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.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.

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