Finding a nonprime ideal of Z x Z

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a nontrivial proper ideal of Z x Z that is not prime. The original poster questions the validity of the ideal 4Z x {0} as a prime ideal based on its definition and properties.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to validate the ideal 4Z x {0} using its definition and related theorems, while expressing confusion over its classification as prime. Participants suggest focusing on the products of elements from Z x Z instead of the ideal itself.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's reasoning, pointing out potential mistakes in the interpretation of the ideal's properties. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of the ideal's structure and its relationship to the definitions provided.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original poster's second proof may contain errors, particularly regarding the isomorphism and the nature of the resulting structure from the quotient. There is an emphasis on ensuring the correct application of definitions and properties of ideals in the context of commutative rings.

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