DOCSLIB.ORG

Polynomial Extensions of Commutative Rings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Polynomial Extensions of Commutative Rings By David A. Lieberman A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M a s t e r s in Sc ie n c e (M a t h e m a t ic s ) at the CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY - CHANNEL ISLANDS 2018 (C 2018 David Andrew Lieberman ALL RIGHTS RESERVED APPROVED FOR THE MATHEMATICS PROGRAM Dr. Jesse Elliott, Advisor Datr May 31, 2018 Dr. Roger Roybal Date May 2018 28, Dr. Brian Sittinger Date May 28 2018 A P P ROVED FOR THE UNIVERSITY Dr. Joseph Shapiro, AVP Extended University Date May 31, 2018 Acknowledgements This work could not have been done without the advisement and aid of my advisor, Dr. Jesse Elliott, from California State University Channel Islands. Thank you to Dr. Brian Sittinger and Dr. Roger Roybal for taking the time to be members of my thesis committee. Camarillo, California June 1, 2018 iv " “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. -Wayne Gretzky” " -Michael Scott -David Lieberman 1 Abstract This paper aims to generalize results on single variable polynomial rings over commutative rings with zerodivisors to the case of polynomial rings in arbitrarily many variables. Given a commutative R,ring we give necessary and sufficient conditions for the ring of polynomials with coefficients in R in arbitrarily many variables to be a PVMR and Krull ring. In answering these questions, we make use of the t and v operations on ideals as a means of characterizing these rings. We also give conjectures on necessary and sufficient conditions for an arbitrary polynomial ring to be a Dedekind ring, a UFR, and integrally closed. 2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Background 7 2.1 Integral D om a in s......................................................................... 7 2.2 Some Useful Results On D om ain s............................................. 14 2.3 Commutative Rings with Zerodivisors...................................... 15 2.4 Semistar Operations ................................................................... 19 2.5 Some Results Due to H uckaba................................................... 23 2.6 Some Results Due to E llio t t ...................................................... 26 2.7 Polynomial Ring Extensions in a Single Variable................... 27 3 Arbitrary Polynomial Extensions 31 3.1 When is R[Xx] a PVMR? ......................................................... 32 3.2 When is R[Xx] a Krull Ring? ................................................... 36 3.3 Future W ork................................................................................... 38 3 1 Introduction In this paper, we investigate properties of polynomial extensions of commu­ tative rings with unity. We begin by giving a brief overview of the basics of ideal theory with respect to integral domains. This will motivate the work done in subsequent chapters on arbitrary commutative rings with zerodivi- sors. The background work we discuss in Chapter 2 will allow us to arrive at our main results in chapter 3. We begin Chapter 2 by giving a brief overview of multiplicative ideal theory as it relates to integral domains. Specifically, we focus on the use star-operations (in particular thed, v, t, and w operations) to give new and alternative definitions to classes of integral domains. As it turns out, star- operations work as a powerful tool in providing definitions of the different types of integral domains in a way that connects these classes together. This allows us to give definitions for Prufer domains, Krull domains, Prufer v-Multiplication domains, UFD’s, and Dedekind domains. 4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION We continue Chapter 2 by generalizing much of what we show concerning integral domains to the realm of commutative rings. After finding analogous definitions for quotient fields and fractional ideals, we are able to generalize each of the previously discussed classes of integral domains to their com­ mutative rings (with zerodivisors) counterparts. This is done quite readily by generalizing the notion of star-operations on the fractional ideals of a domain to the notion of semistar-operations on the Kaplansky fractional ideals of a commutative ring. Semistar-operations lend their hand to defin­ ing classes of commutative rings in much the same way as star-operations do for domains. This tool will allow us to give analogous definitions for Prufer rings, Krull rings, Prufer v-Multiplication rings, UFr’s, Dedekind rings, and others. We conclude Chapter 2 with a review of known results specifically con­ cerning the case of polynomial rings in a single