Let be a field and
be closed under addition and multiplication; under these operations, say
is a field. Is it then necessarily true that the other field concepts on
(identities and inverse) agree with those on
? What about for other algebras?
Author: Nihal Uppugunduri
Rings as Modules Over Themselves
In this note, we address some questions I had concerning rings when viewed as modules over themselves.
Constructing Compatible Operations 2
In this post, we continue the discussion from the previous in the series.
An Abstract Approach to Generating Sets 4
In this post, we continue our discussion from the previous in the series.
Constructing Compatible Operations
Recently in my ring theory class I heard about the theorem that if a ring satisfies for some constant
, then it must be commutative. Now, note that this statement is made entirely in terms of multiplication. Thus, going off of the theme discussed in my post The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Definitions in Mathematics, we can wonder: is this in fact true for all monoids? If not, then what “data” is needed in the monoid to ensure that we can construct a compatible addition operation turning it into a ring? For such a monoid, we would be able to conclude commutativity.
Recently, I have been thinking about the unreasonable effectiveness of definitions in mathematics. Without making any additional assumptions or knowing any additional information about a situation, by simply making judicious definitions and studying their theory, we can get a lot farther than we could without those definitions. (As you might have noticed, “unreasonable” here is a nod to Eugene Wigner’s classic piece.) Upon further thought, it seems somewhat baffling that this works so well, especially in certain cases.
One of the things I learned later on in my physics classes was that physical laws don’t necessarily guarantee uniqueness. Of course, when written out, this sounds obvious — why would we expect a particular set of laws to always guarantee only one satisfying physical state? — but intuitively I didn’t recognize this until later on.
Avoid Oversimplified and Faulty Logic
Many concepts in subjects like math and science can be very technical, requiring lots of background knowledge to understand. This limits the audience of people who can discuss and work with these concepts. But given how much these subjects can influence our society, for example with the modern tech industry and computer science, there is a real need for more people to understand these concepts. Simplified explanations can go a long way towards enabling this. However, it can be hard to write such explanations while also describing the concepts accurately and incorporating scientists’ and engineers’ input on how to present their own work.
The Physical Existence of Math
Can math be ascribed some sort of a physical existence? How could this work, from a philosophical perspective?
Separating Mathematical Logic and Set Theory
Many authors consider “mathematical logic and set theory” to be one subject, dealing with the study of concepts that are deemed fundamental to math. However, I disagree with this, for a number of reasons I will outline now.
