axioms
Article
On the Monoid of Unital Endomorphisms of a Boolean Ring
Bana Al Subaiei 1, *,† and Noômen Jarboui 2,†






Citation: Al Subaiei, B.; Jarboui, N.
On the Monoid of Unital
Endomorphisms of a Boolean Ring.
Axioms 2021, 10, 305. https://
doi.org/10.3390/axioms10040305
Academic Editor: Elena Guardo
Received: 10 October 2021
Accepted: 12 November 2021
Published: 14 November 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Axioms 2021, 10, 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10040305
1 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, College of Science, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 400,
Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2 Département de Mathématiques, Faculté des Sciences de Sfax, Université de Sfax, P.O. Box 1171,
Route de Soukra, Sfax 3038, Tunisia; noomenjarboui@yahoo.fr
* Correspondence: banajawid@kfu.edu.sa
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: Let X be a nonempty set and P ( X ) the power set of X. The aim of this paper is to provide
an explicit description of the monoid End1P (X) (P ( X )) of unital ring endomorphisms of the Boolean
ring P ( X ) and the automorphism group Aut(P ( X )) when X is finite. Among other facts, it is shown
op
that if X has cardinality n ≥ 1, then End1P (X) (P ( X )) ∼= Tn , where Tn is the full transformation
monoid on the set X and Aut(P ( X )) ∼= Sn .
Keywords: Boolean ring; power set; prime ideal; maximal ideal; ring endomorphism
1. Introduction
In mathematics, endomorphisms, and especially automorphisms of algebraic struc-
tures, play an important role. In fact, many fundamental results have been demonstrated
by analyzing the automorphism group of a given structure. For instance, Galois identified
solvable (univariate) polynomials f in the field of rational numbers via the structure of
the automorphism group of the splitting field of f . We mention also that automorphisms
have played an important role in computer science, especially in the understanding of
the complexity of several algebraic problems. Perhaps the most important structure in
computer science is that of finite rings (see [1,2]).
Considerable attention has been paid over the years to the study of the endomorphism
semigroup and the automorphism group of some mathematical structures. For example,
in [3] (Theorem 3.1), Maxson has proved that if B = ∏in=1 Bi , Bi = K, K being a rigid ring
(that is, K2 6= (0) and End(K ) = {0, idK }), then the semigroup of endomorphisms of B is
isomorphic to the semigroup of n × n column monomial (0, 1)-matrices and the semigroup
of unital endomorphisms of B is isomorphic to the semigroup of n × n strictly column
monomial (0, 1)-matrices. This result applies, of course, easily to finite Boolean rings since
any finite Boolean ring is isomorphic to ∏in=1 Z2 for some positive integer n, where Z2 is the
ring of integers modulo 2. Schreier [4] and Mal’cev [5] have described all automorphisms
of End( X ), where X is a set, and Gluskin [6] has described the automorphisms of End(V ),
where V is a vector space. More examples are provided by, among others, Formanek [7],
Levi [8,9], Liber [10], Magill [11], Mashevitzky and Schein [12], Schein [13], Sullivan [14],
and Sutov [15]. Recently, the subject has attracted renewed attention owing to its links
with universal algebraic geometry (see, for instance, [16]). Note also that in [17], Araujo
and Konieczny have provided a theoretical description of the automorphism group of
any semigroup.
The aim of this paper is to provide an explicit description of the semigroup of unital
endomorphisms and the group of automorphisms of a finite Boolean ring. It is well known
from the work of M. H. Stone [18] that B ∼ = P (Ω) for an appropriate set Ω. For this reason,
we focus on the power set ring. Our work is motivated on one hand by [3,6–8,11,17,19–24],
where the authors have studied some questions related to the semigroup of endomorphisms
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/axioms
Axioms 2021, 10, 305 2 of 7

of some rings, especially Boolean rings, and on the other hand by the importance of finding
automorphisms of some semigroups and some (finite) rings, as explained above.
For any unital ring <, we let 0< and 1< , denote, respectively, its additive identity and
its multiplicative identity. If Ω is a set, we let TΩ denote the full transformation monoid
of the set Ω and Sym(Ω) the symmetric group of Ω (that is, the group of all bijections
from Ω to itself). We let |Ω| denote the cardinal number of the set Ω. If |Ω| = n, then
we write TΩ = Tn and Sym(Ω) = Sn . We let TΩ ∗ = { f ∗ | f ∈ T } and Sym∗ ( Ω ) =
Ω
{ f | f ∈ Sym(Ω)}, where f : P (Ω) −→ P (Ω) is the mapping defined by f ∗ ( A) =
∗ ∗