variable over a commutative ring. For a commutative ringR, necessary and sufficient conditions have been studied and found for the ring R [X ] to be a Krull ring, a Prufer v-Multiplication ring, or a unique factorization ring (see [3], [12], and [4] respectively). We recount these results at the end of Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, we tackle the main goal of this paper: given an arbitrary 5 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION set of determinates X\ = ( X aI aga and a commutative ringR, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions forR [X a] to be a PVMR, a Krull ring, a Dedekind ring, a UFR, or integrally closed, and, in particular, we succeed in proving the following two theorems: Theorem 1.0.1. The ring R [X a] is a PVMR if and only if R is a PVMR and T (R) is von Neumann regular. Theorem 1.0.2. If R is a commutative ring, then R[X a] is a Krull ring if and only if R is a finite product of Krull domains. We also present some progress made on finding necessary and sufficient conditions for R [X a] to be a Dedekind ring, and we present some conjectures pertaining to the case of UFRs and integral closedness. 6 2 Background 2.1 Integral Domains As a motivation for what is to follow in our treatment of commutative rings with zerodivisors, we first examine some properties of integral domains. A useful tool for the study of integral domains is the concept of star operations. Star operations, originally introduced by Krull in [6] as ’-operations, are self-maps on the set of fractional ideals of a domainD, which we denote as F (D). For the remainder of this chapter, D will be an integral domain with quotient field K . We also will, on occasion, referintegral domains simply as domains. Definition 2.1.1. A fractional ideal of D is a D-submodule I of K such that, for some nonzero a G D, a l C D. We say that I is invertible if there is some J G F (D) such that IJ = D. 7 C H A P T E R 2. B A C K G R O U N D A useful notation for our work moving forward will be that of the ideal quotient (also called the colon ideal). Given a fractional ideal I of a domain D, we are able to define a generalized notion of the inverse of an ideal. Definition 2.1.2. Let I be a fractional ideal of an integral domain D, with quotient field K . We define (D :K I ) = {x G K : x I C D }, which we denote as I-1. Proposition 2.1.3. If I G F (D) is invertible, then I I-1 = D. Proof. Let I G F (D ) be invertible, with IJ = D for some J G F(D). Then for any arbitrarily fixedj G J , we have ij G D for all i G I . Thus j G I -1 , and furthermore J C I -1 . Therefore IJ = D C I I -1 . Observe that, by definition, x I C D for all x G I -1 . Thus I I -1 C D. Therefore we conclude that I I -1 = D. ■ We continue by defining star operations on the fractional ideals of on integral domain D. These will prove to be a valuable tool for our work mov­ ing forward. Namely, they will serve to classify different types of integral domains through properties of their fractional ideals. 8 2.1. INTEGRAL DOMAINS Definition 2.1.4. A star operation on an integral domain D is a unary operation * : F (D) ^ F (D), with I ^ ) := I * such that for all fractional ideals I, J E F(D), i. ) I C J implies I * C J * (order preserving), ii. ) I C I * (expansive), iii. ) (I*)* = I * (idempotent), iv. ) I* J* C (IJ)* (sub-multiplicative), v.) D* = D (unital). Definition 2.1.5. We .say a fractional ideal I E F(D) is ^-closed if I satisfies the equation I = I *, and we say I is ^-invertible if there is some J E F(D) such that (IJ)* = D. The specific example of a star operation that we make note of is the trivial star operation, which is called thed operation. That is, for a frac­ tional ideal of an integral domain D, we define the mapd : F(D) ^ F(D) by d(I) = I, which we denote by d(I) = I d. Within the scope of this pa­ per, the two star operations of greatest use will be the t-operation and the v-operation, which we define along with the w-operation. 9 CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND For the following definitions, let I be a fractional ideal of an integral domain D Definition 2.1.6. The v-operation, or v-closure star operation is the map v : F (D) ^ F(D), denoted by v (I) = I'v, and defined by I V = ( / - i)- i. Definition 2.1.7. The t-operation, or t-closure star operation is the map t : F (D) ^ F(D), denoted by t(I) = I*, and defined by I * ^ ^ {J v : J G F (D) is finitely generated and J C I } . Definition 2.1.8. The w-operation, or w -closure star operation is the map w : F(D) ^ F (D), denoted by w (I) = I w, and defined by Iw = U {(I J) : J G F(D) is finitely generated and Jv = D }.
Recommended publications
  • MAXIMAL and NON-MAXIMAL ORDERS 1. Introduction Let K Be A

    MAXIMAL and NON-MAXIMAL ORDERS 1. Introduction Let K Be A

    MAXIMAL AND NON-MAXIMAL ORDERS LUKE WOLCOTT Abstract. In this paper we compare and contrast various prop- erties of maximal and non-maximal orders in the ring of integers of a number field. 1. Introduction Let K be a number field, and let OK be its ring of integers. An order in K is a subring R ⊆ OK such that OK /R is finite as a quotient of abelian groups. From this definition, it’s clear that there is a unique maximal order, namely OK . There are many properties that all orders in K share, but there are also differences. The main difference between a non-maximal order and the maximal order is that OK is integrally closed, but every non-maximal order is not. The result is that many of the nice properties of Dedekind domains do not hold in arbitrary orders. First we describe properties common to both maximal and non-maximal orders. In doing so, some useful results and constructions given in class for OK are generalized to arbitrary orders. Then we de- scribe a few important differences between maximal and non-maximal orders, and give proofs or counterexamples. Several proofs covered in lecture or the text will not be reproduced here. Throughout, all rings are commutative with unity. 2. Common Properties Proposition 2.1. The ring of integers OK of a number field K is a Noetherian ring, a finitely generated Z-algebra, and a free abelian group of rank n = [K : Q]. Proof: In class we showed that OK is a free abelian group of rank n = [K : Q], and is a ring.
  • Polynomial Rings

    Polynomial Rings

    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 31, No. 1, January 1972 A NOTE ON FINITE DIMENSIONAL SUBPJNGS OF POLYNOMIAL RINGS PAUL EAKIN Abstract. Let k be a field and {Xx}xea a family of indeterminates over k. We show that if A is a ring of Knill dimension d such that k c A c. k[{Ax}xe^] then there are elements Yt,''■' •, Y* which are algebraically independent over k and a fc-isomorphism <f>such that k c. (f>(A)c k[Ylt- ■■ , Yd]. This is used to show that a one- dimensional ring A which satisfies the above conditions is necessarily an affine ring over k and is necessarily a polynomial ring if it is nor- mal. In addition we show that such a ring A is a normal affine ring of transcendence degree two over k if and only if it is a two-dimensional Krull ring such that each essential valuation of A has residue field transcendental over k. Introduction. In [EZ] Evyatar and Zaks ask whether a Dedekind domain which is caught between a field k and the polynomials in a finite number of variables over k is necessarily a polynomial ring. Here we show that the answer is affirmative with no restriction on the number of variables and without assuming the ring satisfies all three of the Noether axioms on a Dedekind domain (it need only be one dimensional and integrally closed). In addition we give some general results which relate subrings of the polynomials over a field to noetherian rings. The author is indebted to W.
  • Derivations and Integral Closure

    Derivations and Integral Closure

    Pacific Journal of Mathematics DERIVATIONS AND INTEGRAL CLOSURE A. SEIDENBERG Vol. 16, No. 1 November 1966 PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 16, No. 1, 1966 DERIVATIONS AND INTEGRAL CLOSURE A. SEIDENBERG Let d? be an integral domain containing the rational num- bers, Σ its quotient field, D a derivation of Σ, and &1 the ring of elements in Σ quasi-integral over &. It is shown that if £? then Dέ?f c &'. According to a lemma of Posner [4], which is also used by him in a subsequent paper [5], if 6? is a finite integral domain over a ground field F of characteristic 0 and D is a derivation over F sending έ? into itself, then D also sends the integral closure of έ? into itself. The proof of this in [4] is wrong, but the statement itself is correct and a proof is here supplied. More generally it is proved that if & is any integral domain containing the rational numbers and D is a derivation such that Zλ^c^, then Dέf'aέ?', where &' is the ring of elements in the quotient field Σ of έ? that are quasi-integral over <^. The theorem is not true for characteristic p Φ 0, but if one uses the Hasse-Schmidt differentiations instead of derivations, one gets the corresponding theorem for a completely arbitrary integral domain £?. Let & be an arbitrary integral domain containing the rational numbers, and let & be the integral closure of d?. The question whether D& c & implies Dέ?c έ? is related to the question whether the ring of formal power series <^[[t]] is integrally closed.
  • 6 Ideal Norms and the Dedekind-Kummer Theorem

    6 Ideal Norms and the Dedekind-Kummer Theorem

    18.785 Number theory I Fall 2017 Lecture #6 09/25/2017 6 Ideal norms and the Dedekind-Kummer theorem In order to better understand how ideals split in Dedekind extensions we want to extend our definition of the norm map to ideals. Recall that for a ring extension B=A in which B is a free A-module of finite rank, we defined the norm map NB=A : B ! A as ×b NB=A(b) := det(B −! B); the determinant of the multiplication-by-b map with respect to an A-basis for B. If B is a free A-module we could define the norm of a B-ideal to be the A-ideal generated by the norms of its elements, but in the case we are most interested in (our \AKLB" setup) B is typically not a free A-module (even though it is finitely generated as an A-module). To get around this limitation, we introduce the notion of the module index, which we will use to define the norm of an ideal. In the special case where B is a free A-module, the norm of a B-ideal will be equal to the A-ideal generated by the norms of elements. 6.1 The module index Our strategy is to define the norm of a B-ideal as the intersection of the norms of its localizations at maximal ideals of A (note that B is an A-module, so we can view any ideal of B as an A-module). Recall that by Proposition 2.6 any A-module M in a K-vector space is equal to the intersection of its localizations at primes of A; this applies, in particular, to ideals (and fractional ideals) of A and B.
  • Survey on Locally Factorial Krull Domains Publications Du Département De Mathématiques De Lyon, 1980, Tome 17, Fascicule 1 , P

