Results 1 to 8 of 8

Math Help - Question on the History of a Notation

  1. #1
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21

    Question on the History of a Notation

    Often when one does field theory, or at least this was my experience, one's first encounter notationally with a field is that they are generically denoted F or \mathbb{F}. This of course makes sense for the same reason that vector spaces are generically denoted V, modules and monoids M, rings R, and groups G. Moreover, it is common (in accordance with sets) that these structures should have a capitalized letter. That said, it seems to be a universal notation among more advanced field theory books (especially those dealing in algebraic number theory) to denote fields by k--not f and not capitalized. Is there any particular reason for this? Is it possible that it is for the same reason that \mathbb{Z} is the integer (zhalen)?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Moo
    Moo is offline
    A Cute Angle Moo's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    P(I'm here)=1/3, P(I'm there)=t+1/3
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    6
    Hello,

    Isn't it k because of the characteristic of a field ? (just a thought, I have no idea if it's correct or not)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    Hello,

    Isn't it k because of the characteristic of a field ? (just a thought, I have no idea if it's correct or not)
    Hey Moo,

    That's an interesting hypothesis. I agree that in some of the books which denote fields generically by F they write \text{char}(F) as k--so that's definitely a possibility.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Drexel28 View Post
    Often when one does field theory, or at least this was my experience, one's first encounter notationally with a field is that they are generically denoted F or \mathbb{F}. This of course makes sense for the same reason that vector spaces are generically denoted V, modules and monoids M, rings R, and groups G. Moreover, it is common (in accordance with sets) that these structures should have a capitalized letter. That said, it seems to be a universal notation among more advanced field theory books (especially those dealing in algebraic number theory) to denote fields by k--not f and not capitalized. Is there any particular reason for this? Is it possible that it is for the same reason that \mathbb{Z} is the integer (zhalen)?
    I think the answer lies in German, as with Zahlen for integers. The German word for field (in the algebraic sense) is Körper. Interestingly, the corresponding French word is corps, which (like Körper) means "body" in everyday usage.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    I think the answer lies in German, as with Zahlen for integers. The German word for field (in the algebraic sense) is Körper. Interestingly, the corresponding French word is corps, which (like Körper) means "body" in everyday usage.
    Yep, that would be pretty conclusive, thanks [b]Opalg[b/]! Any idea why the k is lower case though?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,971
    Thanks
    1637
    Just off the top of my head- Germans use lower case for symbols so as not to overuse capitals any more than they already do (in German all nouns are capitalized)!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    10,054
    Thanks
    368
    Awards
    1
    I'm too lazy to do the research, but with all these German connections, my bet is that Gauss had a hand in a least a few of these cases.

    -Dan
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
    I'm too lazy to do the research, but with all these German connections, my bet is that Gauss had a hand in a least a few of these cases.

    -Dan
    Surprisingly, it seems to be very much more recent than that. The only online reference to the history of this notation that I have been able to find is here, where it is suggested that the first systematic use of Z for the integers and Q for the rationals is in Bourbaki's Algèbre. The Bourbaki group started work in the 1930s, but the first volume in the algebra series was not published until 1947. Before then, there does not seem to have been any standardised notation for number sets.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. full history recurrence
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 6th 2010, 01:48 AM
  2. History of Mathematics
    Posted in the Advanced Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 2nd 2010, 03:58 AM
  3. history of pi
    Posted in the Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 7th 2009, 11:00 PM
  4. history behind integration by parts
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 15th 2008, 10:37 AM
  5. Question about history of mathematics
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 11th 2008, 07:55 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum