Prime ideals of $mathbb{Z}$: equivalent proof?












3












$begingroup$


Let $R=mathbb{Z}$, since $mathbb{Z}$ is an integer domain the ideal $(0)$ is prime. I must prove that




The prime ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are precisely the ideals $(n)$ where $n$ is a prime.




On the implication: $p$ is a prime then $(p)$ is a prime ideal there are no problems.



Now, let $I=(n)$ a prime ideal of $mathbb{Z}$.



First proof



We suppose to be absurd that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$ where $n_1nepm 1$ and $n_2nepm 1$.
Then $n_1notin (n)$, in fact if it were $n_1in(n)$, $exists kinmathbb{Z}$ such that $n_1=kn$, therefore $n=(kn)n_2ne n$, absurd. So, $n_1notin (n)$ and $n_2notin (n)$. However $n_1n_2=nin (n)$.



Summing up if $n$ is not prime, then $$n_1n_2in(n)Rightarrow n_1notin (n)quadtext{and}quad n_2notin (n),$$
therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.



Second proof



If we suppose to know that every ideal $I$ of $mathbb{Z}$ is of the form $I=(n)$ where $n$ is the least integer not negative which belongs to $I$, then when we suppose that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$, where $1<n_1,n_2<n$. At this point if it were $n_1in (n)$ $exists kinmathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$, then $n_1>n$ absurd. Then, also in this case we have that $$n_1n_2in(n)Rightarrow n_1notin (n)quadtext{and}quad n_2notin (n),$$
therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.



In the same hypothesis we could conclude by saying that: $n=n_1n_2in (n)$, since $(n)$ is prime ideal then $n_1in (n)$ or $n_2in (n)$, but if were $n_1in (n)$, then $exists kinmathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$ therefore $n_1>n$, therefore we would contradict the condition $1<n_1,n_2<n$.



It's correct?



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    Let $R=mathbb{Z}$, since $mathbb{Z}$ is an integer domain the ideal $(0)$ is prime. I must prove that




    The prime ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are precisely the ideals $(n)$ where $n$ is a prime.




    On the implication: $p$ is a prime then $(p)$ is a prime ideal there are no problems.



    Now, let $I=(n)$ a prime ideal of $mathbb{Z}$.



    First proof



    We suppose to be absurd that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$ where $n_1nepm 1$ and $n_2nepm 1$.
    Then $n_1notin (n)$, in fact if it were $n_1in(n)$, $exists kinmathbb{Z}$ such that $n_1=kn$, therefore $n=(kn)n_2ne n$, absurd. So, $n_1notin (n)$ and $n_2notin (n)$. However $n_1n_2=nin (n)$.



    Summing up if $n$ is not prime, then $$n_1n_2in(n)Rightarrow n_1notin (n)quadtext{and}quad n_2notin (n),$$
    therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.



    Second proof



    If we suppose to know that every ideal $I$ of $mathbb{Z}$ is of the form $I=(n)$ where $n$ is the least integer not negative which belongs to $I$, then when we suppose that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$, where $1<n_1,n_2<n$. At this point if it were $n_1in (n)$ $exists kinmathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$, then $n_1>n$ absurd. Then, also in this case we have that $$n_1n_2in(n)Rightarrow n_1notin (n)quadtext{and}quad n_2notin (n),$$
    therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.



    In the same hypothesis we could conclude by saying that: $n=n_1n_2in (n)$, since $(n)$ is prime ideal then $n_1in (n)$ or $n_2in (n)$, but if were $n_1in (n)$, then $exists kinmathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$ therefore $n_1>n$, therefore we would contradict the condition $1<n_1,n_2<n$.



    It's correct?



    Thanks!










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      Let $R=mathbb{Z}$, since $mathbb{Z}$ is an integer domain the ideal $(0)$ is prime. I must prove that




      The prime ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are precisely the ideals $(n)$ where $n$ is a prime.




      On the implication: $p$ is a prime then $(p)$ is a prime ideal there are no problems.



      Now, let $I=(n)$ a prime ideal of $mathbb{Z}$.



      First proof



      We suppose to be absurd that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$ where $n_1nepm 1$ and $n_2nepm 1$.
      Then $n_1notin (n)$, in fact if it were $n_1in(n)$, $exists kinmathbb{Z}$ such that $n_1=kn$, therefore $n=(kn)n_2ne n$, absurd. So, $n_1notin (n)$ and $n_2notin (n)$. However $n_1n_2=nin (n)$.



      Summing up if $n$ is not prime, then $$n_1n_2in(n)Rightarrow n_1notin (n)quadtext{and}quad n_2notin (n),$$
      therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.



