Determine the generator of an ideal of ring of integers Announcing the arrival of Valued...

Why does BitLocker not use RSA?

Can I ask an author to send me his ebook?

What could prevent concentrated local exploration?

Coin Game with infinite paradox

/bin/ls sorts differently than just ls

Who can become a wight?

Does using the Inspiration rules for character defects encourage My Guy Syndrome?

Lights are flickering on and off after accidentally bumping into light switch

Proving inequality for positive definite matrix

Trying to enter the Fox's den

Does the Pact of the Blade warlock feature allow me to customize the properties of the pact weapon I create?

Is Bran literally the world's memory?

How can I introduce the names of fantasy creatures to the reader?

Is "ein Herz wie das meine" an antiquated or colloquial use of the possesive pronoun?

What were wait-states, and why was it only an issue for PCs?

Assertions In A Mock Callout Test

Why isn't everyone flabbergasted about Bran's "gift"?

If gravity precedes the formation of a solar system, where did the mass come from that caused the gravity?

2 sample t test for sample sizes - 30,000 and 150,000

Does Prince Arnaud cause someone holding the Princess to lose?

Determine the generator of an ideal of ring of integers

Why aren't road bike wheels tiny?

Compiling and throwing simple dynamic exceptions at runtime for JVM

Putting Ant-Man on house arrest



Determine the generator of an ideal of ring of integers



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Non-zero prime ideals in the ring of all algebraic integersConstructing Idempotent Generator of Idempotent Idealideal and ideal classes in the ring of integers.Is the minimal number of generators of an ideal the rank of the ideal as a free $mathbb Z$-module?Number of generators of an ideal of the polynomial ring over a fieldIs the ratio of the norms of generators in an ideal well defined?Finding ideal generator in real quadratic fieldsIdeal Class Group Calculation: How to conclude the classes of two ideals are distinctIs there a non-constant $h in mathbb{C}[x_1 , dots , x_n ]$ that divides every element of this given ideal?Show that an ideal of the ring of integers of a real number field is not principal












4












$begingroup$


I am trying to find the generators of the ideal $(3)$ in the ring of integers of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{-83}]$ the ring of integers is $mathbb{Z}left[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}right]$ I evaluated the Minkowski constant and it is $2/pi sqrt{83} sim 5.8;$ then I checked the minimal polynomial of $x^2-x+84/2, $ which is reducible module $3,$ hence the ideal $(3)$ is generated by two elements, right? Did I miss something? I want to say the ring of integers is not a UFD.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    I am trying to find the generators of the ideal $(3)$ in the ring of integers of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{-83}]$ the ring of integers is $mathbb{Z}left[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}right]$ I evaluated the Minkowski constant and it is $2/pi sqrt{83} sim 5.8;$ then I checked the minimal polynomial of $x^2-x+84/2, $ which is reducible module $3,$ hence the ideal $(3)$ is generated by two elements, right? Did I miss something? I want to say the ring of integers is not a UFD.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4


      2



      $begingroup$


      I am trying to find the generators of the ideal $(3)$ in the ring of integers of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{-83}]$ the ring of integers is $mathbb{Z}left[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}right]$ I evaluated the Minkowski constant and it is $2/pi sqrt{83} sim 5.8;$ then I checked the minimal polynomial of $x^2-x+84/2, $ which is reducible module $3,$ hence the ideal $(3)$ is generated by two elements, right? Did I miss something? I want to say the ring of integers is not a UFD.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I am trying to find the generators of the ideal $(3)$ in the ring of integers of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{-83}]$ the ring of integers is $mathbb{Z}left[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}right]$ I evaluated the Minkowski constant and it is $2/pi sqrt{83} sim 5.8;$ then I checked the minimal polynomial of $x^2-x+84/2, $ which is reducible module $3,$ hence the ideal $(3)$ is generated by two elements, right? Did I miss something? I want to say the ring of integers is not a UFD.







      ring-theory algebraic-number-theory ideal-class-group






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 8 hours ago









      J. W. Tanner

      5,1351520




      5,1351520










      asked 9 hours ago









      AmeryrAmeryr

      768311




      768311






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          You seem to have touched upon several different ideas here.



          Generators of the ideal $(3)$. Usually, when you talk about the generators of $(3)$, you mean its generators as an abelian group.



