Are GCDs Always Defined in Integral Domains?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    domains Integral
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definition and existence of greatest common divisors (GCDs) in integral domains, specifically referencing Dummit and Foote's text. It is established that while a GCD can be defined in any commutative ring, its existence is not guaranteed in integral domains unless they are also Euclidean domains. The example provided illustrates that in the ring $\mathbb{Z}[2i]$, common divisors exist, but a GCD does not, highlighting the nuances of GCD definitions in different algebraic structures.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Unique Factorization Domains (UFDs)
  • Familiarity with integral domains and their properties
  • Knowledge of polynomial rings, specifically R[x] and F[x]
  • Basic concepts of commutative algebra and GCD definitions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Euclidean domains and their relation to GCDs
  • Explore the implications of GCD existence in various types of rings
  • Investigate examples of non-UFD integral domains and their GCD characteristics
  • Review Dummit and Foote's definitions and examples in Sections 9.3 and 9.4
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebra students, and educators interested in the properties of GCDs in different algebraic structures, particularly those studying commutative algebra and polynomial rings.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote Sections 9.3 Polynomial Rings that are UFDs.

I have a problem understanding what D&F say regarding GCDs on page 306 at the end of Section 9.3 (see attached)

D&F write:

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

"we saw earlier that if R is a Unique Factorization Domain with field of fractions F and p(x) \in R[x], then we can factor out the greatest common divisor d of the coefficients of p(x) to obtain p(x) = dp'(x) where p'(x) is irreducible in both R[x] and F[x]. Suppose now that R is an arbitrary integral domain with field of fractions F. In R the notion of greatest common divisor may not make sense, however, one might still ask if, say, a monic polynomial which is irreducible in R[x] is still irreducible in F[x] (i.e. whether the last statement in Corollary 6 is true). ... ...

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

My question is as follows: Why do D&F say "Suppose now that R is an arbitrary integral domain with field of fractions F. In R the notion of greatest common divisor may not make sense"? D&F's definition of GCD on page 274 (see attached) gives the definition for a GCD of two ring elements a and b for any commutative ring - and there are no conditions on the existence of the GCD - so why for an integral domain would we have a situation where the GCD does not make sense?

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think a gcd between every two elements is only guarenteed in a euclidean domain.
 
To expand a bit on Poirot's answer, you can define a gcd for two elements in any commutative ring. But that does not mean that such a gcd actually exists. D&F give the example of the ring $\mathbb{Z}[2i]$, which is an integral domain but not a UFD. In that ring, the elements $8 = 2*4 = (2+2i)(2-2i)$ and $12+4i = 2(6+2i) = (2+2i)(4-2i)$ have the common divisors $2$ and $2+2i$. But neither of them is a multiple of $2(2+2i) = 4+4i$, so they do not have a greatest common divisor.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
950
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K