Units of the Gaussian Integers, Z[i]

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the units of the Gaussian integers, denoted as $$\mathbb{Z}[i]$$. Participants explore how to rigorously demonstrate that the only units in this set are $$\pm 1$$ and $$\pm i$$, as presented in an exercise from John Stillwell's book on number theory. The conversation includes mathematical reasoning and attempts to clarify the conditions under which elements are considered units.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Peter initiates the discussion by stating that $$\pm 1$$ and $$\pm i$$ are units of $$\mathbb{Z}[i]$$ and seeks to prove they are the only units.
  • Peter proposes that if $$ (a_1 + b_1 i) $$ is a unit, there exists $$ (a_2 + b_2 i) $$ such that their product equals 1, leading to a system of equations.
  • One participant suggests taking the sum of the squares of the equations derived from the product to show that $$ (a_1^2 + b_1^2)(a_2^2 + b_2^2) = 1 $$, implying that both sums must equal 1.
  • It is noted that the only integer solutions for the pairs $$ (a_1, b_1) $$ and $$ (a_2, b_2) $$ are $$ (\pm 1, 0) $$ and $$ (0, \pm 1) $$, leading to the conclusion that these correspond to the units $$ \pm 1 $$ and $$ \pm i $$.
  • Peter expresses a desire for clarification on the interpretation of the pairs and their correspondence to units in $$\mathbb{Z}[i]$$.
  • Another participant clarifies that the pairs correspond to the units rather than being equal to them, reinforcing the identification of the units as $$\pm 1$$ and $$\pm i$$.
  • Peter acknowledges the importance of understanding the underlying mathematics rather than just finding a solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the identification of the units in $$\mathbb{Z}[i]$$ as $$\pm 1$$ and $$\pm i$$, but there is some initial confusion regarding the interpretation of the pairs representing these units. The discussion reflects a collaborative effort to clarify these points without reaching a definitive conclusion beyond the identification of the units.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves mathematical reasoning that relies on properties of integers and complex numbers, but does not resolve all potential nuances in the definitions or implications of units in the context of Gaussian integers.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
In John Stillwell's book: Elements of Number Theory, Chapter 6 concerns the Gaussian integers, $$\mathbb{Z} = \{ a + bi \ | \ a, b \in \mathbb{Z} \}$$.

Exercise 6.1.1 reads as follows:

------------------------------------------------

"Show that the units of $$\mathbb{Z} $$ are $$ \ \pm 1, \ \pm i \ $$."

------------------------------------------------

Now an element $$a$$ of a ring or integral domain such as $$\mathbb{Z} $$ is a unit if there exists an element $$b$$ in $$\mathbb{Z} $$ such that $$ab = ba = 1$$.

So, then ... it is easy to demonstrate that $$ \ \pm 1, \ \pm i \ $$ are units of $$\mathbb{Z} $$ ... ... BUT ... ... how do we rigorously demonstrate that they are the only units ... ... presumably we proceed as follows:$$(a_1 + b_1 i)$$ is a unit of $$\mathbb{Z} $$ if there exists an element $$(a_2 + b_2 i)$$ such that:

$$(a_1 + b_1 i) (a_2 + b_2 i) = (a_2 + b_2 i) (a_1 + b_1 i) = 1 = 1 + 0 i $$ ... ... in which case, of course, ... ...

... $$(a_2 + b_2 i)$$ is also a unit ... ...So, I think, it follows that if we obtain all the solutions to the equation

$$(a_1 + b_1 i) (a_2 + b_2 i) = 1$$

we will have all the units ... and further will have demonstrated that they are the only units ... ...

Now ... ...

$$(a_1 + b_1 i) (a_2 + b_2 i) = 1 = 1 + 0 i $$

$$\Longrightarrow \ \ (a_1a_2 - b_1b_2) + (a_1b_2 + a_2b_1) i = 1 + 0 i
$$

$$\Longrightarrow \ \ a_1a_2 - b_1b_2 = 1 \ $$ and $$ \ a_1b_2 + a_2b_1 = 0$$

... ... ?BUT ... where to from here ...

Can someone please help with this exercise by showing how to complete my approach ... OR ... by critiquing my approach and showing a better approach ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Take the sum of the squares of the last two equations to get

$$(a_1 a_2 - b_1 b_2)^2 + (a_1 b_2 + a_2 b_1)^2 = 1.$$

Expanding the left hand side yields the expression

$$a_1^2 a_2^2 + b_1^2 b_2^2 + a_1^2 b_2^2 + a_2^2 b_1^2,$$

which factors as

$$ (a_1^2 + b_1^2)(a_2^2 + b_2^2).$$

Thus $(a_1^2 + b_1^2)(a_2^2 + b_2^2) = 1$. Since $a_1^2 + b_1^2$ and $a_2^2 + b_2^2$ are non-negative integers, the latter equation implies that $a_1^2 + b_1^2 = 1 = a_2^2 + b_2^2$. In particular, none of $a_1, a_2, b_1$ or $b_2$ can be greater than $1$. Hence, the only solutions for the pairs $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are $(\pm 1, 0)$ and $(0, \pm 1)$. What does this mean for $\Bbb Z$?
 
