1
$\begingroup$

In commutative ring theory, defining irreducibility often takes several assimptions, for instance : $x$ is irreducible if

  1. $x \neq 0$

  2. $x$ is non-invertible

  3. $x=ab \implies a$ invertible and $b$ non invertible or vice-versa

I think it's safe to say that an irreducible element can be defined as a non-invertible which isn't the product of several non-invertibles. But since I've nevet actually read this anywhere I'm a bit skeptical.

Is this definition equivalent to the three listed above ? If so, is it less convenient to state it that way ?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Note that in this form, 3. implies both 1. and 2.:
1. Take $x=a=b=0$, which is clearly non-invertible, yet $x=ab$. So $x=0$ doesn't satisfy 3.
2. If $x$ was invertible (also called 'unit' in ring theory), we could write $x=x\cdot 1$ where both factors are invertible.

Now it remains to prove that 3. is equivalent to your definition:
If a noninvertible $x$ can't be written as $x=ab$ for $a,b$ noninvertibles, it means that at least one of $a,b$ is invertible whenever $x=ab$. But can't be both, as $x=ab$ is noninvertible.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I hadn't spotted that 3 $\implies $ 1 and 2, indeed. I don't know I'm just under the impression I never find it stated that way and it got me suspicious. $\endgroup$ – James Well Jun 9 '17 at 12:44

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.