Past exam of the algebra 2 course of the University of Oxford

Source: Mathematics Part A release, member FOI-20210708-1 - Data/a13755w1.pdf. The complete two-page paper is dated 25 June 2015. All fourteen source leaf parts are answered below; the examination statements remain in the private archive.

The department's solution-release policy does not advertise ordinary odd-year solutions. An exact-paper check found no matching advertisement of full or selected worked answers for this paper, so no source parts are skipped.

If $a=ub$ with $u$ a unit in a ring, then $a$ lies in the principal ideal generated by $b$. This gives $(a)\subseteq (b)$. Since $u$ has a multiplicative inverse, $b=u^{-1}a$, giving the reverse inclusion. ThereforeThus associate elements always generate the same principal ideal; the associator ring condition asks whether equality of these ideals also forces the generators to differ by a unit.

Suppose $R$ is an integral domain and $(a)=(b)$. If $a=0$, then $(b)=0$, so $b=0$ and $a=1\cdot b$.

Otherwise membership in the equal principal ideals supplies $r,s\in R$ with $a=rb$ and $b=sa$. Substituting gives $a=rsa$, or $(1-rs)a=0$. There are no nonzero zero divisors in an integral domain, and $a\ne 0$, so $rs=1$. Hence $r$ is a unit with inverse $s$, and $a=rb$ makes $a$ and $b$ associate elements. We have proved

The ideal correspondence theorem identifies the ideals of $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ with the ideals of $\mathbb{Z}$ containing $4\mathbb{Z}$. The possible positive generators divide $4$, giving exactlyThe units are $\overline{1}$ and $\overline{3}$. The generators of the three displayed ideals are, respectively,Within the last pair, multiplication by the unit $\overline{3}$ exchanges the generators. The other two sets are singletons, whose members are associate elements to themselves by multiplication by $\overline{1}$. Thus equal principal ideals always have associate generators: this is an associator ring.

However, $\overline{2}\ne \overline{0}$ and ${\overline{2}}^2=\overline{0}$, so $\overline{2}$ is a nonzero zero divisor. Therefore

For two factors, the source's $R_1\oplus R_2$ is the direct product of rings with componentwise operations. Its principal ideals satisfyOne inclusion follows by projection to the factors. For the reverse inclusion, multiplication by $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ puts $(a_1,0)$ and $(0,a_2)$ in the generated ideal; taking ideal combinations separately produces every pair in $(a_1)\times (a_2)$.

Suppose $(a_1,a_2)$ and $(b_1,b_2)$ generate the same principal ideal. Projecting to the factors gives $(a_i)=(b_i)$ for $i=1,2$. Since each factor is an associator ring, there are units $u_i\in R_i$ with $a_i=u_i{b}_i$. The pair $(u_1,u_2)$ is a unit of the direct product of rings, with inverse $(u_1^{-1},u_2^{-1})$, andHenceRepeating this argument proves the same assertion for every finite direct product of rings.

Put $A=R/(p^k)$. A principal ideal domain is a unique factorization domain, so every nonzero element of this quotient ring can be writtenIndeed, remove the largest power of the prime element $p$ from a representative that is not divisible by $p^k$. Since $s$ and $p^k$ have greatest common divisor $1$ up to a unit, Bézout's identity in the principal ideal domain gives $xs+y{p}^k=1$. Thus $\overline{s}$ is a unit in $A$.

Consequently every nonzero principal ideal in $A$ is generated by one of $1,\overline{p},\dots ,{\overline{p}}^{k-1}$. Include the zero ideal by assigning it exponent $e=k$. These ideals are distinct: their inverse images in $R$ are $(1),(p),\dots ,(p^k)$, and equality of two different powers would, by cancellation in the integral domain, make the nonunit $p$ a unit.

Now suppose $(\overline{a})=(\overline{b})$. If this is the zero ideal, both generators are zero and are associate elements. Otherwise their exponents agree, so writewith $\overline{s},\overline{t}$ both units. Thenand the multiplier is a unit. ThusThe exponent detects the principal ideal, while its remaining factor is invertible; this is why zero divisors cause no obstruction here.

