Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree3Thanks
  • 1 Post By johnsomeone
  • 1 Post By Deveno
  • 1 Post By Deveno

Math Help - Euclidean Domains - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Section 8.1 - Example on Quadratic

  1. #1
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    558
    Thanks
    2

    Euclidean Domains - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Section 8.1 - Example on Quadratic

    I am reading Dummit and Foote Chapter 8, Section 8.1 - Euclidean DOmains

    I am working through Example 2 on page 273 (see attachment)

    Example 2 demonstrates that the quadratic integer ring  \mathbb{Z} [ \surd -5 ] is not a Euclidean domain.


    I can follow the argument down to the point where D&F state (see attachment)

    "Multiplying both sdes by  2 - \surd -5 would then imply that  2 - \surd -5 is a multiple of 3 in R, a contradiction"

    ================================================== ====================================

    I cannot show this point - the mechanics of this fail me... can someone please help

    Peter
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    From
    Washington DC USA
    Posts
    525
    Thanks
    146

    Re: Euclidean Domains - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Section 8.1 - Example on Quadr

    1 \in I = (3, 2 + \sqrt{-5}) implies \exists \gamma, \delta \in \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}] such that 3 \gamma + (2 + \sqrt{-5}) \delta = 1.

    Multiply both sides by 2 - \sqrt{-5}, getting:

    3(2 - \sqrt{-5})\gamma + (2 + \sqrt{-5}) (2 - \sqrt{-5}) \delta = 2 - \sqrt{-5}, so

    3(2 - \sqrt{-5})\gamma + 9 \delta = 2 - \sqrt{-5}, so

    3 \{(2 - \sqrt{-5})\gamma + 3 \delta \} = 2 - \sqrt{-5}.

    Thus 3 \alpha = 2 - \sqrt{-5}, where \alpha = (2 - \sqrt{-5})\gamma + 3 \delta \in \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}].

    Thus 3 divides (2 - \sqrt{-5}) in \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}].

    But that's impossible because 3x = 2 has no solution in \mathbb{Z}.

    (In detail, if \alpha = x + y\sqrt{-5}, x, y\in \mathbb{Z}, then 3\alpha = 3x + 3y\sqrt{-5}, so

    3 \alpha = 2 - \sqrt{-5} implies 3x + 3y\sqrt{-5} = 2 - \sqrt{-5} implies 3x = 2, 3y =-1.)

    Therefore 1 \notin I.

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    There's a tiny mistake in the proof of Proposition1. It should read "by the Well Ordering of  \mathbb{N}".
    Last edited by johnsomeone; October 12th 2012 at 08:01 AM.
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,401
    Thanks
    762

    Re: Euclidean Domains - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Section 8.1 - Example on Quadr

    Euclidean domains are a very restrictive class of rings. They are "almost" fields. In particular, they are: unique factorization domains, greatest common divisor domains, and principal ideal domains.

    So if a given ring lacks one of these properties, we can conclude it is NOT a Euclidean domain. In this case, D&F choose to show that \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}] is not a PID.

    One can also show R is not a UFD:

    9 = 3*3
    9 = (2+√(-5))(2-√(-5))

    are two distinct factorizations of 9 (that is 3 is not a factor of either 2+√(-5) or 2-√(-5)), which is equivalent to showing that 3 is not prime in R (3 divides a product ab, but divides neither a nor b). However, 3 IS irreducible in R, and in a Euclidean domain "irreducibles = primes" (the same norm N can be used to show that 3 is irreducible:

    if 3 = (a+b√(-5))(c+d√(-5)), then N(3) = 9, so we have either:

    N(a+b√(-5)) = 1,3 or 9. if N(a+b√(-5)) = 1, then a = 1, b = 0, in which case a+b√(-5) = 1 is a unit. A similar proof show c+d√(-5) = 1 if N(a+√(-5)) = 9. so if both a+b√(-5) and c+d√(-5) are to be non-units, we must have N(a+b√(-5)) = 3. this means a2+5b2 = 3, for INTEGERS a,b, so |b| < 1, and is thus 0, and a2 = 3 has no integer solution).

