8
$\begingroup$

Motivation: In mathematics, it is natural to decompose a complicated thing into simpler ones. In the system of natural numbers, the process to decompose large number is to factor it. The indecomposable ones, that cannot be further factored, are called primes. But the primes are irregular and the most difficult to understand. So, instead of trying hard to find some pattern of primes, why not consider finding an extension of the integer system so that primes can be further factored into another ones that admit some regularity?

Question: Let $\mathbb N^+$ be the set of positive integers equipped with its canonical addition $+$, multiplication $\times$, and total order $\leq$. Let $\mathbb P$ be the set of all primes. Is there any related work concerning finding (or proving non-existence of) an algebraic system $S$ such that:

(0) there is an binary operation $\cdot : S\times S \to S$ such that $(S,\cdot)$ is a commutative monoid.

(1) there is a monoid embedding $f: (\mathbb N^+, \times) \to (S, \cdot)$.

(2) there is a subset $E := \{e_1, \ldots,e_n, \ldots \} \subset S$ such that

  • (2a) any $e \in E$ is not a unit.

  • (2b) if $e = a \cdot b$ for any $e \in E$ and $a,b \in S$, then either $a$ or $b$ is a unit.

  • (2c) for any $p \in \mathbb P$, the element $f(p)$ has a unique non-trivial factorization $f(p) = \prod_{e \in E} e^{x_e}$ for $x_e \in \mathbb N$.

(3) the structure of $E$ in $S$ is simpler than the structure of $\mathbb P$ in $\mathbb N^+$. (In other words, primes are better understood in the language of $E$. This requires $S$ to have more structure than a monoid)

As many readers said that the condition (3) is vague, I replace it by a more concrete but alternative condition (3'). Keep in mind that this restricts the possibilities:

(3') There is an addition on $S$ making $S$ a semiring and $f$ an embedding of semirings. Moreover,

  • (3'a) the set $E$ is countably infinite
  • (3'b) there is a polynomial $g \in S[x]$ such that the map $g \circ f: \mathbb N^+ \to E$ is a bijection. (This says that there is a polynomial formula for the new primes $E$)

Edit: refined the description of $S$. Added an alternative condition to (3).


Note that the extension of the addition operation is not considered yet, so the system we are searching for need not be a ring. It is easy to find some system satisfying (1) and (2). For example, the ring $\mathbb Z[{\sqrt{2}}]$, but factoring numbers to $\{\sqrt{2}, 3, 5 \ldots\}$ doesn't make the situation easier, so the condition (3) is not satisfied. The ring of rationales $\mathbb Q$ doesn't simultaneously satisfy (2) and (3).

I don't expect that any such system can be found easily; since if such one is found, then the study of primes immediately becomes obsolete. Instead, I'd like to discover related researching field and potentially useful connections from established results. So any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.


As an aside, the set of indecomposable elements $E$ cannot be finite. Here is the reason. Assume that there exists a such system with the cardinality of $E$ being $n < \infty$, then by factoring each prime number into products of $e_i \in E$, we associates each prime number to a vector in the $n$-dimensional $\mathbb Z$-module $\mathbb Z^n$, by sending a prime $p$ to $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ where $x_i$ is the multiplicity of $e_i$ in the factorization of $p$. Then any $n+1$ many primes are associated to $n+1$ vectors, which are linear dependent. By identifying the addition in that vector space with the multiplication of associated numbers, we obtain that for any $n+1$ primes, some power of some of them are powers of other primes, a contradiction.

This also gives me inspiration. By considering all primes as a set of linear independent vectors in a infinite dimensional $\mathbb Z$-space, the whole natural numbers is considered as its span. Adding the canonical basis into this span is exactly one way to extend the number system.

