Elementary Number Theory Proof, Integral Ideals

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving properties of integral ideals in the context of elementary number theory. The first part requires demonstrating that a specific set of integers, defined as multiples of a given integer, is an integral ideal. The second part asks for a proof that every integral ideal corresponds to such a set for some integer.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the definitions and properties of integral ideals, expressing uncertainty about how to articulate their reasoning on paper. They question the existence of positive integers in the ideal and the connection to Euclid's division lemma.
  • Some participants suggest clarifying variable distinctions to avoid confusion in the proof structure. Others propose a more structured approach to demonstrate the properties of the ideal using the definition directly.
  • One participant introduces the division algorithm as a method to show the relationship between elements of the ideal and their multiples.

Discussion Status

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of distinguishing between variables in the definitions and proofs. There is also a hint at the necessity of using the least-integer principle to establish properties of the integral ideal.

cwatki14
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
The first part of the problem is as follows:
Any nonempty set of integers J that fulfills the following two conditions is called an integral ideal:
i) if n and m are in J, then n+m and n-m are in J; and
ii) if n is in J and r is an integer, then rn is in J.

Let Jm be the set of all integers that are integral multiples of a particular integer m. Prove that Jm is an integral ideal.

Second part:
Prove that every integral ideal J is identical with Jm for some m. (Hint: Prove that if J [tex]\neq[/tex]{0}=J0, then there exists positive integers in J. By the least-integer principles, there is a least positive integer in J, say m. Then prove that J=Jm

For the first part, I'm not really sure if there is not much to it, or maybe I'm just missing something. Either way, I am not really sure how to put it down on paper. If m is in J, and Jm is simply some integer multiple of m, rm. Then it automatically satisfies the ii. For part i, n and m can be factored into (r1+r2)m or (r1-r2)m. Either way this is still an integer multiple of m, which is in J. Not really sure if this is right though...

For the second part I am a bit more lost. How do I prove that there are positive integers in J? When you go to prove that J=Jm, I think you have to use Euclid's division lemma and the concept that the gcd will divide every integer multiple of J. Still not really sure how this all ties in though...

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think your problem with the first part is you're confusing distinct variables by giving them the same letter, and distinguishing between two variables which are supposed to be the same.

In particular, the statement "Jm is an integral ideal" requires you to substitute Jm for J in that definition. Also, the m in Jm has nothing to do with the m in that definition, so you should probably change the dummy variable to help unconfuse yourself.
 
this is how you should think about this proof. you want to show that for X={mr:r is integer for fixed integer m}. thus if x and y are two elements in X and k is an integer we have ax - y = a(mr) - mr'=m(ar-r') so ax-y is in X. this is a short cut which is equivalent to checking the two independently. the second part i think is referring to the generator of an ideal.
 
use the division algorithm for the second part: if x is in J then x=am +r when 0<=r<m. now r = x-am which obviously belongs to J since both x and am do. if x is the smallest positive element in J which exists (since you can multiply any negative number in J by a negative integer) then that means that r=0. therefore x is in Jm. meaning J is a subset of Jm, the reverse proof is trivial.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K