Prime and Maximal Ideals in PIDs .... Rotman, AMA Theorem 5.12

In summary, Rotman argues that a|p implies that either a and p are associates or a is a unit. Rotman provides a proof that if r is a unit, then a and p are associates.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: Advanced Modern Algebra (AMA) and I am currently focused on Section 5.1 Prime Ideals and Maximal Ideals ...

I need some help with understanding the proof of Theorem 5.12 ... ...Theorem 5.12 reads as follows:View attachment 5940
In the above text Rotman writes the following:" ... ... If \(\displaystyle (p) \subseteq J = (a)\), then \(\displaystyle a|p\). Hence either \(\displaystyle a\) and \(\displaystyle p\) are associates, in which case \(\displaystyle (a) = (p)\), or \(\displaystyle a\) is a unit, in which case \(\displaystyle J = (a) = R\). ... ... ... "My question is as follows:Rotman argues, (as I interpret his argument), that \(\displaystyle a|p\) implies that either \(\displaystyle a\) and \(\displaystyle p\) are associates ... or ... \(\displaystyle a\) is a unit ...Can someone please explain (slowly and clearly :) ) why this is the case ... ... ?Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Peter said:
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: Advanced Modern Algebra (AMA) and I am currently focused on Section 5.1 Prime Ideals and Maximal Ideals ...

I need some help with understanding the proof of Theorem 5.12 ... ...Theorem 5.12 reads as follows:
In the above text Rotman writes the following:" ... ... If \(\displaystyle (p) \subseteq J = (a)\), then \(\displaystyle a|p\). Hence either \(\displaystyle a\) and \(\displaystyle p\) are associates, in which case \(\displaystyle (a) = (p)\), or \(\displaystyle a\) is a unit, in which case \(\displaystyle J = (a) = R\). ... ... ... "My question is as follows:Rotman argues, (as I interpret his argument), that \(\displaystyle a|p\) implies that either \(\displaystyle a\) and \(\displaystyle p\) are associates ... or ... \(\displaystyle a\) is a unit ...Can someone please explain (slowly and clearly :) ) why this is the case ... ... ?Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter

I have been reflecting on my question and believe the answer is something like the following:Firstly ... we are given that \(\displaystyle p\) is irreducible ...

Now ... \(\displaystyle p\) irreducible

\(\displaystyle \Longrightarrow p\) is non-zero and \(\displaystyle p\) not a unit ... and ... where \(\displaystyle p\) equals a product,

say, \(\displaystyle p = ra\) ... then one of \(\displaystyle a\) and \(\displaystyle r\) is a unit ... Now, \(\displaystyle a|p \Longrightarrow p = ra\) for some \(\displaystyle r \in R\)

So then we have that:

\(\displaystyle p\) irreducible and \(\displaystyle p = ra \Longrightarrow\) one of \(\displaystyle a\) and \(\displaystyle r\) is a unit ...

If \(\displaystyle r\) is a unit then \(\displaystyle a\) and \(\displaystyle p\) are associates ... ...

... otherwise \(\displaystyle a\) is a unit ...
Can someone confirm that this is correct ... or alternatively point out shortcomings and errors in the analysis ...

Peter
 
  • #3
I have this solution for you.

First, a notation:
$a\sim b$ for $a,b\in R$ iff $a$ and $b$ are associates iff there is a unit $u\in R$ such that $a=ub$.
$\sim$ is an equivalence relation.

R is a PID and commutative.
Given $a\mid p$ and $(p)$ is an prime ideal. And you want to prove that $a\sim p$ or $a\sim 1$ ($a$ is a unit).

$a\mid p$, so there is a $x\in R$ such that $p=xa$, this means that $xa\in (p)$.
$(p)$ is a prime ideal thus (1) $a\in (p)$ or (2) $x\in (p)$

Suppose (1) $a\in (p)$, then there is an $r\in R$ such that $a=rp$.
Then $p=xrp$, and because $R$ is a domain, $xr=1$, i.e., $x$ is a unit and $a\sim p$.

Suppose (2) $x\in (p)$, then there is an $s\in R$ such that $x=sp$.
Then $p=asp$, and because $R$ is a domain, $as=1$, i.e., $a$ is a unit and $a\sim 1$ $\Box$

You fill in the rest of the proof.
 
  • #4
steenis said:
I have this solution for you.

First, a notation:
$a\sim b$ for $a,b\in R$ iff $a$ and $b$ are associates iff there is a unit $u\in R$ such that $a=ub$.
$\sim$ is an equivalence relation.

R is a PID and commutative.
Given $a\mid p$ and $(p)$ is an prime ideal. And you want to prove that $a\sim p$ or $a\sim 1$ ($a$ is a unit).

$a\mid p$, so there is a $x\in R$ such that $p=xa$, this means that $xa\in (p)$.
$(p)$ is a prime ideal thus (1) $a\in (p)$ or (2) $x\in (p)$

Suppose (1) $a\in (p)$, then there is an $r\in R$ such that $a=rp$.
Then $p=xrp$, and because $R$ is a domain, $xr=1$, i.e., $x$ is a unit and $a\sim p$.

Suppose (2) $x\in (p)$, then there is an $s\in R$ such that $x=sp$.
Then $p=asp$, and because $R$ is a domain, $as=1$, i.e., $a$ is a unit and $a\sim 1$ $\Box$

You fill in the rest of the proof.
Thanks Steenis ... appreciate your help ...

Just working through your post now ...

Peter
 

FAQ: Prime and Maximal Ideals in PIDs .... Rotman, AMA Theorem 5.12

What is a PID (Principal Ideal Domain)?

A PID is an integral domain in which every ideal is generated by a single element. This means that every ideal in a PID can be written as a multiple of a single element, called a generator. Examples of PIDs include the ring of integers and polynomial rings over a field.

What is the difference between prime ideals and maximal ideals?

A prime ideal is an ideal that, when multiplied with any other ideal, produces a subset of the original ideal. A maximal ideal is an ideal that is not properly contained in any other ideal. In other words, a maximal ideal cannot be extended any further. In a PID, every maximal ideal is also a prime ideal.

What is the significance of prime and maximal ideals in a PID?

Prime and maximal ideals are important in PIDs because they give us a way to factor elements into irreducible components. This is similar to how prime numbers cannot be factored any further in the integers. In a PID, prime and maximal ideals correspond to irreducible elements and prime elements, respectively.

What is the AMA Theorem 5.12 in relation to prime and maximal ideals in PIDs?

The AMA Theorem 5.12 (also known as the Artin–Mazur Theorem) states that in a PID, every ideal can be uniquely factored into a product of prime ideals. This means that the decomposition of an ideal into its prime ideals is unique, up to order and multiplication by units (invertible elements).

Can prime and maximal ideals exist in other types of rings?

Yes, prime and maximal ideals can exist in other types of rings, but they may not have the same properties as in PIDs. For example, in general rings, prime ideals may not necessarily be maximal, and maximal ideals may not necessarily be prime. However, in a PID, every maximal ideal is also a prime ideal.

Back
Top