Central Quasi-Morphicity, Central Morphicity, and Strongly π-Regularity

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.10569
• Title: Central Quasi-Morphicity, Central Morphicity, and Strongly π-Regularity
• Authors: Theophilus Gera, Amit Sharma (Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, India)
• Classification: math.RA (Ring Theory and Algebra)
• Publication Date: November 14, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.10569

Abstract

This paper refines the relationship between centrally quasi-morphic modules and centrally morphic modules, corrects equivalence errors in earlier literature, and extends the theory to a broader module-theoretic framework. The main results include:

1. Module-theoretic Equivalence: If module M is image-projective and generates its kernels, then the following are equivalent: M is centrally morphic, M is centrally quasi-morphic, and its endomorphism ring S = End_R(M) is right centrally morphic.
2. Ring-theoretic Result: If R is a semiprime right centrally quasi-morphic ring and its center Z(R) is von Neumann regular, then R is strongly π-regular.
3. Module-theoretic Generalization: Under appropriate conditions, an image-projective module M is strongly π-endomorphism regular if and only if its endomorphism ring S is semiprime and M is centrally quasi-morphic.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Core Problem

The core problem addressed in this paper is correcting and refining fundamental equivalence relationships in the theory of morphic modules, specifically:

• The precise relationship between central quasi-morphicity and central morphicity
• How morphic properties of modules translate to morphic properties of their endomorphism rings
• The structural connection between central quasi-morphicity and strong π-regularity

2. Problem Significance

The theory of morphic rings and modules originates from work by Nicholson and Campos as a dual analogue of isomorphism theorems. This theory explores:

• How relationships between annihilators, kernels, and images characterize the internal structure of rings and modules
• How commutativity phenomena (through requiring witness endomorphisms to be central) affect morphic behavior
• How regularity conditions manifest through morphic properties

3. Limitations of Existing Approaches

Reference 3 (Dehghani and Sedaghatjoo, 2025) contains a critical error:

• 3, Proposition 2.3 incorrectly asserts: For any projective module M, central morphicity is equivalent to central quasi-morphicity
• Counterexample: M = R = kx/(x²) is centrally quasi-morphic but not centrally morphic (4, Remark 3.23)
• Root cause: Missing additional hypotheses ensuring morphic property transfer between modules and their endomorphism rings

4. Research Motivation

The starting point of this paper is:

• Correcting errors: Identifying the precise structural assumptions needed for equivalence to hold
• Unifying theory: Establishing a complete theory of central quasi-morphicity within both module-theoretic and ring-theoretic frameworks
• Building bridges: Connecting central quasi-morphicity conditions to strong π-regularity, extending classical results of Lee-Zhou

Core Contributions

1. Corrected fundamental equivalence theorem (Proposition 2.3):
   • Explicitly identifies image-projectivity and kernel-generation as necessary conditions for equivalence between central morphicity and central quasi-morphicity
   • Provides precise characterization of how morphic properties transfer between module and endomorphism ring levels
2. Established ring-theoretic structure theorem (Theorem 2.8):
   • Proves that semiprime centrally quasi-morphic rings with von Neumann regular centers are strongly π-regular
   • Generalizes Lee-Zhou's 7, Proposition 23 from morphic rings to centrally quasi-morphic rings
3. Provided module-theoretic correspondence (Proposition 2.10):
   • Characterizes strong π-endomorphism regularity under appropriate fully invariant assumptions
   • Corrects the incomplete statement of 3, Proposition 3.11
4. Clarified semisimple Artin case (Corollary 2.4):
   • For semisimple Artin modules, central quasi-morphicity, central morphicity, and central morphicity of the endomorphism ring are equivalent
   • Extends 4, Corollary 3.21 from finitely generated case to arbitrary semisimple Artin modules
5. Provided counterexamples and boundary condition analysis (Remark 2.9):
   • Demonstrates necessity of theorem conditions
   • Shows that converse statements fail

Methodology Details

Task Definition

The core task of this paper is to establish bidirectional correspondence between module-theoretic objects (module M and its submodule structure) and algebraic objects (endomorphism ring S and its ideal structure), specifically including:

Input:

• Module M and its endomorphism ring S = End_R(M)
• Structural properties of modules (image-projectivity, kernel-generation)
• Regularity conditions on rings (von Neumann regularity of center, semiprimeness)

Output:

• Equivalent characterizations of morphic properties
• Necessary and sufficient conditions for strong π-regularity

Constraints:

• All rings are associative with unity
• All modules are right modules (unless otherwise stated)
• Endomorphism rings act on the left on modules

Core Concepts and Definitions

1. Image-Projectivity

A module M is called image-projective if for any f, g ∈ S, the inclusion relation im(f) ⊆ im(g) implies there exists s ∈ S such that f = gs.