      Second proof



      If we suppose to know that every ideal $I$ of $mathbb{Z}$ is of the form $I=(n)$ where $n$ is the least integer not negative which belongs to $I$, then when we suppose that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$, where $1<n_1,n_2<n$. At this point if it were $n_1in (n)$ $exists kinmathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$, then $n_1>n$ absurd. Then, also in this case we have that $$n_1n_2in(n)Rightarrow n_1notin (n)quadtext{and}quad n_2notin (n),$$
      therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.



      In the same hypothesis we could conclude by saying that: $n=n_1n_2in (n)$, since $(n)$ is prime ideal then $n_1in (n)$ or $n_2in (n)$, but if were $n_1in (n)$, then $exists kinmathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$ therefore $n_1>n$, therefore we would contradict the condition $1<n_1,n_2<n$.



      It's correct?



      Thanks!










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Let $R=mathbb{Z}$, since $mathbb{Z}$ is an integer domain the ideal $(0)$ is prime. I must prove that




      The prime ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are precisely the ideals $(n)$ where $n$ is a prime.




      On the implication: $p$ is a prime then $(p)$ is a prime ideal there are no problems.



      Now, let $I=(n)$ a prime ideal of $mathbb{Z}$.



      First proof



      We suppose to be absurd that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$ where $n_1nepm 1$ and $n_2nepm 1$.
      Then $n_1notin (n)$, in fact if it were $n_1in(n)$, $exists kinmathbb{Z}$ such that $n_1=kn$, therefore $n=(kn)n_2ne n$, absurd. So, $n_1notin (n)$ and $n_2notin (n)$. However $n_1n_2=nin (n)$.



      Summing up if $n$ is not prime, then $$n_1n_2in(n)Rightarrow n_1notin (n)quadtext{and}quad n_2notin (n),$$
      therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.



      Second proof



      If we suppose to know that every ideal $I$ of $mathbb{Z}$ is of the form $I=(n)$ where $n$ is the least integer not negative which belongs to $I$, then when we suppose that $n$ is not prime, then $n=n_1n_2$, where $1<n_1,n_2<n$. At this point if it were $n_1in (n)$ $exists kinmathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$, then $n_1>n$ absurd. Then, also in this case we have that $$n_1n_2in(n)Rightarrow n_1notin (n)quadtext{and}quad n_2notin (n),$$
      therefore $(n)$ is not prime ideal, absurd.



      In the same hypothesis we could conclude by saying that: $n=n_1n_2in (n)$, since $(n)$ is prime ideal then $n_1in (n)$ or $n_2in (n)$, but if were $n_1in (n)$, then $exists kinmathbb{Z}_+$ such that $n_1=kn$ therefore $n_1>n$, therefore we would contradict the condition $1<n_1,n_2<n$.



      It's correct?



      Thanks!







      proof-verification proof-writing proof-explanation






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 3 '18 at 9:57









      Jack J.Jack J.

      4701419




      4701419






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          We prove that for $a neq 0$ the following statements are equivalent:



          $(a)$ is a prime ideal $iff$ $a$ is prime in $mathbb{Z}$



          $"Rightarrow"$ If $a$ is not prime, then $a = bc$ where $b,c notin {-1,1}$. Then $bc in (a)$, and because it is a prime ideal we have $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$. Assume the latter, that is $c = ka$ for some $k in mathbb{Z}$. Then $a = bc = abk$ meaning that $bk = 1$, thus $b$ is invertible. Contradiction.



          $"Leftarrow"$ Assume $a$ is prime. If $bc in (a)$, then $a|(bc)$ and then $a|b$ or $a|c$ by elementary number theory. I.e. $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$ and we conclude that $(a)$ is prime. $square$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your ansewer, but at this level of the theory, in general, irreducible elements are not introduced, therefore in the proofs I have to use instruments that I possess at the moment.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:26






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I edited my answer. Let me know if something is unclear.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:32



















          -1












          $begingroup$

          All ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are prime and we know, since $mathbb{Z}$ is a P.I.D. (Principal Ideal Domain), that its ideals are all of the form $nmathbb{Z}=(n)$, $ngeq0$. This is regardless of the primality of $n$.



          It is not hard in $mathbb{Z}$ to see that $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ a prime ideal ideal if and only if $p$ is prime if and only if $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ is a maximal ideal.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Not all $mathbb{Z}$ ideals are prime. For example, $I=(4)$ is not prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:32






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JackJ You are correct, however, I never said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are prime. I said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are principal and that they are maximal if and only if they are prime. I forgot to add, though, that each ideal $pmathbb{Z}$ is indeed prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jean-Pierre de Villiers
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:16













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023857%2fprime-ideals-of-mathbbz-equivalent-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          We prove that for $a neq 0$ the following statements are equivalent:



          $(a)$ is a prime ideal $iff$ $a$ is prime in $mathbb{Z}$



          $"Rightarrow"$ If $a$ is not prime, then $a = bc$ where $b,c notin {-1,1}$. Then $bc in (a)$, and because it is a prime ideal we have $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$. Assume the latter, that is $c = ka$ for some $k in mathbb{Z}$. Then $a = bc = abk$ meaning that $bk = 1$, thus $b$ is invertible. Contradiction.



