Recall that we defined Nim addition and Nim multiplication on the natural numbers by setting:

is the result of writing in binary and adding without carrying.

is the unique binary operation on that is commutative, associative, distributive over and satisfies:

and

whenever . Here, for all , call these numbers “Fermat’s 2-powers”.

The first problem is that it is not quite clear that is even well-defined (i.e., are there any functions at all that behave as required of ? Is there really only one such function?). Begin by checking this, by showing that the rules above give us that is the result of writing as sums of (multiplications by powers of 2) of Fermat 2-powers, and expanding using associativity, distributivity, and the two rules about how to multiply with Fermat 2-powers. (Verify that any can indeed be written as such a sum in a unique way, and that this indeed shows that is completely characterized by our description.)

Show that if we set , then and each are fields (over , with addition and multiplication given by .

In lecture I erroneously mentioned that is algebraically closed. This is not the case. For example, show that the equation has no solutions in when we interpret “ is a solution” to mean that .

Nim addition and multiplication were introduced by John Conway. A bit of online searching will give you references for this exercise, but please abstain from looking for them. I will provide references and some additional details once the homework has been turned in.

This set is due February 11 at the beginning of lecture.

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 27th, 2011 at 4:13 pm and is filed under 403/503: Linear Algebra II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I am not sure which statement you heard as the "Ultimate $L$ axiom," but I will assume it is the following version: There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals, and for all sentences $\varphi$ that hold in $V$, there is a universally Baire set $A\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ such that, letting $\theta=\Theta^{L(A,{\mathbb R})}$, we have that $HOD^{L(A,{\ma […]

A Wadge initial segment (of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$) is a subset $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ such that whenever $A\in\Gamma$ and $B\le_W A$, where $\le_W$ denotes Wadge reducibility, then $B\in\Gamma$. Note that if $\Gamma\subseteq\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ and $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models \Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$, then $\Gamma$ is a Wadge initial se […]

Craig: For a while, there was some research on improving bounds on the number of variables or degree of unsolvable Diophantine equations. Unfortunately, I never got around to cataloging the known results in any systematic way, so all I can offer is some pointers to relevant references, but I am not sure of what the current records are. Perhaps the first pape […]

Yes. Consider, for instance, Conway's base 13 function $c$, or any function that is everywhere discontinuous and has range $\mathbb R$ in every interval. Pick continuous bijections $f_n:\mathbb R\to(-1/n,1/n)$ for $n\in\mathbb N^+$. Pick a strictly decreasing sequence $(x_n)_{n\ge1}$ converging to $0$. Define $f$ by setting $f(x)=0$ if $x=0$ or $\pm x_n […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

The study of finite choice axioms is quite interesting. Besides the reference given in Asaf's answer, there are a few papers covering this topic in detail. If you can track it down, I suggest you read MR0360275 (50 #12725) Reviewed. Conway, J. H. Effective implications between the "finite'' choice axioms. In Cambridge Summer School in Mat […]

I feel this question may be a duplicate, because I am pretty certain I first saw the paper I mention below in an answer here. You may be interested in reading the following: MR2141502 (2006c:68092) Reviewed. Calude, Cristian S.(NZ-AUCK-C); Jürgensen, Helmut(3-WON-C). Is complexity a source of incompleteness? (English summary), Adv. in Appl. Math. 35 (2005), […]

The smallest such ordinal is $0$ because you defined your rank (height) inappropriately (only successor ordinals are possible). You want to define the rank of a node without successors as $0$, and of a node $a$ with successors as the supremum of the set $\{\alpha+1\mid\alpha$ is the rank of an immediate successor of $a\}$. With this modification, the smalles […]

The perfect reference for this is MR2562557 (2010j:03061) Reviewed. Steel, J. R.(1-CA). The derived model theorem. In Logic Colloquium 2006. Proceedings of Annual European Conference on Logic of the Association for Symbolic Logic held at the Radboud University, Nijmegen, July 27–August 2, 2006, S. B. Cooper, H. Geuvers, A. Pillay and J. Väänänen, eds., Lectu […]