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

From Chapter VII of Lang's Algebra.

The question asks if $n\geq 6$ and $n$ is divisible by at least two primes, show that $1-\zeta$ is a unit in the ring $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta]$

I am having a hard time understanding why this is true. This is in the integral dependence chapter, but that has not given me any inspiration. I have also tried using cyclotonic polynomial to no avail

Thanks for any direction.

share|cite|improve this question
Looking at concrete examples often helps. $n=6$ is small enough that maybe it's not too hard to find an explicit inverse, assuming one exists. I bet finding the inverse will suggest a general form. On a different note, my first instinct is to find the norm. – Hurkyl Oct 18 '12 at 2:36

Hurkyl's advice in the comments is sensible.

Here is a more theoretical way to think about it; I've never read Lang's book, so I don't know how well it fits with the material of the chapter (but it is a standard argument in number theory):

Write $n = p^k m$ with $p \not\mid m$. Note $(1-\zeta)^{p^k} \equiv 1 - \zeta^{p^k} \bmod p.$

Now $\zeta^{p^k}$ is a primitive $m$th root of $1$, where $p \not \mid m$.

Assuming $m \neq 1$, can you use this to prove that $1 - \zeta^{p^k}$ is a unit mod $p$? And hence that $1 - \zeta$ is a unit mod $p$?

Now find another prime $q$ so that $1 - \zeta$ is also a unit mod $q$.
Once you've done this, you're done. Do you see why?

share|cite|improve this answer
In the question both assumptions $n>=6$ and $n$ divisible by two primes were made. If these primes are assumed distinct, then automatically $n>=6=2*3$ would follow. So is there a similar proof for the case $n=p^k$ assuming we're not looking at $n=4$? (Of course in the $n=4$ case $1-i$ isn't a unit.) – coffeemath Oct 18 '12 at 19:06
@coffeemath: Dear coffeemath, the statement is false unless $n$ is divisible by two distinct primes. Regards, – Matt E Oct 18 '12 at 20:25

Your Answer


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.