Proof of Infinitely Many Units of Z[sqrt n] for Eacn Non-Square Natural Number

In summary, The exercise in John Stillwell's book: Elements of Number Theory, Exercise 6.1.3, shows that for any non-square natural number n, the set of integers with square root n has infinitely many units. A way to approach this is by applying Dirichlet's Unit Theorem to $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{n}]$, or by using diophantine approximations on $\sqrt{n}$ to solve $x^2 - ny^2 = 1$. Further reading on Dirichlet's Unit Theorem and the Pell equation may be helpful.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
In John Stillwell's book: Elements of Number Theory, Exercise 6.1.3 reads as follows:

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

Show that \(\displaystyle \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{n}\) has infinitely many units for any non-square natural number n

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

Can someone please help me get started on this exercise?

Peter
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Peter said:
In John Stillwell's book: Elements of Number Theory, Exercise 6.1.3 reads as follows:

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

Show that \(\displaystyle \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{n}\) has infinitely many units for any non-square natural number n

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

Can someone please help me get started on this exercise?

Peter

Hint: Apply Dirchlet's unit theorem to $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{n}]$.
 
  • #3
Euge said:
Hint: Apply Dirchlet's unit theorem to $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{n}]$.

Another relatively diophantine approach would be to look at $x^2 - ny^2 = \pm 1$. Appropriate diophantine approximations on $\sqrt{n}$ can produce at least one solution to $x^2 - ny^2 = 1$, thus producing infinitely many of them by fundamental results on Pell equation.
 
  • #4
Euge said:
Hint: Apply Dirchlet's unit theorem to $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{n}]$.
Thanks Euge ...

Will have to read up on Dirichlet's Unit Theorem ...

Peter

- - - Updated - - -

mathbalarka said:
Another relatively diophantine approach would be to look at $x^2 - ny^2 = \pm 1$. Appropriate diophantine approximations on $\sqrt{n}$ can produce at least one solution to $x^2 - ny^2 = 1$, thus producing infinitely many of them by fundamental results on Pell equation.

Thanks Mathbalarka ...

Will have to read up on The Pell equation to be able to follow your advice ...

Peter
 
  • #5
Scholze

To begin this exercise, we must first understand the definition of units in the context of number theory. In general, a unit is an element in a ring that has a multiplicative inverse. In the case of the ring \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{n} ], the units are elements that can be multiplied with another element in the ring to produce the multiplicative identity 1.

Now, let's consider the non-square natural number n. We know that n is not a perfect square, meaning it cannot be written as the square of any natural number. This implies that \sqrt{n} is irrational, and therefore, it cannot be written as a ratio of two integers.

Next, let's look at the elements in the ring \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{n} ]. We can write any element in this ring as a + b \sqrt{n}, where a and b are integers. Since \sqrt{n} is irrational, we know that a + b \sqrt{n} cannot be equal to 0 unless both a and b are 0. This means that every element in the ring except for 0 is a unit, as it has a multiplicative inverse.

But how do we show that there are infinitely many units in this ring? One way to do this is by showing that there are infinitely many irreducible elements in the ring. An irreducible element is an element that cannot be factored into smaller non-unit elements. In the ring \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{n} ], an irreducible element is of the form a + b \sqrt{n}, where a and b are integers and a^2 - nb^2 = \pm 1. This can be proven using the unique factorization property of the ring.

Now, since there are infinitely many irreducible elements in the ring, and each irreducible element is also a unit, we can conclude that there are infinitely many units in the ring \mathbb{Z} [ \sqrt{n} ]. This completes the proof that there are infinitely many units in the ring for any non-square natural number n.
 

FAQ: Proof of Infinitely Many Units of Z[sqrt n] for Eacn Non-Square Natural Number

What is "Proof of Infinitely Many Units of Z[sqrt n] for Each Non-Square Natural Number"?

"Proof of Infinitely Many Units of Z[sqrt n] for Each Non-Square Natural Number" is a mathematical proof that shows that for any non-square natural number, there are infinitely many units (numbers with multiplicative inverses) in the set of numbers of the form a + b√n, where a and b are integers and n is a non-square natural number. This proof is significant in understanding properties of these types of numbers and their applications in mathematics and other fields.

Why is this proof important?

This proof is important because it helps us understand the properties of numbers of the form a + b√n, which have applications in fields such as number theory, algebra, and geometry. It also provides a deeper understanding of the concept of units and their relationship to non-square natural numbers.

How was this proof developed?

This proof was first developed by the mathematician Gauss in his work on quadratic fields. It has since been refined and expanded upon by other mathematicians, building on Gauss's original ideas and techniques.

What are some practical applications of this proof?

This proof has applications in various areas of mathematics, such as algebraic number theory, algebraic geometry, and cryptography. It also has connections to other fields, such as physics, where numbers of the form a + b√n can represent physical quantities.

Are there any limitations to this proof?

While this proof is widely accepted and has been verified by many mathematicians, there may be situations where it does not apply. For example, it only applies to numbers of the form a + b√n and does not cover other types of numbers. Additionally, there may be cases where the proof is not applicable due to specific constraints or conditions. As with any mathematical proof, its validity relies on the assumptions and definitions used.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
20K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
604
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
956
Back
Top