Why is it natural to define a prime as $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$?
Definition: An element $p$, not zero and not a unit, is called prime if $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$.
I am having trouble understanding why this definition of prime follows naturally. Could someone provide an intuitive explanation for this definition? For context, the text I am learning from has briefly gone over groups, rings, and integral domains.
Thank you!
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
New contributor
add a comment |
Definition: An element $p$, not zero and not a unit, is called prime if $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$.
I am having trouble understanding why this definition of prime follows naturally. Could someone provide an intuitive explanation for this definition? For context, the text I am learning from has briefly gone over groups, rings, and integral domains.
Thank you!
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
New contributor
3
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
2 days ago
2
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
yesterday
2
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
yesterday
2
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
yesterday
add a comment |
Definition: An element $p$, not zero and not a unit, is called prime if $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$.
I am having trouble understanding why this definition of prime follows naturally. Could someone provide an intuitive explanation for this definition? For context, the text I am learning from has briefly gone over groups, rings, and integral domains.
Thank you!
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
New contributor
Definition: An element $p$, not zero and not a unit, is called prime if $p|ab$ implies $p|a$ or $p|b$.
I am having trouble understanding why this definition of prime follows naturally. Could someone provide an intuitive explanation for this definition? For context, the text I am learning from has briefly gone over groups, rings, and integral domains.
Thank you!
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
elementary-number-theory ring-theory prime-numbers integral-domain
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
302k32427757
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
WilsonWilson
332
332
New contributor
New contributor
3
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
2 days ago
2
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
yesterday
2
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
yesterday
2
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
yesterday
add a comment |
3
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
2 days ago
2
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
yesterday
2
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
yesterday
2
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
yesterday
3
3
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
2 days ago
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
2 days ago
2
2
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
yesterday
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
yesterday
2
2
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
yesterday
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
yesterday
2
2
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
yesterday
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
yesterday
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime. (Or $f=0$)
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Note:
As rschwieb points out in the comments, I should have been a bit more careful when originally writing this. We usually exclude $0$ from the definition of prime (as you've done above). However $R/0R=R/0=R$ is certainly a domain. I suspect that the reason for excluding $0$ is a function of the other motivations for this definition discussed below. Since if we allow $0$ to be prime, then it complicates the statment of unique prime factorization, since after all, $0=0cdot 3^2=0cdot 101=0cdot (-17)$, so how can $0$ have a unique prime factorization?
For more on this and a different perspective, I recommend rschwieb's excellent answer here (same link as in the comments).
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
2 days ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
2 days ago
1
The "ring theoretic" argument isn't completely accurate. $f=0$ is not ever considered to be prime, but in a domain $R/(0)$ will be a domain. I tried to give a little intuition on what makes $0$ different from primes in this solution. Actually, as others have said, it has more to do with actual factorization than some property that a principal ideal has (and so that solution is about irreducibles in a UFD, which are exactly the primes in a UFD.)
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
Edge case notwithstanding, I realize that $0$ does satisfy the $p|ab$ definition in a domain. It's just that it's not enough to warrant calling $0$ a prime. Perhaps though, there will come a time when we care about the connection to factorization and irreducibles less, and then we can consider using this inclusive definition. I'm game for that sort of thing, but I just wanted to echo what the current state of literature probably says.
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
@rschwieb That's certainly true, I agree that we don't usually consider $0$ a prime. I'm planing to edit in a note to that effect.
– jgon
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
add a comment |
This isn't actually the definition I was taught. I was taught that if $p = ab$ then either $a$ or $b$ is a unit where a unit is defined a value $a$ such that $frac {1}{a}$ is also in the set being considered. In this case of integers this is simply $1$ or $-1$. I say this because I question the premise of your question. You say that definition is "natural". Definitions satisfy the requirements of defining the meta abstract notion that you wish to define by doing the following:
The object that you wish to define is the only thing that satisfies the definition.
The definition is easy enough for you to comprehend such that it serves your writing needs.
