MHB Is the Analysis of Principal Ideals Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nature
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
Fraleigh (A First Course in Abstract Algebra) defines principal ideals in section 27 on page 250. His definition is as follows:

===============================================================================================

"27.21 Definition

If R is a commutative ring with unity and a \in R , the ideal \{ ra | r \in R \} of all multiples of a is the principal ideal generated by a and is denoted <a>.

An ideal N of R is a principal ideal if N = <a> for some a \in R

=================================================================================================

Consider N =\{ ra | r \in R \} ......(1)

If we take r = a in (1) then we have ra = aa = a^2 \in N

If we take r = a and a^2 \in N the we have using (1) again that ra = a^2 a = a^3 \in N

Continuing this, then we have a, a^2, a^3, a^4, a^5 , ... all belonging to N along with the other elements where r \ne a

Is the above analysis correct regarding the nature of principal ideals?

Would really appreciate this issue being clarified.

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
Fraleigh (A First Course in Abstract Algebra) defines principal ideals in section 27 on page 250. His definition is as follows:

===============================================================================================

"27.21 Definition

If R is a commutative ring with unity and a \in R , the ideal \{ ra | r \in R \} of all multiples of a is the principal ideal generated by a and is denoted <a>.

An ideal N of R is a principal ideal if N = <a> for some a \in R

=================================================================================================

Consider N =\{ ra | r \in R \} ......(1)

If we take r = a in (1) then we have ra = aa = a^2 \in N

If we take r = a and a^2 \in N the we have using (1) again that ra = a^2 a = a^3 \in N

Continuing this, then we have a, a^2, a^3, a^4, a^5 , ... all belonging to N along with the other elements where r \ne a

Is the above analysis correct regarding the nature of principal ideals?

Would really appreciate this issue being clarified.

Peter

Hi Peter!

Yes, that is correct.

You might also say that $r=a^n \in R$ for $n \in \mathbb N$, so $a^n \cdot a = a^{n+1} \in N$.
And since you also have unity in R, it follows that $1a \in N$, and therefore $a^n \in N$.
 
Thanks so much for that clarification - can now proceed on with some confidence :D
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
884
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
806
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
743
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K