검색
Article Search

JMB Journal of Microbiolog and Biotechnology

OPEN ACCESS eISSN 0454-8124
pISSN 1225-6951
QR Code

Article

Kyungpook Mathematical Journal 2022; 62(1): 43-55

Published online March 31, 2022

Copyright © Kyungpook Mathematical Journal.

On n-skew Lie Products on Prime Rings with Involution

Shakir Ali and Muzibur Rahman Mozumder*

epartment of Mathematics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002, U. P., India
e-mail : shakir.ali.mm@amu.ac.in and muzibamu81@gmail.com

Received: July 7, 2021; Revised: October 5, 2021; Accepted: October 7, 2021

Let R be a *-ring and n≥ 1 be an integer. The objective of this paper is to introduce the notion of n-skew centralizing maps on *-rings, and investigate the impact of these maps. In particular, we describe the structure of prime rings with involution '*' such that *[x,d(x)]nZ(R) for all x∈ R (for n=1, 2), where d:RR is a nonzero derivation of R. Among other related results, we also provide two examples to prove that the assumed restrictions on our main results are not superfluous.

Keywords: Prime ring, derivation, involution, centralizing mappings, 2-skew Lie product, 2-skew centralizing mappings, n-skew commuting mappings, n-skew centralizing mapping

This research is motivated by the recent work's of Ali-Dar [1], Qi-Zhang [5] and Hou-Wang [3]. However, our approach is different from that of the authors of [5] and [3]. A ring R with an involution '*' is called a *-ring or ring with involution '*'. Throughout, we let R be a ring with involution '*' and Z(R), the center of the ring R. Moreover, the sets of all hermitian and skew-hermitian elements of R will be denoted by H(R) and S(R), respectively. The involution is called the first kind if Z(R)H(R), otherwise S(R)Z(R)(0)(see [2] for details). A ring R is said to be 2-torsion free if 2x=0 (where x ∈ R) implies x=0. A ring R is called prime if aRb=(0) (where a,b ∈ R) implies a=0 or b=0. A derivation on R is an additive mapping d:RR such that d(xy)=d(x)y+xd(y) for all x,y ∈ R.

For any x,y ∈ R, the symbol [x,y] will denote the Lie product xy-yx and the symbol *[x,y] will denote the skew Lie product xy-yx*, where '*' is an involution on R. In a recent paper, Hou and Wang [3] extended the concept of skew Lie product as follows: for an integer n ≥ 1, the n-skew Lie product of any two elements x and y is defined by *[x,y]n=*[x,*[x,y]n1], where *[x,y]0=y, *[x,y]=xyyx* and *[x,y]2=x2y2xyx*+y(x*)2. Obviously, for n=1, the skew Lie product and n-skew Lie product coincides. Note that, for n=2, we call it 2-skew Lie product. In [3], Hou and Wang studied the strong 2-skew commutativity preserving maps in prime rings with involution. In fact, they described the form of strong 2-skew commutativity preserving maps on a unital prime ring with involution that contains a non-trivial symmetric idempotent. In [5], Qi and Zhang studied the properties of n-skew Lie product on prime rings with involution and as an application, they characterized n-skew commuting additive maps, i.e.; an additive mapping f on R into itself such that *[x,f(x)]n=0 for all x∈ R. In definition of n-skew commuting mapping (defined in [5]), if we consider that f is any map (not necessarily additive) then it is more reasonable to call f a n-skew commuting. To give its precise definition, we make a slight modification in Qi and Zhang's definition for n-skew commuting mapping. For an integer n ≥ 1, a map f of a *-ring R into itself is called n-skew commuting mapping on R if *[x,f(x)]n=0 for every x∈ R. For an integer n ≥ 1, a map f of a *-ring R into itself is called n-skew centralizing mapping on R if *[x,f(x)]nZ(R) for every x ∈ R. In particular, for n = 1, 2, we call them 1-skew commuting (resp. 1-skew centralizing) and 2-skew commuting (resp. 2-skew centralizing) mapping.