By the first isomorphism theorem for rings, the given surjection identifies $S$ with $R/\ker \varphi$. Since $R$ is a principal ideal domain, write $\ker \varphi =(a)$.

If $a=0$, the quotient ring is $R$, an integral domain, so part (a)(ii) applies. If $a$ is a unit, the quotient ring is the zero ring; its unique element is associate to itself by multiplication by its identity, so it too is an associator ring.

In the remaining case, unique factorization giveswhere $\epsilon$ is a unit, the $p_i$ are pairwise nonassociate prime elements, and $k_i\ge 1$. The principal ideals $(p_i^{k_i})$ are pairwise comaximal: different prime factors have greatest common divisor $1$, and Bézout's identity gives a linear combination equal to $1$. The Chinese remainder theorem therefore gives a ring isomorphismEvery factor is an associator ring by part (c), and their finite direct product of rings is an associator ring by part (b). A ring isomorphism preserves units and principal ideals, so the property transfers to $S$. Hence

A Euclidean domain is a principal ideal domain. The structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain therefore gives, for every finitely generated module $M$ over $R$,where the $d_i$ are nonzero nonunits and $d_1\mid d_2\mid \cdots \mid d_s$. The factors $d_i$ are unique up to multiplication by units; $r$ is uniquely determined.

The rank of a module is this integer $r$. Equivalently, with $K$ the field of fractions of $R$,The tensor product of modules kills each displayed torsion summand after extending scalars to $K$, while sending $R^r$ to $K^r$, explaining the equality.

If $M$ is a torsion-free module, no summand $R/(d_i)$ can occur: its nonzero element $1+(d_i)$ is killed by the nonzero scalar $d_i$. Hence $s=0$ andThis also covers $M=0$, with $r=0$.

Let $x,y\in \mathbb{Q}$. Choose a positive integer $D$ clearing their denominators and write $x=m/D$, $y=n/D$ with $m,n\in \mathbb{Z}$. If $x$ and $y$ are not both zero, thenis a relation with integer coefficients not both zero. If both vanish, use $1\cdot x+0\cdot y=0$. Thus every pair is linearly dependent over $\mathbb{Z}$.

A submodule $M\subseteq \mathbb{Q}$ is a torsion-free module: if $kz=0$ for a nonzero integer $k$ and a rational number $z$, then $z=0$. If $M$ is also a finitely generated module, part (a), applied to the Euclidean domain $\mathbb{Z}$, makes it a free module. Its rank cannot exceed one, since two different members of a basis of a module would be linearly independent, contradicting the relation just proved. Since $M\ne 0$, its rank cannot be zero. ThereforeThe denominator-and-greatest common divisor construction in part (c) gives an explicit version of this result for a finitely generated subgroup of the rational additive group.

Using the common denominator $70$, the three given generators becomeThus their submodule is contained in $(1/70)\mathbb{Z}$. For the reverse inclusion, the following explicit integer linear combination supplies the missing generator:soTherefore $1/70$ belongs to the generated submodule, and all its integer multiples belong as well. We have established equality in both directions:Finally, $k/70=0$ for an integer $k$ forces $k=0$, so the single generator is linearly independent. Hence the required basis of a module is

Suppose a finite set of rational numbers $q_1,\dots ,q_m$ generated $\mathbb{Q}$ as a module over $\mathbb{Z}$. A positive common denominator $D$ makes every $D{q}_i$ an integer. For every integer linear combination, therefore,The entire generated submodule is contained in $(1/D)\mathbb{Z}$. But $1/(2D)$ is a rational number outside that set: $1/(2D)=k/D$ would require the noninteger $k=1/2$. This contradicts generation of all of $\mathbb{Q}$. ConsequentlyEach finite set of generators imposes a common denominator; the full rational number system has no such bound.

