0

Update: Probably, I haven't provided enough details to make my previous question clear. I will add more details to motivate my question now, and I don't think it can be considered a duplicate anymore because it is now self-contained.

Definition 1. Let $R$ be a commutative ring with a multiplicative identity. An element $a \in R$ is called a prime element if:

  1. $a$ is not an invertible element.
  2. If $b \mid a$, then $b$ is either an invertible element or is associated with $a$.

Suppose $F$ is a field and $F[x]$ is a polynomial ring. Then, authors define the notion of the degree of a polynomial. In particular, the degree of the zero polynomial is $-\infty$, and the degree of a constant nonzero polynomial is $0$.

Then, authors claim that prime elements in $F[x]$ play an important role, and those elements are called irreducible polynomials.

They provide an equivalent definition of an irreducible polynomial as the following: $f \in F[x]$ is called irreducible in $F[x]$ if:

  1. $\deg(f) > 0$,
  2. if $f = gh$, then either $g$ or $h$ is a constant polynomial.

If we stick to Definition 1 of a prime element, then I was not able to show that the definitions of irreducible polynomials are equivalent.

However, if we slightly modify the definition of a prime element, then in that case they are equivalent.

Definition 2. Let $R$ be a commutative ring with a multiplicative identity. An element $a \in R$ is called a prime element if:

  1. $a$ is a nonzero element,
  2. $a$ is not an invertible element,
  3. if $b \mid a$, then $b$ is either an invertible element or is associated with $a$.

Proof (using Definition 2).
$\boxed{\Rightarrow}$ Suppose $f$ is a prime element of $F[x]$. Then, by Definition 2, $f \neq 0$.

Since $f$ is not a unit, $f \notin F^* := F \setminus \{0\}$. Thus, $\deg(f) > 0$.

Suppose $f = gh$. Then $g \mid f$. If $g$ is a unit, then $g$ is a constant polynomial. If $g$ is associated with $f$, then $g = af$, where $a \in F^*$. Hence, $f = afh$, which implies $f(1 - ah) = 0$. Since $f \neq 0$, it follows that $1 = ah$, and thus $h$ is a unit, implying $h$ is a constant polynomial.

$\boxed{\Leftarrow}$ Suppose that $f \in F[x]$ is an irreducible polynomial.

Since $\deg(f) > 0$, $f$ is non-constant and hence $f$ is not invertible.

If $g \mid f$, then $f = gh$. If $g$ is constant (notice that $g \neq 0$ as $f \neq 0$), then $g$ is a unit.

If $h$ is constant (notice that $h \neq 0$), then $h$ is a unit, and hence $f$ and $g$ are associated.

Is my reasoning correct?

RFZ
  • 17,648
  • 11
  • 51
  • 144
  • With this definition, $0$ is prime iff $R$ is an integral domain, which is consistent with the definition of a prime ideal. Probably the authors don't care about this case either way. – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 18 '25 at 17:25
  • @QiaochuYuan, I am a bit confused - should the definition of a prime element emphasize that the element must be nonzero? – RFZ Jan 18 '25 at 17:29
  • 1
    It probably doesn't matter much either way, but I don't know what applications the authors have in mind. It depends on what they use this notion for in the rest of the book. – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 18 '25 at 17:40
  • This is one common definition of an irreducible element - see the linked dupe. Whether or not the element $0$ is considered irreducible (or prime) is a matter of convention (and is often not explicitly mentioned since it usually plays little role). $\ \ $ – Bill Dubuque Jan 18 '25 at 19:22
  • @BillDubuque, I have significantly revised my question by providing its motivation. It would be better not to close it now. – RFZ Jan 19 '25 at 11:50
  • The reasoning you gave is correct for the ring $F[X]$, $F$ being a field. There are domains though where irreducible does not imply prime. Additionally, prime ideals do not need to be generated by one or more prime elements. – truber the fighter Jan 19 '25 at 12:06
  • @truberthefighter, so in my context Definition 2 is better, right? Also so in general if we stick to Definition 2 irreducible and prime are not same, right? – RFZ Jan 19 '25 at 12:36
  • Both for definition 1 and definition 2, irreducible and prime are not the same thing. The famous example is the ring generated by $\mathbb Q$ and $\sqrt{-5}$, where 2 is irreducible, but not prime. (You might not need this knowledge.) Regarding prime ideals, you need to consider ${0}$, if you ever encounter such things. Speaking of prime elements, I have no idea. Perhaps its a matter of taste and convention; and you can live a happy life either way, no matter if you call 0 a prime element or not. – truber the fighter Jan 19 '25 at 15:22
  • @truberthefighter, my point was that in the case of $F[x]$, where $F$ is a fields, prime and irreducible elements are the same (if we use Definition 2). – RFZ Jan 19 '25 at 15:54
  • Yes, but also for definition 1 – truber the fighter Jan 19 '25 at 17:24
  • @truberthefighter, Really? At least I was unable to show this using Definition 1. I need to prove the following statement: A polynomial $f \in F[x]$ is prime if and only if $\deg(f) > 0$ and $f = gh$ implies that either $g$ or $h$ is constant. My proof above relies on the condition $f \neq 0$, which is part of Definition 2. I am wondering: can you show whether this is true under Definition 1? Thanks! It would be great if you can attach your proof to your answer! – RFZ Jan 19 '25 at 17:53
  • The proofs you seek are already in the linked dupe. Your edit doesn't change matters because for a solution-verification question to be on topic you must specify precisely which step in the proof you question, and why so. This site is not meant to be used as a proof checking machine You can't avoid duplication using such attempted solution-verification, see the SV tag definition and site rules: EoQS. $\ \ $ – Bill Dubuque Jan 19 '25 at 19:04
  • @BillDubuque, I have been an active member of Mathematics Stack Exchange for over 10 years and am well-acquainted with how the platform operates. I posed my question and provided my attempt at a solution. I fully understand that Mathematics Stack Exchange is not merely a "checking machine." My intention was to seek clarification, yet my question was closed despite my efforts to edit and motivate it further. – RFZ Jan 19 '25 at 19:35
  • @RFZ You are right, I am sorry! I mixed up something, and that should not happen. – truber the fighter Jan 19 '25 at 22:35
  • @truberthefighter, Thanks for letting me know! – RFZ Jan 21 '25 at 11:27

1 Answers1

0

If $R$ does not have zero divisors, $\{0\}$ is a prime ideal. If $R$ does have zero divisors $x,y\neq0$, that is, $xy=0$, you have such elements $x,y\neq\{0\}$ with $xy\in\{0\}$. This means that $\{0\}$ is not a prime ideal. The definition of a prime element $x$ I know is that the principal ideal $R\cdot $x is a prime ideal.

A shorter comment on your question gave this answer too, with a little less detail.

  • I am still confused and feel that my question wasn’t fully addressed. Is this definition complete or not? Specifically, should the definition of a prime element explicitly require that the element be nonzero in addition to the other two conditions? – RFZ Jan 18 '25 at 17:37
  • @RFZ The non-domain case is not relevant here since the book is about fields. Such matters are much more complicated when zero-divisors are present, e.g. then there are no standard definitions of associate and irreducible - the common definitions for a domain bifurcate into a few inequivalent notations. $\ \ $ – Bill Dubuque Jan 18 '25 at 19:31