Dreams of Fields

Math is hard...............Barbie
Doh!.............................Ken.

Math is one of many things that seems harder as I get older. I am studying a rather easy math book, but lately am having a bit of trouble solving the problems.

A field is a set of number like things that can be added, subtracted, multiplied and divided, with the result always being in the field [UPDATE: except division by zero is not allowed!]. The integers, for example, are not a field, since their ratios aren't always integers, but the rational numbers (positive and negative ratios of numbers, aka fractions) are. Additional infinite fields include the real and complex numbers. There are also finite fields, the simplest one consisting of just 0 and 1, with 1+1 defined to be = 0. (Arithmetic modulo two, or Z2). Doing our arithmetic mod 3, mod 5, or mod 7 also works, but not mod 4 (or 6, or 8, or 9...). The problem is that you can't have a field when you have zero divisors (e.g., 2 X 2 mod 4 = 0).

Galois, besides inventing group theory and getting himself killed in a duel at age 20, invented a way to build new fields out of old, a method named now after Kronecker - Mathematicians have a habit of naming things after people other than the discoverers. The implications of that Kronecker construction are what is giving me trouble.

It's a very important idea, the key, in some ways, to some of the most fundamental ideas of algebra. We recall from our high school algebra that we were always trying to find X, the unknown, about which we typically knew only that it satisfied some sort of polynomial equation such as: X^2 + 2 X + 1 = 0. What sorts of polynomial equations could be solved, and how, preoccupied algebraists until Galois (and others) sorted things out early in the nineteenth century. The mathematics they invented turned out to have implications far beyond the original problems.

And that's what I'm trying to understand a little bit of.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more