Is there any general idea about for which $d$, $\mathbb Z[\sqrt d]$ a principal ideal domain (PID)?

As for example $\mathbb Z[\sqrt{-1}]$ and $\mathbb Z[\sqrt 2] $ are PIDs, but $\mathbb Z[\sqrt{-5}] $ is not a PID.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Real case and Gauß conjecture. It is generally not known. $\endgroup$ – awllower Mar 5 '13 at 9:52
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Note that ${\bf Z}[\sqrt d]$ is not the full ring of integers in ${\bf Q}(\sqrt d)$ if $d\equiv1\pmod4$ (also if $d$ is not squarefree) and doesn't necessarily have the same ideal structure as the full ring of integers. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 5 '13 at 12:28
  • $\begingroup$ I could not get what is meant by ''$\mathbb Z [\sqrt d]$ is not the full ring of integers in $\mathbb Q [\sqrt d]$ if $d\equiv 1 (mod 4)$ ''.Why it is not so? I just know only that $\mathbb Q [\sqrt d]$ is a quotient field of $\mathbb Z [\sqrt d]$ for all $d$.So if you please explain your point more clearly then it will be good for me.@ Gerry Myerson $\endgroup$ – Sankha Mar 6 '13 at 6:46
  • $\begingroup$ Take $d=5$. $(1+\sqrt5)/2$ is in ${\bf Q}(\sqrt5)$ and is an algebraic integer, but is not in ${\bf Z}[\sqrt5]$. Take $d=8$. $\sqrt2$ is in ${\bf Q}(\sqrt8)$ and is an algebraic integer, but is not in ${\bf Z}[\sqrt8]$. When you look at the links from @awllower, check to see whether they are about ${\bf Z}[\sqrt d]$, or whether they are about the full ring of algebraic integers in ${\bf Q}(\sqrt d)$, which is a bigger ring in the cases I mentioned. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Mar 6 '13 at 12:33

As stated your question is too general for us to have an answer - it's an open problem, but from what you said after that I think you meant to ask this more specific question instead: for negative integers $d$, when is the ring of integers of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ a PID? To that we have an answer but the proof is highly non-trivial.

First note that this ring of integers is $\mathbb{Z}[\omega]$ where $\omega=\frac{1+\sqrt{d}}{2}$ if $d\equiv 1 \bmod 4$, and $\omega=\sqrt{d}$ if $d\equiv 2,3 \bmod 4$.

Then, due to Stark, 1966, we know that $\mathcal{O}_d$ is a PID $\iff d=$-1, -2 , -3 , -7, -11, -19, -43, -67, or -163.

Stark's proof is hard. But it is easier in the cases where you can show it's a PID by showing it's a Euclidian domain, which (for $d< 0$) is true $\iff d=-1,-2,-3,-7,$ or $-11$. Getting that part has to do with using the field norm and doing a lot of arithmetic. You should be able to find it in textbooks.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Stark's result covers the negative square-free values of $d$, no? Also, I'm fairly sure that last number in the list is $-163$ not $-143$. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jul 23 '13 at 5:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen: I made those changes. $\endgroup$ – KCd Feb 25 '14 at 0:28
  • $\begingroup$ You are correct, but in some books (especially hyperbolic geometry, where imaginary quad extensions are much more relevant than real ones) they define $\mathcal{O}_d$ as $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-d})$ despite the number theory conventions. Having been reading stuff like that, that's where my positive $d$s came from. Thanks for fixing it though. $\endgroup$ – j0equ1nn Mar 3 '14 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ But 4=2.2=(1+√-3)(1-√-3) in Z[√-3]. Doesn't it shows that Z[√-3] is not a UFD, hence not a PID either? $\endgroup$ – OppositeObserver Apr 19 '17 at 8:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @OppositeObserver That's the non-maximal order inside the ring of integers since that's $1\pmod 4$, rather than being $\mathcal{O}_{-d}$. $\endgroup$ – Earth Cracks May 21 '19 at 0:19

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.