Fed up of seeing the same numbers over and over again? Need a little change? Well look no further than here for a quick survey of alternative number systems and their applications.

I guess most people are pretty familiar with the natural numbers {0,1,2,3,...}, otherwise known collectively as

**N**, the integers {...,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} called

**Z**(from Ger.

*Zahl*), the rationals (the fractions like 1/3 and -27/11) called

**Q**(from Ger.

*Quotient*) and the reals (because numbers like e and pi can't be written as fractions) called simply

**R**. Of course quite a few of you will be pretty

*au fait*with the complex numbers,

**C**, too.

Start with the real numbers and throw in the number

*i*with the property

*i*

^{2}=-1. Some of you might debate all night over whether they exist but the rest of us will just get on and use them in applications such as electronic engineering, digital signal processing and computer graphics.

**Q**,

**R**and

**C**are all

*fields*- basically this means you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them in the familiar way and in other ways are very familiar too. And if you haven't seen it before, this formula due to Euler ought to blow your mind:

e^{it}=cos(t)+isin(t).

Talking of graphics, quaternions are pretty popular too. You've seen how to make the complex numbers by adding in a new number *i* so why not try our luck again and throw in *j* whose square is -1. The catch now is: what is *ij*? Well let's call it *k*.

In fact if we add the rules *ij*=*ji*=*k*, *jk*=-*kj*=*i*, *j*^{2}=*k*^{2}=-1, and a few more, I'm sure you're getting the idea by now, we end up with **H**, the quaternions (damn! notice **Q**'s already taken!).

Anyway, any quaternion can be represented by 4 real numbers. For example 1+2*i*-4*j*+11*k* is represented by (1,2,-4,11). That means we can embed good old 4 dimensional spacetime in there.

In fact that's what **H**amilton originally used them for.

Well, Einstein hadn't come along yet so actually he was only using the last three components to represent points in space but you can use the first for time too. Turns out the quaternions do a really sweet job of doing geometry which is why graphics people like to use them. If you thought Euler's formula was cool that's nothing compared to what you can do with these babies. In fact their main application is in eliminating all those complicated trig formulas you get when you try to carry out rotations in 3D.

Notice that we lost something by using these numbers. Two times three is three times two but *i* times *j* isn't *j* times *i*. We've sacrificed what's known in the game as *commutativity*.

Well there's a bit of a pattern going on. Start with **R**, move on to **C** and then **Q**. The quaternions were 4-dimensional. What about 3-dimensional? Or 5-dimensional? Well you can try making these things (exercise!) but you find they're not all that interesting. They just aren't well behaved.

That is until you come to 8 dimensions. Then you find you can make the octonions, otherwise known as the Cayley numbers and labelled **O**. Still, you have to make more sacrifices. When you multiply *a* by *b* and *c* it matters whether you do *ab* or *bc* first.

No longer are we guaranteed things like (2.3).5=2.(3.5). We have lost *associativity*. Still, there's fun to be had with octonions. You can discover the delights of spinors and triality, find that there is a well defined cross product in 7 dimensions and if you've enough stamina you'll see they have neat connections with string theory.

How long can we keep this up for? Well if you really insist you can make the 16-dimensional sedenions but they're so unruly that I just wouldn't bother if I were you!

But you might have noticed. All of these things were built from the real numbers. The whole point here is to get away from them. What other alternatives do we have? Well you could play with the integers modulo *N*. Just do normal math but every time you get an answer bigger than or equal to *N* divide by *N* and keep only the remainder. For example modulo 9, 8+7=6 and 3*3=...hmmm...0. That zero isn't too good, we don't want to end up with zero when we multiply perfectly respectable numbers. That's easy to fix: choose *N* to be prime. (Think about it!). Now we can even divide these numbers. In fact **Z**/*N***Z** (that's their other name BTW) forms a field, just like **R** and **C**. That means you can add, subtract, multiply and divide by anything non-zero. Still, numbers that only go up to *N-1*. Sounds a bit useless. *Au contraire!* They're the at the heart of algorithms like RSA encryption.

But we're still not being alternative enough.

After all, numbers modulo *N* are still, well, numbers. Can we get a bit more radical?

Try this for size: you're used to decimal expansions that go on forever like 1/7=0.14285714285...

Maybe we can make digits go infinitely far to the left of the decimal point instead.

Consider a number like ...99999999. Looks pretty big. But try adding 1. Well 9+1=0, carry 1. Write down the zero. Now 9+1=0, carry 1. Hmmm...looks like the answer is going to be ...000000 with that 1 getting carried out to infinity and its final cashing out getting postponed forever. So what we have is ...9999999=-1. That might look familiar to some of you. I'll give you a clue: this is called tens complement arithmetic. Or at least I've just called it that. So it seems that arithmetic with infinite sequences of digits might just work out. The catch is that you can't always divide these things. However, if we work not with base 10, but base *p* digits it turns out that we can always divide by any non-zero number. These numbers are called the *p*-adics, or **Z**_{p}. For each prime *p* the *p*-adics form a field. They're very useful for doing number theory and of course that means they're good for cryptography. BTW, going back to the 10-adics again, try calculating directly that ...999999^{2}=1.

But what about infinity? Can't we make that a number? Turns out that there are lots of ways to introduce infinity to a number system. Let's start with the cardinals - numbers used to count how many elements there are in a set. For example {red,green,blue} has 3 elements meaning that the set of primary colors has three elements.

Here 3 is being used as a cardinal. But what about this perfectly respectable set {0,1,2,3,...}=**N**, what is the size of that? Well that's the first transfinite cardinal and it goes by the name of aleph_{0}. (I apologize, I don't know how to do hebrew HTML.) The next biggest cardinal is called aleph_{1} and you can guess the rest of the pattern. But here's an interesting conundrum: how big is the set of real numbers **R**?

Well it's called *c* and it's bigger than aleph_{0}. But is it bigger than aleph_{1}? Turns out it's your choice!

Whichever way you go the rest of mathematics is happy to accommodate you.

There's more than one way to make an infinity. You can play with the transfinite ordinals too. Go back to the beginning when nobody had invented any mathematics. We had nothing, in other words the empty set {}, which we'll call 0. On the next day we can try making another set - after all we now have something to put in a set, the empty set itself. So define 1={0}. Now we can define 2={0,1} and I'm sure you see the pattern *n*={0,...,*n*-1}. These are the ordinals. But why stop there, how about {0,1,2,...}?

Well that's the first transfinite ordinal and we call it *w* (that's meant to be omega, I don't do Greek HTML either). Now we can make {0,1,2,...,*w*}. That's called *w*+1. How about {0,1,2,*w*,*w*+1,*w*+2,...}. Well that has a name too, 2*w*. Want to carry on? Don't let me stop you. But I'd better warn you that you might not be able to get all cardinals this way because I've only shown you how to get the accessible ones.

Maybe you're not interested in big. We could try small. In calculus you probably got fed up of always using the fact that as dx->0, dx^{2} could be ignored. Why don't you just set dx^{2} exactly equal to zero and be done with it. Well that's what nonstandard analysis is about. It introduces a new kind of infinitesimal number that has just this property. Useful if you're lazy about proofs.

But maybe mathematics isn't your thing and none of these systems looks like fun to you. Then there is one last thing I can throw at you.

Combinatorial games. What do games have to do with numbers?

Though invented by Conway (yes, that's *the* Conway), Don Knuth gave them another name: Surreal Numbers. Here are some surreal numbers: 0, *1, *2, *3... And here's how to add them: *a+*b=*(a xor b). That's the good

old xor that's written '^' in C. If you know how to win at Nim then you know why these are good for winning games. The **n* are called *nimbers* and they are just a tiny part of the entire collection of surreal numbers, all of which represent positions in games. What's more, the surreal numbers include **Z**, **Q** and **R**. Hard to believe but real numbers are all positions in games. But that's not all, the surreal numbers include the transfinite ordinals, lots of different kinds of infinitesimals and countless other weird and wonderful numbers. If you want to beat your friends at Hackenbush, Nim, Mogul, and maybe even Go, then these are the numbers for you.

## 5 comments:

Umm, N is {1,2,3,...} The set {0,1,2,3,...} is the

wholenumbers.I'm following Bourbaki

That explains a bit, although I think that, in the US at least, the consensus is against Bourbaki.

I always forget that some people are prejudiced against considering 0 to be a natural number. But that's probably just because I mainly hang out with set theorists and logicians, who are familiar with N only through the Peano axioms and the von Neumann ordinals, both of which start with 0. I do dimly remember hearing of this distinction between the "natural numbers" and "whole numbers", but we could just as easily reverse those two designations.

This confusion is why I've settled on the notation \(\mathbb Z_{\ge 0}\) for \(\{0, 1, 2, \dotsc\}\) and \(\mathbb Z_{> 0}\) for \(\{1, 2, \dotsc\}\). It's so ugly that everyone can be offended!

By the way, the issue with the 10-adics is slightly more extreme than you suggest. First, I note that, when you refer to the \(p\)-adics but write \(\mathbb Z_p\), you are denoting not the full

field\(\mathbb Q_p\) ofp-adic numbers but only its subringofp-adic integers (just as in the real case, those with only 0's to the right of the decimal point)—in which, just as in the ordinary integers, it is not always possible to divide. The remedy here is that one can set up formal fractions ofp-adic integers, and manipulate them just as one does ordinary fractions of integers; and in this way one gets the field ofp-adic numbers. (This may seem a backwards way to do it if you think of \(\mathbb Z_p\) in terms of \(p\)-adic expansions, where it seems like we start with \(\mathbb Q_p\) and cut it down; but it becomes much more natural when we think of \(\mathbb Z_p\) as what it ‘really’ is, namely, a projective limit.)Anyway, the point is that the 10-adic integers are even worse; not only can you not

actuallydivide, you can't evenformallydivide—because there are 10-adic 0-divisors.Post a Comment