Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to understand a proof of the following Lemma (regarding Catalan's conjecture):

Lemma: Let $x\in \mathbb{Z}$, $2<q\not=p>2$ prime, $G:=\text{Gal}(\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p):\mathbb{Q})$, $x\equiv 1\pmod{p}$ and $\lvert x\lvert >q^{p-1}+q$. Then the map $\phi:\{\theta\in\mathbb{Z}:(x-\zeta_p)^\theta\in\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p)^{*q}\}\rightarrow\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p)$, $\ $ $\phi(\theta)=\alpha$ such that $\alpha^q=(x-\zeta)^\theta$ is injective.

I don't understand the following step in the proof:

The ideals $(x-\sigma(\zeta_p))_{\sigma \in G}$ in $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_p]$ have at most the factor $(1-\zeta_p)$ in common. Since $x\equiv 1\pmod{p}$ the ideals do have this factor in common.

Could you please explain to me why these two statements are true?

share|improve this question
1  
$\LaTeX$ tip: instead of (\text{mod }p), use \pmod{p}, which gives appropriate spacing. –  Arturo Magidin Jun 27 '12 at 20:15
    
to be honest I'm not entirely sure wheater the ideals are in $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p)$ or $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_p]$ and it isn't clear from the context. –  Julian Jun 27 '12 at 20:48
1  
@Julian Ideals in fields are not so interesting, so I think it's the latter. –  Dylan Moreland Jun 27 '12 at 20:52

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

In the world of ideals gcd is the sum. Pick any two ideals $(x-\sigma(\zeta_p))$ and $(x-\sigma'(\zeta_p))$. Then $\sigma(\zeta_p)-\sigma'(\zeta_p)$ will be in the sum ideal. This is a difference of two distinct powers of $\zeta_p$, so generates the same ideal as one of the $1-\zeta_p^k$, $0<k<p$. All of these generate the same prime ideal as $(1-\zeta_p)$, because the quotient $$\frac{1-\zeta_p^k}{1-\zeta_p}=\frac{1-\zeta_p^k}{1-(\zeta_p^k)^{k'}}=\left(\frac{1-(\zeta_p^k)^{k'}}{1-\zeta_p^k}\right)^{-1}$$ is manifestly a unit in the ring $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_p]$ (here $kk'\equiv1\pmod p$). Because the ideal $(1-\zeta_p)$ is a non-zero prime ideal, hence maximal, this gives the first claim you asked about.

The second claim follows from the well known fact that up to a unit factor (i.e. as a principal ideal) $(p)$ is the power $(1-\zeta_p)^{p-1}$. If $x=mp+1$, $m$ a rational integer, then $(1-\zeta_p)$ divides both $mp$ and $(1-\sigma(\zeta_p))$, and therefore also $x-\sigma(\zeta_p)$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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