    In general, it is more convenient to characterize rings by the properties of ideals, rather than elements (by analogy to groups, where we characterize groups by the behavior of normal subgroups: that is, which factor groups we can form from them). In fact, the word "ideal" comes from the term "ideal numbers" which were first studied in quadratic extension rings of the integers (perhaps motivated by a desire to solve Fermat's Last Theorem) as "generalizations" of "prime numbers" in ordinary arithmetic (integers). The general construction is this:

    One starts with Q, the rational numbers, and adjoins a root of a quadratic polynomial with integer coefficients, so one gets Q(a). then one considers the sub-ring Z[a]. The ring-theoretic properties depend on a, for some choices we get a Euclidean domain, for some we do not. The general idea is to extend "number theory" to such rings as much as possible. The "euclidean" definition of primes: p is a prime iff p|ab implies p|a or p|b generalizes to a prime ideal: ab in P implies a in P or b in P. If R is a Euclidean domain (the nicest situation), then R is a PID, and the prime ideals P are generated by prime elements p: P = (p).

    In the case at hand, the polynomial is x2 + 5 in Q[x]. Z[√(-5)] are the "integers" of the field Q(a), where a is a root of that polynomial. because this ring is non-euclidean, "factoring" isn't as helpful as it could be (we cannot say that just because something is irreducible, it is prime, so divisibility arguments can go astray).
    Last edited by Deveno; October 12th 2012 at 11:21 AM.
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    558
    Thanks
    2

    Re: Euclidean Domains - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Section 8.1 - Example on Quadr

    Thank you for these posts

    Most helpful for those like me engaged in self-study of mathematics

    Peter
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    558
    Thanks
    2

    Re: Euclidean Domains - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Section 8.1 - Example on Quadr

    Deveno ,

    thanks for the considerable help

    Working through the detail of your post now - your post is much appreciated

    Peter
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Super Member Bernhard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    From
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    558
    Thanks
    2

    Re: Euclidean Domains - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Section 8.1 - Example on Quadr

    Deveno,

    I followed your post except for the following point - you write:

    "N(a+b√(-5)) = 1,3 or 9. if N(a+b√(-5)) = 1, then a = 1, b = 0, in which case a+b√(-5) = 1 is a unit. A similar proof show c+d√(-5) = 1 if N(a+√(-5)) = 9. so if both a+b√(-5) and c+d√(-5) are to be non-units, we must have N(a+b√(-5)) = 3. this means a2+5b2 = 3, for INTEGERS a,b, so |b| < 1, and is thus 0, and a2 = 3 has no integer solution)."

    My question is "Why do both a+b√(-5) and c+d√(-5) have to be non-units?"

    [Apologies ... I suspect my question is rather basic ... but I have only just now skimmed the material on UFDs and have not covered them properly]

    Peter
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,401
    Thanks
    762

    Re: Euclidean Domains - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8 - Section 8.1 - Example on Quadr

    in a unique factorization domain, the factorizations are only unique up to units.

    for example, in Z, we have: 6 = 2*3 = 1*1*2*3, but we don't really consider these "different" because 1 is a unit. this is the logic behind the rule: "1 is not a prime number".

    again, in say, Q[x], when we factor 4x2 - 4, we have (2x + 2)(2x - 2), AND (4)(x + 1)(x - 1), but these aren't considered "different" because 4 is a unit in Q.

    in a ring with unity (which you have to have to even define units (invertible multiplicative elements)), any element r can ALWAYS be written r = u(u-1r), for any unit u.

    the definition of an irreducible in a ring R is something that cannot be written as the product of 2 non-units. that is:

    u in R is irreducible if u = ab with a,b in R, implies a or b is a unit.

    prime elements are irreducible, but it is not always true that irreducible elements are prime. for example: 3 in Z[√(-5)].
    Thanks from Bernhard
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Rings and Subrings - Dummit and Foote Chapter 7
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 31st 2012, 03:18 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 17th 2012, 10:53 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 16th 2012, 07:30 PM
  4. Orbits - Dummit and Foote and Fraleigh
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 24th 2011, 01:20 PM
  5. General Linear Group - Problem from Dummit and Foote
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 11th 2011, 09:07 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum