- #26

- 22,089

- 3,293

Aaah, that might workWhat if we work in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{n}_{p}[/itex] over a the field [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex], as I discuss in the second part of my paper? This gets a bit messy I guess though.

- Thread starter Kindayr
- Start date

- #26

- 22,089

- 3,293

Aaah, that might workWhat if we work in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{n}_{p}[/itex] over a the field [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex], as I discuss in the second part of my paper? This gets a bit messy I guess though.

- #27

- 161

- 0

Then I will play around with that tonight, and type some stuff up tomorrow! I'll try to generalize everything using the map you defined, and see what I can do.Aaah, that might work

thank you very much micromass!

- #28

- 161

- 0

I'm just trying to find a way to work this.

Fix [itex]p[/itex] prime. Let [itex]1<p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{n}<p[/itex] be all primes between [itex]1[/itex] and [itex]p[/itex], and let [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}^{n}[/itex] be the set of all [itex]n[/itex]-tuples with entires in [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex]. Then our map [itex]\Phi[/itex] doesn't work since we can find a [itex]q\in\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/itex] whose factorization uses a prime [itex]p_{0}>p[/itex].

So that's just where I'm confused.

I'm just trying to get over a slump on how to turn this into a vector space.

Fix [itex]p[/itex] prime. Let [itex]1<p_{1}<p_{2}<\cdots<p_{n}<p[/itex] be all primes between [itex]1[/itex] and [itex]p[/itex], and let [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}^{n}[/itex] be the set of all [itex]n[/itex]-tuples with entires in [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex]. Then our map [itex]\Phi[/itex] doesn't work since we can find a [itex]q\in\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/itex] whose factorization uses a prime [itex]p_{0}>p[/itex].

So that's just where I'm confused.

I'm just trying to get over a slump on how to turn this into a vector space.

Last edited:

- #29

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

Once you have a data structure, you can do a lot. Just look at set theory.Whoa, could you please explain? I haven't been exposed to much of any metamathematics.

Similar power is opened up to you once you can view an integer as a list of integers.

There are a variety of related things, I'll go down the route of computability -- what is a computer? It is essentially just it's current state -- a list of integers (e.g. the list might contain 16 registers, and the rest be memory which can be interpreted as instructions or data) -- and a rule for advancing from one state to the next.

The hardest part of encoding this in Peano arithmetic is how to use an integer to encode a list of integers, and how to access / manipulate lists under this encoding.

(Then, once you have encoded the state of a computer as a single integer, you can then talk about the execution of a program on a computer as the "list of integers" corresponding to the state of the computer at a given time. With this, you can now start reasoning about how computers behave, again using just Peano arithmetic under-the-hood)

Formal logic is similar -- specifically look at the subfield of syntax, which talks about languages, grammar, and proofs. Here, you want to use a "list of integers" to store the characters in a formal expression -- i.e. to store strings.

There are other ways to manage this technical construction, but I think the isomorphism from your original post is the most straightforward. (it does require you to first prove some things about primes and divisibility, though)

- #30

- 161

- 0

I'm still a little confused how to turn this into a vector space. I was wondering, if we use the non-transcendental numbers as our field. But would we lose the fact of 'prime factorization', and the basis of even doing this?

I can't conceptually see how to work in [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex] for some prime [itex]p[/itex]. I don't know how we would chose [itex]p[/itex]. Maybe I'm just obsessing over minor points.

I've also defined [itex]\psi:\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}\to\mathbb{P}[X]^{\infty}[/itex], but I just don't know how to define a binary operation [itex]\otimes:\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}\times\mathbb{Z}^{ \infty}\to\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex] such that it is homomorphic by [itex]\psi[/itex] to multiplication of finite polynomials.

- #31

- 22,089

- 3,293

Can't you just define it as a [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex]-vector space?So I typed it up again, generalizing [itex]\phi:\mathbb{Q}^{*}\to\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex].

I'm still a little confused how to turn this into a vector space. I was wondering, if we use the non-transcendental numbers as our field. But would we lose the fact of 'prime factorization', and the basis of even doing this?