$\endgroup$
17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Finite simple groups come to mind. $\endgroup$
    – Dirk
    Feb 12, 2022 at 9:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The positive integers form a rig (note: not a ring) whose unit group has only one element, and which has unique factorisation. I think you're looking for structures with those properties. $\endgroup$
    – wlad
    Feb 12, 2022 at 9:25
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ "if such one is found, then the study of primes immediately becomes obsolete" That's a bit of a strong claim, to put it mildly. $\endgroup$ Feb 12, 2022 at 21:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @wlad I confess to have believed until a couple of minutes ago that $\mathbb N[x]$ had the unique factorization property. But your question has made me realize that my beliefs were quite false: $\mathbb N[x]$ is very far from being a unique factorization semiring, as one can see, e.g., from the proof of Theorem 2.3 in P. Cesarz, S.T. Chapman, S. McAdam, & G.J. Schaeffer's Elastic properties of some semirings defined by positive systems (the theorem is stated for $\mathbb R_{\ge 0}[x]$, but the proof works also for $\mathbb N[x]$). $\endgroup$ Feb 12, 2022 at 22:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @wlad I've just learned from Alfred Geroldinger that various aspects of the arithmetic of (the semiring) $\mathbb N[x]$ are studied by F. Campanini & A. Facchini in Factorizations of polynomials with integral non-negative coefficients (Sgrp Forum, 2019). It seems that the non-factoriality of $\mathbb N[x]$ was first noticed by J. Hashimoto & T. Nakayama in On a problem of G. Birkhoff (Proc. AMS, 1950), where the authors observe that the identity $(1+x)(1+x^2+x^4)=(1+x^3)(1+x+x^2)$ returns two non-equivalent atomic factorizations of the same polynomial in $\mathbb N[x]$. $\endgroup$ Feb 13, 2022 at 10:23

3 Answers 3

5
$\begingroup$

Edit (following the clarifications of the OP): This is not an answer, it is rather a long comment.

Studying this kind of questions is part of the mission of factorization theory: The language of the theory (at least in its classical incarnation) is the language of commutative (and, to a very large extent, cancellative) monoids, which seems to fit with the OP's idea of a monoid embedding $f$ from the multiplicative monoid of the positive integers into a larger commutative monoid $S$ such that $f(p)$ is a product of atoms${}^{\text{(a)}}$ in an essentially unique way. Note that, in fact, we may assume without loss of generality that $S$ is an atomic monoid (i.e., every non-unit of $S$ factors as a product of atoms).

Now, it is a basic result in the classical theory of factorization that a commutative cancellative monoid $H$ is a unique factorization monoid (i.e., every non-unit of $H$ has an essentially unique factorization into atoms) if and only if $H$ is atomic and every atom is a prime${}^{\text{(b)}}$, if and only the quotient monoid $H/H^\times$ is a free abelian monoid; for a reference, see Theorem 1.2.9 in

A. Geroldinger and F. Halter-Koch, Non-Unique Factorizations. Algebraic, Combinatorial and Analytic Theory, Pure Appl. Math. 278, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2006).

This means that, if $S$ is a cancellative and commutative monoid with the unique factorization property, then there is nothing new we can hope to learn about the arithmetic (multiplicative) structure of $\mathbb N$ from the (mere) existence of the embedding $f$ — and this is true independently of how condition (3) is interpreted. So, for the question to make sense, we need either to give up the idea that $S$ is a cancellative and unique factorization monoid (which seems to be fine with the OP), or to keep track of the additive structure of $\mathbb N$ and rather look, say, for a semiring embedding of $\mathbb N$ into a larger commutative semiring whose multiplicative monoid satisfies conditions (2) and (3). (Honestly, I think condition (3) is still a bit too vague for any sensible answer to be possible.)

Notes.

(a) An atom of a monoid $H$ is a non-unit $a \in H$ such that $a \ne xy$ for all non-units $x, y \in H$.

(b) A prime of a monoid $H$ is a non-unit $p \in H$ such that, if $p \mid_H xy$ for some $x, y \in H$, then $p \mid_H x$ or $p \mid_H y$ (here $\mid_H$ is the divisibility preorder on $H$, so $a \mid_H b$, for some $a, b \in H$, if and only if $b \in HaH$).

