Intereting Posts

What's the difference between “$\to$” (implication) and “$\vdash$” (therefore)?
Residue at infinity (complex analysis)
Easiest proof for $\sum_{d|n}\phi(d)=n$
List of powers of Natural Numbers
Cardinality of set of well-orderable subsets of a non-well-orderable set
For any positive integers $a,b$, one has $a^4|b^3$ implies $a|b$?
First kind Chebyshev polynomial to Monomials
Find the value of $\sum_0^n \binom{n}{k} (-1)^k \frac{1}{k+1}$
Can a number with $100$ $0$'s $100$ $1$'s and $100$ $2$'s ever be a perfect square?
How do we find the inverse of a function with $2$ variables?
Axiom of choice and compactness.
How many number of functions are there?
Distribution of X+Y of a bivariate normally distributed (X,Y)
Proving theorem connecting the inverse of a holomorphic function to a contour integral of the function.
Poisson random variable with parameter $\lambda>0$

I am reading a book that explains elementary number theory: *Number Theory: A Lively Introduction with Proofs, Applications, and Stories* by James Pommersheim, Tim Marks and Erica Flapan.

The authors say,

“We express this idea in the statement of the Fundamental of Arithmetic by saying that prime factorization are unique

. … for example, 40 and -40 are equalup to ordersign, the functions $12x^2$ and $x^2$ are equalup toa constant factor, and so forth.”up to

Because I am not an English native speaker, the phrase “up to” is ambiguous for me a little bit. I would like to figure out the meaning of the phrase and use it properly. How do I do?

- Backwards epsilon
- What's the difference between “$\to$” (implication) and “$\vdash$” (therefore)?
- Notation for infinite product in reverse order
- Element of a Singleton (set with one element) notation
- Column or row of a matrix?
- Challenge: Demonstrate a Contradiction in Leibniz' differential notation
- Is there a meaningful distinction between “inclusion” and “monomorphism”?
- What is the difference between $d$ and $\partial$?
- Analytic versus Analytical Sets
- logic symbol for 'unlike, differing from'

When one says “$X$ is true *up to* $Y$”, then one means that it is not strictly speaking correct that $X$ is true, and the $Y$ which occurs after the *up to* clarifies the sense in which $X$ is not quite true.

Thus it really means “Roughly speaking $X$ is true, *except* for $Y$”.

As you can see, this is a very informal construction. It could be used very abusively. In order to be acceptable, the sense in which $Y$ “corrects” $X$ needs to be very familiar to the reader, or the underlying logic should be made more explicit.

So when one says that factorizations in $\mathbb{Z}$ are unique *up to order*, then it is understood that of course we could have $a*b*c= b*a*c = c*a*b = \ldots$ and we don’t want to count these as being essentially different factorizations. In this case this sloppy language is probably a good expository choice, since most readers have an intuitive idea of what the “exception” is, whereas spelling it out explicitly would probably involve something like the following:

Uniqueness of Prime Factorizations: If $r$ and $s$ are positive integers, $p_1,\ldots,p_r,q_1,\ldots,q_s$ are prime numbers and $p_1 \cdots p_r = q_1 \cdots q_s$, then $r = s$ and there is a bijection $\sigma: \{1,\ldots,r\} \rightarrow \{1,\ldots,s\}$ such that $p_i = q_{\sigma(i)}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq r$.

The point is that this more precise statement will be gibberish to someone who does not have a certain amount of mathematical sophistication. (On the other hand, at some point a student of mathematics should be able to supply the statement above or something equally explicit and logically equivalent. In fact I happen to recall one colleague of mine, a veteran research mathematician, who told me that he was always uncomfortable with the statement of uniqueness of factorization because of the vague phrase “up to”. He has very high standards for clear exposition and thinking.) The book that you speak of is written for a much more general audience, so their expository choice is a good one.

(As an aside, I was first introduced to number theory in a course taught by Marks and Pommersheim, a course they taught to talented high school students during the summer over a period of many years. I haven’t read the book that you mention, coauthored with Flapan, but I’d have to think that it is largely based on these courses. This course was one of the great influences on my intellectual life — not coincidentally I am now a number theorist! — so I expect the book is pretty good.)

“$A$ and $B$ are equal up to $x$” means that either $A = B$, or that $A$ can be obtained from $B$ by merely modifying $x$ or applying $x$.

Examples:

- $4$ and $-4$ are equal up to sign because you can obtain one from the other by
*modifying*the sign. - $(2^3, 7^4)$ and $(7^4, 2^3)$ are equal up to order since you can obtain one from the other by
*modifying*the order. - $S_2$ and $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ are equal up to isomorphism (as groups) since you can obtain one from the other by
*applying*an isomorphism.

It’s understood that when ever this terminology is used, the relation between $A$ and $B$ is an equivalence relation on objects of the type of $A$ and $B$.

- Number of bit strings with 3 consecutive zeros or 4 consecutive 1s
- The spectrum of normal operators in $C^*$-algebras
- Primitive polynomials of finite fields
- Is a proof also “evidence”?
- can the emphasis on “smallest” in the monotone class theorem be ignored in applications?
- Action of a matrix on the exterior algebra
- Does “This is a lie” prove the insufficiency of binary logic?
- prove that $x^2 + y^2 = z^4$ has infinitely many solutions with $(x,y,z)=1$
- Express $C$ in terms of the sets $A_n$
- Group theory applications along with a solved example
- Union of uncountable cardinals
- Calculating the divisors of the coordinate functions on an elliptic curve
- Calculating $\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\frac{1}{2^nn(3n-1)}}$
- ancient principle of mathematics: figure = varying element
- Evaluating a power series