MHB Prime and Maximal Ideals in PIDs .... Rotman, AMA Theorem 5.12

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Theorem
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: Advanced Modern Algebra (AMA) and I am currently focused on Section 5.1 Prime Ideals and Maximal Ideals ...

I need some help with understanding the proof of Theorem 5.12 ... ...Theorem 5.12 reads as follows:View attachment 5940
In the above text Rotman writes the following:" ... ... If $$(p) \subseteq J = (a)$$, then $$a|p$$. Hence either $$a$$ and $$p$$ are associates, in which case $$(a) = (p)$$, or $$a$$ is a unit, in which case $$J = (a) = R$$. ... ... ... "My question is as follows:Rotman argues, (as I interpret his argument), that $$a|p$$ implies that either $$a$$ and $$p$$ are associates ... or ... $$a$$ is a unit ...Can someone please explain (slowly and clearly :) ) why this is the case ... ... ?Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: Advanced Modern Algebra (AMA) and I am currently focused on Section 5.1 Prime Ideals and Maximal Ideals ...

I need some help with understanding the proof of Theorem 5.12 ... ...Theorem 5.12 reads as follows:
In the above text Rotman writes the following:" ... ... If $$(p) \subseteq J = (a)$$, then $$a|p$$. Hence either $$a$$ and $$p$$ are associates, in which case $$(a) = (p)$$, or $$a$$ is a unit, in which case $$J = (a) = R$$. ... ... ... "My question is as follows:Rotman argues, (as I interpret his argument), that $$a|p$$ implies that either $$a$$ and $$p$$ are associates ... or ... $$a$$ is a unit ...Can someone please explain (slowly and clearly :) ) why this is the case ... ... ?Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter

I have been reflecting on my question and believe the answer is something like the following:Firstly ... we are given that $$p$$ is irreducible ...

Now ... $$p$$ irreducible

$$\Longrightarrow p$$ is non-zero and $$p$$ not a unit ... and ... where $$p$$ equals a product,

say, $$p = ra$$ ... then one of $$a$$ and $$r$$ is a unit ... Now, $$a|p \Longrightarrow p = ra$$ for some $$r \in R$$

So then we have that:

$$p$$ irreducible and $$p = ra \Longrightarrow$$ one of $$a$$ and $$r$$ is a unit ...

If $$r$$ is a unit then $$a$$ and $$p$$ are associates ... ...

... otherwise $$a$$ is a unit ...
Can someone confirm that this is correct ... or alternatively point out shortcomings and errors in the analysis ...

Peter
 
I have this solution for you.

First, a notation:
$a\sim b$ for $a,b\in R$ iff $a$ and $b$ are associates iff there is a unit $u\in R$ such that $a=ub$.
$\sim$ is an equivalence relation.

R is a PID and commutative.
Given $a\mid p$ and $(p)$ is an prime ideal. And you want to prove that $a\sim p$ or $a\sim 1$ ($a$ is a unit).

$a\mid p$, so there is a $x\in R$ such that $p=xa$, this means that $xa\in (p)$.
$(p)$ is a prime ideal thus (1) $a\in (p)$ or (2) $x\in (p)$

Suppose (1) $a\in (p)$, then there is an $r\in R$ such that $a=rp$.
Then $p=xrp$, and because $R$ is a domain, $xr=1$, i.e., $x$ is a unit and $a\sim p$.

Suppose (2) $x\in (p)$, then there is an $s\in R$ such that $x=sp$.
Then $p=asp$, and because $R$ is a domain, $as=1$, i.e., $a$ is a unit and $a\sim 1$ $\Box$

You fill in the rest of the proof.
 
steenis said:
I have this solution for you.

First, a notation:
$a\sim b$ for $a,b\in R$ iff $a$ and $b$ are associates iff there is a unit $u\in R$ such that $a=ub$.
$\sim$ is an equivalence relation.

R is a PID and commutative.
Given $a\mid p$ and $(p)$ is an prime ideal. And you want to prove that $a\sim p$ or $a\sim 1$ ($a$ is a unit).

$a\mid p$, so there is a $x\in R$ such that $p=xa$, this means that $xa\in (p)$.
$(p)$ is a prime ideal thus (1) $a\in (p)$ or (2) $x\in (p)$

Suppose (1) $a\in (p)$, then there is an $r\in R$ such that $a=rp$.
Then $p=xrp$, and because $R$ is a domain, $xr=1$, i.e., $x$ is a unit and $a\sim p$.

Suppose (2) $x\in (p)$, then there is an $s\in R$ such that $x=sp$.
Then $p=asp$, and because $R$ is a domain, $as=1$, i.e., $a$ is a unit and $a\sim 1$ $\Box$

You fill in the rest of the proof.
Thanks Steenis ... appreciate your help ...

Just working through your post now ...

Peter
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K