = Ln . By the
above chain, we know that Ln ⊆ Lk for each n ≥ k. For the converse, take
m m sm
s ∈ Lk for some m ∈ M and s ∈ R − ZR (M ). Then we have 1 = 1 s ∈ Lk .
−1 −1 m
This implies that m ∈ π (Lk ) = π (Ln ). Thus we have 1 ∈ Ln . This
implies that m 1m
s = s 1 ∈ Ln . This gives Lk ⊆ Ln , that is, Lk = Ln for all
n ≥ k. Thus, Q(M ) is an Artinian QR (M )-module.
(2) ⇒ (1). Take any descending chain of r-submodules N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇
Nn ⊇ · · · of M . Then, by hypothesis, there is a positive integer k such that
S −1 Nk = S −1 Nn for each n ≥ k. It follows that for every m ∈ Nk , there
exists an element s ∈ R − ZR (M ) such that m ∈ (Nn :M s) = Nn because
Nn is an r-submodule of M . Which implies that M is an r-Artinian module,
as desired. 

Let S be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring R. Recall from [13],

that an R-module M is called an S-Artinian R-module if for any descending
chain of submodules N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Nn ⊇ · · · of M , there exist s ∈ S and
k ∈ N such that sNk ⊆ Nn for every n ≥ k.
Proposition 2.4. Let S be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring R such
that S ∩ ZR (M ) = ∅. Then every S-Artinian R-module is an r-Artinian
R-module.
4 ADAM ANEBRI, NAJIB MAHDOU, AND ÜNSAL TEKİR

Proof. Follows from the fact that for each r-submodule N of M and s ∈ S,
(N :M s) = N . 

The following is an example of an r-Artinian ring that is not S-Artinian

for every multiplicatively closed subset S of R.
Example 2.5. [13, Example 2.4] Consider the ring of integers R := Z.
Then R is an r-Artinian ring by Remark 2.2(c). However, R is not an S-
Artinian ring for every multiplicatively closed subset S of R. It suffices to
verify that R is not an S-Artinian ring, where S = Z−{0}. Indeed, consider
the descending chain of ideals
2Z ⊇ 22 Z ⊇ · · · ⊇ 2n Z ⊇ · · ·
of R. If s ∈ S, then s = 2m t for some m ∈ N ∪ {0} and t ∈ Z with
gcd(t, 2) = 1. Now, we let k ∈ N. Then, s2k Z 6⊆ 2m+k+1 Z and thus R is not
an S-Artinian ring.
Let R be a ring. We call an r-ideal I of R a maximal r-ideal if there is no
r-ideal which contains I properly.
Proposition 2.6. Let R be a ring. The following statements are equivalent:
(1) R is an r-Artinian ring.
(2) Q(R) is an Artinian ring.
(3) R has ascending chain condition on r-ideals and every prime ideal
of R which consists of zero-divisors is a maximal r-ideal.
Proof. (1) ⇔ (2). By Theorem 2.3.
(2) ⇔ (3). The similar argument in Theorem 2.3 shows that Q(R) is a
Noetherian ring if and only if R has ascending chain condition on r-ideals.
Now, we will prove that Q(R) is a zero-dimensional ring if and only if every
prime ideal contained in Z(R) is a maximal r-ideal. Indeed, assume that
dim Q(R) = 0. Let P be a prime ideal of R such that P ⊆ Z(R) and let I
be an r-ideal of R with P ⊆ I. So, S −1 P is a maximal ideal of Q(R), which
implies that S −1 I = S −1 P (since I ⊆ Z(R)) and thus I = P . Conversely,
assume that every prime r-ideal of R is a maximal r-ideal. It follows that
every prime ideal of Q(R) is maximal and hence Q(R) is a zero-dimensional
ring. This completes the proof. 