The objective of this paper is to introduce the notion of n-skew centralizing mappings on *-rings. Further, we investigate the impact of these mappings and describe the nature of prime *-rings which satisfy certain *-differential identities. In particular, for an integer n ≥ 1 we prove that if a 2-torsion free prime ring R with involution '*' of the second kind which admits a nonzero derivation d such that *[x,d(x)]nZ(R) for all xR (n=1,2), then R is commutative. Moreover, some more related results are obtained. Further more, examples prove that, the assumed curtailment can not be relaxed as given.

In order to study the effect of n-skew centralizing mappings, we need the following two lemmas for developing the proofs of our main results. We begin our discussion with the following lemmas:

Lemma 2.1. Let R be a 2-torsion free prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind. If x2x*Z(R) for all x∈ R, then R is commutative.

Proof. Linearization of x2x*Z(R) gives that x2y*+xyx*+xyy*+yxx*+yxy*+y2x*Z(R) for all x,yR. Taking x=-x in the last expression and combine it with the above relation, we get

x2y*+xyx*+yxx*Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Substituting ky for y, where kS(R)Z(R), we obtain (x2y*+xyx*+yxx*)kZ(R) for all x,yR. Invoking the primeness of R and using the fact that S(R)Z(R)(0), we get

x2y*+xyx*+yxx*Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Combining (2.1) and (2.2), we conclude that x2y*Z(R). Replacing y by y*, we get x2yZ(R) for all x,yR. This can be further written as [x2y,w]=0 for all x,y,w∈ R. Replacing y by ry, we get x2r[y,w]=0 for all x,y,w,rR. Hence by the primeness of the ring R, we are force to conclude that R is commutative.

Lemma 2.2. Let R be a 2-torsion free prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind. If *[x,x*]2Z(R) for all x ∈ R, then R is commutative.

Proof. By the hypothesis, we have

x2x*2x(x*)2+(x*)3Z(R)  for all  xR.

Replacing x by kx in (2.3) where kS(R)Z(R), we get

x2x*k32x(x*)2k3(x*)3k3Z(R)  for all  xR.

By (2.3) and (2.4), we conclude that 4x(x*)2k3Z(R) for all x∈ R. Since R is 2-torsion free prime ring and S(R)Z(R)(0), we obtain x(x*)2Z(R) for all x∈ R. On linearizing we get

xx*y*+xy*x*+x(y*)2+y(x*)2+yx*y*+yy*x*Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Taking x=-x in (2.5) and using (2.5), we obtain

xx*y*+xy*x*+y(x*)2Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Substitute ky for y, where kS(R)Z(R) in (2.6), we get 2y(x*)2kZ(R) for all x,yR. This implies that yx2Z(R) for all x,yR. Henceforth, using the same arguments as we have used in Lemma 2.1, we conclude that R is commutative. This proves the lemma.

Theorem 2.3. Let R be a 2-torsion free prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind. If R admits a nonzero derivation d such that *[x,d(x)]nZ(R) for all xR(n=1,2), then R is commutative.

proof. Case (i) First we discuss the case, "when n=1" and "i.e.",

*[x,d(x)]Z(R)  for all  xR.

Linearizing the above expression, we get

*[x,d(y)]+*[y,d(x)]Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

That is,

xd(y)d(y)x*+yd(x)d(x)y*Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

This further implies that

[xd(y),r][d(y)x*,r]+[yd(x),r][d(x)y*,r]=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Hence

    x[d(y),r]+[x,r]d(y)d(y)[x*,r][d(y),r]x*+y[d(x),r]+[y,r]d(x)d(x)[y*,r][d(x),r]y*=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Replacing y by hy in (2.7), where hH(R)Z(R) and using it, we have

(x[y,r]+[x,r]yy[x*,r][y,r]x*)d(h)=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Using the primeness of R, we obtain either d(h)=0 or

x[y,r]+[x,r]yy[x*,r][y,r]x*=0  for all  x,y,rR.

