DOCSLIB.ORG

A PRIMER on NATURAL EQUIVALENCES 1. Sets Recall That

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A PRIMER on NATURAL EQUIVALENCES 1. Sets Recall That A PRIMER ON NATURAL EQUIVALENCES DMITRY VAGNER 1. Sets 1 Recall that a bijection f : X Y is a map with an inverse map f ´ : X Y 1 1Ñ Ñ satisfying f ´ f 1X and ff´ 1Y ,where1X : X X, x x is the identity map. When a bijection“ X Y exists“ we write X YÑand sayfiÑ that X and Y are isomorphic as sets. We mayÑ also call the bijection– an isomorphism. We know that two finite sets are isomorphic precisely when they have the same cardinality—i.e. number of elements. In this piece, however, we will care not only about the question of whether or not two sets are isomorphic, but rather what kinds of isomorophisms exist between them. Consider, for example, the bijection a, b, c x, y, z a x, b y, c z. t uÑt u fiÑ fiÑ fiÑ But the choice of this bijection was arbitrary! We could have just as well selected a z,b x, c z. fiÑ fiÑ fiÑ Sometimes, though, there’s a bijection that feels—and, as we will see, can be rigor- ously defined to be—not arbitrary. We call these natural or canonical. For example, recall the Cartesian product X Y x, y x X, y Y , and consider ˆ “tp q| P P u X Y Z X Y Z x, y ,z x, y, z . p ˆ qˆ Ñ ˆp ˆ qppq qfiÑ p p qq This bijection works entirely independently of which sets X, Y, Z are involved. This is our first clue to help us identify naturality. We now make an important definition. Definition 1.1. For sets X, Y define the hom-set to be the set of maps hom X, Y f : X Y . p q“t Ñ u Many natural bijections involve hom-sets. Let n 0, 1,...,n 1 and recall the “t ´ u power set X S X —the set of all subsets including the empty set ? and the set X Pitself—ofp q“t a setÄ Xu. We then have the following famous natural bijection. Proposition 1.2. Given a set X, the following is a natural bijection. X hom X, 2 S 1 , Pp qÑ p q fiÑ S where the indicator function 1 : X 2 is given by x 1 i↵ x S. S Ñ fiÑ P We can’t give a proof of this because we haven’t yet defined what it means to be natural. We leave it as an exercise though to check that this indeed instantiates a bijection. Let’s continue with more examples—but first we make another definition. Definition 1.3. The disjoint union X Y of two sets X, Y can be defined as ` X Y X 0 Y 1 a, n a x and n 0 or a y and n 1 ` “ ˆt uY ˆt u“tp q| P “ P “ u 1 2DMITRYVAGNER This is an awful definition—and this is due to poor conventions that stuck. The problem is the historic primitivity of the regular old Venn-diagram inspired union you’re used to. Consider the following case: X 1, 0 and Y 0, 1 . “t´ u “t u We know that X Y a a X or a Y 1, 0, 1 ,butthisdoesn’tbehave well under cardinalityY since“t | XP Y 3butP u“t´X Y u2 2 4. That’s because, since 0 X and 0 Y we don’t| Y double|“ count| it|`| within|“ the` union.“ P P But we really want an analog of at the level of sets! ` Finding such analogs is called categorification. The disjoint union is precisely what fixes this—by including every element of each summand set—without consid- ering the possibility of equality of elements across di↵erent sets. The disjoint union is more fundamental than the union. One mentally encounters the disjoint union before the union because to form the union one first gathers the elements of both sets—i.e. forms the disjoint union— and then deletes repeats. But one cannot know what it means to be a repeat unless there is some ambient set A such that X, Y A. Then equality of elements across X and Y is determined by the distinctness ofÄ elements imbued by the definition of A. This rant continues in the optional remark below. Remark 1.4. Philosophically, the union of two generic sets X and Y is not even meaningful and relies on the essentially metaphysical assumption that there is some fixed universe of elements from which each set is built. Awareness of this philo- sophical issue is evaded by the fact that, in common practice, elements are denoted with symbols whose shared shape and or familiar linguistic referent (e.g. a letter of some alphabet) implies equality. These pragmatic situations instantiate the condi- tion described above—that there is some ambient set A such that X, Y A—where A just so happens to be implicitly recognized as opposed to explicitlyÄ defined. This leads us to the issue of properly denoting an element—e.g. as we did x, y for X Y —of X Y . The idea is as follows: when we have some map fp : Xq Y ˆA, it acts independently` on X and Y : one simply selects a component ` Ñ map fX : X A that says where the X-elements go and a component map f : Y A thatÑ says where the Y -elements go. The disjointness of elements in Y Ñ X Y evades any constraint on what maps we’re allowed to choose for fX and fY . Hence,` when X Y is the domain of a map, we will simply write ` f : X Yxy f x f y . ` _ fiÑ X p q_ Y p q The symbol ‘ ’ is often used in logic to denote ‘or.’ We denote by an element’s placement relative_ to whether it comes from X or Y . One should read the final _ term as “fX x or fY y ,” where which of the two is true depends on if our input was in X or inp Yq . In contrast,p q when X Y is the codomain of a map A X Y ,we no longer have such a so called universal` property: there is no naturalÑ way` to split such a map into components. Thus, outputs of such a map cannot be interpretable in terms of such a ‘ .’ There is, however, a pair of markedly natural maps whose codomain is X Y ._ In particular, we have the canonical inclusion map ` i : X X Yxx, X Ñ ` fiÑ A PRIMER ON NATURAL EQUIVALENCES 3 and likewise for Y . This allows us even further structure in conceptualizing the component maps fX and fY : they are simply given by respectively precomposing f with iX and iY ; in particular: fX fiX and fY fiY . You may be thinking: why should“ we care about“ this? The answer will be in the form of our most interesting natural bijection yet. Proposition 1.5. Let X, Y, A be sets. We then have the following natural bijection. hom X Y,A hom X, A hom Y,A f fi ,fi . p ` qÑ p qˆ p q fiÑ p X Y q We define the inverse map to the above bijection by sending the pair of maps g : X A and g : Y A to their sum g g g : X Y A,definedin X Ñ Y Ñ “ X ` Y ` Ñ the obvious way: x y gX x gY y . It turns out that the_ disjointfiÑ p unionq_ isp inq some sense dual to the Cartesian product: given a map f : A X Y , we can extract its X and Y component maps by simply forgetting the otherÑ one.ˆ In particular there is a canonical projection map ⇡ : X Y X x, y x, X ˆ Ñ p qfiÑ and likewise for Y . Hence the extraction of the X-coordinate of f : A X Y is Ñ ˆ simply given by postcomposing with ⇡X . This leads us to the following bijection. Proposition 1.6. Let X, Y, A be sets. We then have the following natural bijection. hom A, X Y hom A, X hom A, Y f ⇡ f,⇡ f . p ˆ qÑ p qˆ p q fiÑ p X Y q The story comes together yet further when we reexamine cardinality. To reiter- ate, we have seen, for finite sets, why it is the case that X Y X Y and X Y X Y . | ˆ |“| |ˆ| | | ` |“| |`| | Let’s now investigate the cardinality of hom X, Y . A particularly explicit yet elegant way to approach this is as follows: wep canq conceive of X as the disjoint union of all of its elements, conceived as singleton (single-element) sets. In order to write this down, we need notation to represent the disjoint union of generic collection of sets and not merely a pair of sets. We introduce the notation as follows, via this very example: (1) X x . – x Xt u ∫P Note the use of isomorphism rather than equality. This is because two sets are said to be equal when they consist of identical elements. Just as in the case of defining unions, however, it makes no sense to define equality between sets unless they both sit within a shared ambient set that can imbue equality of elements across them. We now similarly need a notation for generic non-binary products. We introduce such a notation as follows via extending Propositions 1.5 and 1.6. Proposition 1.7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Finite Sum – Product Logic
    Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 63–99. FINITE SUM – PRODUCT LOGIC J.R.B. COCKETT1 AND R.A.G. SEELY2 ABSTRACT. In this paper we describe a deductive system for categories with finite products and coproducts, prove decidability of equality of morphisms via cut elimina- tion, and prove a “Whitman theorem” for the free such categories over arbitrary base categories. This result provides a nice illustration of some basic techniques in categorical proof theory, and also seems to have slipped past unproved in previous work in this field. Furthermore, it suggests a type-theoretic approach to 2–player input–output games. Introduction In the late 1960’s Lambekintroduced the notion of a “deductive system”, by which he meant the presentation of a sequent calculus for a logic as a category, whose objects were formulas of the logic, and whose arrows were (equivalence