Okay, if we are looking at a typical extended number field Q(w), and it's corresponding ring of integers, we know that for any given element in this field, it is not necessary that all of it's conjugates are in the same field. A typical example being:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

[itex]Q(\theta), \theta=\root 3\of{3}, \theta \in R [/itex]

Now, the inverse of a unit is the product of all of it's conjugates (possibly times -1), so if all of it's conjugates are in the field then it's inverse is also an algebraic integer in the ring of integers in question.

I would like to know if it works out so that the conjugates of units are _always_ in the field in question, so that units always have inverses in their ring of integers, even when all the conjugates of an arbitrary element don't.

If so, why?

Thanks.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Inverses for units

Loading...

Similar Threads - Inverses units | Date |
---|---|

I Question about inverse operators differential operators | Feb 9, 2018 |

A 4th order tensor inverse and double dot product computation | May 10, 2017 |

I Units in Z_m ... Anderson and Feil, Theorem 8.6 ... ... | Feb 26, 2017 |

A Inversion of Division of Bessel Functions in Laplace Domain? | Feb 15, 2017 |

I Proving an inverse of a groupoid is unique | Jan 1, 2017 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**