9

I am trying to generalized, for which integral values of $d$,

$\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}] = \{ a + b\sqrt{d} \vert a,b\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ is an Euclidean domain?

I am interested specially in positive integral values of $d$.

2 Answers2

11

As it turns out, that's actually a highly non-trivial question. I presume you're aware that every Euclidean domain is a UFD. It is also useful, however, to recall the definition of an integrally closed domain. That is, an integral domain $R$ with field of fractions $K$ is considered integrally closed if for any monic polynomial $p(x) = x^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + \ldots + a_0\in R[x]$, if $p$ has a root $\alpha\in K$, then $\alpha\in R$. It can be shown that any UFD is an integrally closed domain, and that $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ will never be integrally closed for $d$ not square-free.

Secondly, if $d$ is square-free, then since not being integrally closed is an obstruction to being a UFD (which is a necessary for being an ED), we will often extend $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ into the subring of its fraction field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ which contains precisely the solutions to monic polynomials in $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$, which is in fact a ring, and we will call this ring $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})}$. It is a theorem in algebraic number theory that for square-free nonzero integers $d$, $$\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})} = \begin{cases} \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}] & \mathrm{if\ } d\equiv 2,3\mod 4 \\ \mathbb{Z}\left[\frac{1+\sqrt{d}}{2}\right] & \mathrm{if\ } d\equiv 1\mod 4 \end{cases}$$ which tells us that for $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ to be a Euclidean domain, we must have that $d\equiv 2,3\mod 4$.

Here is where we arrive at our next complication: algebraic number theory provides us with a natural norm $N(a+b\sqrt{d}) = a^2 - db^2$ which is multiplicative and takes elements of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})}$ to integers, as can be checked. A ring which is Euclidean under this norm is said to be norm-Euclidean. There do exist rings which are Euclidean but not norm-Euclidean, such as $$\mathbb{Z}\left[\frac{1+\sqrt{69}}{2}\right]$$ but to my knowledge, these types of rings are not fully understood. We do, however, fully understand which quadratic rings are norm-Euclidean. In fact $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})}$ is norm-Euclidean if and only if $$d = -11, -7, -3, -2, -1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 29, 33, 37, 41, 57, \mathrm{\ or\ }73$$ and so, $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ is norm-Euclidean if and only if $$d = -2, -1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, \mathrm{\ or\ }19.$$ I actually don't know if there are any Euclidean domains that are not norm-Euclidean of the form $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$. My suspicion is that there are not, though it is really way beyond my abilities to prove this.

  • from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_domain : if GRH holds then all real quadratic fields with class number 1 have Euclidean rings of integers. It is believed that there are infinitely many of them https://oeis.org/A003172 , but it's just a conjecture. – user8268 Mar 18 '17 at 17:31
  • The Generalized Riemann Hypothesis? Why does that imply that all real quadratic fields with rings of integers satisfying the UFD property are Euclidean? – Dominic Wynter Mar 18 '17 at 17:33
  • from the cited wiki: if K is a finite extension of Q and the ring of integers of K is a PID with an infinite number of units, then the ring of integers is Euclidean (Weinberger, Peter J. (1973), "On Euclidean rings of algebraic integers", Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, AMS, 24: 321–332). I didn't see the paper and have no idea. – user8268 Mar 18 '17 at 17:56
  • 3
    This question http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1148364/what-is-the-euclidean-function-for-mathbbz-sqrt14 delves into the case $d = 14$. In short, it's Euclidean because it has universal side divisors, e.g., $4 + \sqrt{14}$, but it's not norm-Euclidean because the norm-Euclidean algorithm can fail to yield a result for $\gcd(a, b)$ if neither $a$ nor $b$ is a unit nor a universal side divisor. – Robert Soupe Mar 18 '17 at 19:16
  • This question is a duplicate of http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/58561/norm-euclidean-rings Please copy your answer over there, with adjustments as you see fit. – Robert Soupe Mar 19 '17 at 00:43
  • 1
    O my - every posting to MSE containing the word universal side divisor is nonsense. This includes the one concerning d=14. –  Mar 19 '17 at 08:22
  • @Franz Including posts in which you criticize the terminology, and the comment you've posted just now? – Robert Soupe Mar 19 '17 at 16:45
  • 1
    If one of the universal side divisorists would write down a proof of that a ring is Euclidean if it has an element of norm 2 (that's what you seem to claim) it would become clear pretty quickly what I mean. –  Mar 19 '17 at 20:13
  • @Franz If you remove enough context, you can definitely make them look silly, just like Conan can make Alex Trebek look silly. Funny but unfair. Anyway, it's not enough for the number to have norm 2, or even necessary. What matters is that all its multiples have to be an unit away from non-multiples. Theorem 3 in Siqi Wei's "An example of a PID that is not a Euclidean Domain." Maybe you object to that because it's by a student and not a professor. Thought I had saved a more prestigious paper that says the same thing, can't find it at moment, but uses much the same terminology and symbology. – Robert Soupe Mar 20 '17 at 17:28
  • 1
    Your claim above, that the ring with d = 14 is Euclidean because $4 + sqrt{14}$ is a universal side divisor is false. Please prove me wrong by supplying the details of your proof. Or at least state the Theorem 3 you mention. Is there anything in Wei's article that isn't in http://www.math.buffalo.edu/~dhemmer/619F11/WilsonPaper.pdf or in Motzkin's original article? And please refrain from making assumptions concerning my behaviour towards students or professors - I find that somewhat rude. –  Mar 20 '17 at 17:46
  • 2

