0
$\begingroup$

For $\Bbb Z/5\Bbb Z\times \Bbb Z/18\Bbb Z $, I know that $\Bbb Z/5\Bbb Z$ has no zero divisors because $5$ is prime and that the zero divisors of $\Bbb Z/18\Bbb Z=\{[2]_{18},[3]_{18},[4]_{18},[6]_{18},[8]_{18},[9]_{18},[10]_{18},[12]_{18},[14]_{18},[15]_{18},[16]_{18}\} $.

For the zero divisor of $\Bbb Z/5\Bbb Z\times \Bbb Z/18\Bbb Z $, would I say then that it does not exist because there does not exist an zero divisor of the form $([a]_{5},[b]_{18})$ or $([a]_{5},[0]_{18})$? Or, can I say that it does exist because a zero divisor of the form $([0]_{5},[b]_{18})$ exists so the zero divisor of $Z/5\Bbb Z\times \Bbb Z/18\Bbb Z=\{([0]_{5},[b]_{18}):b=2,3,4,6,8,9,10,12,14,15,16\}$? Am I allowed to include $b=0$ into this set?

I am kind of confused about if and why we are allowed to include $[0]_{5}$ even though it is not a zero divisor so if anyone could shed some light onto this, that would be most appreciated. Thanks a lot. :)

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It is the latter.

To show that $([0]_5,[2]_{18})$ is a legitimate zero divisor, for example, you must show that you can multiply $([0]_5,[2]_{18})$ by something in $\mathbb Z_5 \times \mathbb Z_{18}$ to give zero. Indeed, $$ ([0]_5,[2]_{18}). ([0]_5,[9]_{18}) = ([0]_5,[0]_{18}).$$ That is how you would write it formally.

And yes, $([0]_5,[0]_{18})$ itself is a zero divisor, because $([0]_5,[0]_{18})$ times anything is zero.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Okay cool thanks! I thought so, but I felt kinda awkward to do, so I figured I'd ask about it. Thanks :) $\endgroup$ – eulersnumber Mar 7 '17 at 0:27

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.