Countability of Algebraic numbers proving the existence of some equality?












3














Let $mathbb{A}$ denote the algebraic numbers.



Consider the set of numbers defined as follows:



$$S={2^{k_0}3^{k_1}5^{k_2}ldots;|;k_0, k_1, k_2ldotsinmathbb{Q}}$$
where $2,3,5dots$ are the prime numbers, and the number of primes factors must be finite (there must be finite $k_i neq0$). We can show that $Ssubseteqmathbb{A}$ by finding a polynomial with an arbitrary element from $S$ as a root:



Suppose $a$ is an arbitrary element from $S$,



For all rational exponents $k_0,k_1,k_2ldotsneq0$, let $m$ be the Least Common Multiple of their denominators. We know that $a^m$ is an integer because $m$ turns each quotient in the exponents into a whole number. Thus, the polynomial $x^m-a^m=0$ has $a$ as a root.





Next we assume that every combination of $k_0, k_1, k_2ldots$ produces a unique number in $S$, meaning that no two product of primes with distinct rational exponents may evaluate to the same number. We will attempt to show that the cardinality of $S$ is uncountable by diagonalization:



(From an overwhelming oversight, this method does not work because the number of primes was declared finite above.)



Suppose we have listed all numbers from $S$:
$$2^{frac{1}{3}} 3^{frac{2}{7}} 5^{frac{4}{3}} 7^{frac{1}{2}}ldots$$
$$2^{frac{2}{5}} 3^{frac{6}{5}} 5^{frac{1}{9}} 7^{frac{2}{3}}ldots$$
$$2^{frac{8}{3}} 3^{frac{3}{2}} 5^{frac{8}{7}} 7^{frac{1}{5}}ldots$$
$$vdots$$



We can produce a number in $S$ that is not in this list by constructing a new product where all of the exponents are the exponents along the diagonal plus $1$, e.g. $2^{frac{4}{3}}3^{frac{11}{5}}5^{frac{15}{7}}dots$ which will differ from every element in our list. $S$ is thus uncountable given our assumption.



However, the algebraic numbers are countable! And since $Ssubseteqmathbb{A}$, $S$ is indeed countable as well, which means that our assumption was false. There must exist some two prime products with distinct rational exponents that evaluate to the same number.



i.e.: $2^{s_0} 3^{s_1} 5^{s_2} ldots = 2^{t_0} 3^{t_1} 5^{t_2} ldots$ where $s_i$ and $t_i$ are rational and not always the same.



Question: Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?



Answer: No.



If so, what is a potential method for discovering these equalities?










share|cite|improve this question





























    3














    Let $mathbb{A}$ denote the algebraic numbers.



    Consider the set of numbers defined as follows:



    $$S={2^{k_0}3^{k_1}5^{k_2}ldots;|;k_0, k_1, k_2ldotsinmathbb{Q}}$$
    where $2,3,5dots$ are the prime numbers, and the number of primes factors must be finite (there must be finite $k_i neq0$). We can show that $Ssubseteqmathbb{A}$ by finding a polynomial with an arbitrary element from $S$ as a root:



    Suppose $a$ is an arbitrary element from $S$,



    For all rational exponents $k_0,k_1,k_2ldotsneq0$, let $m$ be the Least Common Multiple of their denominators. We know that $a^m$ is an integer because $m$ turns each quotient in the exponents into a whole number. Thus, the polynomial $x^m-a^m=0$ has $a$ as a root.





    Next we assume that every combination of $k_0, k_1, k_2ldots$ produces a unique number in $S$, meaning that no two product of primes with distinct rational exponents may evaluate to the same number. We will attempt to show that the cardinality of $S$ is uncountable by diagonalization:



    (From an overwhelming oversight, this method does not work because the number of primes was declared finite above.)



    Suppose we have listed all numbers from $S$:
    $$2^{frac{1}{3}} 3^{frac{2}{7}} 5^{frac{4}{3}} 7^{frac{1}{2}}ldots$$
    $$2^{frac{2}{5}} 3^{frac{6}{5}} 5^{frac{1}{9}} 7^{frac{2}{3}}ldots$$
    $$2^{frac{8}{3}} 3^{frac{3}{2}} 5^{frac{8}{7}} 7^{frac{1}{5}}ldots$$
    $$vdots$$



    We can produce a number in $S$ that is not in this list by constructing a new product where all of the exponents are the exponents along the diagonal plus $1$, e.g. $2^{frac{4}{3}}3^{frac{11}{5}}5^{frac{15}{7}}dots$ which will differ from every element in our list. $S$ is thus uncountable given our assumption.