First we consider the situation

x[y,r]+[x,r]yy[x*,r][y,r]x*=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Substituting kx for x in (2.8), where kS(R)Z(R) and combining it with (2.8), we get

2(x[y,r]+[x,r]y)k=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Since R is 2-torsion free prime ring, we deduce that

x[y,r]+[x,r]y=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Replacing x by z, where z ∈ Z(R), we get [y,r]z=0 for all y,r ∈ R. Henceforth, we conclude that R is commutative. Now consider the case d(h)=0 for all hH(R)Z(R). This implies that d(k)=0 for all kS(R)Z(R). Replacing y by ky in (2.7), where kS(R)Z(R) with d(k)=0 and adding with (2.7), we get

2(x[d(y),r]+[x,r]d(y)d(y)[x*,r][d(y),r]x*+y[d(x),r]+[y,r]d(x))k=0

for all x,y,r ∈ R. Since R is 2-torsion free ring and S(R)Z(R)(0), the above relation implies that

x[d(y),r]+[x,r]d(y)d(y)[x*,r][d(y),r]x*+y[d(x),r]+[y,r]d(x)=0  for all

x,yR. Taking y=h, where hH(R)Z(R) and using the fact that d(h)=0, we get [d(x),r]h=0 for all x,r ∈ R and hH(R)Z(R). This yields that [d(x),r]=0 for all x,r ∈ R. Hence in view of Posner's [4] first theorem, R is commutative.

Case (ii) Now, we prove the result for n=2 i.e.,

*[x,d(x)]2Z(R)  for all  xR.

On expansion we acquire

x2d(x)2xd(x)x*+d(x)(x*)2Z(R)  for all  xR.

Replacing x by xh in (2.9), where hH(R)Z(R), we obtain

(x32x2x*+x(x*)2)d(h)h2Z(R)  for all  xR.

Then by the primeness of R we are force to conclude that either d(h)h2=0 or x32x2x*+x(x*)2Z(R) for all x∈ R. First we consider the case

x32x2x*+x(x*)2Z(R)  for all  xR.

Substituting kx for x in (2.10), where kS(R)Z(R), we get (x3+2x2x*+x(x*)2)k3Z(R)  for all  xR. This further implies that

x3+2x2x*+x(x*)2Z(R)  for all  xR.

Subtracting (2.10) from (2.11) and using 2-torsion freeness of R, we obtain x2x*Z(R)  for all  xR. Therefore, by Lemma 2.1, R is commutative. Now consider the second case d(h)h2=0 for all hH(R)Z(R). This implies that d(h)=0 for all hH(R)Z(R). Therefore, d(k)=0 for all kS(R)Z(R). Replacing x by kx in (2.9), where kS(R)Z(R) and using the fact that d(k)=0, we obtain

x2d(x)k3+2xd(x)x*k3+d(x)(x*)2k3Z(R)  for all  xR.

Application of (2.9) yields 4xd(x)x*k3Z(R) for all x ∈ R. Since R is 2-torsion free ring and S(R)Z(R)(0), we get

xd(x)x*Z(R)  for all  xR.

Putting x+h in place of x, where hH(R)Z(R), we arrive at

xd(x)h+d(x)x*h+d(x)h2Z(R)  for all  xR.

Taking x=-x in (2.14) and then combining it with the obtained relation, we get 2d(x)h2Z(R). This implies that d(x)Z(R) for all x∈ R, since the involution '*' is of the second kind. Hence, by Posner's [4] first theorem, R is commutative.

Theorem 2.4. Let R be a 2-torsion free prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind. If R admits a nonzero derivation d such that d(*[x,x*]n)Z(R) for all x ∈ R (n=1,2), then R is commutative.

proof. Case (i) Firstly we are focus to discuss the case when n=1 i.e.,

d(*[x,x*])Z(R)  for all  xR.

Linearizing this, we get

d(*[x,y*])+d(*[y,x*])Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

This implies that

d(x)[y*,r]+[d(x),r]y*+x[d(y*),r]+[x,r]d(y*)d(y*)[x*,r][d(y*),r]x*y*[d(x*),r]  [y*,r]d(x*)+d(y)[x*,r]+[d(y),r]x*+y[d(x*),r]+[y,r]d(x*)d(x*)[y*,r]    [d(x*),r]y*x*[d(y*),r][x*,r]d(y*)=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Replacing y by hy, where hH(R)Z(R) in (2.15), we obtain

