0

I want to proof that unique factorization fails in $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_{23}]$. The product the two fallowing cyclotomic integers is divisible by $2$ but neither of the two factors is. $$ \left( 1 + \zeta^2 + \zeta^4 + \zeta^5 + \zeta^6 + \zeta^{10} + \zeta^{11} \right) \left( 1 + \zeta + \zeta^5 + \zeta^6 + \zeta^7 + \zeta^9 + \zeta^{11} \right) =\\ 2\zeta^{17} + 2\zeta^{16} + 2\zeta^{15} + 2\zeta^{13} + 2\zeta^{12} + 6\zeta^{11} + 2\zeta^{10}+ 2\zeta^{9} + 2\zeta^{7} + 2\zeta^{6} + 2\zeta^{5}. $$ The only thing left to check is the irreducibility of $2$ in $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_{23}]$ and my literature points out that this is "a non-trivial fact in this situation". Is there an (easy) argument to proof the irreducibility?

  • 1
    The class number of $\Bbb Q(\zeta_{23})$ is $3$, hence its ring of integers $\Bbb Z[\zeta_{23}]$ is not factorial - see this duplicate. I suppose you took this post? – Dietrich Burde Feb 18 '20 at 14:30
  • @DietrichBurde Thanks for your fast answer. I do understand the argument using the class number but i want to proof the statement with the irreducibility of 2. – waldschrat Feb 18 '20 at 14:38
  • Can you give a link to "your literature"? – Dietrich Burde Feb 18 '20 at 15:00
  • @DietrichBurde I've read https://people.math.umass.edu/~weston/cn/notes.pdf by Tom Weston. The claim is on page 32. – waldschrat Feb 18 '20 at 15:56
  • It is stated there that Kummer worked out that $2$ is irreducible. I suppose one can find it then in Kummer's work. If it is "non-trivial" one might think that the class number proof is easier, but not so direct. I haven't tried starting with $2=ab$ and applying the norm... – Dietrich Burde Feb 18 '20 at 16:01

2 Answers2

2

I don't know how much algebraic number theory you know, but after you have found the identity $\alpha \beta = 2 \gamma$ given above the rest of the argument is (almost) computation free.

Let $L = \mathbf{Q}(\zeta_{23})$, and let $K \subset L$ denote the subfield $\mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{-23})$. There is a surjection

$$ \mathbf{F}^{\times}_{23} = G:=\mathrm{Gal}(L/\mathbf{Q}) \rightarrow \mathrm{Gal}(K/\mathbf{Q}) = \mathbf{F}^{\times}_{23}/\mathbf{F}^{\times 2}_{23} = \mathbf{Z}/2 \mathbf{Z}.$$

The Frobenius element at $2$ is $[2]$, and since $2 = 25 \bmod 23$ is a square, it's easy enough to see that it has order $11$ in $G$ and maps trivially to $\mathrm{Gal}(K/\mathbf{Q})$.

It follows from basic algebraic number theory that:

  1. There is a factorization $(2) = \mathfrak{P} \mathfrak{Q}$ as prime ideals in $L$.

  2. There is a factorization $(2) = \mathfrak{p} \mathfrak{q}$ as prime ideals in $K$, and the relative norm of $\mathfrak{P}$ and $\mathfrak{Q}$ to $K$ is $\mathfrak{p}^{11}$ and $\mathfrak{q}^{11}$ respectively.

  3. The norm of $\mathfrak{p}$ and $\mathfrak{q}$ are both $2$.

To show that $2$ is irreducible, you need to show that $\mathfrak{P}$ is not a principal ideal. Assume that $\mathfrak{P} = (\alpha)$. Then

$$\mathfrak{p}^{11} = (N_{L/K}(\alpha)).$$

So now you just need to show that $\mathfrak{p}^{11}$ is not principal. Note that

$$\mathfrak{p}^3 \mathfrak{q}^3 = (8) = \left(\frac{3 + \sqrt{23}}{2} \right)\left(\frac{3 - \sqrt{23}}{2} \right).$$

From this it follows that $\mathfrak{p}^3$ and $\mathfrak{q}^3$ are principal. But if $\mathfrak{p}^3$ and $\mathfrak{p}^{11}$ are both principal then so is $\mathfrak{p}$. But this is impossible because there is no integral element of $K$ of norm $2$.

  • You can avoid much of the prime ideal stuff by observing that if $2 = \alpha \beta$, then $N\alpha = 2^a$ and $N\beta = 2^b$ with $a + b =22$. Taking the norm to the quadratic subfield then yields a contradiction since it would imply that both $a$ and $b$ are divisible by $3$. –  Feb 19 '20 at 17:14
0

Surely the factorisation of $(8)$ given by user748541 should involve $\sqrt{-23}$ rather than $\sqrt{23}$.

RobHarley
  • 21
  • 2