MHB Euclidean Rings - Rotman Example 3.76

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: A First Course in Abstract Algebra with Applications (Third Edition) ...

I am currently focused on Section 3.5 From Numbers to Polynomials ...

I need help with Example 3.76 ... ... the example concerns Euclidean rings and their defining characteristics so I am including the definition of a Euclidean ring in the relevant text shown below ... ...

The relevant text from Rotman's book is as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4649

View attachment 4648
I am trying to understand Example 3.76 which indicates that every field is a Euclidean ring ... ...

I can see that point (i) of the definition is satisfied with $$\partial$$ set identically to zero ...... BUT ... I fail to understand what Rotman is saying about how point (ii) is satisfied ... ...

In order for (ii) to be satisfied, for every $$g \in R$$ and every $$f \in R^{\times}$$ we have to find $$q, r \in R$$ such that:

$$g = qf + r$$ ... ... ... (*)

... BUT ...

Rotman says to set $$q = f^{-1}$$ and $$r = 0$$

but if we do this (*) above becomes

$$g = f f^{-1} + 0 = 1$$ ...

but $$g$$ may be any element of $$R$$ ... ?Can someone please explain what is going on ... that is, what Rotman means in this example ...

Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
Rotman says to set $$q = f^{-1}$$ and $$r = 0$$ but if we do this (*) above becomes $$g = f f^{-1} + 0 = 1$$ ... but $$g$$ may be any element of $$R$$ ... ?
You are right. The book should say: if $g\in R$ and $f\in R^{\times}$ set $q=gf^{-1}$ and $r=0.$ So, for all $g\in R$ and for all $f\in R^{\times}$ we verify $g=(\underbrace{gf^{-1}}_{q})\;f+\underbrace{0}_{r}.$
 
Fernando Revilla said:
You are right. The book should say: if $g\in R$ and $f\in R^{\times}$ set $q=gf^{-1}$ and $r=0.$ So, for all $g\in R$ and for all $f\in R^{\times}$ we verify $g=(\underbrace{gf^{-1}}_{q})\;f+\underbrace{0}_{r}.$

Thanks for that clarification Fernando ... I appreciate your help ...

Peter
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K