(x[y*,r]+[x,r]y*y*[x*,r][y*,r]x*+y[x*,r]+[y,r]x*x*[y*,r][x*,r]y*)d(h)=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Using the primeness of R, we have either d(h)=0 or

x[y*,r]+[x,r]y*y*[x*,r][y*,r]x*+y[x*,r]+[y,r]x*x*[y*,r][x*,r]y*=0

for all x,y,r ∈ R. We first consider the relation (2.16). Replacing y by ky, where kS(R)Z(R) in (2.16), we get 2(y[x*,r]+[y,r]x*)k=0 for all x,y,rR. Since R is 2-torsion free ring and S(R)Z(R)(0), we obtain y[x*,r]+[y,r]x*=0 for all x,y,rR. Taking x=k, where kS(R)Z(R), we get -[y,r]k=0 for all y,r∈ R. Thus -[y,r]=0 for all y,r∈ R. That is, R is commutative. Now consider d(h)=0 for all hH(R)Z(R). This implies that d(k)=0 for all kS(R)Z(R). Replacing y by ky, where kS(R)Z(R) in (2.15) and making use of (2.15), we get

2(d(y)[x*,r]+[d(y),r]x*+y[d(x*),r]+[y,r]d(x*))k=0  for all  x,y,rR.

This implies that

d(y)[x*,r]+[d(y),r]x*+y[d(x*),r]+[y,r]d(x*)=0  for all  x,y,rR.

Taking x=h where hH(R)Z(R) and using d(h)=0, we arrive at h[d(y),r]=0 for all y,r ∈ R. Then by the primeness of R and the fact that S(R)Z(R)(0), we obtain [d(y),r]=0 for all y,r∈ R. Hence by Posner's [4] first theorem, R is commutative.

Case (ii) Next, for n=2 we have

d(*[x,x*]2)Z(R)  for all   xR.

On expansion we get

d(x2x*)2d(x(x*)2)+d((x*)3)Z(R)  for all  xR.

Linearization of (2.17) yields

d(x2y*)+d(xyx*)+d(xyy*)+d(yxx*)+d(yxy*)+d(y2x*)2d(xx*y*)2d(xy*x*)2d(x(y*)2)2d(y(x*)2)2d(yx*y*)2d(yy*x*)+d((x*)2y*)+d(x*y*x*)+d(x*(y*)2)+d(y*(x*)2)+d(y*x*y*)+d((y*)2x*)Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Substituting -x for x in (2.18) and combining the obtained relation with (2.18), we obtain

2(d(x2y*)+d(xyx*)+d(yxx*)2d(xx*y*)2d(xy*x*)2d(y(x*)2)+d((x*)2y*)+d(x*y*x*)+d(y*(x*)2))Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Since R is 2-torsion free, the last relation gives

d(x2y*)+d(xyx*)+d(yxx*)2d(xx*y*)2d(xy*x*)2d(y(x*)2)+d((x*)2y*)+d(x*y*x*)+d(y*(x*)2)Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Replacing y by hy, where hH(R)Z(R) in (2.19) and intermix it with (2.19), we come to

(x2y*+xyx*+yxx*2xx*y*2xy*x*2y(x*)2+(x*)2y*+x*y*x*+y*(x*)2)d(h)Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

By the primeness of the ring R, we get either d(h)=0 or

x2y*+xyx*+yxx*2xx*y*2xy*x*2y(x*)2+(x*)2y*+x*y*x*+y*(x*)2Z(R)

for all x,y ∈ R. Replacing y by ky, where kS(R)Z(R) in (2.20), we arrive at

2(xyx*+yxx*2y(x*)2)Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

This implies that

xyx*+yxx*2y(x*)2Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Substituting kx for x in the last relation, we conclude that y(x*)2Z(R) for all x,y∈ R. Now proceed as we have already done in Lemma 2.1, we conclude that R is commutative. "Considering the second case in which we have d(h)=0 for all hH(R)Z(R)." This implies that d(k)=0 for all kS(R)Z(R). Now replacing x by kx in (2.19) and using "d(k)=0, we get"

(d(x2y*)+d(xyx*)+d(yxx*)+2d(xx*y*)+2d(xy*x*)2d(y(x*)2)d((x*)2y*)d(x*y*x*)d(y*(x*)2))kZ(R)  for all  x,yR.

