Definition
If R is an integral domain, define a relation ~ on nonzero fractional ideals of R by I ~ J whenever there exist nonzero elements a and b of R such that (a)I = (b)J. (Here the notation (a) means the principal ideal of R consisting of all the multiples of a.) It is easily shown that this is an equivalence relation. The equivalence classes are called the ideal classes of R. Ideal classes can be multiplied: if denotes the equivalence class of the ideal I, then the multiplication = is well-defined and commutative. The principal ideals form the ideal class which serves as an identity element for this multiplication. Thus a class has an inverse if and only if there is an ideal J such that IJ is a principal ideal. In general, such a J may not exist and consequently the set of ideal classes of R may only be a monoid.
However, if R is the ring of algebraic integers in an algebraic number field, or more generally a Dedekind domain, the multiplication defined above turns the set of fractional ideal classes into an abelian group, the ideal class group of R. The group property of existence of inverse elements follows easily from the fact that, in a Dedekind domain, every non-zero ideal (except R) is a product of prime ideals.
Read more about this topic: Ideal Class Group
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“It’s a rare parent who can see his or her child clearly and objectively. At a school board meeting I attended . . . the only definition of a gifted child on which everyone in the audience could agree was “mine.””
—Jane Adams (20th century)
“Mothers often are too easily intimidated by their children’s negative reactions...When the child cries or is unhappy, the mother reads this as meaning that she is a failure. This is why it is so important for a mother to know...that the process of growing up involves by definition things that her child is not going to like. Her job is not to create a bed of roses, but to help him learn how to pick his way through the thorns.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)