          Define $theta := tfrac 1 2 (1 + sqrt{-83})$. We know that the ring of integers $mathbb Z[theta]$ is generated by ${1, theta }$ as an abelian group, so $(3)$ is generated by ${3, 3theta }$ as an abelian group.



          But having read the remainder of your question, it looks like this is not what you're after! What you're really after are the generators of the ideal class group for $mathbb Z[theta]$...



          Minkowski constant. The fact that the Minkowski constant is $5.8$ implies that the ideal class group is generated by prime ideals that are factors of $(2)$ or $(3)$.



          Dedekind's criterion. Dedekind's criterion is a way of factorising $(3)$ as a product of primes.



          As you pointed out, we have the factorisation
          $$ x^2 - x + frac {84}{2} equiv x(x-1) mod 3,$$



          so Dedekind's criterion says that
          $$ (3) = (3, theta)(3, theta - 1)$$
          is the prime factorisation of $(3)$ in $mathbb Z[theta]$.



          Whether $mathbb Z[theta]$ is a UFD. This is equivalent to asking whether the ideal class group is trivial, i.e. whether all ideals are principal.



          Why don't we check whether $(3, theta)$ is principal? The answer must be "no". Note that $(3, theta)$ has norm $3$. If it was principal, then there would exist $x, y in mathbb Z$ such that $(3, theta) = (x + ytheta)$. But then
          $$ 3 = N(3, theta) = N(x + ytheta) = (x + tfrac 1 2 y)^2 + 83(tfrac 1 2 y)^2,$$
          which is impossible.



          So $mathbb Z[theta]$ is not a principal ideal domain, and hence, is not a unique factorisation domain.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks that helpful, that what I was looking for
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago





















          3












          $begingroup$

          The minimal polynomial of $alpha=frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}$ is $f = x^2 - x + 84/4 = x^2 - x + 21$. Modulo $3$ this factors as $$f equiv x^2 - x = x(x-1) pmod 3,$$
          so by the Kummer-Dedekind theorem the ideal $(3)$ factors into primes in $mathbb{Z}bigg[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}bigg]$ as $(3) = (3, alpha)(3, alpha-1)$.



          The ideal $(3)$ is principal, generated by $3$. You can show that the prime factors are not principal, e.g. using the field norm:



          If $(3,alpha) = (beta)$ then $N(beta)$ divides both $N(3) = 3^2$ and $N(alpha) = f(0) = 21 = 3cdot 7$, so $N(beta) = 3$.



          If we write $beta = a+balpha$ then $$N(beta)=(a+balpha)(a+b(1-alpha)) = ldots = a^2+ab + 21b^2.$$



          The equation $a^2+ab + 21b^2 = 3$ is an ellipse in the $(a,b)$-plane without integral points, so there is no such $beta$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            How could you determine that the ellipse has no integral points?
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I plotted it (with a grid in the background). It's a very small ellipse, so there are very few candidates for integral points, and you can see that it misses them all.
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Buring
            7 hours ago












          Your Answer








          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%2f3197383%2fdetermine-the-generator-of-an-ideal-of-ring-of-integers%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









          4












          $begingroup$

          You seem to have touched upon several different ideas here.



          Generators of the ideal $(3)$. Usually, when you talk about the generators of $(3)$, you mean its generators as an abelian group.



          Define $theta := tfrac 1 2 (1 + sqrt{-83})$. We know that the ring of integers $mathbb Z[theta]$ is generated by ${1, theta }$ as an abelian group, so $(3)$ is generated by ${3, 3theta }$ as an abelian group.



          But having read the remainder of your question, it looks like this is not what you're after! What you're really after are the generators of the ideal class group for $mathbb Z[theta]$...



          Minkowski constant. The fact that the Minkowski constant is $5.8$ implies that the ideal class group is generated by prime ideals that are factors of $(2)$ or $(3)$.



          Dedekind's criterion. Dedekind's criterion is a way of factorising $(3)$ as a product of primes.



          As you pointed out, we have the factorisation
          $$ x^2 - x + frac {84}{2} equiv x(x-1) mod 3,$$



          so Dedekind's criterion says that
          $$ (3) = (3, theta)(3, theta - 1)$$
          is the prime factorisation of $(3)$ in $mathbb Z[theta]$.



