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

everyone. I am having difficulties with this question.

Let $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ be a real quadratic field , and $ \mathcal{O}_K$ be the ring of integers of $K$. By making use of $u$, a fundamental unit (coming from a solution of the Pell equation), show that there is no such thing as the smallest possible positive integer in $\mathcal{O}_K$ (in the sense of the usual order of the real numbers).

Thank you in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
The title does not reflect the question. – lhf Apr 28 '11 at 15:28
up vote 3 down vote accepted

If $u$ is a non-trivial unit then either $|u|<1$ or $|1/u|<1$. So, there is a unit $u$ with $|u|<1$. Then the powers of $u$ are a sequence of units converging to $0$. (Here, $|\cdot|$ is the real absolute value, not the field norm.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for your hint. – user9636 Apr 28 '11 at 15:37

Hint. Suppose $u$ is a fundamental unit of $K$. Then one of $u$, $u^{-1}$, $-u$, or $-u^{-1}$ is positive and smaller than $1$ (in the usual order of $\mathbb{R}$).

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you a lot! – user9636 Apr 28 '11 at 15:41

If you are having trouble with this how about an example: $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{3})$.

In this field we have $$2^2 - 3 \cdot 1^2 = 1$$ and this is the smallest so let $u = 2 - 1 \cdot \sqrt{3}$ be a fundamental unit.

Now here are some calculations:

 u^1 = 0.2679491924311227064725536585...
 u^2 = 0.0717967697244908258902146339...
 u^3 = 0.0192378864668405970883048774...
 u^4 = 0.0051547761428715624630048756...
 u^5 = 0.0013812181046456527637146252...
 u^6 = 0.0003700962757110485918536254...
 u^7 = 0.0000991669981985416036998764...

but they all have norm 1, so what's going on!

The answer is that norm measures not the size of the number in the "real" sense but in a higher dimensional lattice.

share|cite|improve this answer
The answer is that one is equivocating on the meaning of "norm": there's the field norm $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3})\to\mathbb{Q}$ given by the propduct of all conjugates, and then there's the archimedean absolute value/norm given by the usual absolute value/complex norm. – Arturo Magidin Apr 28 '11 at 15:32
Thanks. Good work. – user9636 Apr 28 '11 at 15:40

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.