Timeline for Irreducible/prime/indivisible elements
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 11, 2015 at 4:45 | answer | added | CPM | timeline score: 5 | |
Jan 25, 2015 at 16:00 | vote | accept | GreginGre | ||
Jan 25, 2015 at 11:25 | answer | added | YCor | timeline score: 8 | |
Jan 25, 2015 at 10:05 | vote | accept | GreginGre | ||
Jan 25, 2015 at 16:00 | |||||
Jan 25, 2015 at 10:03 | history | edited | GreginGre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
Jan 25, 2015 at 9:53 | vote | accept | GreginGre | ||
Jan 25, 2015 at 10:04 | |||||
Jan 23, 2015 at 21:48 | answer | added | Pace Nielsen | timeline score: 7 | |
Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 | comment | added | GreginGre | thanks for your answer. Your example for $Q1$ does not work, since $x$ is certainly indivisible, but it is prime. iN fact, any noetherian boolean ring won't work , because it will be finite, hence isomorphic to $\mathbb{F}_2^n$ for some $n\geq 1.$ for the later ring, there is no irreducible elements, and all indivisible elements are prime. However, your candidate for Q3 seems to work, thanks a lot ! | |
Jan 21, 2015 at 1:41 | comment | added | Pace Nielsen | On question 3, take the ring $A=K[[t^2,t^3]]$. The only non-zero prime ideal in this ring is the maximal ideal $(t^2,t^3)$, which is not principal. Thus, there are no prime elements. It is noetherian, according to this wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen%E2%80%93Macaulay_ring | |
Jan 20, 2015 at 21:02 | comment | added | Arturo Magidin | I misread the condition for "indivisible". | |
Jan 20, 2015 at 21:02 | comment | added | GreginGre | Hi,sorry , I meant "indivisible" in Q1, and I forgot to get rid of the trivial case of a field. I've modified the text now. However, I don't understand how you can say that $p\mid ab\Rightarrow p\mid a$ or $p\mid b$ when $p$ is indivisible. | |
Jan 20, 2015 at 20:54 | history | edited | GreginGre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
Jan 20, 2015 at 20:52 | comment | added | Arturo Magidin | In a commutative ring, "indivisible" and "prime" are the same thing for nonzero elements. For in a commutative ring, prime and completely prime are equivalent for ideals. If $p$ is prime, and $p|ab$, then $ab\in (p)$, hence $a\in (p)$ or $b\in (p)$, hence $p|a$ or $p|b$. Conversely, if $p$ is indivisible and $ab\in (p)$, then $p|ab$, hence $p|a$ or $p|b$, hence $a\in (p)$ or $b\in (p)$, thus $(p)$ is completely prime, and hence prime; therefore, $p$ is prime. | |
Jan 20, 2015 at 20:50 | comment | added | Arturo Magidin | Q2 and Q3: Fields are noetherian domains and have no primes and no irreducible elements. However, they have no zero divisors, so your parenthetical comment is false. In particular, it is false that Noetherian domains must have indivisble elements. | |
Jan 20, 2015 at 20:32 | history | asked | GreginGre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |