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.

(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 description below comes from József Beck. Combinatorial games. Tic-tac-toe theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, MR2402857 (2009g:91038). Given a finite set $S$ of points in the plane $\mathbb R^2$, consider the following game between two players Maker and Breaker. The players alternat […]

Yes. This is a consequence of the Davis-Matiyasevich-Putnam-Robinson work on Hilbert's 10th problem, and some standard number theory. A number of papers have details of the $\Pi^0_1$ sentence. To begin with, take a look at the relevant paper in Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert's problems (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Northern Illinois Un […]

I am looking for references discussing two inequalities that come up in the study of the dynamics of Newton's method on real-valued polynomials (in one variable). The inequalities are fairly different, but it seems to make sense to ask about both of them in the same post. Most of the details below are fairly elementary, they are mostly included for comp […]

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

First of all, $f(z)+e^z\ne 0$ by the first inequality. It follows that $e^z/(f(z)+e^z)$ is entire, and bounded above. You should be able to conclude from that.

Yes. The standard way of defining these sequences goes by assigning in an explicit fashion to each limit ordinal $\alpha$, for as long as possible, an increasing sequence $\alpha_n$ that converges to $\alpha$. Once this is done, we can define $f_\alpha$ by diagonalizing, so $f_\alpha(n)=f_{\alpha_n}(n)$ for all $n$. Of course there are many possible choices […]

I disagree with the advice of sending a paper to a journal before searching the relevant literature. It is almost guaranteed that a paper on the fundamental theorem of algebra (a very classical and well-studied topic) will be rejected if you do not include mention on previous proofs, and comparisons, explaining how your proof differs from them, etc. It is no […]

No, the rank of a set $x$ is the least $\alpha$ such that $x\in V_{\alpha+1}$. Note that if $\alpha$ is limit, any $x\in V_\alpha$ belongs to some $V_\beta$ with $\beta