Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexWheels: nontrivial algebraic structures in which we can divide by zero <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/wheel/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/wheel">current</a>

   Wheels: nontrivial algebraic structures in which we can divide by zero

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIntriguing. > An element of $\mathbb{R}^\odot$ is an equivalence class of pairs of real numbers, where $(a,b)$ and $(c,d)$ are equivalent iff $a d = b c$. Doesn't that make $(0,0)$ equivalent to everything?

   Intriguing.

   An element of $\mathbb{R}^\odot$ is an equivalence class of pairs of real numbers, where $(a,b)$ and $(c,d)$ are equivalent iff $a d = b c$.

   Doesn’t that make $(0,0)$ equivalent to everything?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorrongmin
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2021
   • (edited Aug 10th 2021)
   • PermaLink
   Author: rongmin
   Format: MarkdownItexRe. [#2](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/13303/wheel/?Focus=94380#Comment_94380): > Doesn't that make $(0,0)$ equivalent to everything? Apparently, it does: > Although $0/0$ doesn't simplify, it's an absorbing element for addition: $0 /0 + x = 0 /0$. > We also write $\infty$ for $1 : 0$ and $\bot$ for $0 : 0$; these are the only elements of $\mathbb{R}^\odot$ that don\'t come from $\mathbb{R}$.

   Re. #2:

   Doesn’t that make $(0,0)$ equivalent to everything?

   Apparently, it does:

   Although $0/0$ doesn’t simplify, it’s an absorbing element for addition: $0 /0 + x = 0 /0$.

   We also write $\infty$ for $1 : 0$ and $\bot$ for $0 : 0$; these are the only elements of $\mathbb{R}^\odot$ that don't come from $\mathbb{R}$.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2021
   • (edited Aug 10th 2021)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexRe #2, #3: I looked in the supplied link, and apparently the actual equivalence relation is not what is written, but rather (see page 4) (x,y)~(x',y') if and only if there are s,s'∈S such that (sx,sy)=(s'x',s'y'), where S in this case is the set of nonzero real numbers. So 0/0=a/b if and only if a=b=0. See here: <https://web.archive.org/web/20200521074722if_/https://www2.math.su.se/reports/2001/11/2001-11.pdf> So this looks more like the projective line with an added 0/0. Curiously, it does form a [[variety of algebras]].

   Re #2, #3: I looked in the supplied link, and apparently the actual equivalence relation is not what is written, but rather (see page 4)

   (x,y)~(x’,y’) if and only if there are s,s’∈S such that (sx,sy)=(s’x’,s’y’),

   where S in this case is the set of nonzero real numbers.

   So 0/0=a/b if and only if a=b=0.

   See here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200521074722if_/https://www2.math.su.se/reports/2001/11/2001-11.pdf

   So this looks more like the projective line with an added 0/0.

   Curiously, it does form a variety of algebras.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, that\'s a mistake to just say $a d = b c$. The more general situation is as Dmitri quoted, where $S$ can be any submonoid of the original commutative rig, but I didn\'t get that far last night. I wanted to give the motivating example (the one that gives the concept its name), and the equivalence relation simplifies a lot if you start with a field and let $S$ be the monoid of nonzero elements, but it doesn\'t simplify *quite* as much as I wrote!

   Yes, that's a mistake to just say $a d = b c$. The more general situation is as Dmitri quoted, where $S$ can be any submonoid of the original commutative rig, but I didn't get that far last night. I wanted to give the motivating example (the one that gives the concept its name), and the equivalence relation simplifies a lot if you start with a field and let $S$ be the monoid of nonzero elements, but it doesn't simplify quite as much as I wrote!

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexFix the mistake above (and a few typos) and add some more detail about the example. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/wheel/2">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/wheel/2">v2</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/wheel">current</a>

   Fix the mistake above (and a few typos) and add some more detail about the example.

   diff, v2, current

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexIncidentally, I really want to get to the topology of these, which is not in the reference by Carlström (and possibly not anywhere). Wheels are typically not Hausdorff, and in fact the specialization preorder on a wheel can be defined from the algebraic structure alone (I think). In $\mathbb{R}^\odot$, for example, $0/0$ is the only closed point and is a specialization of every other point.

   Incidentally, I really want to get to the topology of these, which is not in the reference by Carlström (and possibly not anywhere). Wheels are typically not Hausdorff, and in fact the specialization preorder on a wheel can be defined from the algebraic structure alone (I think). In $\mathbb{R}^\odot$, for example, $0/0$ is the only closed point and is a specialization of every other point.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorHurkyl
   • CommentTimeAug 11th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Hurkyl
   Format: MarkdownItexAnother useful interpretation to keep in mind is the following. Recall that for a ring $R$, one can interpret a fraction $x/y$ as being a partially defined rational function on $Spec(R)$, defined on the complement of the closed set $V(y)$ Similarly for the wheel of fractions on $R$, one can interpret $x/y$ as a partially defined projective number, defined on the complement of $V(x, y)$. There's some neat sense in which wheel arithmetic subsumes some amount of bookkeeping regarding to where things are well-defined.

   Another useful interpretation to keep in mind is the following.

   Recall that for a ring $R$, one can interpret a fraction $x/y$ as being a partially defined rational function on $Spec(R)$, defined on the complement of the closed set $V(y)$

   Similarly for the wheel of fractions on $R$, one can interpret $x/y$ as a partially defined projective number, defined on the complement of $V(x, y)$.

   There’s some neat sense in which wheel arithmetic subsumes some amount of bookkeeping regarding to where things are well-defined.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 11th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexYeah, there\'s a thing from projective geometry where we allow a point at infinity; this lets us divide nonzero numbers by zero. But there\'s also a thing from domain theory where we give every type an extra element to catch errors when things are undefined, and this lets us divide zero by zero too. A wheel has both of these.

   Yeah, there's a thing from projective geometry where we allow a point at infinity; this lets us divide nonzero numbers by zero. But there's also a thing from domain theory where we give every type an extra element to catch errors when things are undefined, and this lets us divide zero by zero too. A wheel has both of these.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2021
    • PermaLink
    Author: varkor
    Format: MarkdownItexThe motivation for wheels looks the same as that for [meadows](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397508008967). It would be interesting to see how these are related.

    The motivation for wheels looks the same as that for meadows. It would be interesting to see how these are related.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2021
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexHow do I interpret "$(a,b)=(c,d)$ iff $a d = b c$, and additionally $(a,b)\neq (0,0)$ iff $(c,d) \neq (0,0)$" as a definition of an equivalence relation?

    How do I interpret “$(a,b)=(c,d)$ iff $a d = b c$, and additionally $(a,b)\neq (0,0)$ iff $(c,d) \neq (0,0)$” as a definition of an equivalence relation?