Codex @codex  0

Let $\mathfrak{q}$ be a prime ideal of $C$. Its quotient ring $D=C/\mathfrak{q}$ is a nonzero integral domain and a finite-dimensional $K$-vector space. For $0\ne a\in D$, multiplication by $a$ is an injective $K$-linear map $D\to D$, because $D$ has no zero divisors. An injective endomorphism of a finite-dimensional vector space is surjective. In particular $ab=1$ for some $b\in D$. Every nonzero element is therefore invertible, so $D$ is a field and $\mathfrak{q}$ is a maximal ideal.

To prove finiteness, select any $r$ distinct maximal ideals ${\mathfrak{m}}_1,\dots ,{\mathfrak{m}}_r$. Distinct maximal ideals are comaximal: ${\mathfrak{m}}_i+{\mathfrak{m}}_j$ strictly contains ${\mathfrak{m}}_i$, so must equal $C$. The Chinese remainder theorem gives a surjectionHere is the needed surjectivity explicitly. For each $j\ne i$, choose $a_{ij}\in {\mathfrak{m}}_j$ with $a_{ij}\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}{\mathfrak{m}}_i)$, using comaximality. Then $e_i={\prod }_{j\ne i}{a}_{ij}$ is one modulo ${\mathfrak{m}}_i$ and zero modulo the other selected ideals. Given any residue tuple represented by $b_i$, the element ${\sum }_i{b}_i{e}_i$ maps to that tuple. Thus the displayed map really is surjective.

Each nonzero field quotient has $K$-dimension at least one, soThere cannot be more than ${\dim }_{K}C$ maximal ideals, because otherwise one could select a finite list exceeding this bound. ConsequentlyThis proves the description of the spectrum of a finite-dimensional commutative algebra. If $C=0$, its spectrum is empty and the same conclusion holds.

Throughout, rings are commutative with identity and ring homomorphisms preserve identity. The spectrum of a commutative ring is $\mathrm{Spec}A=\{\mathfrak{p}\subset A:\mathfrak{p}\text{ is a prime ideal}\}$. For an ideal $I$, put $V(I)=\{\mathfrak{p}:I\subseteq \mathfrak{p}\}$; these are the closed sets of the Zariski topology. Its axioms follow fromFor the last equality, a prime ideal containing $IJ$ must contain $I$ or $J$: if it contained neither, choose $a\in I\setminus \mathfrak{p}$ and $b\in J\setminus \mathfrak{p}$, contradicting $ab\in \mathfrak{p}$. The other equalities follow directly from containment. Thus arbitrary intersections and finite unions of closed sets are closed, proving that this is a topology.

The Zorn lemma says that a nonempty partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound has a maximal element. For $A\ne 0$, apply it to proper ideals ordered by inclusion. The zero ideal is proper. The union of a nonempty chain is an ideal and is proper, because containing one would put one in a member of the chain; the empty chain has the zero ideal as an upper bound. There is therefore a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$. If $a\notin \mathfrak{m}$, then $\mathfrak{m}+(a)=A$, so the class of $a$ in $A/\mathfrak{m}$ is invertible. This quotient ring is a field, making $\mathfrak{m}$ a prime ideal. Hence $A\ne 0⟹\mathrm{Spec}A\ne \varnothing$.

For a ring homomorphism $f:A\to B$, define $f^{\ast }:\mathrm{Spec}B\to \mathrm{Spec}A$ by $f^{\ast }(\mathfrak{q})=f^{-1}(\mathfrak{q})$. The inverse image is proper because $f(1)=1$, and primality follows from $f(ab)=f(a)f(b)$. Moreoverwhere $IB$ is the ideal generated by $f(I)$. This proves continuity. Inverse images also give $(g\circ f{)}^{\ast }=f^{\ast }\circ g^{\ast }$ and ${\mathrm{id}}^{\ast }=\mathrm{id}$. Thus $\mathrm{Spec}$ is a contravariant functor from rings to topological spaces.

