SMA 2307 RING THEORY

Rings
When two binary operations are defined concurrently on a set, there is usually a desire to
combine them in some version and have a means of interrelating these operations. This is
accomplished by requiring one or more of the distributive laws. A ring is defined by taking an
abelian group, a second binary operation that is associative, and specifying how the second
operation is related to the first.
Definition (Ring ): A ring < R, +, · > is a non-empty set R together with two binary
operations + (called addition) and · (called multiplication), such that the following axioms
are satisfied for all a, b, c ∈ R:
(i ) a + b ∈ R (i.e., R is closed under +).
(ii ) (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) (i.e., + is associative on R).
(iii ) There exists an element 0 ∈ R such that a + 0 = 0 + a = a (i.e., + admits an identity
element in R).
(iv ) a + (−a) = −a + a = 0 for some −a ∈ R where 0 is the additive identity in R (i.e.,
+ admits inverses in R).
(v ) a + b = b + a (i.e., + is commutative on R).
(vi ) a · b ∈ R (i.e., R is closed under ·).
(vii ) (a · b) · c = a · (b · c) (i.e., · is associative on R).
(viii ) a · (b + c) = (a · b) + (a · c) and (a + b) · c = (a · c) + (b · c) (i.e., · is both left and
right distributive over +).
Remarks:
(i ) In the above definition, the operations + and · are not necessarily the usual addition
and usual multiplication of real numbers.
(ii ) < R, + > is an abelian group.
(iii ) In a ring, the multiplicative operation need not be commutative.
(iv ) A ring need not have a multiplicative identity.
(v ) We usually suppress the multiplicative operation and write a · b simply as ab.
(vi ) If it is clear what the binary operations + and · on R are, we write a ring < R, +, · >
simply as R.
(vii ) A ring with only one element is called a trivial ring while ring with more than one

1
 element is called a non-trivial ring.
Examples:
1. < Z, +, · >, < Q, +, · >, < R, +, · > and < C, +, · > are rings.
2. Suppose n ∈ Z. Then nZ = {nx | x ∈ Z} is an abelian additive subgroup of Z. Now,
nZ is closed under multiplication since (nr) (ns) = n (nrs). Moreover, associativity of
multiplication and distributivity of multiplication over addition is inherited from Z.
Thus, < nZ, +, · > is a ring.
3. Let n ∈ Z+ . Then the set Zn of the residue classes of integers modulo n, with addition
and multiplication of integers taken modulo n is a ring.
4. Suppose R is a ring and suppose Mn (R) is the set of all n × n matrices defined over
R. The operations of addition and multiplication in R allow us to add and multiply
matrices in the usual manner. Accordingly, Mn (R) is a ring under matrix addition and
matrix multiplication. In particular, Mn (Z), Mn (Q), Mn (R), Mn (C), and Mn (Zm )
are rings.
Note: In the above example, multiplication is not a commutative operation.
5. Let F be the set of all functions f : R −→ R. Then < F , + > is an abelian group
under the usual function addition (f + g) (x) = f (x) + g (x). We define multiplication
by (f g) (x) = f (x) g (x). In this case, F is a ring. The additive identity (zero element)
in this ring is the function h given by h(x) = 0 for all x ∈ R.
 √
6. Let Z[i] = a + bi | a, b ∈ Z, i = −1 where + is defined by

(a + bi) + (c + di) = (a + c) + (b + d) i

and · is defined by

(a + bi) (c + di) = (ac − bd) + (ad + bc) i.

Then < Z[i], +, · > is a ring, called the ring of Gaussian integers.
Note: The ring of Gaussian integers contains all the rational integers, i.e., Z ⊂ Z[i],
while the ring of complex numbers contains the ring of Gaussian integers, i.e., Z[i] ⊂ C.
7. The set of odd integers with usual addition and multiplication is not a ring since
(i ) the set is not closed under + (as the sum of two odd integers is not odd)
(ii ) the set lacks the additive identity 0 (as 0 is not odd).
Similarly, the set QC of irrational numbers with usual addition and multiplication is
not a ring.

2
Definition:
(a) A ring < R, +, · > is commutative if the multiplicative operation · is commutative,
i.e., if ab = ba for all a, b ∈ R. The ring is said to be non-commutative otherwise.
(b) (i ) A ring < R, +, · > is a ring with identiy/unity if R contains an identity element
for the multiplicative operation ·, i.e., if there exists 1 ∈ R such that 1a = a = a1
for each a ∈ R. In this case, the multiplicative identity 1 is called unity.
(ii ) An element a in a ring R with unity 1 is said to have a multiplicative inverse
a−1 ∈ R if aa−1 = a−1 a = 1. In this case, we say that a is a unit of R.
Examples:
1. All the rings in Examples 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 above are commutative while the ring Mn (R)
in example 4 is non-commutative.
2. Each of the rings in Examples 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above has unity. The unity in the ring
F in Example 5 is the function k such that k(x) = 1 for all x ∈ R.
3. The ring 2Z = {2x | x ∈ Z} has no unity.
Theorem: Let R1 , R2 , · · · , Rn be rings. Define addition and multiplication on the Cartesian
product R1 × R2 × · · · × Rn by
(r1 , r2 , · · · , rn ) + (s1 , s2 , · · · , sn ) = (r1 + s1 , r2 + s2 , · · · , rn + sn )

and
(r1 , r2 , · · · , rn ) (s1 , s2 , · · · , sn ) = (r1 s1 , r2 s2 , · · · , rn sn ) .

Then:
(i ) R1 × R2 × · · · × Rn is a ring.
(ii ) if R1 , R2 , · · · , Rn are all commutative, then so is R1 × R2 × · · · × Rn .
(iii ) if each of R1 , R2 , · · · , Rn has unity, then so does R1 × R2 × · · · × Rn .
Remarks:
1. The multiplicative identity (unity) is a unit, but not every unit is unity. For example,
−1 is a unit in Z but −1 is not unity, i.e., −1 6= 1.
2. Let R be a ring and a, b ∈ R. Then

(a + b)2 = (a + b) (a + b)
= a (a + b) + b (a + b)
= aa + ab + ba + bb
= a2 + ab + ba + b2 .

3
If R is commutative, then ab = ba and we have

(a + b)2 = a2 + ab + ba + b2
= a2 + ab + ab + b2
= a2 + 2ab + b2 .

More generally, if R is commutative and n is a positive integer, then for all a, b ∈ R,

! ! !
n n n n
(a + b) = an + an−1 b + · · · + an−r br + · · · + abn−1 + bn .
1 r n−1

Exercise:
1. Define a new multiplication in Z by the rule “ab = 0 for all a, b ∈ Z”. Show that, with
usual addition and this new multiplication, Z is a commutative ring.
2. Determine whether the set of non-negative integers with usual addition and multipli-
cation is a ring or not.
3. Show that < Z[i], +, · >, as defined in Example 6 above, is a commutative ring with
unity.
4. Let R = Z × Z. Define the operations + and · on R by (a, b) + (c, d) = (a + c, b + d)
and (a, b) · (c, d) = (ac, bd).
(a) Show that R is a commutative ring.
(b) Determine whether R has unity or not.
5. Prove or give a counterexample to the assertion that for all elements a and b in any
ring R, (a + b)2 = a2 + 2ab + b2 .

Integral Domains
Definition (Zero Divisors): Let a and b be two non-zero elements of a ring R such that
ab = 0 (where 0 is the additive identity in R). Then a is a left divisor of zero (or left zero
divisor ) and b is a right divisor of zero (or right zero divisor ).
Remark : In a commutative ring, a left zero divisor is also a right zero divisor, and vice
versa.
Theorem: In the ring Zn , the zero divisors are precisely the non-zero elements that are not
relatively prime to n.
Corollary: The ring Zp has no zero divisors if and only if p is prime.

4
Examples:
1. In Z8 , 2 · 4 = 0 yet 2 6= 0 and 4 6= 0. Similarly, 4 · 6 = 0. Hence, 2, 4, and 6 are zero
divisors in Z8 . In fact, these are the only non-zero elements that are not relatively
prime to 8. Accordingly, they are the only zero divisors in Z8 .
Similarly, in Z12 , the divisors of zero are 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10. On the other hand,
Z5 has no zero divisors.
2. The ring Mn (Z) of n × n matrices with integer entries has zero divisors. For instance,
" # " # " #" # " #
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
if A = ,B = ∈ M2 (Z), then AB = =
1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
yet A 6= 0 and B 6= 0.
Definition (Integral Domain): An integral domain is a commutative ring with unity that
has no zero divisors.
Examples:
1. Z is an integral domain since it is a commutative ring with unity and if a, b ∈ Z with
ab = 0, then a = 0 or b = 0 (i.e., Z has no zero divisors).
2. The ring 2Z is not an integral domain since it does not have unity.
3. Zp is an integral domain for any prime p. However, Zn is not an integral domain if n
is composite.
4. The ring Mn (Z) of n × n matrices with integer entries is not an integral domain since
it is not commutative. Similarly, it is not an integral domain since it has zero divisors.
Exercise:
1. Prove that a unit in a commutative ring cannot be a zero divisor.
2. (a) Prove that a non-zero element of Zn is a zero divisor if and only if it is not a unit.
(b) Give an example of a ring in which part (a) is false.
" #
1 2
3. Show that the matrix is a zero divisor in M2 (Z).
2 4

Division Rings
Definition: Let R be a ring with unity. If every non-zero element of R is a unit (has a
multiplicative inverse), then R is called a division ring. A field is a commutative division
ring. A non-commutative division ring is called a skew field.
Examples:
1. The only units in Z are 1 and −1. So, Z is not a division ring and hence not a field.

5
 2. Zn is a commutative ring with unity. The units in Zn are precisely those m ∈ Zn for
which gcd(m, n) = 1. Thus, Zn is a division ring if and only if n is prime. It therefore
follows that Zn is a field if and only if n is prime.
3. The ring Mn (R) of real n × n matrices is not a division ring since the non-zero singular
matrices have no multiplicative inverses (they are not units). Accordingly, Mn (R) is
not a field.

Subrings
Definition: Let < R, +, · > be a ring and suppose that S is a non-empty subset of R. Then
S is a subring of R if < S, +, · > is a ring.
The notation of subring is the precise analog for rings of the notation of subgroups for groups.
Theorem: Let < R, +, · > be a ring and let < S, +, · > be a subring of R. If 0R and 0S
are respectively the additive identities in R and S, then 0S = 0R . Further, suppose a ∈ S. If
(−a)R and (−a)S are respectively the additive inverses of a in R and S, then (−a)S = (−a)R .
Proof : Let x ∈ S. Then x + 0S = x in S and x + 0R = x in R. Hence, x + 0S = x + 0R .
Thus, 0S = 0R (by left cancellation for addition).
Now, by definition, a + (−a)S = 0S in S whilst a + (−a)R = 0R in R. Consequently,
a + (−a)S = 0S = 0R = a + (−a)R in R, whence (−a)S = (−a)R .
Note: Suppose S is a subring of a ring R with unity 1R . Then if S has unity 1S , it is not
necessarily the case that 1S = 1R .
Theorem: Let S be a non-empty subset of a ring R. Then S is a subring of R if and only
if:
(i ) a + b ∈ S and ab ∈ S for all a, b ∈ S.
(ii ) −a ∈ S for all a ∈ S (here −a is the additive inverse of a in R).
Remark : A non-empty subset S of a ring R is closed with respect to addition and negatives
if and only if S is closed with respect to subtraction. Therefore, from the above theorem, S
is a subring of R if and only if S is closed with respect to subtraction and multiplication. So,
the following theorem can enable us to easily determine whether or not a non-empty subset
of a ring is a subring.
Theorem: A non-empty subset S of a ring < R, +, · > is a subring of R if and only if:
(i ) a + (−b) ∈ S for all a, b ∈ S.
(ii ) ab ∈ S for all a, b ∈ S.

6
Examples:
1. 2Z is a subring of Z for if 2m, 2n ∈ 2Z for m, n ∈ Z, then 2m − 2n = 2 (m − n) ∈ 2Z
and (2m) (2n) = 2 (2mn) ∈ 2Z.
2. S = {0, 2, 4, 6, 8} is a subring of Z10 .

⊕10 0 2 4 6 8 ⊗10 0 2 4 6 8
0 0 2 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 4 6 8 0 2 0 4 8 2 6
4 4 6 8 0 2 4 0 8 6 4 2
6 6 8 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 8
8 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 6 2 8 4

Note: 1 is the unity in Z10 while 6 is the unity in S.

′
Similarly, S = {0, 5} is a subring of Z10 with 5 as the multiplicative identity.
3. If R is a ring, then {0} and R are always subrings of R. In this case, {0} is called the
trivial subring.
Definition (Centre): If R is a ring, the centre of R, denoted C (R), is the set of all elements
in R that commute with all other elements for the multiplicative operation, i.e.,

C (R) = {r ∈ R | rs = sr for all s ∈ R} .

Theorem: The centre C (R) of a ring R is a commutative subring of R.

Proof : Let a, b ∈ C (R) and let r ∈ R. Then ra = ar and br = rb. Now,
(i ) [a + (−b)] r = ar + (−b) r = ar + [− (br)] = ra + [− (rb)] = ra + r (−b) = r [a + (−b)].
Thus, a + (−b) ∈ C (R).
(ii ) (ab) r = a (br) = a (rb) = (ar) b = (ra) b = r (ab). Thus, ab ∈ C (R).
Hence, C (R) is a subring of R.
That C (R) is commutative is clear.
Definition: Let S be a subring of a ring R. The centralizer of S, denoted by C (S), is the
set of all elements of R that commute with each element of S, i.e.,

C (S) = {r ∈ R | rs = sr for all s ∈ S} .