I'm going to assume by "natural" that you mean the latter. Ok, so I can try to pick the writers brain. They certainly had a reason for writing it in that form. What it could be here is a matter of philosophy. In the philosophy of the definition I was given a prime is not factorable and therefore any pair of factors must be a value and a unit. Yours is looking at it from the perspective of how a prime fits into a composite number in that if a prime divides a product then it must divide into one of the factors.
So why is it natural? That is a matter of mathematical preference, and intuition. I anticipate you know why the definition is true. So I would say that this definition was chosen because it somehow makes the proofs you are covering in the current course easier to write. It might be that proving a prime is prime isn't a priority in your course as my definition makes it easier. Your definition if I am to guess makes it easier to prove things related to factorization and whether or not it is unique.
I know I spent this answer comparing two definitions. I did that because neither definition is superior and therefore one cannot be more natural than the other.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065750%2fwhy-is-it-natural-to-define-a-prime-as-pab-implies-pa-or-pb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime. (Or $f=0$)
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Note:
As rschwieb points out in the comments, I should have been a bit more careful when originally writing this. We usually exclude $0$ from the definition of prime (as you've done above). However $R/0R=R/0=R$ is certainly a domain. I suspect that the reason for excluding $0$ is a function of the other motivations for this definition discussed below. Since if we allow $0$ to be prime, then it complicates the statment of unique prime factorization, since after all, $0=0cdot 3^2=0cdot 101=0cdot (-17)$, so how can $0$ have a unique prime factorization?
For more on this and a different perspective, I recommend rschwieb's excellent answer here (same link as in the comments).
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
2 days ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
2 days ago
1
The "ring theoretic" argument isn't completely accurate. $f=0$ is not ever considered to be prime, but in a domain $R/(0)$ will be a domain. I tried to give a little intuition on what makes $0$ different from primes in this solution. Actually, as others have said, it has more to do with actual factorization than some property that a principal ideal has (and so that solution is about irreducibles in a UFD, which are exactly the primes in a UFD.)
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
Edge case notwithstanding, I realize that $0$ does satisfy the $p|ab$ definition in a domain. It's just that it's not enough to warrant calling $0$ a prime. Perhaps though, there will come a time when we care about the connection to factorization and irreducibles less, and then we can consider using this inclusive definition. I'm game for that sort of thing, but I just wanted to echo what the current state of literature probably says.
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
@rschwieb That's certainly true, I agree that we don't usually consider $0$ a prime. I'm planing to edit in a note to that effect.
– jgon
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime. (Or $f=0$)
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Note:
As rschwieb points out in the comments, I should have been a bit more careful when originally writing this. We usually exclude $0$ from the definition of prime (as you've done above). However $R/0R=R/0=R$ is certainly a domain. I suspect that the reason for excluding $0$ is a function of the other motivations for this definition discussed below. Since if we allow $0$ to be prime, then it complicates the statment of unique prime factorization, since after all, $0=0cdot 3^2=0cdot 101=0cdot (-17)$, so how can $0$ have a unique prime factorization?
For more on this and a different perspective, I recommend rschwieb's excellent answer here (same link as in the comments).
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
2 days ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
2 days ago
1
The "ring theoretic" argument isn't completely accurate. $f=0$ is not ever considered to be prime, but in a domain $R/(0)$ will be a domain. I tried to give a little intuition on what makes $0$ different from primes in this solution. Actually, as others have said, it has more to do with actual factorization than some property that a principal ideal has (and so that solution is about irreducibles in a UFD, which are exactly the primes in a UFD.)
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
Edge case notwithstanding, I realize that $0$ does satisfy the $p|ab$ definition in a domain. It's just that it's not enough to warrant calling $0$ a prime. Perhaps though, there will come a time when we care about the connection to factorization and irreducibles less, and then we can consider using this inclusive definition. I'm game for that sort of thing, but I just wanted to echo what the current state of literature probably says.
