Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 28 references

Maximal-Hull $z$-Ideals, Congruence Closures, and Coherent Frames of Commutative Semirings

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read z-ideal lattices are coherent frames for every commutative semiring

desk verdict The central result is self-contained and correct; the reader's circularity concern does not survive contact with the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07319 v1 pith:OFECVLAT submitted 2026-07-08 math.RA

Pubali Sengupta , Amartya Goswami , Pronay Biswas , Sujit Kumar Sardar This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RA
keywords idealsmathsfsemiringsclosurecoherentcommutativeframespectral
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that for any commutative semiring S, the lattice of z-ideals forms a coherent frame without requiring cancellativity, subtractivity, or Noetherian hypotheses. A z-ideal is one closed under replacing any element with another element lying in exactly the same set of maximal ideals. The key mechanism is the product formula M(ab) = M(a) ∪ M(b), which holds because maximal ideals in commutative semirings are prime, and which yields the meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z for principal z-closures. This identity ensures compact elements are closed under finite meets, giving coherence. By Stone duality, the space of prime z-ideals with the hull-kernel topology is therefore spectral. The paper extends Mason's regularity theorem: a semiring with all multiplicative idempotents complemented is von Neumann regular iff every principal ideal is a z-ideal. It also develops a parallel theory for g-closed ideals, which arise from maximal congruences rather than maximal ideals. In rings these two closures coincide, but in semirings they diverge, as shown by explicit computations in the natural-number semiring N, where the ordinary z-closure, the z_k-closure, and the g-closure are three genuinely distinct operations.

What carries the argument

The product formula M(ab) = M(a) ∪ M(b) for maximal-ideal hulls, derived from the primality of maximal ideals in commutative semirings, and the resulting meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z for principal z-closures. Together with the finite-type closure property, these yield the coherent frame structure.

What would settle it

A commutative semiring where the product formula M(ab) = M(a) ∪ M(b) fails for maximal-ideal hulls, or where the resulting meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z ≠ ⟨ab⟩_z for some pair of elements, would break the coherence of ZId(S) and hence the spectrality of Spec_z(S).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the z-ideal lattice ZId(S) is a coherent frame for every commutative semiring S, unconditionally. The proof rests on the product formula M(ab) = M(a) ∪ M(b) for maximal-ideal hulls, which holds because maximal ideals in commutative semirings are prime. This formula produces the meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z, which closes compact elements under finite meets and hence yields coherence. A secondary discovery is the explicit separation of three closure operations -- ordinary z-closure, z_k-closure, and g-closure -- which coincide in rings but diverge already in N, the semiring of natural numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of coherence for ZId(S) relies on the meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z, which the paper attributes to prior work rather than re-deriving from first principles in the main text. If this product formula fails for some commutative semiring not covered by those references, the closure of compact elements under finite meets fails and coherence collapses with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The prime z-ideal spectrum Spec_z(S) is spectral for every commutative semiring, providing a topological invariant that requires no structural hypotheses beyond the semiring axioms.
  • The regularity criterion (Theorem A) extends Mason's classical ring theorem to semirings, giving an elementwise test: von Neumann regularity reduces to checking whether every principal ideal is a z-ideal.
  • The separation of z-closure from g-closure in semirings means that quotient and localization theories must track two distinct closure operations, with saturation and lifting conditions made explicit.
  • The functorial formulation makes ZId and Id_g coherent-frame-valued functors, enabling transport of spectral data along semiring homomorphisms that contract z-ideals or g-closed ideals.
  • The natural-number semiring N serves as a universal test case: it has a unique proper z-ideal but infinitely many g-closed ideals and z_k-ideals, making the three closure layers visible in a computationally transparent setting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the z-ideal frame is coherent for all commutative semirings, then tropical semirings and idempotent semirings inherit a spectral z-ideal theory without modification, potentially enabling algebraic-geometric constructions over these structures that parallel the ring-theoretic prime spectrum.
  • The divergence of z-closure and g-closure in N suggests that any attempt to build a scheme-like theory for semirings must choose between an ideal-theoretic spectrum and a congruence-theoretic spectrum, as they capture genuinely different information.
  • The conditional nature of Theorem C (requiring Hypothesis 8.7) implies that identifying which natural classes of semirings satisfy the finite-type g-closure hypothesis is an open problem; Boolean semirings do, but the boundary is unexplored.
  • The meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z is the load-bearing algebraic fact; any counterexample to this identity for a semiring not anticipated by the cited references would collapse the coherence argument, making independent verification of this formula a priority.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper develops a spectral theory of z-ideals for commutative semirings. The central result (Theorem B) states that for every commutative semiring S, the lattice ZId(S) of z-ideals is a coherent frame, unconditionally—without cancellativity, subtractivity, or Noetherian hypotheses—so that the prime z-ideal spectrum Spec_z(S) is spectral. A second result (Theorem C) establishes the analogous coherent-frame structure for g-closed ideals (ideals closed under a congruence-generated closure operation) under an explicit finite-type hypothesis (Hypothesis 8.7). A third result (Theorem A) extends Mason's regularity theorem: a semiring with all multiplicative idempotents complemented is von Neumann regular iff every principal ideal is a z-ideal. The paper also develops the theory under quotients and localizations (Sections 5–7), provides explicit model computations in N and power-set semirings (Section 9), and gives a functorial formulation (Section 10). The key technical input for Theorem B is the meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z for principal z-closures, which the paper establishes self-containedly via the maximal-hull calculus (Lemma 2.1, Proposition 3.2, Lemma A.1, Lemma A.13).

