Element in a ring mapping one prime to the next

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves finding a unique element f in a ring R that maps each prime number p_n to the next prime p_{n+1}. The context is set within the framework of functions defined on positive rational numbers, with specific operations defined for addition and multiplication of these functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss defining the function f on the primes and extending it to all positive rational numbers through prime factorization. There is also exploration of proving that f satisfies the property f(ab) = f(a)f(b). Questions arise regarding the determination of left inverses and the specific values of f at 0 and 1.

Discussion Status

Some participants have made progress in defining the function f and proving its properties. There is ongoing discussion about the nature of left inverses and the specific mappings for the function g. Multiple interpretations regarding the mapping of the number 2 are being explored, with no explicit consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need to determine the values of f(0) and f(1), as well as the implications of defining left inverses in the context of the ring R. There is mention of the flexibility in choosing the mapping for g(2).

tomelwood
Messages
29
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let {p_n}n>0 be the ordered sequence of primes. Show that there exists a unique element f in the ring R such that f(p_n) = p_n+1 for every n>0 and determine the family I_f of left inverses of f.


Homework Equations


The ring R is defined to be: The ring of all maps f:Q+-->Q+ such that f(rs)=f(r)f(s) for every r,s in Q+. Define the operations + and x in such a way that (f+g)(r) = f(r)g(r) and (f x g)(r) = f(g(r)) for every r in Q+. This is a non commutative unitary ring with zero divisors.


The Attempt at a Solution


Any pointers would be appreciated, as I cannot see how it is possible to map one prime to the next, given any prime, let alone find the unique f in the ring R that will do it.
Sorry that I haven't provided more, but I have literally been banging my head against a wall for ages on this question, without the faintest idea of where to start!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First we define this map on the primes. So we define [tex]f(p_n)=p_{n+1}[/tex].

We wish to extend this map to the entire of Q. Take q in Q. Then the prime factorization yields that we can write q as

[tex]q=\prod_{I\subseteq \mathbb{N}}{p_i^{n_i}}[/tex]

For a certain finite set I and [tex]n_i\in \mathbb{Z}[/tex]

The only possibility to define f(q) is as

[tex]f(q)=\prod_{I\subseteq \mathbb{N}}{f(p_i)^{n_i}}=\prod_{I\subseteq \mathbb{N}}{p_{i+1}^{n_i}}[/tex]

Try to show for yourself that f, with this definition, satisfies f(ab)=f(a)f(b).
 
Thanks so much, this has been most helpful!

So I got f(qr) = ...= PROD (p_i+1)^ni PROD (s_i+`)^ni = f(q)f(r) which is all I need to prove, right?

So now I need to determine the family of left inverses, which I believe is defined to be I_f = {g in R : gf = 1_r}
So the elements in R are these functions f,g etc. So I need to find the set of these g's which 'cancel out' the f's.
So if I do g(q)f(q) = PROD (g(p_i)^ni) PROD (p_i+1^ni) = 1_R
So I need to find this g. How do I do that.
I was tempted to say whilst writing this that g(q)f(q) = by definition of addition in this R = (g+f)(q) but I don't know if that would have helped at all? Thanks.
 
Yes, you've proven correctly that such an f exist. But you still need to determine for f what f(0) and f(1) is. I forgot to mention it.

For the other question, let g be a left inverse of f. g is uniquely determined by how it acts on the primes. So we simply need to know what [tex]g(p_i)[/tex] is.

Since g is a left inverse, we must have that [tex]g(p_{i+1})=p_i[/tex]. This defines g on every prime number except 2. For 2, we may choose what g(2) is.
 
OK. Well surely f(0) is 0 as 0=PROD 0 so f(0) = PROD 0 = 0
and 1 = PROD 1 so f(1) = PROD 1 = 1 ? That seems a little too simple to be true though.

So the set of all these g's is I_f = {g in R : g(p_i+1) = p_i, g(2) = 1} ?
 
No, you don't need to map 2 to 1. g(2) can be anything. We can only say that I_f = {g in R : g(p_i+1) = p_i}

For every [tex]q\in \mathbb{Q}^+[/tex], we can find a g in I_f: the g that maps 2 to q.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K