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
@rschwieb That's certainly true, I agree that we don't usually consider $0$ a prime. I'm planing to edit in a note to that effect.
– jgon
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime. (Or $f=0$)
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Note:
As rschwieb points out in the comments, I should have been a bit more careful when originally writing this. We usually exclude $0$ from the definition of prime (as you've done above). However $R/0R=R/0=R$ is certainly a domain. I suspect that the reason for excluding $0$ is a function of the other motivations for this definition discussed below. Since if we allow $0$ to be prime, then it complicates the statment of unique prime factorization, since after all, $0=0cdot 3^2=0cdot 101=0cdot (-17)$, so how can $0$ have a unique prime factorization?
For more on this and a different perspective, I recommend rschwieb's excellent answer here (same link as in the comments).
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
Good question!
There are probably several possible answers to this question, but here is my perspective.
Reason 1: Ring Theoretic
Let $R$ be a commutative ring. Let $fin R$, then consider $fR={af : ain R}$.
You can check that this is an ideal of $R$, and it is also often denoted by simply $(f)$ (meaning the ideal of $R$ generated by $f$).
Now we can ask the question
When is $R/fR$ a domain?
It turns out the answer is:
Precisely when $f$ is prime. (Or $f=0$)
Proof:
If $p$ is prime, then if $$abequiv 0 pmod{pR},$$
by definition this means $pmid ab$, which since $p$ is prime implies that $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. However this in turn means
$$aequiv 0!!pmod{pR}quadtext{or}quad bequiv 0!!pmod{pR},$$
which is what it means for $R/pR$ to be a domain.
Conversely, if $R/pR$ is a domain, then if $pmid ab$, $abequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, so either $aequiv 0 pmod{pR}$ or $bequiv 0 pmod{pR}$, which means either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime. $blacksquare$
Note:
As rschwieb points out in the comments, I should have been a bit more careful when originally writing this. We usually exclude $0$ from the definition of prime (as you've done above). However $R/0R=R/0=R$ is certainly a domain. I suspect that the reason for excluding $0$ is a function of the other motivations for this definition discussed below. Since if we allow $0$ to be prime, then it complicates the statment of unique prime factorization, since after all, $0=0cdot 3^2=0cdot 101=0cdot (-17)$, so how can $0$ have a unique prime factorization?
For more on this and a different perspective, I recommend rschwieb's excellent answer here (same link as in the comments).
Reason 2: Number Theoretic (kind of)
The other way we come up with this naturally is that it is the condition we need to hold in order to get unique factorizations.
I.e., suppose we have two factorizations of an element $xin R$ into irreducibles
$$x = prod_i p_i = prod_j q_j,$$
with $p_i,q_jin R$ irreducibles,
then when are we guaranteed that some $p_i$ occurring in the first factorization appears somewhere on the left hand side (or an associate of $p_i$, i.e. a unit times $p_i$, since for example in the integers we could have $9=3cdot 3 = (-3)cdot (-3)$)?
Well, we need to have $p_i$ divide one of the $q_j$ (for then they are associates, since $p_i$ and $q_j$ are irreducibles).
The condition that for all multiples $x$ of $p_i$, $p_i$ divides some $q_j$ for any factorization $x=prod_j q_j$ of $x$ into irreducibles is equivalent to $p_i$ being prime (for a Noetherian ring, so that we are guaranteed to have factorizations into irreducibles, otherwise bad things could happen).
Proof:
A note on notation: I'll replace $p_i$ with $p$.
Suppose $p$ is prime, and $pmid x$, and $prod_j q_j$ is a factorization of $x$ into irreducibles, then we induct on the length of the factorization. If $x=q_1$ is irreducible, then $pmid q_1$ by definition, and we are done. Otherwise, since $pmid (q_1cdots q_{n-1})q_n$, then by primality of $p$, either $pmid q_1cdots q_{n-1}$, in which case $pmid q_j$ for some $j$ by the inductive hypothesis, or $pmid q_n$, and we are done.