Theorem: The centralizer C (S) of a subring S of a ring R is a commutative subring of R.

Proof : It is similar to the proof the preceeding theorem.

7
Exercise:
1. Let R be a ring and a ∈ R. Let S = {r ∈ R | ra = 0}. Prove that S is a subring of R.
2. Suppose M2 (R) is the set of all 2 × 2 matrices defined over R. Determine which of the
following sets are subrings of M2 (R) and which ones have an identity:
" #
0 x
(a) All matrices of the form with x ∈ Q.
0 0
" #
a b
(b) All matrices of the form with a, b, c ∈ Z.
0 c
" #
a a
(c) All matrices of the form with a, b ∈ R.
b b
" #
a 0
(d ) All matrices of the form with a ∈ R.
a 0
" #
a 0
(e) All matrices of the form with a ∈ R.
0 a

Nilpotent Elements
Definition: An element a of a ring R is called nilpotent if an = 0 for some positive integer
n. An element a of a ring R with unity 1 is said to be unipotent if a − 1 is nilpotent, i.e., a
is unipotent if (a − 1)n = 0 for some positive integer n.
Example:
1. In any ring R, the zero element is always nilpotent.
2. In Z8 , 23 = 0, 42 = 0 and 63 = 0. Hence, 2, 4, and 6 are nilpotent. In fact, these are
the only non-zero nilpotent elements in Z8 .
" #
1 1
3. The matrix A = in the ring M2 (Z4 ) of all 2 × 2 matrices with entries from
1 1
" #3 " #
1 1 0 0
Z4 is nilpotent since A3 = = .
1 1 0 0
" #
1 0
4. The matrix A = in the ring M2 (R) of all 2 × 2 real matrices is unipotent
−2 1
" # " #!2 " #2 " #
2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
since (A − I) = − = = . In general,
−2 1 0 1 −2 0 0 0
any n × n matrix whose characteristic polynomial is of the form f (λ) = (λ − 1)n is
unipotent.

8
Exercise:
1. Find all the nilpotent elements in:
(i ) Z9 .
(ii ) Z12 .
" #
1 1
2. Show that in the matrix in the ring M2 (Z2 ) of all 2 × 2 matrices defined over
1 1
Z2 is nilpotent.
3. Prove that the set of all nilpotent elements in a commutative ring R is a subring of R.
4. Show that the only nilpotent element in an integral domain is 0.
5. Prove that the set of all nilpotent elements in a commutative ring R is a subring of R.
6. Prove that in a commutative ring R:
(i ) the product xa of a nilpotent element a by an element x is nilpotent.
(ii ) the sum of two nilpotent elements is nilpotent [Hint: use the binomial theorem].

Basic Properties of Rings

Remarks:
1. Suppose < R, +, · > is a ring. Since < R, + > is an abelian group, it follows that the
that the identity for + and inverses for + are unique and that R has left and right can-
cellation laws for + (i.e., in R, a + b = a + c implies b = c and b + a = c + a implies
b = c).
2. Let < R, +, · > be a ring and let a, b ∈ R. The left cancellation law for · holds in R if
and only if ab = ac with a 6= 0 implies b = c, and the right cancellation law for · holds
in R if and only if ba = ca with a 6= 0 implies b = c.
3. Let R be a division ring. Then for each non-zero element a ∈ R, the equations ax = 1
and xa = 1 have solutions in R.
Theorem: If R is a ring with additive identity 0, and a, b ∈ R, then
(i ) 0a = a0 = 0.
(ii ) a (−b) = (−a) b = − (ab).
(iii ) − (−a) = a.
(iv ) − (a + b) = (−a) + (−b).
(v ) − (a − b) = −a + b.
(vi ) (−a) (−b) = ab.

9
Proof :
(i ) We have that 0a + 0a = (0 + 0) a = 0a = 0 + 0a. Applying the additive cancellation
law gives 0a = 0. Similarly, a0 + a0 = a (0 + 0) = a0 = 0 + a0 implies a0 = 0.
(ii ) We utilise the fact that inverses are unique in a group. We need only show that both
a (−b) and (−a) b are additive inverses of ab, and so are equal to − (ab).
Now, a (−b) + ab = a (−b + b) = a0 = 0 so that a (−b) = − (ab). In a similar manner,
(−a) b + ab = (−a + a) b = 0b = 0 implying (−a) b = − (ab).
(iii ) Since −a + a = 0, then a is the additive inverse of −a, i.e., − (−a) = a.
(iv )

[(−a) + (−b)] + (a + b) = [(−a) + (−b)] + (b + a)

= (−a) + [(−b) + b] + a
= (−a) + 0 + a
= (−a) + a
= 0.

Hence, (−a) + (−b) = − (a + b).

(v ) − (a − b) = − [a + (−b)] = −a + [− (−b)] = −a + b.
(vi ) From part (ii ) (−a) (−b) = − [a (−b)] = − [− (ab)] = ab.
Theorem: Suppose R is a ring with additive identity 0, and a, b ∈ R.
(i ) If R is a ring with unity 1, then 1 is unique.
(ii ) If R is a ring containing more than one element and R has unity 1, then 1 6= 0.
(iii ) If R is a ring with unity 1 and a ∈ R, then (−1) a = −a.
Proof :
(i ) Suppose 1 and v are both unity elements in R. Then 1 = 1v since v is an identity
element. Again, 1v = v since 1 is an identity element. Thus, v = 1.
(ii ) Suppose R has more than one element and 1 is the unity. Let r ∈ R with r 6= 0.
Then r · 1 = r. If 1 = 0, then by the previous theorem r = r · 1 = r · 0 = 0, a
contradiction since r 6= 0. So, we must have 1 6= 0.
(iii ) (−1) a + a = (−1) a + 1 · a = (−1 + 1) a = 0a = 0. Hence, (−1) a = −a by definition
of −a.
Theorem: The cancellation laws for multiplication hold in a ring R if and only if R has no
zero divisors.

10
Proof : Let R be a ring in which the (left and right) cancellation laws hold. Suppose ab = 0
for some a, b ∈ R. If a 6= 0, then ab = 0 = a0 and b = 0 by the left cancellation law and thus
there are no left zero divisors. Similarly, if b 6= 0, then a = 0 by the right cancellation law so
that there are no right divisors of zero.
Conversely, suppose R has no zero divisors, and suppose ab = ac with a 6= 0. Then we have
ab − ac = a (b − c) = 0. Since a 6= 0 and since R has no zero divisors, then we must have
b − c = 0, so that b = c. A similar argument shows that if ba = ca with a 6= 0, then b = c.
Corollary: A commutative ring with unity is an integral domain if and only if there are
cancellation laws for multiplication.
Theorem: Every field F is an integral domain.
Proof : Let F be a field. Then F is a commutative ring with unity. We are now only required
to show that F has no zero divisors. Let a, b ∈ F and suppose that ab = 0 with a 6= 0. It
suffices to show that b = 0. Now, since ab = 0, then a−1 (ab) = a−1 0 = 0 (a−1 exists since
every non-zero element of a field a unit). But then 0 = a−1 (ab) = (a−1 a) b = 1 · b = b.
Remark : The converse of the preceeding theorem is not true since Z is an integral domain
but not a field. We however have the following theorem.
Theorem: Every finite integral domain is a field.
Proof : Let 0, 1, a1 , · · · , an be all the elements of a finite integral domain D. We need to show
that for each a ∈ D with a 6= 0 there exists b ∈ D such that ab = 1. Now, the elements
a1, aa1 , · · · , aan of D are distinct since if aai = aaj , then ai = aj by the cancellation laws
that hold in D. Also, since D has no zero divisors, none of these elements is 0. Hence, the
elements a1, aa1 , · · · , aan are the elements 1, a1 , · · · , an in some order, so that a1 = 1, i.e.,
a = 1, or aai = 1 for some i (i = 1, · · · , n). Thus, a has a multiplicative inverse.
Corollary: If p is prime, then Zp is a field.
Proof : Zp is a finite integral domain and hence a field.

Characteristic of a Ring
Definition: Let R be a ring. If there is an integer n > 0 such that na = 0 for all a ∈ R,
then the smallest such integer is called the characteristic of R, written char(R). If no such
integer exists, we say that R is of characteristic 0. A ring of characteristic 0 is said to have
no characteristic.
Examples:
1. The rings Z, Q, R, and C are all of characteristic 0 since, for each of the rings, there
doesn’t exist any positive integer n such that na = 0 for every element a in the ring.

11
 2. The ring Zn is of characteristic n as n is the smallest positive integer for which na = 0
for every a ∈ Zn .
Theorem: Let R be a ring with unity 1. Then R has characteristic n > 0 if and only if n
is the smallest positive integer such that n1 = 0.
Proof : Suppose R has characteristic n > 0. Then na = 0 for all a ∈ R. In particular, n1 = 0.
Conversely, suppose that n is the smallest positive integer such that n1 = 0. Then for any
a ∈ R,  

na = a {z· · · + a} = a 1| + 1 +{z· · · + 1} = a (n1) = a0 = 0.

|+a+
 
n summands n summands

Remark : Let R be a ring with unity 1. Then if the characteristic of R is positive, it is

simply the order of the element 1 in the additive group of R.
Theorem: If R is an integral domain, then the characteristic of R is either 0 or a prime
number.
Proof : If R has characteristic 0, there is nothing to prove. So, assume R has characteristic
n > 0. If n were not prime, then there would exist positive integers a and b such that n = ab,
with a < n and b < n. The distributive laws show that

(a · 1) (b · 1) = (1 + 1 + · · · + 1) (1 + 1 + · · · + 1)
| {z }| {z }
a summands b summands

= |1 · 1 + 1 · 1{z
+ · · · + 1 · 1} = |1 + 1 +{z· · · + 1}
ab summands ab summands

= (ab) · 1 = n · 1 = 0.

Since R is an integral domain either a · 1 = 0 or b · 1 = 0, contradicting the fact that n is the

smallest positive integers such that n · 1 = 0. Therefore, n is prime. @
Theorem: Let R be a ring with unity 1 of characteristic n > 0. Then k1 = 0 if and only if
n | k.
Proof : If n | k, say k = nd, then k1 = nd1 = (n1) (d1) = 0 (d1) = 0. Conversely, suppose
k1 = 0. By the Division Algorithm k = nq + r with 0 ≤ r < n. Now, n1 = 0 so that
r1 = r1 + 0 = r1 + nq1 = (r + nq) 1 = k1 = 0. Since r < n and n is the smallest positive
integer such that n1 = 0 by the definition of characteristic, we must have r = 0. Therefore,
k = nq and n | k. @
Theorem: Let R be a commutative ring with unity of characteristic p for a prime p. Then
n
for every a, b ∈ R and every positive integer n, (a + b)p = ap + bp .
n n

12
Proof : The proof is by induction
! on n. If n = 1,!then the Binomial Theorem ! shows that
p p p
(a + b)p = ap + ap−1 b + · · · + ap−r br + · · · + abp−1 + bp .
1 r p−1
!
p
For 0 < r < p, p!
= (p−r)!r! = p(p−1)(p−2)···(p−r+1)
1·2·3·····r
where p ∤ 1 · 2 · 3 · · · · · r. Thus, p divides
r
! !
p p
, say = tp for some t ∈ Z. Since R has characteristic p,
r r
!
p
ap−r br = (tp) ap−r br = t (p · 1) ap−r br = t · 0 · ap−r br = 0.
r
Accordingly, all the middle terms are zero and (a + b)p = ap + bp . So, the theorem is true
when n = 1. Assume the theorem is true when n = k. Using this assumption and the case
when n = 1 shows that

k+1
h i
k p
(a + b)p = (a + b)p
 k p
p pk
= a +b
 k p  k p
= ap + bp
k+1 k+1
= ap + bp .

Therefore, the theorem is true when n = k + 1 and hence true for all n by induction. @
Corollary: Let R be a commutative ring with unity of characteristic p for a prime p. Then
for every a, b ∈ R, (a − b)p = ap − bp .

Ring Homomorphisms and Ideals

′ ′
Definition: Suppose that R and R are rings. Then a mapping Φ : R −→ R is a ring
homomorphism if for all a, b ∈ R

Φ (a + b) = Φ (a) + Φ (b)

and
Φ (ab) = Φ (a) Φ (b) .

If Φ is a bijection, then Φ is called a ring isomorphism; in this case we say that the rings R
and R are isomorphic and write R ∼
′ ′
=R.

13
Examples:
1. Let f : Z −→ Zn be defined by f (x) = x where x denotes the equivalence class of x in
Zn . Then f is a ring homomorphism since

f (a + b) = a + b = a + b = f (a) + f (b)

and
f (ab) = ab = ab = f (a) f (b) .

2. Suppose F is the ring of all functions f : R −→ R (defined in a previous example). For

each a ∈ R, define a mapping Φa : F −→ R by Φa (f ) = f (a) where f ∈ F . Then Φ is
a ring homomorphism since for all f, g ∈ F

Φa (f + g) = (f + g) (a) = f (a) + g (a) = Φa (f ) + Φa (g)

and
Φa (f g) = (f g) (a) = f (a) g (a) = Φa (f ) Φa (g) .