f −1 ( A) for any A ∈ P (Ω). If G is a group, we let End( G ) denote the monoid (under
composition) of endomorphisms of the group G. Let End(<) denote the monoid (under
composition) of endomorphisms of a (unital) ring < and End1< (<) the submonoid of unital
ring endomorphisms. More precisely, End1< (<) := { ϕ ∈ End(<) | ϕ(1< ) = 1< }. Note
that if < is a nonzero unital ring, then the trivial endomorphism is not in End1< (<).
The titular result of this paper is Theorem 1, which states that X is a finite nonempty
set if and only if End1P (X) (P ( X )) = TX∗ . As a consequence, we show in Corollary 1 that
Aut(P ( X )) = Sym∗ ( X ) in the event that X is a finite nonempty set. Corollary 3 recov-
ers [22] (Theorem C). In fact, we prove that if X is a finite nonempty set, then the monoids
End1P (X) (P ( X )) and TX op (resp., the groups Aut(P ( X )) and Sym( X )) are isomorphic. In
op
particular, if | X | = n ≥ 1, then End1 P (X)
(P ( X )) ∼
= Tn and Aut(P ( X )) ∼
= Sn . We derive
∗ for some (finite) set
from [3] (Theorem 4.1) that every finite semigroup S is isomorphic to TΩ
Ω (see Corollary 4). We emphasize that the proofs presented here are elementary. Moreover,
it is the hope of the authors that the proof techniques used here can be applied to other
classes of rings.
All rings considered in this paper are assumed to be commutative and unital. Any
undefined terminology is standard as in [25,26].

2. Main Results
To avoid unnecessary repetition, let us define the notation for this paper. The data
consist of a nonempty set X and the power set P ( X ) of X. Note that P ( X ) is the typical
example of a Boolean ring, with the symmetric difference playing the role of addition and
the intersection playing the role of multiplication. Thus, X is the multiplication identity
of P ( X ) and ∅ is the addition identity. Recall that, by a Boolean ring, we mean a ring in
which every element is idempotent. It is worth noting that every finite Boolean ring is
isomorphic to a power set ring for some set Ω (cf. [18]).
Henceforth, we let G denote the additive group (P ( X ), 4) and we let R denote the
ring (P ( X ), 4, ∩). So 1R = X and 0R = ∅. For any f ∈ TX , we define a mapping
f ∗ ∈ TR by f ∗ (Y ) = f −1 (Y ) for any Y ∈ R and we let TX∗ := { f ∗ | f ∈ TX }, and
Sym∗ ( X ) = { f ∗ | f ∈ Sym( X )}.

We start our investigation with the following result. However, first, one should recall
that, given a semigroup (S, ·), one usually defines the opposite semigroup as (S, ·)op = (S, •),
where x • y = y · x for all x, y ∈ S.

Proposition 1. The following statements hold true:

(1) TX∗ ⊆ End1R ( R) ⊆ End( R) ⊆ End( G ).
(2) The mapping $ : TX −→ TX∗ defined by $( f ) = f ∗ is bijective.
op
(3) The semigroups TX and TX∗ are isomorphic.
∗
(4) Sym ( X ) is a group isomorphic to Sym( X ).
(5) If ϕ ∈ End1R ( R) and A ∈ R, then ϕ( X \ A) = X \ ϕ( A).

Proof. (1) Let f ∗ ∈ TX∗ and let A, B ∈ R. Then, we have clearly f ∗ ( A + B) = f ∗ ( A) + f ∗ ( B),
f ∗ ( AB) = f ∗ ( A) f ∗ ( B), and f ∗ (1R ) = f −1 (1R ) = 1R . Thus, f ∗ ∈ End1R ( R). This proves
the inclusion relation TX∗ ⊆ End1R ( R). The inclusion relations End1R ( R) ⊆ End( R) ⊆
End( G ) are trivial.
Axioms 2021, 10, 305 3 of 7

(2) Let f , g ∈ TX such that f ∗ = g∗ . For any x ∈ X, we have f ∗ ({ f ( x )}) = g∗ ({ f ( x )}).