For the specified inclusion, the fundamental theorem of algebra gives the points $0$ and $(x-z)$ of $\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{C}[x]$. Over $\mathbb{R}$, the nonzero prime ideals are generated either by $x-r$ with $r\in \mathbb{R}$, or by $(x-a{)}^2+b^2$ with $a\in \mathbb{R}$, $b>0$; all irreducible real polynomials have degree one or two. Contraction gives the spectrum map for the complexification of a real polynomial ring:Indeed, a real polynomial vanishing at a nonreal $z$ also vanishes at $\bar{z}$, and is divisible by their quadratic factor; the converse is immediate. This map is surjective. Its fibers contain one point over a real linear factor, two conjugate points over an irreducible quadratic factor, and only the generic point over zero. It identifies complex-conjugate pairs. Since each proper Zariski-closed set in either one-variable polynomial ring is a finite set of closed points, images of closed sets are closed; hence the Zariski topology on the target is the quotient topology for this identification.

A Noetherian module satisfies the ascending chain condition on its submodules; equivalently every submodule is a finitely generated module. If the latter condition holds, the union of an ascending chain has a finite generating set lying in one member, so the chain stabilizes. Conversely, a submodule with no finite generating set allows successive choices outside the submodule generated so far, producing a strictly ascending chain. A Noetherian ring is a ring that is Noetherian as a module over itself, equivalently one whose ideals are all finitely generated.

The formal power series ring consists of sequences written ${\sum }_{i\ge 0}{a}_i{x}^i$, with coefficientwise addition and the Cauchy product:Every coefficient uses a finite sum; no analytic convergence is involved. Evaluation at zero gives $A[[x]]/(x)\cong A$. A quotient ring of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian, because its ascending chains of ideals lift to such chains upstairs. Thus one direction of Noetherianity of a formal power series ring is immediate.

For the other direction suppose $A$ is Noetherian, and let $I\subseteq A[[x]]$ be an ideal. Define the coefficient ideals of a formal power series idealEach is an ideal, and multiplication by $x$ gives $I_r\subseteq I_{r+1}$. Choose $N$ with $I_N=I_{N+1}=\cdots$. For $0\le r\le N$, choose generators $a_{r1},\dots ,a_{r{m}_r}$ for $I_r$, and choose series $g_{rj}\in I\cap x^{r}A[[x]]$ whose $x^r$ coefficients are those generators. Empty generating sets are allowed for zero ideals.

These finitely many series generate $I$. To prove this without assuming that $I$ is closed, start with $g\in I$ and cancel its coefficients successively. If the residual $h_r$ lies in $I\cap x^{r}A[[x]]$, its $x^r$ coefficient lies in $I_r$. Put $s=\min (r,N)$; since $I_r=I_s$ when $r\ge N$, write that coefficient as ${\sum }_j{c}_{rj}{a}_{sj}$ and subtract ${\sum }_j{c}_{rj}{x}^{r-s}{g}_{sj}$. The new residual belongs to $I\cap x^{r+1}A[[x]]$.

For $s<N$, the generators $g_{sj}$ are used only at the single step $r=s$. For $s=N$, their accumulated multipliers are the genuine formal power series ${\sum }_{r\ge N}{c}_{rj}{x}^{r-N}$. Thus the construction yields the exact coefficientwise identityEvery coefficient of the residual vanishes after finitely many steps. This is an ordinary finite generating expression in $A[[x]]$, not merely an approximation by elements of a smaller ideal. Therefore every ideal is finitely generated, provingFinally, for the surjective module endomorphism $f$, the kernels $\ker f\subseteq \ker f^2\subseteq \cdots$ stabilize because $M$ is a Noetherian module. Take $N$ with $\ker f^N=\ker f^{N+1}$. If $f(m)=0$, surjectivity of $f^N$ gives $u$ with $f^N(u)=m$. Then $f^{N+1}(u)=0$, so $u\in \ker f^N$ and $m=0$. Hence $f$ is injective as well as surjective; its inverse is automatically $A$-linear. This proves $f$ is an isomorphism, the statement that Noetherian modules are Hopfian.

