MHB Are GCDs Always Defined in Integral Domains?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    domains Integral
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.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
749
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
839
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K