A different way of thinking of numbers
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I was more or less day dreaming about whole numbers, and I had an idea which seemed novel to me, but which may in fact be previously known and/or studied. I'm not even sure what to call it, or how to look for previous reports of it. My first question will be: Have I merely rediscovered a way of looking at things that is already known, and if so, where can I find some discussion of it?
I imagine an infinite dimension space, with each orthogonal axis corresponding to a prime number. By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, natural numbers each have a unique representation of the form $prod p_i^{alpha_i}$. Numbers of this form can be located in $n$-dimensional subspaces as follows: For each prime $p_j$ which has a corresponding exponent $>0$, move $alpha_1$ units from the origin along the $p_1$ axis, then $alpha_2$ units parallel to the $p_2$ axis, then $alpha_3$ units parallel to the $p_3$ axis, etc., for as many primes as are present as factors of that number. The origin would correspond to the number $1$, where all axes intersect and $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$.
Each axis could be extended through the origin, and fractions could be represented as negative integral distances along the axes so extended, allowing the representation of rational numbers. Interestingly, moving "infinitely" out along these negative axes, one approaches $0$.
Next, by moving non-integral distances along axes, non-integral exponents could be represented and algebraic rational numbers could be represented and located in appropriate subspaces. I'm not certain that transcendental numbers can be represented, but neither are they representable in the form $prod p_i^{alpha_i}$. One concern I have is that if one is allowed to move irrational distances along axes, it might conceivably be possible to represent a particular number in two different ways, and locate it in two different subspaces, i.e. if exponents can be identified such that $p_1^{alpha_1}=p_2^{alpha_2}$.
I do not think arithmetic addition/subtraction can be readily performed with numbers so represented, but multiplication/division can be. In this light, this kind of representation bears some kinship to logarithms, but with a unique (prime) base (rather than $e$ or $10$) as the metric along each axis. However, I can think of no particular utility to representing numbers in this way. So my second question is: Can anyone see any merit or utility to thinking of numbers in this way?
number-theory soft-question
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I was more or less day dreaming about whole numbers, and I had an idea which seemed novel to me, but which may in fact be previously known and/or studied. I'm not even sure what to call it, or how to look for previous reports of it. My first question will be: Have I merely rediscovered a way of looking at things that is already known, and if so, where can I find some discussion of it?
I imagine an infinite dimension space, with each orthogonal axis corresponding to a prime number. By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, natural numbers each have a unique representation of the form $prod p_i^{alpha_i}$. Numbers of this form can be located in $n$-dimensional subspaces as follows: For each prime $p_j$ which has a corresponding exponent $>0$, move $alpha_1$ units from the origin along the $p_1$ axis, then $alpha_2$ units parallel to the $p_2$ axis, then $alpha_3$ units parallel to the $p_3$ axis, etc., for as many primes as are present as factors of that number. The origin would correspond to the number $1$, where all axes intersect and $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$.
Each axis could be extended through the origin, and fractions could be represented as negative integral distances along the axes so extended, allowing the representation of rational numbers. Interestingly, moving "infinitely" out along these negative axes, one approaches $0$.
Next, by moving non-integral distances along axes, non-integral exponents could be represented and algebraic rational numbers could be represented and located in appropriate subspaces. I'm not certain that transcendental numbers can be represented, but neither are they representable in the form $prod p_i^{alpha_i}$. One concern I have is that if one is allowed to move irrational distances along axes, it might conceivably be possible to represent a particular number in two different ways, and locate it in two different subspaces, i.e. if exponents can be identified such that $p_1^{alpha_1}=p_2^{alpha_2}$.
I do not think arithmetic addition/subtraction can be readily performed with numbers so represented, but multiplication/division can be. In this light, this kind of representation bears some kinship to logarithms, but with a unique (prime) base (rather than $e$ or $10$) as the metric along each axis. However, I can think of no particular utility to representing numbers in this way. So my second question is: Can anyone see any merit or utility to thinking of numbers in this way?
number-theory soft-question
2
What a fascinating idea!
