Z[√-5] is not a UFD
Builds on Unique factorisation domainIrreducible elementAssociate elements
Counterexample
The integral domain is not a unique factorisation domain. In this ring, Let . Then is multiplicative, and , , . No element has norm or , because for integers . So the four factors are irreducible. The only units are , so is not an associate of or of . The two factorisations are different.
Remarks
The element is irreducible but not prime in this ring. Every nonzero nonunit of is still a product of irreducibles. Only the uniqueness fails. Unique factorisation holds again for ideals: is a Dedekind domain.
Reading path
To understand this page from the ground up, read these 11 pages in order. The foundations come first.
Show the path as a graph
- no evidence level
- Group concept
- Ring definition
- Commutative ring definition
- Unit of a ring definition
- Zero divisor definition
- Divisibility in a commutative ring definition
- Integral domain definition
- Associate elements definition
- Irreducible element definition
- Unique factorisation domain definition
- Z[√-5] is not a UFD counterexample
Further reading
About this page
| Tag | 0BSJYCG7NM |
|---|---|
| URI | m2://0BSJYCG7NM |
| Kind | counterexample |
| Writing | W0 stub |
| MSC | 11R11 |
| Uses | Unique factorisation domain, Irreducible element, Associate elements |
Markdown · JSON · Edit on GitHub
What this page needs for W1
- an inventory row: the row of the inventory that the node accounts for (0 of 1)
- edge refutes or not_instance_of out (0 of 1)
The writing levels say how complete the text of a page is. They do not measure its truth.
What links here
No page links to this page yet.