DOCSLIB.ORG

6. PID and UFD Let R Be a Commutative Ring. Recall That a Non-Unit X ∈ R Is Called Irreducible If X Cannot Be Written As A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6. PID and UFD Let R Be a Commutative Ring. Recall That a Non-Unit X ∈ R Is Called Irreducible If X Cannot Be Written As A 6. PID and UFD Let R be a commutative ring. Recall that a non-unit x R is called irreducible if x cannot be written as a product of two non-unit elements of R i.e.∈x = ab implies either a is an unit or b is an unit. Also recall that a domain R is called a principal ideal domain or a PID if every ideal in R can be generated by one element, i.e. is principal. 6.1. Lemma. (a) Let R be a commutative domain. Then prime elements in R are irreducible. (b) Let R be a PID. Then an irreducible in R is a prime element. Proof. (a) Let (p) be a prime ideal in R. If possible suppose p = uv.Thenuv (p), so either u (p)orv (p), if u (p), then u = cp,socv = 1, that is v is an unit. Similarly,∈ if v (p), then∈ u is an∈ unit. ∈ ∈(b) Let p R be irreducible. Suppose ab (p). Since R is a PID, the ideal (a, p)hasa generator, say∈ x, that is, (x)=(a, p). Then ∈p (x), so p = xu for some u R. Since p is irreducible, either u or x must be an unit and we∈ consider these two cases seperately:∈ In the first case, when u is an unit, then x = u−1p,soa (x) (p), that is, p divides a.Inthe second case, when x is a unit, then (a, p)=(1).So(∈ ab,⊆ pb)=(b). But (ab, pb) (p). So (b) (p), that is p divides b. ⊆ ! ⊆ Because of the above result, we shall not distinguish between prime elements and irre- ducible elements in a PID. 6.2.ExamplesofPIDs:Let k be a field. Then we have seen k[x] is a PID. Also Z is a PID. A little later, we shall prove that Z[i]andZ[e2πi/3] are examples of PID. We have also seen in homework exercise that Z[√ 5] is not a PID. Also one easily see that k[x, y] is not a PID, since one can prove that the− ideal (x, y) cannot be generated by a single element. 6.3. Definition. Let R be a ring and a , ,a R. Then the ideal (a , ,a )hasa 1 ··· n ∈ 1 ··· n generator x. Verify that x divides each aj and if y is some element of R that divides each a ,theny divides x.Sowesaythatx is the g.c.d. of a , ,a . Since the generator of a j 1 ··· n principal ideal is unique up to units, the gcd of a1, ,an is unique upto units. We say that two elements a and b in a PID are relatively prime,··· if their g.c.d. is 1. We repeat that when we say d is the greatest common divisor of a1 and a2, it simply means that d is a generator for the ideal (a1,a2), that is, (d)=dR =(a1,a2). So the gcd d can be written in the form d = ra + sa for some r, s R. 1 2 ∈ 6.4. Definition. A commutative ring R is called Noetherian if given any increasing sequence of ideals I I I in R, there exists a natural number n such that I = I = 1 ⊆ 2 ⊆ 3 ⊆ ··· n n+1 In+2 = .Inwords,wesaythatR is Noetherian if any increasing sequence of ideals in R stabilizes.··· 6.5. Lemma. APIDisNoetherian. Proof. Let R be a PID. Let (a ) (a ) (a ) be a increasing sequence of ideals in 1 ⊆ 2 ⊆ 3 ⊆ ··· R. Then verify that I = (ai) is an ideal, so there exists a R such that I =(a). There is a j 1suchthata (a ∪). It follows that (a)=(a )=(a ∈)= . ! ≥ ∈ j j j+1 ··· 6.6. Definition. A domain R is called an unique factorization domain or an UFD if every nonzero element can be written, uniquely upto units as a product of irreducible elements. 6.7. Theorem. Every PID is an UFD. 16 Proof. Fix a a R. We want to write a as a product of primes (equivalently irreducibles) and show that∈ such a decomposition is unique upto permutation of the prime factors and upto units. Step 1: Any non-unit a is divisible by an irreducible element. Suppose not. Since a is not irreducible write a = a b where a ,b are non-units. Since a a, a is not irreducible, so 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 write a1 = a2b2 where a1,b1 are non-units. Continuing this way we get a strictly increasing infinite sequence of ideals (a1) ! (a2) ! (a3) ! which, is not possible by lemma 6.5. This proves step 1. ··· Step 2: Any a is a product of irreducibles and an unit. Suppose not. By step 1, write a = p1c1 where p1 is an irreducible. Then c1 is not a unit. So write c1 = p2c2 where p2 is irreducible. Continuing this way we get a sequence (c1) ! (c2) ! (c3) ! which, is not possible by lemma 6.5. So This proves step 2. ··· Step 3: By step 2 we can write a = p p p where p are irreducible elements, not 1 2 ··· r i necessarily all distinct. Let a = p1p2 pr = q1 qs be two such decompositions. Each qj is a prime and q p p ,henceq p···for some ···i,henceq = u p for some unit u . Similarly j | 1 ··· r j | i j j i j each pi is equal to some qj upto a unit. If there are more p’s than q’s then canceling all the q’s will yield a product of p ’s equal to an unit which is impossible. So r = s and pi and qi are same upto units and upto permutation. ! 6.8. Remark. The rings Z, k[x], Z[i], Z[ω] are all UFD’s. This in particular proves that every integer can be written uniquely a a product of positive primes and 1andthatevery polynomial in one variable can be written as a product of irreducible polynomials± that are unique upto a scalar. Let R be an UFD and a R. We can write a = pe(p) where the product is over distinct ∈ p primes of R and almost all e(p) is zero. The numbers! e(p) is uniquely determined by a and p.Infacte(p) is the largest integer n such that pn a. This is because a′ = a/pe(p) is a ′ e(p|)+1 product over primes different from p,sop " a , i.e. p " a. We write e(p)=ordp(a). 6.9. Lemma (Exercise). Let R be a PID and a, b, c R.Suppose(a, b)=(1)and a bc. Then a c. ∈ | | Proof. Since (a, b) = (1), there exists r, t R such that ar + bt =1.Soc = acr + bct. Since a divides both acr and bct, it follows that∈a divides c. ! 6.10.ExerciseLet I, J be two ideals in a commutative ring R.Letx , ,x be a 1 ··· m set of generators for I and let y1, ,yn be a set of generators for J.Thenshowthat x y : i =1, ,m,j =1, ,n is··· a set of generators for the ideal IJ. { i j ··· ··· } 6.11.Exercise:Let R = Z[√ 5] = a + b√ 5: a, b Z . (a) Let I =(2, 1+√ 5) (recall− { that this− denotes∈ the} ideal in R generated by 2 and (1 + √ 5)). Let J =(2, 1− √ 5). Show that I = J.Showthat2R = IJ = I2. (b) Show− that R/I Z/−2Z −and conclude that I is a maximal ideal in R, hence a prime ideal. ≃ (c) Show that I is not a principal ideal. (Hint: Let u, v R.Observethatifu divides v in R,then u 2 divides v 2 in Z). ∈ | | | | 17 solution. (a) Show that 2 I and 1 √ 5=2 (1 + √ 5) I,soJ I. Again, 2 J ∈ − − − − ∈ ⊆ ∈ and (1 + √5) = 2 (1 √ 5) J,soI J.SoI = J. By the previous exercise, we know IJ =(2 2, 2(1+√− 5),−2(1 −√ ∈5), (1+√⊆5)(1 √ 5)) = (4, 2+2√ 5, 2 2√ 5, 6). Note that all· the four generators− − in the− ideal 2R−.soIJ− −2R.Ontheotherhand2=6− − − 4 IJ, so 2R IJ. It follows that I2 = IJ =2R. ⊆ − ∈ (b)⊆ If R = I, then we would have 1 = 1.1 I2, which would imply R = I2 =2R, but then 1 = 2x for some x R, which would∈ imply 1/2 R which is not true. So R = I. Also note that (1 + √∈ 5) I I2, since (1 + √ 5)∈/2 / R.SoI is a proper ideal̸ in R and I2 is a proper subset− ∈ of\I.NowR/I2 =−R/2R.∈ Verify that R/2R = 0+2R, 1+2R, √ 5+2R, 1+√ 5+2R and these four cosets are distinct, so R/2R =4. 2 { − − } R/I 2 | 2| By the third isomorphism theorem, we have R/I 2 . Since I = I ,wehave I/I > 1, ≃ I/I ̸ | | so R/I is a proper factor of 4, so R/I = 1 or 2. Finally R = I implies R/I =1,soR/I has| size| 2. Verify that the only commutative| | ring of size 2 is ̸Z/2Z.SoR/I| |Z̸ /2Z. (c) If z =(α + iβ) R, we write z 2 = zz¯ = α2 + β2 and call it the norm≃ of z.Note that the norm of every∈ element of R is| | an integer. Suppose u divides v in R.Thenu = vx for some x R.So¯u =¯vx¯,henceuu¯ = vvx¯ x¯ or u 2 = v 2 x 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Varieties of Quasigroups Determined by Short Strictly Balanced Identities
    Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal Jaroslav Ježek; Tomáš Kepka Varieties of quasigroups determined by short strictly balanced identities Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, Vol. 29 (1979), No. 1, 84–96 Persistent URL: http://dml.cz/dmlcz/101580 Terms of use: © Institute of Mathematics AS CR, 1979 Institute of Mathematics of the Czech Academy of Sciences provides access to digitized documents strictly for personal use. Each copy of any part of this document must contain these Terms of use. This document has been digitized, optimized for electronic delivery and stamped with digital signature within the project DML-CZ: The Czech Digital Mathematics Library http://dml.cz Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, 29 (104) 1979, Praha VARIETIES OF QUASIGROUPS DETERMINED BY SHORT STRICTLY BALANCED IDENTITIES JAROSLAV JEZEK and TOMAS KEPKA, Praha (Received March 11, 1977) In this paper we find all varieties of quasigroups determined by a set of strictly balanced identities of length ^ 6 and study their properties. There are eleven such varieties: the variety of all quasigroups, the variety of commutative quasigroups, the variety of groups, the variety of abelian groups and, moreover, seven varieties which have not been studied in much detail until now. In Section 1 we describe these varieties. A survey of some significant properties of arbitrary varieties is given in Section 2; in Sections 3, 4 and 5 we assign these properties to the eleven varieties mentioned above and in Section 6 we give a table summarizing the results. 1. STRICTLY BALANCED QUASIGROUP IDENTITIES OF LENGTH £ 6 Quasigroups are considered as universal algebras with three binary operations •, /, \ (the class of all quasigroups is thus a variety).
    [Show full text]
  • Dedekind Domains
    Dedekind Domains Mathematics 601 In this note we prove several facts about Dedekind domains that we will use in the course of proving the Riemann-Roch theorem. The main theorem shows that if K=F is a finite extension and A is a Dedekind domain with quotient field F , then the integral closure of A in K is also a Dedekind domain. As we will see in the proof, we need various results from ring theory and field theory. We first recall some basic definitions and facts. A Dedekind domain is an integral domain B for which every nonzero ideal can be written uniquely as a product of prime ideals. Perhaps the main theorem about Dedekind domains is that a domain B is a Dedekind domain if and only if B is Noetherian, integrally closed, and dim(B) = 1. Without fully defining dimension, to say that a ring has dimension 1 says nothing more than nonzero prime ideals are maximal. Moreover, a Noetherian ring B is a Dedekind domain if and only if BM is a discrete valuation ring for every maximal ideal M of B. In particular, a Dedekind domain that is a local ring is a discrete valuation ring, and vice-versa. We start by mentioning two examples of Dedekind domains. Example 1. The ring of integers Z is a Dedekind domain. In fact, any principal ideal domain is a Dedekind domain since a principal ideal domain is Noetherian integrally closed, and nonzero prime ideals are maximal. Alternatively, it is easy to prove that in a principal ideal domain, every nonzero ideal factors uniquely into prime ideals.