Geometric meaning: Inclusion relations between images have algebraic reflections in the endomorphism ring.

2. Kernel-Generation

A module M generates its kernels if for each f ∈ S, $\ker f = \sum\{\text{im}(\gamma) \mid \gamma \in S, \text{im}(\gamma) \subseteq \ker f\}$

Significance: Kernels can be generated by images of endomorphisms contained in them.

3. Central Quasi-Morphicity

• Module: M is centrally quasi-morphic if for each f ∈ S, there exist g, h ∈ Z(S) (center) such that ker f = im g and im f = ker h
• Ring: R is right centrally quasi-morphic if for each a ∈ R, there exist central elements b, c ∈ Z(R) such that r.ann_R(a) = bR and aR = r.ann_R(c)

4. Central Morphicity

If the above g, h can be taken to be the same element (or equivalently, idempotent), then it is called centrally morphic.

Key Lemmas and Technical Tools

Lemma 2.1 (Properties of Image-Projective Modules)

For image-projective module M:

1. If ker f = im g, then M generates ker f
2. If M generates its kernels and r.ann_S(f) = eS (e idempotent), then ker f = eM

Proof strategy: Use image-projectivity to convert submodule inclusion relations to ideal inclusion relations.

Lemma 2.2 (Symmetrization of Central Regularity)

If R is right centrally quasi-morphic and Z(R) is von Neumann regular, then R is also left centrally quasi-morphic.

Proof core:

• Von Neumann regularity allows replacing central elements with central idempotents
• For central idempotent e, we have r.ann_R(e) = (1-e)R and l.ann_R((1-e)R) = eR
• The decomposition R = eR ⊕ (1-e)R achieves left-right symmetry

Proof Architecture of Main Theorems

Proposition 2.3 (Core Equivalence Theorem)

Statement: Let M be a right R-module and S = End_R(M).

(1) If M is centrally quasi-morphic and image-projective ⇒ S is right centrally quasi-morphic and M generates its kernels

(2) If M is image-projective and generates its kernels, and S is right centrally quasi-morphic ⇒ M is centrally quasi-morphic

(3) If M is image-projective and generates its kernels, then the following are equivalent:

• (a) M is centrally morphic
• (b) M is centrally quasi-morphic
• (c) S is right centrally morphic

Proof strategy:

(1) Proof:

Let ker f = im g, im f = ker h (g, h ∈ Z(S))
For any φ with im φ ⊆ im g = ker f
By image-projectivity ⇒ φ ∈ gS
Hence r.ann_S(f) = gS
Symmetrically, fS = r.ann_S(h)

(2) Proof:

Let r.ann_S(f) = gS, fS = r.ann_S(h) (g, h ∈ Z(S))
Then g ∈ r.ann_S(f) ⇒ im g ⊆ ker f
For x ∈ ker f, by kernel-generation:
  x ∈ Σ im γ_i, where γ_i ∈ r.ann_S(f) = gS
  ⇒ im γ_i ⊆ im g
  ⇒ ker f = im g
Symmetrically obtain im f = ker h

(3) Proof:

• (a)⇒(b): Follows from definition
• (b)⇒(c): By (1), and generators are idempotent
• (c)⇒(a): By (2)

Technical Innovation Points

1. Precision of Conditions

Innovation: Explicitly identifies image-projectivity and kernel-generation as indispensable conditions, not automatically satisfied for all projective modules.

Why it works:

• Image-projectivity ensures submodule inclusion ⇔ ideal inclusion
• Kernel-generation ensures kernels can be represented by images of central elements
• Together they guarantee bidirectional conversion between modules and rings

2. Utilization of von Neumann Regularity

Innovation: Uses von Neumann regularity of the center to enable idempotent replacement, establishing left-right symmetry.

Technical details:

• For central element c, there exists central idempotent e such that cZ(R) = eZ(R)
• Idempotent annihilators have simple form: r.ann(e) = (1-e)R
• This greatly simplifies chain condition analysis

3. Chain Stability Argument

Innovation (Core of Theorem 2.8): Constructs orthogonal idempotent sequences and uses semiprimeness to exclude infinite ascending chains.

