2
$\begingroup$

In a unique factorization ring with unity (I am not considering commutativity and zero divisors in definition of UFD) irreducible implies prime.

And it was proved in ring with unity without zero divisors (commutativity not necessary) prime implies irreducible in question Prime which is not irreducible in non-commutative ring with unity without zero divisors.

So question is:

Does in a ring with unity prime implies irreducible or not?

Definitions: $p$ is prime iff $p|ab$ implies that $p|a$ or $p|b$, and $x$ is irreducible iff $x = ab$ implies that either $a$ or $b$ is a unit.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not an expert on the topic, but my impression was that prime is equivalent to irreducible. Am I wrong? $\endgroup$ – Laertes Feb 15 '15 at 14:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Laertes in UFD's the concepts are the same. But I know cases ($\mathbb Z[\sqrt{-5}]$ is one of them) in which not every irreducible is prime. The OP seems looking for cases in wich not every prime is irreducible. $\endgroup$ – drhab Feb 15 '15 at 14:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Laertes See my answer here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/1076517/… $\endgroup$ – ujsgeyrr1f0d0d0r0h1h0j0j_juj Feb 15 '15 at 14:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Laertes Have a look at the question that the OP is referring to. There you find definitions of prime and irreducible. They are not the same. $\endgroup$ – drhab Feb 15 '15 at 14:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Consider $\mathbb{Z}/(6)$. The primes there are not irreducible. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Feb 15 '15 at 15:08
1
$\begingroup$

In a ring with zero divisors, a prime element need not be irreducible. A simple example is $\mathbb{Z}/(6)$, where we see that the elements $\overline{2},\, \overline{3}$ and $\overline{4}$ are all prime - the primes $\overline{2}$ and $\overline{4}$ are associated, $\overline{4} = \overline{5}\cdot\overline{2}$ - as one verifies, but we have

$$\overline{2} = \overline{2}\cdot \overline{4},\quad \overline{4} = \overline{2}\cdot \overline{2}\quad\text{and}\quad \overline{3} = \overline{3}\cdot \overline{3},$$

so none of them is irreducible.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Using the definition of "irreducible" you wrote in the question, the answer is no, as illustrated in Daniel's answer. However, the generally accepted definition of "irreducible" by those who do research on factorization in commutative rings with zero divisors is: $a$ is irreducible if $a = bc \Rightarrow (a) = (b)$ or $(a) = (c)$. Using this definition, the answer is yes. The definition in the question is what factorization experts would call "very strongly irreducible". See "Factorization in commutative rings with zero divisors" by Anderson and Valdes-Leon for more information.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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