As an immediate consequence of Propostion 2.6, we have the following

result.
Corollary 2.7. Let R be an r-Artinian ring. Then R has only finitely many
prime ideals which consist of zero-divisors of R. In particular, R has only
finitely many minimal prime ideals.
Theorem 2.8. Let M be an R-module. Consider the following two asser-
tions:
(1) M is an r-Artinian R-module.
ON MODULES SATISFYING THE DESCENDING CHAIN CONDITION ON r-SUBMODULES
5

(2) For every r-submodule

T N of M and every T family of r-submodules
{Ki }i∈Λ of M/N , i∈Λ Ki = 0 implies that i∈Λ0 Ki = 0, for some
finite subset Λ0 of Λ.
Then (1) implies (2) and the converse holds if M is a torsion-free module.
Proof. Suppose that M is an r-Artinian module. Let N be an r-submodule
T
of M and {Ki }i∈Λ be a family of r-submodules of M/N such that i∈Λ Ki =
0. Then Ki = Ni /N for some submodules Ni of M which containing N .
The fact that N is an r-submodule T ensures that Ni is an r-submodule of
M for all i ∈ Λ. Now, set F = { i∈Λ0 Ni | for some 0
T finite subset Λ of Λ}.
By hypothesis, F has a minimal element N 0 = i∈Λ0 Ni ∈ F. Let k ∈
Λ − Λ0 , so N 0 ∩ Nk ⊆ N 0 . The minimality of N 0 0
T proves that N ∩ Nk = N
0

and hence 0 0
N ⊆ Nk . It followsTthat N ⊆ i∈Λ Ni = N , which implies
T
that i∈Λ0 (Ni /N ) = 0. Thus i∈Λ0 Ki = 0. Now, we will prove that
(2) ⇒ (1) under additional hypothesis that M is a torsion-free module.
Let N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ T · · · ⊇ Nn ⊇ · · · be a descending chain of r-submodules
of M. Put N = Ni . Then by [11, Proposition 3], N is an r-submodule
of M. Let Ki = Ni /N. Now, we will show that Ki is an r-submodule of
M/N. Let a(m + N ) = am + N ∈ Ki with AnnM/N (a) = 0. Then a 6= 0,
which implies that AnnM (a) = 0 since M is torsion-free. Also, we have
am ∈ Ni . As Ni is an r-submodule of M, we have m ∈ Ni , which implies
that m + N T ∈ Ki . Thus Ki is an r-submodule of M/N. On the other hand,
note that Ki = 0M/N . Then by assumption, there exist t1 ≤ t2 ≤ · · · ≤ tm
such that m
T
i=1 Kti = Ktm = 0M/N , which implies that Ntm = N ⊆ Nn for
each n ≥ tm . Therefore, M is an r-Artinian module. 
Proposition 2.9. Let M be an r-Artinian R-module and I be an ideal of
R such that IM 6= 0. Then there exists a finitely generated ideal J ⊆ I such
that JM 6= 0 and (0 :M I n ) = (0 :M J n ) for all positive integers n.
Proof. Set F := {(0 :M K) | K is a finitely generated ideal of R such that K ⊆
I and KM 6= 0}. Since I 6⊆ AnnR (M ), then there exists an element x ∈ I
such that xM 6= 0 and hence F is a nonempty set of r-submodules. The
fact that M is an r-Artinian module implies that there is a minimal ele-
ment of F, say (0 :M J). Now, we show that (0 :M I) = (0 :M J). Since
J ⊆ I, then (0 :M I) ⊆ (0 :M J). Assume that (0 :M J) 6⊆ (0 :M I) and let
m ∈ (0 :M J)−(0 :M I). So, xm 6= 0 for some nonzero element x ∈ I. Hence,
J + Rx ⊆ I is a finitely generated ideal such that (J + Rx)M 6= 0. This
implies that (0 :M J + Rx) = (0 :M J) by the minimality of (0 :M J). It fol-
lows that m ∈/ (0 :M J), which is a contradiction. Thus (0 :M J) ⊆ (0 :M I).
Now, let m ∈ (0 :M J 2 ), so Jm ⊆ (0 :M J) = (0 :M I). This implies that
Im ⊆ (0 :M J) and hence I 2 m = 0. Then (0 :M I 2 ) = (0 :M J 2 ). By a
similar argument, (0 :M I n ) = (0 :M J n ) for all positive integers n. 