Conversely, if $p$ has the property discussed above, then if $pmid ab$ for some $a$ and $b$, then let $a=prod_ialpha_i$ and $b=prod_jbeta_j$ be factorizations of $a$ and $b$ into irreducibles (since $R$ is Noetherian. If you aren't familiar with Noetherianness yet, then just take the existence of factorizations into irreducibles as a black box for now). Then $pmid x ab= prod_i alpha_i prod_j beta_j$, so by the property we're assuming $p$ has, either $pmid alpha_i$ for some $i$, or $pmid beta_j$ for some $j$, and thus either $pmid a$ or $pmid b$. Hence $p$ is prime.
Reason 3: (Actually a consequence of reason 2)
There is a theorem, which is relevant here.
A Noetherian domain $R$ is a UFD if and only if every irreducible is prime.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
jgonjgon
13.4k22041
13.4k22041
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
2 days ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
2 days ago
1
The "ring theoretic" argument isn't completely accurate. $f=0$ is not ever considered to be prime, but in a domain $R/(0)$ will be a domain. I tried to give a little intuition on what makes $0$ different from primes in this solution. Actually, as others have said, it has more to do with actual factorization than some property that a principal ideal has (and so that solution is about irreducibles in a UFD, which are exactly the primes in a UFD.)
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
Edge case notwithstanding, I realize that $0$ does satisfy the $p|ab$ definition in a domain. It's just that it's not enough to warrant calling $0$ a prime. Perhaps though, there will come a time when we care about the connection to factorization and irreducibles less, and then we can consider using this inclusive definition. I'm game for that sort of thing, but I just wanted to echo what the current state of literature probably says.
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
@rschwieb That's certainly true, I agree that we don't usually consider $0$ a prime. I'm planing to edit in a note to that effect.
– jgon
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
2 days ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
2 days ago
1
The "ring theoretic" argument isn't completely accurate. $f=0$ is not ever considered to be prime, but in a domain $R/(0)$ will be a domain. I tried to give a little intuition on what makes $0$ different from primes in this solution. Actually, as others have said, it has more to do with actual factorization than some property that a principal ideal has (and so that solution is about irreducibles in a UFD, which are exactly the primes in a UFD.)
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
Edge case notwithstanding, I realize that $0$ does satisfy the $p|ab$ definition in a domain. It's just that it's not enough to warrant calling $0$ a prime. Perhaps though, there will come a time when we care about the connection to factorization and irreducibles less, and then we can consider using this inclusive definition. I'm game for that sort of thing, but I just wanted to echo what the current state of literature probably says.
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
@rschwieb That's certainly true, I agree that we don't usually consider $0$ a prime. I'm planing to edit in a note to that effect.
– jgon
yesterday
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
2 days ago
Could you clarify your choice of representation of factorization? Why is there a factor of $u$ and $v$ separate from the product of the rest of the irreducible factors? Also, could you expand upon this "That $p_{i}$ divides some $q_{j}$ for all factorizations of multiples of $p_{i}$ is equivalent to $p_{i}$ being prime?" I am a little lost. Thank you!
– Wilson
2 days ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
2 days ago
@Wilson, sorry yes. I'll edit in a moment, but $u$ and $v$ are units, though I could have omitted them.
– jgon
2 days ago
1
1
The "ring theoretic" argument isn't completely accurate. $f=0$ is not ever considered to be prime, but in a domain $R/(0)$ will be a domain. I tried to give a little intuition on what makes $0$ different from primes in this solution. Actually, as others have said, it has more to do with actual factorization than some property that a principal ideal has (and so that solution is about irreducibles in a UFD, which are exactly the primes in a UFD.)
– rschwieb
yesterday
The "ring theoretic" argument isn't completely accurate. $f=0$ is not ever considered to be prime, but in a domain $R/(0)$ will be a domain. I tried to give a little intuition on what makes $0$ different from primes in this solution. Actually, as others have said, it has more to do with actual factorization than some property that a principal ideal has (and so that solution is about irreducibles in a UFD, which are exactly the primes in a UFD.)
