- #1

- 31

- 0

Dear Experts.

Do you know some literature on

representation of rational numbers by formulas? TIA.

Do you know some literature on

representation of rational numbers by formulas? TIA.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter nworm
- Start date

In summary, the conversation discusses the construction of rational numbers using formulas in a given basis and the complexity of these formulas. The participants also discuss the equality of the number of 1's required to construct a number in two different bases. The conversation also includes a task to prove this equality using induction.

- #1

- 31

- 0

Dear Experts.

Do you know some literature on

representation of rational numbers by formulas? TIA.

Do you know some literature on

representation of rational numbers by formulas? TIA.

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 10,123

- 137

Eeh?

- #3

- 31

- 0

For example, let B = {x + y, x - y, xy, x^(-1), 1},

B1 = {x + y, xy, x^(-1), 1}.

Constants 1 are formulas that realize number 1.

If F1, F2 are formulas in basis B (F1 realize number r1 and F2 realize number r2), and w from B is basic operation,

then F = w(F1,F2) is formula that realize number w(r1,r2) (by definition).

If operation w(x) = x^(-1) then w(F1) is formula, that realize number w(r1).

- #4

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,567

- 4

None of this makes sense to me.

- #5

- 31

- 0

then

7/5 = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1)*(1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1)^(-1)

1/3 = (1 + 1 + 1)^(-1).

Did you see this formulas somewhere?

- #6

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 10,123

- 137

What nonsense is this?

- #7

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,981

- 26

I think nworm is asking something about constructing rational numbers out of the constant *1* and the functions +, -, *, and [itex](\cdot)^{-1}[/itex]. As to *what* he's asking, and for what purpose, I have absolutely no clue.

By the way, nworm, depending on what you're asking, you have forgotten to specify we can use parentheses in expressions.

By the way, nworm, depending on what you're asking, you have forgotten to specify we can use parentheses in expressions.

Last edited:

- #8

- 31

- 0

One day I read a book of arithmetical problems. I like the section that told about constructing of rational numbers by formulas (formulas are generated by superposition operations).

In this book "complexity of formula" is defined. It is number of symbols 1 in formula. "Complexity of number" r is minimal complexity of formula that realizes r.

(It is denoted as LB(r)).

Example of task:

Let B2 = {x + y, x^(-1), 1}, B3 = {x + y, (x^(-1)+y^(-1))^(-1), 1}.

Prove, that

LB3(r) = LB2(r), where r is any fraction.

I want to read about this else (exactly about rational numbers).

- #9

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,567

- 4

Using no more 1's with B3, you can create x+y and (x

So getting back to the one we missed? Can we invert numbers using B3 without using any more 1's? Actually, I don't think it can be done. Using x

Actually, since the number of 1's required to make x is the same as the 1's required to make x

Maybe we can go back to assuming that x takes the same 1's with B2 or B3, and still prove that x

- #10

- 31

- 0

I am thinking that we can't create x

I have found the solution of this task (on the other page)

As function (x

If a corollary formula of a formula in B2 is given by F

G=((...((F1

The formula F and G are equivalent. The complexity of G is the same as the complexity of F. By iterating this transformation we can find a formula H in B3. The complexity of H is the same as the complexity of F. Therefore LB3(r) <= LB2(r). Therefore LB3(r) = LB2(r).

I am repeating my question. Do you know some literature about this (about rational numbers)

I didn’t read a lot of books in the field of number theory (I read “A Course in Number Theory and Cryptography” by Neal Koblitz only).

- #11

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,567

- 4

xnworm said:Thank you very much :rofl: These ideas are very interesting :tongue2:

I am thinking that we can't create x^{-1}by using B3.

Yes, that's correct.As function (x^{-1}+ y^{-1})^{-1}is expressed in B2 as noniterated superposition, then any formula in B3 can be transformed to formula in B2 without changing of complexity. This implies that LB3(r) >= LB2(r).

I see, very nice. So we are using induction. G (in B3) has the same complexity as F (in B2) as long as the corollary formulas can be made in B3 with the same complexity. But they can since each corollary formula FIf a corollary formula of a formula in B2 is given by F^{-1}, then this corollary formula is represented as (F1^{-1}+F2^{-1}+...+Fn^{-1})^{-1}, where Fi are corollary formulas of less complexity or constants 1. Write a new formula G.

G=((...((F1^{-1}+F2^{-1})^{-1})^{-1}+F3^{-1})^{-1})^{-1}+...+Fn^{-1})^{-1}= g(g(...g(g(F1,F2),F3)...),Fn), where g(x,y)=(x^{-1}+y^{-1})^{-1}.

The formula F and G are equivalent. The complexity of G is the same as the complexity of F. By iterating this transformation we can find a formula H in B3. The complexity of H is the same as the complexity of F. Therefore LB3(r) <= LB2(r). Therefore LB3(r) = LB2(r).

Sorry, I've never seen anything like this.I am repeating my question. Do you know some literature about this (about rational numbers)

I didn’t read a lot of books in the field of number theory (I read “A Course in Number Theory and Cryptography” by Neal Koblitz only).

The representation of rational numbers by formulas refers to the use of mathematical expressions or equations to represent or describe a rational number. This allows for a more concise and systematic way of representing rational numbers, making it easier for scientists to work with them in various calculations and analyses.

Having a representation of rational numbers by formulas is important because it allows for a standardized and universal way of representing these numbers. This makes it easier to communicate and share mathematical ideas and concepts across different fields of study.

There are several types of formulas used to represent rational numbers, such as fractions, decimals, and percentages. Other common representations include ratios, proportions, and mixed numbers.

Scientists use formulas to represent rational numbers in various ways, depending on their specific field of study. For example, in physics, scientists may use formulas to represent measurements and calculations involving rational numbers, while in chemistry, formulas are used to represent the ratios of different elements in a compound.

No, irrational numbers cannot be represented by formulas because they cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. For this reason, they are typically represented as decimal numbers or in other non-formulaic ways such as square roots or pi.

Share:

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 647

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 283

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 853

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 785

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 939

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 676

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 819

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 602

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K