    However, the algebraic numbers are countable! And since $Ssubseteqmathbb{A}$, $S$ is indeed countable as well, which means that our assumption was false. There must exist some two prime products with distinct rational exponents that evaluate to the same number.



    i.e.: $2^{s_0} 3^{s_1} 5^{s_2} ldots = 2^{t_0} 3^{t_1} 5^{t_2} ldots$ where $s_i$ and $t_i$ are rational and not always the same.



    Question: Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?



    Answer: No.



    If so, what is a potential method for discovering these equalities?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      3












      3








      3


      1





      Let $mathbb{A}$ denote the algebraic numbers.



      Consider the set of numbers defined as follows:



      $$S={2^{k_0}3^{k_1}5^{k_2}ldots;|;k_0, k_1, k_2ldotsinmathbb{Q}}$$
      where $2,3,5dots$ are the prime numbers, and the number of primes factors must be finite (there must be finite $k_i neq0$). We can show that $Ssubseteqmathbb{A}$ by finding a polynomial with an arbitrary element from $S$ as a root:



      Suppose $a$ is an arbitrary element from $S$,



      For all rational exponents $k_0,k_1,k_2ldotsneq0$, let $m$ be the Least Common Multiple of their denominators. We know that $a^m$ is an integer because $m$ turns each quotient in the exponents into a whole number. Thus, the polynomial $x^m-a^m=0$ has $a$ as a root.





      Next we assume that every combination of $k_0, k_1, k_2ldots$ produces a unique number in $S$, meaning that no two product of primes with distinct rational exponents may evaluate to the same number. We will attempt to show that the cardinality of $S$ is uncountable by diagonalization:



      (From an overwhelming oversight, this method does not work because the number of primes was declared finite above.)



      Suppose we have listed all numbers from $S$:
      $$2^{frac{1}{3}} 3^{frac{2}{7}} 5^{frac{4}{3}} 7^{frac{1}{2}}ldots$$
      $$2^{frac{2}{5}} 3^{frac{6}{5}} 5^{frac{1}{9}} 7^{frac{2}{3}}ldots$$
      $$2^{frac{8}{3}} 3^{frac{3}{2}} 5^{frac{8}{7}} 7^{frac{1}{5}}ldots$$
      $$vdots$$



      We can produce a number in $S$ that is not in this list by constructing a new product where all of the exponents are the exponents along the diagonal plus $1$, e.g. $2^{frac{4}{3}}3^{frac{11}{5}}5^{frac{15}{7}}dots$ which will differ from every element in our list. $S$ is thus uncountable given our assumption.



      However, the algebraic numbers are countable! And since $Ssubseteqmathbb{A}$, $S$ is indeed countable as well, which means that our assumption was false. There must exist some two prime products with distinct rational exponents that evaluate to the same number.



      i.e.: $2^{s_0} 3^{s_1} 5^{s_2} ldots = 2^{t_0} 3^{t_1} 5^{t_2} ldots$ where $s_i$ and $t_i$ are rational and not always the same.



      Question: Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?



      Answer: No.



      If so, what is a potential method for discovering these equalities?










      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $mathbb{A}$ denote the algebraic numbers.



      Consider the set of numbers defined as follows:



      $$S={2^{k_0}3^{k_1}5^{k_2}ldots;|;k_0, k_1, k_2ldotsinmathbb{Q}}$$
      where $2,3,5dots$ are the prime numbers, and the number of primes factors must be finite (there must be finite $k_i neq0$). We can show that $Ssubseteqmathbb{A}$ by finding a polynomial with an arbitrary element from $S$ as a root:



      Suppose $a$ is an arbitrary element from $S$,



      For all rational exponents $k_0,k_1,k_2ldotsneq0$, let $m$ be the Least Common Multiple of their denominators. We know that $a^m$ is an integer because $m$ turns each quotient in the exponents into a whole number. Thus, the polynomial $x^m-a^m=0$ has $a$ as a root.





      Next we assume that every combination of $k_0, k_1, k_2ldots$ produces a unique number in $S$, meaning that no two product of primes with distinct rational exponents may evaluate to the same number. We will attempt to show that the cardinality of $S$ is uncountable by diagonalization:



      (From an overwhelming oversight, this method does not work because the number of primes was declared finite above.)