I can't conceptually see how to work in [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex] for some prime [itex]p[/itex]. I don't know how we would chose [itex]p[/itex]. Maybe I'm just obsessing over minor points.

And maybe I'm starting to do much to advanced stuff here, but perhaps you could define your entire structure as a sheaf of rings??

You know that that is a bijection, right?? Well, then you can just defineI've also defined [itex]\psi:\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}\to\mathbb{P}[X]^{\infty}[/itex], but I just don't know how to define a binary operation [itex]\otimes:\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}\times\mathbb{Z}^{ \infty}\to\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex] such that it is homomorphic by [itex]\psi[/itex] to multiplication of finite polynomials.

[tex]a\otimes b=\psi^{-1}(\psi (a)\cdot \psi (b))[/tex]

just carry over the structure.

Do take a look at "group rings", because it really looks a lot like what you're trying to do here!

- #32

- 161

- 0

That's what i mean, woops. But then we would be representing the non-transcendentals. Because if we choose [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] to be our field, then since scalar multiplication in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex] is isomorphic to exponentiation, things like [tex]\frac{1}{2}(1,0,\dots)\overset{\phi^{-1}}{=} 2^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{2}\notin\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/tex]So shouldn't we work with the set of non-zero algebraic numbers, as opposed to [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/itex] (this is what I meant as opposed to non-transcendental).Can't you just define it as a [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex]-vector space?

Yeah, I haven't a clue what a sheaf of rings is >.<, i haven't even had a true introduction to group theory. I'm doing this a lot by reading as I go.And maybe I'm starting to do much to advanced stuff here, but perhaps you could define your entire structure as a sheaf of rings??

Perfect! Can't believe I didn't think of that, thank you very much!You know that that is a bijection, right?? Well, then you can just define

[tex]a\otimes b=\psi^{-1}(\psi (a)\cdot \psi (b))[/tex]

just carry over the structure.

No I haven't yet, totally forgot you mentioned that. I'll definitely take a look now before I continue :)Do take a look at "group rings", because it really looks a lot like what you're trying to do here!

Last edited:

- #33

- 22,089

- 3,293

Well, defining it like that isn't exactly what I meanThat's what i mean, woops. But then we would be representing the non-transcendentals. Because if we choose [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] to be our field, then since scalar multiplication in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex] is isomorphic to exponentiation, things like [tex]\frac{1}{2}(1,0,\dots)\overset{\phi^{-1}}{=} 2^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{2}\notin\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/tex]

You know that [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is isomorphic to [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex] (if we adjoin a certain element 0 to the last set). So define scalar multiplication by

[tex]\alpha x=\varphi(\varphi^{-1}(\alpha)\varphi^{-1}(x))[/tex]. So just "lift" the scalar multiplication in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] to a new one in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^\infty[/itex].

Well, I think that researching things because you need it in this problem is the only true way to learn something. So all power to you!!Yeah, I haven't a clue what a sheaf of rings is >.<, i haven't even had a true introduction to group theory. I'm doing this a lot by reading as I go.

But sheafs is too advanced It would work though.

- #34

- 161

- 0

I though I've already defined the scalar multiplication in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex] through defining [itex]\phi(a)=\phi(\prod^{\infty}_{k=1}p_{k}^{e_{k}})=(e_{1},e_{2},\dots)=(e_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}[/itex]. And since [itex]\phi[/itex] is an isomorphism (I now show this properly in my paper), multiplication of numbers in [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/itex] is isomorphic to the 'addition' i defined ([itex]\oplus[/itex]) in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex].Well, defining it like that isn't exactly what I mean

You know that [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is isomorphic to [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex] (if we adjoin a certain element 0 to the last set). So define scalar multiplication by

[tex]\alpha x=\varphi(\varphi^{-1}(\alpha)\varphi^{-1}(x))[/tex]. So just "lift" the scalar multiplication in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] to a new one in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^\infty[/itex].

So there our vector addition is defined as multiplication in [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/itex] (or algebraic numbers, to generalize).