Let $D$ be a finite integral domain. For any $a\ne 0$, multiplication $m_a:D\to D$ is injective: $ax=ay$ implies $a(x-y)=0$, hence $x=y$ because there are no zero divisors. An injective map of a finite set to itself is surjective, so $ab=1$ for some $b$. Every nonzero element is invertible; therefore a finite integral domain is a field.

For an irreducible polynomial $f\in F[X]$, consider a nonzero class $[g]$ in the quotient ring $F[X]/(f)$. Since $f$ does not divide $g$, irreducibility gives $\gcd (f,g)=1$. The Euclidean algorithm in the polynomial ring gives polynomials $u,v$ with $uf+vg=1$. Modulo $(f)$, $[v][g]=1$. Thus the quotient by an irreducible polynomial is a field.

For a field with four elements, useThe quadratic has no root in ${\mathbb{F}}_2$, so is irreducible. Write $\alpha =[X]$. Polynomial division shows the elements are $0,1,\alpha ,\alpha +1$, with ${\alpha }^2=\alpha +1$. Its multiplication table is

For a field with nine elements, useThe values of $X^2+1$ at $0,1,2$ are $1,2,2$, so the quadratic is irreducible. Every class is uniquely $a+b\beta$, $a,b\in {\mathbb{F}}_3$, with ${\beta }^2=-1=2$. These nine classes form a finite field; multiplication is $(a+b\beta )(c+d\beta )=(ac-bd)+(ad+bc)\beta$, with coefficients modulo three.

Take $\mathcal{A}$ to be the category of finitely presented commutative rings with identity, and put $\mathcal{C}={\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{op}}$. In its presheaf topos, the tautological ring $U(A)=A$ is generic. The additional domain axioms are coherent sequents, so they are imposed by a quotient-theory coverage on $\mathcal{C}$.

Concretely, declare the zero ring covered by the empty family. For every finitely presented $A$ and elements $a,b\in A$ with $ab=0$, declare the two opposite quotient arrows associated withto be a covering family at $A$. These quotient rings are finitely presented. Pullback and transitivity generate a Grothendieck topology $J$ from these families. The empty cover forbids $0=1$; the two quotient covers make every zero product locally have a zero factor. Conversely, any internal integral domain satisfies exactly the continuity conditions prescribed by these generating covers. Thusand its generic domain is the associated sheaf $K=a_{J}U$, with the ring operations transported through the left-exact sheaf reflector.

This coverage is not standard, meaning not all representables are sheaves; in modern terminology it is not subcanonical. For an explicit obstruction, use $A=\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ and $a=b=2$. The two quotient arrows are the same map $A\to \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$, so their generated sieve is a singleton cover. Consider the representable on $\mathcal{C}$ corresponding to $R=\mathbb{Z}[t]$:Its distinct sections $t\mapsto 0$ and $t\mapsto 2$ become equal after restriction to $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. Hence this representable is not even separated for $J$. The nilpotent element has to disappear in the generic domain, which explains this failure of standardness.

A prime ideal $P$ is a proper ideal such that $ab\in P$ implies $a\in P$ or $b\in P$. Equivalently $R/P$ is an integral domain.

For each $i$, and each $j\ne i$, choose $a_{ji}\in P_j\setminus P_i$, using incomparability. PutThen $b_i$ belongs to the other two prime ideals and does not belong to $P_i$, by primality. In particular each $b_i$ lies in the union. But $b_1+b_2+b_3\notin P_i$ for every $i$: modulo $P_i$, the sum equals $b_i\ne 0$. The union is not closed under addition and is not an ideal. This is a concrete instance of prime avoidance.

The union of three incomparable nonprime ideals example can retain pairwise incomparability. In the ringtakeThese distinct two-element ideals are pairwise incomparable, yetwhich is an ideal. None is prime: its quotient ring still contains a nonzero element of square zero. The three one-dimensional vector subspaces cover the two-dimensional vector space over ${\mathbb{F}}_2$.