For a nonzero polynomial $f={\sum }_i{a}_i{t}^i\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$, its polynomial content is the positive greatest common divisor of its coefficients:For nonzero $g\in \mathbb{Q}[t]$, choose a positive integer $n$ with $ng\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$ and define its rational polynomial content byTo check independence of the denominator, write $g=f/n=h/m$ with $f,h\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$ and $n,m>0$. Then $mf=nh$, while multiplication of all coefficients by a positive integer givesDividing by $mn$ proves $c(f)/n=c(h)/m$, as required.

For multiplication, write $g_i=f_i/n_i$. The integer-coefficient content identity permitted in the source givesThusWe will also use the normalization $g/c(g)\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$, with content one: if $g=f/n$, then $g/c(g)=f/c(f)$. It is a primitive polynomial. For a nonzero rational constant $r$, the same definition gives $c(r)=|r|$.

The set $\tilde{P}$ contains zero. It is closed under negatives because $-f\in P$ whenever $f\in P$. If $f,g\in P$ and $n,m>0$, thensince $P$ is an ideal of $\mathbb{Z}[t]$. Also, any $q\in \mathbb{Q}[t]$ can be written $q=h/d$ with $h\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$ and $d>0$, givingThis proves that $\tilde{P}$ is an ideal of $\mathbb{Q}[t]$.

Clearly $P\subseteq \tilde{P}\cap \mathbb{Z}[t]$, by taking denominator one. Conversely, if $h\in \tilde{P}\cap \mathbb{Z}[t]$, then $nh\in P$ for some positive integer $n$. The condition $P\cap \mathbb{Z}=\{0\}$ implies $n\notin P$. Since $P$ is a prime ideal, $nh\in P$ forces $h\in P$. HenceIn particular, $\tilde{P}$ is nonzero because it contains the nonzero ideal $P$, and it is proper: otherwise its intersection with $\mathbb{Z}[t]$ would contain $1$. This is the concrete extension of an ideal and contraction of an ideal calculation for the localization that inverts nonzero integers.

The nonzero ideal $\tilde{P}$ is principal because $\mathbb{Q}[t]$ is a principal ideal domain. Choose a nonzero generator $h\in \mathbb{Q}[t]$. Part (a) givesThe nonzero rational scalar $c(h)$ is a unit in $\mathbb{Q}[t]$, so this rescaling does not change the generated principal ideal:Part (b) now places $f$ in $P$, since $f\in \tilde{P}\cap \mathbb{Z}[t]$. Thus $(f{)}_{\mathbb{Z}[t]}\subseteq P$.

For the reverse inclusion, let $g\in P$ be nonzero. The displayed equality supplies $q\in \mathbb{Q}[t]$ with $g=fq$. Multiplicativity of rational polynomial content givesSince $g$ has integer coefficients, $c(g)$ is a positive integer. The normalization from part (a) gives $q/c(q)\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$, so multiplying it by the integer $c(q)=c(g)$ proves $q\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$. Consequently $g\in (f{)}_{\mathbb{Z}[t]}$. The zero polynomial belongs as well, provingThis is the divisibility descent in Gauss lemma for polynomials: dividing an integer-coefficient polynomial by a primitive polynomial cannot introduce a denominator into an exact quotient. Here it yields the description of prime ideals of the integer polynomial ring above zero. The generator has positive polynomial degree, since a primitive constant would be a unit and would put $1$ in $P$.

Take $I=(2,t)\subseteq \mathbb{Z}[t]$. The ring homomorphismis surjective. Its kernel of a ring homomorphism is exactly $I$: a polynomial maps to zero precisely when its constant coefficient is even, in which case it has the form $2a+th(t)$ with $a\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $h\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$. By the first isomorphism theorem for rings,This quotient ring is a field, so $I$ is a maximal ideal and in particular a prime ideal.

Suppose $I=(h)$ were a principal ideal. Because $2\in I$, the nonzero polynomial $h$ divides the constant $2$, forcing its polynomial degree to be zero: $h=d$ for a nonzero integer $d$. But $t\in I$ also makes $d$ divide the coefficient $1$ of $t$, so $d=\pm 1$. This would give $I=\mathbb{Z}[t]$, contradicting the properness of the kernel of a ring homomorphism $\ker \theta$. ThereforeThere is no conflict with part (c): $I\cap \mathbb{Z}=2\mathbb{Z}\ne \{0\}$. The zero-intersection hypothesis is exactly what excludes this example.