          Whether $mathbb Z[theta]$ is a UFD. This is equivalent to asking whether the ideal class group is trivial, i.e. whether all ideals are principal.



          Why don't we check whether $(3, theta)$ is principal? The answer must be "no". Note that $(3, theta)$ has norm $3$. If it was principal, then there would exist $x, y in mathbb Z$ such that $(3, theta) = (x + ytheta)$. But then
          $$ 3 = N(3, theta) = N(x + ytheta) = (x + tfrac 1 2 y)^2 + 83(tfrac 1 2 y)^2,$$
          which is impossible.



          So $mathbb Z[theta]$ is not a principal ideal domain, and hence, is not a unique factorisation domain.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks that helpful, that what I was looking for
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago


















          4












          $begingroup$

          You seem to have touched upon several different ideas here.



          Generators of the ideal $(3)$. Usually, when you talk about the generators of $(3)$, you mean its generators as an abelian group.



          Define $theta := tfrac 1 2 (1 + sqrt{-83})$. We know that the ring of integers $mathbb Z[theta]$ is generated by ${1, theta }$ as an abelian group, so $(3)$ is generated by ${3, 3theta }$ as an abelian group.



          But having read the remainder of your question, it looks like this is not what you're after! What you're really after are the generators of the ideal class group for $mathbb Z[theta]$...



          Minkowski constant. The fact that the Minkowski constant is $5.8$ implies that the ideal class group is generated by prime ideals that are factors of $(2)$ or $(3)$.



          Dedekind's criterion. Dedekind's criterion is a way of factorising $(3)$ as a product of primes.



          As you pointed out, we have the factorisation
          $$ x^2 - x + frac {84}{2} equiv x(x-1) mod 3,$$



          so Dedekind's criterion says that
          $$ (3) = (3, theta)(3, theta - 1)$$
          is the prime factorisation of $(3)$ in $mathbb Z[theta]$.



          Whether $mathbb Z[theta]$ is a UFD. This is equivalent to asking whether the ideal class group is trivial, i.e. whether all ideals are principal.



          Why don't we check whether $(3, theta)$ is principal? The answer must be "no". Note that $(3, theta)$ has norm $3$. If it was principal, then there would exist $x, y in mathbb Z$ such that $(3, theta) = (x + ytheta)$. But then
          $$ 3 = N(3, theta) = N(x + ytheta) = (x + tfrac 1 2 y)^2 + 83(tfrac 1 2 y)^2,$$
          which is impossible.



          So $mathbb Z[theta]$ is not a principal ideal domain, and hence, is not a unique factorisation domain.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks that helpful, that what I was looking for
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago
















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          You seem to have touched upon several different ideas here.



          Generators of the ideal $(3)$. Usually, when you talk about the generators of $(3)$, you mean its generators as an abelian group.



          Define $theta := tfrac 1 2 (1 + sqrt{-83})$. We know that the ring of integers $mathbb Z[theta]$ is generated by ${1, theta }$ as an abelian group, so $(3)$ is generated by ${3, 3theta }$ as an abelian group.



          But having read the remainder of your question, it looks like this is not what you're after! What you're really after are the generators of the ideal class group for $mathbb Z[theta]$...



          Minkowski constant. The fact that the Minkowski constant is $5.8$ implies that the ideal class group is generated by prime ideals that are factors of $(2)$ or $(3)$.



          Dedekind's criterion. Dedekind's criterion is a way of factorising $(3)$ as a product of primes.



          As you pointed out, we have the factorisation
          $$ x^2 - x + frac {84}{2} equiv x(x-1) mod 3,$$



          so Dedekind's criterion says that
          $$ (3) = (3, theta)(3, theta - 1)$$
          is the prime factorisation of $(3)$ in $mathbb Z[theta]$.



          Whether $mathbb Z[theta]$ is a UFD. This is equivalent to asking whether the ideal class group is trivial, i.e. whether all ideals are principal.



          Why don't we check whether $(3, theta)$ is principal? The answer must be "no". Note that $(3, theta)$ has norm $3$. If it was principal, then there would exist $x, y in mathbb Z$ such that $(3, theta) = (x + ytheta)$. But then
          $$ 3 = N(3, theta) = N(x + ytheta) = (x + tfrac 1 2 y)^2 + 83(tfrac 1 2 y)^2,$$
          which is impossible.