This homomorphism is called the evaluation homomorphism.

Remark : The evaluation homomorphism is of great importance as finding a real so-
lution of a polynomial equation p (x) = 0 amounts precisely to finding an element a ∈ R
such that Φa (p) = p (a) = 0.
" #
n 0
3. Define Φ : Z −→ M2 (Z) by Φ (n) = . Then Φ is a ring homomorphism since
0 n

" # " # " #

m+n 0 m 0 n 0
Φ (m + n) = = + = Φ (m) + Φ (n)
0 m+n 0 m 0 n

and " # " #" #

mn 0 m 0 n 0
Φ (mn) = = = Φ (m) Φ (n) .
0 mn 0 m 0 n
4. Let G be the ring of Gaussian integers and define a map f : G −→ M2 (Z) by
" #
m n
f (m + ni) = .
−n m

14
 Then f is a ring homomorphism since if a = m + ni, b = r + si ∈ G,

f (a + b) = f [(m + r) + (n + s) i]
" #
m+r n+s
=
− (n + s) m + r
" # " #
m n r s
= +
−n m −s r
= f (a) + f (b)

and

f (ab) = f [(m + ni) (r + si)]

= f [(mr − ns) + (ms + nr) i]
" #
mr − ns ms + nr
= ,
− (ms + nr) mr − ns

and

f (a) f (b) = f (m + ni) f (r + si)

" #" #
m n r s
=
−n m −s r
" #
mr − ns ms + nr
=
− (ms + nr) mr − ns

so that f (ab) = f (a) f (b).

5. The function f : R −→ R given by f (x) = x + 2 is not a ring homomorphism.
Proof : f (3 + 4) = f (7) = 9, but f (3)+f (4) = 5+6 = 11. Also, f (3 · 4) = f (12) = 14,
but f (3) f (4) = 5 · 6 = 30.
Remarks:
1. If f is a ring homomorphism, then f is also a group homomorphism (under addition).
2. The homomorphic image of a group is a subgroup of the codomain of the homomor-
phism. In the same way, the homomorphic image of a ring is a subring of the codomain
of the homomorphism.
3. Under group homomorphisms identities map to identities and inverses map to inverses.
′ ′
Theorem: If Φ : R −→ R is a ring homomorphism, then imΦ = Φ (R) is a subring of R .

15
Proof : Suppose Φ (a) , Φ (b) ∈ Φ (R) where a, b ∈ R. Then since a − b ∈ R,

Φ (a) − Φ (b) = Φ (a − b) ∈ Φ (R) .

Also, ab ∈ R so that
Φ (a) Φ (b) = Φ (ab) ∈ Φ (R) .
′
Hence, Φ (R) is a subring of R .
′
Theorem: Let Φ : R −→ R be a ring homomorphism. Then
′ ′
(i ) If 0 is the additive identity in R, then Φ (0) = 0 is the additive identity in R .
(ii ) If a ∈ R, then Φ (−a) = −Φ (a).
′
(iii ) If R has unity 1 and Φ (1) 6= 0 , then Φ (1) is the unity for Φ (R).
(iv ) If a ∈ R has a multiplicative inverse a−1 in R, then Φ (a−1 ) is the multiplicative
inverse of Φ (a) in Φ (R).
′
(v ) If S is a subring of R, then Φ (S) is a subring of R .
′ ′ ′
 ′
(vi ) If S is a subring of R , then Φ−1 S = r ∈ R | Φ (r) ∈ S is a subring of R.
Proof :
′
(i ) Let Φ (0)+Φ (0) = Φ (0 + 0) = Φ (0) = Φ (0)+0 and by cancellation law for addition,
′
Φ (0) = 0 .
′
(ii ) Φ (−a) + Φ (a) = Φ (−a + a) = Φ (0) = 0 . Hence, Φ (−a) = −Φ (a).
(iii ) Φ (a) = Φ (1a) = Φ (a1) = Φ (1) Φ (a) = Φ (a) Φ (1). So, Φ (1) is a multiplicative
′
identity for Φ (R). If Φ (1) 6= 0 , then Φ (1) is unity for Φ (R).
(iv ) Φ (a−1 ) Φ (a) = Φ (a−1 a) = Φ (1) and Φ (a) Φ (a−1 ) = Φ (aa−1 ) = Φ (1). So, Φ (a−1 ) is
a multiplicative inverse for Φ (a). To show that Φ (a−1 ) is unique, suppose Φ (b)
is also a multiplicative inverse for Φ (a). Then



Φ a−1 Φ (a) Φ (b) = Φ a−1 Φ (a) Φ (b) = Φ (1) Φ (b) = Φ (b) .

Also,





Φ a−1 Φ (a) Φ (b) = Φ a−1 [Φ (a) Φ (b)] = Φ a−1 Φ (1) = Φ a−1 .

Hence, Φ (b) = Φ (a−1 ).

(v ) Let a, b ∈ S. Then a − b ∈ S and ab ∈ S because S is a subring of R. In addition,
Φ (a) , Φ (b) ∈ Φ (S). Now, Φ (a) − Φ (b) = Φ (a − b) ∈ Φ (S). Thus, Φ (S) is closed
under subtraction. Moreover, Φ (a) Φ (b) = Φ (ab) ∈ Φ (S). Hence, Φ (S) is closed

16
 ′
under multiplication. Therefore, Φ (S) is a subring of R .
′
′ ′
(vi ) Suppose a, b ∈ Φ−1 S so that Φ (a) , Φ (b) ∈ S . Then Φ (a − b) = Φ (a) − Φ (b) ∈ S
′
′

implying that a − b ∈ Φ−1 S . Hence, Φ−1 S is is closed under subtraction. Also,
′ ′
′

Φ (ab) = Φ (a) Φ (b) ∈ S implying that ab ∈ Φ−1 S . Thus, Φ−1 S is closed under
′

multiplication. Therefore, Φ−1 S is a subring of R.
Remark : The preceeding theorem does not say that the unity of the ring R is mapped to
′ ′
the unity of R . In fact, if 1 is the unity of R, Φ (1) may not be the unity of R .
Example:
Define a mapping f : Z2 −→ Z6 by f (0) = 0 and f (1) = 3. Then
f (0 + 0) = f (0) = 0, f (0) + f (0) = 0 + 0 = 0
f (0 + 1) = f (1) = 3, f (0) + f (1) = 0 + 3 = 3
f (1 + 1) = f (0) = 0, f (1) + f (1) = 3 + 3 = 0
and
f (0 · 0) = f (0) = 0, f (0) · f (0) = 0 · 0 = 0
f (0 · 1) = f (0) = 0, f (0) · f (1) = 0 · 3 = 0
f (1 · 1) = f (1) = 3, f (1) · f (1) = 3 · 3 = 3
Thus, f is a ring homomorphism with f (Z2 ) = {0, 3}. In this case, 1 is unity of Z2 . Hence,
by the above theorem, f (1) = 3 is the unity of f (Z2 ). As a check, 0 · 3 = 0 and 3 · 3 = 3.
However, f (1) = 3 is not the unity of Z6 since 3 · 2 = 0 6= 2.
′
Definition (Kernel ): Let Φ : R −→ R be a ring homomorphism. Then the kernel of Φ,
denoted ker (Φ), is given by
n ′ ′ ′
o  ′
ker (Φ) = r ∈ R | Φ (r) = 0 where 0 is the additive identity in R = Φ−1 0 .

′
Theorem: If Φ : R −→ R is a ring homomorphism, then ker (Φ) is a subring of R.
′ ′ ′
Proof : Let a, b ∈ ker (Φ). Then Φ (a) = Φ (b) = 0 (where 0 is the additive identity in R ).
Now,
′ ′ ′
Φ (a − b) = Φ (a) − Φ (b) = 0 − 0 = 0 .

Hence, a − b ∈ ker (Φ).

Also,
′ ′ ′
Φ (ab) = Φ (a) Φ (b) = 0 · 0 = 0 .

Hence, ab ∈ ker (Φ).

Therefore, ker (Φ) is a subring of R.

17
 ′
Remark : If Φ : G −→ G is a group homomorphism, then ker (Φ) is a normal subgroup of
G. A similar case holds for ring homomorphisms. So, we have the following result:
′
Theorem: Let Φ : R −→ R be a ring homomorphism and let a ∈ ker (Φ) and r ∈ R. Then
ra, ar ∈ ker (Φ).
′ ′ ′
Proof : If a ∈ ker (Φ), then Φ (a) = 0 (where 0 is the additive identity in R ).
Now,
′ ′
Φ (ra) = Φ (r) Φ (a) = Φ (r) · 0 = 0

and
′ ′
Φ (ar) = Φ (a) Φ (r) = 0 · Φ (r) = 0

so that ra, ar ∈ ker (Φ).

This property of the kernel of a ring homomorphism is abstracted to define the following
important analog in ring theory of the notion of normal subgroup in group theory.
Exercise: (" # )
a 0
Consider the subset R = | a, b, c ∈ Z of M2 (Z).
c b
(a) Show that R is a subring of M2 (Z) with unity.
" #!
a 0
(b) Show that the map f : R −→ Z given by f = a is a surjective homomor-
c b
phism.
(c) Determine the kernel of f .
Definition (Ideal ): A non-empty subset I of a ring R is an ideal of R if and only if:
(i ) a − b ∈ I for all a, b ∈ I.
(ii ) ra ∈ I and ar ∈ I whenever r ∈ R and a ∈ I.
Remark s:
1. From definition, an ideal I of a ring R must be a subring of R.
2. From condition (ii ) of the above definition, we say that I is superclosed or there is
superclosure in I. If ra ∈ I but ar ∈
/ I whenever r ∈ R and a ∈ I, then we call I a left
ideal of R as it is closed under multiplication by ring elements from the left. Similarly,
I is a right ideal of R if ar ∈ I but ra ∈
/ I for all r ∈ R and a ∈ I.
3. The “double absorption” condition that ra ∈ I and ar ∈ I is necessary for non-
commutative rings. However, if R is commutative, this condition reduces to ra ∈ I.
Examples:
1. Let R be a ring. Both R and the trivial subring {0} are ideals of R, respectively called

18
 the improper and trivial /zero ideals.
2. Let n be a fixed positive integer. Then nZ is an ideal of Z. To show this, let a, b ∈ nZ,
i.e., a = nx, b = ny for some x, y ∈ Z. Then
(i ) a − b = nx − ny = n (x − y) ∈ nZ.
(ii ) at = (nx) t = n (xt) ∈ nZ for all t ∈ Z.
(" # )
a b
3. Suppose R = | a, b ∈ R . Then R is a subring of the ring M2 (R). Suppose
0 a
(" # )
0 b
I= | b ∈ R . Then I is easily seen to be an additive subgroup of R.
0 0
Now, both " #" # " #
x y 0 b 0 xb
=
0 x 0 0 0 0
and " #" # " #
0 b x y 0 bx
=
0 0 0 x 0 0
are in I. Hence, I is an ideal of R.
′
Theorem: Let Φ : R −→ R be a ring homomorphism. Then ker (Φ) is an ideal of R.
′ ′ ′
Proof : Let a, b ∈ ker (Φ). Then Φ (a) = Φ (b) = 0 (where 0 is the additive identity in R )
so that
′ ′ ′
Φ (a − b) = Φ (a) − Φ (b) = 0 − 0 = 0 .

Hence, a − b ∈ ker (Φ).

Now, if r ∈ R and a ∈ ker (Φ), then

′ ′
Φ (ra) = Φ (r) Φ (a) = Φ (r) · 0 = 0

and
′ ′
Φ (ar) = Φ (a) Φ (r) = 0 · Φ (r) = 0 .

Hence, ra, ar ∈ ker (Φ).

Therefore, ker (Φ) is an ideal of R.
Remark : The converse of this theorem is true, i.e., every ideal is the kernel of a ring
homomorphism.
′
Theorem: Let Φ : R −→ R be a ring homomorphism. Then ker (Φ) = {0} (where 0 is the
additive identity in R) if and only if Φ is injective.

19
 ′
Proof : Suppose ker (Φ) = {0} and Φ (a) = Φ (b). Then 0 = Φ (a) − Φ (b) = Φ (a − b) (where
′ ′
0 is the additive identity in R ). Hence, a−b ∈ ker (Φ) so that a−b = 0 and a = b. Therefore,
′
Φ is injective. Conversely, suppose Φ is injective and let a ∈ ker (Φ). Then Φ (a) = 0 (where
′ ′ ′
0 is the additive identity in R ). But Φ (0) = 0 also so that Φ (a) = Φ (0). Since Φ is
injective, we must have a = 0 so that ker (Φ) = {0}.

Factor (Quotient) Rings

Let I be an ideal of a ring R. Since < R, + > is an abelian group, then all subgroups of R
are normal. Thus, < I, + > is a normal subgroup of < R, + >.
Definition (Coset): Let R be a ring, and I an ideal of R. Then for a fixed a ∈ R, the set

a + I = {a + i | i ∈ I}

is called the coset of I in R containing a.

Clearly, ignoring multiplication, the cosets of I in R are precisely the cosets of the subgroup
< I, + > in the group < R, + >. Therefore, all properties of group cosets apply in this case.
The following theorem gives some of these properties:
Theorem: Let I be an ideal of a ring R. If a, b ∈ R, then:
(i ) a ∈ b + I if and only if a + I = b + I.
(ii ) a + I = b + I if and only if a − b ∈ I.
(iii ) a + I = I if and only if a ∈ I.
Now, let I be an ideal of a ring R. The family of all the cosets a + I as a runs over R is
denoted by R/I .
Addition of cosets in R/I is given as follows:

(a + I) + (b + I) = (a + b) + I.

To show this operation is well-defined, let (a + I) = (c + I) and (b + I) = (d + I). Then by

condition (ii ) of the above theorem a − c ∈ I and b − d ∈ I. Since I is closed with respect
to addition (a − c) + (b − d) = (a + b) − (c + d) ∈ I and it follows from the same condition
that (a + b) + I = (c + d) + I. Hence, addition of cosets is well-defined.
Now, the zero element in R/I is the coset 0 + I, for if a + I is any coset

(a + I) + (0 + I) = (a + 0) + I = a + I.

20
Next, the negative of a + I is (−a) + I because

(a + I) + [(−a) + I] = [a + (−a)] + I = 0 + I.

Also,

[(a + I) + (b + I)] + (c + I) = [(a + b) + I] + (c + I)

= [(a + b) + c] + I
= [a + (b + c)] + I
= (a + I) + [(b + c) + I]
= (a + I) + [(b + I) + (c + I)] .

Finally,
(a + I) + (b + I) = (a + b) + I = (b + a) + I = (b + I) + (a + I) .

Therefore, R/I is an abelian additive group, called the factor group (or quotient group) of R
by I.
Now, we make R/I into a ring by defining multiplication on R/I by (a + I) (b + I) = ab + I.
Since the elements of R/I have many representations, we need to show that this product is
well-defined. In other words, we need to show that if (a + I) = (c + I) and (b + I) = (d + I),
then ab + I = (a + I) (b + I) = (c + I) (d + I) = cd + I:
If a + I = c + I, then a − c ∈ I so that (a − c) b ∈ I since I is an ideal of R (in fact, since I is
a right ideal of R). If b + I = d + I, we have b − d ∈ I, so that c (b − d) ∈ I since I is an ideal
of R (in fact, since I is a left ideal of R). So, both (a − c) b = ab − cb and c (b − d) = cb − cd
are in I. Thus, (ab − cb) + (cb − cd) = ab − cd ∈ I. Hence, by condition (ii ) of the preceeding
theorem, ab + I = cd + I.
Therefore, the product is well-defined.
To show that multiplication is associative:

[(a + I) (b + I)] (c + I) = [(ab) + I] (c + I)

= (ab) c + I
= a (bc) + I
= (a + I) [(bc) + I]
= (a + I) [(b + I) (c + I)] .

21
To show that multiplication is distributive over addition:

(a + I) [(b + I) + (c + I)] = (a + I) [(b + c) + I]

= a (b + c) + I
= (ab + ac) + I
= (ab + I) + (ac + I)
= (a + I) (b + I) + (a + I) (c + I)

and

[(a + I) + (b + I)] (c + I) = [(a + b) + I] (c + I)

= (a + b) c + I
= (ac + bc) + I
= (ac + I) + (bc + I)
= (a + I) (c + I) + (b + I) (c + I)

The ring R/I is called the factor ring (or quotient ring) of R by I.
Theorem: Let I be an ideal of a ring R. Then:
(i ) If R is commutative, then the ring R/I is commutative.
(ii ) If R has unity, then so does the ring R/I .
Proof :
(i ) Suppose R is commutative. If a, b ∈ R, then ab = ba so that in R/I we have

(a + I) (b + I) = ab + I = ba + I = (b + I) (a + I) .

(ii ) Suppose R has unity 1. Then if a + I ∈ R/I , we have

(a + I) (1 + I) = a1 + I = a + I

and
(1 + I) (a + I) = 1a + I = a + I

so that 1 + I is unity in R/I .

Theorem: Let I be an ideal of a ring R. The map Φ : R −→ R/I defined by Φ (a) = a + I
for a ∈ R is a surjective homomorphism with kernel I.

22
Proof : Let a, b ∈ R. Then

Φ (a + b) = (a + b) + I = (a + I) + (b + I) = Φ (a) + Φ (b)

and
Φ (ab) = ab + I = (a + I) (b + I) = Φ (a) Φ (b) .

Hence, Φ is a homomorphism.
The map Φ is surjective since given any coset a + I in R/I , Φ (a) = a + I.
Now, ker (Φ) is the set of all elements r ∈ R for which Φ (r) = r + I = 0 + I which is the
case if and only if r − 0 = r ∈ I. Therefore, ker (Φ) = I.
The homomorphism Φ in the above theorem is called the natural or canonical or quotient
homomorphism from R to R/I . That Φ is surjective implies that R/I is a homomorphic image
of R.
′
Theorem (Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem): Let Φ : R −→ R be a ring
homomorphism with kernel I. Then Φ[R] is a ring, and the map µ : R/I −→ Φ[R] given by
µ (a + I) = Φ (a) is an isomorphism. If ψ : R −→ R/I is the the homomorphism given by
ψ (a) = a + I, then for each a ∈ R, we have Φ (a) = (µψ) (a).

Φ
R Φ[R]

ψ µ

R/I

′
Theorem (First Isomorphism Theorem): Let f : R −→ R be a surjective ring homo-
′
morphism with kernel I. Then the quotient ring R/I is isomorphic to R .
Proof : If a + I = b + I, then a − b ∈ I. Consequently, since f is a homomorphism,
′ ′ ′
f (a)−f (b) = f (a − b) = 0 (where 0 is the additive identity in R ). So, a+I = b+I implies
′
that f (a) = f (b). It follows that the map Φ : R/I −→ R given by the rule Φ (a + I) = f (a)
is a well-defined function, independent of how the coset is written.
′
If c ∈ R , then c = f (a) for some a ∈ R because f is surjective. Thus, c = f (a) = Φ (a + I),
and Φ is surjective.

23
 ′
If Φ (a + I) = Φ (b + I), then f (a) = f (b) so that 0 = f (a) − f (b) = f (a − b). Hence,
a − b ∈ I implying that a + I = b + I. Therefore, Φ is injective.
Finally, Φ is a homomorphism since

Φ [(a + I) + (b + I)] = Φ [(a + b) + I]

= f (a + b)
= f (a) + f (b)
= Φ (a + I) + Φ (a + I)

and

Φ [(a + I) (b + I)] = Φ [ab + I]

= f (ab)
= f (a) f (b)
= Φ (a + I) Φ (a + I) .

′
Therefore, Φ : R/I −→ R is an isomorphism.
Remark : The First Isomorphism Theorem is a useful tool for determining the structure of
a quotient ring. According to the theorem, every homomorphic image of a ring R is of the
form R/I for some ideal I. Thus, the possible quotient rings of R are identical to the possible
homomorphic images of R.
Examples:
1. Let 5Z be the ideal of the ring Z of integers which consists of all the multiples of the
number 5. The elements of the quotient ring Z/5Z are all the cosets of the ideal 5Z,
namely:

0 + 5Z = {· · · , −25, −20, −15, −10, −5, 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, · · · }

1 + 5Z = {· · · , −24, −19, −14, −9, −4, 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, · · · }
2 + 5Z = {· · · , −23, −18, −13, −8, −3, 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, · · · }
3 + 5Z = {· · · , −22, −17, −12, −7, −2, 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, · · · }
4 + 5Z = {· · · , −21, −16, −11, −6, −1, 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, · · · }

The rules of adding and multiplying cosets give us the following tables:

24
 + 5Z 1 + 5Z 2 + 5Z 3 + 5Z 4 + 5Z
5Z 5Z 1 + 5Z 2 + 5Z 3 + 5Z 4 + 5Z
1 + 5Z 1 + 5Z 2 + 5Z 3 + 5Z 4 + 5Z 5Z
2 + 5Z 2 + 5Z 3 + 5Z 4 + 5Z 5Z 1 + 5Z
3 + 5Z 3 + 5Z 4 + 5Z 5Z 1 + 5Z 2 + 5Z
4 + 5Z 4 + 5Z 5Z 1 + 5Z 2 + 5Z 3 + 5Z

· 5Z 1 + 5Z 2 + 5Z 3 + 5Z 4 + 5Z
5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z
1 + 5Z 5Z 1 + 5Z 2 + 5Z 3 + 5Z 4 + 5Z
2 + 5Z 5Z 2 + 5Z 4 + 5Z 1 + 5Z 3 + 5Z
3 + 5Z 5Z 3 + 5Z 1 + 5Z 4 + 5Z 2 + 5Z
4 + 5Z 5Z 4 + 5Z 3 + 5Z 2 + 5Z 1 + 5Z

Clearly, Z/5Z ∼
= Z5 .
More generally, for every positive integer n, Z/nZ ∼
= Zn .
(" # )
0 b
2. As shown in a previous example, I = | b ∈ R is an ideal of a subring
0 0
(" # )
a b
R= | a, b ∈ R of M2 (R). There are two methods of determining the
0 a
factor ring R/I .
Method 1 :
" #
a b
Suppose ∈ R. Then
0 a
" # " # " #
a b a 0 0 b
= + .
0 a 0 a 0 0

Accordingly,
" # " # " #! " #
a b a 0 0 b a 0
+I = + +I = + I,
0 a 0 a 0 0 0 a
" # " #
0 b a 0
since ∈ I. Thus, elements of R/I are of the form + I. Now, define a
0 0 0 a

25
 " # !
a 0
mapping Φ : R/I −→ R by Φ +I = a. One can easily check that Φ is an
0 a
isomorphism. Hence, R/I ∼
= R.
Method 2 : " # " # " #
a b a b c d
Define Φ : R −→ R by Φ = a. Now, suppose , ∈ R. Then
0 a 0 a 0 c
" # " #
a b c d
Φ = a and Φ = c. Furthermore,
0 a 0 c
" # " #! " #
a b c d a+c b+d
Φ + =Φ
0 a 0 c 0 a+c
=a+c
" # " #
a b c d
=Φ +Φ
0 a 0 c

and
" #" #! " #
a b c d ac ad + bc
Φ =Φ
0 a 0 c 0 ac
= ac
" # " #
a b c d
=Φ Φ .
0 a 0 c
" #
x y
Hence, Φ is a homomorphism. If x ∈ R, there exists ∈ R such that
0 x
" #! " # " #
x y a b a b
Φ = x. Thus, Φ is onto. Next, if ∈ ker (Φ), then Φ = 0.
0 x 0 a 0 a
" #
a b
But Φ = a, so that a = 0. Hence, I = ker (Φ). Therefore, R/I ∼
= im (Φ) = R.
0 a
Exercise:
(" # ) (" # )
a 0 a 0
Let R = | a, b ∈ Z and I = | a ∈ Z . Show that:
0 b 0 0
(a) R is a subring of M2 (Z).
(b) I is a subring of M2 (Z).

26
 (c) R is not an ideal of M2 (Z).
(d ) I is not an ideal of M2 (Z).
(e) I is an ideal of R and hence define R/I .
Further Examples:
1. Recall that Z/pZ ∼
= Zp is a field for a prime p. This shows that a factor ring of an integral
domain may be a field.
2. The subset N = {0, 3} of Z6 is an ideal of Z6 , and Z6/N has three elements 0 + N, 1 + N,
and 2 + N. Addition and multiplication is defined in such a way that Z6/N ∼ = Z3 under
the correspondence 0 + N ←→ 0, 1 + N ←→ 1, 2 + N ←→ 2. This shows that if R is
not even an integral domain (i.e., R has 0 divisors), it is still possible for R/N to be a
field.
3. The ring Z × Z is not an integral domain since (0, 1) (1, 0) = (0, 0) showing that (0, 1)
and (1, 0) are 0 divisors. Let I = {(0, n) | n ∈ Z}. Now, I is an ideal of Z × Z. Clearly,
elements of (Z×Z)/I are cosets of the form

(m, n) + I = [(m, 0) + (0, n)] + I

= [(m, 0) + I] + [(0, n) + I]
= [(m, 0) + I] + I
= (m, 0) + I

since (0, n) ∈ I. So, ∼

= Z under the correspondence [(m, 0) + I] ←→ m, m ∈ Z.
(Z×Z)/I

Thus, a factor ring of a ring may be an integral domain, even though the original ring
is not.
4. The ring Z is an integral domain, but Z/6Z ∼
= Z6 is not.

These examples show that factor rings of rings and integral domains may be of great interest.

Now, recall that every ring R has two ideals, the improper ideal R, and the trivial ideal {0}.
= {0} which has only one element and R/{0} ∼
For these ideals, the factor rings are R/R ∼ = R,
which are uninteresting cases.
Definition: A proper non-trivial ideal I of a ring R is an ideal I of R such that I 6= R and
I 6= {0}.
The following results show that a factor ring of a field is of no much importance.
Theorem: If R is a ring with unity and I is an ideal of R containing a unit, then I = R.