Source: Mathematics Part A release, member FOI-20210708-1 - Data/4322.pdf, dated 26 June 2014. All thirteen source leaf parts are answered below.

Bounded exact-paper checks found no matching advertisement of worked answers. The department's release policy establishes even-year releases back at least to 2016 without specifically confirming this paper; the answer archive requires Oxford SSO. No source parts are skipped.

A prime ideal is a proper ideal $I\ne R$ such that $ab\in I$ implies $a\in I$ or $b\in I$, for every $a,b\in R$.

Suppose first that $I$ is prime. Since $I$ is proper, $1+I\ne 0+I$ in the quotient ring. If $(a+I)(b+I)=0+I$, then $ab\in I$, so primeness gives $a+I=0+I$ or $b+I=0+I$. Thus the commutative quotient ring has a nonzero identity and no nonzero zero divisors, hence is an integral domain.

Conversely, if $R/I$ is an integral domain, its identity is nonzero, so $I\ne R$. If $ab\in I$, then $(a+I)(b+I)=0$ in $R/I$. Absence of nonzero zero divisors implies $a+I=0$ or $b+I=0$, namely $a\in I$ or $b\in I$. ThereforeThe properness condition matters: taking $I=R$ would produce the zero ring, which is not an integral domain.

Suppose, for a contradiction, that the monic irreducible polynomials in the polynomial ring $k[t]$ form a finite list $p_1,\dots ,p_r$. The list is nonempty because $t$ itself is monic and irreducible. PutThis has positive degree, so it is a nonzero nonunit. Every such polynomial over a field has an irreducible polynomial as a factor: repeatedly factor a reducible polynomial, with the positive degrees strictly decreasing until an irreducible factor is reached. Dividing that factor by its leading coefficient makes it monic; call it $q$.

By the assumed completeness of the list, $q=p_j$ for some $j$. But then $p_j$ divides both $F$ and $p_1\cdots p_r$, hence their difference $1$. A positive-degree polynomial cannot divide $1$. This contradiction proves there are infinitely many monic irreducible polynomials over every field. This is the polynomial version of Euclid's theorem; it does not require the field itself to be infinite.

Take a reduced fraction $a/b\in R$, with $b\ne 0$. Since $\gcd (a,b)=1$, Bézout's identity supplies integers $u,v$ with $ua+vb=1$. As the subring $R$ contains all integers,Thus a denominator appearing in a reduced fraction in $R$ is automatically a unit of $R$.

Now let $I\cap \mathbb{Z}=d\mathbb{Z}$. Because $d\in I$, the principal ideal $dR$ is contained in $I$. For the reverse inclusion, take $x\in I$ and write $x=a/b$ in lowest terms. Multiplying by $b\in R$ gives $a=bx\in I\cap \mathbb{Z}=d\mathbb{Z}$, so $a=dc$ for some integer $c$. The preceding result gives $1/b\in R$, whenceThereforeThis includes $d=0$: the same argument forces every $x\in I$ to be zero. This is the ideals of subrings of the rational numbers property; every such ring is a principal ideal domain.

In this localization of a ring, a nonzero fraction $a/b$ with odd $b$ is a unit exactly when $a$ is odd: its reciprocal then has odd denominator; if $a$ is even, an inverse would equate an even integer with an odd one after clearing denominators. Consequently every nonzero element has a unique formHere $r$ is the exponent of $2$ in the numerator of the reduced fraction, its nonnegative 2-adic valuation.

Every nonzero ideal has the form $dR$ by part (c). Write the nonzero integer $d=2^{r}v$ with $v$ odd; since $v$ is a unit, $dR=2^{r}R$. Hence the nonzero proper ideals are exactlyThe zero ideal and $R=2^{0}R$ complete the full list. These ideals are distinct: $2^r$ does not belong to $2^{r+1}R$, since $1/2\notin R$.