    Theorem 3. The [ring] $R$ defined above [$\mathcal O_{\mathbb Q(\sqrt{-19})}$] has no universal side divisors,

    hence is not a Euclidean Domain.

    – Robert Soupe Mar 20 '17 at 18:23
  • As for the Wilson paper, I vaguely recall it but haven't read it recently. – Robert Soupe Mar 20 '17 at 18:23
  • @Franz And I find it rude to be treated like everything I'm saying is ridiculous and easily demolished. But what if I'm wrong, wouldn't the linked question be the appropriate place to raise that objection? – Robert Soupe Mar 21 '17 at 00:33
  • 1
    Your Theorem 3 says that if a ring does not have universal side divisors, then it is not Euclidean. You claim that if it does have universal side divisors, then it is Euclidean. –  Mar 21 '17 at 05:45
  • @Franz That sounds very reasonable. Wait, did you write http://oeis.org/wiki/Universal_side_divisors ? No, that was not even a student who wrote that, but there is that same hesitation to draw the conclusion from Theorem 2.3.6 in Alaca & Williams Introductory Algebraic Number Theory: "The presence of universal side divisors in $R$ suggests that $R$ is a Euclidean domain" (emphasis mine). But when I read the proof on the following page, I don't have the same doubt. One of the co-authors is a Professor Emeritus, not a student, and certainly not a popularizer nor a dilettante. – Robert Soupe Mar 21 '17 at 15:56
  • And obviously you did not write https://commalg.subwiki.org/wiki/Euclidean_ring_that_is_not_a_field_has_a_universal_side_divisor Unfortunately that one lists no references. Plus there seems to be some circular reasoning involved there. – Robert Soupe Mar 21 '17 at 16:01
5

I just want to fill in a detail that was hinted at in Monstrous Moonshine's answer, which is too long for a comment.

If $d \equiv 1 \pmod 4$, then $\mathbb Z[\sqrt d]$ is certainly not an Euclidean domain. It suffices to try $\gcd(2, 1 + \sqrt d)$. Clearly both numbers are of even norm, and the latter has a norm with absolute value larger than the former, which suggests the former ought to be a divisor of the latter.

But $$\frac{1 + \sqrt d}{2} \not\in \mathbb Z[\sqrt d].$$ Worse, $1 + \sqrt d$ is probably irreducible, which would mean this domain does not have unique factorization.

However, $$N\left(\frac{1 + \sqrt d}{2}\right) = \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{\sqrt d}{2}\right)^2 = \frac{1}{4} - \frac{d}{4} = \frac{1 - d}{4},$$ which is an integer because $d \equiv 1 \pmod 4$, so this number that does not look like an algebraic integer is in fact an algebraic integer.

So $\mathbb Z[\sqrt d]$ is not a "complete" domain of algebraic integers. "Lacks integral closure," is the technical term, I believe. If we broaden our view to this "larger" domain, which we can notate $\mathcal O_{\mathbb Q(\sqrt d)}$, then to solve $\gcd(2, 1 + \sqrt d)$ with $1 + \sqrt d = 2q + r$ so that $-4 < N(r) < 4$, we simply set $$q = \frac{1 + \sqrt d}{2}$$ and $r = 0$. Of course this does not guarantee that every pair of numbers in $\mathcal O_{\mathbb Q(\sqrt d)}$ can have its GCD resolved by the Euclidean algorithm with some Euclidean function, let alone the norm function specifically.


A concrete example: $\mathbb Z[\sqrt{21}]$. Then 2 has a norm of 4, and $1 + \sqrt{21}$ has a norm of $-20$, which in absolute value is greater than 4. We see that $$\frac{1 + \sqrt{21}}{2}$$ is an algebraic integer having a minimal polynomial of $x^2 - x - 5$ and a norm of $-5$, and that's clearly a divisor of $-20$.

Robert Soupe
  • 14,999