Proving that b is 1 or -1 in an Integral Domain

In summary: If b-1 is not zero, then it has an inverse. So, (b-1)(b+1)=0 does not have to be true for (Z/12Z) to be an integral domain.
  • #1
silvermane
Gold Member
117
0

Homework Statement


Suppose R is an integral domain. Suppose c in R has c^2 = 1.
Prove that b must equal either 1 or -1.
Also, in Z/12Z, find an element b not equal to -1 or 1, with b^2 = 1

The Attempt at a Solution


So for the first part, I'm guessing it would be a good idea to factor (b^2 - 1) and notice that the roots are -1, 1. Is that all I have to show? I'm kinda worrying that I don't have enough here. I think I need to incorporate the fact that this is an integral domain. :/

For the second part (Z/12Z) I know that such an element,7^2 [tex]\equiv[/tex] 49mod12 [tex]\equiv[/tex]1mod12
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
silvermane said:

The Attempt at a Solution


So for the first part, I'm guessing it would be a good idea to factor (b^2 - 1) and notice that the roots are -1, 1. Is that all I have to show? I'm kinda worrying that I don't have enough here. I think I need to incorporate the fact that this is an integral domain. :/

Well how does (b-1)(b+1)=0 contradict that R is an integral domain?
 
  • #3
fzero said:
Well how does (b-1)(b+1)=0 contradict that R is an integral domain?

Well, in an integral domain, the multiplicative identity is not equal to the additive identity. Thus wouldn't one of the statements (b-1) or (b+1) have to be zero to satisfy this statement?

I'm very new to the idea of an integral domain. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted what it means to be an integral domain. Thank you for your help too. :)
 
  • #4
silvermane said:
Well, in an integral domain, the multiplicative identity is not equal to the additive identity. Thus wouldn't one of the statements (b-1) or (b+1) have to be zero to satisfy this statement?

I'm very new to the idea of an integral domain. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted what it means to be an integral domain. Thank you for your help too. :)

You're correct. Therefore think in terms of a proof by contradiction of the stated lemma.

Edit: Actually, I was too quick. There's one more condition for a ring to be an integral domain. Quote the definition you're using in class (or text) if you need help applying it.
 
  • #5
silvermane said:

The Attempt at a Solution


So for the first part, I'm guessing it would be a good idea to factor (b^2 - 1) and notice that the roots are -1, 1. Is that all I have to show? I'm kinda worrying that I don't have enough here. I think I need to incorporate the fact that this is an integral domain. :/

For the second part (Z/12Z) I know that such an element,7^2 [tex]\equiv[/tex] 49mod12 [tex]\equiv[/tex]1mod12

Z/12Z is not an integral domain- 3*4=0.
You can factor b^2 - 1 = (b-1)(b+1) =0 (even if the domain is not commutative). If b-1 is not zero, it has an inverse.Multiply on the left by the inverse & we get b+1=0.
 
  • #6
Eynstone said:
Z/12Z is not an integral domain- 3*4=0.
You can factor b^2 - 1 = (b-1)(b+1) =0 (even if the domain is not commutative). If b-1 is not zero, it has an inverse.Multiply on the left by the inverse & we get b+1=0.

Thanks everyone for their help!

(pertaining to the second part, he just wanted an example of an element in Z/12Z that when squared is equivalent to 1.
Such an element is 7. When squared, we obtain 1mod12. It didn't really relate with the integral domain concept, but he wanted us understand what it meant when squaring an element gives 1.
 
  • #7
fzero said:
You're correct. Therefore think in terms of a proof by contradiction of the stated lemma.

Edit: Actually, I was too quick. There's one more condition for a ring to be an integral domain. Quote the definition you're using in class (or text) if you need help applying it.

An integral domain is a commutative ring with 1 ≠ 0 (the multiplicative identity is not equal to the additive identity) that has no zero divisors.

That's the definition we're using in class. Would I use contradiction for the fact that it should have no zero divisors?
 
  • #8
silvermane said:
An integral domain is a commutative ring with 1 ≠ 0 (the multiplicative identity is not equal to the additive identity) that has no zero divisors.

That's the definition we're using in class. Would I use contradiction for the fact that it should have no zero divisors?

Yes, compare (b-1)(b+1)=0 with the definition of zero divisor.
 

FAQ: Proving that b is 1 or -1 in an Integral Domain

1. What is an integral domain?

An integral domain is a mathematical structure in abstract algebra that consists of a set of elements, along with two operations (usually addition and multiplication), that satisfy certain properties. These properties include closure, associativity, commutativity, distributivity, and the existence of an identity element for both operations.

2. How is b related to an integral domain?

In an integral domain, b is an element that is multiplied by all other elements in the domain. It is used to prove whether or not the domain is a field, which is a more complex mathematical structure.

3. Why is proving that b is 1 or -1 important?

Proving that b is 1 or -1 is important because it determines whether or not the integral domain is a field. If b is not equal to 1 or -1, then the domain is not a field and may have additional elements that do not follow the properties of an integral domain.

4. What is the process for proving that b is 1 or -1?

The process for proving that b is 1 or -1 in an integral domain involves manipulating the equations that define the domain and using properties such as cancellation and distributivity to simplify. This ultimately leads to showing that b must equal either 1 or -1 for the domain to be a field.

5. Can b be any other value besides 1 or -1 in an integral domain?

No, b cannot be any other value besides 1 or -1 in an integral domain if we want the domain to be a field. This is because if b is not equal to 1 or -1, then the domain will have additional elements that do not follow the properties of a field.

Back
Top