Let $R$ be a ring, $I,J$ ideals such that $I+J=R$. The Chinese Remainder Theorem claims that if $I\cap J=(0)$, then $R\simeq R/I\times R/J$.

I remember seeing a version of the theorem for the case of principal ideals $I=(p),\ J=(q)$ which assumes instead of the comaximality of $I$ and $J$ (and probably of the condition on the intersection) that $I$ and $J$) that $p$ and $q$ are coprime elements in $R$. (I'm not sure that my statement is precise.) This version is easier to use sometimes, e.g. it looks easier for me to prove that $x-1$ and $x^2+x+1$ are coprime than to prove that $(x-1)+(x^2+x+1)=(1)$ in $\mathbb R[x]$.

So my questions are: whether my statement is precise, and how does it follow from the general Chinese remainder theorem?


The problem is what do you mean by the statement: "$x$ and $y$ are coprime elements in a ring $R$". Let's stick to integers for now. There are two different ways you can think about coprime integers. Two integers $x,y\in \mathbb{Z}$ are said to be coprime if one of the two equivalent conditions are satisfied.

  1. The greatest common divisor of $x,y$ is equal to one.
  2. There exists $a,b\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $ax+by=1$ (Bezout's identity)

The problem with definition (1) is that there are many rings out there with no such thing as a greatest common divisor. Say $\mathbb{C}[x]/(x^2)$ is not even a domain. Or $\mathbb{Z}[-\sqrt{3}]$ which is a domain but the two elements $x=4=2\times 2=(1+\sqrt{-3})(1-\sqrt{-3})$ and $y=(1+\sqrt{-3})\times 2$ have no gcd. A commutative ring admitting a gcd for any pair of elements is called a GCD domain.

Your example of $\mathbb{R}[x]$ is a GCD domain (actually, more strongly, a principal ideal domain, PID). But even if a ring $R$ is a GCD domain, it does not mean $R$ admits a Bezout identity. An example would be $\mathbb{R}[x,y]$ which is a GCD domain (actually a unique factorization domain, UFD) which does not admit a Bezout identity. A ring that admits a Bezout identity is called a Bezout domain. All Bezout domains are GCD domains. Alternatively, a Bezout domain can be defined as follows:

An integral domain $R$ is called a Bezout domain if given any two elements $x,y$, the sum of ideals $(x)+(y)$ is again principal.

So you can see that in a Bezout domain, $x,y$ are coprime if and only if the ideals $(x), (y)$ are coprime (Two ideals $I,J\subset R$ are called coprime if $I+J=R$). However, one can define coprime ideals for all commutative rings, and coprime elements only for some rings. In a sense then, the way coprime ideals are defined is the natural generalization of how we expect "coprime" to be.

Now the Chinese Reminder theorem says

If the ideals $I,J\subset R$ are comaximal, then $R/I\cap J\simeq R/I\times R/J$.

If we assume $R$ is a Bezout domain, and $x,y\in R$ coprime, then $(x)\cap (y)=(xy)$ (which is not zero y the way). And Chinese remainder theorem, in this case, becomes $$ R/(xy)\simeq R/(x)\times R/(y) $$ So sure, if in your ring of interest it makes sense to talk about coprime elements, you can go with your special version of the theorem. But if there is no such thing, well... I hope, this sheds some light on the matter.

  • $\begingroup$ I thought the property $I+J=R$ is called comaximality (not coprimeness)? $\endgroup$ – user437309 Jul 19 '18 at 23:34
  • $\begingroup$ Both terminologies are used interchangeably. $\endgroup$ – Hamed Jul 19 '18 at 23:35

The abstract Chinese remainder theorem that I know is this (stated for two ideals):

Let $R$ be a (commutative) ring, $I, J$ two coprime ideals in $R$, i.e. satisfying$I+J=R$. Then $IJ=I\cap J$, and we have an isomorphism \begin{align} R/I\cap J&\xrightarrow{\;\sim\;}R/I\times R/J\\ r+I\cap J&\longmapsto (r+ I, r+ J) \end{align}


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.