          So $mathbb Z[theta]$ is not a principal ideal domain, and hence, is not a unique factorisation domain.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          You seem to have touched upon several different ideas here.



          Generators of the ideal $(3)$. Usually, when you talk about the generators of $(3)$, you mean its generators as an abelian group.



          Define $theta := tfrac 1 2 (1 + sqrt{-83})$. We know that the ring of integers $mathbb Z[theta]$ is generated by ${1, theta }$ as an abelian group, so $(3)$ is generated by ${3, 3theta }$ as an abelian group.



          But having read the remainder of your question, it looks like this is not what you're after! What you're really after are the generators of the ideal class group for $mathbb Z[theta]$...



          Minkowski constant. The fact that the Minkowski constant is $5.8$ implies that the ideal class group is generated by prime ideals that are factors of $(2)$ or $(3)$.



          Dedekind's criterion. Dedekind's criterion is a way of factorising $(3)$ as a product of primes.



          As you pointed out, we have the factorisation
          $$ x^2 - x + frac {84}{2} equiv x(x-1) mod 3,$$



          so Dedekind's criterion says that
          $$ (3) = (3, theta)(3, theta - 1)$$
          is the prime factorisation of $(3)$ in $mathbb Z[theta]$.



          Whether $mathbb Z[theta]$ is a UFD. This is equivalent to asking whether the ideal class group is trivial, i.e. whether all ideals are principal.



          Why don't we check whether $(3, theta)$ is principal? The answer must be "no". Note that $(3, theta)$ has norm $3$. If it was principal, then there would exist $x, y in mathbb Z$ such that $(3, theta) = (x + ytheta)$. But then
          $$ 3 = N(3, theta) = N(x + ytheta) = (x + tfrac 1 2 y)^2 + 83(tfrac 1 2 y)^2,$$
          which is impossible.



          So $mathbb Z[theta]$ is not a principal ideal domain, and hence, is not a unique factorisation domain.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 8 hours ago









          Kenny WongKenny Wong

          20k21442




          20k21442












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks that helpful, that what I was looking for
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago




















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks that helpful, that what I was looking for
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago


















          $begingroup$
          Thanks that helpful, that what I was looking for
          $endgroup$
          – Ameryr
          7 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          Thanks that helpful, that what I was looking for
          $endgroup$
          – Ameryr
          7 hours ago













          3












          $begingroup$

          The minimal polynomial of $alpha=frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}$ is $f = x^2 - x + 84/4 = x^2 - x + 21$. Modulo $3$ this factors as $$f equiv x^2 - x = x(x-1) pmod 3,$$
          so by the Kummer-Dedekind theorem the ideal $(3)$ factors into primes in $mathbb{Z}bigg[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}bigg]$ as $(3) = (3, alpha)(3, alpha-1)$.



          The ideal $(3)$ is principal, generated by $3$. You can show that the prime factors are not principal, e.g. using the field norm:



          If $(3,alpha) = (beta)$ then $N(beta)$ divides both $N(3) = 3^2$ and $N(alpha) = f(0) = 21 = 3cdot 7$, so $N(beta) = 3$.



          If we write $beta = a+balpha$ then $$N(beta)=(a+balpha)(a+b(1-alpha)) = ldots = a^2+ab + 21b^2.$$



          The equation $a^2+ab + 21b^2 = 3$ is an ellipse in the $(a,b)$-plane without integral points, so there is no such $beta$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            How could you determine that the ellipse has no integral points?
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I plotted it (with a grid in the background). It's a very small ellipse, so there are very few candidates for integral points, and you can see that it misses them all.
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Buring
            7 hours ago
















          3












          $begingroup$

          The minimal polynomial of $alpha=frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}$ is $f = x^2 - x + 84/4 = x^2 - x + 21$. Modulo $3$ this factors as $$f equiv x^2 - x = x(x-1) pmod 3,$$
          so by the Kummer-Dedekind theorem the ideal $(3)$ factors into primes in $mathbb{Z}bigg[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}bigg]$ as $(3) = (3, alpha)(3, alpha-1)$.



          The ideal $(3)$ is principal, generated by $3$. You can show that the prime factors are not principal, e.g. using the field norm:



          If $(3,alpha) = (beta)$ then $N(beta)$ divides both $N(3) = 3^2$ and $N(alpha) = f(0) = 21 = 3cdot 7$, so $N(beta) = 3$.



