MHB Irreducibles and Primes in Integral Domains ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding Example 1.4.1 from "Introductory Algebraic Number Theory" by Alaca and Williams, specifically the implications of the irreducibility of the number 2 in the integral domain $\mathbb{Z} + \mathbb{Z} \sqrt{-5}$. It is clarified that since 2 is irreducible, it cannot be factored into two distinct non-unit elements, meaning its only divisors, up to equivalence, are 1 and 2. This leads to the conclusion that any element $\alpha$ that divides 2 must be associated with either 1 or 2. The explanation emphasizes the definition of irreducibility and associates in integral domains. Overall, the irreducibility of 2 directly implies that $\alpha$ is equivalent to either 1 or 2.
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
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

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
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
943
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K