MHB Maximal Ideal .... Bland - AA - Example 2, Section 3.2.12 .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example Section
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading The Basics of Abstract Algebra by Paul E. Bland ...

I am focused on Section 3.2 Subrings, Ideals and Factor Rings ... ...

I need help with the proof of Example 2, Section 3.2.12, pages 147 to 148 ... ... Example 2, Section 3.2.12 reads as follows:
View attachment 8262
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8263
In the above example Bland shows that if $$I$$ is an ideal of $$\mathbb{Z}$$ such that $$5 \mathbb{Z} \subset I \subseteq \mathbb{Z}$$ then $$I = \mathbb{Z}$$ ... Bland then claims that $$I$$ is a maximal ideal of $$\mathbb{Z}$$ ...... BUT ...... doesn't Bland also have to show that if $$I$$ is an ideal of $$\mathbb{Z}$$ such that $$5 \mathbb{Z} \subseteq I \subset \mathbb{Z}$$ then $$I = 5 \mathbb{Z}$$ ... ?Can someone explain why Bland's proof is complete as it stands ...

Peter============================================================================***NOTE***

It may help readers to have access to Bland's definition of a maximal ideal ... so I am providing the same as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8264
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8265Sorry about the legibility ... but Bland shades his definitions ...Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Actually, Bland claims that $5\mathbb{Z}$ (not $I$ as you wrote) is a maximal ideal of $\mathbb{Z}$.

The two statements are equivalent to ‘‘if $5\mathbb{Z}\subseteq I \subseteq\mathbb{Z}$, then $I=5\mathbb{Z}$ or $I=\mathbb{Z}$’’ (this is the definition in the book).

To see this, let us assume that $5\mathbb{Z}\subseteq I\subset\mathbb{Z}$. If the first inclusion is proper, then, by what has been proved in the example, we must have $I=\mathbb{Z}$, and this contradicts the assumption that the second inclusion is proper.
 
In general, to show that an ideal $M$ of a ring $R$ (i.e. commutative ring with multiplicative identity) is maximal, you can show that for any ideal $I$, either$$M\subset I\subseteq\mathbb Z\ \implies\ I=\mathbb Z$$or$$M\subseteq I\subset\mathbb Z\ \implies\ I=M.$$You don’t have to do both.
 
A similar argument shows that $p \mathbb{Z}$ is a maximal ideal of $\mathbb{Z}$ for each prime $p$.
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
Back
Top