MHB Finding Units in $\mathbb{Z}[i]$: Is There More Than $1, -1, i$, and $-i$?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
Click For Summary
The only units in the ring $\mathbb{Z}[i]$ are indeed $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$. This conclusion is supported by the multiplicative property of the Gaussian integer norm, where the norm of a product equals the product of the norms. Since the norm of any unit must equal 1, it follows that the only integers satisfying this condition are those four units. The discussion clarifies that there are no additional units beyond these four.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! :)
Let $d \in \mathbb{Z}$ and the set $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]=\{ a+b \sqrt{d},a,b \in \mathbb{Z}\}$.
I have to find all the units of the ring $\mathbb{Z}=\{ a+bi , a,b \in \mathbb{Z}\}$
I thought that these: $1,-1,i,-i$ are units of this ring..But are there also others?I think not..Am I right? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
Hello! :)
Let $d \in \mathbb{Z}$ and the set $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]=\{ a+b \sqrt{d},a,b \in \mathbb{Z}\}$.
I have to find all the units of the ring $\mathbb{Z}=\{ a+bi , a,b \in \mathbb{Z}\}$
I thought that these: $1,-1,i,-i$ are units of this ring..But are there also others?I think not..Am I right? (Thinking)


Hi!

Which one is it? Is it $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$? Or is it $\mathbb{Z}$??
smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-079.gif
 
I like Serena said:
Hi!

Which one is it? Is it $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$? Or is it $\mathbb{Z}$??
smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-079.gif


It is $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ with $d=i^2$.. :rolleyes:
 
evinda said:
It is $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ with $d=i^2$.. :rolleyes:

Heh.

The only units in $\mathbb{Z}$ are indeed $\pm 1, \pm i$.

To verify, consider the Gaussian integer norm given by $N(a+bi)=a^2+b^2$.
When two numbers are multiplied, their norms are multiplied as well.
Since no non-zero number has a norm of less than 1, all units have to have norm 1.
 
The key to understanding WHY this works is:

Theorem: the norm $N$ on $\Bbb Z$ is multiplicative:

$N(uv) = N(u)N(v)$, for $u,v \in \Bbb Z$.

Proof: Let $u = a+bi,v = c+di,\ a,b,c,d \in \Bbb Z$.

Then $N(uv) = N((a+bi)(c+di)) = N(ac - bd + (ad + bc)i)$

$= (ac - bd)^2 + (ad + bc)^2$

$= a^2c^2 - 2abcd + b^2d^2 + a^2d^2 + 2abcd + b^2c^2$

$= a^2c^2 + b^2c^2 + a^2d^2 + b^2d^2$

$= (a^2 + b^2)c^2 + (a^2 + b^2)d^2$

$= (a^2 + b^2)(c^2 + d^2) = N(a+bi)N(c+di) = N(u)N(v)$. QED.

Therefore, if $u$ is a unit in $\Bbb Z$, we have some $v \in \Bbb Z$ with $uv = 1$.

So $N(u)N(v) = N(uv) = N(1) = 1^2 + 0^2 = 1$.

Now, $N(u),N(v)$ are INTEGERS, so $N(u)$ is a unit in $\Bbb Z$. Moreover, since $N(u)$ is always non-negative, it follows that:

$N(u) = 1$

From this, we obtain, if $u = a+bi$, that:

$a^2 + b^2 = 1$

This means that $|a|,|b| \leq 1$. Possible solutions are then...?
 
I like Serena said:
Heh.

The only units in $\mathbb{Z}$ are indeed $\pm 1, \pm i$.

To verify, consider the Gaussian integer norm given by $N(a+bi)=a^2+b^2$.
When two numbers are multiplied, their norms are multiplied as well.
Since no non-zero number has a norm of less than 1, all units have to have norm 1.


Deveno said:
The key to understanding WHY this works is:

Theorem: the norm $N$ on $\Bbb Z$ is multiplicative:

$N(uv) = N(u)N(v)$, for $u,v \in \Bbb Z$.

Proof: Let $u = a+bi,v = c+di,\ a,b,c,d \in \Bbb Z$.

Then $N(uv) = N((a+bi)(c+di)) = N(ac - bd + (ad + bc)i)$

$= (ac - bd)^2 + (ad + bc)^2$

$= a^2c^2 - 2abcd + b^2d^2 + a^2d^2 + 2abcd + b^2c^2$

$= a^2c^2 + b^2c^2 + a^2d^2 + b^2d^2$

$= (a^2 + b^2)c^2 + (a^2 + b^2)d^2$

$= (a^2 + b^2)(c^2 + d^2) = N(a+bi)N(c+di) = N(u)N(v)$. QED.

Therefore, if $u$ is a unit in $\Bbb Z$, we have some $v \in \Bbb Z$ with $uv = 1$.

So $N(u)N(v) = N(uv) = N(1) = 1^2 + 0^2 = 1$.

Now, $N(u),N(v)$ are INTEGERS, so $N(u)$ is a unit in $\Bbb Z$. Moreover, since $N(u)$ is always non-negative, it follows that:

$N(u) = 1$

From this, we obtain, if $u = a+bi$, that:

$a^2 + b^2 = 1$

This means that $|a|,|b| \leq 1$. Possible solutions are then...?


I understand..Thank you both very much! (Nod)
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
777
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
854
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K