I was going through a chapter on unique factorization domains (UFDs). They use the following definitions:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

irreducible: An element r in a ring R is irreducible if r is not a unit and whenever r=ab, one of a or b is a unit.

prime: an element is prime if the ideal it generates is a prime ideal.

Then they show that in any commutative ring, all primes are irreducible, and in a principle ideal domain (PID), irreducibles are also prime. Then they go through a bunch of stuff to show PIDs are UFDs, and finally that, in a UFD, it's also the case that irreducibles are prime. In other words, in a UFD, which is the setting for which irreducibles were originally defined, primes and irreducibles are the same thing. Why the distinction then? Or at least, when defining a UFD, why not do it in terms of primes instead of irreducibles? The end result is the same, isn't it?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Why the prime/irreducible distinction?

Loading...

Similar Threads - prime irreducible distinction | Date |
---|---|

I Prime Subfiellds - Lovett, Proposition 7.1.3 ... | Apr 14, 2017 |

I Irreducibles and Primes in Integral Domains ... | Apr 5, 2017 |

I Quadratic Polynomials and Irreducibles and Primes ... | Apr 2, 2017 |

I Normalizer of a subgroup of prime index | Oct 30, 2016 |

Prove irreducible (p-1)x^p-2 + (p-2)x^(p - 2)x^(p-3) + + 3x^2 + 2x + 1 p=prime | Jul 27, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**