
1. Introduction
Derivative plays a very fundamental role in the analysis of functions over the real and the complex number fields. In these fields, their properties and applications are well-studied, since they reflect well on our everyday lives. Over finite rings the notion of a derivative first appeared some 75 year ago in the paper by Hasse [2] . This derivative is the so called Hasse derivative, and has been successfully used in areas where finite fields play an important role, such as Coding Theory as reported by Massey, von Seeman, Schoeller [3] .
Suppose that R is a commutative ring and let
be a polynomial
over R. Then rth-Hasse derivative of
is
with
for
. It is well-known that over a finite field K all functions
are polynomial. In fact, if
, then there are
functions over K. In addition, there is a 1-1 correspondence between a function
and polynomial of degree less than m. So with Hasse derivatives one has every thing as far as a derivative of a function over K.
If R is a finite commutative ring, then only a fraction of functions on R are polynomials as shown by Frisch [4] . So for a function
on R which can not be represented by a polynomial over R, its Hasse derivative can not be determined. The aim of this paper is to introduce a derivative on a set of relations on certain rings.
Suppose that R is a finite ring and consider a relation
on R in a variable x, which shall be usually denoted by
. Then the image of
may sometimes be an array, see de Souza, de Oliveira, de Souza, Vasconcelos [5] . For instance, the image of a function on R is an
-array. In Section 2 we will look into exponential relations and their arrays over the ring
for an integer n, and then we give sufficient conditions for an exponential relation to be a function over R.
Let R be the finite ring
, where n is an odd integer. Given a relation
, and a point
, what should be the derivative of
at a? In real analysis we take the slope of a tangent line at a, provided it exists. Moreover for a relation on the real number fields, we have at lest one slope at a point: one along each column (picture the derivative of
). Over a finite field this is not possible, because a point has more than one tangent! In addition, slopes of tangents can be computed along a column of
as well as across it. In Section 3 we show that the slope of the closest secant to a point
along a column k is the best candidate for the derivative of
at x, which shall be denoted by
or simply
, the k-th derivative of
at x. This derivative has similar properties as the derivative of the real number field, like: linearity; product and quotient rules and how it acts on polynomials and exponential relations. The definition of the derivative requires some ordering of the elements of R. In Section 1, we consider the ring R as cyclically ordered set, which is very natural since R is a finite set.
Let
be a finite field with q elements and let
be a relation. Define the set of directions of
(slopes of secants of the graph of
) by:
(1)
The problem of determining the bound on the size of
has be studied extensively both geometrically and combinatorically. The problem was first examined Blockhuis, Ball, Brouwer, Storme and Szonyi [6] , then by Ball [7] [8] who has done an extensive investigation. However, there has not been any attempt on computing the directions themselves, so far.
Given a graph of a column of a relation
over R, the size s of the graph is the number of elements in the domain of
. Note that s is less than or equal to q. Now, ideally if one want to find all directions, one may have to compute up to
directions. The algorithm is as follow: you start at the first point and then find
directions, then move to the second point and compute
directions, and so on. Since
is a subset of R, as show by Ball [8] [9] , there is a lot of unnecessary computations in this algorithm. In Section 4 we show that for some relations
over prime fields, the derivatives of
is all one needs to find all the directions of the graph of
.
2. Preliminaries
In this section we collect some of the preliminaries that will be needed in this paper. We fix the following notation: If R is a ring with unity, then
will denote the group of units of R. Unless otherwise specified, by order of an element
we mean the multiplicative order of a.
Throughout the paper,
will denote the set all modulo integers
, which is a class containg all integers b such that
. The
denote the greatest common divisor of integers a and b, which is unique.
2.1. Immediate Successor and Predecessor
Most people are very familiar with linear ordering. However, cyclic order is not a household term. We give a formal definition of cyclic order and use it to define some terminologies as explained by Garcia-Colin, Montejano, Montejano, Oliveros [10] .
Let X be a set of at least 3 elements. A ternary relation C is a subset of the Cartesian product
which satisfies the following axioms:
1) Cyclicity: if
is in C, then
is in C.
2) Asymmetry: if
is in C, then
is not in C.
3) Transitivity: if
and
are in C, then
is in C.
4) Totality or Completeness: if a, b and c are distinct, then either
is in C or
is in C.
If C satisfies the first three axioms, then it is called partial cyclic ordering on X, and consequently the pair
is a partially cyclically ordered set. If C satisfies all four axioms, it is called (total) cyclic ordering on X, as a result we get cyclically ordered set
.