Recall that a proper ideal P of R is said to be a semiprime

√ ideal if a2 ∈ P
implies that a ∈ P for each a ∈ R, or equivalently, P = P .
6 ADAM ANEBRI, NAJIB MAHDOU, AND ÜNSAL TEKİR
p
n
Corollary 2.10. Let M be an r-Artinian R-module. Then AnnR (M ) ⊆
AnnR (M ) for some positive integer n.
Proof. We may assume, without losspof generality, that AnnR (M ) is not
a semiprime ideal of R and put I = AnnR (M ). By Proposition 2.9, we
must have a finitely generated ideal J ⊆ I such that (0 :M I k ) = (0 :M J k )
for all k ≥ 1. Thus, it suffices to prove that there exists a positive
p integer
n such that J n M = 0. This, in turn, can be seen because J ⊆ AnnR (M )
and J is finitely generated. 

Recall from [1] that an R-module M is said to be an S-finite module for

some multiplicatively closed subset S of R, if there exist s ∈ S and a finitely
generated submodule N of M such that sM ⊆ N.
Proposition 2.11. Let R be an r-Artinian ring and M be an R-module.
Assume that at least one of the following conditions holds:
(1) M is a multiplication module with ZR (M ) ⊆ Z(R).
(2) M is an S-finite module with S := R − Z(R) and ZR (M ) = Z(R).
Then, M is an r-Artinian module.
Proof. Assume that the condition (1) holds and let N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Nn ⊇
· · · be any descending chain of r-submodules of M . Then, by hypothesis,
(Nn :R M ) is an r-ideal of R for each n. Since R is an r-Artinian ring,
there exists k ∈ N such that (Nn :R M ) = (Nk :R M ) for all n ≥ k. Hence,
Nn = Nk for all n ≥ k because M is a multiplication module. It follows that
M is an r-Artinian module. Now, we suppose that M is an S-finite module,
where S := R − ZR (M ). So, there exist an element s ∈ S and a finitely
generated submodule N of M such that sM ⊆ N . Set  N = Rm1 +· · ·+Rmn ,
where m1 , . . . , mn ∈ M . It can be easily seen that ms1 , . . . , msn generates
Q(M ). Hence, by Theorem 2.3, Q(M ) is a finitely generated module over
the Artinian ring QR (M ). Which implies that Q(M ) is an Artinian QR (M )-
module and thus M is an r-Artinian module. This completes the proof. 

Recall from [3] that an R-module M is said to be a comultiplication

module if every submodule N of M has the form N = (0 :M I) for some
ideal I of R, or equivalently, N = (0 :M AnnR (N )). Now, we will show that
the relations between comultiplication modules and r-Artinian modules.
Theorem 2.12. Let M be a comultiplication R-module with ZR (M ) ⊆ Z(R)
and R satisfies ascending chain condition on r-ideals of R. Then M is an
r-Artinian module. 
Proof. Let N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Nn ⊇ · · · be a descending chain of r-
submodules of M. Since M is comultiplication, we can write Ni = AnnM (Ann(Ni )).
Now we will show that AnnR (Ni ) is an r-ideal of R. Let ab ∈ AnnR (Ni ) with
Ann(a) = 0 for some a, b ∈ R. Then by assumption, AnnM (a) = 0. Since
abNi = 0, we have bNi = 0, which implies that b ∈ AnnR (Ni ). Thus,
AnnR (N1 ) ⊆ AnnR (N2 ) ⊆ · · · ⊆ AnnR (Ni ) ⊆ · · · is an ascending chain of
ON MODULES SATISFYING THE DESCENDING CHAIN CONDITION ON r-SUBMODULES
7

r-ideals of R. Since R satisfies ascending chain condition on r-ideals, there

exists m ∈ N such that AnnR (Ni ) = AnnR (Nm ) for each i ≥ m. This implies
that
Ni = AnnM (AnnR (Ni )) = AnnM (AnnR (Nm )) = Nm .

