Finite Integral Domains .... Adkins & Weintraub, Propn 1.5

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Proposition 1.5 from "Algebra: An Approach via Module Theory" by Adkins and Weintraub, specifically focusing on the proof that relates to finite integral domains and their properties as fields. Participants seek clarification on the logical steps leading to the conclusion that the equation ##ax = 1## is solvable for every non-zero element ##a## in a finite integral domain.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests clarification on how the conclusion that "the equation ##ax = 1## is solvable for every ##a \neq 0## and ##R## is a field" follows from the preceding arguments in the proof.
  • Another participant explains that the bijectiveness of the function ##\phi_a## implies that the equation ##a \cdot x = \phi_a(x) = 1## has exactly one solution in the context of the proof.
  • A different participant provides a proof that every finite integral domain is a field, using the properties of finite groups and the definition of integral domains to demonstrate that non-zero elements must have multiplicative inverses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the proof's implications, with some providing insights while others seek further clarification. The discussion reflects multiple viewpoints on the logical connections within the proof, indicating that consensus has not been reached.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of the proof and the assumptions involved in the definitions of integral domains and fields. Some participants may be relying on different interpretations of the properties of bijective functions and the implications for finite structures.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Algebra: An Approach via Module Theory" by William A. Adkins and Steven H. Weintraub ...

I am currently focused on Chapter 2: Rings ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 1.5 ... ...

Proposition 1.5 and its proof read as follows:
A&W - Proposition 1.5 ... .png
At the end of the above proof from Adkins and Weintraub we read the following:

" ... ... and hence ##\phi_a (R) = R##. In particular, the equation ##ax = 1## is solvable for every ##a \neq 0## and ##R## is a field. ... ... "
Can someone please explain to me how the conclusion that "the equation ##ax = 1## is solvable for every ##a \neq 0## and ##R## is a field" follows from the arguments preceding it ...

Basically I do not understand how the arguments before this statement lead to the conclusion ...Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • A&W - Proposition 1.5 ... .png
    A&W - Proposition 1.5 ... .png
    20.2 KB · Views: 599
Physics news on Phys.org
The author showed, that ##\phi_a## is bijective, because it is injective and surjective: ##\phi_a(R)=R##.
That means ##a \cdot x = \phi_a(x) = 1## has exactly one solution ##x \in \phi_a^{-1}(\{1\})##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
fresh_42 said:
The author showed, that ##\phi_a## is bijective, because it is injective and surjective: ##\phi_a(R)=R##.
That means ##a \cdot x = \phi_a(x) = 1## has exactly one solution ##x \in \phi_a^{-1}(\{1\})##.
Thanks fresh_42 ...

Reflecting on what you have said ...

But ... hmm ... yes ... seems right ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
Integral domains and Fields has a nice proof that every finite integral domain is a field. It is much like the proof that every element of a finite group has a finite order. One takes some nonzero element a and multiplies it by itself until one comes with two exponents m and n such that am = an. Then,

am - an = an * (am-n - 1) = 0

From the definition of integral domain, either an = 0 or am-n - 1 = 0. In the first case, an = a * an-1, and if it equals 0, then either a or a an-1 equals 0. Continuing for an-1, we find that a = 0, contrary to our condition for a.

But if am-n - 1 = 0, then a * am-n-1 = 1. Thus, a has a multiplicative inverse, and thus every finite integral domain is a field.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K