If a cyclically ordered set X is finite of cardinality n, then there is a 1-1 correspondence between X and the cyclically ordered set
. We can use this correspondence to identify positions on X. Now, let X be a finite cyclically ordered set and let
be at position i (using the above correspondence), where i is an integer. Then the element in the position
will be called an immediate successor of x, and will be denoted by
, while that in the position
will be called immediate predecessor of x and will be denoted by
.
2.2. Unity Ordering
Let G be a finite group. The cyclic orderings on G which are of interest to us, are those that depend on generators of the group and the binary operation of the group. For example, for the additive group
, we have the orderings
,
,
and
, while for the multiplicative group
we have orderings
and
. Given a generator g of a finite cyclic group, if the group is additive, then the ordering determined by g will be referred to g-additive cyclic ordering, where as if the group is multiplicative, then the ordering will be referred to as g-multiplicative cyclic ordering.
Suppose that G is a finite cyclically ordered group of order
with a binary operation. Then G has at least one cyclic ordering, namely the one determined by each generator of G. For
, define the length from a to b, denoted by
, to be
, where
is the inverse of a. For example, in the cyclically ordered set
, we have that
, while for the multiplicative group
modulo 5 which is cyclically ordered, we have
and
.
Now, for our group G above, we have that every element
has an immediate predecessor and successor. Then the length
will be referred to as the least length of a, and will be denoted by
. For example, for multiplicative cyclically ordered group
, we have that
for all
. The following fact can be easily proved.
Fact 1.1. Let R be a ring with unity
and isomorphic to the ring
.
1) For any additive ordering on R the least length
is constant for all
.
2) There is an additive ordering on R such that
.
The cyclic ordering of Fact 1.1 (2) on a ring R will be called the unity ordering.
For the rest of the paper, we impose the following assumption on our ring R:
Assumption 1.2. R is the ring
where q is an odd integer. Moreover, the ordering on R is the associated additive cyclic ordering.
Remark 1.3. Under the above assumption our ring R will have a canonical cyclic ordering, which will be fundamental throughout the paper. Moreover, no matter what additive cyclic ordering one takes on R, the element
will be a unit, since the ordering is determined by a generator of R.
3. Exponential and Hyperbolic Relations over R
In real analysis, exponential functions
are very fundamental, and they can easily be used to define other functions. Over finite ring, the mapping determined by
, for a unit
, is not necessarily a function. We have the following definition, which is motivated by de Souza, de Oliveira, Kauffman, Paschoal [5] and de Souza, de Oliveira, Kauffman, Paschoa [11] .
Definition 2.1. Let
be a unit of order N. Then, the exponential relation
is the relation
. The image of
is an
-array
with the a-th row,
, where
. The k-th column of
,
, where
, will be called the k-th exponential relation of
.
Example 1. We consider examples:
1) Let
and consider the relation
. Then the array of
is
2) If
and our relation is
, then the array of
is
Computation of the array of the relation in Example 1 (1.) looks easy, because along columns and rows one just increases the power by one. This is generally true for prime fields.
Lemma 2.2. If R is a prime field, and
is a relation on R, then the k-th relation of
is
.
Proof. We have that
, since
. □
Consider the relation
, where
has order N. Then
has N rows. However, as shown in the example above the number of columns may vary. If certain condition are satisfied, then the number of columns of the array of
can easily be obtained.
Theorem 2.3. Let
be a unit in R of order N, and let
be a relation.
1) If a perfect square is not a factor of q and
, then
is an
-array.
2) If
for a prime p, where m is a positive integer, then there are
columns in
.
Proof. Suppose that
is an
-array, and let the a-th row be
. Then
is a coset of the subgroup
of
of order t. One can then observe that for both cases,
and
.
1) Now
means that
which is implies that
. But since N does not divide q, it must divide t. Hence
.
2) We have that
, since H contains power of
. Let K be a subgroup of
of order
. Since
, then
, and hence K is unique. From this we infer that if
is such that
, then
. Now we have that
for
, so that
. Hence
and
, which implies that
. If
, then
, so that
, a contradiction. □
The following corollary gives a sufficient condition for an exponential relation on R to be a function.
Corollary 2.4. Suppose that
is unit of order N.
1) If a perfect square is not a factor of q and
, then the relation
is a function.
2) If
for a prime p and
has order
for
, then the relation
is a function.
Proof. 1) For all
and some positive integer t, we have that
, since
.
2) Follows from Theorem 2.3, since
for
. □
Let
be a unit of order N, and consider the relation
. Then
is periodic of period N. More precisely, for a positive integer s each subset
of the domain of
, where
, determines the same image
. The subset
is referred to as the j-th steps of
. As expected, starting at a point in R, there are only a finite number of steps of
before one gets back to the same point.
