4
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a noetherian integral domain. I want to show that any non-zero and non-invertible element $a$ can be written as a finite product of irreducible elements.

my ideas: I should argue by contradiction and consider the set $M$ of the ideals generated by elements, which cannot be written as a product of irreducibles. Since R noetherian, we find a maximal element $(b)$ of $M$. Moreover we find a minimal overlying prime ideal $I$ of $(b)$. But now I'm stuck. I wanted to show that all minimal overlying prime ideals of $(b)$ are principal ideals, but that doesn't hold generally (I think).

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I don't think we need to go far as to find prime ideals. Given a maximal element $(b)$ of $M$, observe that since $(b) \in M$, the element $b$ is not irreducible. So we can write it as a product of two non-units $b = b_1 b_2$. But then $(b_1) \supsetneq (b)$ and $(b_2) \supsetneq (b)$, so by the maximality of $(b)$ in $M$, we see that $b_1$ and $b_2$ can both be written as a product of irreducibles. So $b = b_1 b_2$ can be written as a product of irreducibles, contradicting $(b) \in M$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's seems correct, but don't we have to use some where the property that R is an integral domain? $\endgroup$ – bjn Mar 12 '14 at 23:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, I'm not sure what irreducible means outside of integral domains. Also, one place where we use that $R$ is a domain is to assert that $(b_1) \supset (b)$ is strict. To show this, suppose for sake of contradiction that $b_1 = (b)$, so $b_1 = bb_3$. Then we have $b = b_1 b_2 = (b b_3)b_2$. Using the fact that $R$ is an integral domain, we can cancel the $b$ from both sides to get $b_3 b_2 = 1$, whence $b_2$ is a unit, contradiction. $\endgroup$ – JHF Mar 12 '14 at 23:46

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.