Haha ok. Hey, I’m no wizard either. Didn’t wanna come off as an aktually reply guy…
Think it also mighta been cool to define simply what isomorphisms are (generally, and then of groups, and fields in particular), and then bring it back to this group group of remainders/cosets (represented by sets of numbers) as a canonical representation, if that makes sense. My two ϟ 🤷♂️
I was also told that rationals can be continuous - because they are dense / - I’m going to let people know what the feedback is without stating any further assertions.
Funny, I had a comment about that too 😂
I don’t know about the assertion above that they’re “continuous”, but it had to do with a comment on expanding to real numbers. Interestingly, they can be constructed rigorously from special SETS of rationals (look up Dedekind Cuts), which is pretty cool and sorta parallels the construction of the aforementioned fields as sets of remainders (kinda)
The point was to show Z/NZ as a
Number system like naturals or the reals.
I only first studied real analysis this summer:
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed