3
$\begingroup$

Let $R=\mathbb{Z}$, since $\mathbb{Z}$ is an integer domain the ideal $(0)$ is prime. I must prove that

The prime ideals of $\mathbb{Z}$ are precisely the ideals $(n)$ where $n$ is a prime.

On the implication: $p$ is a prime then $(p)$ is a prime ideal there are no problems.

Now, let $I=(n)$ a prime ideal of $\mathbb{Z}$.

First proof

We suppose to be absurd that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$ where $n_1\ne\pm 1$ and $n_2\ne\pm 1$. Then $n_1\notin (n)$, in fact if it were $n_1\in(n)$, $\exists k\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $n_1=kn$, therefore $n=(kn)n_2\ne n$, absurd. So, $n_1\notin (n)$ and $n_2\notin (n)$. However $n_1n_2=n\in (n)$.

Summing up if $n$ is not prime, then $$n_1n_2\in(n)\Rightarrow n_1\notin (n)\quad\text{and}\quad n_2\notin (n),$$ therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.

Second proof

If we suppose to know that every ideal $I$ of $\mathbb{Z}$ is of the form $I=(n)$ where $n$ is the least integer not negative which belongs to $I$, then when we suppose that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$, where $1<n_1,n_2<n$. At this point if it were $n_1\in (n)$ $\exists k\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$, then $n_1>n$ absurd. Then, also in this case we have that $$n_1n_2\in(n)\Rightarrow n_1\notin (n)\quad\text{and}\quad n_2\notin (n),$$ therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.

In the same hypothesis we could conclude by saying that: $n=n_1n_2\in (n)$, since $(n)$ is prime ideal then $n_1\in (n)$ or $n_2\in (n)$, but if were $n_1\in (n)$, then $\exists k\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$ therefore $n_1>n$, therefore we would contradict the condition $1<n_1,n_2<n$.

It's correct?

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

We prove that for $a \neq 0$ the following statements are equivalent:

$(a)$ is a prime ideal $\iff$ $a$ is prime in $\mathbb{Z}$

$"\Rightarrow"$ If $a$ is not prime, then $a = bc$ where $b,c \notin \{-1,1\}$. Then $bc \in (a)$, and because it is a prime ideal we have $b \in (a)$ or $c \in (a)$. Assume the latter, that is $c = ka$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$. Then $a = bc = abk$ meaning that $bk = 1$, thus $b$ is invertible. Contradiction.

$"\Leftarrow"$ Assume $a$ is prime. If $bc \in (a)$, then $a|(bc)$ and then $a|b$ or $a|c$ by elementary number theory. I.e. $b \in (a)$ or $c \in (a)$ and we conclude that $(a)$ is prime. $\square$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your ansewer, but at this level of the theory, in general, irreducible elements are not introduced, therefore in the proofs I have to use instruments that I possess at the moment. $\endgroup$ – Jack J. Dec 3 '18 at 11:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I edited my answer. Let me know if something is unclear. $\endgroup$ – user370967 Dec 3 '18 at 12:32

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.