Necessary and sufficient condition

  • Thread starter Thread starter tamser0630
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Condition
tamser0630
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Could someone please tell me what condition on n is necessary and sufficient such that Z/nZ contains a nilpotent element?

I can't seem to find this in any of my texts.

By the way, I accidently posted this same question in the homework help section first. Sorry to anyone who's wondering why I'm cluttering up multiple boards with my quandries. :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
suppose that n is the product of distinct primes p_i, with multiplicity n_i (i ranges form 1 to r), then is p_1p_2...p_r niplotent? can you see how to use that idea to find a necessary condition?
 
okay, so let's see..
you're asking me whether n itself is a nilpotent element of Z/nZ.

yes, I think n = (p_1)(p_2)...(p_r) is nilpotent by definition because:

n^k is congruent to 0 (mod n), for k > 0 ...right?

I'm not sure how your hint regarding the prime factorization can be used though. Can you elaborate? I did manage to find something while I was reading that I thought might help me:

if x^k is congruent to 0 (mod n) ---> then every prime dividing n divides x also.

*this works as far as I can tell (just by trying a few examples)
though I'm not sure why. but it seems to be along the same
lines as your hint (because "every prime dividing n" is the prime
factorization of n ..which you told me to consider).*


so I guess all the nilpotent elements of Z/nZ would have to be divisible by every single prime which divides n.


I still don't see how any of this leads me to a necessary condition for n though.

please help!
 
as n is zero that is not what i meant, I said take one of each prime factor of n, not n. eg in 18=2*3*3, consider 2*3. If you think about this you will obtain a neccesary and sufficent condition. Indeed it appears you have, but just don't realize it. You've proven that it is necessary for every prime factor of n to divide a nilpotent element (which is also sufficient), so you need to figure out when that gives you a non-zero possible nilpotent element.
 
Last edited:
hey, how's this - I think I have an answer..

does the prime factorization of n have to contain a repeating factor?

this makes sense to me because, for example if n = 18 then..

18 = (2)(3)(3) <---- there are two 3's here (3 is a repeating factor)

so if I divide by the repeating factor I get 6!.. which is nilpotent because the prime factorization of 6 contains all the prime factors of 18 (minus one of the 3's which I had one of to spare anyway)!

it seems good to me, what do you think?!
and thank you for all the help!
 
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##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top