The reduction map $a/b\mapsto a\mathrm{mod}2$ is a well-defined surjective ring homomorphism $R\to {\mathbb{F}}_2$ with kernel of a ring homomorphism $2R$; odd denominators reduce to $1$. Thus $R/2R\cong {\mathbb{F}}_2$ is a field, so $2R$ is a prime ideal and $2$ is a prime element. Every nonzero nonunit is associated to $2^r$ with $r\ge 1$. If $r\ge 2$, the factorization $2^r=2\cdot 2^{r-1}$ is into two nonunits, so it is not an irreducible element and therefore not a prime element. We concludeThe failed step in the argument of part (b) is the guarantee that the product plus one is a nonunit and hence has an irreducible factor. Here every prime element is an even fraction, so a product of prime elements plus $1$ is an odd fraction, therefore a unit. Already $2+1=3$ has no prime divisor in this ring. In $k[t]$, positive degree prevented that failure.

For a nonzero integer-coefficient polynomial $F$, its polynomial content $c(F)$ is the positive greatest common divisor of all its coefficients; one may set $c(0)=0$. A primitive polynomial has content one.

For $f\in \mathbb{Q}[t]\setminus \{0\}$, choose a positive integer $m$ clearing its denominators, so $F=mf\in \mathbb{Z}[t]$. Put $d=c(F)>0$. Thenwhere $f_1=F/d$ is an integer-coefficient primitive polynomial. This proves existence with $\alpha =d/m>0$.

For uniqueness, suppose $\alpha f_1=\beta g_1$, where both integer-coefficient polynomials are primitive and $\alpha ,\beta >0$. Write $\alpha /\beta =a/b$ in lowest terms with $a,b$ positive. Then $g_1=(a/b)f_1$ has integer coefficients. Coprimality forces $b$ to divide every coefficient of $f_1$, hence $b=1$. Now $g_1=a{f}_1$ has content $a$, so $a=1$. Therefore $\alpha =\beta$ and $f_1=g_1$.

Define the rational polynomial content by this unique positive multiplier. If $f=\alpha f_1$ and $g=\beta g_1$, Gauss lemma for polynomials says that $f_1{g}_1$ is primitive. ThusThe uniqueness argument also shows that the construction is independent of the chosen denominator-clearing integer $m$.

Write a rational root of a polynomial as $\gamma =a/b$ in lowest terms with $b>0$. Substituting into the monic integer-coefficient polynomial and multiplying by $b^d$ givesEvery term other than $a^d$ is divisible by $b$, so $b\mid a^d$. But $\gcd (a,b)=1$ implies $\gcd (a^d,b)=1$, and hence $b=1$. ThusThis is the monic case of the rational root theorem. The monic polynomial assumption is essential because it removes any leading coefficient that could supply prime factors of the denominator.

Use the reduction criterion: a primitive integer-coefficient polynomial whose leading coefficient remains nonzero modulo a prime number $p$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ if its reduction is irreducible over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. This follows from Gauss lemma for polynomials, since a nontrivial factorization over the integers would reduce to a nontrivial factorization of the same degrees. For a monic polynomial the factors may be taken monic, so neither degree can drop.

Modulo $2$ the polynomial is $\overline{f}=t^4+t+1$. Its values at $0$ and $1$ are both $1$, so it has no linear polynomial factor. A reducible quartic polynomial without a linear polynomial factor must factor into two irreducible quadratic polynomials. The only monic irreducible quadratic polynomial over ${\mathbb{F}}_2$ is $q=t^2+t+1$: among monic quadratic polynomials a nonzero constant is necessary, and $t^2+1$ has a root, while $q$ has none.

But $t^2\equiv t+1(\mathrm{mod}q)$, so $t^3\equiv 1$ and $t^4\equiv t$. ConsequentlyThus $q$ does not divide $\overline{f}$, excluding the remaining possible factorization. We obtain

Eisenstein's criterion states that an integer-coefficient polynomial is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ if some prime number divides every nonleading coefficient, does not divide the leading coefficient, and its square does not divide the constant coefficient. Equivalently apply this to the primitive part when phrased for primitive polynomials.

