Product of Ideals makes no sense to me

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Credulous
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Product
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of the product of ideals in the context of ring theory, specifically focusing on the product of the ideals 4Z and 2Z within the integers Z. Participants explore the definition, notation, and implications of the product of ideals, raising questions about the indexing and combinations of elements from the ideals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the index "n" in the definition of the product of ideals is determined, expressing confusion over the notation and its implications for different definitions of the ideals.
  • Another participant clarifies that "n" does not enumerate elements in a specific order but indicates that any finite sum of products of elements from the ideals is allowed.
  • A participant suggests that the product of the ideals 4Z and 2Z results in 8Z, proposing a generalization that mZ * nZ = mnZ.
  • Another participant agrees with the generalization and explains that the product is contained within the intersection of the ideals, noting that while each product is contained in the intersection, smaller ideals can arise from the multiplication.
  • One participant points out a missing universal quantifier in the definition, suggesting that it should specify "for all n" to clarify the definition of the product of ideals.
  • Another participant elaborates that the product involves taking all products of elements from each ideal and then forming the smallest ideal containing those products, which relates to the sums discussed earlier.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the definition and implications of the product of ideals. While some agree on the generalization of the product leading to mnZ, others raise questions about the clarity of the definition and its notation, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of the definition of the product of ideals, particularly regarding the indexing and the implications of different definitions of the ideals. The discussion also highlights the need for precise language in mathematical definitions.

Credulous
Messages
9
Reaction score
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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: $$ m\mathbb{Z}*n\mathbb{Z}=mn\mathbb{Z}?$$
 
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
 
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. that's where the sums come in.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K