Euge said:
Take the sum of the squares of the last two equations to get

$$(a_1 a_2 - b_1 b_2)^2 + (a_1 b_2 + a_2 b_1)^2 = 1.$$

Expanding the left hand side yields the expression

$$a_1^2 a_2^2 + b_1^2 b_2^2 + a_1^2 b_2^2 + a_2^2 b_1^2,$$

which factors as

$$ (a_1^2 + b_1^2)(a_2^2 + b_2^2).$$

Thus $(a_1^2 + b_1^2)(a_2^2 + b_2^2) = 1$. Since $a_1^2 + b_1^2$ and $a_2^2 + b_2^2$ are non-negative integers, the latter equation implies that $a_1^2 + b_1^2 = 1 = a_2^2 + b_2^2$. In particular, none of $a_1, a_2, b_1$ or $b_2$ can be greater than $1$. Hence, the only solutions for the pairs $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are $(\pm 1, 0)$ and $(0, \pm 1)$. What does this mean for $\Bbb Z$?

Thanks for the help Euge ...

You ask:

"Hence, the only solutions for the pairs $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are $(\pm 1, 0)$ and $(0, \pm 1)$. What does this mean for $\Bbb Z$?"

Since $$(a_1, b_1) = (a_1 + b_1 i)$$ ... ...

... the solution $$(a_1, b_1) = (\pm 1, 0)$$ ..

... means that elements $$\pm 1 = \pm 1 + 0$$ are units of $\Bbb Z$ ...while, in the other case ...

Since $$(a_2, b_2) = (a_2 + b_2 i)$$ ... ...

... the solution $$(a_2, b_2) = (0, \pm 1)$$ ..

... means that elements $$ \pm i = 0 + \pm i $$ are units of $\Bbb Z$ ...

Is that the interpretation you were looking for?
Thanks once again for your help!

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks for the help Euge ...

You ask:

"Hence, the only solutions for the pairs $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are $(\pm 1, 0)$ and $(0, \pm 1)$. What does this mean for $\Bbb Z$?"

Since $$(a_1, b_1) = (a_1 + b_1 i)$$ ... ...

... the solution $$(a_1, b_1) = (\pm 1, 0)$$ ..

... means that elements $$\pm 1 = \pm 1 + 0$$ are units of $\Bbb Z$ ...while, in the other case ...

Since $$(a_2, b_2) = (a_2 + b_2 i)$$ ... ...

... the solution $$(a_2, b_2) = (0, \pm 1)$$ ..

... means that elements $$ \pm i = 0 + \pm i $$ are units of $\Bbb Z$ ...

Is that the interpretation you were looking for?
Thanks once again for your help!

Peter


Well, not exactly. The pair $(a_1, b_1)$ is not equal to $a_1 + ib_1$, but corresponds to $a_1 + ib_1$. Likewise $(a_2,b_2)$ is not equal to $a_2 + ib_2$, but corresponds to $a_2 + ib_2$. So $(\pm 1, 0)$ corresponds to $\pm 1$ and $(0, \pm 1)$ corresponds to $\pm i$. The possible units in $\Bbb Z$ are therefore $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$. You've shown that $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$ are in fact units in $\Bbb Z$. Hence, these are the only units in $\Bbb Z$.
 
Euge said:
Well, not exactly. The pair $(a_1, b_1)$ is not equal to $a_1 + ib_1$, but corresponds to $a_1 + ib_1$. Likewise $(a_2,b_2)$ is not equal to $a_2 + ib_2$, but corresponds to $a_2 + ib_2$. So $(\pm 1, 0)$ corresponds to $\pm 1$ and $(0, \pm 1)$ corresponds to $\pm i$. The possible units in $\Bbb Z$ are therefore $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$. You've shown that $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$ are in fact units in $\Bbb Z$. Hence, these are the only units in $\Bbb Z$.
Thanks for the help Euge ...

Late here in Tasmania now ... will work through your post in the morning ...

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks for the help Euge ...

Late here in Tasmania now ... will work through your post in the morning ...

Peter

OK I think I understand ... we are dealing with an isomorphism, not an equality ...

Thank you for that, Euge ... these points are VERY important to me as I wish to gain an understanding of the mathematics involved ... not just get a 'solution' to an exercise ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
22K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K