          $"Leftarrow"$ Assume $a$ is prime. If $bc in (a)$, then $a|(bc)$ and then $a|b$ or $a|c$ by elementary number theory. I.e. $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$ and we conclude that $(a)$ is prime. $square$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your ansewer, but at this level of the theory, in general, irreducible elements are not introduced, therefore in the proofs I have to use instruments that I possess at the moment.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:26






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I edited my answer. Let me know if something is unclear.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:32
















          1












          $begingroup$

          We prove that for $a neq 0$ the following statements are equivalent:



          $(a)$ is a prime ideal $iff$ $a$ is prime in $mathbb{Z}$



          $"Rightarrow"$ If $a$ is not prime, then $a = bc$ where $b,c notin {-1,1}$. Then $bc in (a)$, and because it is a prime ideal we have $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$. Assume the latter, that is $c = ka$ for some $k in mathbb{Z}$. Then $a = bc = abk$ meaning that $bk = 1$, thus $b$ is invertible. Contradiction.



          $"Leftarrow"$ Assume $a$ is prime. If $bc in (a)$, then $a|(bc)$ and then $a|b$ or $a|c$ by elementary number theory. I.e. $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$ and we conclude that $(a)$ is prime. $square$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your ansewer, but at this level of the theory, in general, irreducible elements are not introduced, therefore in the proofs I have to use instruments that I possess at the moment.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:26






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I edited my answer. Let me know if something is unclear.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:32














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          We prove that for $a neq 0$ the following statements are equivalent:



          $(a)$ is a prime ideal $iff$ $a$ is prime in $mathbb{Z}$



          $"Rightarrow"$ If $a$ is not prime, then $a = bc$ where $b,c notin {-1,1}$. Then $bc in (a)$, and because it is a prime ideal we have $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$. Assume the latter, that is $c = ka$ for some $k in mathbb{Z}$. Then $a = bc = abk$ meaning that $bk = 1$, thus $b$ is invertible. Contradiction.



          $"Leftarrow"$ Assume $a$ is prime. If $bc in (a)$, then $a|(bc)$ and then $a|b$ or $a|c$ by elementary number theory. I.e. $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$ and we conclude that $(a)$ is prime. $square$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          We prove that for $a neq 0$ the following statements are equivalent:



          $(a)$ is a prime ideal $iff$ $a$ is prime in $mathbb{Z}$



          $"Rightarrow"$ If $a$ is not prime, then $a = bc$ where $b,c notin {-1,1}$. Then $bc in (a)$, and because it is a prime ideal we have $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$. Assume the latter, that is $c = ka$ for some $k in mathbb{Z}$. Then $a = bc = abk$ meaning that $bk = 1$, thus $b$ is invertible. Contradiction.



          $"Leftarrow"$ Assume $a$ is prime. If $bc in (a)$, then $a|(bc)$ and then $a|b$ or $a|c$ by elementary number theory. I.e. $b in (a)$ or $c in (a)$ and we conclude that $(a)$ is prime. $square$







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 3 '18 at 12:31

























          answered Dec 3 '18 at 11:21









          Math_QEDMath_QED

          7,39431450




          7,39431450












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your ansewer, but at this level of the theory, in general, irreducible elements are not introduced, therefore in the proofs I have to use instruments that I possess at the moment.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:26






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I edited my answer. Let me know if something is unclear.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:32


















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your ansewer, but at this level of the theory, in general, irreducible elements are not introduced, therefore in the proofs I have to use instruments that I possess at the moment.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:26






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I edited my answer. Let me know if something is unclear.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:32
















          $begingroup$
          Thanks for your ansewer, but at this level of the theory, in general, irreducible elements are not introduced, therefore in the proofs I have to use instruments that I possess at the moment.
          $endgroup$
          – Jack J.
          Dec 3 '18 at 11:26




          $begingroup$
          Thanks for your ansewer, but at this level of the theory, in general, irreducible elements are not introduced, therefore in the proofs I have to use instruments that I possess at the moment.
          $endgroup$
          – Jack J.
          Dec 3 '18 at 11:26




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I edited my answer. Let me know if something is unclear.
          $endgroup$
          – Math_QED
          Dec 3 '18 at 12:32




          $begingroup$
          I edited my answer. Let me know if something is unclear.
          $endgroup$
          – Math_QED
          Dec 3 '18 at 12:32











          -1












          $begingroup$

          All ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are prime and we know, since $mathbb{Z}$ is a P.I.D. (Principal Ideal Domain), that its ideals are all of the form $nmathbb{Z}=(n)$, $ngeq0$. This is regardless of the primality of $n$.



