Let R be a ring and M a monoid with twisting f:M × M → U(R) and action ω: M→ Aut(R). We introduce and study the concepts of CM-Armendariz and CM-quasi-Armendariz rings to generalise various Armendariz and quasi-Armendariz properties of rings by working on the context of the crossed product R*M over R. The following results are proved: (1) If M is a u.p.-monoid, then any M-rigid ring R is CM-Armendariz; (2) if I is a reduced ideal of an M-compatible ring R with M a strictly totally ordered monoid, then R/I being CM-Armendariz implies that R is CM-Armendariz; (3) if M is a u.p.-monoid and R is a semiprime ring, then R is CM-quasi-Armendariz. These results generalise and unify many known results on this subject.

In this article, we introduce the notion of the uniquely $I$-clean ring and show that, if $R$ is a ring and $I$ is an ideal of $R$ then $R$ is uniquely $I$-clean if and only if ($R/ I$ is Boolean and idempotents lift uniquely modulo $I$) if and only if (for each $a\in R$ there exists a central idempotent $e\in R$ such that $e- a\in I$ and $I$ is idempotent-free). We examine when ideal extension is uniquely clean relative to an ideal. Also we obtain conditions on a ring $R$ and an ideal $I$ of $R$ under which uniquely $I$-clean rings coincide with uniquely clean rings. Further we prove that a ring $R$ is uniquely nil-clean if and only if ($N(R)$ is an ideal of $R$ and $R$ is uniquely $N(R)$-clean) if and only if $R$ is both uniquely clean and nil-clean if and only if ($R$ is an abelian exchange ring with $J(R)$ nil and every quasiregular element is uniquely clean). We also show that $R$ is a uniquely clean ring such that every prime ideal of $R$ is maximal if and only if $R$ is uniquely nil-clean ring and $N(R)= {\mathrm{Nil} }_{\ast } (R)$.

Here we prove that, for a $2$-primal ring $R$, the Laurent series ring $R((x))$ is a clean ring if and only if $R$ is a semiregular ring with $J(R)$ nil. This disproves the claim in K. I. Sonin [‘Semiprime and semiperfect rings of Laurent series’, Math. Notes 60 (1996), 222–226] that the Laurent series ring over a clean ring is again clean. As an application of the result, it is shown that, for a $2$-primal ring $R$, $R((x))$ is semiperfect if and only if $R((x))$ is semiregular if and only if $R$ is semiperfect with $J(R)$ nil.

In 1977 Hartwig and Luh asked whether an element $a$ in a Dedekind-finite ring $R$ satisfying $aR= {a}^{2} R$ also satisfies $Ra= R{a}^{2} $. In this paper, we answer this question in the negative. We also prove that if $a$ is an element of a Dedekind-finite exchange ring $R$ and $aR= {a}^{2} R$, then $Ra= R{a}^{2} $. This gives an easier proof of Dischinger’s theorem that left strongly $\pi $-regular rings are right strongly $\pi $-regular, when it is already known that $R$ is an exchange ring.

A $\ast $-ring $R$ is called (strongly) $\ast $-clean if every element of $R$ is the sum of a unit and a projection (that commute). Vaš [‘$\ast $-Clean rings; some clean and almost clean Baer $\ast $-rings and von Neumann algebras’, J. Algebra 324(12) (2010), 3388–3400] asked whether there exists a $\ast $-ring that is clean but not $\ast $-clean and whether a unit regular and $\ast $-regular ring is strongly $\ast $-clean. In this paper, we answer these two questions. We also give some characterisations related to $\ast $-regular rings.

Let R be an integral domain and A a cellular algebra over R with a cellular basis {CλS,T∣λ∈Λ and S,T∈M(λ)}. Suppose that A is equipped with a family of Jucys–Murphy elements which satisfy the separation condition in the sense of Mathas [‘Seminormal forms and Gram determinants for cellular algebras’, J. reine angew. Math.619 (2008), 141–173, with an appendix by M. Soriano]. Let K be the field of fractions of R and AK=A⨂ RK. We give a necessary and sufficient condition under which the centre of AK consists of the symmetric polynomials in Jucys–Murphy elements. We also give an application of our result to Ariki–Koike algebras.

