MHB Irreducibles and Primes in Integral Domains ....

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introductory Algebraic Number Theory"by Saban Alaca and Kenneth S. Williams ... and am currently focused on Chapter 1: Integral Domains ...

I need some help with understanding Example 1.4.1 ...

Example 1.4.1 reads as follows:View attachment 6516
In the above text by Alaca and Williams we read the following:

"... ... From the first of these, as $$2$$ is irreducible in $$\mathbb{Z} + \mathbb{Z} \sqrt{ -5 }$$, it must be the case that $$\alpha \sim 1$$ or $$\alpha \sim 2$$. ... ...
My question is as follows ... how does $$2$$ being irreducible imply that $$\alpha \sim 1$$ or $$\alpha \sim 2$$. ... ...?
Hope someone can help ...

Peter============================================================================NOTEThe notation $$\alpha \sim 1$$ is Alaca and Williams notation for $$\alpha$$ and $$1$$ being associates ...

Alaca's and Williams' definition of and properties of associates in an integral domain are as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6517
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The meaning of an element of a ring being irreducible is, that it cannot be expressed as a product of two distinct elements in the ring upto units barring itself and unity, upto equivalence, i.e., its associates. Thus, since $2$ is irreducible in the ring $\mathbb{Z}+\mathbb{Z}\sqrt{5}$, therefore the only two elements which can divide $2$ in the ring are, $2$ and $1$, upto equivalence, which implies $\alpha\sim1$ or $\alpha\sim2$.
 
vidyarth said:
The meaning of an element of a ring being irreducible is, that it cannot be expressed as a product of two distinct elements in the ring upto units barring itself and unity, upto equivalence, i.e., its associates. Thus, since $2$ is irreducible in the ring $\mathbb{Z}+\mathbb{Z}\sqrt{5}$, therefore the only two elements which can divide $2$ in the ring are, $2$ and $1$, upto equivalence, which implies $\alpha\sim1$ or $\alpha\sim2$.
Thanks vidyarth ... I appreciate your help ...

Peter
 
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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
839
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K