    [Show full text]
  • Noncommutative Unique Factorization Domainso
    NONCOMMUTATIVE UNIQUE FACTORIZATION DOMAINSO BY P. M. COHN 1. Introduction. By a (commutative) unique factorization domain (UFD) one usually understands an integral domain R (with a unit-element) satisfying the following three conditions (cf. e.g. Zariski-Samuel [16]): Al. Every element of R which is neither zero nor a unit is a product of primes. A2. Any two prime factorizations of a given element have the same number of factors. A3. The primes occurring in any factorization of a are completely deter- mined by a, except for their order and for multiplication by units. If R* denotes the semigroup of nonzero elements of R and U is the group of units, then the classes of associated elements form a semigroup R* / U, and A1-3 are equivalent to B. The semigroup R*jU is free commutative. One may generalize the notion of UFD to noncommutative rings by taking either A-l3 or B as starting point. It is obvious how to do this in case B, although the class of rings obtained is rather narrow and does not even include all the commutative UFD's. This is indicated briefly in §7, where examples are also given of noncommutative rings satisfying the definition. However, our principal aim is to give a definition of a noncommutative UFD which includes the commutative case. Here it is better to start from A1-3; in order to find the precise form which such a definition should take we consider the simplest case, that of noncommutative principal ideal domains. For these rings one obtains a unique factorization theorem simply by reinterpreting the Jordan- Holder theorem for right .R-modules on one generator (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • SOME ALGEBRAIC DEFINITIONS and CONSTRUCTIONS Definition
    SOME ALGEBRAIC DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTIONS Definition 1. A monoid is a set M with an element e and an associative multipli- cation M M M for which e is a two-sided identity element: em = m = me for all m M×. A−→group is a monoid in which each element m has an inverse element m−1, so∈ that mm−1 = e = m−1m. A homomorphism f : M N of monoids is a function f such that f(mn) = −→ f(m)f(n) and f(eM )= eN . A “homomorphism” of any kind of algebraic structure is a function that preserves all of the structure that goes into the definition. When M is commutative, mn = nm for all m,n M, we often write the product as +, the identity element as 0, and the inverse of∈m as m. As a convention, it is convenient to say that a commutative monoid is “Abelian”− when we choose to think of its product as “addition”, but to use the word “commutative” when we choose to think of its product as “multiplication”; in the latter case, we write the identity element as 1. Definition 2. The Grothendieck construction on an Abelian monoid is an Abelian group G(M) together with a homomorphism of Abelian monoids i : M G(M) such that, for any Abelian group A and homomorphism of Abelian monoids−→ f : M A, there exists a unique homomorphism of Abelian groups f˜ : G(M) A −→ −→ such that f˜ i = f. ◦ We construct G(M) explicitly by taking equivalence classes of ordered pairs (m,n) of elements of M, thought of as “m n”, under the equivalence relation generated by (m,n) (m′,n′) if m + n′ = −n + m′.
