orangesquid (os) wrote,

pseudo-base-prime as a field schema

If we take the additive identity as {}, the multiplicative identity as {1}, define addition as vector addition, and define multiplication via the squid operator (see previous posts), we can define a field (actually, a schema that accomodates a countably infinite number number of fields):
First, addition is associative and commutative, as it is just vector addition.
If we allow the exponents of the base-P number to be integers instead of just 0 or a natural number, we can have negative exponents,
such that {a,b,c,...} has a unique additive inverse {-a,-b,-c,...}. This also gives closure under addition.
For a multiplicative inverse, we have to allow at least one exponent to be a real number. In order to have unique multiplicative inverses, we must set some restrictions: only one specific exponents can be a real (the rest must be integers)---so, we could have a field using {R,Z,Z,Z,...}, a field using {Z,R,Z,Z,...}, a field using {Z,Z,R,Z,...}, etc. Thus, we have a schema and can definite a countably infinite number of possible fields from this.
It's probably also possible to set other restrictions, such as allowing only one (but any one exponent) to be a real, so that for {a,b,c,d,...}, only one of a,b,c,d,... is a real, and the remaining are integers. Another thought would be to define a restrictive relationship such that more than one exponent could be non-integral but still maintain unique multiplicative inverses. I haven't explored this, but it may be possible to construct an uncountably infinite number of possible restrictive relationships (since I suspect the relationships would have to be equalities or inequalities of a form such that one of the constants in the relationship is a real number, giving an uncountable infinite number of possible equalities/inequalities).
So, if we define our field to have {R,Z,Z,Z,...}, the multiplicative inverse {b,0,0,0,...} for A={a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,...} would be (I believe -- I tested it for a few simple cases, namely {1}, {0,1}, and {1,1}, but I think it could be proved to be a general case) {log(2)/(a1*log(2)+a2*log(3)+a3(log(5)+a4*log(7)+a5(log(11)+...),0,0,0,...}.
The only thing remaining is distributivity:
Recall what squid(a,b), our multipicative operation, produces for {a1,a2,a3,...} and {b1,b2,b3,...}:
It is (I think) {a1*b1,a2*b1+a1*b2,a3*b1+a2*b2+a3*b1,...}.
If we want to test (c+d)*b = c*b+d*b, let a={c1+d1,c2+d2,c3+d3,...}.
Then the left-hand side would be {c1*b1+d1*b1,c2*b1+d2*b1+d1*b2+c1*b2,c3*b1+d3*b1+c2*b2+d2*b2+c3*b1+d3*b1,...}
The right hand side is {c1*b1,c2*b1+c1*b2,c3*b1+c2*b2+c3*b1,...}+{d1*b1,d2*b1+d1*b2,d3*b1+d2*b2+d3*b1,...}, which we see to be identical
once the two lists undergo the additive operation.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.