Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology 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 foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration-theory internal-categories k-theory kan lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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 string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    created absolute value and a stubby Ostrowski’s theorem

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    Cf. related entries valuation and discrete valuation.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    Yes, I saw them. Let’s discuss a bit what’s going on here. What’s called a valuation at valuation reduces just to non-archimedean valuations for G=G = \mathbb{R}. I know that “valuation” and “absolute value” are used inconsistently in the literature, but what the entry valuation currently describes seems to add a new layer of inconsistency.

    Am I wrong? Otherwise we should fix that.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    Well, you have two versions of valuations, the one is exponential of another. The exponential version is sometimes called also the multiplicative valuation. The entry valuation is very standard, once this is taken into account.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    We should add more explanation and disambiguation. Also valuation of measure spaces needs to be discussed or at least pointed to at “valuation”.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    One really says valuation of measure space ? I am surprised a bit, range of measure or alike would be better.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    From valuation:

    Sometimes one also discusses exponential (or multiplicative) valuations (also called valuation functions, and viewed as generalized absolute values) which look more like norms, and their equivalence classes, places. See discrete valuation and valuation ring.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    One really says valuation of measure space ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation_%28measure_theory%29

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    Then I think it should definitely be a separate entry like on wikipedia.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    An important idea (from Dedekind and Weber) about the geometry coming from valuations is sketched in the entry Riemann surface via valuations.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2012

    Sure, we should make disambiguations.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2012

    I’m confused by this:

    The standard absolute value on the complex numbers is the absolute value of the real part.

    Surely the standard absolute value of a+bia + b\mathrm{i} is a 2+b 2\sqrt{a^2 + b^2}, not |a|=a 2{|a|} = \sqrt{a^2}? This satisfies the axioms on the page and also extends (if you allow kk to be any ring) to the standard absolute value on the quaternions or even the octonions. I’ve never heard of this other absolute value, and I’m not sure how it (or any absolute value) is supposed to make the complex numbers into an archimedean field (or indeed any ordered field, as proved impossible at ordered field).

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2012
    • (edited Jan 8th 2012)

    Woops, did I type that? (Looks like I did :-/). I didn’t mean to. I have fixed it now. Thanks for catching this.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2012

    Do you still want to say that \mathbb{C} is an archimedean field? You say this also at archimedean field, so you presumably mean something by it. Is it just that the absolute value is always finite? But the meaning of archimedean field that I know (and on that page) is a property of an ordered field.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2012

    What I want to say is that \mathbb{C} is an archimedean valued field, i.e. complete with respect to an archimedean valuation.

    I’ll try to clarify the entries…

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2012
    • (edited Jan 8th 2012)

    I have tried to correct/clarify, in the course of which I also created an entry archimedean valued field. There is still room for more clarification and more details, of course.

    But this ambiguous use of terminology seems to be not just my fault, but be in the standard literature. On page 12 of

    • Berkovich, Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-archimedean fields

    we have

    A non-Archimedean field is a valuation field with non-Archimedean valuation.

    and then

    If a valuation field is not non-Archimedean, it is isomorphic to \mathbb{R} or to \mathbb{C}

    (okay, I recorded that at Ostrowski’s theorem) but then

    Such fields are said to be Archimedean.

    Another thing that we still need to clarify more in the nnLab is that what Berkovich calls a “valuation” is not what our entry “valuation” defines, but what our entry absolute value defines. Whatever we settle for, eventually there need to be more alerts about different use of terminology.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2012

    I put a terminology warning at absolute value.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2012
    • (edited Jan 9th 2012)

    Another thing that we still need to clarify more in the nLab is that what Berkovich calls a “valuation” is not what our entry “valuation” defines, but what our entry absolute value defines.

    Urs, I am repeating again, what I sadi above, and this IS contained in the circle of valuation entries (including discrete valuation) that there are MULTIPLICATIVE valuations and ordinary valuations and that absolute values are a SPECIAL CASE of multiplicative valuations, so that multiplicative valuations are thought of as generalized absolute values. This is a standard terminology and we should not alienate experts in those fields by introducing new confusion. By exponentiating ordinary valuations we get multiplicative valuations (therefore also called exponential valuations). It is not only Berkovich school but large part of mathematics which uses this standard terminology. Multiplicative valuations differ from other kind just by exponentiation. It would not be good to rename multiplicative valuations as qabsoluet values as the level of generality and terminology here have standard values in large portion of mathematics including arithmetic and part of algebra and algebraic geometry. Important thing is also the equivalence of valuations.

    Look at entry discrete valuation.

    P.S. maybe it is a time to look at valuative criterion of properness.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2012
    • (edited Jan 9th 2012)

    No, Zoran, what valuation currently defines is not what Berkovich (nor Wikipedia, for that matter) calls a valuation and is not equivalent to it. For one, in its last clause is the restriction to the non-Archimedean case. More generally there should be the triangle inequality there.

    And concerning alienation: I would like to reduce any possible alienation by pointing out different uses of terminology in the literature.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2012
    • (edited Jan 9th 2012)

    Erased.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2012

    No, Zoran, what valuation currently defines is not what Berkovich (nor Wikipedia, for that matter) calls a valuation

    It seems to me that Wikipedia agrees with what we currently have at valuation. I haven’t looked at Berkovich.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2012
    • (edited Jan 10th 2012)

    You are right about Wikipedia. My fault. Sorry for saying the opposite. Not sure why I thought it would be different there.

    Let me list some sources:

    Berkovich in all his works (for instance in the first definfinition of his his lectures or on the first technical page of his book) writes “valuation” for the thing that is multiplicative and satisfies the triangle identity. He calls it “non-archimedean valuation” if the triangle identity is refined to the ultrametric property.

    This is also the convention used by Wolfram MathWorld, see valuation (Wolfram MathWorld).

    The same for PlanetMath, see valuation (PlanetMath).

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2012
    • (edited Jan 10th 2012)

    Urs, do you have access to the famous collection of lectures on number theory edited by Froehlich ? It has several authors which have a different point of view on generality, but do make comparison remarks on general conventions. It is the main source on the subject.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2012

    Interesting sister variant – a weight on a von Neumann algebra – see e.g. Lurie lec. 34 pdf, def. 3.

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2014
    • (edited Jul 13th 2014)

    the definition-section at absolute value first says that it’s a multiplicative semi-norm, but then it spells out the axioms of a multiplicative norm. We should fix this either way, it seems.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)