          If we write $beta = a+balpha$ then $$N(beta)=(a+balpha)(a+b(1-alpha)) = ldots = a^2+ab + 21b^2.$$



          The equation $a^2+ab + 21b^2 = 3$ is an ellipse in the $(a,b)$-plane without integral points, so there is no such $beta$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            How could you determine that the ellipse has no integral points?
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I plotted it (with a grid in the background). It's a very small ellipse, so there are very few candidates for integral points, and you can see that it misses them all.
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Buring
            7 hours ago














          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          The minimal polynomial of $alpha=frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}$ is $f = x^2 - x + 84/4 = x^2 - x + 21$. Modulo $3$ this factors as $$f equiv x^2 - x = x(x-1) pmod 3,$$
          so by the Kummer-Dedekind theorem the ideal $(3)$ factors into primes in $mathbb{Z}bigg[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}bigg]$ as $(3) = (3, alpha)(3, alpha-1)$.



          The ideal $(3)$ is principal, generated by $3$. You can show that the prime factors are not principal, e.g. using the field norm:



          If $(3,alpha) = (beta)$ then $N(beta)$ divides both $N(3) = 3^2$ and $N(alpha) = f(0) = 21 = 3cdot 7$, so $N(beta) = 3$.



          If we write $beta = a+balpha$ then $$N(beta)=(a+balpha)(a+b(1-alpha)) = ldots = a^2+ab + 21b^2.$$



          The equation $a^2+ab + 21b^2 = 3$ is an ellipse in the $(a,b)$-plane without integral points, so there is no such $beta$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The minimal polynomial of $alpha=frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}$ is $f = x^2 - x + 84/4 = x^2 - x + 21$. Modulo $3$ this factors as $$f equiv x^2 - x = x(x-1) pmod 3,$$
          so by the Kummer-Dedekind theorem the ideal $(3)$ factors into primes in $mathbb{Z}bigg[frac{1+sqrt{-83}}{2}bigg]$ as $(3) = (3, alpha)(3, alpha-1)$.



          The ideal $(3)$ is principal, generated by $3$. You can show that the prime factors are not principal, e.g. using the field norm:



          If $(3,alpha) = (beta)$ then $N(beta)$ divides both $N(3) = 3^2$ and $N(alpha) = f(0) = 21 = 3cdot 7$, so $N(beta) = 3$.



          If we write $beta = a+balpha$ then $$N(beta)=(a+balpha)(a+b(1-alpha)) = ldots = a^2+ab + 21b^2.$$



          The equation $a^2+ab + 21b^2 = 3$ is an ellipse in the $(a,b)$-plane without integral points, so there is no such $beta$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 7 hours ago









          Ricardo BuringRicardo Buring

          1,98121437




          1,98121437








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            How could you determine that the ellipse has no integral points?
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I plotted it (with a grid in the background). It's a very small ellipse, so there are very few candidates for integral points, and you can see that it misses them all.
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Buring
            7 hours ago














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            How could you determine that the ellipse has no integral points?
            $endgroup$
            – Ameryr
            7 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I plotted it (with a grid in the background). It's a very small ellipse, so there are very few candidates for integral points, and you can see that it misses them all.
            $endgroup$
            – Ricardo Buring
            7 hours ago








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          How could you determine that the ellipse has no integral points?
          $endgroup$
          – Ameryr
          7 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          How could you determine that the ellipse has no integral points?
          $endgroup$
          – Ameryr
          7 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I plotted it (with a grid in the background). It's a very small ellipse, so there are very few candidates for integral points, and you can see that it misses them all.
          $endgroup$
          – Ricardo Buring
          7 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          I plotted it (with a grid in the background). It's a very small ellipse, so there are very few candidates for integral points, and you can see that it misses them all.
          $endgroup$
          – Ricardo Buring
          7 hours ago


















          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%2f3197383%2fdetermine-the-generator-of-an-ideal-of-ring-of-integers%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

          Why do type traits not work with types in namespace scope?What are POD types in C++?Why can templates only be...

          Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?Why do tsunami waves begin with the water flowing away...

          Should I use Docker or LXD?How to cache (more) data on SSD/RAM to avoid spin up?Unable to get Windows File...