## PIDs (Pt. I)

**Point of Post: **In this post we discuss PIDs, and some of the pursuant theorem.

*Motivation*

In this post we discuss a more general class of rings than Euclidean domains. The type of ring we are talking about is a natural one to consider. In particular, we have seen from experience that the ideal theory of a ring is a key-determinant in the rings complexity. For example, the nicest rings (fields) are precisely those with the nicest ideal theories (just the full ring and trivial ideal). Consequently, since our current goals (as laid out in the last post) is create a series of integral domains which are “nice” (so that, when encountered in practice, all our great theory applies to them) it makes sense to create some integral domains with nice ideal theory. So, we saw that having few ideals can make an ideal theory, but it is not the only way. In particular, besides having a small number of ideals its clear that we can make the ideal theory of a ring “nice” by requiring that each ideal is “nice”. Well, it’s pretty clear what the nicest type of ideals are, principal (singly generated). Thus, in this post we shall discuss rings which are integral domains for which every ideal is principal, or as we shall call them, PIDs. These clearly contain Euclidean domains since, as we proved before, every ideal in a Euclidean domain is principle. In fact, for most basic uses we shall see that Euclidean Domains are just “practical” PIDs in the sense that the theoretical niceties of Euclidean domains are just the niceties from being a PID, but the applications of the theory is much more practical for Euclidean domains (e.g. actually finding the element which generates the ideal, finding greatest common divisors, etc.).

*PIDs*

Let be an integral domain, then we say that is a *principal ideal domain*, abbreviated PID, if every ideal of is principal. For example, we showed in our last post that every Euclidean domain is a PID so that things like , , (where is a field), etc. are all PIDs. Symbolically we have that . This inclusion is strict though, for is a PID but not a Euclidean domain (this is a notorious annoying fact to prove, see here for an elementary proof). Ok, so fine, PIDs are cool, but what makes them so nice? Well, perhaps a first indication of this is the following very nice fact:

**Theorem: ***Let be a PID, then .*

**Proof: **We have by first principles we have that and so it suffices to prove the other inclusion. To do this let , by assumption that is a PID we know that for some . Suppose now that , with . From the fact that we have that for some . Now since is prime this implies that either or . If the former is true then and if the latter is true we get, from being an integral domain, that so that . From this we conclude that is maximal, by containment, among all proper ideals of and so, by definition, maximal. The conclusion follows.

There is a very interesting consequence of this which, at first, is surprising. We have seen that the functor is fairly well-behaved (property preserving in particular) as of yet, so there is no reason to believe that it won’t be well-behaved here. Said less cryptically, one might expect/hope that being a PID implies that is a PID. This is, in fact, not true. Recalling that we stated (yet to be proven) that if is a field then is a Euclidean domain, and thus a PID we can state the following:

**Theorem: ***Let be a ring. Then, is a PID if and only if is a field.*

**Proof: **If is a field we know (since it’s a Euclidean domain) is a PID. Conversely, if is a PID since embeds into we have that is an integral domain. From this we know that and so, by the previous theorem, . Thus, is a field, but and so is a field.

Now, it’s difficult to imagine proving, in general, that all the ideals of a given ring are principal. Luckily though, we don’t actually have to. In fact, we only have to check the prime ideals are principal. Indeed:

**Theorem: ***Let be an integral domain such that every prime ideal of is principal. Then, is a PID.*

**Proof: **Assume to the contrary that there exists non-principal ideals, then the set of such ideals is non-empty. We claim that has a maximal element. As one always does in these situations we will proceed by Zorn’s lemma. In particular, let be a non-empty chain in and let be the union over all the elements of . We know, in general, that the union over the chain of ideals is an ideal, and so to show that it suffices to prove that is non-principal. To see this suppose to the contrary that for some . We claim that for any . Indeed, by assumption we have that and if then so that contradictory to the assumption that each was non-principal. Thus, for every and so is not in the union over all the , but this is ridiculous since by assumption this is equal to .

What we shall now show is that is, in fact, principal contradicting (since this was the only assumption) the non-emptiness of . Indeed, suppose that but . We can define and and then . Now, note that since properly contain it cannot be non-principal, say . Furthermore, we define (the ideal quotient, if the reader is familiar with the lingo). We claim that . The first of these (strict) containments is clear because and the second follows since if with and then . Now, the first three terms are in since and is an ideal, and the last term is in since and so their sum is in . Since were arbitrary we may conclude that . From this we can conclude that must be principal, say . Consider then . Evidently (by definition of ) we have that . That said, let since there exists with , but we see then that so that . From this we gather that and thus we conclude that . As stated, this contradicts the previous paragraph, and so the initial assumption that was non-empty (which allowed us to apply Zorn’s lemma and create a paradoxical maximal element) must have been false. Thus, every ideal of is principal and so the theorem follows.

This allows us to quickly prove the following useful fact:

**Theorem: ***Let be a PID and a (unitally) multiplicative subset of not containing . Then, the localization is also a PID.*

**Proof: **Note that since is an integral domain and (so that ) one can see that is an integral domain, and so it suffices to prove that every ideal of is principal. By the previous problem it suffices to prove that every prime ideal of is principal. That said, we know that every prime ideal of is of the form for some prime ideal . But, since is a PID we know that is principal, say . It’s easy to see then that (where we can recall that we are identifying with its image under the localization map).

**References:**

[1] Dummit, David Steven., and Richard M. Foote. *Abstract Algebra*. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print.

[2] Rotman, Joseph J. *Advanced Modern Algebra*. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2010. Print.

[3] Bhattacharya, P. B., S. K. Jain, and S. R. Nagpaul. *Basic Abstract Algebra*. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge UP, 1986. Print.

[…] PIDs (Pt. II) Point of Post: This is a continuation of this post. […]

Pingback by PIDs (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | October 22, 2011 |

[…] domains) and the, less nice still fantastic, integral domains whose ideals are all principal (i.e. PIDs). In this post we shall take another step down the niceness-ladder and discuss a proper subset of […]

Pingback by UFDs (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | October 22, 2011 |

[…] of . Well, it turns out that the set of all annihilating is an ideal. But, we know that is a PID and so this ideal is generated by some element of …I’ll give you three guesses which […]

Pingback by Modules (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | October 27, 2011 |

[…] ring . Well, clearly does satisfy this property since any non-trivial ideal (recalling that is a PID) is of the form for and so trivially isomorphic to as -modules–both are infinite cyclic. […]

Pingback by Submodules of Free Modules Need Not be Free Unless Ring is a PID (pt.I) « Abstract Nonsense | November 21, 2011 |

[…] be be a ring (most often a UFD or a PID) we can then define a relation on the set by if and only if . Then, we have canonical maps […]

Pingback by Inverse Limit of Rings (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | December 9, 2011 |

[…] be a PID and let and be two ideals of , […]

Pingback by Using Partial Exactness to Compute Things (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | January 20, 2012 |

[…] -map with has some non-trivial kernel sitting inside . But, since is a field we know that is a PID and so for some monic polynomial . Moreover, this polynomial has the property that if […]

Pingback by Algebraic Extensions (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | March 25, 2012 |