Mathematics · Glossary

What is Integral domain, field?

Also known as: integral domain · field

Definition 7.22 University Mathematics — Year 1 · Chapter 7 — Algebraic Structures

A commutative ring A{0}A \neq \{0\} is an integral domain when it has no zero divisors: ab=0    a=0ab = 0 \implies a = 0 or b=0b = 0. It is a field when every nonzero element is invertible. Every field is an integral domain (ab=0ab = 0 and a0a \neq 0 give b=a1ab=0b = a^{-1}ab = 0).

Examples

Example 7.19 (Idempotents: new phenomena in new rings)

In Z\Z, the equation x2=xx^2 = x, i.e. x(x1)=0x(x - 1) = 0, has only the solutions 00 and 11. In Z/6Z\Z/6\Z, testing all classes: 02=0\overline0^2 = \overline0, 12=1\overline1^2 = \overline1, 32=9=3\overline3^2 = \overline9 = \overline3 and 42=16=4\overline4^2 = \overline{16} = \overline4four idempotents. The two exotic ones come from zero divisors: 3(31)=3×2=6=0\overline3\,(\overline3 - \overline1) = \overline3 \times \overline2 = \overline6 = \overline0 with neither factor zero. Such computations calibrate one’s instincts: familiar facts about equations survive in integral domains and fields, but a general ring can and does behave differently — see also the Boolean rings of Exercise 7.10, where every element is idempotent.

Example 7.26 (How many square roots of 11?)

Solve x2=1x^2 = \overline 1 in Z/8Z\Z/8\Z and in Z/7Z\Z/7\Z. Testing the eight classes mod 88: 12=11^2 = 1, 32=913^2 = 9 \equiv 1, 52=2515^2 = 25 \equiv 1, 72=4917^2 = 49 \equiv 1four solutions {1,3,5,7}\{\overline1, \overline3, \overline5, \overline7\}, even though the polynomial X21X^2 - 1 has degree 22. In the field Z/7Z\Z/7\Z, by contrast, x2=1x^2 = \overline1 means (x1)(x+1)=0(x - \overline1)(x + \overline1) = \overline0, and a field has no zero divisors: x=±1x = \pm\overline1, two solutions only. The failure mod 88 is traceable: (31)(3+1)=2×4=80(3-1)(3+1) = 2 \times 4 = 8 \equiv 0 without either factor vanishing. Moral: the familiar rule “a degree-dd equation has at most dd roots” is a theorem about integral domains (Corollary 8.8 proves it over fields); in rings with zero divisors it silently fails — which is exactly why the pairing proof of Wilson’s theorem (Exercise 6.11) needed pp prime.

Read in context →