Since S(R)Z(R)(0), the last expression implies that

d(x2y*)+d(xyx*)+d(yxx*)+2d(xx*y*)+2d(xy*x*)2d(y(x*)2)d((x*)2y*)d(x*y*x*)d(y*(x*)2)Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Combining this with (2.19) and using the fact that R is 2-torsion free ring, we arrive at

d(xyx*)+d(yxx*)2d(y(x*)2)Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Replacing x by kx, where kS(R)Z(R) and combining it with previous expression, we obtain 2d(y(x*)2)Z(R) for all x,y ∈ R. Replacing x by h, where hH(R)Z(R) we come to d(y)h2Z(R) for all y ∈ R. This implies that d(y)Z(R) for all y ∈ R. Hence, R is commutative by Posner's [4] first theorem.

Theorem 2.5. Let R be a 2-torsion free prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind. If R admits a derivation d such that *[x,d(x)]2+*[x,x*]2Z(R) for all x ∈ R, then R is commutative.

Proof. By the hypothesis we assume that

*[x,d(x)]2+*[x,x*]2Z(R)  for all  xR.

If we take d=0. Then, application of Lemma 2.2, yields the required result. Now consider the case d ≠ 0 and on expansion of (2.21), we get

x2d(x)2xd(x)x*+d(x)(x*)2+x2x*2x(x*)2+(x*)3Z(R)  for all  xR.

Replacing x by xh in (2.21), where hH(R)Z(R), we obtain (x3x2x*+x(x*)2)d(h)h2Z(R) for all x ∈ R. Now by the primeness of R we get either x32x2x*+x(x*)2Z(R) for all x ∈ R or d(h)h2=0. Now, we suppose that

x32x2x*+x(x*)2Z(R)  for all  xR.

This is same as the relation (2.10) in Theorem 2.3 and hence we conclude that R is commutative. Now we consider the case d(h)h2=0 for all hH(R)Z(R). Since R is prime ring, so we get d(h)=0. This also implies that d(k)=0 for all kS(R)Z(R). Replacing x by xk in (2.22) and combining with (2.22) we arrive at (2xd(x)x*x2x*(x*)3)k3Z(R) for all x∈ R. Since S(R)Z(R)(0), so by the primeness of R, we get

2xd(x)x*x2x*(x*)3Z(R)  for all xR.

Linearization of (2.24) gives

2xd(x)y*+2xd(y)x*+2xd(y)y*+2yd(x)x*+2yd(x)y*+2yd(y)x*x2y*xyx*xyy*yxx*yxy*y2x*(x*)2y*x*y*x*x*(y*)2y*(x*)2y*x*y*(y*)2x*

Z(R) for all x,y ∈ R.Replacing x by -x in (2.25) and combining the obtained relation with (2.25), we obtain

2xd(x)y*+2xd(y)x*+2yd(x)x*x2y*xyx*yxx*(x*)2y*x*y*x*y*(x*)2

Z(R) for all x,y ∈ R. Taking x=h, where hH(R)Z(R), we get

(2d(y)4y*2y)h2Z(R)  for all  yR.

The primeness of R yields that d(y)2y*yZ(R) for all y ∈ R. Replacing y by ky and on solving, we get y ∈ Z(R) for all y ∈ R. Hence, this conclude that R is commutative.

Theorem 2.6. Let R be a 2-torsion free prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind. If R admit two distinct derivations d1 and d2 such that *[x,d1(x)]2*[x,d2(x)]2Z(R) for all x ∈ R, then R is commutative.

Proof. We assume that

*[x,d1(x)]2*[x,d2(x)]2Z(R)  for all  xR.

If either d1 or d2 is zero, then we get the required result by Theorem 2.3 above. Now consider both d1, d2 are non-zero. Expansion of (2.26) yields that

x2d1(x)2xd1(x)x*+d1(x)(x*)2x2d2(x)+2xd2(x)x*d2(x)(x*)2Z(R)

for all x ∈ R. Replacing x by xh in (2.27), where hH(R)Z(R) and on simplifying with the help of (2.27), we get

(x32x2x*+x(x*)2)(d1(h)d2(h))h2Z(R)  for all  xR.