27
Proof : Let I be an ideal of R, and suppose a ∈ I is a unit. Then a has an inverse a−1 ∈ R
so that 1 = a−1 a ∈ I. Now, since I is an ideal of R, r1 = r ∈ I for all r ∈ R. Hence, I = R.
Corollary: A field contains no proper non-trivial ideals.
Proof Let F be a field. Since every non-zero element of F is a unit, it follows at once from
the above theorem that the only ideals of F are {0} and F .
Corollary: If I is a proper ideal of a commutative ring R with unity, then I contains no
units.
Proof : Suppose a ∈ I is a unit. Then a−1 ∈ R and 1 = aa−1 ∈ I. Now, r · 1 = r ∈ I for all
r ∈ R. Hence, I = R. Therefore, I is not a proper ideal.
Remarks:
1. If I is the largest possible ideal of a ring R, then all the elements not in I must be
units. This gives us a method of finding units in a ring with unity.
2. If we factor out the largest possible ideal from a commutative ring with unity, we obtain
a field.
Example:
Let I be an ideal of Z containing the ideal 2Z, with I 6= 2Z. Then I contains an odd number
2m + 1 for m ∈ Z, and 1 = (2m + 1) − 2m ∈ I. By a previous result, I = Z. Hence, no
proper ideal of Z contains 2Z.
Definition (Maximal Ideal ): Let R be a ring. An ideal M of R is said to be a maximal
ideal if M 6= R and given an ideal I of R such that M ⊆ I ⊆ R, then either M = I or I = R.
In other words, a proper ideal M of R is a maximal ideal of R if the only ideals that contain
M are M itself and R, i.e., M is contained in no larger proper ideal of R.
Remark : In the above definition, if R is a ring with unity 1, then the condition that M 6= R
is equivalent to saying that M contains no units (since, by the preceeding theorem, any ideal
of R containing a unit must be the whole of R); in particular 1 ∈ / M.
Example:
Consider the ideal 3Z of Z. Suppose I is an ideal such that 3Z ⊆ I ⊆ Z. If I 6= 3Z, then
there exists a ∈ I with a ∈
/ 3Z. In particular 3 ∤ a, so that gcd (3, a) = 1. Thus, 3u + av = 1
for some u, v ∈ Z. Since 3, a ∈ I, then 1 ∈ I. Hence, by a previous result, I = Z. Therefore,
3Z is maximal.
Remark : A ring may have more than one maximal ideal.
Examples:
1. The ideal {0, 3} is a maximal ideal in Z6 , and so is the ideal {0, 2, 4}.
2. There are infinitely many maximal ideals in Z.

28
Theorem: An ideal M of a commutative ring R is maximal in R if and only if R/M contains
no proper non-trivial ideals.
Theorem: Let M be an ideal of a commutative ring R with unity 1. Then M is a maximal
if and only if R/M is a field.
Proof : Since R is a commutative ring with unity, then, from a previous theorem, R/M is a
commutative ring with unity. Now, since M 6= R, then 1 ∈ / M which is the case if and only
if 1 + M 6= 0 + M = M. Hence, R/M is a field if and only if each non-zero element of R/M is
a unit. Now, suppose R/M is a field and M ⊆ I ⊆ R for some ideal I. If M 6= I, then there
exists a ∈ I with a ∈
/ M. Hence, a + M 6= 0 + M = M in the field R/M , and a + M has an
inverse b + M so that (a + M) (b + M) = ab + M = 1 + M. Consequently, ab − 1 ∈ M, i.e.,
ab − 1 = m for some m ∈ M. Thus, 1 = ab − m, and since a, m ∈ I, then 1 ∈ I so that
I = R. Therefore, M is a maximal ideal. Conversely, suppose M is maximal. If a + M is
a non-zero element of R/M , then a ∈
/ M (otherwise a + M would be the zero coset). Now,
I = {m + ra | r ∈ R, m ∈ M} is an ideal in R that contains M. Furthermore, a = 0 + 1a is
in I so that M 6= I. By maximality we must have I = R. Hence, 1 ∈ I which implies that
1 = m + ca for some m ∈ M and c ∈ R. Thus, 1 − ca = m ∈ M so that ca + M = 1 + M.
Now, since (c + M) (a + M) = ca + M = 1 + M, then c + M is the inverse of a + M in R/M .
Therefore, R/M is a field.
Example:
Recall that Z/nZ ∼
= Zn and Zn is a field if and only if n is prime. The maximal ideals of Z are
precisely the ideals pZ for prime integers p.
Corollary: A commutative ring with unity is a field if and only if it has no proper non-trivial
ideals.
Now, suppose R is a commutative ring with unity and let I be a proper ideal of R, i.e.,
I 6= R. Recall that 0 + I = I is the 0 in R/I . Hence, the factor ring R/I is an integral domain
if and only if (a + I) (b + I) = I implies that either a + I = I or b + I = I, i.e., R/I is an
integral domain if and only if it has no 0 divisors.
Definition (Prime Ideal ): An ideal P in a commutative ring R is a prime ideal if P 6= R
and if ab ∈ P , then a ∈ P or b ∈ P .
Remark : In the above definition, if R is a ring with unity 1, then P 6= R if and only if P
contains no units; in particular 1 ∈
/ P.
Examples:
1. The ideal pZ is prime in Z whenever p is a prime integer. However, if n is composite,
the ideal nZ is not prime in Z. For instance, 2 · 3 ∈ 6Z but 2 ∈
/ 6Z and 3 ∈
/ 6Z.
2. The zero ideal {0} in any integral domain R is prime since ab = 0 implies a = 0 or

29
 b = 0.
Theorem: Let P be an ideal in a commutative ring R with unity 1. Then P is a prime
ideal if and only R/P is an integral domain.
Proof : Since R is a commutative ring with unity, then so is R/P . Additionally, since P 6= R,
then 1 ∈ / P which is the case if and only if 1 + P 6= P . Hence, R/I is an integral domain
if and only if R/I has no zero divisors. Now, suppose R/I is an integral domain. If ab ∈ P ,
then (a + P ) (b + P ) = ab + P = P . Thus, since R/I has no zero divisors, a + P = P or
b + P = P . Hence, a ∈ P or b ∈ P . Therefore, P is prime. Conversely, suppose P is prime.
If (a + P ) (b + P ) = P , then ab + P = P and ab ∈ P . Hence, a ∈ P or b ∈ P . Accordingly,
a + P = P or b + P = P , so that R/I has no zero divisors. Therefore, R/I is an integral
domain.
Example:
The factor ring Z/4Z ∼
= Z4 is not an integral domain since 4Z is not a prime ideal of Z.
Corollary: Every maximal ideal in a commutative ring with unity is a prime ideal.
Proof : If M is a maximal ideal, then R/M is a field and hence an integral domain. Therefore,
from the preceeding theorem, M is prime.

Polynomial Rings
Definition: Let R be a ring. A polynomial, in x, with coefficients in R is an expression
n
P
of the form a0 + a1 x + a2 x2 + · · · + an−1 xn−1 + an xn = ai xi where ai ∈ R. The ai ’s are
i=0
called the coefficients of the polynomial, and x is called an indeterminate (or transcedental
element over R). If an 6= 0, the polynomial is said to have degree n and the term an xn is
called the leading term with an the leading coefficient, while a0 is called the constant term.
If the leading coefficient of the polynomial is 1, then the polynomial is said to be monic.
Polynomials in x are denoted by symbols such as a(x), b(x), f (x), g(x), and so on.
The set of all polynomials in the indeterminate x with coefficients in R is denoted by R[x].
It is a ring and contains R as a subring. The elements of R, considered as polynomials in
R[x], are called constant polynomials.
Remark : The non-zero constant polynomials have degree 0. However, the costant polyno-
mial 0 does not have a degree since no power of x appears with non-zero coefficient.

30
In R[x], polynomial addition and multiplication are respectively given by the rules:



a0 + a1 x + a2 x2 + · · · + an xn + b0 + b1 x + b2 x2 + · · · + bn xn
= (a0 + b0 ) + (a1 + b1 ) x + (a2 + b2 ) x2 + · · · + (an + bn ) xn

and



a0 + a1 x + a2 x2 + · · · + an xn b0 + b1 x + b2 x2 + · · · + bm xm
= a0 b0 + (a0 b1 + a1 b0 ) x + (a0 b2 + a1 b1 + a2 b0 ) x2 + · · · + an bm xn+m .

For multiplication, for each k ≥ 0, the coefficient of xk in the product is

k
X
a0 bk + a1 bk−1 + a2 bk−2 + · · · + ak−2 b2 + ak−1 b1 + ak b0 = ai bk−i
i=0

where ai = 0 if i > n and bj = 0 if j > m.

Clearly, the zero polynimial 0 is the additive identity in R[x], and if

f (x) = a0 + a1 x + a2 x2 + · · · + an xn ∈ R[x],

then
−f (x) = (−a0 ) + (−a1 ) x + (−a2 ) x2 + · · · + (−an ) xn ∈ R[x]

is the negative of f (x).

Theorem: Let R be a ring.
(i ) If R is commutative, then so is R[x].
(ii ) If R has unity 1, then 1 is also unity for R[x].
Remark : If F is a field, the units in F [x] are precisely the non-zero elements of F .
Examples:
1. In Z[x],
(x + 1) + (x + 1) = (1 + 1) x + (1 + 1) = 2x + 2

and
(x + 1) (x + 1) = x2 + (1 + 1) x + 1 = x2 + 2x + 1.

2. In Z2 [x],
(x + 1) + (x + 1) = (1 + 1) x + (1 + 1) = 0x + 0 = 0

31
 and
(x + 1) (x + 1) = x2 + (1 + 1) x + 1 = x2 + 1.

Theorem: Suppose R is an integral domain and f (x), g (x) are non-zero polynomials in
R[x]. Then R[x] is also an integral domain and deg [f (x) g (x)] = deg f (x) + deg g (x).
Proof : Since R is a commutative ring with unity, so is R[x], by the preceeding theorem.
Suppose
f (x) = a0 + a1 x + a2 x2 + · · · + an xn

and
g (x) = b0 + b1 x + b2 x2 + · · · + bm xm

with an 6= 0 and bm 6= 0, so that deg f (x) = n and deg g (x) = m. Then

f (x) g (x) = a0 b0 + (a0 b1 + a1 b0 ) x + (a0 b2 + a1 b1 + a2 b0 ) x2 + · · · + an bm xn+m .

The largest exponent of x that can have a non-zero coefficient is n + m. But an bm 6= 0 since
an 6= 0 and bm 6= 0 and R is an integral domain. Therefore, f (x) g (x) 6= 0 so that R[x] is an
integral domain and

deg [f (x) g (x)] = n + m = deg f (x) + deg g (x) .

Remark : In general, if R is a ring and f (x) and g (x) are non-zero polynomials in R[x], we
have
deg [f (x) g (x)] ≤ deg f (x) + deg g (x) .

The strict inequality can occur if R has zero divisors.

Example:
In Z6 [x], f (x) = 2x4 has degree 4 and g (x) = 1 + 3x2 has degree 2. However, their product


f (x) g (x) = 2x4 1 + 3x2 = 2x4 + 2 · 3x6 = 2x4

does not have degree 4 + 2 = 6.

Theorem: Let R be a ring. If f (x) , g (x) ∈ R[x] and f (x) + g (x) 6= 0, then

deg [f (x) + g (x)] ≤ max {deg f (x) , deg g (x)} .

Theorem (Division Algorithm in F [x]): Let F be a field and f (x) , g (x) ∈ F [x] with

32
g (x) 6= 0. Then there exist unique polynomials q (x) , r (x) ∈ F [x] such that

f (x) = g (x) q (x) + r (x)

and either r (x) = 0 or deg r (x) < deg g (x).

Example:
Find the quotient q (x) and remainder r (x), in Z5 [x], when f (x) = x4 − 3x3 + 2x2 + 4x − 1
is divided by g (x) = x2 − 2x + 3.
Solution: By long division

x2 − x − 3
2
x − 2x + 3 x4 − 3x3 + 2x2 + 4x − 1
x4 − 2x3 + 3x2
− x3 − x2 + 4x
− x3 + 2x2 − 3x
− 3x2 + 2x − 1
− 3x2 + x + 1
x − 2

Thus, q (x) = x2 − x − 3 and r (x) = x − 2.

Divisibility in F [x]
Definition: Let F be a field and f (x) , g (x) ∈ F [x] with f (x) non-zero. Then f (x)
divides g (x) or f (x) is a factor of g (x), written f (x) | g (x), if g (x) = f (x) h (x) for some
h (x) ∈ F [x].
Remark : In the above definition, if f (x) | g (x), then c f (x) | g (x) for each non-zero c ∈ F .
Example:
In Q[x], (2x + 1) | (6x2 − x − 2) since 6x2 −x−2 = (2x + 1) (3x − 2). Every non-zero constant
multiple of 2x+1 also divides 6x2 −x−2. For instance, 5 (2x + 1) = 10x+5 divides 6x2 −x−2
since
 
2 1
6x − x − 2 = 5 (2x + 1) (3x − 2)
5
 
3 2
= (10x + 5) x− .
5 5

Theorem: Let F be a field and let g (x) ∈ F [x] be non-zero. If f (x) ∈ F [x] divides g (x),
then deg f (x) ≤ deg g (x).

