Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Product of Ideals makes no sense to me

  1. Apr 30, 2012 #1
    The definition of the Product of ideals I and J is $$IJ = \{a_1b_1+a_2b_2 + ...+ a_nb_n | a_i \in I, b_j \in J, n \in \mathbb{N}\}$$.

    But for say 4Z*2Z inside Z, how is the index "n" defined? I just don't get it. If you have $$2\mathbb{Z} = \{0, 2, -2,...\}$$ and $$4\mathbb{Z} = \{0, 4, -4, ...\}$$ that means $$4\mathbb{Z}*2\mathbb{Z} = \{0, 8, 16, 48, 80, ... \}$$ which is all well and good, but what if you defined 2Z = {0, -2, 2, -4, 4, ...}, what's stopping you? And then you get a completely different answer: $$4\mathbb{Z}*2\mathbb{Z} = \{0, -8, -16, ...\}$$ which is completely different from the first! Of course you could confuse things by further scrambling the order... but you get the point.

    My question is: at least for the integers, what determines the "n" in the sum, because this current notation is seriously confusing me.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2012 #2

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The n isn't enumerating the elements of I and J in a particular order, it's just saying you can have any finite sum. For example for 4Z*2Z: every sum using one element from each of 4Z and 2Z is allowed. So 4*2, 16*6, -12*4 are all in 4Z*2. Every sum using two elements from each is allowed: 4*2+32*6, 4*4+40*14 are in 4Z*2Z. Etc.
     
  4. Apr 30, 2012 #3
    So in essence, that would mean any combination of both sets, they would all contain factors of 8. So that would mean $$4\mathbb{Z}*2\mathbb{Z}=8\mathbb{Z}?$$or more generally: $$ m\mathbb{Z}*n\mathbb{Z}=mn\mathbb{Z}?$$
     
  5. May 1, 2012 #4

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, that's right. In general the product is contained in the intersection of the ideals - since each aibi is contained in the inersection, adding them up is also contained in the intersection, hence each element of I*J is contained in the intersection of I*J, but as we can see from this example you can get smaller ideals than the intersection by multiplying
     
  6. May 1, 2012 #5

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    its not your fault, there is a missing universal quantifier in that definition, it should say for ALL n.

    basically take all products xy where x is in one ideal and y is in the other, and then take the smallest ideal containing all those products. thats where the sums come in.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Product of Ideals makes no sense to me
  1. Product of Ideals (Replies: 9)

  2. Does this make sense? (Replies: 6)

Loading...