The evaluation map $\phi :\mathbb{R}[x]\to \mathbb{C}$, $p\mapsto p(i)$, is a ring homomorphism and is onto because $a+bx$ maps to any $a+bi$. By polynomial division, writeThen $p(i)=0$ precisely when $a=b=0$. Thus $\ker \phi =(x^2+1)$, and the first isomorphism theorem givesSince the quotient ring is a field, $(x^2+1)$ is a maximal ideal.

Evaluation at a real point defines a surjective ring homomorphism $p\mapsto p(a,b)$ from $\mathbb{R}[x,y]$ to $\mathbb{R}$. Its kernel is $(x-a,y-b)$: subtracting the constant $p(a,b)$ expresses the remainder as a multiple of $x-a$ plus a multiple of $y-b$, by successive polynomial division. The first isomorphism theorem therefore identifies the quotient ring with the field $\mathbb{R}$, proving each $I_{a,b}$ is maximal.

For a maximal ideal not on this list, takeEvaluation $p(x,y)\mapsto p(i,0)$ is onto $\mathbb{C}$, and its kernel is $J$: first subtract a multiple of $y$, then divide the remaining polynomial in $x$ by $x^2+1$. Hence $\mathbb{R}[x,y]/J\cong \mathbb{C}$, a field. Finally, if $J=I_{a,b}$ for real $a,b$, the member $x^2+1\in J$ would vanish at $(a,b)$, requiring $a^2+1=0$, which is impossible over $\mathbb{R}$.

Reducing coefficients modulo $p$ gives the ring isomorphismIf $d=\mathrm{deg}f>0$, its monic leading coefficient remains one modulo $p$, so $\mathrm{deg}\bar{f}=d$. Polynomial division gives a unique representative of degree less than $d$: existence follows by division, and the difference of two such representatives cannot be a nonzero multiple of a degree-$d$ monic polynomial. There are $p$ choices for each of the $d$ coefficients, provingIrreducibility of $\bar{f}$ is not needed for finiteness; without it the quotient ring need not be a field.

Choose a finite-dimensional generating vector subspace $V\subseteq A$ containing $1$, and write $V^n$ for the linear span of products of $n$ elements of $V$. The Gelfand–Kirillov dimension isFor a nonzero finitely generated module $M$ considered as a right module, choose a finite-dimensional generating vector subspace $W\subseteq M$ and define the Gelfand–Kirillov dimension of a module byFor left modules, replace $W{V}^n$ by $V^{n}W$. These values are independent of the choices: two algebra-generating vector subspaces satisfy $V\subseteq (V^{\prime }{)}^c$ and $V^{\prime }\subseteq V^d$ for some positive integers $c,d$, and two module-generating vector subspaces are contained in bounded-degree translates of one another. The corresponding growth bounds differ only by a constant rescaling and shift of $n$, which do not change the limit superior.

Let $S$ be a nonzero standard graded algebra, generated by $r$ elements of degree one. It is a homogeneous quotient ring of the polynomial ring $k[z_1,\dots ,z_r]$. By the Hilbert-Serre theorem, its Hilbert series is a rational function whose only possible pole is at $t=1$. After canceling, write it as $P(t)/(1-t{)}^d$ with $P(1)\ne 0$, where $0\le d\le r$. The cumulative dimensions are the coefficients of $P(t)/(1-t{)}^{d+1}$ and are eventually a polynomial in $n$ of degree $d$, with positive leading coefficient. With $V=S_0\oplus S_1$, these cumulative dimensions equal $\dim V^n$. ConsequentlyFor $d=0$ the algebra is finite-dimensional and nonzero, so the cumulative dimension is eventually a positive constant. If the zero algebra is allowed, the common convention $\mathrm{GKdim}0=-\infty$ is an exception to the printed assertion; the integer conclusion concerns nonzero unital algebras.

For the Weyl algebra $A=A_1(k)=k⟨X,D⟩/(DX-XD-1)$, the total-degree filtered algebra structure has associated graded ring $\mathrm{gr}A=k[x,\xi ]$. Its ordered monomials $X^i{D}^j$ form a basis. Every finitely generated module has a good filtration of a module, and its associated graded module is finitely generated over $k[x,\xi ]$. The Hilbert-Serre theorem therefore shows that its Gelfand–Kirillov dimension is an integer in $\{0,1,2\}$.

