# S.O.S. Mathematics CyberBoard

Your Resource for mathematics help on the web!
 It is currently Fri, 24 May 2013 15:38:29 UTC

 All times are UTC [ DST ]

 Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ]
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Dual thingPosted: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 03:43:09 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:25:14 UTC
Posts: 12103
Location: Austin, TX
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pontrjagin dual of should be itself, right? The proof for a completion, , of doesn't seem to use anything other than the fact that is an integral domain which is locally compact, and is actually globally compact, so the proof should carry through without alteration, right?

Also, on that note, for the proof for (the + is just to emphasize that we are only dealing with as an abelian group) part of it is for every implies hence (this is a place where we use the fact that is an integral domain), and from what I understand, this is supposed to prove that the characters, are everywhere dense, and I don't see how that's supposed to follow. (Here is any nontrivial character of ). I just don't seem to get the topology on , as I know this must be obvious for some reason.

_________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination

Top

 Post subject: Re: Dual thingPosted: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:26:38 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6009
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pontrjagin dual of should be itself, right? The proof for a completion, , of doesn't seem to use anything other than the fact that is an integral domain which is locally compact, and is actually globally compact, so the proof should carry through without alteration, right?

Also, on that note, for the proof for (the + is just to emphasize that we are only dealing with as an abelian group) part of it is for every implies hence (this is a place where we use the fact that is an integral domain), and from what I understand, this is supposed to prove that the characters, are everywhere dense, and I don't see how that's supposed to follow. (Here is any nontrivial character of ). I just don't seem to get the topology on , as I know this must be obvious for some reason.

Are you sure? IIRC taking Pontryagin dual swaps compact with discrete, and so the dual of is

the Pr\"{u}fer group (with discrete topology).

You probably meant instead? In which case yes it is self-dual.

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: Dual thingPosted: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:47:37 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:25:14 UTC
Posts: 12103
Location: Austin, TX
outermeasure wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pontrjagin dual of should be itself, right? The proof for a completion, , of doesn't seem to use anything other than the fact that is an integral domain which is locally compact, and is actually globally compact, so the proof should carry through without alteration, right?

Also, on that note, for the proof for (the + is just to emphasize that we are only dealing with as an abelian group) part of it is for every implies hence (this is a place where we use the fact that is an integral domain), and from what I understand, this is supposed to prove that the characters, are everywhere dense, and I don't see how that's supposed to follow. (Here is any nontrivial character of ). I just don't seem to get the topology on , as I know this must be obvious for some reason.

Are you sure? IIRC taking Pontryagin dual swaps compact with discrete, and so the dual of is

the Pr\"{u}fer group (with discrete topology).

You probably meant instead? In which case yes it is self-dual.

Yes, I saw that the proof for pulls through to that for (aside from the detail I mentioned in my first post), however I don't see why the same proof doesn't pull through for , since it seems to have all the necessary properties that the completion of had, though I suppose the assignment of characters must just somehow fail to be dense in the character group, as the compactness gives that the image ought to be closed (albeit if the image is discrete, this isn't saying much).

_________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination

Top

 Post subject: Re: Dual thingPosted: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:56:20 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6009
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
outermeasure wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pontrjagin dual of should be itself, right? The proof for a completion, , of doesn't seem to use anything other than the fact that is an integral domain which is locally compact, and is actually globally compact, so the proof should carry through without alteration, right?

Also, on that note, for the proof for (the + is just to emphasize that we are only dealing with as an abelian group) part of it is for every implies hence (this is a place where we use the fact that is an integral domain), and from what I understand, this is supposed to prove that the characters, are everywhere dense, and I don't see how that's supposed to follow. (Here is any nontrivial character of ). I just don't seem to get the topology on , as I know this must be obvious for some reason.

Are you sure? IIRC taking Pontryagin dual swaps compact with discrete, and so the dual of is

the Pr\"{u}fer group (with discrete topology).

You probably meant instead? In which case yes it is self-dual.

Yes, I saw that the proof for pulls through to that for (aside from the detail I mentioned in my first post), however I don't see why the same proof doesn't pull through for , since it seems to have all the necessary properties that the completion of had, though I suppose the assignment of characters must just somehow fail to be dense in the character group, as the compactness gives that the image ought to be closed (albeit if the image is discrete, this isn't saying much).

Yes, it fails to give enough details about what happens in the middle, analogous to how it failed for when but is only a quotient . Knowing where it sends things like 1/(things prime to p), which is in , doesn't tell you where it sends 1/p and the like, which are in but not . The local uniform continuity just can't extract enough information from or which is not dense, contrast with which is dense.

_________________

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ]

 All times are UTC [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ High School and College Mathematics    Algebra    Geometry and Trigonometry    Calculus    Matrix Algebra    Differential Equations    Probability and Statistics    Proposed Problems Applications    Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, etc.    Computer Science    Math for Business and Economics Advanced Mathematics    Foundations    Algebra and Number Theory    Analysis and Topology    Applied Mathematics    Other Topics in Advanced Mathematics Other Topics    Administrator Announcements    Comments and Suggestions for S.O.S. Math    Posting Math Formulas with LaTeX    Miscellaneous