13
$\begingroup$

I want to show that the ring of integers of the cubic number field $K = \mathbb Q(\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ is a root of $f = X^3 - X - 2$, is equal to $\mathbb Z[\alpha]$.

$(1, \alpha, \alpha^2)$ forms a $\mathbb Q$-basis of $K$ consisting of integers. I know $\mathbb Z[\alpha] \subseteq \mathcal O_K$. To show equality, I'm guessing the following result is useful:

Let $K$ be a number field of degree $n$, $(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n)$ a $\mathbb Q$-basis of $K$ consisting of integers. Suppose there exist $m \in \mathbb N, m > 2$ and $k_1, \dots, k_n \in \mathbb Z$ with $gcd(m, k_1, \dots, k_n) = 1$ such that $$\frac{k_1 \alpha_1 + \dots + k_n \alpha_n}{m} \in \mathcal O_K$$ then $m^2 \,\big\vert\, disc(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n)$

I have $disc(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n) = -104$, so $m = 2$, hence I want to show that I cannot have $$\frac{a + b \alpha + c \alpha^2}{2} \in \mathcal O_K$$ for integers $a, b, c \in \mathbb Z$ of which at least one is odd. But I'm getting stuck here. How do I show these aren't integral elements? Can anyone give me a hint on how to proceed?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Brute force checking each of the seven cases might be easiest here, although that depends on how quick you are at computation. $\endgroup$
    – user14972
    Sep 21, 2015 at 17:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As pointed out by Hurkyl, you need to show that the seven numbers obtained by setting 0 or 1 for each of $a,b,c$ is not integral. For example, $\alpha/2$ is not integral because it is a root of $4X^3-X-1$, which is irreducible. $\endgroup$
    – Aravind
    Sep 21, 2015 at 17:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm almost certain that you only need to check the equality $(2) = (2,\alpha)(2,\alpha+1)^2$ as ideals of $\Bbb Z[\alpha]$. Typically, when you lack some elements, the ideals "grow too fast" when you multiply them. $\endgroup$
    – mercio
    Sep 21, 2015 at 17:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mercio Can you elaborate on that? I don't really see where you get the equality from or how it establishes the result I'm trying to prove. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Sep 21, 2015 at 19:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It can’t make any difference to the computations, but it seems to me that $|\text{disc}|=104$. $\endgroup$
    – Lubin
    Sep 22, 2015 at 21:32

4 Answers 4

14
$\begingroup$

Here a totally different (but quite simple) approach to the problem:

The submodule of $\mathcal{O}_K$ generated by $(1,\alpha,\alpha^2)$ is clearly $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$. You have already shown that $$\text{disc}(1,\alpha,\alpha^2)=-104$$ Now, note that the following formula is true (it can be found in most introductory textbook on algebraic number theory): $$\text{disc}(1,\alpha,\alpha^2)=[\mathcal{O}_K:\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]]^2\text{disc}(\mathcal{O}_K)$$ It follows that $[\mathcal{O}_K:\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]]$ equals $1$ or $2$. In the latter case, it follows that $\text{disc}(\mathcal{O}_K)=-26$. But this cannot be true, since $\text{disc}(\mathcal{O}_K) \equiv 0$ or $1 \text{ mod } 4$ (this fact is known as "Stickelberger's theorem on discriminants" which is also contained in a lot of textbooks on the topic). Hence $[\mathcal{O}_K:\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]]=1$ and therefore $\mathcal{O}_K=\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh that's quite simple indeed. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Sep 24, 2015 at 18:09
10
$\begingroup$

Here’s another argument, much, much more advanced. You’re worrying about two rings, $\Bbb Z[\alpha]$ and $\mathscr O$, the integers of $\Bbb Q(\alpha)$. They’re equal if and only if the smaller ring is integrally closed. Now I’ll argue that $\Bbb Z[\alpha]$ is indeed integrally closed. And this is the case if and only if it’s true locally at every prime $p$ of $\Bbb Z$. The only difficult primes are those where there’s ramification, and these are $2$ and $13$, ’cause the discriminant ideal is $(8\cdot13)$. The latter is not a problem, as you have observed, because the discriminant is divisible only by $13$ to the first power. So let’s localize at $2$ and see what’s going on.

We might as well go all the way to the completion, which means looking at the ring $\Bbb Z[\alpha]\otimes_{\Bbb Z}\Bbb Z_2$, which we want to see to be integrally closed (in a sense that will soon be clear). Now, I’ll write the ring $\Bbb Z[\alpha]=\Bbb Z[\alpha-1]$, where the defining polynomial of $\alpha-1$ is $g(x)=f(x+1)=x^3+3x^2+2x-2$. To look at the tensored-with-$\Bbb Z_p$ ring is to look at $\Bbb Z_2[x]/(x^3+3x^2+2x-2)$. But just look at the Newton Polygon of this polynomial: it has vertices at $(0,1)$, $(2,0)$, and $(3,0)$. That means that the polynomial factors into a linear and an Eisenstein quadratic, and this in turn means that $\Bbb Z_2[x]/(x^3+3x^2+2x-2)\cong\Bbb Z_2\oplus\Bbb Z_2[x]/(q(x))$, where $q(x)$ is that Eisenstein quadratic. Are you with me? Our ring is no longer a domain, but the two pieces are certainly integrally closed, since over a local ring, a root of an Eisenstein polynomial generates the whole ring of integers in the fraction field. So $\Bbb Z[\alpha]$ is integrally closed, and thus equal to the full ring of integers of $\Bbb Q(\alpha)$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In any case like this, where you want to see that a candidate ring is or is not the full ring of integers of a number field, Localization Is Your Friend. For instance, you can use this method to see quickly that $\Bbb Z[\sqrt5]$ is not the ring of integers of $\Bbb Q(\sqrt5)$. $\endgroup$
    – Lubin
    Sep 23, 2015 at 3:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you have a reference for the part about the roots of an Eisenstein polynomial generating the ring of integers in the fraction field? $\endgroup$
    – Steve D
    Aug 10, 2017 at 3:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No reference, @SteveD, but here’s an argument. Dealing with a finite extension $k$ of $\Bbb Q_p$ with ring of integers $\mathscr O$ and prime element $\pi$ ; and with an algebraic element $\alpha$ which is root of an $\mathscr O$-Eisenstein polynomial, we see that $v(\alpha)=v(\pi)/n$, where $v$ is the additive valuation and $n$ is the degree. (You see that the ramification index is also $n$.) Now, in a totally ramified extension with prime element $\Pi$, the integers there are $\mathscr O[\Pi]$. Here, you can take $\Pi=\alpha$. $\endgroup$
    – Lubin
    Aug 10, 2017 at 14:52
4
$\begingroup$

Suppose $w \in \Bbb Z[\alpha]$ is not a multiple of $2$ and $w/2$ is an algebraic integer.

Consider the ideal $I = (2,w)$. We have $I^2 = (4,2w,w^2)$ and $I^3 = (8,4w,2w^2,w^3)$. However, $w/2$ being an algebraic integer of degree $\le 3$, we get that $w^3$ is a combination of $8,4w,2w^2$ with integer coefficients, and so $I^3 = (8,4w,2w^2) = 2I^2$, and so on, which shows that unique factorisation of ideals fails : $(2)I^2 = I.I^2$, but $(2) \neq I$, so $I^2$ is not "cancellable", and neither is $I$.

To show that an ideal $I$ is cancellable it is enough to show it is a factor of cancellable ideal, for example any principal ideal, say, $(2)$ : If $(2)= IJ$ and $AI = BI$ then $AIJ = BIJ$, so $2A = 2B$ and thus $A=B$.


Let $I$ be any ideal containing $(2)$. Since $\Bbb F_2[X]$ is a PID, $\Bbb Z[\alpha]/I$ has to be isomorphic (via the evaluation map) to $\Bbb F_2[X]/Q(X)$ where $Q(X)$ is a divisor of $X^3+X$ (the reduction modulo $2$ of $X^3-X-2$), and then $I = I_Q = (2,Q(\alpha))$.