33
Proof : Suppose g (x) = f (x) h (x) for some h (x) ∈ F [x]. Then, by a previous theorem,
deg g (x) = deg f (x) + deg h (x). Hence, 0 ≤ deg f (x) ≤ deg g (x).
Definition: Let F be a field and f (x) , g (x) ∈ F [x], not both 0. The greatest common
divisor (gcd) of f (x) and g (x) is the monic polynomial d (x) of highest degree that divides
both f (x) and g (x). In other words, d (x) is the gcd of f (x) and g (x) provided that d (x)
is monic and
(i ) d (x) | f (x) and d (x) | g (x),
(ii ) if c (x) | f (x) and c (x) | g (x), then deg c (x) ≤ deg d (x).
Remark : Since the degree of a common divisor of f (x) and g (x) cannot exceed either
deg f (x) or deg g (x), it is clear that there is at least one gcd for f (x) and g (x).
The next theorem shows that there is only one gcd, thus justifying the definition’s reference
to “the” gcd.
Theorem: Let F be a field and f (x) , g (x) ∈ F [x], not both 0. Then there is a unique gcd
d (x) of f (x) and g (x). Furthermore, there exist (not necessarily unique) polynomials u (x)
and v (x) such that d (x) = f (x) u (x) + g (x) v (x).
Corollary: Let F be a field and f (x) , g (x) ∈ F [x], not both 0. A monic polynomial
d (x) ∈ F [x] is the gcd of f (x) and g (x) if and only if d (x) satisfies the conditions:
(i ) d (x) | f (x) and d (x) | g (x),
(ii ) if c (x) | f (x) and c (x) | g (x), then c (x) | d (x).
Definition: Let F be a field. Polynomials f (x) , g (x) ∈ F [x] are said to be relatively prime
if their gcd is (the constant polynomial) 1.
Theorem: Let F be a field and f (x) , g (x) , h (x) ∈ F [x]. If f (x) | g (x) h (x) and f (x) and
g (x) are relatively prime, then f (x) | h (x).
Example:
Find the gcd of f (x) = 2x4 + 5x3 − 5x − 2 and g (x) = 2x3 − 3x2 − 2x in Q[x].
Solution: We use the Division Algorithm repeatedly until we reach a remainder of 0. The
divisor and remainder in each step become respectively the dividend and divisor in the next
step:



2x4 + 5x3 − 5x − 2 = 2x3 − 3x2 − 2x (x + 4) + 14x2 + 3x − 2
   
3 2 2

1 12 48 24
2x − 3x − 2x = 14x + 3x − 2 x− + − x−
7 49 49 49
  
48 24 343 49
14x2 + 3x − 2 = − x − − x+ +0
49 49 24 12

34
 48 24
The last non-zero remainder, − 49 x− 49
,is a common divisor of highest degree, and so the


gcd is the monic polynomial − 49
48
− 48
49
x − 24
49
= x + 21 .
We can verify that the gcd can be written in the form f (x) u (x) + g (x) v (x) as
   
1
7 1
7 2 1 1
x + = 2x4 + 5x3 − 5x − 2 x− 3 2
+ 2x − 3x − 2x − x − x − .
2 48 4 48 3 48

Irreducibles and Unique Factorization

Theorem: Let F be a field. Then f (x) is a unit in F [x] if and only if f (x) is a non-zero
constant polynomial.
Proof : Suppose f (x) is a unit in F [x] so that f (x) g (x) = 1 for some g (x). Then by a
previous theorem

deg f (x) + deg g (x) = deg [f (x) g (x)] = deg 1 = 0.

Since all degrees are non-negative integers, deg f (x) = 0 and deg g (x) = 0. Hence, f (x) and
g (x) are non-zero constant polynomials. Conversely, suppose f (x) = b with 0 6= b ∈ F . Then
b is a unit in F , so that g (x) = b−1 is a constant polynomial in F [x] and f (x) g (x) = bb−1 = 1.
Therefore, f (x) is a unit in F [x].
Remark : This theorem may not hold if F is not a field.
Examples:
1. The constant polynomial f (x) = 2 is not a unit in Z[x] since its inverse, 1/2, is not in
Z[x].
2. The polynomial 3x + 1 is a unit in Z9 [x] because (3x + 1) (6x + 1) = 1.
Definition: Let F be a field. A polynomial f (x) ∈ F [x] is called an associate of g (x) ∈ F [x]
if f (x) = c g (x) for some non-zero c ∈ F .
Examples:
3



1. In Q[x], 4
x2 − 12 x + 1 and −3 x2 − 21 x + 1 are associates of x2 − 12 x + 1.
2. In Q[x], 3x3 + 4x − 3 is not an associate of x − 1 since 3x3 + 4x − 3 6= c (x − 1) for any
non-zero element of Q.
Remarks:
(i ) By the preceeding theorem, the associates of g (x) ∈ F [x] are precisely the products
of g (x) with units in F [x].
(ii ) If f (x) is an associate of g (x), say f (x) = c g (x), then c−1 f (x) = c−1 [c g (x)] = g (x).
Hence, f (x) is an associate of g (x) if and only if g (x) is an associate of f (x).

35
Definition: Let F be a field. A non-constant polynomial p (x) ∈ F [x] is irreducible over
F or is an irreducible polynomial in F [x] if its only divisors are its associates and non-zero
constant polynomials (units), i.e., if p (x) cannot be expressed as a product f (x) g (x) of two
polynomials f (x) and g (x) in F [x] such that deg f (x) < deg p (x) and deg g (x) < deg p (x).
A non-constant polynomial that is not irreducible over F is said to be reducible over F .
Remarks:
1. Every polynomial of degree 1 in F [x] is irreducible in F [x].
2. A polynomial p (x) may be irreducible over a field F , but may be reducible over a larger
field E containing F .
Examples:
1. The polynomial x + 2 is irreducible in Q[x].
2. The polynomial x2 + 1 is reducible in C[x] since x2 + 1 = (x + i) (x − i) and neither
factor is a constant or an associate of x2 + 1. However, x2 + 1 is irreducible in Q[x].
Theorem: Let F be a field and p (x) a non-constant polynomial in F [x]. Then the following
conditions are equivalent:
(i ) p (x) is irreducible in F [x].
(ii ) if b (x) and c (x) are polynomials such that p (x) | b (x) c (x), then p (x) | b (x) or
p (x) | c (x).
(iii ) if r (x) and s (x) are polynomials such that p (x) = r (x) s (x), then r (x) or s (x) is a
non-zero constant polynomial.
Corollary: Let p (x) be an irreducible polynomial over a field F . If p (x) | a1 (x) a2 (x) · · · an (x),
then p (x) divides ai (x) for at least one i (i = 1, 2, · · · , n).
Definition: Let R be a commutative ring and f (x) ∈ R[x]. An element a of R is said to be
a root or zero of the polynomial f (x) if f (a) = 0.
Examples:
1. The roots of the polynomial f (x) = x2 −3x+2 ∈ R[x] are 1 and 2 since f (1) = f (2) = 0.
2. The polynomial x2 + 1 ∈ R[x] has no roots in R since the equation x2 + 1 = 0 has no
solution in R. However, x2 + 1 ∈ C[x] has i and −i as roots since these are the solutions
in C of x2 + 1 = 0.
Theorem (Remainder Theorem): Let F be a field, f (x) ∈ F [x], and a ∈ F . The
remainder when f (x) is divided by the polynomial x − a is f (a).
Proof : By the Division Algorithm, f (x) = (x − a) q (x) + r (x) where the remainder r (x)
either is 0 or has smaller degree than the degree of the divisor x − a. Thus, deg r (x) = 0 or
r (x) = 0. In either case, r (x) = c for some c ∈ F . Hence, f (x) = (x − a) q (x) + c, so that

36
f (a) = (a − a) q (a) + c = 0 + c = c.
Theorem (Factor Theorem): Let F be a field. Then an element a ∈ F is a root of
f (x) ∈ F [x] if and only if x − a is a factor of f (x) in F [x].
Example:
Let f (x) = 2x4 − 3x2 − x + 2 ∈ Q[x]. Then 1 is a root of f (x) since f (1) = 0. So, x − 1
is a factor of f (x). In fact, f (x) = (x − 1) (2x3 + 2x2 − x − 2). Therefore, f (x) is reducible
over Q.
Corollary: Let F be a field and f (x) a non-zero polynomial of degree n in F [x]. Then f (x)
has at most n roots in F .
Proof : The proof is by induction on the degree n. If n = 0, then f (x) is a non-zero constant
polynomial and therefore has no roots, and so the corollary is true for n = 0. Now, suppose
the corollary is true for all polynomials of degree k − 1, and suppose deg f (x) = k. If
f (x) has no roots in F , then the corollary is true. If f (x) has a root a ∈ F , then, by the
Factor Theorem, f (x) = (x − a) g (x). If c ∈ F is any root of f (x) different from a, then
0 = f (c) = (c − a) g (c). Since c − a 6= 0 and F [x] is an integral domain, we must have
g (c) = 0. Therefore, the only roots of f (x) in F are a and the roots of g (x). By a previous
theorem, k = deg f (x) = deg (x − a) + deg g (x) = 1 + deg g (x), so that deg g (x) = k − 1.
By the induction hypothesis, g (x) has at most k − 1 roots in F . Thus, f (x) has a total of
at most 1 + (k − 1) = k roots in F . Therefore, the corollary is true for n = k and hence, for
all n.
Remark : The above corollary is also true for integral domains, but it may be false for other
rings, even division rings.
Example:
In Z5 [x], 1 is a zero of f (x) = x4 + 3x3 + 2x + 4. So, x − 1 is a factor of f (x). By long
division
x3 + 4x2 + 4x + 1
x−1 x4 + 3x3 + 2x + 4
x4 − x3
4x3 + 2x
4x3 − 4x2
4x2 + 2x
4x2 − 4x
x + 4
x − 1
0

37
Thus, f (x) = (x − 1) (x3 + 4x2 + 4x + 1) in Z5 [x].
Now, since 1 is a zero of f1 (x) = x3 + 4x2 + 4x + 1, x − 1 is a factor of f1 (x) also. So, we
have
x2 + 4
x−1 x3 + 4x2 + 4x + 1
x3 − x2
0 + 4x + 1
4x − 4
0

Since f2 (x) = x2 + 4 still has 1 as a zero, dividing f2 (x) by x − 1 we have

x + 1
x−1 x2 + 4
x2 − x
x + 4
x − 1
0

Therefore, x4 + 3x3 + 2x + 4 = (x + 1) (x − 1)3 = (x + 1) (x + 4)3 as a product of irreducible

factors in Z5 [x].
The polynomial f (x) in the example above has four zeros in Z5 , three of which are equal.
Theorem: Let F be a field and f (x) ∈ F [x] be a non-constant polynomial. Then f (x) can
be factored in F [x] into a product of irreducible polynomials which are unique except for
order and for unit factors in F .
Corollary: Let F be a field and f (x) ∈ F [x], with deg f (x) ≥ 2.
(i ) If f (x) is irreducible in F [x], then f (x) has no roots in F .
(ii ) If f (x) has degree 2 or 3 and has no roots in F , then f (x) is irreducible in F [x].
Proof :
(i ) If f (x) is irreducible, then it has no factors of the form x − a in F [x]. Therefore, by
the Factor Theorem, f (x) has no roots in F .
(ii ) Suppose f (x) has degree 2 or 3 and has no roots in F . Then f (x) has no first-degree
factor in F since every first-degree polynomial ax + b in F [x] has a root in F , namely
− (a−1 b). Therefore, if f (x) = r (x) s (x), neither r (x) nor s (x) has degree 1. Since
f (x) has degree 2 or 3, by a previous theorem, either r (x) or s (x) must have degree
0, i.e., either r (x) or s (x) is a non-zero constant. Hence, by a previous theorem, f (x)
is irreducible in F [x].

38
Example:
Consider the polynomial f (x) = x3 + x + 1 ∈ Z5 [x]. Since none of f (0) = 1, f (1) = 3,
f (2) = 1, f (3) = 1, and f (4) = 4 is equal to 0, then no element of Z5 is a root of f (x).
Therefore, by the preceeding corollary, f (x) is irreducible in Z5 [x].

Irreducibility in Q[x]

Let f (x) be a polynomial in Q[x]. Then for some non-zero integer c, the polynomial c f (x)
has integer coefficients, i.e., c f (x) ∈ Z[x]. Accordingly, factoring in Q[x] can be reduced to
factoring in Z[x].
Example:
Consider f (x) = 23 x4 + 61 x2 − x − 13 ∈ Q[x]. The least common denominator of the coefficients
of f (x) is 6, and 6f (x) = 9x4 + x2 − 6x − 2 ∈ Z[x].
According to the Factor Theorem, first-degree factors of a polynomial g (x) ∈ Q[x] is equiva-
lent to finding the roots of g (x) in Q. Now, g (x) has the same roots as c g (x) for any non-zero
constant c. Hence, if we choose c so that c g (x) has integer coefficients, we can reduce fac-
toring in Q[x] to factoring in Z[x]. One must, however, bear in mind that a polynomial with
integer coefficients could factor in Q[x] but not in Z[x].
Theorem (Rational Root Test): Let f (x) = an xn + an−1 xn−1 + · · · + a2 x2 + a1 x + a0 be
r
a polynomial with integer coefficients. If r 6= 0 and the rational number s
(in lowest terms)
is a root of f (x), i.e., f ( rs ) = 0, then r|a0 and s|an .
Examples:
1. Find all the rational roots of f (x) = 2x4 + x3 − 15x2 + x + 3 and hence express f (x)
as a product of irreducible polynomials in Q[x].
Solution: If f (x) has a root rs ∈ Q, then r|3 (i.e., r is one of ±1, ±3) and s|2 (i.e., s
is one of ±1, ±2). So, the possible values of rs are 1, −1, 3, −3, 21 , − 12 , 23 , − 32 . Substituti-
ng each of these in f (x) shows that −3 and 12 are the only roots of f (x) in Q. By the
Factor Theorem, both x − (−3) = x + 3 and x − 12 are factors of f (x). By long division
(or even synthetic division) we have f (x) = (x + 3)(x − 1/2)(2x2 − 4x − 2). Now, the
√
roots of the factor 2x2 − 4x − 2 are 1 ± 2 ∈ / Q. Hence, by a previous theorem,
2x2 − 4x − 2 is irreducible in Q[x]. Therefore, f (x) = (x + 3)(x − 1/2)(2x2 − 4x − 2), as
a product of irreducible polynomials in Q[x].
2. The only possible rational roots of the polynomial f (x) = x3 + 4x2 + x − 1 are 1 and
−1. However, f (1) = 5 6= 0 and f (−1) = 1 6= 0. So, neither 1 nor −1 is a root of f (x).
Hence, by a previous corollary, f (x) is irreducible in Q[x].