Then it makes sense that our scalar multiplication (from [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex]) would be isomorphic to exponentiation. Since it can be shown, for example, that

[tex]a^{2} \overset{\phi}{=} 2 (e_{k})^{\infty} _{k=1} = (e_{k}) ^{\infty} _{k=1} \oplus (e_{k}) ^{\infty}_{k=1}.[/tex]

I guess i'm actually generalizing even more instead of [itex]\phi:\mathbb{Q}^{*}\to\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex], but to [itex]\phi:\mathbb{A}^{*}\to\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex], where [itex]\mathbb{A}^{*}[/itex] is the set of all non-zero algebraic numbers.

Am I making sense or am I just crazy?

- #35

- 22,089

- 3,293

Hmm, I'm not sure how you would generalize all of this to algebraic numbers. But it does make sense what you're saying...I though I've already defined the scalar multiplication in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex] through defining [itex]\phi(a)=\phi(\prod^{\infty}_{k=1}p_{k}^{e_{k}})=(e_{1},e_{2},\dots)=(e_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}[/itex]. And since [itex]\phi[/itex] is an isomorphism (I now show this properly in my paper), multiplication of numbers in [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/itex] is isomorphic to the 'addition' i defined ([itex]\oplus[/itex]) in [itex]\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex].

So there our vector addition is defined as multiplication in [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{*}[/itex] (or algebraic numbers, to generalize).

Then it makes sense that our scalar multiplication (from [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex]) would be isomorphic to exponentiation. Since it can be shown, for example, that [tex]a^{2} \: \overset{\phi}{=} 2 (e_{k})^{\infty} _{k=1} = (e_{k}) ^{\infty) _{k=1} \oplus (e_{k}) ^{\infty )_{k=1}.[/tex]

I guess i'm actually generalizing even more instead of [itex]\phi:\mathbb{Q}^{*}\to\mathbb{Z}^{\infty}[/itex], but to [itex]\phi:\mathbb{A}^{*}\to\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex], where [itex]\mathbb{A}^{*}[/itex] is the set of all non-zero algebraic numbers.

Am I making sense or am I just crazy?

- #36

- 161

- 0

I guess I would I would have to prove a sort of analogous Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to the non-zero algebraics? If I can do that then I hope it all works, and I would just have to prove it to be a vector space, correct?Hmm, I'm not sure how you would generalize all of this to algebraic numbers. But it does make sense what you're saying...

I never expected myself to get into doing this much for such a trivial idea I began with lol! Considering how little algebraic background I have outside of linear algebra.

- #37

- 22,089

- 3,293

I think such a thing would be very hard, if not impossibleI guess I would I would have to prove a sort of analogous Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to the non-zero algebraics? If I can do that then I hope it all works, and I would just have to prove it to be a vector space, correct?

Hey, this is the perfect way to learn something more about algebra!! You're doing great!I never expected myself to get into doing this much for such a trivial idea I began with lol! Considering how little algebraic background I have outside of linear algebra.

- #38

- 161

- 0

[tex]\mathbb{A}^{*}=\{a^{b}:a,b\in\mathbb{Q}^{*}\}[/tex]

I would have to show this to be a field obviously.

- #39

- 22,089

- 3,293

That seems plausible. Don't know if it'll be a field, though...

[tex]\mathbb{A}^{*}=\{a^{b}:a,b\in\mathbb{Q}^{*}\}[/tex]

I would have to show this to be a field obviously.

- #40

- 161

- 0

I agree, I don't think its closed under addition.That seems plausible. Don't know if it'll be a field, though...

I guess I never really tried [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex]. Or even the set [itex]\mathbb{Q}[\mathbb{Z}_{p}]=\{a^{b}|a,b\in\mathbb{Z}_{p}\}[/itex]. Which would be closed under addition (I'd hav to prove it) I guess since every [itex]a^{b}\equiv c<p[/itex], so we would have [itex]a^{b}+c^{d}\equiv e+f\equiv g[/itex] with [itex]e,f,g\leq p[/itex], or something like that.

- #41

- 161

- 0

I can show this to be a vector space, which is good. But you get weird equivalences when you work in [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}^{n}[/itex], that are just blowing my mind a little as I write them down on paper. Which get even weirder when you move to [itex]\mathbb{P}_{n} [\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex].

I'll type it all up when I get home.

- #42

- 22,089

- 3,293

Hmm, "weird equivalences", I'm wondering about what you will type up

- #43

- 161

- 0

Whats interesting is when you partition the set such that for any [itex]u,v\in\mathbb{Z}_{p}^{n}[/itex], we have [tex]u\simeq v \;\; iff \;\; \phi_{p}^{-1}(u)\equiv\phi_{p}^{-1}(v).[/tex]

If you use the definition of the isomorphism i've used before into the polynomials, with the same partition, you'll get weird things. For example, take p=7. Then n=3. So we have [tex]0\simeq3\simeq x+x^{2}\simeq2+2x\simeq\cdots[/tex]

I've worked with quotient spaces in linear algebra, and I though how that collapsed a vector space was weird, but this weirds me out even more.

Its probably not weird for someone who has taken abstract"er" algebra than I have, but still weird lol

I'll be typing this all up sometime tonight or tomorrow when I have time in a paper and more rigourously, but i have other plans tongiht so I won't be able to type everything up i worked out today (like my proof that its a vector space).

I feel even that [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}^{n}[/itex] collapses [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{n}[/itex]. Since any n-tuple's entries can be seen as a quotient a/b, but then since [itex]\mathbb{Z}_{p}[/itex] is a field, so this quotient exists as one of the p members of Z_p.

Maybe thats wrong.

- #44

- 22,089

- 3,293

- #45

- 161

- 0

Sure it does, it corresponds to [itex]p_{1}^{p-1}p_{2}^{p-1}\cdots p_{n}^{p-1}\equiv a[/itex] with [itex]0\leq a\leq p-1[/itex].

Wait crap, that makes it non-injective. URGH.

I need to sit down with someone else and work all of this out. I need to get back to university asap. BLARGH.

- #46

- 22,089

- 3,293

The problem is that you don't have a well-defined function, really.Sure it does, it corresponds to [itex]p_{1}^{p-1}p_{2}^{p-1}\cdots p_{n}^{p-1}\equiv a[/itex] with [itex]0\leq a\leq p-1[/itex].

Wait crap, that makes it non-injective. URGH.

I need to sit down with someone else and work all of this out. I need to get back to university asap. BLARGH.

[itex]\mathbb{Z}_p^*[/itex] has p-1 elements, and [itex]\mathbb{Z}_p^n[/itex] has [itex]p^n[/itex]elements. So there can never be a surjection.

Do you see a way to solve this??

- #47

- 161

- 0

Okay, I'm meeting with my prof tomorrow, and I want to really see if this works:

Define [itex]\mathbb{A}^{*} =\{a^{b}:a,b\in\mathbb{Q}^{*}\}[/itex] and let [itex]\phi :\mathbb{A}^{*}\to\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex], where [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex] is the set of all [itex]\infty[/itex]-tuples with a finite amount of non-zero entries. Note that for any [itex]a^{b}\in\mathbb{A}^{*}[/itex] we have a prime factorization such that [tex]a^{b}=\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}p_{k}^{be_{k}}.[/tex] So define [itex]\phi(a^{b})=(be_{1},be_{2},\dots)=(be_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}[/itex]. Also define, from before, [itex]\oplus:\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}\times\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}\to \mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex] such that [tex](e_{1},e_{2},\dots)\oplus (f_{1}, f_{2},\dots)=(e_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}\oplus (f_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}=(e_{k}+f_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}=(e_{1}+f_{1},e_{2}+f_{2},\dots).[/tex] Further, [itex]\phi[/itex] can be shown to be an isomorphism.

We can also show [itex]\mathbb{Q}^ {\infty}[/itex] to be a rational vector space. Note that the scalar multiplication of any vector in [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex] is analogous to raising the original element of [itex]\mathbb{A}^{*}[/itex] by a rational exponent (the rational exponent being the scalar). That is: [tex]\alpha(be_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}\overset{\phi^{-1}}{=}a^{b^{\alpha}}=a^{b\alpha}.[/tex] Also note that [itex]\alpha(be_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}=\alpha b(e_{k})_{k=1}^{\infty}=(\alpha be_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}[/itex].