classes of) sequent deriva- tions. He noticed that “doctrines” of categories corresponded under this construction to certain logics. The classic example of this was cartesian closed categories, which could then be regarded as the “proof theory” for the ∧ – ⇒ fragment of intuitionistic propo- sitional logic. (An excellent account of this may be found in the classic monograph [Lambek–Scott 1986].) Since his original work, many categorical doctrines have been given similar analyses, but it seems one simple case has been overlooked, viz. the doctrine of categories with finite products and coproducts (without any closed structure and with- out any extra assumptions concerning distributivity of the one over the other). We began looking at this case with the thought that it would provide a nice simple introduction to some techniques in categorical proof theory, particularly the idea of rewriting systems modulo equations, which we have found useful in investigating categorical structures with two tensor products (“linearly distributive categories” [Blute et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 of Concrete Abstractions: an Introduction to Computer
    Out of print; full text available for free at http://www.gustavus.edu/+max/concrete-abstractions.html CHAPTER TWO Recursion and Induction 2.1 Recursion We have used Scheme to write procedures that describe how certain computational processes can be carried out. All the procedures we've discussed so far generate processes of a ®xed size. For example, the process generated by the procedure square always does exactly one multiplication no matter how big or how small the number we're squaring is. Similarly, the procedure pinwheel generates a process that will do exactly the same number of stack and turn operations when we use it on a basic block as it will when we use it on a huge quilt that's 128 basic blocks long and 128 basic blocks wide. Furthermore, the size of the procedure (that is, the size of the procedure's text) is a good indicator of the size of the processes it generates: Small procedures generate small processes and large procedures generate large processes. On the other hand, there are procedures of a ®xed size that generate computa- tional processes of varying sizes, depending on the values of their parameters, using a technique called recursion. To illustrate this, the following is a small, ®xed-size procedure for making paper chains that can still make chains of arbitrary lengthÐ it has a parameter n for the desired length. You'll need a bunch of long, thin strips of paper and some way of joining the ends of a strip to make a loop. You can use tape, a stapler, or if you use slitted strips of cardstock that look like this , you can just slip the slits together.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1811.04966V3 [Math.NT]
    Descartes’ rule of signs, Newton polygons, and polynomials over hyperfields Matthew Baker and Oliver Lorscheid Abstract. In this note, we develop a theory of multiplicities of roots for polynomials over hyperfields and use this to provide a unified and conceptual proof of both Descartes’ rule of signs and Newton’s “polygon rule”. Introduction Given a real polynomial p ∈ R[T ], Descartes’ rule of signs provides an upper bound for the number of positive (resp. negative) real roots of p in terms of the signs of the coeffi- cients of p. Specifically, the number of positive real roots of p (counting multiplicities) is bounded above by the number of sign changes in the coefficients of p(T ), and the number of negative roots is bounded above by the number of sign changes in the coefficients of p(−T ). Another classical “rule”, which is less well known to mathematicians in general but is used quite often in number theory, is Newton’s polygon rule. This rule concerns polynomi- als over fields equipped with a valuation, which is a function v : K → R ∪{∞} satisfying • v(a) = ∞ if and only if a = 0 • v(ab) = v(a) + v(b) • v(a + b) > min{v(a),v(b)}, with equality if v(a) 6= v(b) for all a,b ∈ K. An example is the p-adic valuation vp on Q, where p is a prime number, given by the formula vp(s/t) = ordp(s) − ordp(t), where ordp(n) is the maximum power of p dividing a nonzero integer n. Another example is the T -adic valuation v on k(T), for any field k, given by v ( f /g) = arXiv:1811.04966v3 [math.NT] 26 May 2020 T T ordT ( f )−ordT (g), where ordT ( f ) is the maximum power of T dividing a nonzero polyno- mial f ∈ k[T].
