7
$\begingroup$

Let $p$ be a rational prime. It is is well known that if $p\equiv 3\;\;mod\;4$, then $p$ is inert in the ring of gaussian integers $G$, that is, $p$ is a gaussian prime. If $p\equiv 1\;mod\;4$ then $p$ is decomposed in $G$, that is, $p=\pi_1\pi_2$ where $\pi_1$ and $pi_2$ are gaussian primes not associated. The rational prime $2$ ramifies in $G$, that is $2=u\pi^2$, where $u$ is a unit in $G$ and $\pi$ a prime in $G$.

where can I find a proof of this fact? I want a direct proof, not a proof for the quadratic integers and then deduce this as a particular case.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

There are several places where you can find a direct proof of this. For instance, you can find it in the first 4 pages of Jurgen Neukirch's Algebraic Number Theory about the Gaussian integers. Also, LeVeque's Elementary Theory of Numbers has a short chapter dedicated to the Gaussian integers, where he proves this fact (see section 6.5).

$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

Well, hopefully a proof right here will suffice instead of some resource. This is a rather nice proof of the case of Gaussian Integers, but it fails to generalize for the other quadratic integer domains without putting in more work at least.

Define the norm $N(a+bi) = a^2 + b^2$. It is straightfoward to check it is multiplicative. Now, consider a prime $p \equiv 3 \pmod{4}$. Suppose it is not inert, i.e. it factors as $p = \alpha \beta$ for some $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{Z}[i]$ and neither of them are units.. Then it is easy to see $N(\alpha) = N(\beta) = p$. However, the equation $a^2 + b^2 = p$ has no solutions modulo $4$, therefore we have reached a contradiction so primes $3 \pmod{4}$ remain inert.

Now to prove primes $1 \pmod{4}$ split. It suffices to show $p = a^2 + b^2$ has a solution where $a,b$ are integers. Let $z$ denote the least value of $\sqrt{-1} \pmod{p}$. Now define $\mathcal L = \{(a,b) \in \mathbb{Z}^2 | a \equiv zb \pmod{p}\}$. It is straightfoward to check $\mathcal L$ is a lattice whose fundamental parallelogram has area $p$. Now by Minkowski's theorem one has $\mathcal L$ contains a nontrivial lattice point inside the circle $x^2 + y^2 < 2p$. Call this point $(a,b)$. But then $a^2 + b^2 \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$ based on the definition of the lattice, thus it must be $a^2 + b^2 = p$. But then $p = (a+bi)(a-bi)$, proving it factors so we are done.

Proving $2$ ramifies is trivial, since it's just $2 = -i(1+i)^2$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Can it be done by elementary ring theory without involving lattice? $\endgroup$ – Prince Kumar Sep 25 '17 at 3:26

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.