The discussion revolves around creating a 4 element by 4 element multiplication table, particularly for finite fields. Participants explore various formatting options using LaTeX and TikZ to enhance readability and presentation of the table.
Discussion Character
Technical explanation
Debate/contested
Mathematical reasoning
Main Points Raised
Peter inquires about the easiest way to create a multiplication table for a field of 4 elements.
Some participants suggest using LaTeX tables, with one example provided that lacks distinguishing lines between elements and results.
Peter expresses a desire for a clearer distinction in the table, proposing darker lines or a different layout.
Another participant suggests simplifying the table by retaining only the necessary lines for clarity.
Several participants discuss the use of TikZ for creating the table, noting that while it allows for more customization, it requires more effort.
Peter encounters issues with displaying his TikZ table in a post, leading to discussions about proper syntax and delimiters for LaTeX and TikZ.
There are mentions of needing to wrap LaTeX in dollar-sign delimiters and confusion regarding unrecognized commands within TikZ.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally agree on the need for clearer formatting in the multiplication table, but there is no consensus on the best method to achieve this. Disagreements arise regarding the use of LaTeX versus TikZ and the specific syntax required for proper display.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include unresolved issues with LaTeX syntax, particularly regarding the use of TikZ and the need for proper delimiters. The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with LaTeX and TikZ among participants.
#1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,920
48
What would be the easiest (but neat and readable) way of entering a 4 element by 4 element multiplication table ... ... for example the multiplication table for the field of 4 elements ... ...
BUT ... would be so much better if there was a darker line (or some distinguishing line around first row and first colum to distinguish elements of the finite field from the results of multiplying them ...
Maybe I am being obsessively neat ... ...:)
Peter
#4
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
13,284
12
Peter said:
Yes ... thanks Mark ...
BUT ... would be so much better if there was a darker line (or some distinguishing line around first row and first colum to distinguish elements of the finite field from the results of multiplying them ...
Maybe I am being obsessively neat ... ...:)
Peter
I do agree that would be better, but I honestly don't know how to get MathJax to do that. :D
#5
Opalg
Gold Member
MHB
2,778
13
Peter said:
BUT ... would be so much better if there was a darker line (or some distinguishing line around first row and first colum to distinguish elements of the finite field from the results of multiplying them ...
One way is to keep only those two lines and remove all the others: $$\begin{array}{c|cccc} + & a&b&c&d \\ \hline a&a&b&c&d\\ b&b&a&d&c \\ c&c&d&a&b \\ d&d&c&b&a \end{array}.$$
#6
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,920
48
MarkFL said:
I do agree that would be better, but I honestly don't know how to get MathJax to do that. :D
Thanks anyway Mark ...
Not many occasions when that happens ...
Peter
- - - Updated - - -
Opalg said:
One way is to keep only those two lines and remove all the others: $$\begin{array}{c|cccc} + & a&b&c&d \\ \hline a&a&b&c&d\\ b&b&a&d&c \\ c&c&d&a&b \\ d&d&c&b&a \end{array}.$$
The matrix itself is exactly the same as it is in regular $\LaTeX$.
And we can embellish it using TikZ, which is really a bit of copy-and-paste.
If you're going to create more than one or two tables, we can probably come up with an easy way to do it for all of them.
#10
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,920
48
I like Serena said:
The matrix itself is exactly the same as it is in regular $\LaTeX$.
And we can embellish it using TikZ, which is really a bit of copy-and-paste.
If you're going to create more than one or two tables, we can probably come up with an easy way to do it for all of them.