    [Show full text]
  • Right Ideals of a Ring and Sublanguages of Science
    RIGHT IDEALS OF A RING AND SUBLANGUAGES OF SCIENCE Javier Arias Navarro Ph.D. In General Linguistics and Spanish Language http://www.javierarias.info/ Abstract Among Zellig Harris’s numerous contributions to linguistics his theory of the sublanguages of science probably ranks among the most underrated. However, not only has this theory led to some exhaustive and meaningful applications in the study of the grammar of immunology language and its changes over time, but it also illustrates the nature of mathematical relations between chunks or subsets of a grammar and the language as a whole. This becomes most clear when dealing with the connection between metalanguage and language, as well as when reflecting on operators. This paper tries to justify the claim that the sublanguages of science stand in a particular algebraic relation to the rest of the language they are embedded in, namely, that of right ideals in a ring. Keywords: Zellig Sabbetai Harris, Information Structure of Language, Sublanguages of Science, Ideal Numbers, Ernst Kummer, Ideals, Richard Dedekind, Ring Theory, Right Ideals, Emmy Noether, Order Theory, Marshall Harvey Stone. §1. Preliminary Word In recent work (Arias 2015)1 a line of research has been outlined in which the basic tenets underpinning the algebraic treatment of language are explored. The claim was there made that the concept of ideal in a ring could account for the structure of so- called sublanguages of science in a very precise way. The present text is based on that work, by exploring in some detail the consequences of such statement. §2. Introduction Zellig Harris (1909-1992) contributions to the field of linguistics were manifold and in many respects of utmost significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Factorization in the Self-Idealization of a Pid 3
    FACTORIZATION IN THE SELF-IDEALIZATION OF A PID GYU WHAN CHANG AND DANIEL SMERTNIG a b Abstract. Let D be a principal ideal domain and R(D) = { | 0 a a, b ∈ D} be its self-idealization. It is known that R(D) is a commutative noetherian ring with identity, and hence R(D) is atomic (i.e., every nonzero nonunit can be written as a finite product of irreducible elements). In this paper, we completely characterize the irreducible elements of R(D). We then use this result to show how to factorize each nonzero nonunit of R(D) into irreducible elements. We show that every irreducible element of R(D) is a primary element, and we determine the system of sets of lengths of R(D). 1. Introduction Let R be a commutative noetherian ring. Then R is atomic, which means that every nonzero nonunit element of R can be written as a finite product of atoms (irreducible elements) of R. The study of non-unique factorizations has found a lot of attention. Indeed this area has developed into a flourishing branch of Commutative Algebra (see some surveys and books [3, 6, 8, 5]). However, the focus so far was almost entirely on commutative integral domains, and only first steps were done to study factorization properties in rings with zero-divisors (see [2, 7]). In the present note we study factorizations in a subring of a matrix ring over a principal ideal domain, which will turn out to be a commutative noetherian ring with zero-divisors. To begin with, we fix our notation and terminology.
    [Show full text]
  • Ring (Mathematics) 1 Ring (Mathematics)
    Ring (mathematics) 1 Ring (mathematics) In mathematics, a ring is an algebraic structure consisting of a set together with two binary operations usually called addition and multiplication, where the set is an abelian group under addition (called the additive group of the ring) and a monoid under multiplication such that multiplication distributes over addition.a[›] In other words the ring axioms require that addition is commutative, addition and multiplication are associative, multiplication distributes over addition, each element in the set has an additive inverse, and there exists an additive identity. One of the most common examples of a ring is the set of integers endowed with its natural operations of addition and multiplication. Certain variations of the definition of a ring are sometimes employed, and these are outlined later in the article. Polynomials, represented here by curves, form a ring under addition The branch of mathematics that studies rings is known and multiplication. as ring theory. Ring theorists study properties common to both familiar mathematical structures such as integers and polynomials, and to the many less well-known mathematical structures that also satisfy the axioms of ring theory. The ubiquity of rings makes them a central organizing principle of contemporary mathematics.[1] Ring theory may be used to understand fundamental physical laws, such as those underlying special relativity and symmetry phenomena in molecular chemistry. The concept of a ring first arose from attempts to prove Fermat's last theorem, starting with Richard Dedekind in the 1880s. After contributions from other fields, mainly number theory, the ring notion was generalized and firmly established during the 1920s by Emmy Noether and Wolfgang Krull.[2] Modern ring theory—a very active mathematical discipline—studies rings in their own right.
