<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Z[x] not pid Archives - Epsilonify</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.epsilonify.com/tag/zx-not-pid/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link></link>
	<description>Best solutions on internet!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Aug 2023 21:00:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.5</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Prove that (2,x) is not a principal ideal of Z[x]</title>
		<link>https://www.epsilonify.com/mathematics/ring-theory/proof-that-2x-is-not-a-principal-ideal-of-zx/</link>
					<comments>https://www.epsilonify.com/mathematics/ring-theory/proof-that-2x-is-not-a-principal-ideal-of-zx/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Mathematician]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2022 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Mathematics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ring Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ring theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Z[x] not pid]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.epsilonify.com/?p=575</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Prove that is not a principal ideal of Proof. Assume by contradiction that is a principal ideal. Then , where . Say we have . Then by the definition of an ideal, we have that for some . By some basic calculus and that is an integral domain, we have that . So we know [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.epsilonify.com/mathematics/ring-theory/proof-that-2x-is-not-a-principal-ideal-of-zx/">Prove that (2,x) is not a principal ideal of Z[x]</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.epsilonify.com">Epsilonify</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Prove that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">(2,x)</span> is not a principal ideal of <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">\mathbb{Z}[x]</span></b></p>
<p><strong>Proof.</strong> Assume by contradiction that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">(2,x)</span> is a principal ideal. Then <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">(2,x) = (f(x))</span>, where <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">f(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]</span>. Say we have <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">2 \in (f(x))</span>. Then by the definition of an ideal, we have that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">2 = f(x)g(x)</span> for some <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">g(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]</span>. By some basic calculus and that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">\mathbb{Z}[x]</span> is an integral domain, we have that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">deg(f(x)g(x)) = deg(f(x)) + deg(g(x))</span>. So we know <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">2 = f(x)g(x)</span> possible if both <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">f(x)</span> and <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">g(x)</span> are constants. This implies that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">f(x),g(x) \in \{\pm 1, \pm 2\}</span>. We see the two different situations:</p>
<ol>
<li> Assume that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">f(x) = \pm 1</span>. Then this implies that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">(f(x)) = \mathbb{Z}[x]</span>, which is not a proper ideal.</li>
<li> Assume that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">f(x) = \pm 2</span>. Then we have that if <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">x \in (f(x))</span>, then <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">x = 2\cdot g(x)</span>. This implies that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">g(x) = \frac{1}{2}x</span>, which is impossible since <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">g(x) \in \{\pm 1, \pm 2\}</span> and secondly <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">\frac{1}{2} \not \in \mathbb{Z}</span>.</li>
</ol>
<p>So <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">(2,x)</span> is not a principal ideal of <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">\mathbb{Z}[x]</span>, which completes the proof.</p>
<p>Note that with the proof above, we also proved that <span class="katex-eq" data-katex-display="false">\mathbb{Z}[x]</span> is not a PID. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.epsilonify.com/mathematics/ring-theory/proof-that-2x-is-not-a-principal-ideal-of-zx/">Prove that (2,x) is not a principal ideal of Z[x]</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.epsilonify.com">Epsilonify</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.epsilonify.com/mathematics/ring-theory/proof-that-2x-is-not-a-principal-ideal-of-zx/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
