Extensions of strongly \(\alpha\)-reversible rings. (Q1954029)

Let \(R\) be a ring and let \(\alpha\) be an endomorphism of \(R\). One says that \(\alpha\) is a `right reversible' endomorphism if whenever \(ab=0\) for some \(a,b\in R\), then \(b\alpha(a)=0\). Extend \(\alpha\) to the polynomial ring \(R[x]\) in the usual way, by setting \(\alpha(x)=x\). The authors say that \(\alpha\) is `strongly right reversible' if whenever \(f(x),g(x)\in R[x]\) satisfy \(f(x)g(x)=0\), then \(g(x)\alpha(f(x))=0\). Strongly left reversible endomorphisms are defined similarly. Clearly strongly right reversible endomorphisms are right reversible, but it is known that the converse is not true in general. Given a ring \(R\) with a strongly right reversible endomorphism \(\alpha\), the authors look at ring extensions \(S\) of \(R\) and ask whether \(\alpha\) lifts to a strongly right reversible endomorphism on \(S\). Many examples are given showing when \(\alpha\) does or does not naturally have such a lift. Additional examples delimit the types of implications one can obtain between the property ``\(R\) has a strongly right reversible endomorphism'' and other standard ring theoretic properties. Most of these examples are taken from the literature related to right reversible endomorphisms, and then they are applied to this new ``stronger'' setting. The authors end by studying a property they call \textit{right Nil-\(\alpha\)-reversible}, which says that whenever \(ab=0\) for some \(a,b\in R\), then \(RbR\alpha(a)R\) is nil. The reader should be made aware that on occasion the authors make implicit assumptions about the endomorphism \(\alpha\) that are required for the results to remain true. For instance, in Proposition 2.4 it is necessary to assume that \(\alpha\) respects the central idempotent \(e\) and the subset \(\Delta\). Indeed, Example 2.2 is an instance where Proposition 2.4 fails to make sense, because in that example \(\alpha\) does not respect specific central idempotents.