MHB Understanding Irreducible Elements in Integral Domains - Peter's Questions

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
Joseph A. Gallian, in his book, "Contemporary Abstract Algebra" (Fifth Edition) defines an irreducible element in a domain as follows ... (he also defines associates and primes but I'm focused on irreducibles) ...
View attachment 6410
I am trying to get a good sense of this definition ...

My questions are as follows:

(1) Why are we dealing with a definition restricted to an integral domain ... why can't we deal with a general ring ... presumably we don't want zero divisors ... but why ...

(2) What is the logic or rationale for excluding a unit ...that is why is a unit not allowed to be an irreducible element ..

(3) We read that for an irreducible element $$a$$, if $$a = bc$$ then $$b$$ or $$c$$ is a unit ... ... why is this ... ... ? ... ... presumably for an irreducible we want to avoid a situation where $$a$$ has a "genuine" factorisation ... ... but how does $$b$$ or $$c$$ being a unit achieve this ...Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
(1) Why are we dealing with a definition restricted to an integral domain ... why can't we deal with a general ring ... presumably we don't want zero divisors ... but why ...
I do not see any problem with defining the notion of an irreducible in an arbitrary ring. Though we may not get any nice theorems concerning irreducibles in an arbitrary ring.

Peter said:
(2) What is the logic or rationale for excluding a unit ...that is why is a unit not allowed to be an irreducible element ..
It seems like a matter of convention. I would suggest not sweating it and moving on.

Peter said:
(3) We read that for an irreducible element $$a$$, if $$a = bc$$ then $$b$$ or $$c$$ is a unit ... ... why is this ... ... ? ... ... presumably for an irreducible we want to avoid a situation where $$a$$ has a "genuine" factorisation ... ... but how does $$b$$ or $$c$$ being a unit achieve this ...
I think you have answered your own question. If $a=ub$ for some unit $u$, then this does not look like a "genuine factorization" of $a$. For one can always write $a=u(a/u)$ for a unit $u$. So if we allow units to appear in genuine factorizations then nothing would be irreducible.
 
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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top