P adic numbers
Named by 5 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A root lifted one digit at a time
On a dial of seven, 3 × 3 is 2. On a dial of forty-nine the square root of 2 must reduce to 3, so there are only seven candidates, and exactly one of them works: 10. On a dial of 343 exactly one lift of 10 works: 108. Each step adds one digit on the left, found by solving a linear equation, and the digits go on for ever — a number …21216213 whose square is 2, in a world where closeness means divisibility by seven.
A series that converges to minus one
1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + … runs off to infinity, and yet the formula for a geometric series says it should equal 1/(1 − 2) = −1. Measure size by how many factors of 2 a number has, instead of how large it is, and powers of 2 become small: the series converges, and to exactly −1. The same change of ruler explains why every repeating decimal is a fraction, and why repeating binary digits running off to the left are fractions too.
No odd number of equal triangles
A square can be cut into two triangles of equal area, or four, or any even number. It cannot be cut into three, or five, or any odd number — whatever shapes the triangles take. Paul Monsky's proof of 1970 has no geometry in its engine at all: it colours the points of the plane by how divisible their coordinates are by two.
Where the Collatz map is a coin
Extend the Collatz map from the whole numbers to the 2-adic integers — binary strings that run on for ever to the left — and it stops being mysterious. It becomes, after a change of coordinates, the simplest chaotic system there is: shifting a string of coin tosses one place. Everything about it is then known, and none of it says anything about the whole numbers, which is the most instructive failure in the whole story.
A sum of factorials that converges at every prime
1 + 1 + 2 + 6 + 24 + 120 + … grows faster than any geometric series and has no sum in the real numbers. Measure size by divisibility instead and the same series converges at every prime at once, to a different number each time. Whether any of those numbers ends in zero is a question Đuro Kurepa asked in 1971, and a search through every prime below 100,000 says no while a coin-toss model says it should have said yes about twice.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Modular arithmeticConvergenceParityAreaBinaryCollatzConjugacyDerivativeDissectionFactorialGeometric seriesHensel lemma