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for point out the factorization Theory. It is certainly useful in some respect. The target algebraic system is indeed a commutative monoid if we forget the addition of natural numbers. However, not considering the extension of addition does not mean that the addition of $\mathbb N^+$ should be forgotten; since otherwise its arithmetic properties are erased. I might be unclear on this and I'm sorry for causing confusions. $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 13, 2022 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ As you may get from my motivation that my intention is to find an extension of $\mathbb N^+$ in which primes can be further factored such that we may focus on studying elements more fundamental than primes. In this regard, embedding $\mathbb N^+$ to a set $X$ then form the free abelian monoid $\mathscr F_{\rm ab}(X)$ doesn't make things easier, but more complicated; the primes are still primes and we get more elements that are formal product of natural numbers which is not intended. $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 13, 2022 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ However, embedding $\mathbb N^+$ to $\mathscr F_{\rm ab}(X)$, instead of $X$, may yield interesting results, as mentioned at the third part of the post. But the difficulty is how we embed $\mathbb N^+$. $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 13, 2022 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ Also, you may interpret condition (3) any way you like as long as all primes can be described in an unified manner, like $-1$ is viewed as $i^2$ in complex number. $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 13, 2022 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ By Theorem 1.2.9 in Geroldinger & Halter-Koch's book (see my answer), a commutative and cancellative monoid is a unique factorization monoid iff it is a free abelian monoid modulo units: This applies, in particular, to the multiplicative monoid of the non-zero elements of a commutative semidomain $S$ with the unique factorization property and has nothing to do with the additive structure of $S$. $\endgroup$ Feb 13, 2022 at 19:10
1
$\begingroup$

It is not completely clear to me what you are looking for, but here is an argument that it probably does not exist. What makes primes interesting and difficult to study is that they can be added as well as multiplied. If there were no such thing as addition, and the only thing you could do with primes is multiply them, then the primes are already as simple as you can get—they form a free abelian group. The only thing simpler would be a free abelian group of finite rank, but you've already excluded that.

If addition is part of the picture, then suppose $p$ and $q$ are distinct primes. Because $p$ and $q$ are (relatively) prime, there exist integers $a$ and $b$ such that $ap+bq=1$. Now suppose that there is some other thing $x$ such that $x\mid p$ and $x\mid q$. Then I would think that we could infer that $x \mid ap+bq$. But that means that $x\mid 1$, meaning that there exists $y$ such that $xy = 1$. So $x$ is a unit. When we talk about unique factorization, it can be unique only up to multiplication by units, so one typically regards units as trivial factors. This means that there can't be any nontrivial $x$ that contributes to the factorization of different primes, and that fact already places severe limits on the possibilities. There still exist interesting examples; for example, if you take the ring of integers in an algebraic number field, then primes can indeed split into products of other things, but you've already rejected $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}]$ as "not simpler."

I can imagine ways in which one can get around the arguments in the preceding two paragraphs, but I think you need to be clearer about what you are really looking for and why it's not ruled out by what I've just said.

For example, here is one thing that number theorists do in order to come to grips with the complexity of the primes: they turn some of the primes into units. A general method for doing this is called localization. You can increase the set of units to a set of $S$-units. Or, if you pick a single prime $p$ and turn all the other primes into units, and in addition to localizing you also pass to a completion, then you get $p$-adic numbers. Factorization in the ring $\mathbb{Z}_p$ of $p$-adic integers is easy; everything has the form $p^nu$ where $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $u$ is a unit. Can't get much simpler than that! This might seem too simple but $p$-adic numbers are one of the most powerful tools in all of number theory.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I don't fully understand what the OP is looking for either. But let's say in $\mathbb{P}$ we replaced some primes with one of their roots, in such a way that the resulting prime gaps are still always $\ge 1$, but never, say, greater than $2\log(p)$ (to the left or right of $p$)... and that that could be done with a neat (rather than ad hoc) algorithm for picking the roots... would that perhaps be a "simpler " set of primes? $\endgroup$ Feb 16, 2022 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, your mentioning of $p$-adic integers reminds me that I forget to require the factorization of primes to be non-trivial. By doing this, $f(p)$ is non-unit for any $p \in \mathbb P$. Your remaining confusions all come from the "simpler" condition. One, but not the only, way to interpret it is to think there is a neat formula for the primes. So I added an alternative condition (3'). I hope it is clear now. $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 17, 2022 at 0:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And your argument of the non-existence of non-unit common divisor $x$ only holds when $S$ is a ring on which subtraction is allowed. But for semiring like $\mathbb N$, the equation $ap+bq = 1$ has no solution. $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 17, 2022 at 0:17
0
$\begingroup$

[I'm adding a new (non-)answer since what follows has almost nothing to do with my previous one.]