    Survey on Locally Factorial Krull Domains Publications Du Département De Mathématiques De Lyon, 1980, Tome 17, Fascicule 1 , P

    PUBLICATIONS DU DÉPARTEMENT DE MATHÉMATIQUES DE LYON ALAIN BOUVIER Survey on Locally Factorial Krull Domains Publications du Département de Mathématiques de Lyon, 1980, tome 17, fascicule 1 , p. 1-33 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PDML_1980__17_1_1_0> © Université de Lyon, 1980, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la série « Publications du Département de mathématiques de Lyon » im- plique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pé- nale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ Publications du Département de Mathématiques Lyon 1980 t. 17-1 SURVEY ON LOCALLY FACTORIAL KRULL DOMAINS Alain Bouvier In the following diagram, we consider some classes of rings which have been introduced to study integrally closed domains: Discrète valuation ring •^^ Noetherians S (DVR) '•^N. non ' \. χ . _ noeterian^^ -, . / Dedekind valuation ^ . ^/ ι \ Factorial u + ^ (UFD) * Regular ι bezout y ^-^ST ><Γ*" \ ^^^^ / locally ^ \ ηηΤΛ , . \( factorial \ GCD-domain s ,( -,Λ , . \ ^ νKrull domains Prîif er - \ ν ^ Krull \ \ f locally " ^N domains \ | factorial j ι -x \ ν domains \ ' i/^ completely j locally % integrally î GCD-domains / closed Integrally closed 1 Survey on locally factorial Krull domains Assuming furthermore that the domains are noetherian the above diagram collapses and becomes the diagram below· Valuation = DVR l Principal = Bezout UFD = GCD Prufer = Dedekind Regular locally GCD = locally factorial = locally factorial Krull l Krull = integrally closed In this note we shall prove some interesting properties of locally factorial Krull domains; namely: 1) They are the Krull domains such that every divisor- ial idéal Is invertible; in comparison, Dedekind domain have the property that non-zero ideals are invertible and UFD1s that every divisorial is principal.
  • Multiplication Semimodules

    Multiplication Semimodules

    Acta Univ. Sapientiae, Mathematica, 11, 1 (2019) 172{185 DOI: 10.2478/ausm-2019-0014 Multiplication semimodules Rafieh Razavi Nazari Shaban Ghalandarzadeh Faculty of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Abstract. Let S be a semiring. An S-semimodule M is called a mul- tiplication semimodule if for each subsemimodule N of M there exists an ideal I of S such that N = IM. In this paper we investigate some properties of multiplication semimodules and generalize some results on multiplication modules to semimodules. We show that every multiplica- tively cancellative multiplication semimodule is finitely generated and projective. Moreover, we characterize finitely generated cancellative mul- tiplication S-semimodules when S is a yoked semiring such that every maximal ideal of S is subtractive. 1 Introduction In this paper, we study multiplication semimodules and extend some results of [7] and [17] to semimodules over semirings. A semiring is a nonempty set S together with two binary operations addition (+) and multiplication (·) such that (S; +) is a commutative monoid with identity element 0; (S; :) is a monoid with identity element 1 6= 0; 0a = 0 = a0 for all a 2 S; a(b + c) = ab + ac and (b + c)a = ba + ca for every a; b; c 2 S. We say that S is a commutative semiring if the monoid (S; :) is commutative. In this paper we assume that all semirings are commutative. A nonempty subset I of a semiring S is called an ideal of S if a + b 2 I and sa 2 I for all a; b 2 I and s 2 S.
  • Mension One in Noetherian Rings R