This implies either x32x2x*+x(x*)2Z(R) for all x ∈ R or (d1(h)d2(h))h2=0. If x32x2x*+x(x*)2Z(R) for all x∈ R, then by using the same steps as we have used after (2.10), we arrive at x2x*Z(R) for all x ∈ R. Thus R is commutative, by Lemma 2.1. On the other hand, if (d1(h)d2(h))h2=0 for all hH(R)Z(R). Then we are force to conclude that d1(h)=d2(h) and hence d1(k)=d2(k) for all kS(R)Z(R). Replacing x by kx in (2.27), and combining with (2.27) by using the fact that d1(k)=d2(k), we get

4(xd1(x)x*xd2(x)x*)k3Z(R)  for all  xR.

Since R is 2-torsion free and S(R)Z(R)(0), the last relation gives

xd1(x)x*xd2(x)x*Z(R)  for all  xR.

Linearizing (2.28), we obtain

xd1(x)y*+yd1(x)x*+yd1(x)y*+xd1(y)x*+xd1(y)y*+yd1(y)x*xd2(x)y*xd2(y)x*  xd2(y)y*yd2(x)x*yd2(x)y*yd2(y)x*Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Replacing x by -x in (2.29) and combining the obtained result with (2.29), we get

2(xd1(x)y*+yd1(x)x*+xd1(y)x*xd2(x)y*xd2(y)x*yd2(x)x*)Z(R)

for all x,y ∈ R. Since R is 2-torsion free ring, the above expression yields

xd1(x)y*+yd1(x)x*+xd1(y)x*xd2(x)y*xd2(y)x*yd2(x)x*Z(R)

for all x,y∈ R. Replacing x by kx in (2.30) and on solving with the help (2.30) and using the fact that d1(k)=d2(k), we get (xd1(x)xd2(x))y*Z(R) for all x,y ∈ R. Replacing y by h, where hH(R)Z(R). Then by the primeness of R and S(R)Z(R)(0) condition force that xd1(x)xd2(x)Z(R) for all x ∈ R. Linearizing this we get xd1(y)+yd1(x)xd2(y)yd2(x)Z(R) for all x,y ∈ R. Taking y by h where hH(R)Z(R) and using d1(h)=d2(h), we obtain d1(x)d2(x)Z(R) for all x ∈ R. This can be further written as

[d1(x),r][d2(x),r]=0  for all  x,rR.

Replacing x by xr in (2.31), we get [x,r](d1(r)d2(r))=0 for all x,r ∈ R. Substitute xu for x in the last relation, we obtain [x,r]u(d1(r)d2(r))=0 for all x,r,u ∈ R. Then by the primeness of R, for each fixed r ∈ R, we get either [x,r]=0 for all x ∈ R or d1(r)d2(r)=0. Define A={rR | [x,r]=0 for all xR} and B={rR | d1(r)d2(r)=0}. Clearly, A and B are additive subgroups of R whose union is R. Hence by Brauer's trick, either A=R or B=R. If A=R, then [x,r]=0 for all x,r∈ R. This implies that R is commutative. If B=R, then d1(r)=d2(r) for all r∈ R, which is a contradiction to our assumption. Hence, we conclude that R is commutative.

Theorem 2.7. Let R be a 2-torsion free prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind. If R admit derivations d1, d2 such that at least one of them is nonzero and satisfies d1(*[x,x*]2)+*[x,d2(x*)]2Z(R) for all x ∈ R, then R is commutative.

Proof. We are given that d1 and d2 are derivations of R such that

d1(*[x,x*]2)+*[x,d2(x*)]2Z(R)  for all  xR.

If d2 is zero then by Theorem 2.4, we get R is commutative. If d1 is zero then we have *[x,d2(x*)]2Z(R) for all x∈ R. Expansion of last relation gives

x2d2(x*)2xd2(x*)x*+d2(x*)(x*)2Z(R)  for all  xR.

