0
$\begingroup$

Basically, I'm looking for ways to multiply elements of $\mathbb{R}^n$ that allow me to count divisors in $\mathbb{Z}^n$.

For every positive integer $n$, I'm looking for an algebra structure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that

  1. Given $y,z \in \mathbb{Z}^n$ with $z$ non-zero, $x y = z$ has at most $c$ solutions $x \in \mathbb{Z}^n$, where $c$ is a constant independent of $y$ and $z$.
  2. Given $z \in \mathbb{Z}^{n}$ with $z$ non-zero, $$\# \{ (x,y) \in \mathbb{Z}^{2n} : xy = z \} = \| z \|^{o(1)},$$ where $\| \cdot \|$ is the usual Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{R}^n$.

Can $\mathbb{R}^n$ be given such an algebra structure?

Examples: If $n = 2$, use $\mathbb{C}$. If $n=4$, maybe use the quaternions. It's not exactly clear what the divisor bound is for the quaternions.

I know that the only finite-dimensional real division algebras are the real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the octonions.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So it sounds like you're actually looking for ways to multiply elements of $\mathbb{Z}^n$? Where do the real numbers come into it? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2016 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ You should say you want not an $n$-dimensional algebra, but a structure of algebra on $\mathbb{R}^n$ (otherwise the sequel is meaningless). And from your last sentence it seems that by algebra you mean any choice of bilinear law (not necessarily associative). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2016 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ Due to a weird sign-up thing, I am the original poster, Linden. I've put in a request to merge the accounts. @QiaochuYuan That might be true. I didn't want to require that Z^n be closed under the multiplication. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2016 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ Due to a weird sign-up thing, I am the original poster, Linden. I've put in a request to merge the accounts. @YCor Isn't an algebra a vector space with a multiplication? Every finite dimensional vector space over R is isomorphic to R^n. So is there really a difference between an n-dimensional algebra over R and a structure of algebra on R^n? Are you getting at the fact that the addition operation might not be the usual one if I just ask for an algebra over R? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2016 at 19:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RitterSport: yes, the difference is that it doesn't make sense to ask what "$\mathbb{Z}^n$" is inside an $n$-dimensional $\mathbb{R}$-algebra. The additional information you get from "algebra structure on $\mathbb{R}^n$" over "$n$-dimensional $\mathbb{R}$-algebra" is a distinguished choice of basis. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2016 at 19:30

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

I assume that conditions 1) and 2) are applies to nonzero $z$ only, otherwise each of them ia absurd.

Let me describe the construction more formally. Let $\circ$ be a componentwise multiplicaion on $\mathbb R^n$, i.e., $(x_1,\dots,x_n)\circ(y_1,\dots,y_n)=(x_1y_1,\dots,x_ny_n)$.

Choose a no-degenerate matrix $S$ such that each its column consists of $n$ algebraic numbers linearly independent over $\mathbb Q$. This ensures that for every nonzero $x\in\mathbb Z^n$ all the components of $xS$ are nonzero.

Now define $$ x*y=e\bigl((xS)\circ(yS)\bigr)S^{-1}, $$ where $e$ is the base of natural logarithms. We claim that $*$ is a desired operation. One may easily see that the algebras $(\mathbb R,+,*)$ and $(\mathbb R,+,\circ)$ are isomorphic, the isomorphism is provided by $x\mapsto exS$. Thus $*$ is associative and distributive over addition.

Next, for every nonzero $x,y\in\mathbb Z^n$, the product $(xS)\circ(yS)$ consists of nonzero algebraic numbers, so $\bigl((xS)\circ(yS)\bigr)S^{-1}$ is a nonzero vector with algebraic components. Thus $x*y$ contains at least one transcendent component and thus does not lie in $\mathbb Z^n$. Therefore, the conditions 1) and 2) are trivially satisfied (for nonzero $z$).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Can you give an example of this construction? I find it a bit hard to follow at the moment. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2016 at 21:00
  • $\begingroup$ @GregMartin: OK, I've tried. Is it more clear now? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2016 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ I at least see the intent of the construction now, which is helpful! But I still would have liked to see $e$ specified, and I'm not yet ready to bet money on the assertion that no zero-divisors ever occur. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 14, 2016 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ $e$ is the usual $e=\lim_{n\to\infty}\bigl(1+\frac1n\bigr)^n$; we need only its transcendence. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 14, 2016 at 7:51
  • $\begingroup$ Now I've reformulated the whole construction more formally. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 14, 2016 at 13:38
1
$\begingroup$

I don't get every detail of Ilya's answer but it seems to do the job with the feature that for non-zero $x,y \in \mathbb{Z}^n$ one never has $xy \in \mathbb{Z}^n$ so the numbers (of solutions) you wish to bound are always $0.$

Here is another answer and a possible variation you might like better (if it works).

Associate a vector $a=(a_0,a_1,\cdots,a_{n-1}) \in \mathbb{R}^n$ with the polynomial $f_{a}(t)=\sum_0^{n-1}a_it^{i}$ and define the multiplication as usual polynomial multiplication with $t^{n}=r \tag{*}$ for an irrational real $r.$

With this construction we have$f_x,f_y$ and $f_xf_y$ all in $\mathbb{Z}[t]$ exactly when the multiplication does not need $(*)$ So solving $f_xf_y=f_z$ for $f_x$ is done by polynomial division and has at most one solution. The number of pairs $f_x,f_y$ with $f_xf_y=f_z$ is bounded by $2^{n-1}$ times the number of divisors of the content of $f_z.$

If you instead use polynomial multiplication$ \bmod g(t)=t^n-r$ or some other irreducible degree $n$ polynomial in $\mathbb{Z}[t],$ then you are dealing with some ring $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha].$ It then becomes a question of algebra and the particular choice of $g(t)$ how well conditions $1$ and $2$ hold up. Certainly if there are units which are not roots of unity in $\mathbb{C}$ then there are infinitely many units and $f_xf_y=f_z$ has infinitely many solutions if it has any.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Is the number of divisors of the content of $f_z$ comparable to $\| z \|_{\infty} = \max_{i} |z_i| = \text{ height of } f_z$? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 23, 2016 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ I should have said: Is the content of $f_z$ comparable to $\| z \|_{\infty} = \max_i |z_i| = $ height of $f_z$? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 25, 2016 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.