Why is this definition of prime natural?
Definition: An element $p$, not zero and not a unit, is called prime if $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$.
I am having trouble understanding why this definition of prime follows naturally. Could someone provide an intuitive explanation for this definition? For context, the text I am learning from has briefly gone over groups, rings, and integral domains.
Thank you!
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
New contributor
add a comment |
Definition: An element $p$, not zero and not a unit, is called prime if $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$.
I am having trouble understanding why this definition of prime follows naturally. Could someone provide an intuitive explanation for this definition? For context, the text I am learning from has briefly gone over groups, rings, and integral domains.
Thank you!
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
New contributor
1
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
3 hours ago
1
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
2 hours ago
1
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
2 hours ago
1
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Definition: An element $p$, not zero and not a unit, is called prime if $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$.
I am having trouble understanding why this definition of prime follows naturally. Could someone provide an intuitive explanation for this definition? For context, the text I am learning from has briefly gone over groups, rings, and integral domains.
Thank you!
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
New contributor
Definition: An element $p$, not zero and not a unit, is called prime if $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$.
I am having trouble understanding why this definition of prime follows naturally. Could someone provide an intuitive explanation for this definition? For context, the text I am learning from has briefly gone over groups, rings, and integral domains.
Thank you!
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 3 hours ago
WilsonWilson
182
182
New contributor
New contributor
1
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
3 hours ago
1
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
2 hours ago
1
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
2 hours ago
1
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
3 hours ago
1
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
2 hours ago
1
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
2 hours ago
1
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
2 hours ago
1
1
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
3 hours ago
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
3 hours ago
1
1
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
2 hours ago
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
2 hours ago
1
1
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
2 hours ago
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
2 hours ago
1
1
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
2 hours ago
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime.
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
3 hours ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
3 hours ago
Also, what does the notation $R/(p)$ and $R/(f)$ denote in this context? Sorry, I am a little new to these topics. Thank you again.
– Wilson
2 hours ago
@Wilson No worries. I'm back to edit now
– jgon
2 hours ago
@Wilson I've edited. Hopefully it will be more clear now :)
– jgon
2 hours ago
add a comment |
An ideal is prime if and only if its set-theoretical complement is multiplicatively closed. (We want to keep obtaining non-multiples of $p$ when multiplying non-multiples of $p$.)
This allows for constructing a new ring (addition and multiplication) of “fractions” whose “denominators” live only in the complement of the prime ideal (such construction is called “localization”). This new ring is simpler than the original ring, exposing only “local behaviour”.
add a comment |
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065750%2fwhy-is-this-definition-of-prime-natural%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime.
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
3 hours ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
3 hours ago
Also, what does the notation $R/(p)$ and $R/(f)$ denote in this context? Sorry, I am a little new to these topics. Thank you again.
– Wilson
2 hours ago
@Wilson No worries. I'm back to edit now
– jgon
2 hours ago
@Wilson I've edited. Hopefully it will be more clear now :)
– jgon
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime.
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
3 hours ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
3 hours ago
Also, what does the notation $R/(p)$ and $R/(f)$ denote in this context? Sorry, I am a little new to these topics. Thank you again.
– Wilson
2 hours ago
@Wilson No worries. I'm back to edit now
– jgon
2 hours ago
@Wilson I've edited. Hopefully it will be more clear now :)
– jgon
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime.
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime.
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
jgonjgon
13.3k21941
13.3k21941
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
3 hours ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
3 hours ago
Also, what does the notation $R/(p)$ and $R/(f)$ denote in this context? Sorry, I am a little new to these topics. Thank you again.
– Wilson
2 hours ago
@Wilson No worries. I'm back to edit now
– jgon
2 hours ago
@Wilson I've edited. Hopefully it will be more clear now :)
– jgon
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
3 hours ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
3 hours ago
Also, what does the notation $R/(p)$ and $R/(f)$ denote in this context? Sorry, I am a little new to these topics. Thank you again.
– Wilson
2 hours ago
@Wilson No worries. I'm back to edit now
– jgon
2 hours ago
@Wilson I've edited. Hopefully it will be more clear now :)
– jgon
2 hours ago
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
3 hours ago
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
3 hours ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
3 hours ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
3 hours ago
Also, what does the notation $R/(p)$ and $R/(f)$ denote in this context? Sorry, I am a little new to these topics. Thank you again.
– Wilson
2 hours ago
Also, what does the notation $R/(p)$ and $R/(f)$ denote in this context? Sorry, I am a little new to these topics. Thank you again.
– Wilson
2 hours ago
@Wilson No worries. I'm back to edit now
– jgon
2 hours ago
@Wilson No worries. I'm back to edit now
– jgon
2 hours ago
@Wilson I've edited. Hopefully it will be more clear now :)
– jgon
2 hours ago
@Wilson I've edited. Hopefully it will be more clear now :)
– jgon
2 hours ago
add a comment |
An ideal is prime if and only if its set-theoretical complement is multiplicatively closed. (We want to keep obtaining non-multiples of $p$ when multiplying non-multiples of $p$.)
This allows for constructing a new ring (addition and multiplication) of “fractions” whose “denominators” live only in the complement of the prime ideal (such construction is called “localization”). This new ring is simpler than the original ring, exposing only “local behaviour”.
add a comment |
An ideal is prime if and only if its set-theoretical complement is multiplicatively closed. (We want to keep obtaining non-multiples of $p$ when multiplying non-multiples of $p$.)
This allows for constructing a new ring (addition and multiplication) of “fractions” whose “denominators” live only in the complement of the prime ideal (such construction is called “localization”). This new ring is simpler than the original ring, exposing only “local behaviour”.
add a comment |
An ideal is prime if and only if its set-theoretical complement is multiplicatively closed. (We want to keep obtaining non-multiples of $p$ when multiplying non-multiples of $p$.)
This allows for constructing a new ring (addition and multiplication) of “fractions” whose “denominators” live only in the complement of the prime ideal (such construction is called “localization”). This new ring is simpler than the original ring, exposing only “local behaviour”.
An ideal is prime if and only if its set-theoretical complement is multiplicatively closed. (We want to keep obtaining non-multiples of $p$ when multiplying non-multiples of $p$.)
This allows for constructing a new ring (addition and multiplication) of “fractions” whose “denominators” live only in the complement of the prime ideal (such construction is called “localization”). This new ring is simpler than the original ring, exposing only “local behaviour”.
answered 1 hour ago
ir7ir7
4,15311015
4,15311015
add a comment |
add a comment |
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
add a comment |
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
add a comment |
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
answered 3 hours ago
George NtouliosGeorge Ntoulios
557
557
add a comment |
add a comment |
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065750%2fwhy-is-this-definition-of-prime-natural%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
3 hours ago
1
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
2 hours ago
1
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
2 hours ago
1
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
2 hours ago