Significance. The unconditional coherence of ZId(S) for all commutative semirings is a substantive contribution; it establishes a spectral-space result in a setting where the absence of additive inverses prevents direct importation of ring-theoretic proofs. The paper ships self-contained, first-principles proofs of the load-bearing identities: the product formula M(ab) = M(a) ∪ M(b) (Lemma 3.1, resting on the 3-line proof that maximal ideals are prime in Lemma 2.1) and the meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z (Lemma A.13, combining Lemma A.1(3) with Proposition 3.2(1)). The careful separation of three closure operations—ordinary z-closure, z_k-closure, and g-closure—is well-motivated and confirmed by explicit computations in N (Section 9). The functorial formulation (Section 10) and the homeomorphism between Spec_g(S) and the canonical prime g-congruence spectrum (Theorem 8.15) add structural depth. The conditional nature of Theorem C (requiring Hypothesis 8.7) is honestly stated and delimited by counterexamples.

major comments (3)
  1. §8.1, Theorem 8.1 and Lemma 8.4: The reader's report flagged a potential circularity concern because Theorem 8.1(4) and Lemma 8.4 cite the product formula ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z from references [10] and [13] (both co-authored by Goswami). On reading the paper, this concern does not land: the paper provides a fully self-contained proof of this identity. Lemma A.1(3) proves ⟨a⟩_z = m(a) directly from the definition of z-ideals and Lemma 2.1 (maximal ideals are prime). Proposition 3.2(1) proves m(ab) = m(a) ∩ m(b) using Lemma 3.1(1), which is M(ab) = M(a) ∪ M(b)—a direct consequence of Lemma 2.1. Lemma A.13 combines these to give ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z. The entire chain rests on elementary, verified arguments in the main text and appendix. The citation to [13] in Theorem 8.1 is therefore not a load-bearing dependency. However, the presentation in §8.1 is misleading: Theorem 8.1 and Lemma 8.
  2. §8.1, Theorem 8.1(1,3): The finite-type property of cl_z (part (1)) and the compact-element characterization (part (3)) are attributed to [10] without re-proof in the main text. While Lemma A.13 and Proposition A.14 in the appendix do re-establish the join formula cl_z(I) = ⋁_{a∈I} ⟨a⟩_z and the compact-element description, the finite-type property itself (that cl_z of a finitely generated ideal is determined by finitely many generators) is not explicitly re-proved. Proposition A.14 argues that each ⟨a⟩_z is compact by 'the finite-type property of the maximal-hull closure,' which appears to reference the very result being cited. The authors should either provide a direct proof that ⟨a⟩_z is compact in ZId(S) from first principles (e.g., by showing that if ⟨a⟩_z ⊆ ⋁_z I_λ then ⟨a⟩_z ⊆ ⋁_z I_{λ_1} ∨ · · · ∨ ⋁_z I_{λ_n} for a finite subfamily, using the m(a) description), or clarify exactly
  3. §8.2, Hypothesis 8.7: The finite-type g-closure hypothesis (G1)–(G4) is stated as a package, but the logical relationships among its parts are not made transparent. In particular, (G2) asserts that the fixed points of g form a frame with meet given by intersection—this is a strong condition that is not automatic for arbitrary closure operations. The paper should clarify whether (G2) follows from (G1) plus the specific structure of the g-closure, or whether it is an independent assumption. The remark in §8.2 (Remark 8.8) that the hypothesis is 'automatic in several standard classes' is vague; specifying at least one non-trivial class beyond Boolean semirings (where g is the identity by Proposition 9.6) would strengthen the result's applicability.
minor comments (8)
  1. §3, Proposition 3.4: In the converse direction, the step 'Put c = ab; Lemma 3.1 gives M(c) = M(b)' should be M(c) = M(a) ∪ M(b) = M(b) (using M(a) ⊆ M(b) from the preceding line). The intermediate step would aid readability.
  2. §4, Example 4.4: The statement 'cancellative congruences on N are exactly the κ_d' could benefit from a one-line justification or reference, as it is load-bearing for the classification of maximal congruences on N.
  3. §8.1, Theorem 8.1: The proof sketch says 'The frame law and compact-element description follow from finite type and the product formula.' A slightly more detailed indication of how the frame distributivity law follows would help the reader, since this is the central structural result.
  4. §9, Proposition 9.2: The notation rad(n) is used before being defined inline. Adding '(where rad(n) is the product of the distinct prime divisors of n)' at first use in the proposition statement rather than after would improve clarity.
  5. §10, Definition of CRig_z: The contraction condition on morphisms (inverse images of z-ideals are z-ideals) is restrictive. The paper should briefly comment on how broad this category is—for instance, whether surjective semiring homomorphisms or localizations satisfy it under the hypotheses of Sections 5–6.
  6. Appendix A, Lemma A.2: The proof contains a minor notational issue: 'M(d) = M(a) and hence a ∈ I' should presumably be 'M(d) = M(a), so the z-ideal property gives a ∈ I' (since d = ab ∈ I and M(d) = M(a)). The current phrasing is slightly confusing.
  7. References: Reference [27] (Sengupta et al., arXiv:2601.02120) is listed as a 2026 preprint. If this paper is under review elsewhere, the authors should note any overlap. If it has been published or accepted by the time of revision, the reference should be updated.
  8. Typographical: In the abstract, 'maximal-congruence-hull g-closure' could be hyphenated consistently with 'maximal-ideal-hull z-closure' for parallelism. In §4.3, the symbol ℘_I is introduced without explicit pronunciation guidance; a brief remark would aid readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