    [Show full text]
  • Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality
    Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality by Dmitry Vagner Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Lenhard Ng Sayan Mukherjee Paul Bendich Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 ABSTRACT Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality by Dmitry Vagner Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Lenhard Ng Sayan Mukherjee Paul Bendich An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 Copyright c 2019 by Dmitry Vagner All rights reserved Abstract In the present work, I explore the theme of diagrammatics and their capacity to shed insight on two trends|categorification and compositionality|in and around contemporary category theory. The work begins with an introduction of these meta- phenomena in the context of elementary sets and maps. Towards generalizing their study to more complicated domains, we provide a self-contained treatment|from a pedagogically novel perspective that introduces almost all concepts via diagrammatic language|of the categorical machinery with which we may express the broader no- tions found in the sequel. The work then branches into two seemingly unrelated disciplines: dynamical systems and knot theory. In particular, the former research defines what it means to compose dynamical systems in a manner analogous to how one composes simple maps. The latter work concerns the categorification of the slN link invariant. In particular, we use a virtual filtration to give a more diagrammatic reconstruction of Khovanov-Rozansky homology via a smooth TQFT.
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Problems 2
    CS103 Handout 11 Fall 2014 October 6, 2014 Discussion Problems 2 Problem One: Product Parities Suppose that you have n integers x₁, x₂, …, xₙ. Prove that the product x₁ · x₂ · … · xₙ is odd if and only if each number xᵢ is odd. You might want to use the following facts: the product of zero numbers is called the empty product and is, by definition, equal to 1, and any two true state- ments imply one another. Problem Two: Prime Numbers A natural number p ≥ 2 is called prime if it has no positive divisors except 1 and itself. A natural number is called composite if it is the product of two natural numbers m and n, where both m and n are greater than one. Every natural number greater than or equal to two is either prime or composite. Prove, by strong induction, that every natural number greater than or equal to two can be written as a product of prime numbers. Problem Three: Factorials! Multiplied together! The number n! is defined as 1 × 2 × … × n. We choose to define 0! = 1. Prove by induction that for any m, n ∈ ℕ, we have m!n! ≤ (m + n)!. Can you explain intuitively why this is true? Problem Four: Picking Coins Consider the following game for two players. Begin with a pile of n coins for some n ≥ 0. The first player then takes between one and ten coins out of the pile, then the second player takes between one and ten coins out of the pile. This process repeats until some player has no coins to take; at this point, that player loses the game.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Categories As Tools for Building Theories
    Logic and Categories As Tools For Building Theories Samson Abramsky Oxford University Computing Laboratory 1 Introduction My aim in this short article is to provide an impression of some of the ideas emerging at the interface of logic and computer science, in a form which I hope will be accessible to philosophers. Why is this even a good idea? Because there has been a huge interaction of logic and computer science over the past half-century which has not only played an important r^olein shaping Computer Science, but has also greatly broadened the scope and enriched the content of logic itself.1 This huge effect of Computer Science on Logic over the past five decades has several aspects: new ways of using logic, new attitudes to logic, new questions and methods. These lead to new perspectives on the question: What logic is | and should be! Our main concern is with method and attitude rather than matter; nevertheless, we shall base the general points we wish to make on a case study: Category theory. Many other examples could have been used to illustrate our theme, but this will serve to illustrate some of the points we wish to make. 2 Category Theory Category theory is a vast subject. It has enormous potential for any serious version of `formal philosophy' | and yet this has hardly been realized. We shall begin with introduction to some basic elements of category theory, focussing on the fascinating conceptual issues which arise even at the most elementary level of the subject, and then discuss some its consequences and philosophical ramifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Indexed Collections Let I Be a Set (Finite of Infinite). If for Each Element
    Indexed Collections Let I be a set (finite of infinite). If for each element i of I there is an associated object xi (exactly one for each i) then we say the collection xi,i∈ I is indexed by I. Each element i ∈ I is called and index and I is called the index set for this collection. The definition is quite general. Usually the set I is the set of natural numbers or positive integers, and the objects xi are numbers or sets. It is important to remember that there is no requirement for the objects associated with different elements of I to be distinct. That is, it is possible to have xi = xj when i = j. It is also important to remember that there is exactly one object associated with each index. Technically, the above corresponds to having a set X of objects and a function i : I → X. Instead of writing i(x) for element of x associated with i, instead we write xi (just different notation). Examples of indexed collections. 1. With each natural number n, associate a real number an. Then the indexed collection a0,a1,a2,... is what we usually think of as a sequence of real numbers. 2. For each positive integer i, let Ai be a set. Then we have the indexed collection of sets A1,A2,.... n Sigma notation. Let a0,a1,a2,... be a sequence of numbers. The notation i=k ai stands for the sum ak + ak+1 + ak+2 + ···an. n If k>n, then i=k ai contains no terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Sums and Products
    1-27-2019 Sums and Products In this section, I’ll review the notation for sums and products. Addition and multiplication are binary operations: They operate on two numbers at a time. If you want to add or multiply more than two numbers, you need to group the numbers so that you’re only adding or multiplying two at once. Addition and multiplication are associative, so it should not matter how I group the numbers when I add or multiply. Now associativity holds for three numbers at a time; for instance, for addition, a +(b + c)=(a + b)+ c. But why does this work for (say) two ways of grouping a sum of 100 numbers? It turns out that, using induction, it’s possible to prove that any two ways of grouping a sum or product of n numbers, for n 3, give the same result. ≥ Taking this for granted, I can define the sum of a list of numbers a1,a2,...an recursively as follows. A sum of a single number is just the number: { } 1 ai = a1. i=1 X I know how to add two numbers: 2 ai = a1 + a2. i=1 X To add n numbers for n> 2, I add the first n 1 of them (which I assume I already know how to do), then add the nth: − n n−1 ai = ai + an. i=1 i=1 X X Note that this is a particular way of grouping the n summands: Make one group with the first n 1, and add it to the last term.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/0509655V2 [Math.CT] 26 May 2006 Nt Rdcs Aigacategory a Having Products
    ON HOMOTOPY VARIETIES J. ROSICKY´ ∗ Abstract. Given an algebraic theory T , a homotopy T -algebra is a simplicial set where all equations from T hold up to homotopy. All homotopy T -algebras form a homotopy variety. We will give a characterization of homotopy varieties analogous to the character- ization of varieties. 1. Introduction Algebraic theories were introduced by F. W. Lawvere (see [31] and also [32]) in order to provide a convenient approach to study algebras in general categories. An algebraic theory is a small category T with finite products. Having a category K with finite products, a T -algebra in K is a finite product preserving functor T →K. Algebras in the category Set of sets are usual many-sorted algebras. Algebras in the category SSet of simplicial sets are called simplicial algebras and they can be also viewed as simplicial objects in the category of algebras in Set. In homotopy theory, one often needs to consider algebras up to homotopy – a homotopy T -algebra is a functor A : T → SSet such that the canonical morphism A(X1 ×···× Xn) → A(X1) ×···× A(Xn) is a weak equivalence for each finite product X1 ×···× Xn in T . These homotopy algebras have been considered in recent papers [6], [7] and [9] but the subject is much older (see, e.g., [16], [8], [35] or [38]). arXiv:math/0509655v2 [math.CT] 26 May 2006 A category is called a variety if it is equivalent to the category Alg(T ) of all T -algebras in Set for some algebraic theory T . There is a char- acterization of varieties proved by F.
