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
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.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

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