2 Attachment(s)
UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8
I am reading Dummit and Foote Chapter 8, Section 8.3 UFDs.
On page 284 (see attached) Dummit and Foote prove Proposition 10 which shows the following:
"In an integral domain a prime element is always irreducible."
D&F then state:
"It is not true in general that an irreducible element is necessarily prime."
They give as an example the element 3 in the quadratic integer ring ![R =\mathbb{Z} [\surd -5 ]](http://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex? R =\mathbb{Z} [\surd -5 ] )
They assert that the element 3 is irreducible but not prime.
I am struggling to show rigorously that 3 is irreducible in R, despite D&F's reference to the calculations on page 273 (see attached)
Can someone please help me produce a formal and rigorous demonstration that 3 is irreducible.
That is to show that whenever  (a_2 + b_2 \surd -5 ) )
then one of
must be a unit in ![\mathbb{Z} [\surd -5 ]](http://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex? \mathbb{Z} [\surd -5 ] )
Peter
Re: UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernhard
"It is not true in general that an irreducible element is necessarily prime."
They give as an example the element 3 in the quadratic integer ring
They assert that the element
3 is irreducible but not prime.
I am struggling to show rigorously that 3 is irreducible in R, despite D&F's reference to the calculations on page 273 (see attached)
Can someone please help me produce a formal and rigorous demonstration that 3 is irreducible.
You've had this shown to you, that 3 is irreducible in this ring, at least twice in the last month. Look them over again:
http://mathhelpforum.com/advanced-al...foote-ch8.html
http://mathhelpforum.com/advanced-al...quadratic.html
Re: UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8
Thanks for pointing that out ... And apologies for forgetting this ... My day job intrudes on my Maths to the point I sometimes have to revisit problems.
Will now go to the posts you mention
Thanks again,
Peter
Re: UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8
if 3 were reducible in Z[√(-5)], say 3 = ab where a,b are not units, we would have N(3) = 9 = N(ab) = N(a)N(b) (here N is the field norm, or the square of the complex modulus. this is always a positive integer).
if N(a) OR N(b) = 1, then it must be ±1, and both of these are units.
hence N(a) = N(b) = 3.
suppose a = c + d√(-5) where c,d are integers.
N(a) = 3 implies c2+5d2 = 3.
thus d = 0, (or else N(a) > 3) and c2 = 3 has no integer solution.
Re: UFDs, primes and irreducibles - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 8
Thanks Deveno ... Most helpful
Peter