FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Operator Overloading (Sets and Numbers)
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
fishfry
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 299

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:58 am    Post subject: Re: Operator Overloading (Sets and Numbers) Reply with quote

In article <1153081607.125821.107190@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Doug Goncz" <DGoncz@aol.com> wrote:

Quote:
Hello, sci.math readers.

A search in Google Groups records of sci.math for "operator
overloading" by relevance returns no thread with this Subject.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/search?q=%22operator+overloading%22&st
art=0&

I have a personal slant to operator overloading and I want to see how
my ideas fit into what is in common use.



Before going on, some context.

Computer programming is not math and vice versa. That said, there is
definitely some operator overloading going on in math, though they don't
call it that. But it's not complicated.

Here's an example. When one is constructing the naturals, integers,
rationals, and reals out of the empty set and the standard set of
axioms, one typically does gets to a certain stage ... say we've
constructed the integers. Then we invoke a construction known as the
field of quotients of an integral domain, to get the rationals.

Now the rationals contain a subring that is isomorphic to the integers.
So the math books all say, "Let's identify the subring of the rationals
that's isomorphic to the integers, with the integers themselves."

So now, when I say 1 + 1 = 2, is that '+' the addition operator of the
integers? Or of the rationals?

That's operator overloading as used in math. It's an essentially trivial
technicality to deal with the fact that the addition operator on the
integers is not the same mathematical object as the addition operator on
the rationals, which is different again from the addition operator on
the reals. But we use the same symbol, '+'.
Back to top
DGoncz@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:26 pm    Post subject: Operator Overloading (Sets and Numbers) Reply with quote

Hello, sci.math readers.

A search in Google Groups records of sci.math for "operator
overloading" by relevance returns no thread with this Subject.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/search?q=%22operator+overloading%22&start=0&

I have a personal slant to operator overloading and I want to see how
my ideas fit into what is in common use.

The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is that every number has a unique
prime factorization, and every prime factorization evaluates to a
unique number, as far as I understand it. Also, it is implied that the
infinite set of primes is the only subset of Z+ having this quality of
relating numbers in Z+ to unique, representative sets.

In an algebra where X represents the unique multiset prime
factorization (UMPF) of x, and Y the UMPF of y, and upf is a function
returning the UMPF of an expression, we know:

X /\ X = X
X \/ X = X

upf(gcd(x,y)) = X /\ Y
upf(lcm(x,y)) = X \/ Y

x /\ y is undefined
x \/ y is undefined

upf(x+y) could be anything but maybe gcd(x+1, y+1) divides it.
upf(x-y) could be anything but we know gcd(x-1, y-1) divides x-y, from
Kyle, so maybe it could be factored easily.

upf(x*y) = X + Y
upf(x/y) = X - Y

X*Y is undefined
X/Y is undefined

upf(x^y) = X * y (multipying each multiplicity in X by y)
upf(x^(1/y) = X / y (dividing each multiplicity in X by y, which can
produce a real...)

log base x of y = the multiplicity of x in Y (I think only if x is a
prime...)

X*Y might be something
X/Y might be something

Do you see the pattern? Addition, multiplication, and exponentiation,
and their inverses, in Z (in Z+?) have (some) corresponding operations
one level *down* in precedence among the UMPFs..

Is there an algebra overloading these operators so that;

x /\ y = (x,y) = X /\ Y
x \/ y = [x,y] = X \/ Y
x + y = X + Y
x - y = X - Y
x * y = X * Y
x / y = X / Y and
x ^ y = X ^ Y

or something similar, or is it important to keep the line drawn between
sets and numbers, and keep this down-stepping relationship?

If it's important to keep the existing relationship, can you fill in
the blanks for set operators corresponding to arithmetic operators?

Can we say P moves all operators down one step, in the way it acts to
generate factorings? If so, we have a set that is an operator, acting
on numbers, sets, and operators, and I have *never* heard of *that*!
Can we overload the "operator", P?

Doug Goncz
Replikon Research
Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:40 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Linear operator and determinant aline Math 0 Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:37 am
No new posts Choice function over finite sets Peter Webb Math 5 Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:28 am
No new posts Adding 2 sets of roll/pitch/yaw Dan111 Math 1 Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:33 pm
No new posts D-numbers: a generalization of Sophie Germain twin primes wkehowski@cox.net Math 8 Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:48 am
No new posts Angular Momentum Operator Farooq W Math 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:44 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0131s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0027s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]