      Suppose we have listed all numbers from $S$:
      $$2^{frac{1}{3}} 3^{frac{2}{7}} 5^{frac{4}{3}} 7^{frac{1}{2}}ldots$$
      $$2^{frac{2}{5}} 3^{frac{6}{5}} 5^{frac{1}{9}} 7^{frac{2}{3}}ldots$$
      $$2^{frac{8}{3}} 3^{frac{3}{2}} 5^{frac{8}{7}} 7^{frac{1}{5}}ldots$$
      $$vdots$$



      We can produce a number in $S$ that is not in this list by constructing a new product where all of the exponents are the exponents along the diagonal plus $1$, e.g. $2^{frac{4}{3}}3^{frac{11}{5}}5^{frac{15}{7}}dots$ which will differ from every element in our list. $S$ is thus uncountable given our assumption.



      However, the algebraic numbers are countable! And since $Ssubseteqmathbb{A}$, $S$ is indeed countable as well, which means that our assumption was false. There must exist some two prime products with distinct rational exponents that evaluate to the same number.



      i.e.: $2^{s_0} 3^{s_1} 5^{s_2} ldots = 2^{t_0} 3^{t_1} 5^{t_2} ldots$ where $s_i$ and $t_i$ are rational and not always the same.



      Question: Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?



      Answer: No.



      If so, what is a potential method for discovering these equalities?







      algebraic-number-theory prime-factorization






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 21 '18 at 20:06

























      asked Dec 21 '18 at 19:46









      bitconfused

      23110




      23110






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7














          I'm unconvinced that your diagonalization procedure produces a number not in the list that is also in your set $S$, because you have not demonstrated to me that only finitely many powers will be non-zero.



          If you wish to hunt for collisions in $S$ there is also a more straight forward method you have already used; pick two representations in $S$, assume they are equal, and raise them both to an appropriate power (i.e. a number that will clear all denominators in every exponent). They will still be equal, and by unique factorization you will discover that they were in fact the same representation all along.






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 1




            Good eye, diagonalization was not the right choice there.
            – bitconfused
            Dec 21 '18 at 19:54






          • 1




            @bitconfused Observe the last sentence. The kind of equality you seem to be looking for CANNOT EXIST. If $$prod_{i=1}^np_i^{k_i}=prod_{j=1}^mq_j^{ell_j}$$ where all the $p_i$ and $q_j$ are primes, and the all the exponents $k_i,ell_j$ are rational, then, raising the equation to a power divisible by all the denominators of the exponents yields an equation with integer exponents. Uniqueness of factorization of integers (aka the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) then tells us that the products we started with where the same.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Dec 22 '18 at 10:17





















          5















          Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?




          Not at all. Only finitely many exponents can be nonzero.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048835%2fcountability-of-algebraic-numbers-proving-the-existence-of-some-equality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            7














            I'm unconvinced that your diagonalization procedure produces a number not in the list that is also in your set $S$, because you have not demonstrated to me that only finitely many powers will be non-zero.



            If you wish to hunt for collisions in $S$ there is also a more straight forward method you have already used; pick two representations in $S$, assume they are equal, and raise them both to an appropriate power (i.e. a number that will clear all denominators in every exponent). They will still be equal, and by unique factorization you will discover that they were in fact the same representation all along.






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Good eye, diagonalization was not the right choice there.
              – bitconfused
              Dec 21 '18 at 19:54






            • 1




              @bitconfused Observe the last sentence. The kind of equality you seem to be looking for CANNOT EXIST. If $$prod_{i=1}^np_i^{k_i}=prod_{j=1}^mq_j^{ell_j}$$ where all the $p_i$ and $q_j$ are primes, and the all the exponents $k_i,ell_j$ are rational, then, raising the equation to a power divisible by all the denominators of the exponents yields an equation with integer exponents. Uniqueness of factorization of integers (aka the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) then tells us that the products we started with where the same.
              – Jyrki Lahtonen
              Dec 22 '18 at 10:17


















            7














            I'm unconvinced that your diagonalization procedure produces a number not in the list that is also in your set $S$, because you have not demonstrated to me that only finitely many powers will be non-zero.



            If you wish to hunt for collisions in $S$ there is also a more straight forward method you have already used; pick two representations in $S$, assume they are equal, and raise them both to an appropriate power (i.e. a number that will clear all denominators in every exponent). They will still be equal, and by unique factorization you will discover that they were in fact the same representation all along.






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Good eye, diagonalization was not the right choice there.
              – bitconfused
              Dec 21 '18 at 19:54






            • 1




              @bitconfused Observe the last sentence. The kind of equality you seem to be looking for CANNOT EXIST. If $$prod_{i=1}^np_i^{k_i}=prod_{j=1}^mq_j^{ell_j}$$ where all the $p_i$ and $q_j$ are primes, and the all the exponents $k_i,ell_j$ are rational, then, raising the equation to a power divisible by all the denominators of the exponents yields an equation with integer exponents. Uniqueness of factorization of integers (aka the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) then tells us that the products we started with where the same.
              – Jyrki Lahtonen
              Dec 22 '18 at 10:17
















            7












            7








            7






            I'm unconvinced that your diagonalization procedure produces a number not in the list that is also in your set $S$, because you have not demonstrated to me that only finitely many powers will be non-zero.



