Prime Factorization Theorem and Number Systems

In summary, the Prime Factorization Theorem is a mathematical concept that states every composite number can be expressed as a unique product of prime numbers. It is important because it allows us to break down large numbers into their smallest factors, making calculations easier. A prime number is a positive integer with only 1 and itself as factors. To find the prime factors of a number, you can use prime factorization. Prime factorization is also important in understanding and working with different number systems, as the prime factors determine a number's place value in these systems.
  • #1
e2m2a
359
14
TL;DR Summary
What does it mean that there are some number systems where the prime factorization theorem does not hold?
If you go to "The Abel Prize Interview 2016 with Andrew Wiles" on YouTube, there is a statement made by Andrew Wiles beginning at about 4:10 and ending about 4:54 where he mentions there are some new number systems possible where the fundamental theorem of arithmetic does not hold. I don't understand how this is possible. Can someone please explain what he meant by this and what number systems he is talking about?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
e2m2a said:
Summary:: What does it mean that there are some number systems where the prime factorization theorem does not hold?

If you go to "The Abel Prize Interview 2016 with Andrew Wiles" on YouTube, there is a statement made by Andrew Wiles beginning at about 4:10 and ending about 4:54 where he mentions there are some new number systems possible where the fundamental theorem of arithmetic does not hold. I don't understand how this is possible. Can someone please explain what he meant by this and what number systems he is talking about?
Could you give us the link? At least to those who are willing to watch almost an hour of content only to guess what somebody else might have possibly meant.

##\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]## is a ring without prime factorization, because ##2\cdot 3=(1+\sqrt{-5})\cdot(1-\sqrt{-5})## are two different representations with irreducible factors.
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk
  • #3
fresh_42 said:
##\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]## is a ring without prime factorization, because ##2\cdot 3=(1+\sqrt{-5})\cdot(1-\sqrt{-5})## are two different representations with irreducible factors.
If you are not familiar with this notation then note that ##\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]## is an example of a quadratic integer ring; specifically it is the 'number system' whose elements ## w ## are defined by two (ordinary) integers ## (a, b) ## such that ## w = a + b \sqrt{-5} ##.

As @fresh_42 states, in this number system the number ## (6, 0) ## is an example of a number that has two distinct irreducible ('prime') factorizations: ## (2, 0) (3, 0) ## and ## (1, 1) (1, -1) ##.
 
  • Informative
Likes Janosh89
  • #4
fresh_42 said:
Could you give us the link? At least to those who are willing to watch almost an hour of content only to guess what somebody else might have possibly meant.

##\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]## is a ring without prime factorization, because ##2\cdot 3=(1+\sqrt{-5})\cdot(1-\sqrt{-5})## are two different representations with irreducible factors.
 
  • #5
Another one is the a 2×2 matrix that has all the same integer entries. Will not have a fundamental theorem of arithmetic, I think the only unique factorization is a matrix of -1 or 1. There is a paper in the MAA Journal math monthly for more information about matrix number theory.
 
  • #6
e2m2a said:
Summary:: What does it mean that there are some number systems where the prime factorization theorem does not hold?

If you go to "The Abel Prize Interview 2016 with Andrew Wiles" on YouTube, there is a statement made by Andrew Wiles beginning at about 4:10 and ending about 4:54 where he mentions there are some new number systems possible where the fundamental theorem of arithmetic does not hold. I don't understand how this is possible. Can someone please explain what he meant by this and what number systems he is talking about?
The example given by @fresh_42 is exactly what Wiles is talking about. The rings of integers in number fields do not always have unique factorization. If they did Fermat's last thereom would have been much easier to prove.
 
Back
Top