Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

added 106 characters in body
Source Link
HeinrichD
HeinrichD
  • 5.5k
  • 22
  • 42

It seems that Lombardi and Quitté in their book "Commutative Algebra: Constructive Methods""Commutative Algebra: Constructive Methods", Ch. XI, §3, define UFDs as GCD-domains such that every regular element is a product of irreducibles. In classical logic, this coincides with the usual definition. (Ingo sketched the proof in his comment.)

It seems that Lombardi and Quitté in their book "Commutative Algebra: Constructive Methods" define UFDs as GCD-domains such that every regular element is a product of irreducibles. In classical logic, this coincides with the usual definition.

It seems that Lombardi and Quitté in their book "Commutative Algebra: Constructive Methods", Ch. XI, §3, define UFDs as GCD-domains such that every regular element is a product of irreducibles. In classical logic, this coincides with the usual definition. (Ingo sketched the proof in his comment.)

Source Link
HeinrichD
HeinrichD
  • 5.5k
  • 22
  • 42

It seems that Lombardi and Quitté in their book "Commutative Algebra: Constructive Methods" define UFDs as GCD-domains such that every regular element is a product of irreducibles. In classical logic, this coincides with the usual definition.