I got this from Mendelson:

Let $\mathbb {Z}$ be the set of integers.Let $p$ be a positive prime integer. Given distinct integers $m$, $n$ there´s a unique integer $t=t(m,n)$ such that:

$$ m-n=p^tk $$

where $k$ is an integer not divisible by $p$. Define a function $d:\mathbb {Z} \times \mathbb {Z}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}$ by the correspondence




from $m \neq n.$

Prove that $(\mathbb {Z,d})$ is a metric space.

I would appreciate a better explanation to this question. I didn´t get the $t(m,n)$. This is also a distance,right?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What have you tried? Positiveness and symetry are almost trivial, so what about the triangle inequality? $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Aug 10 '12 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ It might help to note that this metric, that is, this distance function, says that a pair of integers are 'close' if their difference is divisible by a large power of $p$. $\endgroup$ – Joshua Seaton Aug 10 '12 at 20:37

Let $x, y, z$ be integers. It suffices to prove that $d(x, z) \leq d(x, y) + d(y, z)$. If two of $x, y, z$ are equal, this is trivial. So we can assume they are distinct.

Let $x - y = p^k a$, where $a$ is not divisible by $p$. Let $y - z = p^s b$, where $b$ is not divisible by $p$. We can assume $k \leq s$.

Then $x - z = (x - y) + (y - z) = p^k a + p^s b = p^k(a + p^{s-k}b)$. Suppose $x - z = p^r c$, where $c$ is not divisible by $p$. Then $r \geq k$. Hence $d(x, z) = 1/p^r \leq 1/p^k = d(x, y) \leq d(x, y) + d(y, z)$. And we are done.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Don't think of $t(m,n)$ as a distance. Rather, consider the following:

Let $x = m-n$. Then by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, $x$ has a (unique) prime factorization. Let $p$ be any prime. Then, $p$ has some order, call it $t$ such that $t \ge 0$ (and $t \ge 1$ if $p$ is in the prime factorization of $x$).

So, in other words, $t(m,n)$ yields the order of the prime factor $p$ of the prime factorization of $m-n$. The rest of the work just simply requires you to show that the properties of a metric space hold (or perhaps that they do not).

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Small typo: $t \geq 1$ should be $t \geq 0$. $\endgroup$ – Joshua Seaton Aug 10 '12 at 20:34
  • $\begingroup$ @JSeaton Are you sure? I am explicitly stating that $p$ is a prime that appears in the prime factorization of $x$. If $t = 0$, then $p^t = 1 \Longrightarrow d(m,n) = 1 \forall m,n$. Of course, if we let $t = 0$, then every prime number appears in every integer's prime factorization. Although, I suppose you're right, since the OP statement says that $p$ is any prime... $\endgroup$ – Emily Aug 10 '12 at 20:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes. The convention of treating an integer as an infinite product of prime powers, all but finitely appearing with an exponent of $0$, is a common one (and that's an understatement). Indeed, that's even a tacit assumption in this question. The $t$ in question is just the number of times $p$ divides the given quantity, which will most likely be zero. It is unnecessary and cumbersome to consider the cases of when $p$ divides wholly and otherwise. $\endgroup$ – Joshua Seaton Aug 10 '12 at 20:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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