Replacing x by hx, where hH(R)Z(R) in (2.33) and combining the obtained expression, we get *[x,x*]2d2(h)h2Z(R) for all x ∈ R. Now applying the primeness of the ring R, we get either *[x,x*]2R or d(h)h2=0. If *[x,x*]2Z(R) for all x∈ R, then by Lemma 2.2, we get R is commutative. Now consider the second case in which we have d2(h)h2=0 for all hH(R)Z(R). This implies that d2(h)=0, from here we get d2(k)=0 for all kS(R)Z(R). Replacing x by kx in (2.30) and using the fact that d2(k)=0, we get 4xd2(x*)x*k3Z(R) for all x∈ R. This implies that xd2(x*)x*Z(R) for all x ∈ R. Arguing as above after (2.13), we conclude that R is commutative.

Now consider the second case in which both d1 and d2 are nonzero. On expansion of (2.32), we have

d1(x2x*)2d1(x(x*)2)+d1((x*)3)+x2d2(x*)2xd2(x*)x*+d2(x*)(x*)2Z(R)

for all x ∈ R. Replacing x by hx, where hH(R)Z(R) in (2.34) and solving with the help of (2.34), we get

*[x,x*]2(3d1(h)+d2(h))h2Z(R)   for all  xR.

By the primeness of the ring R, we get either *[x,x*]2Z(R) for all x∈ R or (3d1(h)+d2(h))h2=0 for all hH(R)Z(R). If *[x,x*]2Z(R) for all x ∈ R, then by Lemma 2.2, we get R is commutative. Now consider the case (3d1(h)+d2(h))h2=0. This implies that d2(h)=3d1(h) and hence d2(k)=3d1(k) for all kS(R)Z(R). Now substituting kx for x, where kS(R)Z(R) in (2.34) and combining the obtained result with (2.34), we get 4(d1(x(x*)2)+xd2(x*)x*)k3Z(R) for all x ∈ R. Since R is 2-torsion free ring and S(R)Z(R)(0), then invoking the primeness of R we obtain d1(x(x*)2)+xd2(x*)x*Z(R) for all x∈ Z(R). Linearization to the last expression gives

d1(xx*y*)+d1(xy*x*)+d1(x(y*)2)+d1(y(x*)2)+d1(yx*y*)+d1(yy*x*)+xd2(x*)y*+xd2(y*)x*+xd2(y*)y*+yd2(x*)x*+yd2(x*)y*+yd2(y*)x*Z(R)   for all  x,yR.

Replacing x by -x in (2.35), we get

2(d1(xx*y*)+d1(xy*x*)+d1(y(x*)2)+xd2(x*)y*+xd2(y*)x*+yd2(x*)x*)Z(R)

for all x,y ∈ R. Since R is 2-torsion free ring, we get

d1(xx*y*)+d1(xy*x*)+d1(y(x*)2)+xd2(x*)y*+xd2(y*)x*+yd2(x*)x*Z(R)

for all x,y ∈ R. Substituting ky for y, where kS(R)Z(R) in (2.36) and combining with (2.36) with use of d2(k)=3d1(k), we arrive at

2d1(y(x*)2)k+2yd2(x*)x*kxx*y*d1(k)+y(x*)2d1(k)+2xy*x*d1(k)Z(R)

for all x,y ∈ R and kS(R)Z(R). Substitute ky for y in (2.37) yields

2d1(y(x*)2)k2+2yd2(x*)x*k2+xx*y*d1(k)k+y(x*)2d1(k)k2xy*x*d1(k)k+2y(x*)2d1(k)kZ(R)  for all  x,yR.

Subtracting (2.38) form (2.37), we get (2xx*y*+4xy*x*2y(x*)2)d1(k)kZ(R) for all x,yR. Since R is 2-torsion free prime ring and S(R)Z(R)(0), the last expression forces that either xx*y*2xy*x*+y(x*)2Z(R) for all x,y ∈ R or d1(k)k=0. Suppose

xx*y*2xy*x*+y(x*)2Z(R)  for all  x,yR.

Substituting ky for y, where kS(R)Z(R) in (2.39) and combining with (2.39), we get 2y(x*)2kZ(R) for all x,y ∈ R. Taking x=k, we obtain 2yk3Z(R) for all y∈ R. Since R is 2-torsion free prime ring and S(R)Z(R)(0), we conclude that R is commutative. Now consider the case in which we have d1(k)k=0 for all kS(R)Z(R). This implies that d1(k)=0 for all kS(R)Z(R). This further implies that d2(k)=0. Substitute k for x in (2.36), to get

2d1(y*)k2+d1(y)k2d2(y*)k2Z(R)  for all  yR.

