Throughout, we take
as a complex subring (with unity). In this article, we’ll be interested in natural analogues of Euclid’s proof of the infinitude of the primes (i.e. the case
. In particular, we’ll show that Euclid’s proof (and generalizations to this method) can be recast as a relationship between the size of the unit group
of
and
, the number of prime ideals in
. (Here,
denotes the spectrum of
.)
For the sake of explicit analogy, we include a (needlessly abstracted) version of Euclid’s result now:
Theorem 1 (Euclid): The integers have infinite spectrum.
Proof: If not, let exhaust the list of prime ideals. As the integers form a PID, (in fact, they form a Euclidean domain), we may associate to each given ideal a prime generator
such that
. Let
; as
is not a unit (replacing
with
if necessary), it admits a prime factor
which equals some
. But then
divides both
and
, whence
as well. This is a contradiction, and our result follows.
It is worth remarking that the “PID-ness” of the integers is not needed in the derivation of Theorem 1. Indeed, if were not principal, we may take instead
to be any non-zero element of
. Thus, we see that the PID-ness of
is not the crucial property of the integers (viewed as a subfield of
) upon which our proof stands. Rather — as we’ll see after the fold — Euclid’s proof frames the infinitude of primes as a consequence of the finiteness of the units group!
Where is a subring (with unity) as before, we define
in which the sum runs over all non-zero prime ideals in . This is not quite the nilradical of
, as our intersection omits the prime ideal
. Nor is
the Jacobson radical (the intersection of all maximal ideals), except when the Krull dimension of
is
(e.g. for
a PID or a Dedekind domain).
Proposition 2: Let be a subring (with unity). Then
.
Proof: Let and
. If
for some
, then
as
. Yet
is a unit, so this contradiction forces
for all prime ideals
. Yet all non-units of
lie in maximal ideals, so this implies that
is a unit. The reverse inclusion is obvious.
Corollary 3: If has finitely many units, then
has infinite spectrum.
Proof: If has finite unit group, then the identity
forces
. Yet if
, then
must be infinite, as the intersection of finitely many non-zero ideals (in a domain) is itself a non-zero ideal.
As an application of Corollary 3, we may reestablish Euclid’s result on the infinitude of primes. Moreover — if we assume the Dirichlet unit theorem — it follows that for all imaginary quadratic fields. Yet, as the following Theorem shows, we have only begun to tap the power of our Proposition:
Theorem 4: If has finite spectrum, then
is dense in
, the topological closure of the fraction field of
.
Proof: Suppose that has finite spectrum, so that
as in Corollary 3. If
, then any non-zero
generates a lattice over
. If
, let
be non-zero and choose
not real. Then
and
are independent over
and so generate a lattice in
. In each case, we shall denote this lattice by
.
Fix , and choose a sequence
tending to infinity. There exists some
dependent only on
such that
for some choice of
. Then
and it’s not hard to show that this rightmost sum is . Thus the sequence
tends to
, while Proposition 2 implies that each term is unital.
Once again, we can use the Dirichlet unit theorem to furnish examples of number fields with infinite spectrum:
- All quadratic fields.
- Cubic and quartic fields that are not totally real.
- Select fields of degree five and six.
Actually — and in some sense with a lot less work — we can show that all number fields have infinite spectrum. To do so, we’ll need just one more Proposition:
Proposition 5: Let be a number field of degree
. Then the length of the longest arithmetic progression in
is uniformly bounded as a function of
.
Proof: Following Newman in [1], suppose that the units
form an arithmetic progression. Let , which lies in
as
is a unit. Thus
, for
. If we take
as well, then
, a consequence of the fact that
(whereby
). Thus the polynomial
(as a degree
norm form) has roots at
. Then
, which gives our uniform bound.
Coupled with Proposition 2, this implies the following:
Corollary 6: Let be a number field, with ring of integers
. Then
has infinite spectrum.
Proof: If our result does not hold, then is non-zero; let
be non-zero, and consider the (infinite) arithmetic progression
. Each element lies in
by Proposition 2, but this contradicts Proposition 5 and so our result must hold.
(In particular, our previous appeals to the Dirichlet unit theorem have been unnecessary.)
— PART II —
Of all proofs of the infinitude of the primes, it is without a doubt that of Euler that has led to the greatest generalizations. In summary, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (that the integers form a UFD) allows us to write
i.e. an expression of the zeta function as an Euler product. In this way, the divergence of the harmonic series implies that the right-hand product contains infinitely many terms. Yet this method (as written above) fails to generalize to number fields that are not UFDs. Yet this setback admits a simple remedy: if one shows that all number fields are Dedekind domains (i.e. that the ideal group of
is always a UFD), then the factorization
holds, in which (resp.
) exhausts the non-zero ideals (resp. prime ideals) in
. Once again, we find that our infinite sum diverges at
(it is minorized by the harmonic series) which implies that the right-hand sum constitutes an infinite product. Yet this is to say that
has infinite spectrum (our result in Corollary 6).
Nevertheless, I contend that our generalizations to Euclid’s method have interest in their own right. For one, they highlight the tension between the size of the units group and the cardinality of the spectrum in any ring of characteristic 0. While our best example of this phenomenon — Theorem 4 — relies heavily on the topology of , it is not difficult to imagine other results that capture this sentiment. In particular, I conjecture (but have not been able to prove) the following:
Conjecture 7: Let be a domain with characteristic 0, and suppose that
has finite rank as an abelian group. Then
- the arithmetic progressions in
have uniformly bounded length, so;
has infinite spectrum (à la Corollary 6).
— EXERCISES —
Exercise: Show that the ring
satisfies , so the converse to Theorem 4 is false.
The following Exercise gives conditions under which our methodology is sharp.
Exercise: Let be a domain (with unity). We have already shown that
implies that
has infinite spectrum.
- Prove that these conditions are equivalent if
is a Noetherian domain with finite Krull dimension.
- We call
a
–PID if all ideals in
can be written as modules over
with at most
generators. Use the Krull height theorem to show that
-PIDs are Noetherian domains of finite Krull dimension, so that
if and only if
in a
-PID.
- Show that the ring of integers in a number field (of degree
) is an
-PID.
(Hard.)
— REFERENCES —
[1] M. Newman, Units in Arithmetic Progression in an Algebraic Number Field, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, 43(2), 1974.
Pingback: Units Groups and the Infinitude of Primes (Part II) | a. w. walker·