The definition of 'reducible' in Hungerford's Algebra text

julypraise
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
He starts using the term 'reducible', as it came out of nowhere, from the page 162 of the text.

I know, roughly, what kind of thing he mean by this 'reducible' obejct. (That is that an element is factored into two elements that are not units.) And this should not be a problem if this term is used in only a informal essay type discussion level. But then, on the page 164, he uses this term in the proof (thm 6.13). And also, the page 273, the proof of the prop 4.11: 'f is either irreducible or reducible', which kinda suggests that 'reducible' means 'not irreducible'. Also page 274, on the top and the bottom both.

This is a problem for me.

If I take 'reducible' as 'not reducible' then 0 and units are reducible too, which may be a problem. But it maybe not at least in this text.

So is this interpretation safe in this text?



Please help me, someone who know this textbook quite well. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In all those instances he's referring to a polynomial, where the adjective "reducible" has its usual meaning.

I guess generally one would call a nonzero nonunit reducible if it isn't irreducible - equivalently, if you could write it as a product of two nonzero nonunits.
 
Okay, I will take note of that.
 

Thread '##(A/\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{a}}## and its isomorphism?'

I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
View full post »

Thread 'Questions about non existence of GCDs vs (coimages, cokernels)'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Trouble understanding an online solution to an exercise in Dummit & Foote'

##\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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Clarifications needed for an exercise in Hungerford's abstract algebra
Replies
23
Views
439
I Help Needed: Understanding Hungerford's Algebra Book Proofs
Replies
4
Views
2K
I ##(A/\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{a}}## and its isomorphism?
Replies
31
Views
1K
MHB UFDs .... Counterexample - I_8 = Z/8Z
Replies
8
Views
2K
MHB Prime Polynomials and Irreducible Polynomials
Replies
1
Views
3K
I Basic Notation for Field Extensions ....
Replies
12
Views
3K
MHB Basic Notation for Field Extensions .... ....
Replies
2
Views
2K
Studying Skipping Chapters in Stewart’s Calculus? (Pearson's Edexcel IAL Background)
Replies
2
Views
123
MHB Why is Sharp's Lemma 1.10 crucial for understanding R-algebras?
Replies
1
Views
2K
MHB Tensor Algebras - Dummit and Foote, Section 11.5
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top