1

Suppose we have a Ring R which is a E.D, then it must be PID. Suppose $I = (a)$ and $J =(b)$ are two ideals. Is it true that $I+J =(a)+(b) = (\gcd(a,b))?$ If this is true then how can we prove it or find a counterexample?

If the above is true then if $F$ is field and $R= F[x]$ a polynomial ring then $R$ is a ED hence PID. Let $I=(f(x))$ and $J = (g(x))$. Is it true that $I +J$ are comaxial ideals iff $\gcd(f(x),g(x))=1$?

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048

1 Answers1

2

In a PID $\,(a,b):=(a)+(b) = (\gcd(a,b))\,$ follows immediately from $\rm\color{#c00}{contains \!=\! divides}$ for principal ideals, and by the definition (= universal property) of ideal sum and gcd, as below, where $\,e\approx d\,$ means $\,e,d\,$ are associate, i.e. $\,e\mid d\mid e\,$ or, equivalently in a domain: $\,e=ud\,$ for $\,u\,$ some unit (invertible), i.e. $\,e\,$ equals $\,d\,$ up to a unit factor $\,u\,$ - see gcd unit normalization.

$\qquad\qquad\quad\ \ \ \:\!{(a)\!+\!(b)}\ \,=\,\ (d)_{\phantom{|_{|_|}}}$
$\smash[t]{\overset{\rm def}\iff}\ \ \ \ (c)\supseteq (a),(b)\ \!\!\iff\!\! (c)\supseteq (d)_{\phantom{|_{|_|}}}\!\!\!\!,\ $ by ideal sum def'n / univ. property
$\color{#c00}\iff\ \ \ \ c\ \ \,\mid\,\ \ a,\ \ \ b\ \ \!\!\iff c\ \ \mid\ \ d_{\phantom{|_{|_|}}}\!\!\!\!,\ \ \ \ $ by $\rm \color{#c00}{contains = divides}$ for PID ideals
$\smash[t]{\overset{\rm def}\iff}\qquad\ \, \gcd(a,\,b)\ \ \ \approx\ \ \ d,\qquad\qquad\ \:\! $ by the gcd def'n / univ. property

Dually $\,(a)\cap (b) = ({\rm lcm}(a,b))\,$ follows by reversing order in the above proof, i.e.

$\begin{align} {(a)\cap(b)}\ &\ \ =\ \ \,(\ell)\\[.3em] \smash[t]{\overset{\rm def}\iff}\ \ \ \ (a),(b)\supseteq (m)\ &\!\!\iff\! (\ell)\supseteq (m)\\[.3em] \color{#c00}\iff\ \ \ \ \:\! a,\ \ \ b\ \ \,\mid\ \ \ m\ \ &\!\!\iff\ \ell\ \ \:\!\mid\:\!\ \ m\\[.3em] \smash[t]{\overset{\rm def}\iff}\qquad\ \ \:\! \,\ \ {\rm lcm}(a,\,b)\, &\ \ \approx\ \ \ \ \ell \end{align}$


Note that in lattice / poset language, gcd is the join (lub = least upper bound = supremum = sup), and lcm is the meet (glb = greatest lower bound = infimum = inf) w.r.t. divisibility order. Or, even more abstractly - they can be viewed in the language of category theory as (co)products, using adjoints and Yondea's Lemma. In divisibility group language a domain is a gcd domain $\iff $ its divisibility group is lattice ordered (all $\,{\rm lub}(x,y)$ exist), and analogous divisibility group characterizations exist for a domain to be a UFD, valuation, or Riesz (cf. prior link).

The common notation $(a,b)$ shared for gcds and ideals allows us to exploit analogies between gcd and ideals in common classes of rings enjoying "nice" divisibility theory, e.g. see the links here on rings with divisor theory (which yields a modern view of Kroncker and Dedekind's approaches to restoring unique factorization by adjoining missing gcds)


Applying the above to your final quesiton we conclude

$$\begin{align} (f),(g)\ {\rm are\ comaximal}\!\!\!\overset{\rm def\!\!}\iff& (1) = (f,g) = (\gcd(f,g))\\[.2em] \iff&\ \, 1\, \approx\, \gcd(f,g)\\[.2em] &\ \text{ i.e. iff their gcd is a unit (invertible)}\end{align}\qquad$$

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
  • Your answers are great and clear, but your tex code is weird and obscure. – k.stm Oct 22 '20 at 10:20
  • @k.stm Thanks. Why are you reading assembly code? That's meant for machines, not humans! Yes, I have no qualms about abusing MathJax to get the precise presentation that I desire. – Bill Dubuque Oct 22 '20 at 10:22
  • @BillDubuqe I was tempted to align some equivalence arrows. Then I saw your code and decided to not touch that. Usually code is written for humans – I wouldn’t have thought that you treat your tex code as akin to assembly code, written for machines only. – k.stm Oct 22 '20 at 10:26
  • @k.stm Which arrows are not aligned for you? (they all are for me). Do you know a good way to use align (or something else) to get alignment on both arrows on the same line? I don't really expect mathjax code to be read by others so I don't waste time making it pretty when that time could be better spent teaching. – Bill Dubuque Oct 22 '20 at 10:32
  • @Bill Dubuque,as we know in a PID which is not ED, we can't ensure to divide any two elements.But how we take existence of gcd of two elements in PID like here https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2242682/423255. And also in my book – user423255 Oct 22 '20 at 10:56
  • 1
    @user423255 It's not clear what you mean. Note that every PID is a GCD domain, i.e. all gcds exist (as in the answer), even though there may be no Euclidean division algorithm. PIDs are precisely the UFDs of dimension $\le 1,,$ i.e. where nonzero prime ideal are maximal, e.g. see here. – Bill Dubuque Oct 22 '20 at 11:03
  • @user423255 I see you appended to your comment a final sentence with a link. The linked answer proves exactly the same thing I proved above, i.e. that in a PID a gcd of $,a,b,$ is any generator of the ideal $,(a,b) = (a)+(b).,$ They prove it by manipulating elements (using a Bezout equation, as here), but I chose to give a more conceptual presentation highlighting how it follows immediately from general principles. – Bill Dubuque Oct 22 '20 at 11:11
  • @user423255 See here and here for related posts that may be of interest. – Bill Dubuque Oct 22 '20 at 11:24
  • @BillDubuque The red arrow was misaligned. You can have it like: \begin{align} \newcommand\defiff{\mathrel{\overset {\text{def}} \iff}} &~& (a)+(b) &= (d) \ &\defiff& \big(~(c) ⊇ (a) \quad\text{and}\quad (c) ⊇ (b)~\big) &⇔ (c) ⊇ (d) \ &\color {red} \iff& \big(~c \mid a \quad\text{and}\quad c \mid b~\big) &⇔ c \mid d \ &\defiff& \gcd(a,b) &\approx d \end{align} I’ll put the code in the answer for you to examine it. Then you can see for yourself if you want to use pieces of it for the future. The trick is to just add two new alignments & to the align environment. – k.stm Oct 22 '20 at 12:53
  • @k.stm Yes, of course I know about multiple alignment anchors. But it is not always easy to use them to get all of the alignment that I desire, e.g. aligning the divides and supset as I do (and there were also bugs in mathjax in the early days). So it ended up being (much) less wasted time to use ad-hoc alignment.. Thanks for your feedback. – Bill Dubuque Oct 23 '20 at 21:28