Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\mathbb Z$ be the ring of integers. The question asks to show that every ideal of $\mathbb Z$ is principal. I beg someone to help me because it is a new concept to me.

share|cite|improve this question
(I assume you mean $\mathbb{Z}$ the ring of integers, not only "a ring"...) An ideal is, in particular, a subgroup. Do you know what the subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}$ are? – Bruno Stonek Jan 22 '12 at 16:32
"Let Z be a ring" is wrong. The question is about the particular ring whose proper name is $\mathbb Z$, namely the ring of ordinary integers under ordinary addition and multiplication. – Henning Makholm Jan 22 '12 at 16:32
Well one thing is if you know that $\mathbb{Z}$ is an euclidean domain then it is automatically a PID. – user38268 Jan 22 '12 at 17:50
There was a question on showing that every subgroup of a cyclic group is cyclic which might help (although largely focused on the finite case): – Jonas Meyer Jan 22 '12 at 17:55
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Let $I$ be an ideal of $\mathbb Z$.

Goal: $\mathbb{Z}$ is a principal ideal domain (or PID)

If $I={0}$ then $0$ generates $I$. And we are done.

Suppose $I\neq {0}$, and let $a$ be the smallest element in $I$.

Claim: $a$ generates $I$ i.e $(a)=I$

To prove my claim, clearly $a\subset I$ Since $(a)$= {$ar :r \in \mathbb Z$}, $ar\in I$

Let $b \in I$ if $b=0$ then $b=a0 \in (a)$.

If $b\neq 0$, we may assume $b>0$, by euclidean algorithm

$$b=aq+r$$ also $0\le r<a$ of course $q,r \in \mathbb Z$.

Now $r=b-aq \in I$ since $b,a \in I$. this implies $r=0$ since $r<a$ and $a$ is the smallest element in $I$.

So, $b=aq \in I$. Thus, $(a)=I$. meaning that $a$ generates I.

share|cite|improve this answer
"we may assume $b>0$": There is no need to assume $b>0$, or even to treat $b=0$ as a separate case. – Jonas Meyer Jan 22 '12 at 18:12
Remark that in $\mathbb Z$ it is a bit simpler to use (repeated) subtraction, versus division (with remainder) - see my answer. This corresponds to the subtractive (vs. divisive) form of the Euclidean algorithm. – Bill Dubuque Jan 22 '12 at 18:13
@Mwanginde vote up my answer if have you accepted it. – Hassan Muhammad Jan 25 '12 at 17:17
@Hassan The proof has a (minor) error in that it implicitly assumes $a$ is positive. Instead, it should say: $I\ne 0 $ implies $I$ has a positive element. Let $a$ be the least positive element in $I$. – Bill Dubuque Feb 28 '12 at 21:58
@Jack Maney: Thanks for the edit. – Hassan Muhammad Mar 1 '12 at 7:17

Suppose that $I$ is an ideal in $\mathbb{Z}$. If $I=(0)$, it’s certainly principal, so assume that it contains a non-zero element. Since $I$ is a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}$, if it contains a non-zero element, it must contain a positive element. Let $m$ be the smallest positive member of $I$. Show that $I=(m)$, the set of multiples of $m$.

HINT: Use the division algorithm and a proof by contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer

HINT $\ $ In $\rm\:\mathbb Z\:,\:$ descent via the Division (Euclidean) algorithm has especially simple form, viz.