u v
Theorem 2.13. Let R be a ring and let 0 −→ M1 −→ M2 −→ M3 −→ 0
be an exact sequence of R-modules. Then:
(1) If M2 is an r-Artinian R-module and u(M1 ) is an r-submodule of
M2 , then M1 is an r-Artinian R-module.
(2) Assume that ZR (M3 ) ⊆ ZR (M2 ). If M2 is an r-Artinian R-module,
then so is M3 .
(3) Suppose that ZR (M2 ) ⊆ ZR (M1 ). If M1 is an r-Artinian R-module
and M3 is an S-Artinian R-module where S := R − ZR (M2 ), then
M2 is an r-Artinian R-module.
Proof. (1) Clear.
(2) The hypothesis that ZR (M3 ) ⊆ ZR (M2 ) ensures that v −1 (N ) is an r-
submodule of M2 for every r-submodule N of M3 . If M2 is an r-Artinian
module, then we can easily get M3 is an r-Artinian module.
(3) Take any descending chain N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Nn ⊇ · · · of r-submodules
of M2 . Since M3 is an S-Artinian module with S := R − ZR (M2 ), then
there exist s ∈ S and k1 ∈ N such that sv(Nk1 ) ⊆ v(Nn ) for each n ≥ k1 .
It follows that Nk1 ⊆ (Nn + ker(v) :M s). On the other hand, we have the
descending chain
N1 ∩ ker(v) ⊇ N2 ∩ ker(v) ⊇ · · · ⊇ Nn ∩ ker(v) ⊇ · · ·
of r-submodules of ker(v). As M1 is an r-Artinian module, there exists
k2 ∈ N such that Nk2 ∩ ker(v) = Nn ∩ ker(v) for each n ≥ k2 . Now put k =
max{k1 , k2 }. Then we have sNk ⊆ Nn +ker(v) and Nk ∩ker(v) = Nn ∩ker(v)
for each n ≥ k. Let m ∈ Nk , so sm = x + y for some x ∈ Nn and y ∈ ker(v).
Since Nn ⊆ Nk for all n ≥ k, we get y ∈ Nk ∩ ker(v). This yields that
y ∈ Nn and hence m ∈ Nn since Nn is an r-submodule of M2 . Thus M2 is
an r-Artinian module, as desired. 
Corollary 2.14. Let M be an R-module and N be a submodule of M . The
following statements hold:
(1) If N is an r-submodule of M and M is an r-Artinian module, then
M/N is an r-Artinian module.
(2) Assume that N is an essential submodule of M . If N is an r-Artinian
module and M/N is an S-Artinian R-module with S := R − ZR (M ),
then M is an r-Artinian module.
Proof. We will apply Theorem 2.13 to the exact sequence
0 −→ N −→ M −→ M/N −→ 0.
8 ADAM ANEBRI, NAJIB MAHDOU, AND ÜNSAL TEKİR

(1) The fact that N is an r-submodule of M implies that ZR (M/N ) ⊆

ZR (M ).
(2) It suffices to verify that ZR (M ) ⊆ ZR (N ). This, in turn, can be shown
because N is an essential submodule of M . 

The following example proves that the r-Artinian property is not pre-
served in general by homomorphic images.
Example 2.15. Let R = K[{Xi | i ∈ N}], where K is a field and let I be
the ideal of R generated by the set {X0j Xj | j ≥ 1}. So, R is obviously an
r-Artinian ring. However, R/I is not an r-Artinian ring. In fact, Xn ∈
AnnR/I (X0n ) − AnnR/I (X0n−1 ), that is, the ascending chain AnnR/I (X0 )
AnnR/I (X02 ) · · · of r-ideals does not stabilize. By Proposition 2.6, we
conclude that R/I is not an r-Artinian ring.
Theorem 2.16. Let Mi be an Ri -module for each i = 1, 2. Suppose that
M = M1 × M2 and R = R1 × R2 . The following statements are equivalent.
(1) M is an r-Artinian module.
(2) Mi is an r-Artinian module for each i = 1, 2.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2). First we will show that M1 is an r-Artinian module.
Take the following descending chain of r-submodules of M1 :
(1) (1)
N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Nn(1) ⊇ · · ·
(1)
Then Kn = Nn × M2 is an r-submodule of M by [11, Lemma 2]. This
implies that {Ki }i∈N is a descending chain of r-submodules of M. As M is
(1)
an r-Artinian module, there exists m ∈ N such that Km = Nm × M2 =
(1) (1) (1)
Nn × M2 = Kn for each n ≥ m. Then we have Nm = Nn for each
n ≥ m. Therefore, M1 is an r-Artinian module. One can similarly show
that M2 is an r-Artinian module.
(2) ⇒ (1). Suppose that M1 , M2 are r-Artinian modules. Consider the
following descending chain of r-submodules of M :
K1 ⊇ K2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Kn ⊇ · · ·
(1) (2) (1) (2)
Then we can write Ki = Ni × Ni for some submodules Ni , Ni of
M1 and M2 , respectively. Without loss of generality, we may assume that
(1) (2)
Ni , Ni are proper. Since Ki is an r-submodule, by [11, Lemma 2],
(1) (2) (1)
Ni , Ni are r-submodules of M1 and M2 , respectively. Thus {Ni } and
(2)
{Ni } are descending chain of r-submodules of M1 and M2 , respectively.
(1)
Since M1 and M2 are r-Artinian, there exists m ∈ N such that Nm =
(1) (2) (2)
Nn and Nm = Nn for each n ≥ m. This implies that Km = Kn for each
n ≥ m. Therefore, M is an r-Artinian module. 
Theorem 2.17. Let n ≥ 1 be an integer and Mi be an Ri -module for each
i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Suppose that R = R1 × R2 × · · · × Rn and M = M1 × M2 ×
· · · × Mn . The following statements are equivalent.
ON MODULES SATISFYING THE DESCENDING CHAIN CONDITION ON r-SUBMODULES
9

