- 22,170
- 3,327
flyingpig said:2.46 and 2.47? I had my doubts...
What in Earth do you mean with 2.46 and 2.47?
The original poster is examining the properties of the field \(\mathbb{F}_2\), specifically questioning its classification as a field and the implications of its operations. The discussion revolves around the definitions and axioms that characterize fields, particularly focusing on the unique properties of the set \{0, 1\}.
The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the definitions and properties of fields. Some guidance has been offered regarding the verification of axioms, but there is no explicit consensus on the interpretations or methods to apply.
Participants are navigating through potentially confusing definitions and properties, with some expressing uncertainty about the axioms and their application to the field \(\mathbb{F}_2\). There is a noted lack of clarity regarding the operations defined for this field and how they differ from standard arithmetic.
flyingpig said:2.46 and 2.47? I had my doubts...
micromass said:What in Earth do you mean with 2.46 and 2.47?
micromass said:And how would you evaluate (1+0)+1 ?? Is it also 1??
Flyingpig to Redbelly (unrelated to this thread) said:Never mind d) is 375. They all move up by 75...each. Stupid question.
This was solutiuon they gave me
[PLAIN]http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4906/unledhsb.png
Which just means the answer is a multiple of 5, I thought they meant the contours are "5M units apart"
micromass said:So can you calculate
1+(1+0)=...
(1+1)+0=...
again and see where the error is?
flyingpig said:But they all arrive at the same answer
1 + (1 + 0) = 1 + 1 = 0
(1 + 1) + 0 = 0 + 0 = 0
But 1 + (1 + 0) from A2 says 1 + (1 + 0) = (1 + 1) + 0 = 0 + 0
I don't see the error
A2 said:x + y = y + x
Let x = 0, y = 0
0 + 0 = 0 + 0 = 0
Let x = 0, y = 1
0 + 1 = 1 + 0 = 1
Let x = 1, y = 0
1 + 0 = 0 + 1 = 1
Let x = 1, y = 1
1 + 1 = 1 + 1 = 0
A3 said:I sense danger from this one...
x + 0 = x
Let x = 0
0 + 0 = 0
Let x = 1[/tex]
1 + 0 = 1
A4 said:x + (-x) = 0
Oh boy
Let x = 0
0 + (-0) = 0 + 0 = 0
Let x = 1
1 + (-1) =...
M1 said:Damn it, 8 cases again
(xy)z = x(yz)
Let x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
(0*0)0 = 0(0*0) = 0*0 = 0
Let x = 0, y = 0, z = 1
(0*0)1 = 0(0*1) = 0*0 = 1
Let x = 0, y = 1, z = 0
(0*1)0 = 0(1*0) = 0*0 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 0, z = 0
(1*0)*0 = 1(0*0) = 1*0 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 1, z = 0
(1*1)0 = 1(1*0) = 1*0 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 0, z = 1
(1*0)1 = 1(0*1) = 1*0 = 0
Let x = 0, y =1, z = 1
(0*1)1 = 0(1*1) = 0*1 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 1, z = 1
(1*1)1 = 1(1*1) = 1*1 = 1
M2 said:xy = yx
Let x = 0, y = 0
0*0 = 0*0 = 0
Let x = 0, y = 1
0*1 = 1*0 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 0
1*0 = 0*1 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 1
1*1 = 1*1 = 1
M3 said:Other than 0, there is a 1 such that x * 1 = x
Let x = 0
0 * 1 = 0
Let x = 1
1*1 = 1
M4 said:Other than 0, we have an inverse for x
Oh wait...should I just do x = 1 case...?
D said:NOOO ANOTHER 8 CASE. I'll be back on this one...
D said:Let x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
0(0 + 0) = 0*0 + 0*0 = 0 + 0 = 0
Let x = 0, y = 0, z = 1
0(0 + 1) = 0*0 + 0*1 = 0 + 0 = 0
Let x = 0, y =1, z = 0
0(1 + 0) = 0*1 + 0*0 = 0 + 0 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 0, z = 0
1(0 + 0) = 1*0 + 1*0 = 0 + 0 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 1, z = 0
1(1 + 0) 1*1 + 1*0 = 1 + 0 = 1
Let x = 1, y = 0, z = 1
1(0 + 1) = 1*0 + 1*1 = 0 + 1 = 1
Let x = 0, y = 1, z = 1
0(1 + 1) = 0*1 + 0*1 = 0 + 0 = 0
Let x = 1, y = 1, z = 1
1(1 + 1) = 1*1 + 1*1 = 1 + 1 = 0
SammyS said:For this field, -1 = 1 . This is because the thing you need to add to 1 to give you the identity element for addition is 1.
micromass said:OK, for A4, you need to use that -1=1 and -0=0. You define this to be so.
flyingpig said:Oh is it from 1 + 1 = 0, that 1 = -1? oh okay
flyingpig said:Oh wait, M4 actually states for all x in R, without 0, the axiom holds, I don't even need to test x = 0 right?