            If you wish to hunt for collisions in $S$ there is also a more straight forward method you have already used; pick two representations in $S$, assume they are equal, and raise them both to an appropriate power (i.e. a number that will clear all denominators in every exponent). They will still be equal, and by unique factorization you will discover that they were in fact the same representation all along.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            I'm unconvinced that your diagonalization procedure produces a number not in the list that is also in your set $S$, because you have not demonstrated to me that only finitely many powers will be non-zero.



            If you wish to hunt for collisions in $S$ there is also a more straight forward method you have already used; pick two representations in $S$, assume they are equal, and raise them both to an appropriate power (i.e. a number that will clear all denominators in every exponent). They will still be equal, and by unique factorization you will discover that they were in fact the same representation all along.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 21 '18 at 19:55

























            answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:50









            DanielOfJack

            1763




            1763








            • 1




              Good eye, diagonalization was not the right choice there.
              – bitconfused
              Dec 21 '18 at 19:54






            • 1




              @bitconfused Observe the last sentence. The kind of equality you seem to be looking for CANNOT EXIST. If $$prod_{i=1}^np_i^{k_i}=prod_{j=1}^mq_j^{ell_j}$$ where all the $p_i$ and $q_j$ are primes, and the all the exponents $k_i,ell_j$ are rational, then, raising the equation to a power divisible by all the denominators of the exponents yields an equation with integer exponents. Uniqueness of factorization of integers (aka the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) then tells us that the products we started with where the same.
              – Jyrki Lahtonen
              Dec 22 '18 at 10:17
















            • 1




              Good eye, diagonalization was not the right choice there.
              – bitconfused
              Dec 21 '18 at 19:54






            • 1




              @bitconfused Observe the last sentence. The kind of equality you seem to be looking for CANNOT EXIST. If $$prod_{i=1}^np_i^{k_i}=prod_{j=1}^mq_j^{ell_j}$$ where all the $p_i$ and $q_j$ are primes, and the all the exponents $k_i,ell_j$ are rational, then, raising the equation to a power divisible by all the denominators of the exponents yields an equation with integer exponents. Uniqueness of factorization of integers (aka the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) then tells us that the products we started with where the same.
              – Jyrki Lahtonen
              Dec 22 '18 at 10:17










            1




            1




            Good eye, diagonalization was not the right choice there.
            – bitconfused
            Dec 21 '18 at 19:54




            Good eye, diagonalization was not the right choice there.
            – bitconfused
            Dec 21 '18 at 19:54




            1




            1




            @bitconfused Observe the last sentence. The kind of equality you seem to be looking for CANNOT EXIST. If $$prod_{i=1}^np_i^{k_i}=prod_{j=1}^mq_j^{ell_j}$$ where all the $p_i$ and $q_j$ are primes, and the all the exponents $k_i,ell_j$ are rational, then, raising the equation to a power divisible by all the denominators of the exponents yields an equation with integer exponents. Uniqueness of factorization of integers (aka the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) then tells us that the products we started with where the same.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Dec 22 '18 at 10:17






            @bitconfused Observe the last sentence. The kind of equality you seem to be looking for CANNOT EXIST. If $$prod_{i=1}^np_i^{k_i}=prod_{j=1}^mq_j^{ell_j}$$ where all the $p_i$ and $q_j$ are primes, and the all the exponents $k_i,ell_j$ are rational, then, raising the equation to a power divisible by all the denominators of the exponents yields an equation with integer exponents. Uniqueness of factorization of integers (aka the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) then tells us that the products we started with where the same.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Dec 22 '18 at 10:17













            5















            Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?




            Not at all. Only finitely many exponents can be nonzero.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              5















              Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?




              Not at all. Only finitely many exponents can be nonzero.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                5












                5








                5







                Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?




                Not at all. Only finitely many exponents can be nonzero.






                share|cite|improve this answer













                Does the countability of the Algebraic numbers prove the existence of an equality of two distinct prime products with rational exponents?




                Not at all. Only finitely many exponents can be nonzero.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 21 '18 at 19:49









                ajotatxe

                53.3k23890




                53.3k23890






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048835%2fcountability-of-algebraic-numbers-proving-the-existence-of-some-equality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Morgemoulin

                    Scott Moir

                    Souastre