5
$\begingroup$

We know that $(\mathbb{Z} [\sqrt{2}],+,\cdot)$ is an integral domain.

Someone can prove it easily if he says that is a subring of $(\mathbb{R} ,+,\cdot)$ .

Can we find a different proof, more analytical? How can we show that $$\forall x,y\in \mathbb{Z} [\sqrt{2}], x\ne 0, y\ne 0\implies xy\neq 0$$

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
8
$\begingroup$

In these cases, considering the conjugate can help. The conjugate of $a+b\sqrt{2}$ is $a-b\sqrt{2}$. Now, if $(a+b\sqrt{2})(c+d\sqrt{2})=0$, also $$ (a+b\sqrt{2})(a-b\sqrt{2})(c+d\sqrt{2})(c-d\sqrt{2})=0 $$ and therefore $$ (a^2-2b^2)(c^2-2d^2)=0 $$ Since the integers form a domain, we conclude $a^2-2b^2=0$ or $c^2-2d^2=0$. The irrationality of $\sqrt{2}$ tells us that either $a=b=0$ or $c=d=0$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Nice proof, thank you. So we multiply with the conjugate, and we say that $$ (a/b)=2^{(1/2)}$$, false. Right? $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Apr 29, 2016 at 23:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Chris Suppose $a^2-2b^2=0$. If $b=0$, then $a=0$; if $b\ne0$, then $\frac{a^2}{b^2}=2$. The latter case is impossible. $\endgroup$
    – egreg
    Apr 29, 2016 at 23:09
3
$\begingroup$

The main proof you mention is the easiest and the best since it generalizes very well. If you really want something more intrinsic, note

$$(a+b\sqrt 2)(c+d\sqrt 2)=0\implies (a^2-2b^2)(c^2-2d^2)=0$$

But then if so, either $a^2=2b^2$ or $c^2=2d^2$, WLOG assume the former.

Then $a$ is even, but then if the prime factorization of $a$ is $2^kp_1^{e_1}\ldots p_r^{e_r}$ we have

$$a^2=2^{2k}p_1^{2e_1}\ldots p_r^{2e_r}$$

So the exponent of $2$ in $a$ is even, however since $b^2$ has an even power of $2$, $2b^2$ has an odd power, a contradiction, unless that power is infinity, but the only number infinitely divisible by $2$ is $0$, so $a=b=0$ holds

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Once we've eliminated the possibility that $b = 0$ (which is almost immediate), we can conclude that if $a^2 = 2 b^2$ then $\sqrt{2}$ is rational, and likewise for $c^2 = 2 d^2$. $\endgroup$
    – Travis Willse
    Apr 29, 2016 at 22:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Travis yes, but why bother? That's a corollary of this approach in general, may as well avoid saying it for a direct proof that takes place completely within the realm of $\Bbb Z$. $\endgroup$
    – Adam Hughes
    Apr 30, 2016 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ I remarked it simply because it cuts the length of the (already efficient) presentation in half. $\endgroup$
    – Travis Willse
    Apr 30, 2016 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Travis I agree, assuredly, I chose this presentation for pedagogical reasons more than anything. I always find appealing to lower-level theorems is best when it doesn't make the proof unwieldy. $\endgroup$
    – Adam Hughes
    Apr 30, 2016 at 19:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Travis no worries, that came across clearly, I was just responding to explain my thought process. Thanks very much for your comments. Cheers! $\endgroup$
    – Adam Hughes
    Apr 30, 2016 at 19:54
1
$\begingroup$

Hint Suppose we have $$(a + b \sqrt{2})(c + d \sqrt{2}) = 0$$ from some $a, b, c, d \in \Bbb Z$. Expanding gives $$(ac + 2 bd) + (ad + bc) \sqrt{2} = 0,$$ and since $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational, the coefficients must vanish separately $$ac + 2bd = ad + bc = 0 .$$ Substituting $0$ for any of the four parameters gives quickly that $a = b = c = d = 0$, so we may assume that none is zero. Then, it follows from the second equation that $c = -\lambda a$ and $d = \lambda b$ for some $\lambda \in \Bbb Q - \{ 0 \}$.

Substituting gives $$0 = a c + 2 b d = a(-\lambda a) + 2 b (\lambda b) = \lambda (-a^2 + 2b^2) .$$ Clearing $\lambda$ and rearranging gives $\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^2 = 2$, but this contradicts the irrationality of $\sqrt{2}$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think you mean "this implies $\sqrt{2}$ is rational" $\endgroup$
    – Stella Biderman
    Apr 29, 2016 at 22:57
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. How can we say with certainty that exists $$λ\in \mathbb{Q^*} : c=-λa, d=λb$$ $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Apr 29, 2016 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, @StellaBiderman, you're right of course. I've fixed the statement. $\endgroup$
    – Travis Willse
    Apr 29, 2016 at 23:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We can rearrange $ad + bc = 0$ and write $\lambda := -\frac{c}{a} = \frac{d}{b}$. $\endgroup$
    – Travis Willse
    Apr 29, 2016 at 23:28
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome, I hope you found it useful. $\endgroup$
    – Travis Willse
    Apr 29, 2016 at 23:51

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.