Arcadian Functor

occasional meanderings in physics' brave new world

My Photo
Name:
Location: New Zealand

Marni D. Sheppeard

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Blogrolling On IV

Now the function J(1,y) really likes to be a complex number. Since it is always of norm 1 when the discriminant is non-positive, it is only real when J=±1. Note that J(1,y) may be generalised yet again using the rule

xnJ2+xyJ+n=J

which is also designed to give a norm 1 complex number at x=1. In this case, the condition for J(1,y)=±1 is

y=1±Q

for n2=Q2-N2 where Q and N are whole numbers. When n=1 this reduces to the previous case of N=0, but a general Pythagorean triple gives a solution for y. Note that each such choice of y leads to a new Abel series with coefficients somehow depending on n and all of these series sum to ±1 although the substitution rule is different for each choice of n. Other choices for y give roots of unity. For example, when y=6 and n=3 we find that J=16[-5±11i].

Update: Here is the original post on the Everything Seminar, with nice examples of series summing to -1.

3 Comments:

Blogger Matti Pitkänen said...

Dea Kea,

I noticed that in Sums of divergent series posting the first sum was nothing but a 2-adic representation of -1 as 1+2+2^2+2^3+.... More general representation is (p-1)(1+p+p^2+...). Apparently they had not noticed the connection!

August 09, 2007 5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look again! This was the first way I tried to get people to devalue the notion of metric convergence, by pointing out that the real absolute value doesn't see intersting details that the p-adic metrics do. In any case, there are plenty of series which are divergent in every completion of the rationals but still have reasonable sums, so it seems like the p-adics are only small portion of the big picture here.

That said, I like your idea of using the geometric series in categories with products and sums to get negative objects, with

-X = (X - 1)(1 + X + X^2 + ...)

but it only seems to work if we can solve the equation Y + 1 = X for Y. Even then, it looks a little rocky: with FinSet and X = 1 = {0} you get

-1 = (1 - 1) (1 + 1 + 1 + ...) = 0

which feels like a reflection of the pole at 1. It would be nice to patch this, but I think the tricks involved will be fundamentally algebraic, not metric or analytic. Just guessing, though: I haven't had any luck defining negative sets yet...

August 10, 2007 2:40 AM  
Blogger Kea said...

Thanks! My guess would be that negative objects are a fundamentally metrical concept (we are trying to do gravity here, after all). But I might be dreaming. Maybe -1 = 0 in FinSet because finite sets just don't see negatives: that is, the negative objects are all forced to be empty sets.

August 10, 2007 8:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home