In this note we show that there exist a semiprime ring R, a strictly ordered artinian, narrow, unique product monoid (S,≤) and a monoid homomorphism ω:S⟶End(R) such that the skew generalized power series ring R[[S,ω]] is semicommutative but R[[S,ω]] is not reversible. This answers a question posed in Marks et al. [‘A unified approach to various generalizations of Armendariz rings’, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.81 (2010), 361–397].

Let R be an integral domain and A a symmetric cellular algebra over R with a cellular basis {CλS,T∣λ∈Λ,S,T∈M(λ)}. We construct an ideal L(A) of the centre of A and prove that L(A) contains the so-called Higman ideal. When R is a field, we prove that the dimension of L(A)is not less than the number of nonisomorphic simple A-modules.

Let R be a ring, S a strictly ordered monoid, and ω:S→End(R) a monoid homomorphism. The skew generalized power series ring R[[S,ω]] is a common generalization of (skew) polynomial rings, (skew) power series rings, (skew) Laurent polynomial rings, (skew) group rings, and Mal’cev–Neumann Laurent series rings. We study the (S,ω)-Armendariz condition on R, a generalization of the standard Armendariz condition from polynomials to skew generalized power series. We resolve the structure of (S,ω)-Armendariz rings and obtain various necessary or sufficient conditions for a ring to be (S,ω)-Armendariz, unifying and generalizing a number of known Armendariz-like conditions in the aforementioned special cases. As particular cases of our general results we obtain several new theorems on the Armendariz condition; for example, left uniserial rings are Armendariz. We also characterize when a skew generalized power series ring is reduced or semicommutative, and we obtain partial characterizations for it to be reversible or 2-primal.

A p-group is called powerful if every commutator is a product of pth powers when p is odd and a product of fourth powers when p=2. In the group algebra of a group G of p-power order over a finite field of characteristic p, the group of normalized units is always a p-group. We prove that it is never powerful except, of course, when G is abelian.

We define a subgraph of the zero divisor graph of a ring, associated to the ring idempotents. We study its properties and prove that for large classes of rings the connectedness of the graph is equivalent to the indecomposability of the ring and in those cases we also calculate the graph’s diameter.

Let F be a field of characteristic p and G a group containing at least one element of order p. It is proved that the group of units of the group algebra FG is a bounded Engel group if and only if FG is a bounded Engel algebra, and that this is the case if and only if G is nilpotent and has a normal subgroup H such that both the factor group G/H and the commutator subgroup H′ are finite p–groups.

Let p be a prime, a field of pn elements, and G a finite p-group. It is shown here that if G has a quotient whose commutator subgroup is of order p and whose centre has index pk, then the group of normalized units in the group algebra has a conjugacy class of pnk elements. This was first proved by A. Bovdi and C. Polcino Milies for the case k = 2; their argument is now generalized and simplified. It remains an intriguing question whether the cardinality of the smallest noncentral conjugacy class can always be recognized from this test.

We shall give necessary and sufficient conditions on the ring R and the group G for the group-ring RG to be a prime P. I. ring with the unique factorisation property as defined in [5].

We present structural properties of the complex associative algebra generated by the canonical commutation relations in exponential form. In particular, we show it to be a central simple algebra that lacks zero divisors and is not Noetherian on either side; in addition, we determine explicitly its units and its automorphisms.

If R is a commutative unique factorization domain (UFD) then so is the ring R[x]. If R is not commutative then no such result is possible. An example is given of a bounded principal right and left ideal domain R, hence a similarity-UFD, for which the polynomial ring R[x] in a central indeterminate x is not a UFD in any reasonable sense. On the other hand, it is shown that if R is an invariant UFD then R[x] is a UFD in an appropriate sense.