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
You might be interested in the Gelfond-Schneider Theorem and the p-adic numbers.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
Thinking of, at least the natural numbers, in terms of their representation as exponents of primes is certainly useful and common in mathematics. The first proof one might see in an undergraduate degree involving this is the proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational. It also gives you a way of injecting (coding) finite sequences in $mathbb{N}$ into $mathbb{N}$.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
This is a group isomorphic to $mathbb Q^infty$.
– YiFan
1 hour ago
@YiFan: Which group do you mean by "[t]his..group"?
– user 170039
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I was more or less day dreaming about whole numbers, and I had an idea which seemed novel to me, but which may in fact be previously known and/or studied. I'm not even sure what to call it, or how to look for previous reports of it. My first question will be: Have I merely rediscovered a way of looking at things that is already known, and if so, where can I find some discussion of it?
I imagine an infinite dimension space, with each orthogonal axis corresponding to a prime number. By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, natural numbers each have a unique representation of the form $prod p_i^{alpha_i}$. Numbers of this form can be located in $n$-dimensional subspaces as follows: For each prime $p_j$ which has a corresponding exponent $>0$, move $alpha_1$ units from the origin along the $p_1$ axis, then $alpha_2$ units parallel to the $p_2$ axis, then $alpha_3$ units parallel to the $p_3$ axis, etc., for as many primes as are present as factors of that number. The origin would correspond to the number $1$, where all axes intersect and $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$.
Each axis could be extended through the origin, and fractions could be represented as negative integral distances along the axes so extended, allowing the representation of rational numbers. Interestingly, moving "infinitely" out along these negative axes, one approaches $0$.
Next, by moving non-integral distances along axes, non-integral exponents could be represented and algebraic rational numbers could be represented and located in appropriate subspaces. I'm not certain that transcendental numbers can be represented, but neither are they representable in the form $prod p_i^{alpha_i}$. One concern I have is that if one is allowed to move irrational distances along axes, it might conceivably be possible to represent a particular number in two different ways, and locate it in two different subspaces, i.e. if exponents can be identified such that $p_1^{alpha_1}=p_2^{alpha_2}$.
I do not think arithmetic addition/subtraction can be readily performed with numbers so represented, but multiplication/division can be. In this light, this kind of representation bears some kinship to logarithms, but with a unique (prime) base (rather than $e$ or $10$) as the metric along each axis. However, I can think of no particular utility to representing numbers in this way. So my second question is: Can anyone see any merit or utility to thinking of numbers in this way?
number-theory soft-question
I was more or less day dreaming about whole numbers, and I had an idea which seemed novel to me, but which may in fact be previously known and/or studied. I'm not even sure what to call it, or how to look for previous reports of it. My first question will be: Have I merely rediscovered a way of looking at things that is already known, and if so, where can I find some discussion of it?
I imagine an infinite dimension space, with each orthogonal axis corresponding to a prime number. By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, natural numbers each have a unique representation of the form $prod p_i^{alpha_i}$. Numbers of this form can be located in $n$-dimensional subspaces as follows: For each prime $p_j$ which has a corresponding exponent $>0$, move $alpha_1$ units from the origin along the $p_1$ axis, then $alpha_2$ units parallel to the $p_2$ axis, then $alpha_3$ units parallel to the $p_3$ axis, etc., for as many primes as are present as factors of that number. The origin would correspond to the number $1$, where all axes intersect and $alpha_i=0$ for all $i$.
Each axis could be extended through the origin, and fractions could be represented as negative integral distances along the axes so extended, allowing the representation of rational numbers. Interestingly, moving "infinitely" out along these negative axes, one approaches $0$.
Next, by moving non-integral distances along axes, non-integral exponents could be represented and algebraic rational numbers could be represented and located in appropriate subspaces. I'm not certain that transcendental numbers can be represented, but neither are they representable in the form $prod p_i^{alpha_i}$. One concern I have is that if one is allowed to move irrational distances along axes, it might conceivably be possible to represent a particular number in two different ways, and locate it in two different subspaces, i.e. if exponents can be identified such that $p_1^{alpha_1}=p_2^{alpha_2}$.
I do not think arithmetic addition/subtraction can be readily performed with numbers so represented, but multiplication/division can be. In this light, this kind of representation bears some kinship to logarithms, but with a unique (prime) base (rather than $e$ or $10$) as the metric along each axis. However, I can think of no particular utility to representing numbers in this way. So my second question is: Can anyone see any merit or utility to thinking of numbers in this way?
number-theory soft-question
number-theory soft-question
asked 2 hours ago
Keith Backman
8751510
8751510
2
What a fascinating idea!
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
You might be interested in the Gelfond-Schneider Theorem and the p-adic numbers.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
Thinking of, at least the natural numbers, in terms of their representation as exponents of primes is certainly useful and common in mathematics. The first proof one might see in an undergraduate degree involving this is the proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational. It also gives you a way of injecting (coding) finite sequences in $mathbb{N}$ into $mathbb{N}$.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
This is a group isomorphic to $mathbb Q^infty$.
– YiFan
1 hour ago
@YiFan: Which group do you mean by "[t]his..group"?
– user 170039
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
What a fascinating idea!
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
You might be interested in the Gelfond-Schneider Theorem and the p-adic numbers.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
Thinking of, at least the natural numbers, in terms of their representation as exponents of primes is certainly useful and common in mathematics. The first proof one might see in an undergraduate degree involving this is the proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational. It also gives you a way of injecting (coding) finite sequences in $mathbb{N}$ into $mathbb{N}$.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
This is a group isomorphic to $mathbb Q^infty$.
– YiFan
1 hour ago
@YiFan: Which group do you mean by "[t]his..group"?
– user 170039
1 hour ago
2
2
What a fascinating idea!
– DonielF
1 hour ago
What a fascinating idea!
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
1
You might be interested in the Gelfond-Schneider Theorem and the p-adic numbers.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
You might be interested in the Gelfond-Schneider Theorem and the p-adic numbers.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
Thinking of, at least the natural numbers, in terms of their representation as exponents of primes is certainly useful and common in mathematics. The first proof one might see in an undergraduate degree involving this is the proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational. It also gives you a way of injecting (coding) finite sequences in $mathbb{N}$ into $mathbb{N}$.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
Thinking of, at least the natural numbers, in terms of their representation as exponents of primes is certainly useful and common in mathematics. The first proof one might see in an undergraduate degree involving this is the proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational. It also gives you a way of injecting (coding) finite sequences in $mathbb{N}$ into $mathbb{N}$.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
This is a group isomorphic to $mathbb Q^infty$.
– YiFan
1 hour ago
This is a group isomorphic to $mathbb Q^infty$.
– YiFan
1 hour ago
@YiFan: Which group do you mean by "[t]his..group"?
– user 170039
1 hour ago
@YiFan: Which group do you mean by "[t]his..group"?
– user 170039
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
For the natural numbers, this is the same as representing each number by its prime factorization. A number $2^a3^b5^cldots$ is represented by the tuple $(a,b,c,ldots)$ This is often a useful way to represent numbers in number theory, but I don't think the geometric picture adds anything.
Once you allow fractional exponents it is less useful. If you require the exponents be rational you still have a unique representation. For example $sqrt 2=2^{1/2}$ can only be expressed that way. The set of numbers you can represent would be a field, but not one I am familiar with. It is larger than the rationals and countable, but smaller than the algebraic numbers.
If you allow real exponents you no longer have a unique point for each number. You could represent $sqrt 5$ as the point $frac 12$ on the $5$ axis, but you could also represent it as the point $frac 12 log_2(5)$ on the $2$ axis or many other ways.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047132%2fa-different-way-of-thinking-of-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
For the natural numbers, this is the same as representing each number by its prime factorization. A number $2^a3^b5^cldots$ is represented by the tuple $(a,b,c,ldots)$ This is often a useful way to represent numbers in number theory, but I don't think the geometric picture adds anything.
Once you allow fractional exponents it is less useful. If you require the exponents be rational you still have a unique representation. For example $sqrt 2=2^{1/2}$ can only be expressed that way. The set of numbers you can represent would be a field, but not one I am familiar with. It is larger than the rationals and countable, but smaller than the algebraic numbers.
If you allow real exponents you no longer have a unique point for each number. You could represent $sqrt 5$ as the point $frac 12$ on the $5$ axis, but you could also represent it as the point $frac 12 log_2(5)$ on the $2$ axis or many other ways.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
For the natural numbers, this is the same as representing each number by its prime factorization. A number $2^a3^b5^cldots$ is represented by the tuple $(a,b,c,ldots)$ This is often a useful way to represent numbers in number theory, but I don't think the geometric picture adds anything.
Once you allow fractional exponents it is less useful. If you require the exponents be rational you still have a unique representation. For example $sqrt 2=2^{1/2}$ can only be expressed that way. The set of numbers you can represent would be a field, but not one I am familiar with. It is larger than the rationals and countable, but smaller than the algebraic numbers.
If you allow real exponents you no longer have a unique point for each number. You could represent $sqrt 5$ as the point $frac 12$ on the $5$ axis, but you could also represent it as the point $frac 12 log_2(5)$ on the $2$ axis or many other ways.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
For the natural numbers, this is the same as representing each number by its prime factorization. A number $2^a3^b5^cldots$ is represented by the tuple $(a,b,c,ldots)$ This is often a useful way to represent numbers in number theory, but I don't think the geometric picture adds anything.
Once you allow fractional exponents it is less useful. If you require the exponents be rational you still have a unique representation. For example $sqrt 2=2^{1/2}$ can only be expressed that way. The set of numbers you can represent would be a field, but not one I am familiar with. It is larger than the rationals and countable, but smaller than the algebraic numbers.
If you allow real exponents you no longer have a unique point for each number. You could represent $sqrt 5$ as the point $frac 12$ on the $5$ axis, but you could also represent it as the point $frac 12 log_2(5)$ on the $2$ axis or many other ways.
For the natural numbers, this is the same as representing each number by its prime factorization. A number $2^a3^b5^cldots$ is represented by the tuple $(a,b,c,ldots)$ This is often a useful way to represent numbers in number theory, but I don't think the geometric picture adds anything.
Once you allow fractional exponents it is less useful. If you require the exponents be rational you still have a unique representation. For example $sqrt 2=2^{1/2}$ can only be expressed that way. The set of numbers you can represent would be a field, but not one I am familiar with. It is larger than the rationals and countable, but smaller than the algebraic numbers.
If you allow real exponents you no longer have a unique point for each number. You could represent $sqrt 5$ as the point $frac 12$ on the $5$ axis, but you could also represent it as the point $frac 12 log_2(5)$ on the $2$ axis or many other ways.
answered 1 hour ago
Ross Millikan
290k23196369
290k23196369
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047132%2fa-different-way-of-thinking-of-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
What a fascinating idea!
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
You might be interested in the Gelfond-Schneider Theorem and the p-adic numbers.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
Thinking of, at least the natural numbers, in terms of their representation as exponents of primes is certainly useful and common in mathematics. The first proof one might see in an undergraduate degree involving this is the proof that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational. It also gives you a way of injecting (coding) finite sequences in $mathbb{N}$ into $mathbb{N}$.
– Anguepa
1 hour ago
This is a group isomorphic to $mathbb Q^infty$.
– YiFan
1 hour ago
@YiFan: Which group do you mean by "[t]his..group"?
– user 170039
1 hour ago