The central result (Theorem B) is independently established in the paper's own appendix; the self-citations to [10, 13] are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The reader's concern centers on Lemma 8.4 (the meet identity ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z) being attributed to [13] (Goswami co-authored). However, the paper provides a fully self-contained proof chain for this identity. Lemma A.1(3) proves ⟨a⟩_z = m(a) directly from the definition of z-ideals and Lemma 2.1 (maximal ideals are prime, proved in 3 lines). Proposition 3.2(1) proves m(ab) = m(a) ∩ m(b) using only Lemma 3.1(1), which is M(ab) = M(a) ∪ M(b)—a direct consequence of Lemma 2.1. Lemma A.13 then combines these to give ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z. The finite-type property and compact-element description are re-proved in Lemma A.13 and Proposition A.14. The citation to [10, 13] in Theorem 8.1 is thus not a load-bearing dependency; the results are independently established within the paper. The self-citations are standard attribution of prior work, not circular dependencies. The derivation rests on elementary, verified arguments: (i) maximal ideals are prime in commutative semirings (Lemma 2.1), and (ii) the definition of z-ideals. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no prediction is a renamed fit. The only minor concern is that Theorem 8.1 presents results from [10, 13] as a compiled theorem, but since the paper re-proves all needed components, this is attribution rather than circularity. Score 1 reflects this minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No free parameters are introduced; all results are parameter-free derivations. The axioms are a mix of standard lattice/stone duality results and domain-specific results from the authors' own prior work [10, 13]. The invented entities (g-closed ideals, z_k-ideals, canonical g-congruences) are all provided with independent computational evidence distinguishing them from existing notions.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Maximal ideals in commutative semirings are prime (Lemma 2.1)
    Used to establish the product formula M(ab)=M(a)∪M(b), which is the foundation of the z-ideal calculus. Proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Finite-type z-closure theorem and product formula ⟨a⟩_z ∩ ⟨b⟩_z = ⟨ab⟩_z from [10, 13]
    Invoked in Theorem 8.1 to establish the frame structure and compact-element closure under finite meets. This is the load-bearing cited result for Theorem B.
  • ad hoc to paper Hypothesis 8.7: finite-type g-closure hypothesis (G1-G4)
    An explicit set of conditions on the g-closure operation required for Theorem C. Stated as not automatic in general semirings but satisfied in Boolean semirings.
  • standard math Stone duality: coherent frames are contravariantly equivalent to spectral spaces [17, 19]
    Used to pass from coherent frame structure to spectrality of the prime spectrum.
  • domain assumption Exchange theorem: z-prime ideals are precisely prime z-ideals [13]
    Used in Corollary 3.15 and the identification of prime elements of the z-ideal frame with z-prime ideals.
invented entities (3)
  • g-closed ideal independent evidence
    purpose: Ideals that are zero-classes of the intersection of all maximal congruences containing them; the congruence-theoretic analogue of z-ideals.
    Falsifiable: the paper provides explicit computations in N showing g-closed ideals differ from z-ideals (Example 4.8, Proposition 9.2), and identifies when the construction satisfies the finite-type hypothesis.
  • z_k-ideal independent evidence
    purpose: Variant of z-ideal tested against maximal k-ideals instead of all maximal ideals.
    Shown to differ from ordinary z-ideals in N (Example 3.11), providing a concrete falsifiable distinction.
  • Canonical g-congruence independent evidence
    purpose: A congruence ρ that equals ℘_I for some g-closed ideal I, establishing the order correspondence for Theorem C.
    The bijection between g-closed ideals and canonical g-congruences (Proposition 4.12) is verified and used for the homeomorphism in Theorem 8.15.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximal-Hull $z$-Ideals, Congruence Closures, and Coherent Frames of Commutative Semirings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OFECVLAT

