I Why is the p-adic order of zero considered infinite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaTario
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zero
Click For Summary
The p-adic order of a positive integer n is defined as the highest power of a prime p that divides n. The p-adic order of zero is considered infinite because dividing zero by any prime p does not yield a non-zero remainder, leading to the conclusion that it can be divided an infinite number of times. This concept is linked to the p-adic absolute value, where |0|_p is defined as 0, reinforcing the idea that the p-adic order of zero is infinite. The discussion clarifies that while p-adic order typically relates to prime factorization, defining ord(0) as infinity is logical within the context of p-adic analysis. Overall, the infinite p-adic order of zero emphasizes its unique properties in number theory.
DaTario
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
46
TL;DR
Hi all, I would like to know why the p-adic order of zero, i.e., the exponent of the highest power of p (prime) that divides 0, is infinite.

best wishes
Hi All,
The p-adic order of a positive integer n is the exponent of the highest power of the prime p that divides n. I would like to know why it is commonly assumed that the p-adic order of zero is infinite.
best wishes,
DaTario
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The p-adic order and the p-adic absolute value are related by ##|x|_p=x^{-\operatorname{ord}(x)}##. Of course we want ##|0|_p=0##. The absolute value is the more important quantity.
 
Thank you, fresh 42. So it means that there is no connection with the purely "prime factorization of integers" meaning of the p-adic order. Is it correct?
 
Not really. Only the powers of a fixed prime are considered. However, it makes sense to define ##\operatorname{ord}(0)=\infty ## anyway: how often can we divide ##0## by ##p## until we get a remainder?
 
Thank you very much, you put a smile in my face with this very clear sentence. Thanks!
 
Thread 'erroneously  finding discrepancy in transpose rule'
Obviously, there is something elementary I am missing here. To form the transpose of a matrix, one exchanges rows and columns, so the transpose of a scalar, considered as (or isomorphic to) a one-entry matrix, should stay the same, including if the scalar is a complex number. On the other hand, in the isomorphism between the complex plane and the real plane, a complex number a+bi corresponds to a matrix in the real plane; taking the transpose we get which then corresponds to a-bi...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K