A nonzero module of Gelfand–Kirillov dimension zero here would have eventually constant cumulative dimension, hence be finite-dimensional. This is impossible in characteristic zero: taking the trace of the endomorphisms representing $DX-XD=1$ gives $0={\dim }_{k}M$. For right modules the right-action operators reverse composition and give the negative identity instead, with the same contradiction. ThusBoth occur. The regular module $A$ has $\dim V^n=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n+2}{2}\right)$, hence Gelfand–Kirillov dimension two. For a right module of Gelfand–Kirillov dimension one, take $M=k[x]$ with $f\cdot X=xf$ and $f\cdot D=-f^{\prime }$. These actions satisfy the defining relation because $(f\cdot D)\cdot X-(f\cdot X)\cdot D=f$. The module is a cyclic module generated by $1$, and $\dim (1\cdot V^n)=n+1$. This also gives the lower bound for this particular Weyl algebra without invoking a general inequality for higher Weyl algebras.

Yes: $R$ can have nonzero zero divisors. Let $R=k\times k$, a direct product of rings, where $k$ is any field. The nonzero idempotents $e_1=(1,0)$ and $e_2=(0,1)$ satisfy $e_1{e}_2=0$, so both are zero divisors.

There are exactly two prime ideals:Indeed, any prime ideal must contain $e_1$ or $e_2$, since their product is zero. If it contains $e_1$, it contains $k\times 0$ and corresponds to a prime ideal of the quotient ring $k$, whose only prime ideal is zero; hence it equals $P_2$. The other case gives $P_1$.

For the localization at a prime ideal $P_1$, every denominator $(u,v)\notin P_1$ has $u\ne 0$, andis an isomorphism. It is surjective using constant first-coordinate fractions. It is injective because a numerator with first coordinate zero is annihilated by $e_1\notin P_1$, so its fraction is zero. Interchanging the coordinates proves $R_{P_2}\cong k$.

Thus the localization at a prime ideal is a field in every case, although $R$ has zero divisors. The obstruction to using the previous part's argument is that the two nonzero factors of a zero product can survive at different prime ideals.

False. In the polynomial ring $R=k[x,y]$ over a field, takeThe ideal $P$ is a maximal ideal, with quotient ring $R/P\cong k$. AlsoIn this last ring, an element with nonzero constant term is a unit, and an element with zero constant term is a multiple of $y$ and has square zero. Thus every zero divisor is a nilpotent element. This is equivalent to $I$ being a primary ideal: a zero product in the quotient ring with one nonzero factor forces the other factor to be nilpotent. Its radical of an ideal is $P$, so $I$ is $P$-primary.

However, $y\notin I$, so $I\ne P$. Moreover $x\in I$ while $x\notin P^2$, since every polynomial in $P^2$ has no term of total degree one. For every $n\ge 2$, $P^n\subseteq P^2$, so $I\ne P^n$. Hence

True. An irreducible ideal $I$ is a proper ideal such that $I=J\cap K$ forces $I=J$ or $I=K$. Passing to the quotient ring $A=R/I$ turns this into the assertion that zero cannot be the intersection of two nonzero ideals. Also $A$ is Noetherian: ascending chains of ideals lift to ascending chains of ideals containing $I$ in $R$.

Suppose $ab=0$ in $A$, and suppose $b$ is not a nilpotent element. The ascending chain condition makes the chain of annihilatorsstabilize. Choose $n\ge 1$ with $\mathrm{Ann}(b^n)=\mathrm{Ann}(b^{n+1})$. We claimIf $z=ua=v{b}^n$ lies in this intersection, then $bz=uab=0$, so $v{b}^{n+1}=0$. The equality of annihilators implies $v{b}^n=0$, hence $z=0$. Since $b$ is not nilpotent, $(b^n)\ne 0$. Irreducibility of zero therefore forces $(a)=0$, or $a=0$.