@misc{pith2026260707319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximal-Hull $z$-Ideals, Congruence Closures, and Coherent Frames of Commutative Semirings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OFECVLAT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07319}
}
abstract

We develop a spectral theory of $z$-ideals for commutative semirings. The lattice $\mathsf{ZId}(S)$ of $z$-ideals is a \emph{coherent frame} for every commutative semiring $S$ -- unconditionally, without cancellativity, subtractivity, or Noetherian hypothesis -- so the prime spectrum $\mathsf{Spec}_z(S)$ is spectral. Under an explicit finite-type hypothesis on the canonical congruence-generated closure~$g$, the lattice $\mathsf{Id}_{g}(S)$ of $g$-closed ideals is likewise a coherent frame, and $\mathsf{Spec}_g(S)$ is spectral and homeomorphic to the space of prime $g$-congruences. These frame results are accompanied by a regularity criterion: a semiring with all multiplicative idempotents complemented is von Neumann regular if and only if every principal ideal is a $z$-ideal, extending Mason's classical theorem from rings. Separating the maximal-ideal-hull $z$-closure from the maximal-congruence-hull $g$-closure -- operations that coincide in rings but diverge in semirings -- is a central theme, confirmed by explicit computations in $\mathbb{N}$ and power-set semirings. Both constructions carry a complete functorial formulation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Goswami and A

    A. Goswami and A. Maatallah, Further remarks onz-ideals of semirings, Quaest. Math.48(2025), no. 10, 1533–1536,doi: 10.2989/16073606.2025.2533747

    work page doi:10.2989/16073606.2025.2533747 2025

  2. [10]

    Goswami, Onz-ideals andz-closure operations of semirings, I, Quaest

    A. Goswami, Onz-ideals andz-closure operations of semirings, I, Quaest. Math.48(2025), no. 3, 395–415,doi:10.2989/ 16073606.2024.2397069

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Banaschewski, Another look at the localic Tychonoff theorem, Comment

    B. Banaschewski, Another look at the localic Tychonoff theorem, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin.29(1988), no. 4, 647–656, available online

    work page 1988

  4. [2]

    Biswas, S

    P. Biswas, S. Bag, and S. K. Sardar,z-congruences and topologies onC +(X), Positivity28(2024), Article 32, 20 pp.,doi: 10.1007/s11117-024-01049-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11117-024-01049-0 2024

  5. [3]

    Biswas, S

    P. Biswas, S. Bag, and S. K. Sardar, Some new class of ideals in semirings and their applications, Filomat38(2024), no. 29, 10223–10237,doi:10.2298/FIL2429223B. SPECTRAL THEORY OFz-IDEALS IN SEMIRINGS 29

    work page doi:10.2298/fil2429223b 2024

  6. [4]

    V . V . Chermnykh, Functional representations of semirings, J. Math. Sci.187(2012), no. 2, 187–267,doi:10.1007/ s10958-012-1062-2

    work page 2012

  7. [5]

    M. A. Dickmann, N. Schwartz, and M. Tressl,Spectral Spaces, New Mathematical Monographs, 35, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019,doi:10.1017/9781316543870

    work page doi:10.1017/9781316543870 2019

  8. [6]

    T. A. Dube, A note on lattices ofz-ideals off-rings, New York J. Math.22(2016), 351–361, available online

    work page 2016

Show all 28 references
  1. [7]