    Mension One in Noetherian Rings R

    LECTURE 5-12 Continuing in Chapter 11 of Eisenbud, we prove further results about ideals of codi- mension one in Noetherian rings R. Say that an ideal I has pure codimension one if every associated prime ideal of I (that is, of the quotient ring R=I as an R-module) has codimen- sion one; the term unmixed is often used instead of pure. The trivial case I = R is included in the definition. Then if R is a Noetherian domain such that for every maximal ideal P the ring RP is a UFD and if I ⊂ R is an ideal, then I is invertible (as a module or an ideal) if and only if it has pure codimension one. If I ⊂ K(R) is an invertible fractional ideal, then I is uniquely expressible as a finite product of powers of prime ideals of codimension one. Thus C(R) is a free abelian group generated by the codimension one primes of R. To prove this suppose first that I is invertible. If we localize at any maximal ideal then I becomes principal, generated by a non-zero-divisor. Since a UFD is integrally closed, an earlier theorem shows that I is pure of codimension one. Conversely, if P is a prime ideal of codimension one and M is maximal, then either P ⊂ M, in which case PM ⊂ RM is ∼ principal since RM is a UFD, or P 6⊂ M, in which case PM = RM ; in both case PM = RM , so P is invertible. Now we show that any ideal I of pure codimension one is a finite product of codi- mension one primes.
  • Low-Dimensional Algebraic K-Theory of Dedekind Domains

    Low-Dimensional Algebraic K-Theory of Dedekind Domains

    Low-dimensional algebraic K-theory of Dedekind domains What is K-theory? k0¹OFº Z ⊕ Cl¹OFº Relationship with topological K-theory illen was the first to give appropriate definitions of algebraic K-theory. We will be This remarkable fact relates the K0 group of a Dedekind domain to its class Topological K-theory was developed before its algebraic counterpart by Atiyah and using his Q-construction because it is defined more generally, for any exact category C: group, which measures the failure of unique prime factorization. We follow the Hirzebruch. The K0 group was originally just denoted K, and it was defined for a proof outlined in »2; 1:1¼: compact Hausdor space X as: Kn¹Cº := πn+1¹BQCº 1. It is easy to show that every finitely generated projective OF-module is a K¹Xº := K¹VectF¹Xºº We will be focusing on a special exact category, the category of finitely generated direct sum of O -ideals. ¹ º F ¹ º projective modules over a ring R. We denote this by P R . By abuse of notation, we 2. Conversely, every fractional O -ideal I is a finitely generated projective Where Vectf X is the exact category of isomorphism classes of finite-dimensional F R C define the K groups of a ring R to be: OF-module, since: F-vector bundles on X under Whitney sum. Here F is either or . Kn¹Rº := Kn¹P¹Rºº 2.1 By a clever use of Chinese remainder theorem, any fractional ideal of a Dedekind Then a theorem of Swan gives an explicit relationship between this topological domain can be generated by at most 2 elements.
  • Unique Factorization of Ideals in OK

    Unique Factorization of Ideals in OK

    IDEAL FACTORIZATION KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction We will prove here the fundamental theorem of ideal theory in number fields: every nonzero proper ideal in the integers of a number field admits unique factorization into a product of nonzero prime ideals. Then we will explore how far the techniques can be generalized to other domains. Definition 1.1. For ideals a and b in a commutative ring, write a j b if b = ac for an ideal c. Theorem 1.2. For elements α and β in a commutative ring, α j β as elements if and only if (α) j (β) as ideals. Proof. If α j β then β = αγ for some γ in the ring, so (β) = (αγ) = (α)(γ). Thus (α) j (β) as ideals. Conversely, if (α) j (β), write (β) = (α)c for an ideal c. Since (α)c = αc = fαc : c 2 cg and β 2 (β), β = αc for some c 2 c. Thus α j β in the ring. Theorem 1.2 says that passing from elements to the principal ideals they generate does not change divisibility relations. However, irreducibility can change. p Example 1.3. In Z[ −5],p 2 is irreduciblep as an element but the principal ideal (2) factors nontrivially: (2) = (2; 1 + −5)(2; 1 − −p5). p To see that neither of the idealsp (2; 1 + −5) and (2; 1 − −5) is the unit ideal, we give two arguments. Suppose (2; 1 + −5) = (1). Then we can write p p p 1 = 2(a + b −5) + (1 + −5)(c + d −5) for some integers a; b; c, and d.
  • Equivariant Class Group. I. Finite Generation of the Picard And