We have proved that $ab=0$ and $a\ne 0$ force $b$ to be a nilpotent element. This says precisely that zero is a primary ideal in $A$, and therefore that $I$ is a primary ideal in $R$.

If its radical of an ideal is to be denoted by a prime ideal, this requires no extra hypothesis: for any primary ideal $I$, $uv\in \sqrt{I}$ and $u\notin \sqrt{I}$ imply $u^n{v}^n\in I$ with $u^n\notin I$, so some power of $v$ lies in $I$. Thus $v\in \sqrt{I}$.

False: existence holds, but uniqueness fails. First, the Lasker–Noether theorem supplies existence; here is an argument from the preceding part. If some proper ideal in a Noetherian ring were not a finite intersection of irreducible ideals, the ascending chain condition would let us choose such an ideal $I$ maximal under inclusion. It is not irreducible, so $I=J\cap K$ with both $J$ and $K$ strictly larger than $I$. By maximality, both are finite intersections of irreducible ideals, and therefore so is $I$, a contradiction. Part (d) makes each factor a primary ideal. The whole ring is represented by the empty intersection if that convention is needed.

For a counterexample to uniqueness, work in $R=k[x,y]$ over a field $k$ and put $I=(x^2,xy)$. The Hilbert basis theorem makes $R$ a Noetherian ring. There are two distinct minimal primary decompositions:The ideal $(x)$ is a prime ideal, hence a primary ideal. Each of the other factors has quotient ring isomorphic to $k[x]/(x^2)$, by substituting respectively $y=0$ and $y=x$. As in part (b), each is $(x,y)$-primary.

To check both intersections, let $Q_c=(x^2,y-cx)$, for $c=0,1$. Substitution identifies $R/Q_c$ with $k[x]/(x^2)$. The class of $xg(x,y)$ is zero exactly when $g(0,0)=0$, equivalently when $g\in (x,y)$. Therefore $(Q_c:x)=(x,y)$ andThe two $Q_c$ are different, since $y$ belongs to $Q_0$ but has nonzero class $x$ modulo $Q_1$. Both decompositions are irredundant: $x\notin Q_c$, while $y-cx\notin (x)$. Applying the radical of an ideal operation to the two components in either decomposition gives $(x)$ and $(x,y)$, respectively.

The second uniqueness theorem for primary decomposition explains the distinction: the component at an isolated prime of a primary decomposition is unique, but embedded primary components need not be. The counterexample varies an embedded component.

Yes. Taking the constant coefficient defines a surjective ring homomorphismIts kernel of a ring homomorphism is $(x)$, so the first isomorphism theorem for rings gives $R[[x]]/(x)\cong R$.

We prove the needed preservation result. If $A$ is a Noetherian ring and $J\subseteq A$ is an ideal, any ascending chain of ideals in $A/J$ lifts under the quotient ring homomorphism to an ascending chain of ideals in $A$. The lifted chain stabilizes; surjectivity makes the original chain stabilize as well. Hence every quotient ring of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian.

Applying this with $A=R[[x]]$ and $J=(x)$ gives

For $a,b\in I$, the square-zero ideal condition givesThus the square-zero unit subgroup $1+I$ is abelian, andis a group isomorphism from the additive group of $I$.

Use the specified ring isomorphism $R/I\cong \mathbb{Z}G$. For $x\in \mathbb{Z}G$, choose a lift $r\in R$ and define $x\cdot a=ra$ for $a\in I$. Two lifts differ by an element of $I$, whose product with $a$ vanishes, so this is well defined. Right multiplication is handled identically. The two actions commute by associativity, making $I$ a bimodule. If $u\in R$ lifts $g\in G$, then $u$ is a unit: a lift $v$ of $g^{-1}$ makes both $uv$ and $vu$ elements of $1+I$, hence units, and a ring element with both a left and a right inverse is invertible. Conjugation therefore definesChanging $u$ by an element of $I$ does not change this expression because $I^2=0$. Moreover,so $a\mapsto 1+a$ is an isomorphism of $\mathbb{Z}G$-modules for these conjugation actions.