(1) M is an r-Artinian module.

(2) Mi is an r-Artinian module for each i = 1, 2, ..., n.
Proof. Apply induction on n and Theorem 2.16. 

Note that every domain which is not a field is an example of an r-Artinian

ring which is not Artinian. The following result allows us to construct
new original classes of r-Artinian rings which are neither Artinian rings nor
domains.
Let M be an R-module. The trivial extension R n M = R ⊕ M of the
R-module M is a commutative ring with componentwise addition and the
following multiplication: (a, m)(b, n) = (ab, an + bm) for each a, b ∈ R and
m, n ∈ M [2].
Theorem 2.18. Let R be a ring, M be an R-module. Then the following
statements hold:
(1) If R n M is an r-Artinian ring, then R is an r-Artinian ring and M
is an r-Artinian R-module.
(2) Assume that ZR (M ) ⊆ Z(R). If R is an r-Artinian ring and M is
an S-finite module where S = R−Z(R), then RnM is an r-Artinian
ring.
(3) Suppose that R is an S-Artinian ring and M is an S-finite module,
where S = R − (Z(R) ∪ ZR (M )). Then R n M is an r-Artinian ring.
Proof. (1) Suppose that R n M is an r-Artinian ring and let I1 ⊇ I2 ⊇
· · · ⊇ In ⊇ · · · be a descending chain of r-ideals of R. So, by [11, Proposition
9], I1 n M ⊇ I2 n M ⊇ · · · ⊇ In n M ⊇ · · · is a descending chain of r-ideals
of R n M . Then, by hypothesis, there exists a positive integer k such that
In n M = Ik n M and hence In = Ik for each n ≥ k. By similar argument,
we can show that M is an r-Artinian module. Indeed, take any descending
chain of r-submodules N1 ⊇ N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Nn ⊇ · · · of M . By [11, Theorem
6], 0 n N1 ⊇ 0 n N2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ 0 n Nn ⊇ · · · is a descending chain of r-ideals of
R n M. So, there is a positive integer k such that 0 n Nk = 0 n Nn for each
n ≥ k. Hence M is r-Artinian.
(2) Since ZR (M ) ⊆ Z(R), we then have Z(R n M ) = Z(R) n M . Moreover,
the fact that R is r-Artinian implies that Q(R) is an Artinian ring. On
the other hand, as M is S-finite, then S −1 M is a finitely generated S −1 R-
module. By [9, Corollary 25.5], it follows that Q(R n M ) ∼ = Q(R) n S −1 M
is an Artinian ring and thus R n M is an r-Artinian ring.
(3) Set S := R − (Z(R) ∪ ZR (M )). It suffices to show S −1 R is an Artinian
ring. This, in turn, follows immediately by [13, Propostion 2.1]. On the
other hand, the fact that M is S-finite implies that S −1 M is a finitely
generated S −1 R-module. We conclude that R n M is an r-Artinian ring.
This completes the proof. 
Remark 2.19. It is interesting that the assertion in Theorem 2.18(2) would
fail if ZR (M ) 6⊆ Z(R). In fact, R := Z n Z2 is not an r-Artinian ring since
10 ADAM ANEBRI, NAJIB MAHDOU, AND ÜNSAL TEKİR

the following descending chain of r-ideals is not stationary:

2Z n Z2 ⊇ 22 Z n Z2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ 2n Z n Z2 ⊇ · · · .

