MHB Is the Analysis of Principal Ideals Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nature
Click For Summary
The discussion confirms the correctness of the analysis regarding principal ideals as defined by Fraleigh. It emphasizes that if a is an element of a commutative ring R, then all powers of a, such as a^2, a^3, etc., belong to the principal ideal generated by a. The inclusion of unity in R further supports that all multiples of a are included in the ideal. This clarification allows for a better understanding of the nature of principal ideals in abstract algebra. The participants express satisfaction with the resolution of the query.
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
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
935
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
871
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K