MHB Why is $w_p(x+y) \geq m$ and not $w_p(x+y) = m$ for $x,y \in \mathbb{Q}_p$?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of the $p$-adic valuation $w_p$ in the context of the addition of two $p$-adic numbers. It establishes that for $x, y \in \mathbb{Q}_p$, the inequality $w_p(x+y) \geq \min \{ w_p(x), w_p(y) \}$ holds, with equality only if $w_p(x) \neq w_p(y)$. The participants explore the reasoning behind why $w_p(x+y)$ is not necessarily equal to $m$, emphasizing that the sum could be divisible by higher powers of $p$. They illustrate this with examples, noting that even if individual terms are not divisible by a certain power, their sum might be. The conversation highlights the nuances of $p$-adic addition and the implications of the valuation's properties.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

The additive $p-$ adic valuation of $\mathbb{Q}_p$:

$$w_p: \left\{\begin{matrix}
\mathbb{Q}_p \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} \cup \{\infty\}\\
p^m u \mapsto m\\
0 \mapsto \infty
\end{matrix}\right.$$

$$\forall x,y \in \mathbb{Q}: w_p(x+y) \geq \min \{ w_p(x), w_p(y)\}$$

If $w_p(x) \neq w_p(y)$, then the equality stands.

This is the proof, according to my notes:

$$x=p^m u_1 | u_1 \in \mathbb{Z}_p^*$$

$$y=p^n u^2 | u_2 \in \mathbb{Z}_p^*$$

$$m,n \in \mathbb{N}$$

Without loss of generality, we suppose that $m \leq n$.

$$x+y=p^m(u_1+p^{n-m}u_2)$$

$$w_p(x+y) \geq m$$

If $n>m$, then $u_1+p^{n-m}u_2 \in \mathbb{Z}_p^*$

In this case:

$$w_p(x+y)=m=\min \{ w_p(x), w_p(y) \}$$

If $n=m$, $\displaystyle{ w_p(x+y) \geq n=m=\min \{ w_p(x), w_p(y)\} }$

Could you explain me why it is : $w_p(x+y) \geq m$ and not $w_p(x+y)=m$ ? (Thinking)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
First of all, your notation sucks.

$p$-adic valuation is usually denoted by $\nu_p(\bullet)$, and the $p$-adic norm as $|\bullet |_p$.

We know by definition that $x = p^{\nu_p(x)} \cdot a$ and $y = p^{\nu_p(y)} \cdot b$. Now $x + y = p^{\nu_p(x)} \cdot a + p^{\nu_p(y)} \cdot b$. Without loss of generality, assume $\nu_p(x) > \nu_p(y)$, then $x + y = p^{\nu_p(x)} \cdot (p^{\nu_p(x)-\nu_p(y)} \cdot a + b)$. Now this factor $p^{\nu_p(x)-\nu_p(y)} \cdot a + b$ might be divisible by $p^k$ for some $k > 0$, who knows? So the largest $n$ such that $x + y$ is divisible by $p^n$ is *at least* $\nu_p(x)$, but it might be larger. Hence $\nu_p(x + y) \geq \nu_p(x) = \text{min}(\nu_p(x), \nu_p(y))$. From this one derives that $|x + y|_p \leq \text{max}(|x|_p, |y|_p)$.
 
Last edited:
mathbalarka said:
$p$-adic valuation is usually denoted by $\nu_p(\bullet)$, and the $p$-adic norm as $|\bullet |_p$.

We know by definition that $x = p^{\nu_p(x)} \cdot a$ and $y = p^{\nu_p(y)} \cdot b$. Now $x + y = p^{\nu_p(x)} \cdot a + p^{\nu_p(y)} \cdot b$. Without loss of generality, assume $\nu_p(x) > \nu_p(y)$, then $x + y = p^{\nu_p(x)} \cdot (p^{\nu_p(x)-\nu_p(y)} \cdot a + b)$. Now this factor $p^{\nu_p(x)-\nu_p(y)} \cdot a + b$ might be divisible by $p^k$ for some $k > 0$, who knows? So the largest $n$ such that $x + y$ is divisible by $p^n$ is *at least* $\nu_p(x)$, but it might be larger. Hence $\nu_p(x + y) \geq \nu_p(x) = \text{min}(\nu_p(x) + \nu_p(y))$. From this one derives that $|x + y|_p \leq \text{max}(|x|_p, |y|_p)$.

Could you explain me how it can be that the factor $p^{\nu_p(x)-\nu_p(y)} \cdot a + b$ might be divisible by $p^k$ for some $k > 0$ ?

In which case would it be like that? (Thinking) (Worried)
 
Say $b = p^k$ for some $k \leq \nu_p(x) - \nu_p(y)$. Then $p^{\nu_p(x) - \nu_p(y)} + b$ is divisible by $p^k$.
 
mathbalarka said:
Say $b = p^k$ for some $k \leq \nu_p(x) - \nu_p(y)$. Then $p^{\nu_p(x) - \nu_p(y)} + b$ is divisible by $p^k$.

According to my notes, $a,b \in \mathbb{Z}_p^*$, so shouldn't it be:

$$b \in \{ 1,2, \dots, p-1\}$$
? Or am I wrong? (Worried)
 
Yes, right, my bad. I wasn't paying attention. Forget what I've said above.

But $p^{\nu_p(x) - \nu_p(y)} \cdot a + b$ might still be divisible by a power of $p$. Consider, for example, $3 + 3$. None of the two $3$s are divsible by $6$, but $3 + 3 = 6$ is.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top