    [Show full text]
  • MATH 404: ARITHMETIC 1. Divisibility and Factorization After Learning To
    MATH 404: ARITHMETIC S. PAUL SMITH 1. Divisibility and Factorization After learning to count, add, and subtract, children learn to multiply and divide. The notion of division makes sense in any ring and much of the initial impetus for the development of abstract algebra arose from problems of division√ and factoriza- tion, especially in rings closely related to the integers such as Z[ d]. In the next several chapters we will follow this historical development by studying arithmetic in these and similar rings. √ To see that there are some serious issues to be addressed notice that in Z[ −5] the number 6 factorizes as a product of irreducibles in two different ways, namely √ √ 6 = 2.3 = (1 + −5)(1 − −5). 1 It isn’t hard to show these factors are irreducible but we postpone√ that for now . The key point for the moment is to note that this implies that Z[ −5] is not a unique factorization domain. This is in stark contrast to the integers. Since our teenage years we have taken for granted the fact that every integer can be written as a product of primes, which in Z are the same things as irreducibles, in a unique way. To emphasize the fact that there are questions to be understood, let us mention that Z[i] is a UFD. Even so, there is the question which primes in Z remain prime in Z[i]? This is a question with a long history: Fermat proved in ??? that a prime p in Z remains prime in Z[i] if and only if it is ≡ 3(mod 4).√ It is then natural to ask for each integer d, which primes in Z remain prime in Z[ d]? These and closely related questions lie behind much of the material we cover in the next 30 or so pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Factorization in Domains
    Factors Primes and Irreducibles Factorization Ascending Chain Conditions Factorization in Domains Ryan C. Daileda Trinity University Modern Algebra II Daileda Factorization Factors Primes and Irreducibles Factorization Ascending Chain Conditions Divisibility and Factors Recall: Given a domain D and a; b 2 D, ajb , (9c 2 D)(b = ac); and we say a divides b or a is a factor of b. In terms of principal ideals: ajb , (b) ⊂ (a) u 2 D× , (u) = D , (8a 2 D)(uja) ajb and bja , (a) = (b) , (9u 2 D×)(a = bu) | {z } a;b are associates Daileda Factorization Factors Primes and Irreducibles Factorization Ascending Chain Conditions Examples 1 7j35 in Z since 35 = 7 · 5. 2 2 + 3i divides 13 in Z[i] since 13 = (2 + 3i)(2 − 3i). 3 If F is a field, a 2 F and f (X ) 2 F [X ] then f (a) = 0 , X − a divides f (X ) in F [X ]: p p 4 In Z[ −5], 2 + −5 is a factor of 9: p p 9 = (2 + −5)(2 − −5): Daileda Factorization Factors Primes and Irreducibles Factorization Ascending Chain Conditions Prime and Irreducible Elements Let D be a domain and D_ = D n (D× [ f0g). Motivated by arithmetic in Z, we make the following definitions. a 2 D_ is irreducible (or atomic) if a = bc with b; c 2 D implies b 2 D× or c 2 D×; a 2 D_ is prime if ajbc in D implies ajb or ajc. We will prefer \irreducible," but \atomic" is also common in the literature. Daileda Factorization Factors Primes and Irreducibles Factorization Ascending Chain Conditions Remarks 1 p 2 Z is \prime" in the traditional sense if and only if it is irreducible in the ring-theoretic sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Integral Closures of Ideals and Rings Irena Swanson
    Integral closures of ideals and rings Irena Swanson ICTP, Trieste School on Local Rings and Local Study of Algebraic Varieties 31 May–4 June 2010 I assume some background from Atiyah–MacDonald [2] (especially the parts on Noetherian rings, primary decomposition of ideals, ring spectra, Hilbert’s Basis Theorem, completions). In the first lecture I will present the basics of integral closure with very few proofs; the proofs can be found either in Atiyah–MacDonald [2] or in Huneke–Swanson [13]. Much of the rest of the material can be found in Huneke–Swanson [13], but the lectures contain also more recent material. Table of contents: Section 1: Integral closure of rings and ideals 1 Section 2: Integral closure of rings 8 Section 3: Valuation rings, Krull rings, and Rees valuations 13 Section 4: Rees algebras and integral closure 19 Section 5: Computation of integral closure 24 Bibliography 28 1 Integral closure of rings and ideals (How it arises, monomial ideals and algebras) Integral closure of a ring in an overring is a generalization of the notion of the algebraic closure of a field in an overfield: Definition 1.1 Let R be a ring and S an R-algebra containing R. An element x S is ∈ said to be integral over R if there exists an integer n and elements r1,...,rn in R such that n n 1 x + r1x − + + rn 1x + rn =0. ··· − This equation is called an equation of integral dependence of x over R (of degree n). The set of all elements of S that are integral over R is called the integral closure of R in S.