I didn't want to type everything out, but it seems to have worked.

Define [itex]\mathbb{A}^{*} =\{a^{b}:a,b\in\mathbb{Q}^{*}\}[/itex] and let [itex]\phi :\mathbb{A}^{*}\to\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex], where [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex] is the set of all [itex]\infty[/itex]-tuples with a finite amount of non-zero entries. Note that for any [itex]a^{b}\in\mathbb{A}^{*}[/itex] we have a prime factorization such that [tex]a^{b}=\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}p_{k}^{be_{k}}.[/tex] So define [itex]\phi(a^{b})=(be_{1},be_{2},\dots)=(be_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}[/itex]. Also define, from before, [itex]\oplus:\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}\times\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}\to \mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex] such that [tex](e_{1},e_{2},\dots)\oplus (f_{1}, f_{2},\dots)=(e_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}\oplus (f_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}=(e_{k}+f_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}=(e_{1}+f_{1},e_{2}+f_{2},\dots).[/tex] Further, [itex]\phi[/itex] can be shown to be an isomorphism.

We can also show [itex]\mathbb{Q}^ {\infty}[/itex] to be a rational vector space. Note that the scalar multiplication of any vector in [itex]\mathbb{Q}^{\infty}[/itex] is analogous to raising the original element of [itex]\mathbb{A}^{*}[/itex] by a rational exponent (the rational exponent being the scalar). That is: [tex]\alpha(be_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}\overset{\phi^{-1}}{=}a^{b^{\alpha}}=a^{b\alpha}.[/tex] Also note that [itex]\alpha(be_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}=\alpha b(e_{k})_{k=1}^{\infty}=(\alpha be_{k})^{\infty}_{k=1}[/itex].

I didn't want to type everything out, but it seems to have worked.

Last edited:

- #48

- 161

- 0

No matter how hard I tried, I could not create a vector space, which is fine. The suddenly it came to us.

So here:

Let [itex](\mathbb{R}^{>0},\cdot)[/itex] be the abelian group of positive reals and multiplication, and let [itex](\mathbb{R},+)[/itex] be the abelian group of the reals over addition. Suppose there exists a function [itex]\log:(\mathbb{R}^{>0},\cdot)\to(\mathbb{R},+)[/itex] such that [itex]\log(ab)=\log(a)+\log(b)[/itex] and [itex]\log(a^{b})=b\log(a)[/itex]. Its clear that [itex]\log[/itex] was just the extension of what I was trying to do before. I guess you could say its the 'analytic jump' from what I was trying to do algebraically. This has given me some new intuition into how [itex]\log[/itex] works. That its 'sort of' rooted in prime factorization, but more general than that.

I thought this was really interesting. And I'm glad this is all over of me attempting to find something that wasn't there, but had some sort of 'transcendental' version that explains everything.

He gave me some homework to do, the first question being one that I could probably do my self with my current skill sets, and another I'll have to wait after I take Measure Theory in the Winter Semester.

The first is that:

If [itex]f:(\mathbb{R}^{>0},\cdot)\to(\mathbb{R},+)[/itex] continuously with the properties that [itex]f(ab)=f(a)+f(b)[/itex] and [itex]f(a^{b})=b\cdot f(a)[/itex] and [itex]f(1)=0[/itex], then [itex]f(x)=\log(x)[/itex]

There exist many non-measurable [itex]f:(\mathbb{R}^{>0},\cdot)\to(\mathbb{R},+)[/itex] with the properties [itex]f(ab)=f(a)+f(b)[/itex], [itex]f(a^{b})=b\cdot f(a)[/itex], and [itex]f(1)=0[/itex].

I hope to be able to do these sometime in the future, but we'll see what happens.

Thank you to everyone that has helped me! Especially micromass for putting up with my lack of education in abstract algebra and metric space topology. I swear I'll get better after this year when I finally get a formal introduction to everything! haha

- #49

- 22,089

- 3,293

I hope you enjoyed thinking about this. These are the things that math research is all about

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 318

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 481

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 2K