Take $p=2$. Every nonleading coefficient of $t^5+4t+2$ is divisible by $2$ (including the zero coefficients), its leading coefficient is $1$, and its constant coefficient $2$ is not divisible by $4$. Therefore

A cubic polynomial over a field is reducible if and only if it has a root in that field: a nontrivial factorization of degree three has a linear polynomial factor, and conversely a root supplies one by the factor theorem.

The rational root theorem, or part (b), shows that a rational root of this monic polynomial must be an integer. Such an integer must divide the constant coefficient $4$, so the only candidates are $\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 4$. Direct evaluation givesNone vanishes. Hence there is no rational root, provingThe same no-root argument alone would not decide a quartic polynomial, which could factor as two quadratic polynomials; its sufficiency here uses degree three.

The structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a principal ideal domain applies to a Euclidean domain because every Euclidean domain is a principal ideal domain. In invariant-factor form, every finitely generated module $M$ has a decompositionwhere $r\ge 0$, and each $d_i$ is a nonzero nonunit. The rank of a module $r$ is unique and the invariant factors of a finitely generated module $d_i$ are unique up to multiplication by units. The zero module is allowed by taking $r=s=0$.

Every abelian group is a module over $\mathbb{Z}$, and a finite abelian group is finitely generated. Since $\mathbb{Z}$ is a Euclidean domain, the theorem applies. A nonzero free module summand would be infinite, so a finite group has $r=0$. Choosing positive integer representatives gives the finite abelian classificationThe ordered integers $d_i$ are uniquely determined. Splitting each $d_i$ into prime powers using the Chinese remainder theorem gives the equivalent elementary-divisor form as a direct sum of cyclic prime-power groups.

Use the Chinese remainder theorem to separate relatively prime factors:These five cyclic prime-power summands are the elementary-divisor form. Leave one $\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$ summand aside and combine the factors of orders $4,3,5,7$, which are pairwise coprime. Their direct sum of modules is cyclic of order $420$. The invariant-factor canonical form is thereforeIts group order is $3\cdot 420=1260=60\cdot 21$, and its exponent of a finite group is $420=\mathrm{lcm}(60,21)$, providing independent checks on the decomposition. Since its exponent is smaller than its order, $A$ itself is not cyclic.

We prove the unique-subgroup criterion for a finite abelian group to be cyclic using the invariant-factor classification from part (a). If $A$ is nontrivial, writewhere $C_m$ denotes a cyclic group of order $m$. If $s\ge 2$, choose a prime number $p$ dividing $d_1$; then $p$ also divides $d_2$. In the first cyclic factor, the element represented by $d_1/p$ has order of a group element $p$, and the corresponding element in the second factor has order $p$ as well.

The two elements supported in their separate coordinates generate distinct subgroups of order $p$: one has zero second coordinate, and the other has zero first coordinate. Both are subgroups of $A$, and $p\mid |A|$. This contradicts the assumed uniqueness for that divisor. Hence $s\le 1$, andIf $A$ is the trivial group, it is already cyclic, generated by its identity. Thus the argument covers every finite order.

The multiplicative group of a field is abelian, so its finite subgroup $G$ is a finite abelian group. Let $d\mid |G|$, and suppose $H$ is a subgroup of order $d$. By Lagrange's theorem, the order of each $h\in H$ divides $d$, hence $h^d=1$. Thus $H$ is contained in the set of roots in $k$ of $t^d-1$.

This nonzero polynomial has degree $d$, so it has at most $d$ roots. Since the $d$ distinct elements of $H$ are already roots, they comprise the whole root set. Any second subgroup $K$ of order $d$ would also consist of $d$ roots of the same polynomial, forcing $K=H$. Therefore there is at most one subgroup of each order dividing $|G|$.

Part (c) now applies to giveThe root bound remains valid in positive characteristic, even if the formal derivative of $t^d-1$ vanishes: the argument counts distinct roots, so no separability assumption is needed.