    [Show full text]
  • 9. Gauss Lemma Obviously It Would Be Nice to Have Some More General Methods of Proving That a Given Polynomial Is Irreducible. T
    9. Gauss Lemma Obviously it would be nice to have some more general methods of proving that a given polynomial is irreducible. The first is rather beau- tiful and due to Gauss. The basic idea is as follows. Suppose we are given a polynomial with integer coefficients. Then it is natural to also consider this polynomial over the rationals. Note that it is much easier to prove that this polynomial is irreducible over the integers than it is to prove that it is irreducible over the rationals. For example it is clear that x2 − 2 is irreducible overp the integers. In fact it is irreducible over the rationals as well, that is, 2 is not a rational number. First some definitions. Definition 9.1. Let R be a commutative ring and let a1; a2; : : : ; ak be a sequence of elements of R. The gcd of a1; a2; : : : ; ak is an element d 2 R such that (1) djai, for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k. 0 0 (2) If d jai, for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k, then d jd. Lemma 9.2. Let R be a UFD. Then the gcd of any sequence a1; a2; : : : ; ak of elements of R exists. Proof. There are two obvious ways to proceed. The first is to take a common factorisation of each ai into a product of powers of primes, as in the case k = 2. The second is to recursively construct the gcd, by setting di to be the gcd of di−1 and ai and taking d1 = a1. In this case d = dk will be a gcd for the whole sequence a1; a2; : : : ; ak.
    [Show full text]
  • 13. Dedekind Domains 117
    13. Dedekind Domains 117 13. Dedekind Domains In the last chapter we have mainly studied 1-dimensional regular local rings, i. e. geometrically the local properties of smooth points on curves. We now want to patch these local results together to obtain global statements about 1-dimensional rings (resp. curves) that are “locally regular”. The corresponding notion is that of a Dedekind domain. Definition 13.1 (Dedekind domains). An integral domain R is called Dedekind domain if it is Noetherian of dimension 1, and for all maximal ideals P E R the localization RP is a regular local ring. Remark 13.2 (Equivalent conditions for Dedekind domains). As a Dedekind domain R is an integral domain of dimension 1, its prime ideals are exactly the zero ideal and all maximal ideals. So every localization RP for a maximal ideal P is a 1-dimensional local ring. As these localizations are also Noetherian by Exercise 7.23, we can replace the requirement in Definition 13.1 that the local rings RP are regular by any of the equivalent conditions in Proposition 12.14. For example, a Dedekind domain is the same as a 1-dimensional Noetherian domain such that all localizations at maximal ideals are discrete valuation rings. This works particularly well for the normality condition as this is a local property and can thus be transferred to the whole ring: Lemma 13.3. A 1-dimensional Noetherian domain is a Dedekind domain if and only if it is normal. Proof. By Remark 13.2 and Proposition 12.14, a 1-dimensional Noetherian domain R is a Dedekind domain if and only if all localizations RP at a maximal ideal P are normal.
    [Show full text]