    T. A. Dube, Some connections between frames of radical ideals and frames ofz-ideals, Algebra Univers.79(2018), Article 7, 18 pp.,doi:10.1007/s00012-018-0494-z

    2018 doi

  2. [8]

    Gillman and M

    L. Gillman and M. Jerison,Rings of Continuous Functions, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 43, Springer, New York– Heidelberg, 1976,doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-7819-2

    1976 doi

  3. [9]

    J. S. Golan,Semirings and Their Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999,doi:10.1007/ 978-94-015-9333-5

    1999

  4. [11]

    Goswami and T

    A. Goswami and T. Dube, Some aspects ofk-ideals of semirings, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2)73(2024), no. 8, Arti- cle 1250195, 3105–3117,doi:10.1007/s12215-024-01097-1

    2024 doi

  5. [12]

    Goswami and T

    A. Goswami and T. A. Dube, Onz-elements of multiplicative lattices, Algebra Universalis86(2025), no. 1, Article 4, 23 pp., doi:10.1007/s00012-024-00882-4

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Grothendieck,Éléments de géométrie algébrique

    A. Grothendieck,Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I. Le langage des schémas, Publ. Math. I.H.É.S.4(1960), 5–228,doi: 10.1007/BF02684778

    1960 doi

  7. [15]

    S. C. Han,k-congruences and the Zariski topology in semirings, Hacet. J. Math. Stat.50(2021), no. 3, 699–709,doi:10. 15672/hujms.614688

    2021

  8. [16]

    Hebisch and H

    U. Hebisch and H. J. Weinert,Semirings: Algebraic Theory and Applications in Computer Science, World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 1998,doi:10.1142/3903

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    Hochster, Prime ideal structure in commutative rings, Trans

    M. Hochster, Prime ideal structure in commutative rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.142(1969), 43–60,doi:10.1090/ S0002-9947-1969-0251026-X

    1969

  10. [18]

    Ighedo and W

    O. Ighedo and W. Wm. McGovern, On the lattice ofz-ideals of a commutative ring, Topology Appl.273(2020), Arti- cle 106969, 16 pp.,doi:10.1016/j.topol.2019.106969

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    P. T. Johnstone,Stone Spaces, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982,doi:10.1017/CBO9780511550850

    1982 doi

  12. [20]

    Joó and K

    D. Joó and K. Mincheva, On the dimension of polynomial semirings, J. Algebra507(2018), 103–119,doi:10.1016/j. jalgebra.2018.04.007

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Lombardi and C

    H. Lombardi and C. Quitté,Commutative Algebra: Constructive Methods, Algebra and Applications, 20, Springer, Dordrecht, 2015,doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9944-7

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Mason,z-ideals and prime ideals, J

    G. Mason,z-ideals and prime ideals, J. Algebra26(1973), 280–297,doi:10.1016/0021-8693(73)90024-0

    1973 doi

  15. [23]

    Mason, Primez-ideals ofC(X)and related rings, Canad

    G. Mason, Primez-ideals ofC(X)and related rings, Canad. Math. Bull.23(1980), no. 4, 437–443,doi:10.4153/ CMB-1980-064-3

    1980

  16. [24]

    Nachbin, Une propriété caractéristique des algèbres booléiennes, Portugal

    L. Nachbin, Une propriété caractéristique des algèbres booléiennes, Portugal. Math.6(1947), 115–118, available online

    1947

  17. [25]

    A. Peña, L. M. Ruza, and J. Vielma, Separation axioms and the prime spectrum of commutative semirings, Rev. Notas Mat.5 (2009), no. 2, 66–82, available online

    2009

  18. [26]

    M. K. Sen and M. R. Adhikari, On maximalk-ideals of semirings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.118(1993), no. 3, 699–703,doi: 10.1090/S0002-9939-1993-1132423-6

    1993 doi

  19. [27]

    Sengupta, A

    P. Sengupta, A. Goswami, P. Biswas, and S. K. Sardar, On the subtractive ideal structure of commutative semirings, arXiv:2601.02120v1, 2026,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.02120

    2026 doi

  20. [28]

    Subramanian, V on Neumann regularity in semirings, Math

    H. Subramanian, V on Neumann regularity in semirings, Math. Nachr.45(1970), 73–79,doi:10.1002/mana.19700450104. 30 PUBALI SENGUPTA, AMARTY A GOSW AMI, PRONAY BISW AS, AND SUJIT KUMAR SARDAR † DEPARTMENT OFMATHEMATICS, JADAVPURUNIVERSITY, 188 RAJASUBODHCHANDRAMALLICKROAD, JADAV...

    1970 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.