The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic and Rational Numbers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to rational numbers. Participants explore whether the theorem, which asserts the uniqueness of prime factorization for whole numbers, can similarly apply to rational numbers and the implications of treating rational numbers as fractions of integers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic could apply to rational numbers, proposing that each rational number has a unique factorization into smaller rational numbers.
  • Another participant counters that the theorem does not hold over the rationals since every non-zero rational number is a unit, making unique representation impossible.
  • A later reply clarifies that rational numbers can be viewed as canceled fractions, but this perspective shifts the discussion to a different mathematical structure, specifically a quotient ring of integer pairs.
  • One participant emphasizes that while each whole number in a rational number can be uniquely factored, this does not translate to a unique factorization of the rational number itself.
  • Another participant reiterates that the rational numbers do not possess primes, which is a key aspect of the theorem's application.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to rational numbers, with no consensus reached. Some argue for a unique factorization perspective, while others maintain that the theorem does not apply due to the nature of rational numbers as units.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the concept of unique factorization domains and quotient rings, indicating a need for clarity on these mathematical structures and their relevance to the discussion. The conversation highlights the complexity of defining factorization in the context of rational numbers.

e2m2a
Messages
354
Reaction score
13
TL;DR
Is there a similar theorem to the fundamental theorem of arithmetic that applies to all rational numbers?
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic applies to prime factorizations of whole numbers. Can this theorem also correctly be invoked for all rational numbers? For example, if we take the number 3.25, it can be expressed as 13/4. This can be expressed as 13/2 x 1/2. This cannot be broken down further into smaller rational numbers, so these two rational factors are unique. So, I guess my question is, as long as the number we are factoring is a rational number, then there is only one unique factorization of rational numbers that it can be broken down into? So in a way the fundamental theorem of arithmetic applies to rational numbers too?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There are rings in which this theorem holds, so called unique factorization domains. The theorem doesn't make sense over the rationals, as every number different from zero is a unit, so there is no unique representation possible. Of course any rational number ##q## itself is already factored, i.e. the rationals considered as a ring fulfill the theorem trivially by ##q=q.##

If you forget what rational numbers are, namely a field, and consider them as canceled fractions, then you can of course factorize numerator and denominator separately. But this is strictly speaking not the rational numbers anymore, but a quotient ring of the Cartesian product of the integers with themselves.
 
I need to study the meaning of quotient rings of Cartesian products. Thanks for the reply.
 
It means that you forget the fact that you can divide and consider all pairs ##(a,b)## of integers instead, where two pairs ##(a,b)## and ##(c,d)## are considered equivalent, if ##ab=bc##. The pairs are the Cartesian product ##\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}## and the identification rule is the quotient ring, since certain pairs are put into the same equivalence class and we only consider the classes, not the pairs anymore.

E.g. ##\dfrac{1}{2}=\dfrac{2}{4}=\dfrac{-17}{-34}=\ldots## and we only consider the canceled representant ##1/2##, i.e. its equivalence class.
 
I guess what I am saying is this. Any rational number can be expressed as the quotient a/b, where a and b are whole numbers. Each of these whole numbers, both the numerator and the denominator, have a unique factorization by the fundamental theorem. Thus every rational number has a unique factorization of smaller rational numbers. For example, 1/2 can not be broken down any further. 2/4 can be factored by 2/2 x 1/2 and -17/-34 can be factored by 17/1 x 1/2 x 1/17.
 
Yes, but it's meaningless. The theorem says: "... unique up to units." and the rational numbers are all units, except zero. What you did is, you considered a certain ring of pairs instead of rational numbers and each component is a UFD.

But why do you want to do this? You haven't factored a rational number, you only defined what a canceled fraction is. The rational numbers don't have any primes.
 
I need to study this out more. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
10K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K