2
$\begingroup$

Artin says that every element in an integral domain can be expressed uniquely as a product of irreducible elements. This article says irreducible elements are non-units which are not the product of two non-units.

  1. Is $1$ a unit? $1*1=1$, hence $1$ is the inverse of itself.
  2. Say $a$ is an irreducible. $a=b*c$, where $b$ and $c$ are both units, but not the inverses of each other. Is this scenario possible?
  3. What is the motivation behind not allowing a unit to be an irreducible factor of another element? I somehow gather that then the factorization of an element won't be unique (i.e. $a=b*c*d=u*u^{-1}*b*c*d$), but this seems to be a triviality. Why can't $a=u*b*c$, where $u$ is a unit?

Thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Factorization is not a "trivial" property or thing to consider. $\endgroup$ – anon Aug 6 '13 at 5:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It seems unlikely that Artin claimed that every element can be expressed uniquely as a product of irreducibles, as this is famously false in the ring $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$. Nor is it necessarily true that any element can be expressed as such a product at all; this requires some kind of finiteness condition such as being noetherian. So check your hypotheses. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Reich Aug 6 '13 at 5:22
2
$\begingroup$

1) No, $1$ is not irreducible. By definition, irreducible elements cannot be unit. Since $1$ is unit, $1$ is not irreducible.

2) This scenario is impossible. If $b$ and $c$ are units, then their product $bc$ is also a unit, so it cannot be irreducible.

3) You are right. The reason units are not allowed to be irreducible is exactly the reason you point out. For example, in $\mathbb{Z}$ if we allow $1$ or $-1$ (which are the only units in $\mathbb{Z}$) to appear in factorization, then prime factorization of an integer would not be unique: since we can write $15=(-1)\cdot 3\cdot 1\cdot 5\cdot (-1)$ or $15=3\cdot 5\cdot (-1)\cdot (-1)$ or in many other ways.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Prism- sorry I'm a little confused; you've answered the first question as "No", and then gone on to say $1$ is a unit. So is it a unit or not? $\endgroup$ – fierydemon Aug 6 '13 at 5:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AyushKhaitan: Sorry, I meant that "No, $1$ is not irreducible". It is always the case that $1$ is a unit! $\endgroup$ – Prism Aug 6 '13 at 5:14
  • $\begingroup$ As for question 2, what if $a$ is irreducible, and $a=b*c$, where only $b$ is a unit and $c$ is not? Is this scenario possible? Thanks! $\endgroup$ – fierydemon Aug 6 '13 at 5:14
  • $\begingroup$ @AyushKhaitan: Yes, definitely! For example, $a=1*a$ (here $b=1$, $c=a$, and $a$ is arbitrary irreducible element). But there can be more non-trivial examples. $\endgroup$ – Prism Aug 6 '13 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ @prism- Thanks! $\endgroup$ – fierydemon Aug 6 '13 at 5:19

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.