How Do You Prove Properties of the Group of Units in Rings and Zn?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving properties of the group of units in rings, specifically addressing the groups of units R∗ and S∗ in the context of the product of rings (R × S)∗. It establishes that (R × S)∗ = R∗ × S∗ and discusses the group of units of Zn, which consists of all cosets of k where k is coprime to n, with the order of (Zn)∗ defined by Euler’s φ-function. Additionally, it proves that for coprime integers m and n, φ(mn) = φ(m)φ(n). The conversation highlights the importance of the extended Euclidean algorithm in these proofs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory and group theory
  • Familiarity with the concept of units in rings
  • Knowledge of Euler’s φ-function and its properties
  • Proficiency in the extended Euclidean algorithm
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of group homomorphisms in ring theory
  • Learn about the structure of the group of units in modular arithmetic
  • Explore advanced applications of Euler’s φ-function in number theory
  • Investigate the implications of coprimality in algebraic structures
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra, students studying ring theory, and anyone interested in the properties of units in rings and modular arithmetic.

rainwyz0706
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
(a) Let R and S be rings with groups of units R∗ and S ∗ respectively. Prove that
(R × S)∗ = R∗ × S ∗ .
(b) Prove that the group of units of Zn consists of all cosets of k with k coprime to n.
Denote the order of (Zn )∗ by φ(n); this is Euler’s φ-function.
(c) Now suppose that m and n are coprime; prove that φ(mn) = φ(m)φ(n).

I think I know how to do the first one. Let v1 in R and v2 in S, then there exist u1 in R*, u2 in S* such that u1v1=1, u2v2=1. v1 × v2 is in R×S, we have (u1u2)(v1v2)=1, then u1u2 is in (R×S)*. Hence the proof is complete. Is that correct?
for (b), I think the extended euclidean algorithm is helpful here: kK+nN =1, but I'm sure how to come up with a complete proof. Same with the third one.
Could anyone give me some hints here? Any help is greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The proof of (a) is not complete. You have proven that R^\times \times S^\times \subset (R \times S)^\times, but not the converse.

For (b), your observation is indeed exactly what you need. What does the equation kK + nN = 1 look like in \mathbb{Z}_n?

For (c), spend some time looking at what you have done so far.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K