MHB Elements of the form a/b in an integral domain - simple question

Click For Summary
In the discussion about elements of the form a/p in an integral domain, participants seek clarification on the notation used in Alaca and Williams' book, specifically regarding the existence and meaning of a/p and b/p. It is suggested that a/p represents an element c such that a = pc, provided that p divides a. The notation implies that p must have a multiplicative inverse, p^{-1}, for a/p to be well-defined. Concerns are raised about the implications if p^{-1} does not exist. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clearer definitions in algebraic number theory.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
In Alaca and Williams' (A&W) book: Introductory Algebraic Number Theory , Theorem 1.2.1 reads as follows:View attachment 3456Without any earlier definition or clarification, A&W refer to $$a/p$$ and $$b/p$$ (see text above) ... BUT ... how should we regard such elements? What exactly do they mean and how do we know they exist?

That is, is $$a/p$$ simply shorthand for an element $$x$$ where $$a = px$$?

Further, presumably using the notation $$a/p$$ implies that $$p^{-1}$$ exists ... BUT what if it does not exist?

Hope someone can clarify these apparently simple matters ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
In Alaca and Williams' (A&W) book: Introductory Algebraic Number Theory , Theorem 1.2.1 reads as follows:View attachment 3456Without any earlier definition or clarification, A&W refer to $$a/p$$ and $$b/p$$ (see text above) ... BUT ... how should we regard such elements? What exactly do they mean and how do we know they exist?

That is, is $$a/p$$ simply shorthand for an element $$x$$ where $$a = px$$?

Further, presumably using the notation $$a/p$$ implies that $$p^{-1}$$ exists ... BUT what if it does not exist?

Hope someone can clarify these apparently simple matters ...

Peter

Since $D$ is an integral domain, and $p\neq 0$, there is a unique $c\in D$ such that $pc=a$ if $p|a$.

So when we write $a/p$, I think we mean $c$.
 
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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
907