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?










share|cite|improve this 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















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?










share|cite|improve this 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













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?










share|cite|improve this 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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this 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














  • 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










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.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        Ross Millikan

        290k23196369




        290k23196369






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            How did Captain America manage to do this?

            迪纳利

            南乌拉尔铁路局