In Herstein’s Topics in Algebra, p.147, there is a sentence
If $\pi$ in $R$ is a prime element of $R$ and $a \in R$, then either $\pi \mid a$ or $(\pi,a) = 1$, for, in particular, $(\pi,a)$ is a divisor of $\pi$ so it must be $\pi$ or $1$ (or any unit).
I’m having a bit of difficulty seeing why the last part of this sentence is true (“for, in particular…”).
Note:
- Herstein’s definition of a prime element in a Euclidean ring $R$ is a nonunit $\pi$ such that whenever $\pi = ab$, where $a, b$ are in $R$, then one of $a$ or $b$ is a unit in $R$.
- This result comes before the Unique Factorization Theorem, so that can’t be used. However, we have proved that every element of a Euclidean ring $R$ is either a unit or can be written as a product of finitely many primes. (I don’t know if this is useful, but it’s what I tried to use, to no avail.)
My attempt:
I tried supposing to the contrary, so that $(\pi,a)$ is neither $\pi$ nor $1$ nor a unit. Since $(\pi,a)$ divides $\pi$ we can write $\pi = (\pi,a)k$ for some $k \in R$. Then by definition of $\pi$ being prime, $k$ must be a unit, since $(\pi,a)$ isn’t. So $\pi$ and $(\pi,a)$ are associates. This is where I tried a few other things and got stuck each time.