Replacing y by ky, where kS(R)Z(R) in (2.40) and combining the obtained relation with (2.40), finally we get 2d1(y)k3Z(R) for all y∈ R. Since R is 2-torsion free ring and S(R)Z(R)(0), we obtain d1(y)Z(R) for all y ∈ R. Hence, by Posner's [4] first theorem, R is commutative.

As an immediate consequence of the above theorem, we get the following corollary:

Corollary 2.8. Let R be a 2-torsion free prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind. If R admits a nonzero derivation d such that d(*[x,x*]2)+*[x,d(x*)]2Z(R) for all x ∈ R, then R is commutative.

The following example shows that the second kind involution assumption is essential in Theorem 2.3 and Theorem 2.4.

Example 2.9. Let R=β1β2β3β4| β1,β2,β3,β4. Of course, R with matrix addition and matrix multiplication is a noncommutative prime ring. Define mappings *,d1,d2:RR such that β1β2β3β4*=β4β2β3β1, d1β1β2β3β4=0β2β30 and d2β1β2β3β4=0β2β30

Obviously, Z(R)=β100β1| β1. Then x*=x for all xZ(R), and hence Z(R)H(R), which shows that the involution * is of the first kind. Moreover, d1 and d2 are nonzero derivations of R such that *[x,d1(x)]2Z(R) and *[x,d1(x)]2*[x,d2(x)]2Z(R) for all x∈ R. However, R is not commutative. Hence, the hypothesis of second kind involution is crucial in Theorem 2.3 & 2.4. Our next example shows that Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 are not true for semiprime rings.

Example 2.10. Let S=R×, where R is same as in Example 2.9 with involution '*' and derivations d1 and d2 same as in above example, is the ring of complex numbers with conjugate involution τ. Hence, S is a 2-torsion free noncommutative semiprime ring. Now define an involution α on S, as (x,y)α=(x*,yτ). Clearly, α is an involution of the second kind. Further, we define the mappings D1 and D2 from S to S such that D1(x,y)=(d1(x),0) and D2(x,y)=(d2(x),0) for all (x,y)∈ S. It can be easily checked that D1, D2 are derivations on S and satisfying α[X,D1(X)]2Z(S) and α[X,D1(X)]2α[X,D2(X)]2Z(S) for all X ∈ S, but S is not commutative. Hence, in Theorems 2.3 & 2.4, the hypothesis of primeness is essential.

We conclude the paper with the following Conjectures.

Conjecture 2.11. Let n>2 be an integer, R be a prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind and with suitable torsion restrictions on R. Next, let d be a nonzero derivation on R such that *[x,d(x)]nZ(R) for all x∈ R. Then what we can say about the structure of R or the form of d?

Conjecture 2.12. Let n>2 be an integer, R be a prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind and with suitable torsion restrictions on R. Next, let d be a nonzero derivation on R such that d(*[x,x*]n)Z(R) for all x∈ R. Then what we can say about the structure of R or the form of d?

Conjecture 2.13. Let n>2 be an integer, R be a prime ring with involution '*' of the second kind and with suitable torsion restrictions on R. Next, let d be a nonzero derivation on R such that d(*[x,x*]n)+*[x,d(x*)]nZ(R) for all x∈ R. Then what we can say about the structure of R or the form of d?

The authors are greatful to the learned referee for carefully reading the manuscript. The valuable suggestions have simplified and clarified the paper greatly.

  1. S. Ali and N. A. Dar, On *-centralizing mappings in rings with involution, Georgain Math. J., 21(1)(2014), 25-28.
    CrossRef
  2. I. N. Herstein. Ring with Involution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1976.
  3. J. Hou and W. Wang, Strong 2-skew commutativity preserving maps on prime rings with involution, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc., 42(1)(2019), 33-49.
    CrossRef
  4. E. C. Posner, Derivations in prime rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 8(1957), 1093-1100.
    CrossRef
  5. X. Qi and Y. Zhang, k-skew Lie products on prime rings with involution, Comm. Algebra, 46(3)(2018), 1001-1010.
    CrossRef