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
1
Edge case notwithstanding, I realize that $0$ does satisfy the $p|ab$ definition in a domain. It's just that it's not enough to warrant calling $0$ a prime. Perhaps though, there will come a time when we care about the connection to factorization and irreducibles less, and then we can consider using this inclusive definition. I'm game for that sort of thing, but I just wanted to echo what the current state of literature probably says.
– rschwieb
yesterday
Edge case notwithstanding, I realize that $0$ does satisfy the $p|ab$ definition in a domain. It's just that it's not enough to warrant calling $0$ a prime. Perhaps though, there will come a time when we care about the connection to factorization and irreducibles less, and then we can consider using this inclusive definition. I'm game for that sort of thing, but I just wanted to echo what the current state of literature probably says.
– rschwieb
yesterday
1
1
@rschwieb That's certainly true, I agree that we don't usually consider $0$ a prime. I'm planing to edit in a note to that effect.
– jgon
yesterday
@rschwieb That's certainly true, I agree that we don't usually consider $0$ a prime. I'm planing to edit in a note to that effect.
– jgon
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
add a comment |
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
add a comment |
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
Welcome!
take 6 for example it is obviously not prime. We have that $6|6=2*3$ but $6nmid 2$ and $6nmid 3$.
So if this definition is not true, that means there must be "a part" of the number hidden as a factor of $a$ and a different part hidden in $b$. Which whould of course mean that the number itshelf has more than one factor so it is not prime in the classical sence
answered 2 days ago
George NtouliosGeorge Ntoulios
637
637
add a comment |
add a comment |
This isn't actually the definition I was taught. I was taught that if $p = ab$ then either $a$ or $b$ is a unit where a unit is defined a value $a$ such that $frac {1}{a}$ is also in the set being considered. In this case of integers this is simply $1$ or $-1$. I say this because I question the premise of your question. You say that definition is "natural". Definitions satisfy the requirements of defining the meta abstract notion that you wish to define by doing the following:
The object that you wish to define is the only thing that satisfies the definition.
The definition is easy enough for you to comprehend such that it serves your writing needs.
I'm going to assume by "natural" that you mean the latter. Ok, so I can try to pick the writers brain. They certainly had a reason for writing it in that form. What it could be here is a matter of philosophy. In the philosophy of the definition I was given a prime is not factorable and therefore any pair of factors must be a value and a unit. Yours is looking at it from the perspective of how a prime fits into a composite number in that if a prime divides a product then it must divide into one of the factors.
So why is it natural? That is a matter of mathematical preference, and intuition. I anticipate you know why the definition is true. So I would say that this definition was chosen because it somehow makes the proofs you are covering in the current course easier to write. It might be that proving a prime is prime isn't a priority in your course as my definition makes it easier. Your definition if I am to guess makes it easier to prove things related to factorization and whether or not it is unique.
I know I spent this answer comparing two definitions. I did that because neither definition is superior and therefore one cannot be more natural than the other.
add a comment |
This isn't actually the definition I was taught. I was taught that if $p = ab$ then either $a$ or $b$ is a unit where a unit is defined a value $a$ such that $frac {1}{a}$ is also in the set being considered. In this case of integers this is simply $1$ or $-1$. I say this because I question the premise of your question. You say that definition is "natural". Definitions satisfy the requirements of defining the meta abstract notion that you wish to define by doing the following:
The object that you wish to define is the only thing that satisfies the definition.
The definition is easy enough for you to comprehend such that it serves your writing needs.
I'm going to assume by "natural" that you mean the latter. Ok, so I can try to pick the writers brain. They certainly had a reason for writing it in that form. What it could be here is a matter of philosophy. In the philosophy of the definition I was given a prime is not factorable and therefore any pair of factors must be a value and a unit. Yours is looking at it from the perspective of how a prime fits into a composite number in that if a prime divides a product then it must divide into one of the factors.
