In modular arithmetic, could π be represented as an integer?
If I have a field of all real numbers on $[0,p) (mod p)$ under normal addition and multiplication where $p$ is a prime number, it can be shown that all integers have multiplicative inverses that are also integers. This means all rational numbers have integer equivalents E.g. $$ 3times2 ≡ 1mod5$$ Therefore $2$ is the multiplicative inverse of $3$ in $mod 5$. This means that $frac13 ≡ 2 mod 5$. I then tried to extend this logic to irrational numbers.
As an example, I took $pi$. We can represent $pi$ by the infinite series $$frac{3}{1}+frac{1}{10}+frac{4}{100}+frac{1}{1000}...$$ Clearly this representation would not work for $mod 5$ because one would be dividing by $0$. However, in $mod 3$ and in $mod 9$, this fraction can be reduced to $$frac{3}{1}+frac{1}{1}+frac{4}{1}+frac{1}{1}... = 3+1+4+1...$$ This is where I am stuck. Because we are summing an infinite list of integers, it would seem the sum should be an integer. However, as the series gets longer and longer it clearly just cycles through all of the integers and never approaches a definitive answer. So is $pi$ equivalent to all the integers at once, or do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic? Does my logic have any fatal flaws that may account for my results?
modular-arithmetic
add a comment |
If I have a field of all real numbers on $[0,p) (mod p)$ under normal addition and multiplication where $p$ is a prime number, it can be shown that all integers have multiplicative inverses that are also integers. This means all rational numbers have integer equivalents E.g. $$ 3times2 ≡ 1mod5$$ Therefore $2$ is the multiplicative inverse of $3$ in $mod 5$. This means that $frac13 ≡ 2 mod 5$. I then tried to extend this logic to irrational numbers.
As an example, I took $pi$. We can represent $pi$ by the infinite series $$frac{3}{1}+frac{1}{10}+frac{4}{100}+frac{1}{1000}...$$ Clearly this representation would not work for $mod 5$ because one would be dividing by $0$. However, in $mod 3$ and in $mod 9$, this fraction can be reduced to $$frac{3}{1}+frac{1}{1}+frac{4}{1}+frac{1}{1}... = 3+1+4+1...$$ This is where I am stuck. Because we are summing an infinite list of integers, it would seem the sum should be an integer. However, as the series gets longer and longer it clearly just cycles through all of the integers and never approaches a definitive answer. So is $pi$ equivalent to all the integers at once, or do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic? Does my logic have any fatal flaws that may account for my results?
modular-arithmetic
2
In order to talk about infinite sums you need a topology. What is your topology?
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:14
Notice that if $p=2$, then $sqrt{2}sqrt{2}=2=0$, so the ring you describe is not a field.
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:17
@AlexS O ok, thanks. I'm only in high school and I was just doing this in my spare time, so I'm afraid I don't know much about these things.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:19
Something to think about: you could write $pi$ in any base, not just in base $10$, and you would get a different infinite series.
– Julian Rosen
Sep 25 '15 at 18:20
add a comment |
If I have a field of all real numbers on $[0,p) (mod p)$ under normal addition and multiplication where $p$ is a prime number, it can be shown that all integers have multiplicative inverses that are also integers. This means all rational numbers have integer equivalents E.g. $$ 3times2 ≡ 1mod5$$ Therefore $2$ is the multiplicative inverse of $3$ in $mod 5$. This means that $frac13 ≡ 2 mod 5$. I then tried to extend this logic to irrational numbers.
As an example, I took $pi$. We can represent $pi$ by the infinite series $$frac{3}{1}+frac{1}{10}+frac{4}{100}+frac{1}{1000}...$$ Clearly this representation would not work for $mod 5$ because one would be dividing by $0$. However, in $mod 3$ and in $mod 9$, this fraction can be reduced to $$frac{3}{1}+frac{1}{1}+frac{4}{1}+frac{1}{1}... = 3+1+4+1...$$ This is where I am stuck. Because we are summing an infinite list of integers, it would seem the sum should be an integer. However, as the series gets longer and longer it clearly just cycles through all of the integers and never approaches a definitive answer. So is $pi$ equivalent to all the integers at once, or do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic? Does my logic have any fatal flaws that may account for my results?
modular-arithmetic
If I have a field of all real numbers on $[0,p) (mod p)$ under normal addition and multiplication where $p$ is a prime number, it can be shown that all integers have multiplicative inverses that are also integers. This means all rational numbers have integer equivalents E.g. $$ 3times2 ≡ 1mod5$$ Therefore $2$ is the multiplicative inverse of $3$ in $mod 5$. This means that $frac13 ≡ 2 mod 5$. I then tried to extend this logic to irrational numbers.
As an example, I took $pi$. We can represent $pi$ by the infinite series $$frac{3}{1}+frac{1}{10}+frac{4}{100}+frac{1}{1000}...$$ Clearly this representation would not work for $mod 5$ because one would be dividing by $0$. However, in $mod 3$ and in $mod 9$, this fraction can be reduced to $$frac{3}{1}+frac{1}{1}+frac{4}{1}+frac{1}{1}... = 3+1+4+1...$$ This is where I am stuck. Because we are summing an infinite list of integers, it would seem the sum should be an integer. However, as the series gets longer and longer it clearly just cycles through all of the integers and never approaches a definitive answer. So is $pi$ equivalent to all the integers at once, or do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic? Does my logic have any fatal flaws that may account for my results?
modular-arithmetic
modular-arithmetic
edited Jun 30 at 13:31
Kenta S
1,1601418
1,1601418
asked Sep 25 '15 at 18:09
Zach L
15210
15210
2
In order to talk about infinite sums you need a topology. What is your topology?
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:14
Notice that if $p=2$, then $sqrt{2}sqrt{2}=2=0$, so the ring you describe is not a field.
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:17
@AlexS O ok, thanks. I'm only in high school and I was just doing this in my spare time, so I'm afraid I don't know much about these things.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:19
Something to think about: you could write $pi$ in any base, not just in base $10$, and you would get a different infinite series.
– Julian Rosen
Sep 25 '15 at 18:20
add a comment |
2
In order to talk about infinite sums you need a topology. What is your topology?
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:14
Notice that if $p=2$, then $sqrt{2}sqrt{2}=2=0$, so the ring you describe is not a field.
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:17
@AlexS O ok, thanks. I'm only in high school and I was just doing this in my spare time, so I'm afraid I don't know much about these things.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:19
Something to think about: you could write $pi$ in any base, not just in base $10$, and you would get a different infinite series.
– Julian Rosen
Sep 25 '15 at 18:20
2
2
In order to talk about infinite sums you need a topology. What is your topology?
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:14
In order to talk about infinite sums you need a topology. What is your topology?
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:14
Notice that if $p=2$, then $sqrt{2}sqrt{2}=2=0$, so the ring you describe is not a field.
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:17
Notice that if $p=2$, then $sqrt{2}sqrt{2}=2=0$, so the ring you describe is not a field.
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:17
@AlexS O ok, thanks. I'm only in high school and I was just doing this in my spare time, so I'm afraid I don't know much about these things.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:19
@AlexS O ok, thanks. I'm only in high school and I was just doing this in my spare time, so I'm afraid I don't know much about these things.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:19
Something to think about: you could write $pi$ in any base, not just in base $10$, and you would get a different infinite series.
– Julian Rosen
Sep 25 '15 at 18:20
Something to think about: you could write $pi$ in any base, not just in base $10$, and you would get a different infinite series.
– Julian Rosen
Sep 25 '15 at 18:20
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Basically your question boils down to "what is an infinite sum in modular arithmetic?". This issue is one of convergence. Basically, in order to talk about infinite sums, you need some notion of what it means to converge. This is called a topology. Now if you are in high school, topology is a little advanced for you so don't worry about it.
The easiest way to discuss topology/convergence is in terms of metrics. A metric is a notion of distance. For example the standard metric on $Bbb{R}$ is $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. For example $d(0,4)=4$. So what metric do you want to use in $Bbb{Z}/5$ for example? If you use the same one, then convergence is pretty boring, as only (eventually) constant things converge! There is no way to get "close" to a number! The closest numbers can be is $1$, or $0$ if they are the same. In order to talk about convergence in modular arithmetic, you need to cook up a non trivial topology/metric. This is not so easy.
What $pi^{-1}$ is, or if it even exists, depends on your topology. As far as I know there is no natural/canonical topology in modular arithmetic. If there is, it is much too advanced.
This is an interesting question by the way. If you are thinking about this stuff in high school I am impressed and I hope you continue your studies in math and I'm sure you'll do well.
Thank you! This answer was extremely helpful! However, it still doesn't address the place of irrational numbers in modular arithmetic.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:42
@ZachL It does, just in a roundabout way. :) Basically it's not very well defined the way you're attempting to.
– user223391
Sep 25 '15 at 18:50
Sorry, I think I just got carried away with the whole "using comments to ask for more information and not just saying thanks" thing. I reread your answer and it explains very concisely the place of irrationals in modular arithmetic. :)
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:58
add a comment |
This is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, decimal expansions don't behave very well when we consider them modulo $p$.
As an example, let's take $p=3$ and consider the rational number $frac{1}{11}$:
$$
frac{1}{11}=0.090909ldots=frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots
$$
Modulo $3$ we have $1/11equiv 1/2 equiv 2$, but if we consider the decimal expansion modulo $3$, we get
$$
frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots equiv frac{9}{1}+frac{9}{1}+ldotsequiv 0+0+ldotsequiv 0mod 3.
$$
This shows that even if the decimal expansion mod $p$ has a well-defined sum, the sum might be the wrong value. So if there is a reasonable value of $pi$ mod $p$, we shouldn't necessarily expect to find it expressing $pi$ as a decimal and summing the terms modulo $p$.
By the way, I think "What is/ought to be the value of $pi$ modulo $p$" is a very interesting question.
add a comment |
In response to the question "do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic?"
Just like the rational numbers have a algebraic closure, namely the algebraic numbers, finite fields have algebraic closures as well. If we consider, say, $overline{mathbb{F}_7}$, i.e. the algebraic closure of the integers (mod 7), this contains two square roots of five, just like the algebraic numbers contain two square roots of five (namely, $+sqrt{5}$ and $-sqrt{5}$). These square roots of five are irrational -- they aren't quotients of integers (mod 7) -- but they're not in any meaningful sense the same square roots of five as the real square roots of five.
You'll have to take this kind of phenomenon into account here.
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%2f1451314%2fin-modular-arithmetic-could-%25cf%2580-be-represented-as-an-integer%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Basically your question boils down to "what is an infinite sum in modular arithmetic?". This issue is one of convergence. Basically, in order to talk about infinite sums, you need some notion of what it means to converge. This is called a topology. Now if you are in high school, topology is a little advanced for you so don't worry about it.
The easiest way to discuss topology/convergence is in terms of metrics. A metric is a notion of distance. For example the standard metric on $Bbb{R}$ is $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. For example $d(0,4)=4$. So what metric do you want to use in $Bbb{Z}/5$ for example? If you use the same one, then convergence is pretty boring, as only (eventually) constant things converge! There is no way to get "close" to a number! The closest numbers can be is $1$, or $0$ if they are the same. In order to talk about convergence in modular arithmetic, you need to cook up a non trivial topology/metric. This is not so easy.
What $pi^{-1}$ is, or if it even exists, depends on your topology. As far as I know there is no natural/canonical topology in modular arithmetic. If there is, it is much too advanced.
This is an interesting question by the way. If you are thinking about this stuff in high school I am impressed and I hope you continue your studies in math and I'm sure you'll do well.
Thank you! This answer was extremely helpful! However, it still doesn't address the place of irrational numbers in modular arithmetic.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:42
@ZachL It does, just in a roundabout way. :) Basically it's not very well defined the way you're attempting to.
– user223391
Sep 25 '15 at 18:50
Sorry, I think I just got carried away with the whole "using comments to ask for more information and not just saying thanks" thing. I reread your answer and it explains very concisely the place of irrationals in modular arithmetic. :)
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:58
add a comment |
Basically your question boils down to "what is an infinite sum in modular arithmetic?". This issue is one of convergence. Basically, in order to talk about infinite sums, you need some notion of what it means to converge. This is called a topology. Now if you are in high school, topology is a little advanced for you so don't worry about it.
The easiest way to discuss topology/convergence is in terms of metrics. A metric is a notion of distance. For example the standard metric on $Bbb{R}$ is $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. For example $d(0,4)=4$. So what metric do you want to use in $Bbb{Z}/5$ for example? If you use the same one, then convergence is pretty boring, as only (eventually) constant things converge! There is no way to get "close" to a number! The closest numbers can be is $1$, or $0$ if they are the same. In order to talk about convergence in modular arithmetic, you need to cook up a non trivial topology/metric. This is not so easy.
What $pi^{-1}$ is, or if it even exists, depends on your topology. As far as I know there is no natural/canonical topology in modular arithmetic. If there is, it is much too advanced.
This is an interesting question by the way. If you are thinking about this stuff in high school I am impressed and I hope you continue your studies in math and I'm sure you'll do well.
Thank you! This answer was extremely helpful! However, it still doesn't address the place of irrational numbers in modular arithmetic.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:42
@ZachL It does, just in a roundabout way. :) Basically it's not very well defined the way you're attempting to.
– user223391
Sep 25 '15 at 18:50
Sorry, I think I just got carried away with the whole "using comments to ask for more information and not just saying thanks" thing. I reread your answer and it explains very concisely the place of irrationals in modular arithmetic. :)
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:58
add a comment |
Basically your question boils down to "what is an infinite sum in modular arithmetic?". This issue is one of convergence. Basically, in order to talk about infinite sums, you need some notion of what it means to converge. This is called a topology. Now if you are in high school, topology is a little advanced for you so don't worry about it.
The easiest way to discuss topology/convergence is in terms of metrics. A metric is a notion of distance. For example the standard metric on $Bbb{R}$ is $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. For example $d(0,4)=4$. So what metric do you want to use in $Bbb{Z}/5$ for example? If you use the same one, then convergence is pretty boring, as only (eventually) constant things converge! There is no way to get "close" to a number! The closest numbers can be is $1$, or $0$ if they are the same. In order to talk about convergence in modular arithmetic, you need to cook up a non trivial topology/metric. This is not so easy.
What $pi^{-1}$ is, or if it even exists, depends on your topology. As far as I know there is no natural/canonical topology in modular arithmetic. If there is, it is much too advanced.
This is an interesting question by the way. If you are thinking about this stuff in high school I am impressed and I hope you continue your studies in math and I'm sure you'll do well.
Basically your question boils down to "what is an infinite sum in modular arithmetic?". This issue is one of convergence. Basically, in order to talk about infinite sums, you need some notion of what it means to converge. This is called a topology. Now if you are in high school, topology is a little advanced for you so don't worry about it.
The easiest way to discuss topology/convergence is in terms of metrics. A metric is a notion of distance. For example the standard metric on $Bbb{R}$ is $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. For example $d(0,4)=4$. So what metric do you want to use in $Bbb{Z}/5$ for example? If you use the same one, then convergence is pretty boring, as only (eventually) constant things converge! There is no way to get "close" to a number! The closest numbers can be is $1$, or $0$ if they are the same. In order to talk about convergence in modular arithmetic, you need to cook up a non trivial topology/metric. This is not so easy.
What $pi^{-1}$ is, or if it even exists, depends on your topology. As far as I know there is no natural/canonical topology in modular arithmetic. If there is, it is much too advanced.
This is an interesting question by the way. If you are thinking about this stuff in high school I am impressed and I hope you continue your studies in math and I'm sure you'll do well.
answered Sep 25 '15 at 18:30
user223391
Thank you! This answer was extremely helpful! However, it still doesn't address the place of irrational numbers in modular arithmetic.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:42
@ZachL It does, just in a roundabout way. :) Basically it's not very well defined the way you're attempting to.
– user223391
Sep 25 '15 at 18:50
Sorry, I think I just got carried away with the whole "using comments to ask for more information and not just saying thanks" thing. I reread your answer and it explains very concisely the place of irrationals in modular arithmetic. :)
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:58
add a comment |
Thank you! This answer was extremely helpful! However, it still doesn't address the place of irrational numbers in modular arithmetic.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:42
@ZachL It does, just in a roundabout way. :) Basically it's not very well defined the way you're attempting to.
– user223391
Sep 25 '15 at 18:50
Sorry, I think I just got carried away with the whole "using comments to ask for more information and not just saying thanks" thing. I reread your answer and it explains very concisely the place of irrationals in modular arithmetic. :)
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:58
Thank you! This answer was extremely helpful! However, it still doesn't address the place of irrational numbers in modular arithmetic.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:42
Thank you! This answer was extremely helpful! However, it still doesn't address the place of irrational numbers in modular arithmetic.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:42
@ZachL It does, just in a roundabout way. :) Basically it's not very well defined the way you're attempting to.
– user223391
Sep 25 '15 at 18:50
@ZachL It does, just in a roundabout way. :) Basically it's not very well defined the way you're attempting to.
– user223391
Sep 25 '15 at 18:50
Sorry, I think I just got carried away with the whole "using comments to ask for more information and not just saying thanks" thing. I reread your answer and it explains very concisely the place of irrationals in modular arithmetic. :)
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:58
Sorry, I think I just got carried away with the whole "using comments to ask for more information and not just saying thanks" thing. I reread your answer and it explains very concisely the place of irrationals in modular arithmetic. :)
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:58
add a comment |
This is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, decimal expansions don't behave very well when we consider them modulo $p$.
As an example, let's take $p=3$ and consider the rational number $frac{1}{11}$:
$$
frac{1}{11}=0.090909ldots=frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots
$$
Modulo $3$ we have $1/11equiv 1/2 equiv 2$, but if we consider the decimal expansion modulo $3$, we get
$$
frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots equiv frac{9}{1}+frac{9}{1}+ldotsequiv 0+0+ldotsequiv 0mod 3.
$$
This shows that even if the decimal expansion mod $p$ has a well-defined sum, the sum might be the wrong value. So if there is a reasonable value of $pi$ mod $p$, we shouldn't necessarily expect to find it expressing $pi$ as a decimal and summing the terms modulo $p$.
By the way, I think "What is/ought to be the value of $pi$ modulo $p$" is a very interesting question.
add a comment |
This is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, decimal expansions don't behave very well when we consider them modulo $p$.
As an example, let's take $p=3$ and consider the rational number $frac{1}{11}$:
$$
frac{1}{11}=0.090909ldots=frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots
$$
Modulo $3$ we have $1/11equiv 1/2 equiv 2$, but if we consider the decimal expansion modulo $3$, we get
$$
frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots equiv frac{9}{1}+frac{9}{1}+ldotsequiv 0+0+ldotsequiv 0mod 3.
$$
This shows that even if the decimal expansion mod $p$ has a well-defined sum, the sum might be the wrong value. So if there is a reasonable value of $pi$ mod $p$, we shouldn't necessarily expect to find it expressing $pi$ as a decimal and summing the terms modulo $p$.
By the way, I think "What is/ought to be the value of $pi$ modulo $p$" is a very interesting question.
add a comment |
This is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, decimal expansions don't behave very well when we consider them modulo $p$.
As an example, let's take $p=3$ and consider the rational number $frac{1}{11}$:
$$
frac{1}{11}=0.090909ldots=frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots
$$
Modulo $3$ we have $1/11equiv 1/2 equiv 2$, but if we consider the decimal expansion modulo $3$, we get
$$
frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots equiv frac{9}{1}+frac{9}{1}+ldotsequiv 0+0+ldotsequiv 0mod 3.
$$
This shows that even if the decimal expansion mod $p$ has a well-defined sum, the sum might be the wrong value. So if there is a reasonable value of $pi$ mod $p$, we shouldn't necessarily expect to find it expressing $pi$ as a decimal and summing the terms modulo $p$.
By the way, I think "What is/ought to be the value of $pi$ modulo $p$" is a very interesting question.
This is an interesting idea. Unfortunately, decimal expansions don't behave very well when we consider them modulo $p$.
As an example, let's take $p=3$ and consider the rational number $frac{1}{11}$:
$$
frac{1}{11}=0.090909ldots=frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots
$$
Modulo $3$ we have $1/11equiv 1/2 equiv 2$, but if we consider the decimal expansion modulo $3$, we get
$$
frac{9}{100}+frac{9}{10000}+ldots equiv frac{9}{1}+frac{9}{1}+ldotsequiv 0+0+ldotsequiv 0mod 3.
$$
This shows that even if the decimal expansion mod $p$ has a well-defined sum, the sum might be the wrong value. So if there is a reasonable value of $pi$ mod $p$, we shouldn't necessarily expect to find it expressing $pi$ as a decimal and summing the terms modulo $p$.
By the way, I think "What is/ought to be the value of $pi$ modulo $p$" is a very interesting question.
answered Sep 25 '15 at 18:43
Julian Rosen
11.7k12247
11.7k12247
add a comment |
add a comment |
In response to the question "do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic?"
Just like the rational numbers have a algebraic closure, namely the algebraic numbers, finite fields have algebraic closures as well. If we consider, say, $overline{mathbb{F}_7}$, i.e. the algebraic closure of the integers (mod 7), this contains two square roots of five, just like the algebraic numbers contain two square roots of five (namely, $+sqrt{5}$ and $-sqrt{5}$). These square roots of five are irrational -- they aren't quotients of integers (mod 7) -- but they're not in any meaningful sense the same square roots of five as the real square roots of five.
You'll have to take this kind of phenomenon into account here.
add a comment |
In response to the question "do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic?"
Just like the rational numbers have a algebraic closure, namely the algebraic numbers, finite fields have algebraic closures as well. If we consider, say, $overline{mathbb{F}_7}$, i.e. the algebraic closure of the integers (mod 7), this contains two square roots of five, just like the algebraic numbers contain two square roots of five (namely, $+sqrt{5}$ and $-sqrt{5}$). These square roots of five are irrational -- they aren't quotients of integers (mod 7) -- but they're not in any meaningful sense the same square roots of five as the real square roots of five.
You'll have to take this kind of phenomenon into account here.
add a comment |
In response to the question "do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic?"
Just like the rational numbers have a algebraic closure, namely the algebraic numbers, finite fields have algebraic closures as well. If we consider, say, $overline{mathbb{F}_7}$, i.e. the algebraic closure of the integers (mod 7), this contains two square roots of five, just like the algebraic numbers contain two square roots of five (namely, $+sqrt{5}$ and $-sqrt{5}$). These square roots of five are irrational -- they aren't quotients of integers (mod 7) -- but they're not in any meaningful sense the same square roots of five as the real square roots of five.
You'll have to take this kind of phenomenon into account here.
In response to the question "do irrational numbers not have integral equivalents in modular arithmetic?"
Just like the rational numbers have a algebraic closure, namely the algebraic numbers, finite fields have algebraic closures as well. If we consider, say, $overline{mathbb{F}_7}$, i.e. the algebraic closure of the integers (mod 7), this contains two square roots of five, just like the algebraic numbers contain two square roots of five (namely, $+sqrt{5}$ and $-sqrt{5}$). These square roots of five are irrational -- they aren't quotients of integers (mod 7) -- but they're not in any meaningful sense the same square roots of five as the real square roots of five.
You'll have to take this kind of phenomenon into account here.
answered Dec 26 at 2:51
Daniel McLaury
15.5k32977
15.5k32977
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%2f1451314%2fin-modular-arithmetic-could-%25cf%2580-be-represented-as-an-integer%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
In order to talk about infinite sums you need a topology. What is your topology?
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:14
Notice that if $p=2$, then $sqrt{2}sqrt{2}=2=0$, so the ring you describe is not a field.
– Alex S
Sep 25 '15 at 18:17
@AlexS O ok, thanks. I'm only in high school and I was just doing this in my spare time, so I'm afraid I don't know much about these things.
– Zach L
Sep 25 '15 at 18:19
Something to think about: you could write $pi$ in any base, not just in base $10$, and you would get a different infinite series.
– Julian Rosen
Sep 25 '15 at 18:20