For
 a multiplicatively closed set S of R, the saturation S ∗ of S is defined
as x ∈ R : 1 is a unit of S −1 R [7]. Also a multiplicatively closed set S of
x

R is said to be a saturated if S = S ∗ . Note that S ∗ is always a saturated
set containing S. In [2, Theorem 3.8], the authors showed that there is a
correspondence between the saturated set of R and those of R n M given
by S ↔ S n M.
The following is an example of an r-Artinian ring that is not an S-Artinian
ring.
Example 2.20. Consider the ring of integers R := Z and M := Zn . Then
R n M is an r-Artinian ring which is not an S-Artinian ring, for every
multiplicatively closed subset S of R n M.
Proof. Since R is an r-Artinian ring and M is a finitely generated R-
module satisfying ZR (M ) = Z(R), then, by Theorem 2.18(2), R n M is an
r-Artinian ring. Now, we will show that R n M is not an S-artinian ring for
each multiplicatively closed S of R n M. By [13, Lemma 2.1 (2)], we know
that R n M is an S-artinian ring if and only if R n M is an S ∗ -artinian ring,
where S ∗ is the saturation of S. So, we may assume that S is a saturated
set of R n M. Then by [2, Theorem 3.8], there exists a saturated set T of
R such that S = T n M. Assume that R n M is an S-Artinian ring. Then
by [13, Corollary 2.3], R is a T -Artinian ring. By [13, Proposition 2.1 (2)],
we have T = R − {0}. Thus by Example 2.5, this is a contradiction. Hence,
R n M is not an S-Artinian ring.

References
[1] D.D. Anderson, T. Dumitrescu, S-Noetherian rings, Comm. Algebra 30 (2002) 4407–
4416.
[2] D. D. Anderson and M. Winders, Idealization of a module, J. Commut. Algebra 1
(2009), no. 1, 3–56.
[3] H. Ansari-Toroghy and F. Farshadifar, The dual notion of multiplication modules,
Taiwan. J. Math., 11(4) (2007), 1189–1201.
[4] C. Bakkari, S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, Trivial extensions defined by Prüfer condi-
tions, J. Pure App. Algebra 214 (2010), no. 1, 53–60.
[5] A. Barnard, Multiplication modules, J. Algebra 71(1) (1981), 174–178.
[6] Z. A. El-Bast and P. P. Smith, Multiplication modules, Comm. Algebra 16(4) (1988),
755–779.
[7] R. Gilmer: Multiplicative Ideal Theory. Queen’s Papers in Pure and Applied Math-
ematics 90, Queen’s University, Kingston, 1992.
[8] S. Glaz, Commutative Coherent Rings, Lecture Notes in Math, 1371, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1989.
[9] J. A. Huckaba, Commutative Rings with Zero Divisors, Dekker, New York, 1988.
[10] S. Kabbaj and N. Mahdou, Trivial extensions defined by coherent-like conditions,
Comm. Algebra 32(10) (2004), 3937–3953.
ON MODULES SATISFYING THE DESCENDING CHAIN CONDITION ON r-SUBMODULES
11

[11] S. Koç and U. Tekir, r-Submodules and sr-Submodules, Turk. J. Math. 42 (2018),
1863–1876.
[12] R. Mohamadian, r-Ideals in commutative rings, Turk. J. Math. 39 (2015), 733–749.
[13] E. S. Sevim, U. Tekir and S. Koç, S-Artinian rings and finitely S-cogenerated rings,
J. Algebra Appl. 19(3) (2020), 2050051.

Adam Anebri, Laboratory of Modelling and Mathematical Structures, De-

partment of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Technology of Fez, Box
2202, University S.M. Ben Abdellah Fez, Morocco.
E − mail address : [email protected]

Najib Mahdou, Laboratory of Modelling and Mathematical Structures,

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and Technology of Fez, Box
2202, University S.M. Ben Abdellah Fez, Morocco.
E − mail address : [email protected]

ÜNSAL TEKİR, Department of Mathematics, Marmara University, Istan-

bul, Turkey.
E − mail address : [email protected]