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 bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories newpage 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 stack string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft 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.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2012

    Split off p-adic integer from p-adic number.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2012

    Thanks!

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2014
    • (edited Jul 23rd 2014)

    To the section As formal neighbourhood of a prime (which I had started earlier) I have

    • added a pointer to Buium 13, where this perspective turns out to be highlighted;

    • included the infinitesimal and local - table, into which in turn I have added a row mentioning the pp-adic integers.

    Now, the natural thing to do would be to proceed as in synthetic differential geometry and define arithmetic jet spaces as (certain subspaces of) mapping spaces out of Spec( p)Spec(\mathbb{Z}_p).

    It seems that what Buium does is at least roughly like this (according to theorem 2.1 1) in the above). I am wondering why it’s not exactly like this, or if it secretly is.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2014

    or if it secretly is.

    Yes it is! (Borger 10 (12.8.2))

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2014

    I hadn’t realised Joyal had worked on anything like this:

    the work of Joyal [49] and Borger [4, 5] on the Witt functor; the Witt functor is a right adjoint to the forgetful functor from “δ-rings” to rings as opposed to the arithmetic jet functor which is a left adjoint to the same forgetful functor. As it is usually the case the left and right stories turn out to be rather different. (Differential calculus with integers, p. 17, slight different version from one on Arxiv).

    Interesting contrast on same page

    …the work of Soul´e, Deitmar, Connes, Berkovich, and many others on the “geometry over the field F1 with one element”. In their work passing from the geometry over Z to the geometry over F1 amounts to removing part of the structure defining commutative rings, e.g. removing addition and hence considering multiplicative monoids instead of rings. On the contrary our theory can be seen as a tentative approach to F1 (cf. the Introduction to [16]) that passes from Z to F1 by adding structure to the commutative rings, specifically adding the operator(s) δp. This point of view was independently proposed (in a much more systematic form) by Borger [6]. Borger’s philosophy is global in the sense that it involves all the primes (instead of just one prime as in our work) and it also proposes to see “positivity” as the corresponding story at the “infinite” prime; making our theory fit into Borger’s larger picture is an intriguing challenge.

    Presumably that last comment is about Borger’s Witt vectors, semirings, and total positivity

    …because of this adelic flavor, it is natural to ask whether the infinite prime plays a role. The answer is yes, and the purpose of this chapter is to explore how it does, at least as related to positivity, which we will regard as p-adic integrality for the infinite prime.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2014
    • (edited Jul 23rd 2014)

    Thanks. Yes, as Borger nicely highlights sort of in between the lines of his introductions, his proposal for 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 stands out from the others in that it produces a rich realm of mathematics, instead just reformulating simple statements about finite sets in terms of 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1-newspeak.

    Also, it seems striking to me that his theory is all about abstracting the structure of Frobenius endomorphisms. That certainly sounds promising for a global picture of geometry that is to stand a chance to provide a unified perspective on zeta functions.

    But I am still not sure if I understand why the exact definition Borger gives is “the right” one. I am all sympathetic to it, but I need to better understand what it achieves.

    For instance why is the direct image Et(Spec())Et(Spec(𝔽 1))Et(Spec(\mathbb{Z})) \to Et(Spec(\mathbb{F}_1)) given by just (W n) *(W_n)_\ast and not (W n) *(Spec(𝔸 )×Spec()())=J n()(W_n)_\ast ( Spec(\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{Z}})\underset{Spec(\mathbb{Z})}{\times} (-)) = J^n(-). The latter would fit better into my world-view.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2016
    • (edited Jul 14th 2016)

    I have added to p-adic integers the short exact sequence

    0 (p)p() (p)/p0. 0 \to \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \overset{p \cdot (-)}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z} \to 0 \,.

    (here)

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)