2

Consider the factor ring $R=\mathbb{Z}[i]/\langle 2+2i\rangle$, where $\langle 2+2i\rangle$ is the ideal of the Gaussian integers such that for all $z\in\mathbb{Z}[i]$, $z(2+2i)\in\langle 2+2i\rangle$. Since $2+2i+\langle 2+2i\rangle=\langle 2+2i\rangle$, we can say that $2+2i=0$.

From this, we can square both sides to say that $8=0$ in $\langle 2+2i\rangle$, and we can subtract $2$ from both sides to say that $2i=-2$. Note that we cannot say that $i=-1$, because this would imply that $1+i\in\langle 2+2i\rangle$. It is trivial to prove that this is not the case.

With this in mind, we can see that the order of $R$ is 16, and our 16 unique elements are in the set $S=\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, i, 1+i, 2+i, 3+i, 4+i, 5+i, 6+i,7+i\}$.

However, equipped with addition, multiplication, and the aforementioned identities, what exactly is $R$? It's clearly at least a group under addition. I believe it's also a ring, since distribution appears to work just fine, though there may be something I'm overlooking. I know that there are (to isomorphism) a finite number of distinct groups with a finite order. In particular, there are only 14 distinct groups of order 16. So, which of them is isomorphic to $R$?

A naive answer would be $\mathbb{Z}_8\times\mathbb{Z}_2$, but we can quickly see this is not the case. If it was, and we said $f$ is a homomorphism $f: R\rightarrow S=(a,b)$ where $a=\Re(z),b=\Im(z),$ for $z\in R$. Then, by definition of a homomorphism, we would say $f(z\times w)=f(z)\times f(w)$. We quickly see this is not true - consider the case where $z=1+i$. Here we find that $z^2=2i=-2=-2+8=6$, and as such, $f(z\times z)=f(6+0i)=(6,0)$. However, $f(z)\times f(z)=f(1+i)\times f(1+i)=(1,1)\times(1,1)=(1,1)$. Therefore, $f$ is not a homomorphism. For a similar reason we can also see that $R$ is not isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$, $\mathbb{Z}_4\times\mathbb{Z}_4$, or $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$. What is left? What is it actually isomorphic to?

AKemats
  • 1,347
  • 2
    $(2+2i)(1-i)=4$ is in the ideal. So you only get 8 elements. It is a local ring - all non-units form the unique maximal ideal. $\Bbb{Z}[i]/\langle(1+i)^3\rangle$. – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 18 '22 at 19:02
  • You're confusing the ideal with the quotient. $\langle 2+2i\rangle$ is the ideal generated by $2+2i$, it has an infinity of elements, not $16$. $\mathbb{Z}[i]/\langle 2+2i\rangle$ on the other hand is finite. – jjagmath Mar 18 '22 at 19:08
  • @JyrkiLahtonen, I think you meant $(-1+i)^3$ – GreginGre Mar 18 '22 at 19:16
  • @jjagmath Thank you, I have edited my post to that effect – AKemats Mar 18 '22 at 19:54
  • 5
    Regarding your statement I believe it's also a ring, that conclusion holds in vast generality, as an application of theorem that you may already know: For any ring $R$ and any ideal $I$, the ring operations on $R$ induce well-defined operations on $R/I$, and those operations give $R/I$ the structure of a ring (i.e. those operations satisfy all the ring axioms). So, for example, yes, the distributive law holds in $R/I$. – Lee Mosher Mar 18 '22 at 20:13
  • 2
    @GreginGre, that's the same ideal: multiply by $i^3$, etc. – paul garrett Mar 18 '22 at 20:25

1 Answers1

3

First, as @LeeMosher commented, and as you suspected, yes, there is a natural ring structure on any quotient $R/I$ where $I$ is an ideal of a ring $R$.

And, as others commented, the cardinality of $\mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^3$ is $8=2^3$ (not $16=2^4$). A little more generally, for any prime element $\varpi$ in $\mathbb Z[i]$ (note that $1+i$ is prime), the cardinality of $\mathbb Z[i]/\varpi^n$ is $\mathrm{cardinality}(\mathbb Z[i]/\varpi)^n$. There are various ways to argue this, and perhaps the clearest are not the most elementary...

