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.

Let $O$ be the ring of integers in $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{d})$ where $d$ is a square free negative number. Assume that the number 3 is reducible in $O$. Prove that $d = -2,-3,$ or $-11$.

Thank you for the help.


First there is problem to talk about norm where $d \lt -11$. There is a theorem that says when $d \lt -11$ the ring $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ isn't Euclidean. What can I do when $d \lt -11$ ?

share|improve this question
    
What do you mean reducible? Where the ideal $3$ splits? –  Alex Youcis Feb 11 at 10:15
2  
@AlexYoucis reducible = not irreducible, I'd think. So there are (algebraic) integers $a,b$, neither a unit, with $a\cdot b = 3$. (Yes, of course that means the ideal splits, but the more elementary viewpoint of considering elements is probably more appropriate here.) –  Daniel Fischer Feb 11 at 10:28
    
Are you aware of the norm on $O$? –  Daniel Fischer Feb 11 at 10:32
add comment

1 Answer 1

We know (or maybe not) that the ring of integers in $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$, where $d$ is not a perfect square, is $\mathbb{Z}[\omega_d]$, where

$$\omega_d = \begin{cases} \dfrac{1+\sqrt{d}}{2} &, d \equiv 1 \pmod{4}\\ \quad \sqrt{d} &, d \not\equiv 1\pmod{4}. \end{cases}$$

On all these rings, the norm of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$, $$N(\alpha + \beta\sqrt{d}) = (\alpha + \beta\sqrt{d})(\overline{\alpha + \beta\sqrt{d}}) = (\alpha + \beta\sqrt{d})(\alpha - \beta\sqrt{d}) = \alpha^2 - d\beta^2,$$ is integer valued, and in the basis $\{1,\omega_d\}$ it is expressed as

$$N(a + b\omega_d) = \begin{cases} a^2 + ab + \dfrac{1-d}{4}b^2 &, d \equiv 1 \pmod{4}\\ a^2 - db^2 &, d\not\equiv 1\pmod{4}. \end{cases}$$

The norm is multiplicative, $N(z\cdot w) = N(z)\cdot N(w)$, and $z \in \mathbb{Z}[\omega_d]$ is a unit if and only if $N(z) = \pm 1$.

Thus if $3$ is reducible, that is, there are non-units $z,w$ with $z\cdot w = 3$, then we have

$$N(3) = 3^2 = N(z)\cdot N(w),$$

where $\lvert N(z)\rvert > 1$ and $\lvert N(w)\rvert > 1$. By the unique prime factorisation in $\mathbb{Z}$, that implies

$$\lvert N(z)\rvert = \lvert N(w)\rvert = 3.$$

So a necessary condition for $3$ to be reducible is that there are ring elements $z$ with $N(z) = \pm 3$. That condition is also sufficient, since then $\pm z\cdot \overline{z} = \pm N(z) = 3$.

For $d < 0$, the norm only attains non-negative values, and we have

$$N(a + b\omega_d) = \begin{cases} a^2 + ab + \dfrac{1+\lvert d\rvert}{4}b^2 &, \lvert d\rvert \equiv 3 \pmod{4}\\ a^2 + \lvert d\rvert b^2 &, \lvert d\rvert\not\equiv 3\pmod{4} \end{cases}$$

in that case. From that, it is not difficult to derive necessary and sufficient conditions for $3$ to be reducible in $\mathbb{Z}[\omega_d]$ for $d < 0$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.