What is the Theory of Ideal Prime Factors?

Zucchini
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I"m working on my math history class project. I choose a topic to discuss about Theory of Ideal Prime Factors by Ernst Eduard Kummer. (1847). I read the material few times, but I don't get an understand of the basic idea how he can come up this theory. Can someone explain it in a simply way of the theory? :smile:
Thanks.
(I can post if need furter information about the materials, from the book "Classics of Mathematics". by Ronald Calinger)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What math background do you have ? Have you done a course in number theory ? Also, have you covered groups, rings and ideals ?
 
Hi,
Thanks for reply. I don't think I took any of them. My math background is Cal 1-4, Discrete math, Matirx, differental equation, and a 300 lvl probaility, statistics course. Is it require the in deep number theory understanding in order to understand it or just basic?
Thanks.
 
That, I think, can be approached just as easily through the study of Abstract Algebra. For example, "An Introduction to Algebraic Structures," Dover paperback by Joseph Landin has a section on that: p180, "Principal Ideal and Unique Factorization Domains."
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top