    [Show full text]
  • On Least Squares Exponential Sum Approximation with Positive Coefficients*
    MATHEMATICS OF COMPUTATION, VOLUME 34, NUMBER 149 JANUARY 1980, PAGES 203-211 On Least Squares Exponential Sum Approximation With Positive Coefficients* By John W. Evans, William B. Gragg and Randall J. LeVeque Abstract. An algorithm is given for finding optimal least squares exponential sum approximations to sampled data subject to the constraint that the coefficients appear- ing in the exponential sum are positive. The algorithm employs the divided differences of exponentials to overcome certain problems of ill-conditioning and is suitable for data sampled at noninteger times. 1. Introduction. In this paper the following least squares approximation is con- sidered: Let y0, ...,yN be N + I real data points sampled at times 0 < t0 < • • • < tN, and let w0, ..., wN > 0 be a set of weights. For a compact subset S of the real num- bers minimize N I/ r Z ai exPi-ait„) subject only to ax, ...,ar>0 and ax, ..., ar E S and with no limitation on the number of terms r. An algorithm is given which extends that of [3], [10] so that noninteger times are acceptable. The algorithm uses the exponential [7], [9] of a certain triangular matrix [8] to obtain divided differences of the exponential function. For other work on this topic the reader is referred to [1], [2], [5] and to the references in [10]. We begin by giving some definitions and results from [3] in Section 2 and then present in Section 3 a modification of the numerical procedure of that paper which applies to approximation by positive sums of exponentials. The role of divided dif- ferences in a linear least squares step of the numerical procedure is considered in Sec- tion 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Remarkable Infinite Product Identities Involving Fibonacci
    Some remarkable infinite product identities involving Fibonacci and Lucas numbers∗ Kunle Adegoke † Department of Physics and Engineering Physics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Abstract By applying the classic telescoping summation formula and its vari- ants to identities involving inverse hyperbolic tangent functions hav- ing inverse powers of the golden ratio as arguments and employing subtle properties of the Fibonacci and Lucas numbers, we derive interesting general infinite product identities involving these num- bers. 1 Introduction The following striking (in Frontczak’s description [1]) infinite product iden- tity involving Fibonacci numbers, ∞ F +1 2k+2 =3 , F2k+2 1 Yk=1 − originally obtained by Melham and Shannon [2], is an n =1= q case of a more general identity (to be derived in this present paper): arXiv:1702.08321v2 [math.NT] 29 Apr 2017 ∞ F + F q F L (2n−1)(2k+2q) 2q(2n−1) = (2n−1)(2k−1) (2n−1)2k . F(2n−1)(2k+2q) F2q(2n−1) L(2n−1)(2k−1)F(2n−1)2k Yk=1 − Yk=1 ∗AMS Classification Numbers : 11B39, 11Y60 †[email protected], [email protected] 1 + The above identity is valid for q N0, n Z , where we use N0 to denote the set of natural numbers including∈ zero.∈ Here the Fibonacci numbers, Fn, and Lucas numbers, Ln, are defined, for n N , as usual, through the recurrence relations F = F + F , with ∈ 0 n n−1 n−2 F0 =0, F1 =1 and Ln = Ln−1 + Ln−2, with L0 =2, L1 =1. Our goal in this paper is to derive several general infinite product identi- ties, including the one given above.
    [Show full text]
  • Dismal Arithmetic
    1 2 Journal of Integer Sequences, Vol. 14 (2011), 3 Article 11.9.8 47 6 23 11 Dismal Arithmetic David Applegate AT&T Shannon Labs 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 USA [email protected] Marc LeBrun Fixpoint Inc. 448 Ignacio Blvd., #239 Novato, CA 94949 USA [email protected] N. J. A. Sloane1 AT&T Shannon Labs 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 USA [email protected] To the memory of Martin Gardner (October 21, 1914 – May 22, 2010). Abstract Dismal arithmetic is just like the arithmetic you learned in school, only simpler: there are no carries, when you add digits you just take the largest, and when you multiply digits you take the smallest. This paper studies basic number theory in this world, including analogues of the primes, number of divisors, sum of divisors, and the partition function. 1Corresponding author. 1 1 Introduction To remedy the dismal state of arithmetic skills possessed by today’s children, we propose a “dismal arithmetic” that will be easier to learn than the usual version. It is easier because there are no carry digits and there is no need to add or multiply digits, or to do anything harder than comparing. In dismal arithmetic, for each pair of digits, to Add, take the lArger, but to Multiply, take the sMaller. That’s it! For example: 2 5 = 5, 2 5 = 2. Addition or multiplication of larger numbers uses the same rules, always with the proviso that there are no carries. For example, the dismal sum of 169 and 248 is 269 and their dismal product is 12468 (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]