3
$\begingroup$

Problem: Let $ R,S $ be integral domains and $ f: R \to S $ a unit-preserving homomorphism. Assume that $ x \in S $ is irreducible. Then does the pre-image $ {f^{-1}}[\{ x \}] $ contain only irreducible elements?

My research effort

Assume that $ f(x) $ is irreducible and $ x = y \cdot z $. Then $ f(x) = f(y \cdot z) = f(y) \cdot f(z) $. Hence, either $ f(y) $ is invertible or $ f(z) $ is invertible. However, this does not imply that either $ y $ or $ z $ is invertible. For example, $ 5 $ is irreducible (hence not a unit) in $ \mathbb{Z} $, but its image $ \bar{5} $ in $ \mathbb{Z} / 7 \mathbb{Z} $ is a unit.


Could anyone tell me if the statement is true/false and give a hint for a proof/counterexample?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answers. @Pavel, I have been thinking about this, but I don't understand your answer yet. I'm not familiar with localisations. I have read something about on wikipedia. Does it have something to do with fields of fractions? I hope one of you can clarify this. $\endgroup$ – Koenraad van Duin Nov 7 '13 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ Well, yes. Basically, a localization by some set S is (in the integral domain case) the smallest subring T of the field of fractions such that all the elements of S are invertible in T. But never mind that, I adjusted the hint to a concrete example (in particular, to a localization of $\mathbb{Z}$ by the set $\{2, 2^2, 2^3, \dots\}$). $\endgroup$ – Pavel Čoupek Nov 8 '13 at 9:57
1
$\begingroup$

The statement is not true, i.e. a non-irreducible element can be mapped to an irreducible element.

Hint: Think of embedding $f$ of $R$ into some localization of $R$ (by some multiplicative set) and the fact that some element $y$ of the localization usually is a unit despite the fact that $f^{-1}(\{y\})$ is not. Such $y$ can be then used to find counterexample.

More detailed hint:

Ok, so I would still use the localization example, but in a concrete situation to make it clear. Let $f$ be an embedding of the ring $\mathbb{Z}$ to the following subring of $\mathbb{Q}$: $$ S=\{ \frac{a}{2^k} \; | \; a\in \mathbb{Z}, k \in \mathbb{N}_0 \}.$$

Try to find the example in this situation. That is, try to find an integer which is a product of at least two primes, but is irreducible as an element of the ring $S$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $x$ in the localization is a unit, then it is not irreducible and hence does not satisfy the hypothesis of the question. $\endgroup$ – RghtHndSd Nov 6 '13 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ I should pribably have written $y$ instead of $x$ to avoid confusion. Of course, such $x$ is not the counterexample, however, such $x$ can be used to find one. In other words it's only a hint. I changed the answer to avoid further confusion. $\endgroup$ – Pavel Čoupek Nov 6 '13 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ This won't work. If $x\in R$ is irreducible in $S^{-1}R$ then it's irreducible in $R$. $\endgroup$ – anon Nov 6 '13 at 22:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @anon: Take $xy$ in $R$ such that $y$ becomes a unit in the localization but $x$ does not (essentially). $\endgroup$ – RghtHndSd Nov 7 '13 at 0:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Right, I am being very silly. $\endgroup$ – anon Nov 7 '13 at 0:56
0
$\begingroup$

The statement is correct if both $R$ and $S$ are local rings and if $f$ is a homomorphism of local rings, i.e. $f(\mathfrak{m}_{R}) \subset \mathfrak{m}_{S}$, where $\mathfrak{m}_{R}, \mathfrak{m}_{S}$ denotes the maximal ideal of $R$, $S$, respectively.

Proof: The set of non-units in $R$ is the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_{R}$. Since $f(\mathfrak{m}_{R}) \subset \mathfrak{m}_{S}$, it hence follows that if $a$ is a non-unit then $f(a)$ is a non-unit. Let $b\in S$ be irreducible. Suppose that there exists an $x\in f^{-1}(b)$ which is reducible. Then there exist $y, z \in \mathfrak{m}_{R}$ so that $x = y \cdot z$, which yields a factorization of $b= f(x) = f(y) \cdot f(z)$, and since neither $f(y)$ nore $f(z)$ is a unit, this gives contradiction to the irreducibility of $b$.

$\endgroup$

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.