39
Theorem: Let f (x) be a polynomial with integer coefficients. Then f (x) factors as a
product of polynomials of degrees m and n in Q[x] if and only if f (x) factors as a product
of polynomials of degrees m and n in Z[x].
Example:
Show that f (x) = x4 − 5x2 + 1 is irreducible in Q[x].
Solution: By the Rational Root Test, f (x) has no root in Q. Hence, f (x) does not have a
first-degree factor. Thus, if f (x) is reducible, the only possible factorization is as a product
of two monic quadratics in Z[x].
Suppose (x2 + ax + b) (x2 + cx + d) = x4 − 5x2 + 1 with a, b, c, d ∈ Z. Then

x4 + (a + c) x3 + (ac + b + d) x2 + (ad + bc) x + bd = x4 + 0x3 − 5x2 + 0x + 1.

Comparing coefficients we have a + c = 0, ac + b + d = −5, ad + bc = 0, and bd = 1. Now,

a + c = 0 ⇒ a = −c so that −5 = ac + b + d = −c2 + b + d ⇒ 5 = c2 − b − d. But
bd = 1 in Z implies that b = d = 1 or b = d = −1. So, we have 5 = c2 − 2 or 5 = c2 + 2
⇒ c2 = 7 or c2 = 3. In either case, c ∈ / Z. This contradiction shows that factorization of
f (x) as a product of quadratics in Z[x], and hence in Q[x], is impossible. Therefore, f (x) is
irreducible in Q[x].
Remark : The methods used in the above example are unsuitable for polynomials of high
degree. The irreducibility of some polynomials of high degree may be established by the
Eisenstein’s Criterion.
Theorem (Eisenstein’s Criterion): Let f (x) = an xn + an−1 xn−1 + · · · + a2 x2 + a1 x + a0
be a non-constant polynomial with integer coefficients. Suppose there is a prime p such that
p | ai for all i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1, but p ∤ an and p2 ∤ a0 . Then f (x) is irreducible in Q[x].
Examples:
1. The polynomial 2x3 + 3x2 − 9x + 12 is irreducible in Q[x] by Eisenstein’s Criterion
with p = 3.
2. The polynomial x2 + 5 is irreducible in Q[x] by Eisenstein’s Criterion with p = 5. In
general, xn + 5 is irreducible in Q[x] for each n ≥ 1.
Remarks:
1. From Example 2 above, there are irreducible polynomials of every degree in Q[x].
2. The Eisenstein’s Criterion gives only a sufficient but not necessary condition for a poly-
nomial with integer coefficients to be irreducible in Q[x]. As such, there are many poly-
nomials to which it cannot be applied, and therefore other techniques would be necessa-
ry when dealing with such polynomials.

40
Theorem: Let f (x) = an xn + an−1 xn−1 + · · · + a1 x + a0 be a non-constant polynomial with
integer coefficients. Suppose there is a prime p such that p ∤ an . Let f¯ (x) be the polynomial
in Zp [x] obtained by reducing the coefficients of f (x) modulo p. If f¯ (x) is irreducible in
Zp [x], then f (x) is irreducible in Q[x].
Remark : Just like in the Eisenstein’s Criterion, the above theorem gives only a sufficient
but not necessary condition for a polynomial with integer coefficients to be irreducible in
Q[x].
Example:
Let f (x) = x3 + 6x2 + 3x + 5 ∈ Z[x]. In this case, the prime p = 2 does not divide the leading
coefficient 1 of f (x), and f¯ (x) = x3 + x + 1 ∈ Z2 [x]. Since f¯ (x) has no roots in Z2 , then,
by a previous corollary, it is irreducible in Z2 [x]. Therefore, by the above theorem, f (x) is
irreducible in Q[x].

Irreducibility in R[x] and C[x]

Unlike in Q[x], one can immediately tell if a polynomial in R[x] or C[x] is irreducible without
any elaborate tests or criteria.
Theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra): Every non-constant polynomial
in C[x] has a root in C.
Remark : The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra is equivalent to saying that the field C is
algebraically closed.
Corollary: A non-constant polynomial is irreducible in C[x] if and only if it has degree 1.
Proof : A polynomial f (x) of degree ≥ 2 in C[x] has a root in C, by the preceeding theorem,
and hence a first-degree factor by the Factor Theorem. Therefore, f (x) is reducible in C[x],
and every irreducible polynomial in C[x] must have degree 1. Conversely, that every first-
degree polynomial is irreducible is clear.
Corollary: Every non-constant polynomial f (x) of degree n in C[x] can be written in
the form c (x − a1 ) (x − a2 ) · · · (x − an ) for some c, a1 , a2 , · · · , an ∈ C. This factorization is
unique except for the order of the factors.
Proof : By a previous theorem, f (x) is a product of irreducible polynomials in C[x], each of
degree 1, and there are exactly n of them, by a previous corollary. Therefore,

f (x) = (r1 x + s1 ) (r2 x + s2 ) · · · (rn x + sn )

= r1 [x − (−s1/r1 )] r2 [x − (−s2/r2 )] · · · rn [x − (−sn/rn )]
= c (x − a1 ) (x − a2 ) · · · (x − an )

41
where c = r1 r2 · · · rn and ai = −si/ri (i = 1, 2, · · · , n). Uniqueness follows from the same
previous theorem.
Lemma: If f (x) is a polynomial in R[x] and a + bi is a root of f (x) in C, then a − bi is
also root of f (x).
Theorem: A polynomial f (x) is irreducible in R[x] if and only if f (x) is a first-degree
polynomial or f (x) = ax2 + bx + c with b2 − 4ac < 0.
Remark : The above theorem provides a description of all the irreducible polynomials in
R[x].
Corollary: Every polynomial f (x) of odd degree in R[x] has a root in R.
Proof : By a previous theorem, f (x) = p1 (x) p2 (x) · · · pk (x) with each pi (x) irreducible in
R[x]. Each pi (x) has degree 1 or 2. Now, by another previous theorem,

deg f (x) = deg p1 (x) + deg p2 (x) + · · · + deg pk (x) .

Since f (x) has odd degree, at least one of pi (x) must have degree 1. Therefore, f (x) has
first-degree factor in R[x] and hence a root in R.

Unique Factorization Domains

Definition: Suppose D is an integral domain.
(a) Let a, b ∈ D with a 6= 0. We say that a divides b (or a is a factor of b), and write a|b,
if b = ac for some c ∈ D. If a does not divide b, we write a ∤ b.
(b) An element u in D is a unit of D if uv = 1 for some v ∈ D (i.e., if u|1 or u has a
multiplicative inverse in D).
Remark : Let u ∈ D be a unit with inverse v, so that uv = 1. For any b ∈ D, we have
u (vb) = (uv) b = 1b = b. Therefore, a unit divides every element of D.
Examples:
1. The only units in Z are 1 and −1.
2. Let F be a field. Then the units in the polynomial ring F [x] are the non-zero constant
polynomials.
√ √ √
√

3. The element 1 + 2 is a unit of Z[ 2] since 1 + 2 −1 + 2 = 1.
(c) An element a ∈ D is an associate of b ∈ D if a = bu for some unit u ∈ D. In this case,
u has an inverse, say uv = 1, and v is also a unit. Multiplying both sides of a = bu by
v gives av = buv = b1 = b. This shows that:

42
 (i ) a is an associate of b if and only if b is an associate of a.
(ii ) a non-zero element of D is divisible by each of its associates.
Examples:
1. Since 1 and −1 are the only units in Z, then every non-zero integer n has exactly two
associates in Z, namely n and −n.
2. Consider the following Cayley table for the non-zero elements of Z6 :
• 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 4 0 2 4
3 3 0 3 0 3
4 4 2 0 4 2
5 5 4 3 2 1
The units in Z6 are 1 and 5 (elements that are coprime to 6). In this case, 2 · 5 = 4 and
2 = 4 · 5. Hence, 2 and 4 are associates.
3. Suppose F is a field. The associates of f (x) ∈ F [x] are the non-zero constant multiples
of f (x).
√ √ √ √ √
√

4. In the ring Z[ 2], the elements 2 and 2− 2 are associates as 2 = 2 − 2 1 + 2
√
where 1 + 2 is a unit (from a previous example).
Exercise:
Find all the units in Z8 and hence determine all the associates of 3 in Z8 .
(d ) Let p be a non-zero element of D. If p|ab implies p|a or p|b, then p is said to be prime.
(e) Let p be a non-zero non-unit element of D. If p = ab implies that either a or b is a
unit, then p is said to be irreducible. In other words, p is irreducible if the only divisors
of p are its associates and the units of D.
Remark : An associate of an irreducible p is again an irreducible, for if p = uc for a unit u,
then any factorization of c provides a factorization of p.
Example:
The irreducible elements in Z are just the prime integers because the only divisors of a prime
p are ±p (its associates) and ±1 (the units in Z).
Theorem: In the ring Z of rational integers, the concept of prime and irreducible are the
same.
Proof : Suppose p is prime and let p = ab. Then p|a or p|b. If p|a, then

a = vp = v (ab) = (va) b = (av) b = a (vb) .

43
By left cancellation law, 1 = vb. Hence, b is a unit. A similar argument shows that a is a
unit if we assume p|b.
Conversely, suppose that p is irreducible and p|ab. If p|a, then p is prime. If p ∤ a, then
gcd (p, a) = 1. Hence, there exist m, n ∈ Z such that pm + an = 1 and bpm + ban = b. The
right-hand side is divisible by p, i.e., p|b. Therefore, p is prime.
Definition (UFD): An integral domain D is a unique factorization domain (UFD) if every
non-zero non-unit element of D is a product of a finite number of irreducibles and this
factorization is unique up to associates, i.e., if p1 p2 · · · pr = q1 q2 · · · qs with each pi and qj
irreducible, then r = s and, after reordering and relabelling if necessary, pi is an associate of
qi (for i = 1, 2, · · · , r).
Examples:
1. Z is a UFD.
2. Z[x] is a UFD.
3. If R is a UFD, then R[x] is a UFD. In particular, for a field F , F [x] is a UFD.
4. Z[i], the domain of Gaussian integers is a UFD.
√
5. Many of the quadratic domains Z( d) are not UFD’s.
Theorem: Let D be a UFD and let p be an irreducible element in D. If p|bc, then p|b or
p|c.
Proof : If b or c is 0, then the proof is direct since p|0. If c is a unit and p|bc, then pt = bc
for some t ∈ D and ptc−1 = b. Hence, p|b. Similarly, if b is a unit, then p|c. If both b and c
are non-zero non-units, then b = q1 · · · qr and c = qr+1 · · · qs with qi (not necessarily distinct)
irreducibles. Since p|bc, the pm = bc = q1 · · · qs for some m ∈ D. So, the irreducuble p must
be an associate of some qi by unique factorization. Therefore, p|qi and hence divides b or c.
Definition (Principal Ideal ): Let R be a commutative ring with unity and a ∈ R. Let
I be the set of all multiples of a, i.e., I = {ra | r ∈ R}. Then I is an ideal of R, called the
principal ideal generated by a and is usually denoted by hai.
Examples:
1. If I is a non-zero ideal of Z, then I = hni = nZ where n is the smallest positive
integer in I. Hence, every ideal in Z is a principal ideal.
2. Every ideal in Z[i], the ring of Gaussian integers is a principal ideal.
3. If I is the set of all polynomials in Z[x] with zero constant term, then I a principal
ideal, generated by the monomial p(x) = x, because each polynomial f (x) ∈ I is a
polynomial multiple of p(x) = x.
4. In the ring Z[x], let I be the set of all polynomials whose constant term are even

44
 integers. Then one can easily verify that I is an ideal in Z[x]. However, I is not a
principal ideal.
5. Let F be a field. Then every ideal in the polynomial domain F [x] is a principal ideal.
Theorem: Let R be an integral domain R. Then:
(i ) hai ⊆ hbi if and only if b|a.
(ii ) hai = hbi if and only if a and b are associates.
Proof :
(i ) hai ⊆ hbi if and only if a ∈ hbi, which is the case if and only if a = bc for some c ∈ R,
so that b|a.
(ii ) Using part (i ), hai = hbi if and only if hai ⊆ hbi and hbi ⊆ hai, which is the case if
and only if a = bc and b = ad for some c, d ∈ R. But then a = adc and by cancellation
law for multiplication, 1 = dc. Thus, d and c are units so that a and b are associates.
Definition (PID): An integral domain D is a principal ideal domain (PID) if every ideal
in D is a principal ideal.
Examples:
1. If F is a field, then the polynomial domain F [x] is a PID.
2. The ring Z of integers is a PID.
3. The ring Z[i] of Gaussian integers is a PID.
4. In the ring Z[x], the ideal I of all polynomials with even constant term is not principal.
Hence, Z[x] is not a PID.
Theorem: Let D be a PID. Every non-zero non-unit element of D is a product of irre-
ducibles.
Theorem: An ideal hpi in a PID is maximal if and only if p is irreducible.
Proof : Let hpi be a maximal ideal of D, a PID. Suppose that p = ab in D. Then hpi ⊆ hai.
Suppose that hai = hpi. Then a and p would be associates. Hence, b must be a unit. If
6 hpi, then we must have hai = h1i = D, since hpi is maximal. But then a and 1 are
hai =
associates. Thus, a is a unit. Hence, if p = ab, either a or b must be a unit. Therefore, p is
an irreducible in D. Conversely, suppose that p is an irreducible in D. Then if hpi ⊆ hai, we
must have p = ab. Now, if a is a unit, then hai = h1i = D. If a is not a unit, then b must be
a unit. So, there exists u ∈ D such that bu = 1. Then pu = abu = a1 = a. So, hai ⊆ hpi, and
we have hai = hpi. Thus, hpi ⊆ hai implies that either hai = D or hai = hpi, and hpi =6 D or
p would be a unit. Hence, hpi is a maximal ideal.
Theorem: Let D be a PID. If p is irreducible in D and p|bc, then p|b or p|c.

45
Proof : If p|bc, then bc is in the ideal hpi. If hpi were known to be a prime ideal, we would
conclude that b ∈ hpi or c ∈ hpi, i.e., p|b or p|c. Since every maximal ideal is prime, we need
only show that hpi is a maximal ideal. Suppose I is any ideal with hpi ⊆ I ⊆ D. Since D is
a PID, I = hdi for some d ∈ D. Then hpi ⊆ hdi = I implies that d|p. Since p is irreducible,
d must be either a unit or an associate of p. If d is a unit, then I = hdi = D. If d is an
associate of p, say d = pu, then p|d and hence hdi ⊆ hpi. In this case, hpi ⊆ hdi ⊆ hpi, so
that hpi = hdi = I. Therefore, hpi is maximal, completing the proof.
Corollary: If p is an irreducible in a PID and p|a1 a2 · · · an for ai ∈ D, then p|ai for at least
one ai .
Theorem: Every PID is a UFD.
Proof : Let D be a PID and let a ∈ D be a non-zero non-unit element. Then a has a
factorization a = p1 p2 · · · pr into irreducibles. We only need to show that this factorization
is unique. Let a = q1 q2 · · · qs be another such factorization into irreducibles. Then we have
p1 | (q1 q2 · · · qs ), which implies that p1 |qj1 for some j1 . By changing the order of qj if necessary,
we can assume that j1 = 1 so that p1 |q1 . Then q1 = p1 u1 , and since p1 is an irreducible,
u1 is a unit. So, p1 and q1 are associates. Accordingly, p1 p2 · · · pr = p1 u1 q2 · · · qs . So, by
cancellation law in D, p2 · · · pr = u1 q2 · · · qs . Continuing in this process, starting with p2 and
so on, we finally arrive at 1 = u1 u2 · · · ur qr+1 · · · qs . Since the qj are irreducibles, we must
have r = s.
Remark : The converse of this theorem is false.
Counterexample:
The polynomial ring Z[x] is a UFD. However, Z[x] is not a PID.
Corollary (Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic): The integral domain Z is a UFD.
Proof : All ideals of Z are of the form nZ = hni for n ∈ Z, i.e., all the ideals of Z are principal
ideals. Thus, Z is a PID and by the preceeding theorem, it is a UFD.
Definition (Greatest Common Divisor ): Let D be a UFD. An element d ∈ D is a
greatest common divisor (gcd) of elements a and b, not both zero, if:
(i ) d|a and d|b,
(ii ) c|d for all c ∈ D such that c|a and c|b.
In other words, d is a gcd of a and b if d is a common divisor of a and b, and every other
common divisor of a and b divides d.
Remarks:
(i ) Any a and b in a UFD, not both zero, have a gcd; in fact, gcd exists for any number
of elements from a UFD.

46
 (ii ) Every PID is a UFD. Hence, gcd’s also exist in a PID.
(iii ) The adjective “greatest” in the definition does not mean primarily that d is greater
in magnitude than any other common divisor, but rather, that it is a multiple of any
other common divisor.
(iv ) According to the definition, two different gcd’s are associates; of two possible gcd’s
±d for a and b, we select the positive one, call it “the” gcd, and denote it by gcd(a, b)
or simply (a, b).
Examples:
1. In Z, 2 is a gcd of 8 and 10. Since −2 is an associate of 2, it is also a gcd of 8 and 10.
In this case, we take 2 as “the” gcd of 8 and 10.
2. In Q[x], a gcd of x2 − 2x + 1 and x2 + x − 2 is x − 1. If 0 6= c ∈ Q, then c(x − 1) is
also a gcd since c(x − 1) is an associate of x − 1. The gcd in this case is x − 1 (the
monic polynomial of highest degree that divides both x2 − 2x + 1 and x2 + x − 2).
However, in Z[x], the only gcd’s of x2 − 2x + 1 and x2 + x − 2 are x − 1 and −(x − 1),
for 1 and −1 are the only units in Z[x].
Theorem: If D is a PID and a and b are non-zero elements of D, then
(i ) there exists a gcd of a and b.
(ii ) each gcd of a and b can be expressed in the form λa + µb for some λ, µ ∈ D.
Definition: Let D be a UFD. A non-constant polynomial f (x) = a0 + a1 x + · · · + an xn
in D[x] is primitive if the only common divisors of all the ai are units of D, i.e., f (x) is
primitive if the only constants that divide it are the units in D.
Examples:
1. The polynomial f (x) = 3x2 − 2x + 4 ∈ Z[x] is primitive since the units −1 and 1 are
the only common divisors in Z of the coefficients 3, −2, 4 of f (x).
2. The polynomial g (x) = 2x2 + 4x + 6 ∈ Z[x] is not primitive since 2 is a non-unit in Z
but it is a common divisor of the coefficients 2, 4, and 6 of g (x).
3. The polynomial h (x) = 2x2 +4x+6 ∈ Z7 [x] is primitive since the only common divisors
in Z7 of the coefficients 2, 4, and 6 of h (x), namely 1 and 2, are unit in Z7 .
Remark : If D is a UFD, then every non-constant irreducible polynomial in D[x] is primitive.
Theorem: If D is a UFD, then every non-constant polynomial f (x) ∈ D[x] factors as
f (x) = c g (x), where c ∈ D, g (x) ∈ D[x] , and g (x) is primitive.
Proof : Let c be the gcd of the coefficients of f (x). Then f (x) = c g (x) for some g (x). If
d ∈ D divides g (x), then g (x) = d h (x) for some h (x) ∈ D[x] so that f (x) = cd h (x).
Since cd is a constant divisor of f (x), it must divide the coefficients of f (x) and hence must

47
divide the gcd c. Thus, cdu = c for some u ∈ D. Since c 6= 0, then du = 1 and d is a unit.
Therefore, g (x) is primitive
Remark : In the above theorem, the element c ∈ D and the polynomial g (x) ∈ D[x] are
unique up to unit factors in D.
Example:
In Z[x], −2x2 + 4x + 6 = 2 (−x2 + 2x + 3) where −x2 + 2x + 3 is primitive.
Theorem (Gauss’ Lemma): If D is a UFD, then a product of two primitive polynomials
in D[x] is primitive.
Proof : Let
f (x) = a0 + a1 x + · · · + an xn

and
g (x) = b0 + b1 x + · · · + bm xm

be primitive in D[x], and let h (x) = f (x) g (x). Let p be an irreducible in D. Then p does
not divide all ai and p does not divide all bj since f (x) and g (x) are primitive. Let ar be
the first coefficient of f (x) not divisible by p; that is, p|ai for i < r, but p ∤ ar . Similarly, let
p|bj for j < s, but p ∤ bs . The coefficient of xr+s in h (x) = f (x) g (x) is

cr+s = (a0 br+s + · · · + ar−1 bs+1 ) + ar bs + (ar+1 bs−1 + · · · + ar+s b0 ) .

Now, p|ai for i < r implies that

p| (a0 br+s + · · · + ar−1 bs+1 ) ,

and also p|bj for j < s implies that

p| (ar+1 bs−1 + · · · + ar+s b0 ) .

But p does not divide ar or bs , so p does not divide ar bs , and consequently p does not divide
cr+s . This shows that given the irreducible p ∈ D, there is some coefficient of f (x) g (x) not
divisible by p. Thus, f (x) g (x) is primitive.
Corollary: If D is a UFD, then a finite product of primitive polynomials in D[x] is also
primitive.
Theorem: If D is a UFD, then D[x] is a UFD.

48
Euclidean Domains
Definition: An integral domain D is a Euclidean domain if there is a function δ mapping
the non-zero elements of D to the non-negative integers with the conditions:
(i ) If a and b are non-zero elements of D, then δ(a) ≤ δ(ab).
(ii ) If a, b ∈ D with b 6= 0, then there exist q, r ∈ D such that a = bq + r, where either
r = 0 or δ(r) < δ(b).
The function δ in the above definition is called a Euclidean valuation on D.
Examples:
1. Z is a Euclidean domain with the function δ given by δ(a) = |a|. Condition (i ) holds
since |ab| = |a||b| ≥ |a| for all b 6= 0 in Z (|b| ≥ 1 in this case). Condition (ii ) holds by
the Division Algorithm for Z.
2. If F is a field, then the polynomial domain F [x] is a Euclidean domain with the function
δ given by δ[f (x)] = deg f (x). Condition (i ) holds since

δ[f (x)g(x)] = deg[f (x)g(x)] = deg f (x) + deg g(x) ≥ deg f (x) = δ[f (x)],

and condition (ii ) is just the Division Algorithm for F [x].

√
Definition: Consider the ring Z[i] = {a + bi | a, b ∈ Z, i = −1} of Gaussian integers. For
an element α = a + bi ∈ Z[i], the norm N (α) of α is given as N (α) = a2 + b2 .
Lemma: In Z[i], the norm function has the following properties for all α, β ∈ Z[i]:
(i ) N (α) ≥ 0 with equality if and only if α = 0.
(ii ) N (αβ) = N (α) N (β).
Lemma: The ring Z[i] of Gaussian integers is an integral domain.
Proof : As seen previously Z[i] is a commutative ring with unity. Hence, we only need to
show that Z[i] has no 0 divisors. Let α, β ∈ Z[i]. From the above lemma, if αβ = 0, then
N (α) N (β) = N (αβ) = N (0) = 0. Thus, αβ = 0 implies N (α) = 0 or N (β) = 0. By the
same lemma again, this implies that α = 0 or β = 0. Thus, Z[i] has no 0 divisors.
Theorem: The ring Z[i] of Gaussian integers is a Euclidean domain with Euclidean valuation
δ (α) = N (α) for non-zero α ∈ Z[i].
Theorem: Every Euclidean domain is a PID.
Proof : Suppose D is a Euclidean domain with Euclidean valuation δ, and suppose N is an
ideal in D. If N = {0}, then N = h0i and N is principal. Suppose that N 6= {0}. Then
there exists b 6= 0 in N. Let us choose b such that δ (b) is minimal among all δ (n) for n ∈ N.
We claim that N = hbi. Let a ∈ N. Then by condition (i ) for Euclidean domain, there exist

49
q and r in D such that a = bq + r where either r = 0 or δ (r) < δ (b). Now, r = a − bq and
a, b ∈ N, so that r ∈ N, since N is an ideal. Accordingly, we cannot have δ (r) < δ (b), by
our choice of b. Hence, r = 0, and it follows that a = bq. Since a was an arbitrary element
of N, then N = hbi.
Corollary: A Euclidean domain is a UFD.
Proof : By the above theorem, a Euclidean domain is a PID and by a previous theorem, a
PID is a UFD.
Remark : The converse of the theorem above is false, i.e., not every PID is a Euclidean
domain.
Theorem (Euclidean Algorithm): Let D be a Euclidean domain with Euclidean valuation
δ, and let a and b be non-zero elements of D. Let r1 such that a = bq1 + r1 , where either
r1 = 0 or δ(r1 ) < δ(b). If r1 6= 0, let r2 be such that b = r1 q2 + r2 , where either r2 = 0 or
δ(r2 ) < δ(r1 ). In general, let ri+1 be such that ri−1 = ri qi+1 + ri+1 , where either ri+1 = 0 or
δ(ri+1 ) < δ(ri ). Then the sequence r1 , r2 , · · · must terminate with rs = 0. If r1 6= 0 and rs is
the first ri = 0, then a gcd of a and b is rs−1 .
Example:
Use the Euclidean Algorithm to compute the gcd of 12378 and 3054.
Solution:
12378 = 3054(4) + 162
3054 = 162(18) + 138
162 = 138(1) + 24
138 = 24(5) + 18
24 = 18(1) + 6
18 = 6(3) + 0

Thus, r5 = 6 is a gcd of 12378 and 3054. Since the divisors of 6 and −6 are the same then
−6 is also a gcd of 12378 and 3054. In this case, we take 6 as the gcd.

50