Finding a nonprime ideal of Z x Z

  • Thread starter Thread starter logarithmic
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on identifying a nontrivial proper ideal of Z x Z that is not prime, specifically questioning the validity of the ideal 4Z x {0}. The participants clarify that 4Z x {0} is indeed a prime ideal, as demonstrated by the definition of prime ideals and the properties of the quotient ring (Z x Z) / (4Z x {0}). The confusion arises from misapplying the definitions and properties of ideals and integral domains, leading to the conclusion that 4Z x {0} cannot be a nonprime ideal.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of commutative rings and ideals
  • Familiarity with the definition of prime ideals
  • Knowledge of quotient rings and their properties
  • Basic concepts of integral domains
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ideals in commutative rings
  • Learn about the structure and properties of quotient rings
  • Explore examples of prime and nonprime ideals in Z x Z
  • Review the definitions and theorems related to integral domains
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, algebra enthusiasts, and anyone studying ring theory or abstract algebra will benefit from this discussion.

logarithmic
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Sorry about the formatting, LaTeX doesn't seem to be working, it seems to be giving garbage output.

Homework Statement


Find a nontrivial proper ideal of Z x Z that is not prime.

Homework Equations


Defn: An ideal N in a commutative ring R is prime, if ab in N implies, either a in N, or b in N, for all a, b in R.

Thm: An ideal of N is prime in R iff R/N is an integral domain.

The Attempt at a Solution



The solution at the back of the book is 4Z x {0}, however I don't see how this can be true. If we apply the definition of a prime ideal, we can show this ideal is in fact prime.

The product of 2 typical elements of N = 4Z x {0} is (a,b)(c,d) = (ac, bd), with bd = 0. Since b and d are in Z, which is an integral domain, bd = 0 implies b = 0 or d = 0. So (a,b) or (b,d) is in N. Thus N is prime by definition.

Alternatively, we can compute (Z x Z) / (4Z x {0}) = { (a,b) + 4Z x {0} | (a,b) in Z x Z}. Since, by the division algorithm, we can write a = 4q + r for some r = 0, 1, 2, 3, this simplifies to: (Z x Z) / (4Z x {0}) = { (a,b) + 4Z x {0} | a in {0, 1, 2, 3}, b in Z}, which is clearly isomorphic to {0 ,1 , 2, 3} x Z, which is isomorphic to Z by the map f((a,b)) = 4*a + b, for (a,b) in {0 ,1 , 2, 3} x Z. But Z is a domain, so (Z x Z) / (4Z x {0}) is also a domain and by the theorem above, 4Z x {0} is prime.

So did I make a huge mistake somewhere, or is the solution 4Z x {0} wrong. If so, how do I find the correct solution?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't want to consider the product of two elements in 4Zx{0}. You want to consider the product of two elements in ZxZ. (2,0)*(2,0)=(4,0). (4,0) is in 4Zx{0}. (2,0) isn't.
 
Dick said:
You don't want to consider the product of two elements in 4Zx{0}. You want to consider the product of two elements in ZxZ. (2,0)*(2,0)=(4,0). (4,0) is in 4Zx{0}. (2,0) isn't.

Ahh, yes. Quite a silly mistake to make.

Hmmm, that would mean by second proof is also wrong. However, I can't see any mistakes there. Any ideas?
 
logarithmic said:
Ahh, yes. Quite a silly mistake to make.

Hmmm, that would mean by second proof is also wrong. However, I can't see any mistakes there. Any ideas?

{0,1,2,3}xZ is not isomorphic to Z, and it's not an integral domain. (2,0)*(2,0)=(0,0). f((a,b))=4*a+b is NOT a ring isomorphism.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K