The connection between the divisor lattice of $X^3-X-2$ mod $2$ and the ideals containing $(2)$ goes further :

If $2 \in I_Q I_R$, then $I_QI_R = (2,4,2Q(\alpha),2R(\alpha),Q(\alpha)R(\alpha)) = (2,Q(\alpha)R(\alpha)) = I_{QR}$.
In particular, if $Q$ and $R$ are coprime, then $1$ is a linear combination of $Q,R$ and $2$, and so $2 \in I_Q I_R$.

So if we show that $(2)$ factors properly as $I_{X}I_{X+1}^2$ then we are done, because this would show that $I_X$ and $I_{X+1}$ are cancellable and their products give all the ideals containing $(2)$.


The only way this can possibly go wrong is if $2 \notin I_{X+1}^2$, so let us do the computation :

$I_{X+1}^2 = (2,\alpha+1)^2 = (4,2\alpha+2,\alpha^2+2\alpha+1)$.
It contains $\alpha.(\alpha^2+2\alpha+1) = \alpha^3+2\alpha^2+\alpha = 2\alpha^2+2\alpha+2$, so it also contains $2(\alpha^2+2\alpha+1)-(2\alpha^2+2\alpha+2) = 2\alpha$, and then $(2\alpha+2) - 2\alpha = 2$.

Hence $I_{X+1}^2 = (2,\alpha^2+1) = I_{(X+1)^2}$, which is all we needed.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ the sad thing is that this does not work as is when you start from something not of the form $\Bbb Z[\alpha]$ $\endgroup$
    – mercio
    Sep 22, 2015 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ Good stuff! Since my learning curve is what it is nowadays let me attempt to summarize/generalize. Assume that $\Bbb{Z}[\alpha]\subseteq \mathcal{O}_K$, $[K:\Bbb{Q}]<\infty$. Let $p$ be a rational prime, and let $m(x)\in\Bbb{Z}[x]$ be the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$. Assume that in $\Bbb{F}_p[x]$ we have the factorization $$m(x)=\prod_{i=1}^k m_i(x)^{a_i},$$ where $m_i(x)\in\Bbb{F}_p[x]$ are irreducible. Let $I_i$ be the ideal of $\Bbb{Z}[\alpha]$ generated by $p$ and $m_i(\alpha)$. If for all $i$ we have that $p$ is contained in the ideal $I_i^{a_i}$, then $I_i$ is a cancellable ideal $\endgroup$ Sep 22, 2015 at 5:18
  • $\begingroup$ (cont'd) of the ring $\Bbb{Z}[\alpha]$. Because the ideal structure of $\Bbb{F}_p[x]/\langle m(x)\rangle$ is easily understood from $\Bbb{F}_p[x]$ being a PID, all the ideals of $\Bbb{Z}[\alpha]$ containing $p$ are cancellable. Consequently it is impossible to find an algebraic integer $w\in K$ such that $w\notin\Bbb{Z}[\alpha]$ but $pw\in\Bbb{Z}[\alpha]$. This is because such a number $w$ gives rise to a non-cancellable ideal $(p,w)$ of $\Bbb{Z}[\alpha]$. $\endgroup$ Sep 22, 2015 at 5:20
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I think this is quite a convenient method for checking whether $\mathbb Z[\alpha]$ is equal to the ring of integers. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Sep 24, 2015 at 18:13
0
$\begingroup$

Other answers are too advanced. Checking definitions is enough for this question.

We have $\mathrm{tr}\,\frac12(a+b\alpha+c\alpha)=\frac32a+c$, so $a$ is even, leaving $\frac12(b\alpha+c\alpha^2)$ to be considered. We have $\mathrm{N}(\frac12\alpha(b+c\alpha))=-\frac14(b^3-bc^2+2c^3)$, which is an integer iff $b,c$ are both even.

$\endgroup$

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.