Thus, f −1 ({ f ( x )}) = g−1 ({ f ( x )}). As x ∈ f −1 ({ f ( x )}), then x ∈ g−1 ({ f ( x )}). Hence,
g( x ) = f ( x ). This proves that f = g and so $ is injective. It is obvious that $ is onto by
definition of TX∗ .
op
(3) It follows from assertion (2) that the mapping $0 : TX −→ TX∗ defined by $0 ( f ) = f ∗
is bijective. We claim that $0 is a semigroup homomorphism. Indeed, the binary operation
op op
defined on TX is • such that f • g = g ◦ f for any f , g ∈ TX . Thus, if f , g ∈ TX , then
$0 ( f • g) = ( f • g)∗ = ( g ◦ f )∗ = f ∗ ◦ g∗ = $0 ( f ) ◦ $0 ( g). This proves our claim. Hence, $0
is an isomorphism of semigroups.
(4) Firstly, we verify that Sym∗ ( X ) is a group. More precisely, we show that Sym∗ ( X ) is
a subgroup of Sym( R). Note that id∗X = idP (X ) ∈ Sym∗ ( X ). Moreover, one can easily check
that for any f , g ∈ TX , we have ( f ◦ g)∗ = g∗ ◦ f ∗ . Thus, if f ∈ Sym( X ), then f ∗ ∈ Sym( R)
and ( f ∗ )−1 = ( f −1 )∗ . Hence, Sym∗ ( X ) ⊆ Sym( R). Remark that if f ∗ , g∗ ∈ Sym∗ ( X ), then
f ∗ ◦ ( g∗ )−1 = ( g−1 ◦ f )∗ ∈ Sym∗ ( X ). Therefore, Sym∗ ( X ) is a subgroup of Sym( R) and so
Sym∗ ( X ) is a group. Now, let us consider the following mapping:

ρ :Sym( X ) −→ Sym∗ ( X )
f 7−→ ( f −1 )∗ .

We claim that ρ is a group isomorphism. Indeed, $ is onto by definition of Sym∗ ( X ).

Moreover, ρ is injective since ρ = $|Sym(X ) and $ is injective by (2). Thus, ρ is a bijection.
Now, let f , g ∈ Sym( X ); then, ρ( f ◦ g) = (( f ◦ g)−1 )∗ = ( g−1 ◦ f −1 )∗ = ( f −1 )∗ ◦ ( g−1 )∗ =
ρ( f ) ◦ ρ( g). Thus, ρ is a group homomorphism and so ρ is a group isomorphism.
(5) Let ϕ ∈ End1R ( R) and let A ∈ R. It is obvious that

∅ = ϕ(∅)
= ϕ( A( X \ A))
= ϕ( A) ϕ( X \ A)

and

X = ϕ( X )
= ϕ( A ∪ ( X \ A))
= ϕ ( A ) ∪ ϕ ( X \ A ).

Thus, ϕ( X \ A) = X \ ϕ( A). This completes the proof.

Now, we are in a position to establish the main result of this paper. However, first, one
should recall from [25,27] that if R is a ring, then an ideal M of R is said to be maximal if M
is a proper ideal of R (that is, M 6= R) and there are no other ideals contained between M
and R. An ideal P of a commutative ring R is said to be prime if P 6= R and for any a, b ∈ R
such that ab ∈ P, then either a ∈ P or b ∈ P. It is well known that in a commutative ring
with identity, any maximal ideal is prime. However, the converse is false. For instance,
(0) is a prime ideal of the ring of integers Z, but not a maximal ideal. Another important
fact that will be used in the proof of our next result is Krull’s Theorem, which states that
in a commutative ring with identity, every proper ideal is contained in a maximal ideal
(see [28]).

Theorem 1. The following statements are equivalent:

(1) TX∗ = End1R ( R).
(2) X is finite.
(3) End( R) is finite.
Axioms 2021, 10, 305 4 of 7

(4) End1R ( R) is finite.

In particular, if | X | = n, then |End1R ( R)| = nn .

Proof. (1)=⇒(2) Assume by way of contradiction that X is an infinite set. Then, Fin( X ) :=
{ A ∈ P ( X ) | | A| < ∞} would be a proper ideal of R. Thus, there exists a maxi-
mal ideal M of R containing Fin( X ) by virtue of Krull’s Theorem. Let us consider the
following mapping:

θM :R −→ R
(
0R if A ∈ M
A 7−→
1R if A 6∈ M.

First claim: θM ∈ End1R ( R).