LEMMA $\ \ $ If a nonempty set of positive integers $\rm\: M\:$ satisfies $\rm\ n > m\ \in\ M \ \Rightarrow\ \: n-m\ \in\ M$
then every element of $\rm\:M\:$ is a multiple of the least element $\rm\:m_{\:1} \in M\:.$

Proof $\ \: $ If not there is a least nonmultiple $\rm\:n\in M\:,$ contra $\rm\:n-m_{\:1} \in M\:$ is a nonmultiple of $\rm\:m_{\:1}.$

REMARK $\ $ Note that the lemma depends only on the fact that $\rm M$ is discrete and closed under subtraction, so it applies much more generally, e.g. to $\:\mathbb Z$-modules $\subset \mathbb Q\:.\ $ The study of these "fractional ideals" essentially go back to Euclid, who studied the application of the Euclidean algorithm to "line segments" to determine their "greatest common measure". This leads quite naturally to the study of the continued fraction expansion of a real number.

share|cite|improve this answer

$\textbf{Hint-}$Every ideal is an additive subgroup and every subgroup of cyclic group is cyclic. I hope this will help.

share|cite|improve this answer

Let $I \subset \mathbb{Z}$ be an ideal; we want to show that $I$ is generated by only one element of $I$, that is, it is a principal. If $I=0$, then $I= \langle 0 \rangle$. Let us assume then that $I \ne 0$, so there is a smallest positive number on $I$. We call this number $n$ and claim that $I = \langle n \rangle $. Let us pick $m \in I$ and divide it by $n$ with remainder. The division theorem (a proof of Euclid's the division theorem is found in the link below: states that there should be a quotient $q$ and a remainder $r$ such that $m = q n + r$, with $0 \le r < n$. We proof that $r=0$. We have that $r=m - q n \in I$, and since we assumed that $n$ is the smallest positive in $I$, then $r=0$. This means that every number on $I$ is of the form $q n$, and the set $\mathbb{Z}$ is PID.

We need to be careful here. Assume that we have the following ideal: \begin{equation} I_{23} = \langle \{2, 3 \} \rangle = \{ 2 n + 3m : n, m \in \mathbb{Z} \}. \end{equation} That is the ideal consists of all the multiples of $2$ together with the multiples of $3$, and their linear combinations. Then by choosing $n=0$ we get all multiples of $3$, and by choosing $m=0$ we get all multiples of $2$. We could say that $2$ is the smallest positive integer in the ideal $I_{23}$, but then that $3$ being in $I_{23}$ can not be obtained from $2$ with an integer multiplication, so the proof above is wrong. In fact that is not the case. We let you to prove that $I_{23}=\mathbb{Z}$, and that in general $\langle \{ p, q \} \rangle$ is equal to $\langle \{ o \} \rangle$, where $o=\text{gcd}(p,q)$. More generally, for ideals in $\mathbb{Z}$, $\langle \{ p_1, \cdots, p_k \} \rangle = \langle \{ o \} \rangle$ with $o=\text{gcd}(p_1, \cdots, p_k)$.

The same argument used here can be applied to polynomials in one variable $\mathbb{K}[x]$, over the field $\mathbb{K}$. For polynomials in two or more variables the property breaks.

share|cite|improve this answer
Explanation with an example is really helpful. – Rorschach Mar 18 at 6:28

If $I$ is an ideal of $\mathbb{Z}$, then, considering only the addition operator, $(I,+)$ is a subgroup of $(\mathbb{Z},+)$ (ie $I$ is an additive subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}$, when viewed as a group under addition). Since $(\mathbb{Z},+)$ is cyclic, it follows that $(I,+)$ is cyclic (if you aren't convinced that every subgroup of a cyclic group is cyclic, you should sit down and prove it).

Therefore, $(I,+)$ as a group is generated by some $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. So, for every $x\in I$, there exists $m\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $$x=\underbrace{n+n+\cdots+n}_{m\textrm{ times}}$$ if $m>0$ or $$x=\underbrace{-n-n-\cdots-n}_{\vert m \vert \textrm{ times}}$$ if $m<0$ (and of course $x=0$ if $m=0$). Thus, $I=\{nm\,\vert\,m\in \mathbb{Z}\}$, and now you only need show that, as an ideal, $I$ is generated by $n$.

share|cite|improve this answer

protected by user26857 Jun 25 '15 at 12:08

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.