          It is not hard in $mathbb{Z}$ to see that $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ a prime ideal ideal if and only if $p$ is prime if and only if $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ is a maximal ideal.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Not all $mathbb{Z}$ ideals are prime. For example, $I=(4)$ is not prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:32






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JackJ You are correct, however, I never said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are prime. I said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are principal and that they are maximal if and only if they are prime. I forgot to add, though, that each ideal $pmathbb{Z}$ is indeed prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jean-Pierre de Villiers
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:16


















          -1












          $begingroup$

          All ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are prime and we know, since $mathbb{Z}$ is a P.I.D. (Principal Ideal Domain), that its ideals are all of the form $nmathbb{Z}=(n)$, $ngeq0$. This is regardless of the primality of $n$.



          It is not hard in $mathbb{Z}$ to see that $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ a prime ideal ideal if and only if $p$ is prime if and only if $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ is a maximal ideal.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Not all $mathbb{Z}$ ideals are prime. For example, $I=(4)$ is not prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:32






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JackJ You are correct, however, I never said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are prime. I said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are principal and that they are maximal if and only if they are prime. I forgot to add, though, that each ideal $pmathbb{Z}$ is indeed prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jean-Pierre de Villiers
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:16
















          -1












          -1








          -1





          $begingroup$

          All ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are prime and we know, since $mathbb{Z}$ is a P.I.D. (Principal Ideal Domain), that its ideals are all of the form $nmathbb{Z}=(n)$, $ngeq0$. This is regardless of the primality of $n$.



          It is not hard in $mathbb{Z}$ to see that $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ a prime ideal ideal if and only if $p$ is prime if and only if $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ is a maximal ideal.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          All ideals of $mathbb{Z}$ are prime and we know, since $mathbb{Z}$ is a P.I.D. (Principal Ideal Domain), that its ideals are all of the form $nmathbb{Z}=(n)$, $ngeq0$. This is regardless of the primality of $n$.



          It is not hard in $mathbb{Z}$ to see that $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ a prime ideal ideal if and only if $p$ is prime if and only if $pmathbb{Z}=(p)$ is a maximal ideal.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 3 '18 at 12:20

























          answered Dec 3 '18 at 11:00









          Jean-Pierre de VilliersJean-Pierre de Villiers

          415




          415








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Not all $mathbb{Z}$ ideals are prime. For example, $I=(4)$ is not prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:32






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JackJ You are correct, however, I never said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are prime. I said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are principal and that they are maximal if and only if they are prime. I forgot to add, though, that each ideal $pmathbb{Z}$ is indeed prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jean-Pierre de Villiers
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:16
















          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Not all $mathbb{Z}$ ideals are prime. For example, $I=(4)$ is not prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jack J.
            Dec 3 '18 at 11:32






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JackJ You are correct, however, I never said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are prime. I said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are principal and that they are maximal if and only if they are prime. I forgot to add, though, that each ideal $pmathbb{Z}$ is indeed prime.
            $endgroup$
            – Jean-Pierre de Villiers
            Dec 3 '18 at 12:16










          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Not all $mathbb{Z}$ ideals are prime. For example, $I=(4)$ is not prime.
          $endgroup$
          – Jack J.
          Dec 3 '18 at 11:32




          $begingroup$
          Not all $mathbb{Z}$ ideals are prime. For example, $I=(4)$ is not prime.
          $endgroup$
          – Jack J.
          Dec 3 '18 at 11:32




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @JackJ You are correct, however, I never said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are prime. I said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are principal and that they are maximal if and only if they are prime. I forgot to add, though, that each ideal $pmathbb{Z}$ is indeed prime.
          $endgroup$
          – Jean-Pierre de Villiers
          Dec 3 '18 at 12:16






          $begingroup$
          @JackJ You are correct, however, I never said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are prime. I said all $mathbb{Z}$-ideals are principal and that they are maximal if and only if they are prime. I forgot to add, though, that each ideal $pmathbb{Z}$ is indeed prime.
          $endgroup$
          – Jean-Pierre de Villiers
          Dec 3 '18 at 12:16




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023857%2fprime-ideals-of-mathbbz-equivalent-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Quarter-circle Tiles

          build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

          Mont Emei