Fix a real number $\alpha \ge 1$ and set $S_\alpha := \mathbb N \cup \mathbb R_{\ge \alpha}$. Of course, $S_\alpha$ is a commutative semidomain under the operations of addition and multiplication inherited from the real field, and the inclusion map $\mathbb N \to S_\alpha$ is a (unit-preserving) semiring embedding. Further, the only unit of $S_\alpha$ is the (multiplicative) identity $1$; and it is easily checked that, for $\alpha > 1$, (the multiplicative monoid of the non-zero elements of) $S_\alpha$ is BF, by which we mean here that (i) every non-zero element of $S_\alpha$ is a product of atoms and (ii) the atomic factorizations of each element are bounded in length. In particular, it is seen that, if $\mathbb P \subseteq \mathbb N$ is the set of (natural) prime numbers, then the set $\mathscr A(S_\alpha)$ of atoms of $S_\alpha$ is contained in the union of the (left-closed, right-open) interval $[\alpha, \alpha^2[$ with $[2, \alpha] \cap \mathbb P$: Most notably, we have that $\mathscr A(H) = \emptyset$ (and hence $S_\alpha$ is not even atomic) when $\alpha = 1$, and $\mathscr A(S_\alpha) = [\alpha, \alpha^2[$ when $1 < \alpha \le 2$.

Now suppose that $1 < \alpha \le \sqrt{2}$. The set of atoms of $S_\alpha$ has then a "very smooth structure" (so I would consider it to be "simple" in the vague sense of condition (3) of the OP), and each $p \in \mathbb P$ has a non-trivial factorization into atoms of $S_\alpha$ (since $\alpha \le \sqrt{2}$ and the only unit is the identity, $p$ is not an atom of $S_\alpha$); however, it is not clear to me if one can tune $\alpha$ so as to guarantee that such a factorization is essentially unique (possibly after replacing $\mathbb R_{\ge \alpha}$ with something smaller). In fact,

Note that, in general, $S_\alpha$ is not FF, which means here that each non-zero element has only finitely many atomic factorizations that are pairwise non-equivalent in the obvious sense: If, for instance, $\alpha = \sqrt{2}$, then $a$ and $3a^{-1}$ are atoms of $S_\alpha$ (and hence the $S_\alpha$-word $a \ast 3a^{-1}$ is a length-$2$ atomic factorization of $3$ in $S_\alpha$) for all $a \in \bigl]\frac{3}{2}, 2\bigr[$ (see my answer here if something in the terminology or in the notation doesn't sound familiar).

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Extend to the semiring $\mathbb N \cup \mathbb R_{\geq \alpha}$ is certainly one impressive way to extend $\mathbb N^+$. The set of atoms are the interval $[\alpha, \alpha^2]$. However, as long as the set of atoms has an interval as its subset, the factorization of any element cannot be unique: let $abcd$ be a factorization of some element, then $((1+x)\cdot a)(\frac{1}{1+x} \cdot b)cd$ is also a factorization for a sufficient small $x>0$. The simplicity of atoms and the uniqueness of factorization cannot be satisfied simultaneously, so to speak. $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 19, 2022 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Zelox If $f \colon \mathbb N \to S$ is a unit-preserving semiring embedding such that $S$ is a commutative semidomain and every non-zero non-unit element of $S$ has an essentially unique atomic factorization, then we are back to a point I've already made in my other post mathoverflow.net/a/415988/16537: $S \setminus \{0_S\}$ is basically a free abelian monoid under multiplication. Also, there is something wrong in your argument (or in the way I'm interpreting your "any"): If $\alpha = \sqrt{2}$, then $2$ has an essentially unique atomic factorization in $S_\alpha$. $\endgroup$ Feb 19, 2022 at 10:34
  • $\begingroup$ I'm kind of confused. Your previous post is talking about monoid, but now we are talking about semiring. So why we are back to the previous point? $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 19, 2022 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ I admit that my usage of "any" is wrong. I should use "almost all": for those number $x = abcd...$ with any two of $a,b,c,d,...$ locates at the middle of an interval of atoms. $\endgroup$
    – Zelox
    Feb 19, 2022 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Zelox We are back to my previous post because some of the conclusions I drew there for a monoid embedding $(\mathbb N^+, \cdot) \to H$ are independent from the fact that $H$ is the multiplicative monoid of the non-zero elements of a (commutative) semidomain. (By the way, $\alpha^2$ will never be an atom in $S_\alpha$ and hence the set of atoms of $S_\alpha$ will never be the closed interval $[\alpha, \alpha^2]$.) $\endgroup$ Feb 19, 2022 at 10:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.