Skew derivations of prime rings (Q4029248)

Let \(R\) be a prime ring, \(C\) its extended centroid, and \(Q\) its Martindale quotient ring. A skew-derivation of \(R\) is an additive endomorphism \(d\) satisfying the relation \(d(xy)=d(x)y+T(x)d(y)\) for a fixed automorphism \(T\) of \(R\) and all \(x,y\in R\). The authors consider an extension of this notion by assuming only that the derivation and automorphism are defined on a nonzero ideal of \(R\) into \(Q\), but that each image contains a nonzero ideal of \(R\). The first author initiated a study of identities involving a derivation [\textit{V. K. Kharchenko}, Algebra Logika 17, 220-238 (1978; Zbl 0423.16011)] and the purpose of this paper is to extend these results of skew-derivations. The main result is patterned after the corresponding one in the paper cited, both in statement and proof, and shows that nontrivial multilinear identities with skew-derivation arise from generalized identities of \(R\). For each automorphism \(T\) of \(R\) let \(L_ T\) be the \(C\)-subspace of skew-derivations relative to \(T\). Let \(d_ 1,\dots,d_ n\) be skew derivations of \(R\) with automorphisms \(T_ i\), and let \(h_ 1,\dots,h_ m\) be automorphisms of \(R\). Assume that all \(d_ i\in L_ T\) are \(C\)-independent modulo the inner skew-derivations in \(L_ T\), that each \(x\in \{T_ i,h_ j\}\) commutes with each \(d_ i\), and that \(xy^{-1}\) is not an inner automorphism of \(Q\) for any \(x,y\in\{T_ i,h_ j\}\). The main theorem asserts that if \(f(x_{ijk})\in Q*_ CC[x_{ijk}]\) is a nonzero multilinear (in \(i\)) element of this free product over \(C\), and if for all \(r_ i\in R\) and suitably ordered words \(w_ k\) in the \(\{d_ i\}\) the evaluations \(f(w_ k h_ j(r_ i))=0\), then \(f(x_{ijk})\) is a generalized identity for \(R\). The exposition is unclear, incomplete, and at times misleading, in part because of the authors' difficulty with the use of language. One example is that there is no definition of the ordering which is crucial to the proof, and so no definition of the notion of ``correct'' word in the \(\{d_ i\}\). To understand what is meant and missing in the paper one must be familiar with the first author's earlier work.