So why is it natural? That is a matter of mathematical preference, and intuition. I anticipate you know why the definition is true. So I would say that this definition was chosen because it somehow makes the proofs you are covering in the current course easier to write. It might be that proving a prime is prime isn't a priority in your course as my definition makes it easier. Your definition if I am to guess makes it easier to prove things related to factorization and whether or not it is unique.
I know I spent this answer comparing two definitions. I did that because neither definition is superior and therefore one cannot be more natural than the other.
add a comment |
This isn't actually the definition I was taught. I was taught that if $p = ab$ then either $a$ or $b$ is a unit where a unit is defined a value $a$ such that $frac {1}{a}$ is also in the set being considered. In this case of integers this is simply $1$ or $-1$. I say this because I question the premise of your question. You say that definition is "natural". Definitions satisfy the requirements of defining the meta abstract notion that you wish to define by doing the following:
The object that you wish to define is the only thing that satisfies the definition.
The definition is easy enough for you to comprehend such that it serves your writing needs.
I'm going to assume by "natural" that you mean the latter. Ok, so I can try to pick the writers brain. They certainly had a reason for writing it in that form. What it could be here is a matter of philosophy. In the philosophy of the definition I was given a prime is not factorable and therefore any pair of factors must be a value and a unit. Yours is looking at it from the perspective of how a prime fits into a composite number in that if a prime divides a product then it must divide into one of the factors.
So why is it natural? That is a matter of mathematical preference, and intuition. I anticipate you know why the definition is true. So I would say that this definition was chosen because it somehow makes the proofs you are covering in the current course easier to write. It might be that proving a prime is prime isn't a priority in your course as my definition makes it easier. Your definition if I am to guess makes it easier to prove things related to factorization and whether or not it is unique.
I know I spent this answer comparing two definitions. I did that because neither definition is superior and therefore one cannot be more natural than the other.
This isn't actually the definition I was taught. I was taught that if $p = ab$ then either $a$ or $b$ is a unit where a unit is defined a value $a$ such that $frac {1}{a}$ is also in the set being considered. In this case of integers this is simply $1$ or $-1$. I say this because I question the premise of your question. You say that definition is "natural". Definitions satisfy the requirements of defining the meta abstract notion that you wish to define by doing the following:
The object that you wish to define is the only thing that satisfies the definition.
The definition is easy enough for you to comprehend such that it serves your writing needs.
I'm going to assume by "natural" that you mean the latter. Ok, so I can try to pick the writers brain. They certainly had a reason for writing it in that form. What it could be here is a matter of philosophy. In the philosophy of the definition I was given a prime is not factorable and therefore any pair of factors must be a value and a unit. Yours is looking at it from the perspective of how a prime fits into a composite number in that if a prime divides a product then it must divide into one of the factors.
So why is it natural? That is a matter of mathematical preference, and intuition. I anticipate you know why the definition is true. So I would say that this definition was chosen because it somehow makes the proofs you are covering in the current course easier to write. It might be that proving a prime is prime isn't a priority in your course as my definition makes it easier. Your definition if I am to guess makes it easier to prove things related to factorization and whether or not it is unique.
I know I spent this answer comparing two definitions. I did that because neither definition is superior and therefore one cannot be more natural than the other.
answered yesterday
The Great DuckThe Great Duck
17832047
17832047
add a comment |
add a comment |
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Wilson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065750%2fwhy-is-it-natural-to-define-a-prime-as-pab-implies-pa-or-pb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
You may find this article on Euclid's lemma useful.
– André 3000
2 days ago
2
Well, intuitive, prime to me means indivisible. If $p|ab$ but it's impossible to split $p$ so that part of it goes into $a$ and part of it goes into $b$ then... it's indivisible.
– fleablood
yesterday
2
I enjoyed reading this which gives some intuition on what we aiming to do with primes.
– Mason
yesterday
2
This property is precisely what is required of irreducibles in order for factorizations into irreducibles to be unique (in integral domains).
– Bill Dubuque
yesterday