    Equivariant Class Group. I. Finite Generation of the Picard And

    Equivariant class group. I. Finite generation of the Picard and the class groups of an invariant subring Mitsuyasu Hashimoto Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–8602 JAPAN [email protected] Abstract The purpose of this paper is to define equivariant class group of a locally Krull scheme (that is, a scheme which is locally a prime spectrum of a Krull domain) with an action of a flat group scheme, study its basic properties, and apply it to prove the finite generation of the class group of an invariant subring. In particular, we prove the following. Let k be a field, G a smooth k-group scheme of finite type, and X a quasi-compact quasi-separated locally Krull G-scheme. Assume that there is a k-scheme Z of finite type and a dominating k-morphism Z → X. Let ϕ : X → Y be a G-invariant morphism such that arXiv:1309.2367v1 [math.AC] 10 Sep 2013 G OY → (ϕ∗OX ) is an isomorphism. Then Y is locally Krull. If, moreover, Cl(X) is finitely generated, then Cl(G, X) and Cl(Y ) are also finitely generated, where Cl(G, X) is the equivariant class group. In fact, Cl(Y ) is a subquotient of Cl(G, X). For actions of con- nected group schemes on affine schemes, there are similar results of Magid and Waterhouse, but our result also holds for disconnected G. The proof depends on a similar result on (equivariant) Picard groups. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13A50; Secondary 13C20. Key Words and Phrases.
  • Ideals and Class Groups of Number Fields

    Ideals and Class Groups of Number Fields

    Ideals and class groups of number fields A thesis submitted To Kent State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science by Minjiao Yang August, 2018 ○C Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Thesis written by Minjiao Yang B.S., Kent State University, 2015 M.S., Kent State University, 2018 Approved by Gang Yu , Advisor Andrew Tonge , Chair, Department of Mathematics Science James L. Blank , Dean, College of Arts and Science TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………...….…...iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………....…...iv CHAPTER I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………......1 II. Algebraic Numbers and Integers……………………………………………......3 III. Rings of Integers…………………………………………………………….......9 Some basic properties…………………………………………………………...9 Factorization of algebraic integers and the unit group………………….……....13 Quadratic integers……………………………………………………………….17 IV. Ideals……..………………………………………………………………….......21 A review of ideals of commutative……………………………………………...21 Ideal theory of integer ring 풪푘…………………………………………………..22 V. Ideal class group and class number………………………………………….......28 Finiteness of 퐶푙푘………………………………………………………………....29 The Minkowski bound…………………………………………………………...32 Further remarks…………………………………………………………………..34 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………….………….......36 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank my advisor Dr. Gang Yu who has been very supportive, patient and encouraging throughout this tremendous and enchanting experience. Also, I want to thank my thesis committee members Dr. Ulrike Vorhauer and Dr. Stephen Gagola who help me correct mistakes I made in my thesis and provided many helpful advices. iv Chapter 1. Introduction Algebraic number theory is a branch of number theory which leads the way in the world of mathematics. It uses the techniques of abstract algebra to study the integers, rational numbers, and their generalizations. Concepts and results in algebraic number theory are very important in learning mathematics.
  • The Different Ideal

    The Different Ideal

    THE DIFFERENT IDEAL KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction The discriminant of a number field K tells us which primes p in Z ramify in OK : the prime factors of the discriminant. However, the way we have seen how to compute the discriminant doesn't address the following themes: (a) determine which prime ideals in OK ramify (that is, which p in OK have e(pjp) > 1 rather than which p have e(pjp) > 1 for some p), (b) determine the multiplicity of a prime in the discriminant. (We only know the mul- tiplicity is positive for the ramified primes.) Example 1.1. Let K = Q(α), where α3 − α − 1 = 0. The polynomial T 3 − T − 1 has discriminant −23, which is squarefree, so OK = Z[α] and we can detect how a prime p 3 factors in OK by seeing how T − T − 1 factors in Fp[T ]. Since disc(OK ) = −23, only the prime 23 ramifies. Since T 3−T −1 ≡ (T −3)(T −10)2 mod 23, (23) = pq2. One prime over 23 has multiplicity 1 and the other has multiplicity 2. The discriminant tells us some prime over 23 ramifies, but not which ones ramify. Only q does. The discriminant of K is, by definition, the determinant of the matrix (TrK=Q(eiej)), where e1; : : : ; en is an arbitrary Z-basis of OK . By a finer analysis of the trace, we will construct an ideal in OK which is divisible precisely by the ramified primes in OK . This ideal is called the different ideal. (It is related to differentiation, hence the name I think.) In the case of Example 1.1, for instance, we will see that the different ideal is q, so the different singles out the particular prime over 23 that ramifies.