For, let A, B ∈ R and consider the following cases:
Case 1: A ∈ M or B ∈ M.
In this case, AB ∈ M since M is an ideal of R. Thus, θM ( AB) = 0R and either
θM ( A) = 0R or θM ( B) = 0R . Hence, θM ( AB) = θM ( A)θM ( B). On the other hand, it is
not difficult to check that θM ( A + B) = θM ( A) + θM ( B).
Case 2: A 6∈ M and B 6∈ M.
In this case, AB 6∈ M since M is a prime ideal of R. Thus, θM ( AB) = 1R and
θM ( A)θM ( B) = 1R . Consequently, θM ( AB) = θM ( A)θM ( B). Now, we claim that A +
B ∈ M. Indeed, assume the contrary. Then, as M is a prime ideal, it follows that
A( A + B) 6∈ M and B( A + B) 6∈ M. Hence, A + AB 6∈ M and AB + B 6∈ M. Again, as M
is a prime ideal, then ( A + AB)( AB + B) 6∈ M. However, ( A + AB)( AB + B) = 4AB = 0R
(this follows from the fact that x2 = x and 2x = 0 for any element x in R), a contradiction
proving our claim. Thus, θM ( A + B) = 0R , θM ( A) + θM ( B) = 1R + 1R = 2 1R = 0R .
Therefore, θM ( A + B) = θM ( A) + θM ( B).
It follows from the above discussion that θM ∈ End( R). Finally, note that θM (1R ) = 1R
since 1R = X 6∈ M. Therefore, θM ∈ End1R ( R). This proves our first claim.
Second claim: θM 6∈ TX∗ .
Assume the contrary and let f ∈ TX such that θM = f ∗ . Pick an element x ∈ X (such
an element exists because X 6= ∅). As { f ( x )} ∈ Fin( X ) ⊆ M, then θM ({ f ( x )}) = 0R .
Thus, f −1 ({ f ( x )}) = 0R = ∅, which is impossible since x ∈ f −1 ({ f ( x )}).
|X|
(2)=⇒(3) As X is finite, then so is TR because | TR | = | R|| R| = 2| X |2 . It follows that
End( R) is also finite since End( R) ⊆ TR .
(3)=⇒(4) Trivial.
(4)=⇒(1) Assume (4). Then, it follows from Proposition 1 (1) and (3) that TX is finite.
Therefore, X is finite. In order to prove assertion (1), it is enough according to Proposition 1
(1) to show that End1R ( R) ⊆ TX∗ . To this end, let ϕ ∈ End1R ( R). For any x ∈ X, it
is well known (and easy to show) that M x = P ( X \ { x }) is a maximal ideal of R (in
fact, R/M x ∼ = P ({ x }) ∼= Z2 ). In particular, M x is a prime ideal of R. Thus, ϕ−1 (M x )
is a prime ideal of R as the inverse image of a prime ideal by a ring homomorphism.
However, as, in any Boolean ring, each prime ideal is maximal, it follows that ϕ−1 (M x ) is
a maximal ideal of R. We claim that there is a unique x ∗ ∈ X such that ϕ−1 (M x ) = M x∗ .
My = (0R ). Thus, My ⊆ ϕ−1 (M x ). As X is finite, the last
T T
Indeed, we have
y∈ X y∈ X
inclusion relation yields that My ⊆ ϕ−1 (M x ) for some y ∈ X because ϕ−1 (M x ) is a
prime ideal of R. As My is a maximal ideal of R and ϕ−1 (M x ) 6= R, then the inclusion
relation My ⊆ ϕ−1 (M x ) ensures that My = ϕ−1 (M x ). Let x ∗ = y. It remains to show the
uniqueness of the element y = x ∗ . Indeed, suppose that M x∗ = Mz for some z 6= x ∗ . Then,
{ x ∗ } ∈ Mz = M x∗ = P ( X \ { x ∗ }), the desired contradiction showing the uniqueness of
the element x ∗ . Thus, we have constructed a mapping f : X → X defined by f ( x ) = x ∗ ,
where x ∗ is the unique element in X satisfying ϕ−1 (M x ) = M x∗ . We claim that ϕ = f ∗ .
To this end, let A ∈ R. Then, we have:
Axioms 2021, 10, 305 5 of 7

x ∈ f ∗ ( A) ⇔ f ( x ) ∈ A
⇔ X \ A ⊆ X \ { f ( x )}
⇔ X \ A ∈ P ( X \ { f ( x )}) = P ( X \ { x ∗ }) = M x∗
⇔ X \ A ∈ ϕ−1 (M x )
⇔ ϕ( X \ A) ∈ M x = P ( X \ { x })
⇔ X \ ϕ( A) ⊆ X \ { x } (see Proposition 1 (5))
⇔ { x } ⊆ ϕ( A)
⇔ x ∈ ϕ ( A ).

