4
$\begingroup$

Does anyone know an elementary proof for the following proposition? It is stated without proof in my textbook:

Let $m$ be a negative squarefree integer with $m \equiv 1 \pmod 4$. Then the integral domain $\mathbb{Z} + \mathbb{Z}[\frac{1 + \sqrt m}{2}]$ is Euclidean with respect to $\phi_m$ if and only if $m = -3, -7, -11$. Here, $\phi_m:\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt m) \to \mathbb{Q}$ is defined by $\phi_m(r + s\sqrt m) = |r^2 - ms^2|$ for all $r, s \in \mathbb{Q}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't $\mathbb{Z} + \mathbb{Z}\left[\frac{1 + \sqrt{m}}{2}\right] = \mathbb{Z}\left[\frac{1 + \sqrt{m}}{2}\right]$? $\endgroup$ – Mayank Pandey Oct 31 '14 at 7:13
2
$\begingroup$

A proof is given in the book of G. H Hardy, E. M. Wright: An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers. Oxford University Press (1979). There are many other references, of course.
A short proof is given here, see see Theorem $1$ and Theorem $2$. Here the first Theorem proves that these rings of integers $\mathcal{O}_K$ for $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-m})$, $m=1,2,3,7,11$ are Euclidean, and the second Theorem shows that these are the only ones, for imaginary quadratic number fields, i.e. for $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-m})$, $m>0$. The two cases $m=-1,-2$ do not satisfy the congruence $m\equiv 1 (4)$ of course. For $m\equiv 1(4)$ we have $\mathcal{O}_K=\mathbb{Z}+\mathbb{Z}\bigl(\frac{1+\sqrt m}{2}\bigr)$.

$\endgroup$

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.