6-6-2008

The Ring of Integers

The integers Z satisfy the axioms for an algebraic structure called an integral domain.
The integers have an order relation <; they also satisfy the Well-Ordering Axiom, which is the
basis for induction and the Division Algorithm.
[x] denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to x. The greatest integer function [] is an
important function in number theory.

Elementary number theory is largely about the ring of integers, denoted by the symbol Z. The
integers are an example of an algebraic structure called an integral domain. This means that Z satisfies
the following axioms:

(a) Z has operations + (addition) and (multiplication). It is closed under these operations, in that if
m, n Z, then m + n Z and m n Z.
(b) Addition is associative: If m, n, p Z, then

m + (n + p) = (m + n) + p.

(c) There is an additive identity 0 Z: For all n Z,

n+0=n and 0 + n = n.

(d) Every element has an additive inverse: If n Z, there is an element n Z such that

n + (n) = 0 and (n) + n = 0.

(e) Addition is commutative: If m, n Z, then

m + n = n + m.

(f) Multiplication is associative: If m, n, p Z, then

m (n p) = (m n) p.

(g) There is an multiplicative identity 1 Z: For all n Z,

n1=n and 1 n = n.

(h) Multiplication is commutative: If m, n Z, then

m n = n m.

(i) The Distributive Laws hold: If m, n, p Z, then

m (n + p) = m n + m p and (m + n) p = m p + n p.

(j) There are no zero divisors: If m, n Z and m n = 0, then either m = 0 or n = 0.

Remarks.
(a) As usual, Ill often abbreviate m n to mn.

1
(b) The last axiom is equivalent to the Cancellation Property: If a, b, c Z, a 6= 0, and ab = ac, then
b = c.

Example. If n Z, prove that 0 n = 0.

0n = (0 + 0) n (Additive identity)
= 0n+0n (Distributive Law)

Adding (0 n) to both sides, I get

(0 n) + 0 n = (0 n) + (0 n + 0 n).

By associativity for addition,

(0 n) + 0 n = ((0 n) + 0 n) + 0 n.

Then using the fact that (0 n) and 0 n are additive inverses,

0 = 0 + 0 n.

Finally, 0 is the additive identity, so

0 = 0 n.

Example. If n Z, prove that n = (1) n.

In words, the equation says that the additive inverse of n (namely n) is equal to (1) n. What is the
additive inverse of n? It is the number which gives 0 when added to n.
Therefore, I should add (1) n and see if I get 0:

(1) n + n = (1) n + 1 n (Multiplicative identity)

= (1 + 1) n (Distributive Law)
= 0n (Additive inverse)
= 0 (Preceding result)

By the discussion above, this proves that n = (1) n.

The integers are ordered there is a notion of greater than (or less than). Specifically, for m, n Z,
m > n is defined to mean that m n is a positive integer and element of the set {1, 2, 3, . . .}.
Of course, m < n is defined to mean n > m. m n and m n have the obvious meanings.
There are two order axioms:

(k) The positive integers are closed under addition and multiplication.

(l) (Trichotomy) If n Z, either n > 0, n < 0, or n = 0.

Example. Prove that if m > 0 and n < 0, then mn < 0.

Since n < 0, 0 n = n is a positive integer. m > 0 means m = m 0 is a positive integer, so by

closure m (n) is a positive integer.

2
 By a property of integers (which you should try proving from the axioms), m (n) = (mn). Thus,
(mn) is a positive integer. So 0 mn = (mn) is a positive integer, which means that 0 > mn.

The Well-Ordering Property of the integers sounds simple: Every nonempty subset of the positive
integers has a smallest element. Your long experience with the integers makes this principle sound obvious. In
fact, it is one of the deeper axioms for Z; for example, it can be used to proved the principle of mathematical
induction, which Ill discuss later.

3
Example. Prove that 2 is not a rational number.

The proof will use the Well-Ordering Property.

Ill give a proof by contradiction. Suppose that 3 2 is a rational number. In that case, I can write

3 a
2 = , where a and b are positive integers.
b
Now
a
2 = , so b 2 = a, and 2b3 = a3 .
3 3

b
(To complete the proof, Im going to use some divisibility properties of the integers that I havent proven
yet. Theyre easy to understand and pretty plausible, so this shouldnt be a problem.)
The last equation shows that 2 divides a3 . This is only possible if 2 divides a, so a = 2c, for some
positive integer c. Plugging this into 2b3 = a3 , I get

2b3 = 8c3 , or b3 = 4c3 .

Since 2 divides 4c3 , it follows that 2 divides b3 . As before, this is only possible if 2 divides b, so b = 2d
for some positive integer d. Plugging this into b3 = 4c3 , I get

8d3 = 4c3 , or 2d3 = c3 .

This equation has the same form as the equation 2b3 = a3 , so its clear that I can continue this procedure
indefinitely to get e such that c = 2e, f such that d = 2f , and so on.
However, since a = 2c, it follows that a > c; since c = 2e, I have c > e, so a > c > e. Thus, the numbers
a, c, e, . . . comprise a set of positive integers with no smallest element, since a given number in the list is
always smaller than the one before it. This contradicts Well-Ordering.
Therefore, my assumption that 3 2 is a rational number is wrong, and hence 3 2 is not rational.

Finally, I want to mention a function that comes up often in number theory.

Definition. If x is a real number, then [x] denotes the greatest integer function of x. It is the largest
integer less than or equal to x.

Lemma. If x is a real number, then

[x] + 1 > x [x].
Proof. By definition, x [x]. To show that [x] + 1 > x, Ill give a proof by contradiction.
Suppose on the contrary that [x] + 1 x. Then [x] + 1 is an integer less than or equal to x, but
[x] + 1 > [x] which contradicts the fact that [x] is the largest integer less than or equal to x. This
contradiction implies that [x] + 1 > x.

Lemma. If x, y R and x y, then [x] [y].

Proof. Suppose x y. I want to show that [x] [y].

3
 Assume on the contrary that [y] > [x]. Since [x] is the greatest integer which is less than or equal to x,
and since [y] is an integer which is greater than [x], it follows that [y] cant be less than or equal to x. Thus,
[y] > x. But x y, so [y] > y, which is a contradiction.
Therefore, [x] [y].

Example.
[3.2] = 3, [117] = 117, and [1.2] = 2.
(Notice that [1.2] is not equal to 1.)

Example. Let x be a real number and let n be an integer. Prove that [x + n] = [x] + n.
First, x [x], so x + n [x] + n. Now [x] + n is an integer less than or equal to x + n, so it must be
less than or equal to the greatest integer less than or equal to x + n which is [x + n]:

[x + n] [x] + n.

Next, x + n [x + n], so x [x + n] n. [x + n] n is an integer less than or equal to x. Therefore, it

must be less than or equal to the greatest integer less than or equal to x which is [x]:

[x] [x + n] n.

Adding n to both sides gives

[x] + n [x + n].
Since [x + n] [x] + n and [x] + n [x + n], it follows that [x] + n = [x + n].

c 2008 by Bruce Ikenaga 4