It follows that f ∗ ( A) = ϕ( A) for any A ∈ R. Hence, ϕ = f ∗ as claimed. Finally, if

| X | = n, then |End1R ( R)| = | TX∗ | = | TX | (the last equality follows from Proposition 1 (2)).
As | TX | = nn , we readily obtain |End1R ( R)| = nn . The proof is complete.

Corollary 1. If X is finite, then Aut( R) = Sym∗ ( X ).

Proof. Note that Aut( R) = End1R ( R) ∩ Sym( R). However, End1R ( R) = TX∗ by virtue of
Theorem 1. Thus, Aut( R) = TX∗ ∩ Sym( R) = Sym∗ ( X ), the desired conclusion completing
the proof.

Combining Proposition 1 and Theorem 1, we derive the following.

Corollary 2. If either TX∗ = End( R) or TX∗ = End( G ), then X is finite.

Remark 1. The converse of Corollary 2 does not hold in general. Indeed, let X be a
(nonempty) finite set and let A be a proper subset of X. Consider the mapping ϕ : P ( X ) −→
P ( X ), defined by ϕ( B) = BA = B ∩ A for any B ∈ R. Clearly, ϕ ∈ End( R) (in particular,
ϕ ∈ End( G )) and ϕ( X \ A) = ∅. However, ϕ 6∈ TX∗ . Indeed, assume the contrary. Then,
there exists f ∈ TX such that ϕ = f ∗ . Thus, ∅ = ϕ( X \ A) = f −1 ( X \ A) = X \ f −1 ( A) =
X \ ϕ( A) = X \ A, which is a contradiction.

Assertion (1) of the next corollary recovers [22] (Theorem C).

Corollary 3. If X is finite, then the following statements hold true:

(1) The semigroups End1R ( R) and TX op are isomorphic.
(2) The groups Aut( R) and Sym( X ) are isomorphic.
op
In particular, if | X | = n, then End1R ( R) ∼
= Tn and Aut( R) ∼= Sn .

Proof. (1) According to Theorem 1, we have End1R ( R) = TX∗ . Moreover, TX∗ ∼ = TX op by

∼
Proposition 1. Thus, End1R ( R) = TX .op

(2) By virtue of Corollary 1, we have Aut( R) = Sym∗ ( X ). On the other hand, Proposition 1
ensures that Sym∗ ( X ) ∼ = Sym( X ). Hence, Aut( R) ∼ = Sym( X ). This completes the
proof.

We derive from [3] (Theorem 4.1) the following result.

∗ for some (finite) set Ω.

Corollary 4. Every finite semigroup S is isomorphic to TΩ

Proof. According to [3] (Theorem 4.1), S ∼ = End1B ( B) for some finite Boolean ring B.
However, as is well known from the work of M. H. Stone [18], B ∼= P (Ω) for an appropriate
set Ω. Thus, End1B ( B) ∼
= End1P (Ω) (P (Ω)). By using Theorem 1, we obtain S ∼ = TΩ∗ . This

completes the proof.

Axioms 2021, 10, 305 6 of 7

3. Conclusions
In this article, we have provided an explicit description of the monoid of unital
endomorphisms of the finite Boolean ring R = (P ( X ), 4, ∩). When X is finite, we have
derived that Aut( R) = Sym∗ ( X ). Moreover, among other facts, we have shown that
op
End1R ( R) ∼ = Tn and Aut( R) ∼ = Sn whenever X is finite with cardinality equal to n.
Concerning the future plans for our work, we will consider the semigroups S1 = (P ( X ), ∩),
S2 = (P ( X ), ∪) and the group G = (P ( X ), 4). As one of the main tasks, we will perform
further investigation of End(S1 ), End(S2 ), End( G ), Aut(S1 ), Aut(S2 ), and Aut( G ), where
X is a finite set.

