[This post is targeted at a Level 5 student. This is a continuation of the blog post [Gaussian integers II](http://blog.brilliant.org/2013/02/26/gaussian-integers-ii/).]
You are probably used to the fact that every positive integer can be uniquely expressed as a product of positive primes, up to the order of multiplication. This property is called the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. While this seems like an obvious fact, can we create a system where it is not true?
Example: Consider the set of all positive integers of the form , where is a positive integer. A product of any two such integers in is again an integer of this form. We will call an integer from prime if it is not a product of two smaller integers from , and the integer is called composite otherwise.
By definition, every integer from is a product of primes from . However, the product may not be uniquely expressed. For example, we can see that are all primes in , and we have .
Of course, is very different from integers or natural numbers, but this showcases the fact that there must be a reason for why the prime decomposition is unique. The deep reason is the existence of the division algorithm that produces a remainder that is strictly smaller than the divisor. Interestingly, the same property holds for the Gaussian integers, with respect to the norm:
(Division algorithm) Suppose and are Gaussian integers, . Then there exist Gaussian integers and such that and
Proof:
Dividing by , we get a number where and are rational (not necessarily integers). Suppose is the closest integer to and is the closest integer to .
Denote .
Then
So if then
This property is called the Euclidean domain property. In fact, in every Euclidean domain the factorization into a product of primes is unique. We present an argument for the Gaussian integers, which can be easily adapted for the regular integers. The following lemma is needed in the proof, and is known as Euclid's Lemma when restricted to integers.
Suppose is a prime Gaussian integer and divides for some Gaussian integers and . Then or .
Proof:
Consider the set of all Gaussian integers of the form for arbitrary Gaussian integers and .
This is also known as the ideal generated by and . It has the property that any sum or difference of two elements from is in , and any Gaussian integral multiple of an element from is in .
Suppose is the element of with the smallest possible non-zero absolute value.
From Lemma 1, every element of is a multiple of , otherwise the non-zero remainder, which also lies in , will have a smaller absolute value. In particular, .
Because is prime, either is a unit or is a unit. In the first case, is a multiple of , so it is a multiple of .
In the second case, multiplying by , we express as .
Multiplying by , we get . Because this implies that .
(Unique Factorization Property) Every non-zero Gaussian integer can be uniquely expressed as a product of Gaussian primes, up to ordering and multiplication by units.
Proof
First we prove that a factorization into a product of primes always exists. If not, take to be the Gaussian integer with smallest absolute value which is not a product of primes.
Then is not a prime, so a product of two non-zero, non-unit Gaussian integers.
Since norms are multiplicative and positive integers, must have smaller norm than , so they are both products of primes.
If so, is also the product of primes, hence a contradiction.
Now we will prove the uniqueness. Suppose that is the Gaussian integer with smallest norm that admits two substantially different decompositions into a product of primes:
Applying lemma 2 to , , we get that either or .
In the second case we apply it again, and again... as a result we get that must divide for some .
Because the number is prime, this means that is up to a unit .
Then we can cancel them out, and get a new with two different prime decompositions and smaller norm. This contradicts our choice of .
Another property of the Euclidean domain, very much related to the Unique Decomposition, is the existence of the Euclidean Algorithm for finding the greatest common divisor. This algorithm, as well as the uniqueness of prime decomposition for the usual integers goes all the way back to Euclid's Elements!
Suppose and are (Gaussian) integers. We order the pair so that and call it .
Then we use it to get new pairs, as follows. At every step, we divide by .
If the remainder is zero, we stop, and claim that the greatest common divisor of and , denoted .
If there is a non-zero remainder, i.e. we take and continue.
1) For every initial pair , the Euclidean algorithm terminates after a finite number of steps.
2) The number divides both and , and every (Gaussian) integer that divides both and must divide .
Proof.
1) For the Gaussian integers, note that , and the norm, being a positive integer, cannot decrease indefinitely.
2) Suppose . Then it clearly divides and . Because and it divides and .
Continuing in this manner, we prove that divides and . If divides both and , then it divides and .
Continuing in this manner, we prove that divides .
We finish this post by reproducing one of the recent proofs of the Fermat Two Squares Theorem, due to Don Zagier. An involution is such map from a set to itself, that for all elements .
Don Zagier's One-Sentence Proof of Fermat Two Squares Theorem. (Amer. Math. Monthly 97 (1990), no. 2, 144).
The involution on the finite set defined by
has exactly one fixed point, so is odd and the involution defined by also has a fixed point.
Find the greatest common divisor of and .
Suppose and are Gaussian integers and . Show that there exists some Gaussian Integers and such that . Hint: In the Euclidean algorithm, write as and then backtrack.
Repeat the above to show that the integers has the unique factorization property. If we tried to reproduce the steps to show that has the unique factorization property, where would our proof break down?
(*) Fill in the details of the Don Zagier's proof.
Hint: Don't just stare at it, grab a piece of paper and a pencil and try to see what happens when that complicated map is applied twice. If you wish, try and first.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
1!+2!+3!+4!+....100!=??? how step to finish it?