So, yes, what are the possible abelian groups of order $8$? By the structure theorem, there are three, $\mathbb Z/2\oplus \mathbb Z/2\oplus\mathbb Z/2$, $\mathbb Z/2\oplus \mathbb Z/4$, and $\mathbb Z/8$.

For comparison, the quotient ring $\mathbb Z/8$ is, as an additive group, of course, $\mathbb Z/8$. That is, it's cyclic.

$\mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^3$ is not cyclic, because $4\cdot 1=4=-(1+i)^4=0$, so $4\cdot a=4\cdot (1\cdot a)=(4\cdot 1)\cdot a=0\cdot a=0$. Still, $1+1=2\not=0$. So the additive group you have is $\mathbb Z/2\oplus \mathbb Z/4$.

As a ring, there is also an injection $\mathbb Z/4\to \mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^4$, which we can follow by the quotient $\mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^4\to \mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^3$. Since $\mathbb Z/4$ is generated by $1$, and since its image in $\mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^3$ is still order $4$, the map is injective. Thus, there's an injection of the ring $\mathbb Z/4$ to $\mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^3$. But of course the image is not the whole thing.

There are fancier reasons for $\mathbb Z/2^n$ not to be isomorphic to $\mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^n$, so it's not just a one-off. Namely, all such quotients are images of the $2$-adic completion $\mathbb Z_2$ of $\mathbb Z$, and of the $(1+i)$-adic completion $\mathbb Z[i]_{1+i}$ of $\mathbb Z[i]$. If there were a $\sqrt{-1}$ in $\mathbb Q_2$ (which there is not, as we can see already mod $4$), then these would be isomorphic. In contrast, for example, $\mathbb Z/5^n$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb Z[i]/(2+i)^n$, and in two different ways, because there is a $5$-adic $\sqrt{-1}$. :)

EDIT: as asked in a comment... while $\mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^3\approx \mathbb Z/2\oplus \mathbb Z/4$ as abelian groups, can we determine whether or not these two things are isomorphic as rings? Methodology-wise, if we could hit upon a ring isomorphism by experiment, that'd be good; however, after failing at this for a while, we'd want a way to prove that they're not isomorphic as rings (without listing all the group isomorphisms and seeing that they fail to be ring isomorphisms). So, how to characterize these two rings? The $\mathbb Z[i]/(1+i)^3$ is a quotient of a commutative ring by a power of a prime ideal, so every zero divisor $x$ (meaning $x\not=0$, and there is $y\not=0$ such that $xy=0$) is actually nilpotent (meaning $x^n=0$ for some $n$). In contrast, $\mathbb Z/2\oplus \mathbb Z/4$ has non-nilpotent zero-divisors, such as $x=1\oplus 0$ and $y=0\oplus 1$: their product is $0$, but $x^2=x$ and $y^2=y$, etc.

paul garrett
  • 55,317
  • 1
    Another way to express the quotient ring is as isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}[x] / \langle x^2+1, (x+1)^3 \rangle = \mathbb{Z}[x] / \langle x^2+1, 2x+2, 4 \rangle$. Moreover, the sequence $x^2+1, 2x+2, 4$ is a Groebner basis of an ideal - which means that a polynomial is in the ideal if and only if when you divide by $x^2+1$ and take the remainder (of degree less than 2), then divide by $2x+2$ and take the remainder (of degree less than 2 and with $x$ coefficient either 0 or 1), then divide by 4, you get a remainder of 0 (with general possibilities being... – Daniel Schepler Mar 18 '22 at 21:44
  • a polynomial of degree less than 2, with $x$ coefficient either 0 or 1 and constant coefficient one of 0,1,2,3). – Daniel Schepler Mar 18 '22 at 21:44
  • Thank you very much for this, it's very helpful! However, I'm wondering - you mentioned that $\mathbb{Z}[i]/(1+i)^3$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}/2\oplus\mathbb{Z}/4$ as an additive group. Does this mean that the two are not isomorphic as rings? Because I can't seem to match the elements between sets up such that $f(z\times w)=f(z)\times f(w)$. – AKemats Mar 19 '22 at 17:30