Mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers?

In summary, the conversation discusses a partitioning of all integers greater than 1 into mutually disjoint sets. Each set consists of an infinite series of integers that are all powers of a "root" integer that has no integer roots of its own. These roots include primes and some composites, and they are analogous to how primes are fundamental to multiplication. The conversation also raises questions about the terminology and proper definitions for these sets and whether they are mutually disjoint. It is suggested that the generators should not be powers of other generators, and it is noted that primes alone are not enough to generate all positive integers.
  • #1
Ventrella
29
4
I identified what appears to be a partitioning of all integers > 1 into mutually disjoint sets. Each set consists of an infinite series of integers that are all the powers of what I am calling a "root" r (r is an integer that has no integer roots of its own, meaning: there is no number x^n that equals r, where x > 1 and n > 0).

For example: here are the first few integers of the first 5 sets:

2^n = 2, 4, 8, 16, 32...
3^n = 3, 9, 27, 81...
5^n = 5, 25, 125...
6^n = 6, 36...
7^n = 7, 49...

These roots include all the prime numbers, but they also include some composites. Analogous to how the primes are fundamental to multiplication, these roots are fundamental to exponentiation.

I am curious if there is an official name for these sets. Have I used proper definitions and terms? Is my assumption correct that these are mutually disjoint sets, the union of which are all the positive integers?

Thank you!
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The terminology is that each of the sets is the orbit of its root (which would be called a 'generator' in group theory), where we consider the multiplicative group of positive integers as acting on itself.

Yes your assumption is correct. The union of all the orbits is all the integers because any integer that is not in another orbit is the root of its own orbit.

To see that the orbits are disjoint, we proceed as follows.
If two orbits intersect then, considering the prime factorisation of an element in the intersection, and using the uniqueness of prime factorisations, we see that the roots of the two orbits must have the same set of prime factors
Let the prime factorisations of the roots be ##p_1^{a_1}...p_m^{a_n}## and ##p_1^{b_1}...p_n^{b_n}##, where all ##a_i## and ##b_i## are positive integers. The set of all ##a_i## must be coprime (GCF=1), because if the GCF is ##k>1## then the item we thought was the root is the ##k##th element in the orbit of the lower integer ##p_1^{a_1/k}...p_m^{a_n/k}##. the same goes for the set of ##b_i##.

The ##k##th elements of the two orbits are ####p_1^{ka_1}...p_m^{ka_n}## and ##p_1^{kb_1}...p_n^{kb_n}##. Let the first element in the intersection of the orbits be the ##j##th element of the first orbit and the ##k##th element of the second orbit and assume WLOG that ##k>j##. Then we must have ##ja_i=kb_i## for all ##i##, so that ##b_i=a_i\frac jk##.

Let ##c/d## be the form of the fraction ##j/k## that has all possible cancellations made, so that ##c,d## are coprime. Then we have ##b_i=a_i\frac cd## for all ##i##. So it must be the case that ##d## divides ##a_i## for all ##i##. Hence the ##a_i## are not coprime, contrary to assumption. Hence by contradiction, the intersection of the two orbits must be empty.
 
  • #3
Ventrella said:
I identified what appears to be a partitioning of all integers > 1 into mutually disjoint sets. Each set consists of an infinite series of integers that are all the powers of what I am calling a "root" r (r is an integer that has no integer roots of its own, meaning: there is no number x^n that equals r, where x > 1 and n > 0).

For example: here are the first few integers of the first 5 sets:

2^n = 2, 4, 8, 16, 32...
3^n = 3, 9, 27, 81...
5^n = 5, 25, 125...
6^n = 6, 36...
7^n = 7, 49...

These roots include all the prime numbers, but they also include some composites. Analogous to how the primes are fundamental to multiplication, these roots are fundamental to exponentiation.

I am curious if there is an official name for these sets. Have I used proper definitions and terms? Is my assumption correct that these are mutually disjoint sets, the union of which are all the positive integers?

Thank you!
It seems you just need for your generators to not be powers of other generators ( obvious) but I don't know if this is the only way. Primes by themselves will not be enough, e.g., 6 will not be generated by primes.
 

1. What are mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers?

Mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers are sets that do not share any common elements. In other words, each set contains a unique set of numbers that do not appear in any of the other sets. For example, the set of all even numbers and the set of all odd numbers are mutually disjoint.

2. How are mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers different from normal sets?

Mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers are different from normal sets in that they do not overlap or share any elements. Normal sets can have overlapping elements and can also contain common elements among different sets.

3. What is the significance of studying mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers?

Studying mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers is important in mathematics and computer science. It helps in understanding the concept of sets and their relationships, and is useful in solving problems related to number theory, combinatorics, and algorithms.

4. Can mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers be infinite?

Yes, mutually disjoint sets of all integer powers can be infinite. For example, the set of all even numbers and the set of all multiples of 3 are both mutually disjoint and infinite sets.

5. How do you determine if two sets are mutually disjoint?

To determine if two sets are mutually disjoint, you can check if they have any common elements. If there are no common elements, then the sets are mutually disjoint. Another way is to check if the intersection of the two sets is an empty set.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
768
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
928
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
27
Views
2K
Back
Top