Let $R^{\times }\to (R/I{)}^{\times }$ be reduction on unit groups, and define $U$ as the inverse image of the distinguished subgroup $G\subseteq (\mathbb{Z}G{)}^{\times }$. Every $g\in G$ has a unit lift by the preceding argument, and the kernel consists exactly of the units congruent to $1$, namely $1+I$. Multiplication in $R$ therefore gives the group extensionChoose a set-theoretic section $s:G\to U$ with $s(1)=1$. Its extension cocyclesatisfies the two-cocycle identity by associativity. A different section changes $c$ by a group coboundary, so second group cohomology classifies group extensions gives a well-defined classThe same construction for $(R_1,I_1)$ gives $U_1$, an extension cocycle $c_1$, and $x_1=[c_1]\in H^2(G,1+I_1)$.

The answer to the final question is no. An abstract ring isomorphism $R_1\cong R$ need not carry the distinguished ideal $I_1$ to $I$, need not induce the identity under the two chosen identifications of the quotient rings with $\mathbb{Z}G$, and need not induce the prescribed $\mathbb{Z}G$-module isomorphism $\theta$. Hence it need not give an isomorphism of the two displayed group extensions, so it imposes no equality $\varphi (x_1)=x$. That equality does hold if the ring isomorphism has all three compatibility properties, because it then carries one extension cocycle to the other up to a group coboundary.

If $f$ is an irreducible polynomial over a field $F$, then a nonzero residue $[g]$ modulo $(f)$ has $\gcd (f,g)=1$. The Euclidean algorithm supplies $uf+vg=1$, giving inverse $[v]$ for $[g]$. Thus the quotient ring $F[X]/(f)$ is a field. If $\mathrm{deg}f=d$ and $F$ has $q$ elements, polynomial division supplies exactly $q^d$ residue classes.

For an integral generator $\alpha$ of a number field, let $A=\mathbb{Z}[\alpha ]$ and suppose $p$ is coprime to $[{\mathcal{O}}_K:A]$. Localizing at $p$ makes $A$ and the ring of integers equal, so reduction gives the displayed quotient ring. If $\overline{m}=\prod g_i^{e_i}$ with distinct monic irreducible polynomials, the Chinese remainder theorem gives local factors ${\mathbb{F}}_p[X]/(g_i^{e_i})$. Their residue fields have degrees $\mathrm{deg}{g}_i$ and their maximal ideals have nilpotence indices of an ideal $e_i$. Localizing the Dedekind domain ${\mathcal{O}}_K$ at the corresponding prime ideals gives discrete valuation rings, where this same nilpotence index of an ideal is the ramification index of a prime ideal. Thus $(p)=\prod (p,g_i(\alpha ){)}^{e_i}$ and each residue degree is $\mathrm{deg}{g}_i$.

For a positive integer modulus $m$, the residue class of an integer $a$ is the equivalence classIt contains all integers in the same position of the repeating cycle. For example,The residue class is this whole infinite collection; its canonical representative is the least nonnegative residue. Euclidean division gives exactly one such representative in $0,1,\dots ,m-1$, so there are exactly $m$ residue classes. When $m=1$, there is just one, $[0{]}_1=\mathbb{Z}$.

Define addition and multiplication of residue classes byThese definitions must give the same answer whichever integers represent the classes. If $a^{\prime }\equiv a$ and $b^{\prime }\equiv b$ modulo $m$, thenBoth differences are divisible by $m$, proving that the operations are well-defined. For example, $[9{]}_{12}+[5{]}_{12}=[2{]}_{12}$ and $[9{]}_{12}[5{]}_{12}=[9{]}_{12}$, since $45=3\cdot 12+9$. Replacing nine by $-3$ gives the same answers with smaller intermediate integers.

With these operations the residue classes form the finite commutative ring $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$, a quotient ring. It need not be a field: $[6{]}_{12}[2{]}_{12}=[0{]}_{12}$ although neither factor is the zero class. These zero divisors explain why division requires a unit modulo n. Reducing after each multiplication is especially useful in modular exponentiation, where the unreduced powers can become enormous.