Author Contributions: The material is the result of the joint efforts of B.A.S. and N.J. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research did not received any funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data required for this paper are included within this paper.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their careful reading
and valuable suggestions, which improved the presentation of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Agrawal, M.; Saxena, N. Automorphism of finite rings and application to complexity of problems. In STACS; Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 3404; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 1–17
2. Kayal, N.; Saxena, N. On the Ring Isomorphisms and Automorphisms Problems. Technical Report TR04-109. Electronic
Colloquium on Computational Complexity. 2004. Available online: eccc.uni-trier.de/eccc-reports/2004/TR04-109/Paper.pdf
(accessed on 12 June 2021).
3. Maxson, C.J. (0, 1)-matrices and semigroups of ring endomorphisms. Semigroup Forum 1972, 5, 160–166. [CrossRef]
4. Schreier, I. Über Abbildungen einer abstrakten Menge Auf ihre Teilmengen. Fund. Math. 1936, 28, 261–264. [CrossRef]
5. Mal’cev, A.I. Symmetric grouppoids. Mat. Sbornik N.S. 1952, 31, 136–151. (In Russian)
6. Gluskin, L.M. Semigroups and ring endomorphisms of linear spaces I’. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 1965, 45, 105–137.
7. Formanek, E. A question of B. Plotkin about the semigroup of endomorphisms of a free group. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 2002, 130,
935–937. [CrossRef]
8. Levi, I. Automorphisms of normal transformation semigroups. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 1985, 28, 185–205. [CrossRef]
9. Levi, I. Automorphisms of normal partial transformation semigroups. Glasg. Math. J. 1987, 29, 149–157. [CrossRef]
10. Liber, A.E. On symmetric generalized groups. Mat. Sbornik N.S. 1953, 33, 531–544. (In Russian)
11. Magill, K.D., Jr. Semigroup structures for families of functions, I. Some homomorphism theorems. J. Aust. Math. Soc. 1967, 7,
81–94. [CrossRef]
12. Mashevitzky, G.; Schein, B.M. Automorphisms of the endomorphism semigroup of a free monoid or a free semigroup. Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 2003, 131, 1655–1660. [CrossRef]
13. Schein, B.M. Ordered sets, semilattices, distributive lattices and Boolean algebras with homomorphic endomorphism semigroups.
Fund. Math. 1970, 68, 31–50. [CrossRef]
14. Sullivan, R.P. Automorphisms of transformation semigroups. J. Aust. Math. Soc. 1975, 20, 77–84. [CrossRef]
15. Sutov, E.G. Homomorphisms of the semigroup of all partial transformations. Izv. Vyss. Ucebn. Zaved. Mat. 1961, 3, 177–184.
(In Russian)
16. Rips, E. Preface [Special issue on papers from the Conference in Honor of the 80th Birthday of Professor Boris I. Plotkin]. Int. J.
Algebra Comput. 2007, 17, v–vii.
17. Araujo, J.; Konieczny, J. General theorems on automorphisms of semigroups and their applications. J. Aust. Math. Soc. 2008, 87,
1–17. [CrossRef]
18. Stone, M.H. The theory of representations for Boolean algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 1936, 40, 37–111.
19. Levitzki, J. On automorphisms of certain rings. Ann. Math. 1935, 36, 984–992. [CrossRef]
20. Magill, K.D., Jr. The semigroup of endomorphisms of a Boolean ring. J. Austral. Math. Soc. 1970, 11, 411–416. [CrossRef]
21. Maxson, C.J. On semigroups of Boolean ring endomorphisms. Semigroup Forum 1972, 4, 78–82. [CrossRef]
22. Maxson, C.J. On endomorphisms and partial transformations. Semigroup Forum 1972, 5, 77–80. [CrossRef]
23. Maxson, C.J. Endomorphism semigroups of finite subset algebras. Discrete Math. 1974, 10, 133–144. [CrossRef]
24. Rickart, C.E. One-to-one mappings of rings and lattices. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 1948, 54, 758–764. [CrossRef]
Axioms 2021, 10, 305 7 of 7

25. Lang, S. Algebra; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1993.

26. McCoy, N.H. Rings and Ideals; MAA Carus Monograph No. 8; MAA: Washington, DC, USA, 1948.
27. Dummit, D.S.; Foote, R.M. Abstract Algebra, 3rd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004.
28. Krull, W. Ideal theorie in Ringen ohne Endlickeitsbedingungen. Math. Ann. 1929, 101, 729–744. [CrossRef]