OK
I tried this in my post but the multiplication table failed to display ... can anyone see my error$$\begin{tikzpicture}
\usetikzlibrary{matrix}
\matrix (m) [nodes={minimum width=2em,minimum height=2ex},matrix of nodes]
{
\times & 0 & 1 & \theta & \theta + 1 \\
0&0&0&0&0\\
1&0&1& \theta & \theta + 1 \\
\theta & 0 & \theta & \theta + 1 & 1 \\
\theta +1 & 0 & \theta + 1 & 1 & \theta \\
};
\draw[very thick] (m-1-1.north east) -- (m-5-1.south east);
\draw[very thick] (m-1-1.south west) -- (m-1-5.south east);
\foreach \x in {2,...,5}{
\draw (m-1-\x.north east) -- (m-5-\x.south east);
\draw (m-\x-1.south west) -- (m-\x-5.south east);
}
\end{tikzpicture}$$
#11
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
13,284
12
You need to wrap any $\LaTeX$ in dollar-sign delimiters, however then an error regarding the matrix m being unrecognized crops up, and I don't see why. :D
#12
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,920
48
MarkFL said:
You need to wrap any $\LaTeX$ in dollar-sign delimiters, however then an error regarding the matrix m being unrecognized crops up, and I don't see why. :D
Thanks Mark ...
It is a real puzzle ... I did put $$ delimiters around the whole of the Latex Text in my most recent post entitled[h=1] http://mathhelpboards.com/linear-abstract-algebra-14/field-extensions-finite-fields-dummit-foote-section-13-2-exercise-2-a-21441.html in the Linear and Abstract Algebra forum ... [/h]
Hope someone can figure out what is wrong ...
All I did was replace I like Serena's numbers with the values of the finite field multiplication table ...
I tried this in my post but the multiplication table failed to display ... can anyone see my error$$\begin{tikzpicture}
\usetikzlibrary{matrix}
\matrix (m) [nodes={minimum width=2em,minimum height=2ex},matrix of nodes]
{
\times & 0 & 1 & \theta & \theta + 1 \\
0&0&0&0&0\\
1&0&1& \theta & \theta + 1 \\
\theta & 0 & \theta & \theta + 1 & 1 \\
\theta +1 & 0 & \theta + 1 & 1 & \theta \\
};
\draw[very thick] (m-1-1.north east) -- (m-5-1.south east);
\draw[very thick] (m-1-1.south west) -- (m-1-5.south east);
\foreach \x in {2,...,5}{
\draw (m-1-\x.north east) -- (m-5-\x.south east);
\draw (m-\x-1.south west) -- (m-\x-5.south east);
}
\end{tikzpicture}$$
When we put $$ tags or \$ symbols around $\LaTeX$, we put latex in so called math mode, so that it's easier to create mathematical formulas.
With [TIKZ] tags or \begin {tikzpicture} ... \end {tikzpicture} we put it in TikZ mode, so that it's easier to make pictures.
Unfortunately, that means it's not in math mode.
So it's complaining about the \times directive that it does not recognize, and more or less suggesting to use \$ symbols.
We should put \$ symbols around the symbols that should be rendered in math mode.
It is a real puzzle ... I did put $$ delimiters around the whole of the Latex Text in my most recent post entitled[h=1] http://mathhelpboards.com/linear-abstract-algebra-14/field-extensions-finite-fields-dummit-foote-section-13-2-exercise-2-a-21441.html in the Linear and Abstract Algebra forum ... [/h]
Hope someone can figure out what is wrong ...
All I did was replace I like Serena's numbers with the values of the finite field multiplication table ...
Remains a mystery what went wrong ...
... BUT ... thanks again for your help ...
Peter
I've edited your post to fix the table.
That is, I've removed the superfluous \$ around it.
Instead I've put \$ symbols around \times and \theta where they occur.
And I've increased the minimum width in the matrix to 3em, so that the columns align properly.
#15
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,920
48
I like Serena said:
I've edited your post to fix the table.
That is, I've removed the superfluous \$ around it.
Instead I've put \$ symbols around \times and \theta where they occur.
And I've increased the minimum width in the matrix to 3em, so that the columns align properly.
My previous TikZ suggestion had the 'problem' that math symbols had to have \$ symbols around them.
Turns out there is a better way by using a [M]matrix of math nodes[/M] instead of a [M]matrix of nodes[/M].
Then all nodes are already in math mode.
Other than that the solution is the same.
\begin{tikzpicture}
\usetikzlibrary{matrix}