A study on near-rings with semi-central idempotents. (Q2800451)

This short paper should be read with care. McCoy (center of p. 760) proved his result for rings, not for near-rings. It is clear that ``reversible'' implies ``zero-symmetric''. Lemma 1 requires ``zero-symmetric'', so \(0b=0\). In Lemma 2, again \(0a=0\), so Lemma 2 is trivial. In Proposition 3, the assumptions of Lemmata 1 and 2 are missing; so it is doubtful if this Proposition is correct and can be used in the proof of Proposition 6. Since ``reduced'' implies ``reversible'', the assumption ``Let \(R\) be a reversible reduced near-ring'' in Proposition 8 sounds strange.