MHB Units of the Gaussian Integers, Z[i]

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying the units of the Gaussian integers, denoted as Z[i]. It is established that the units are ±1 and ±i, which can be shown through the equation (a1 + b1i)(a2 + b2i) = 1. By taking the sum of the squares of the resulting equations, it is demonstrated that both a1^2 + b1^2 and a2^2 + b2^2 must equal 1, limiting the integer solutions to (±1, 0) and (0, ±1). This confirms that the only units in Z[i] are indeed ±1 and ±i, reinforcing the understanding of the structure of this number system. The conversation emphasizes the importance of grasping the underlying mathematics rather than merely solving the exercise.
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:
Mathematics 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
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
21K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
62
Views
3K
Back
Top