Proof framework:

Assume chain g₁R ⊆ g₂R ⊆ ... does not stabilize
Construct e_k = g_k(1 - g_{k-1}) (orthogonal idempotents)
Then (ae_k)^k = 0 for all k
Consider J = ⊕ Re_k (direct sum of nonzero ideals)
J is nilpotent ideal ⇒ contradicts semiprimeness
Hence chain must stabilize

Experimental Setup

Note: This is a pure theoretical mathematics paper with no experimental component. The following describes theoretical verification and example analysis.

Theoretical Verification Methods

1. Counterexample Construction

Purpose: Verify necessity of theorem conditions

Method:

• Construct examples satisfying some but not all conditions
• Verify through explicit computation that conclusions fail

2. Special Case Verification

Purpose: Verify general theorems on known structures

Method:

• Verify on semisimple Artin modules (Corollary 2.4)
• Verify on projective modules (Corollary 2.5)

Key Examples

Example (Note 2.6): Counterexample for Projective Modules

Construction: M = R = kx/(x²)

Verification:

1. M is projective (free as R-module)
2. M is centrally quasi-morphic
3. M is not centrally morphic

Significance: Demonstrates error in 3, Proposition 2.3; projectivity is insufficient for equivalence

Example (Remark 2.9(1)): Necessity of von Neumann Regularity

Construction: R = Zx

Verification:

1. R is commutative (hence centrally quasi-morphic)
2. R is semiprime
3. Z(R) = R is not von Neumann regular
4. R is not strongly π-regular (x fails the condition)

Significance: The von Neumann regularity assumption in Theorem 2.8 cannot be removed

Example (Remark 2.9(2)): Converse Fails

Construction: R = (k k) (0 k) (2×2 upper triangular matrices)

Verification:

1. Z(R) ≅ k is von Neumann regular
2. R is Artin (hence strongly π-regular)
3. R is not semiprime: I = (0 k) satisfies I² = 0 (0 0)
4. R is not centrally quasi-morphic

Significance: The converse of Theorem 2.8 fails

Experimental Results

Main Theoretical Results

Result 1: Corrected Equivalence Theorem (Proposition 2.3)

Result: Under image-projective + kernel-generation conditions:

M centrally morphic ⇔ M centrally quasi-morphic ⇔ S right centrally morphic

Comparison with literature 3:

• 3's incorrect assertion: For projective modules, central morphicity ⇔ central quasi-morphicity
• This paper's correction: Requires additional conditions (image-projective + kernel-generation)
• Counterexample verification: kx/(x²) satisfies projectivity but not equivalence

Result 2: Strong π-Regularity Theorem (Theorem 2.8)

Result: Semiprime + right centrally quasi-morphic + central von Neumann regular ⇒ strongly π-regular

Generalization significance:

• Lee-Zhou 7, Prop 23: Morphic rings ⇒ strongly π-regular
• This paper's generalization: Centrally quasi-morphic rings (weaker condition) ⇒ strongly π-regular

Technical improvement:

• Uses central regularity to enable idempotent replacement
• Avoids complex nilpotent ideal analysis through chain stability

Result 3: Complete Characterization for Semisimple Case (Corollary 2.4)

Result: For semisimple Artin module M:

M centrally quasi-morphic ⇔ M centrally morphic ⇔ S centrally morphic

Reason:

• Semisimple modules automatically satisfy image-projectivity and kernel-generation
• Center Z(S) is finite direct product of fields (von Neumann regular)
• Any central element generating principal ideal is generated by central idempotent

Theoretical Findings

Finding 1: Key Role of Image-Projectivity

Image-projectivity converts geometric conditions (submodule inclusion) to algebraic conditions (ideal inclusion), serving as the bridge between modules and rings.

Concrete manifestation:

• im f ⊆ im g ⇔ f ∈ gS
• Enables verification that r.ann_S(f) = gS

Finding 2: Dual Role of Kernel-Generation

Kernel-generation ensures kernels can be represented by images of endomorphisms, providing the key for returning from rings to modules.

Concrete manifestation:

• ker f can be generated by {im γ | γ ∈ r.ann_S(f)}
• Combined with r.ann_S(f) = gS yields ker f = im g

Finding 3: Symmetrization Effect of Central Regularity

Von Neumann regular center allows idempotent replacement, enabling left-right symmetry.

Importance:

• Elevates right central quasi-morphicity to bilateral property (Lemma 2.2)
• Simplifies chain condition analysis (Theorem 2.8)

Related Work

1. Origins of Morphic Rings and Modules

• Nicholson-Campos 8, 2004: Introduced morphic rings as dual of isomorphism theorems
• Camillo-Nicholson 2, 2007: Introduced quasi-morphic rings
• Nicholson-Campos 9, 2005: Extended morphicity to modules
• An-Nam-Tung 1, 2016: Module quasi-morphicity

2. Central Morphicity

• Dehghani-Sedaghatjoo 3, 2025: Introduced centrally morphic and centrally quasi-morphic modules
  • Contribution: Connected morphicity with commutativity
  • Problem: 3, Prop 2.3 incorrectly asserts equivalence on projective modules
  • This paper's correction: Clarifies necessary additional conditions

3. Regularity Theory

• Lee-Zhou 7, 2009: Proved morphic rings are strongly π-regular under appropriate conditions
  • Original result: Morphic + semiprime + central von Neumann regular ⇒ strongly π-regular
  • This paper's generalization: Centrally quasi-morphic + semiprime + central von Neumann regular ⇒ strongly π-regular

4. Recent Progress

• Gupta-Gera-Sharma-Gupta 4, 2025:
  • Identified error in 3 (Remark 3.23)
  • Provided counterexample: kx/(x²)
  • Studied pure submodules and direct summands

This Paper's Position

This paper, building on the above work:

1. Corrects errors: Refines imprecise statements in 3
2. Unifies framework: Establishes systematic module-theoretic and ring-theoretic correspondence
3. Generalizes results: Extends Lee-Zhou results to centrally quasi-morphic setting
4. Completes theory: Provides comprehensive counterexamples and boundary condition analysis

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Precise Conditions for Morphic Equivalence

Core conclusion: Equivalence of central morphicity and central quasi-morphicity requires:

• Image-projectivity
• Kernel-generation

These two conditions jointly ensure bidirectional transfer of morphic properties between modules and endomorphism rings.

2. Connection Between Central Quasi-Morphicity and Strong π-Regularity

Core conclusion: For semiprime rings, central quasi-morphicity + central von Neumann regularity ⇒ strong π-regularity

This establishes a structural bridge between morphic conditions and regularity conditions.

3. Module-Theoretic Correspondence

Core conclusion: Under appropriate fully invariant assumptions:

M strongly π-endomorphism regular ⇔ S semiprime + M centrally quasi-morphic

Limitations

1. Restrictiveness of Conditions

Limitation: Image-projectivity and kernel-generation are strong conditions, not satisfied by all projective modules.

Impact: Theory's applicability is limited to these structural assumptions.

2. Fully Invariant Assumptions

Limitation: Proposition 2.10 requires "ker(f^n) and im(f^n) are fully invariant."

Issues:

• This condition is difficult to verify in general cases
• Requires additional technical tools to ensure satisfaction

3. Failure of Converse

Limitation: Converse of Theorem 2.8 fails (Remark 2.9(2)).

Significance: Strong π-regularity cannot imply central quasi-morphicity, even with central von Neumann regularity.

4. Complexity in Noncommutative Setting

Limitation: Many results depend on center regularity; generalization to noncommutative rings requires finer analysis.

Future Directions

1. Weakening Conditions

Direction: Seek weaker sufficient conditions than image-projectivity and kernel-generation.

Possible approaches:

• Study local conditions (properties on finitely generated submodules)
• Explore topological or categorical methods

2. Generalization to Other Regularities

Direction: Study relationships between central quasi-morphicity and other regularity concepts.

Candidate concepts:

• Weak regularity
• Commutator regularity
• Other variants of π-regularity

3. Categorical Perspective

Direction: Understand morphicity from categorical viewpoint.

Possible framework:

• Properties of morphic categories
• Characterization of functorial properties
• Role of natural transformations

4. Computational Methods

Direction: Develop algorithms to determine whether given modules or rings satisfy central quasi-morphicity.

Challenges:

• Computation of central elements
• Effective representation of annihilators and kernels

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Rigor

Highlights:

• Precise error identification: Clearly pinpoints the problem in 3, Prop 2.3
• Complete correction: Not only identifies error but provides correct necessary and sufficient conditions
• Counterexample support: Necessity of each condition verified by counterexamples

Academic value: Provides reliable theoretical foundation for the field.

2. Technical Depth of Proofs

Highlights:

• Theorem 2.8 proof: Orthogonal idempotent construction + semiprimeness argument, technically elegant
• Symmetrization technique: Uses von Neumann regularity to achieve left-right symmetry (Lemma 2.2)
• Chain stability analysis: Establishes existence results through ideal-theoretic methods

Technical contribution: Demonstrates powerful tools of algebraic structure theory.

3. Systematicity of Results

Highlights:

• Module-ring correspondence: Establishes complete bidirectional conversion framework
• Special case verification: Clear characterizations for semisimple, projective cases
• Generalization of classical results: Natural extension of Lee-Zhou theorem

Theoretical significance: Forms unified theoretical system.

4. Clarity of Exposition

Highlights:

• Clear motivation: Background and problem sources clearly explained in introduction
• Logical structure: From basic concepts → lemmas → main theorems, logically clear
• Rich examples: Each abstract result supported by concrete examples

Weaknesses

1. Unclear Application Scenarios

Issue: Paper is primarily theoretical, lacking concrete application examples.

Improvement suggestions:

• Provide applications in algebraic geometry or representation theory
• Discuss applications on specific ring classes (group rings, path algebras)

2. Computational Complexity Not Discussed

Issue: No discussion of how to verify image-projectivity and kernel-generation in practice.

Improvement suggestions:

• Provide algorithmic decision procedures
• Discuss computational complexity

3. Insufficient Connection to Other Theories

Issue: Limited connection to homological algebra, K-theory, and related fields.

Improvement suggestions:

• Explore relationships with Ext, Tor functors
• Discuss properties of K₀ groups

4. Insufficient Open Problems

Issue: Paper lacks explicit list of open problems at conclusion.

Improvement suggestions:

• List specific conjectures
• Propose potential research directions

Impact

1. Contribution to Field

Short-term impact:

• Error correction: Prevents subsequent research based on incorrect conclusions
• Tool provision: Image-projectivity + kernel-generation become standard conditions
• Benchmark establishment: Theorem 2.8 becomes criterion for strong π-regularity

Long-term impact:

• Theoretical foundation: Provides solid basis for morphic module theory
• Research direction: Initiates systematic study of central quasi-morphicity
• Methodology: Demonstrates how to precisely characterize module-ring correspondence

2. Practical Value

Theoretical value: ★★★★★

• Provides important tools for pure mathematics research

Applied value: ★★★☆☆

• Currently primarily theoretical
• Potential applications to representation theory, algebraic geometry

3. Reproducibility

Theoretical reproducibility: ★★★★★

• All proofs complete and rigorous
• Counterexamples concrete and verifiable

Computational reproducibility: ★★★☆☆

• Lacks algorithms and implementations
• Requires symbolic computation system support

Applicable Scenarios

1. Direct Application Scenarios

• Module theory research: Study structure of special module types
• Ring theory research: Study regularity of noncommutative rings
• Homomorphism theory: Study properties of endomorphism rings

2. Potential Application Fields

• Representation theory: Study morphicity of algebraic representations
• Algebraic geometry: Study morphicity of sheaf endomorphisms
• Operator algebras: Study structure of operator rings

3. Theoretical Generalization Directions

• Category theory: Generalize to abelian categories
• Homological algebra: Connection with derived categories
• Noncommutative geometry: Connection with spectral theory

Key References

1. 3 Dehghani-Sedaghatjoo (2025): Introduced centrally morphic modules; this paper corrects its errors
2. 4 Gupta-Gera-Sharma-Gupta (2025): Provided counterexample to 3
3. 7 Lee-Zhou (2009): Morphicity and strong π-regularity; this paper generalizes their results
4. 8 Nicholson-Campos (2004): Origins of morphic rings
5. 9 Nicholson-Campos (2005): Morphic modules; introduced image-projectivity

Overall Assessment

This paper is a high-quality pure mathematics theoretical paper making important contributions to ring and module theory:

✅ Rigorously corrects literature errors, providing precise necessary and sufficient conditions
✅ Generalizes classical results, extending Lee-Zhou theorem to centrally quasi-morphic setting
✅ Establishes systematic theory, completely characterizes module-ring correspondence
✅ Employs elegant proof techniques, demonstrates deep algebraic insights

⚠️ Application scenarios need strengthening, primarily theoretical with unclear practical applications
⚠️ Computational methods lacking, missing algorithms and complexity analysis

Recommended for: Ring theorists, module theorists, noncommutative algebra researchers; mathematicians interested in morphic structures and regularity theory.