Unique Factorization in $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta]$

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kummer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Factorization
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the conditions under which the ring of integers in cyclotomic fields, denoted as \(\mathbb{Z}[\zeta]\), exhibits unique factorization. Participants explore specific values of \(n\) for which this property holds or fails, referencing historical results and seeking further verification of claims.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that Kummer demonstrated that \(\zeta\), being a 23rd root of unity, does not have unique factorization.
  • Another participant cites a result by Masley indicating that \(\mathbb{Z}[w_n]\) is a unique factorization domain (UFD) for specific values of \(n\) and not for others, referencing earlier work by Montgomery and Uchida.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the reliability of the source for Masley's result and seeks confirmation from Lawrence Washington's "Introduction to Cyclotomic Fields."
  • One participant suggests that if \(w_n\) refers to a primitive \(n\)th root of unity, then \(n=2\) might also allow for unique factorization.
  • Another participant elaborates on the interpretation of \(w_n\) and discusses the omission of certain values like \(n=2, 6, 14\) from the list of UFDs, suggesting that these cases do not contribute new information due to their relationships with smaller rings.
  • A participant shares a link to a sequence that lists the values of \(n\) for which \(\mathbb{Z}[w_n]\) is a UFD.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the values of \(n\) that allow for unique factorization, with some agreeing on certain values while others raise questions about the completeness and reliability of the provided information. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the inclusion or exclusion of specific cases.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of \(w_n\) and the implications of certain values being omitted from the list of UFDs. The discussion also highlights the dependence on historical results and the need for further verification of claims.

Kummer
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
For what values does [tex]\mathbb{Z}[\zeta][/tex] have unique factorization?

I know Kummer shown that [tex]\zeta[/tex] being a 23-rd root of unity fails to have unique factorization.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Then Z[w_n] is a UFD for n in {1,3,4,5,7,8,9,11,12,13,15,16,17,19,20,21,
24,25,27,28,32,33,35,36,40,44,45,48,60,84} and for no other values of n.
This is a result by Masley from the 1970s, extending earlier work by
Montgomery and Uchida, and using Odlyzko's discriminant bounds.
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/97/UFDs
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anybody have Introduction to Cyclotomic Extension by Lawrence Washington, I want to see if this is actually true. The site does not look completely reliable. I searched on it on Wikipedia and did not find anything and also on MathWorld.
 
You can buy Introduction to Cyclotomic Fields new or used from Amazon.com., and you can compair prices on Yahoo shopping.
 
Last edited:
if w_n means a primitive nth root of 1, i would think n=2 is ok.
 
Mathwonk: if w_n means a primitive nth root of 1, i would think n=2 is ok.

Now that that has been brought up, I wondered about it also. Trying to look the link given above over very carefully, I gather that w_n is just w subscript n, where n represents the power and w represents the primitative root.

Writer goes on to say that w_3 is the same as w_6, and omits 6 in his list.* Thus multiplication by units +1 and -1 does not count, which is usually the case in factorization. So then the conclusion I gather is that cases such as N=2,6,14 are omitted because they were, to the author, previously eliminated because they do not represent anything new. (The sum of the roots of X^N-1 =0 is itself 0 and so -1 is already present in the smaller ring.)This is consistent with other writers who say N=23 is the first case of failure.

* (Note that Z[w_3] is the same as Z[w_6]; we can assume
from the start that n is either odd or divisible by 4.)
 
Last edited:
Sloane has http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A005848 (,fini,full,nonn,) as 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 44, 45, 48, 60, 84.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
10K