4

If a ring is a UFD, its irreducible elements are exactly its prime elements.

Show that the reverse is not true. Give a nontrivial counterexample.

Hint: Consider the ring $\mathbb{Z} + X\, \mathbb{Q}[X]$.

Note: in the following solution "denominator" of a rational number always means the denominator of its fraction simplified to lowest terms.

Let $R:= \mathbb{Z} + X\, \mathbb{Q}[X]$, whose only units are $R^\times = \{+1, -1\}$.

We show that if $a$ is reducible in $\mathbb{Q}[X]$, which means that $a = q r$ with $\deg(q), \deg(r) \ge 1$, then it is reducible in $R$. \begin{equation*} a(X) = \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{m} q_i X^i\Bigr) \cdot \Bigl(\sum_{j=1}^{n} r_j X^j\Bigr) \quad \text{with $m, n \ge 1$}\, . \end{equation*} Since $q_0 r_0 = a_0 \in \mathbb{Z}$, there is an $c \in\mathbb{Q}$ with $c q_0, \frac{r_0}{c} \in \mathbb{Z}$. To be more precise $c = \frac{\text{Denominator of $q_0$}}{\text{Denominator of $r_0$}}$.

Then \begin{equation*} a(X) = \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{m} c q_i X^i\Bigr) \cdot \Bigl(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \frac{r_j}{c} X^j\Bigr) \, , \end{equation*} so $q, r \in R$ and not units, so $a$ is reducible in $R$.

Let $a, b, p \in R$ with $p$ irreducible and $p \mid a b$. Now we look at the problem in $\mathbb{Q}[X]$. As shown, $p$ cannot be reducible $\mathbb{Q}[X]$, so it must be a unit or irreducible.

We first treat the case that it is irreducible in $\mathbb{Q}[X]$. Since we are now in an UFD if $p \mid a b$ it follows that $p \mid a$ or $p \mid b$. Assume without loss of generality that $p \mid a$. So there is an $u\in\mathbb{Q}[X]$ with $p u =a$. It follows that $p_0 \cdot u_0 = a_0 \in \mathbb{Z}$. If $u_0 \not\in \mathbb{Z}$, there is $c \in \mathbb{Z}$ (the denominator of $u_0$) for which $\frac{p_0}{c}\in\mathbb{Z}$ and so $\frac{p}{c}\in R$, which contradicts the assumption that $p$ is irreducible in $R$. But if $u_0 \in \mathbb{Z}$, also $u\in R$ and we have in $R$ (!) that $p$ divides $a$.

Now we treat the case that $p$ is a unit in $\mathbb{Q}[X]$. Since $(\mathbb{Q}[X])^\times = \mathbb{Q}\setminus\{0\}$ and $R \cap \mathbb{Q} = \mathbb{Z}$, it follows that $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ and since $p$ is irreducible, it has to be a prime number. If $p\mid ab$, it follows that $p_0 \mid a_0 b_0$ (again with $a_0, b_0\in \mathbb{Z}$), so $p_0\mid a_0$ or $p_0\mid b_0$ and therefore $p \mid a$ or $p \mid b$.

We have proven that all irreducible elements of $R$ are prime.

But $R$ is not an UFD, for example $$\frac{X^2}{6} = \frac{X}{2} \cdot \frac{X}{3} = \frac{X}{6}\cdot X \, .$$


Can somebody have a look if this solution is ok? I think the solution seems far too complicated. Either I've missed something obvious or there is a theorem which would make it much easier.

PS: What would be a trivial counterexample?

user26857
  • 52,094
Qyburn
  • 1,677
  • 1
    I think it is OK.... You could probably save a little effort by observing that: 1) $f \mid g $ in $R$ iff $f \mid g \in \mathbb{Q}[X]$ and $f(0) \mid g(0)$ in $\mathbb{Z}$, 2) whenvener $f$ is irreducible in $R$, then $f(0)=\pm 1$. Then the proof seems simpler and shorter (but really, the argument will be basically the same, one just would not get lost in it). PS: A counterexample to what? – Pavel Čoupek May 03 '15 at 05:57
  • @PavelČoupek: A counterexample to the wrong proposition "A ring is an UFD if its prime elements are exactly its irreducible elements". – Qyburn May 03 '15 at 06:04
  • 1
    Well, I think this is a pretty nice counterexample to the wrong proposition. You could, for example, look for non-field domains s.t. there are no irreducibles, and hence no primes, so these are counterexamples for trivial reasons. However, these seem to be less elementary than this (for example, the ring of all algebraic integers satisfies this). – Pavel Čoupek May 03 '15 at 06:40

0 Answers0