Proposition 2.5. Let
be a unit of order N, and consider the relation
. If
, then
has
steps.
Proof. Let
be the least positive integer with the property that the set
taken
has distinct elements. Observe that find number of steps of
is the same as finding the cardinality
of T. Also note that
. If
, then
, a contradiction. □
Corollary 2.6. Let
be a unit of order N, and consider the relation
. Then the map
is a permutation.
Proof. Only need to show that
is 1-1. Suppose that
for
. Then
which is equivalent to
, a contradiction. □
We now define hyperbolic relations over R.
Definition 2.7. Let
be a unit of order
. Then
1) The k-th hyperbolic sine and cosine relations to the base
over R, denoted by
and
are respectively
(2)
2) The hyperbolic since and cosine relations to the base
, denoted by
and
are the relations with images the
-arrays made by the columns
and
, respectively, where
.
Under certain assumption on R, hyperbolic relations on R behave like those over the real.
Proposition 2.8. Suppose that R has the unity ordering, and let
be a unit of order
. Then for
:
1) the identity
holds,
2)
and
Proof. Follows from the definition. □
4. Derivatives and Their Properties
Denote the set of relations from R to R whose image are
-arrays by
, and by
the set of all functions from R to R.
Let q be the order of the ring R and let
. For a positive integer k and a relation
, define a map
on the k-th relation
of
by
(3)
If the context is clear, then
will be just denoted by
.
If one looks closely at the this map one will notice that its value at a point
is the slope of the closest secant to the point x along
. It can be also interpreted as the average of the two closest slopes to x along
. The result below show that the transformation has good properties too.
Theorem 3.1. Let
and let
. Then
1) the transformation
is linear.
2) Product Rule:
(4)
(5)
3) Quotient rule: If
for all
, then
(6)
Proof. 1) Follows easily.
2) We use the elementary + tricks.
(7)
(8)
(9)
3) Exercise. □
Remark 3.2. If R is a prime field, then (3) and its subsequent formulas in Theorem 3.1 become much easier, by the use of Lemma 2.2.
Example 2. Let us look into examples:
1) Let p be an odd prime number and consider the ring
with the associated additive cyclic ordering. Let
. Then for each
, so that
is a unit in
. So,
. For
, we have that
.
2) Let
has the unity ordering, and consider the relation
given by
. Then the image of
is
-array with columns
and
. One can verify that
and
for
.
3) Consider the ring
, and let
. Then R is a ring modulo 35 whose unity
. If one considers the given cyclic ordering on R, then for each
,
and
which is a unit in R. Consider the relation
on R. Then the image of
is a
-array, and we have that
,
and
for
.
The computation in Example 2.3 (1) and (2) would not be very clear as far as
is concerned. But we used the following result.
Lemma 3.3. Suppose
is a unit of order
, and let
be a relation on R. Then
, for all integers
. In particular,
,
and
.
Proof. We have that
. □
From the above theorem we see that the transformation
looks indeed like a derivative on
. For, when applied to a constant function it vanishes, and when applied to a polynomial of degree two it gives a polynomial of degree one, and so on. Also, when the transformation is applied to an exponential relation over R, it produces the relation times a constant. The above behavior are similar to those seen in the derivative transformation of real functions.
Definition 3.4. Let
be a relation on R and let
. If
is defined, then it will be called the k-th derivative of the relation
at x, and will be denoted by
.
In the real analysis case we are used to very nice derivative formulas for functions. The situation here is the similar, and we have the following result.
Corollary 3.5. Let R has unity
and let
be the least length. If
is a unit and n is a nonnegative integer greater than 1, then
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Proof. One just uses the definition of the derivative. □
Remark 3.6. 1) If the ordering of R in Corollary 3.5 is the unity ordering, then
and the formulas become much simpler.
2) Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.5 can be used to find k-th derivatives of all relations which are linear combinations or products of the set of k-th relations
for a unit
.
3) The derivative of a monomial function whose degree is divisible q is not zero in R.
The derivative is a linear transformation on
. So it can be applied on a relation
more that once and still preserve the linearity property. The following result, which is a consequence of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.5, gives formulas for computing k-th derivatives of certain relations
, t times, which will be called
-th derivative of
. If the array of
has only one column, then the
-th derivative will be just called t-th derivative.
Corollary 3.7. Let
be a unit, and let
is the least length. Then for a nonnegative integer t:
(14)
(15)
Proof. 1) Follows from (2) and Theorem 3.1.
2) Exercise. □
Over the real the derivative transformation is not necessarily periodic for exponential functions. Over prime fields the derivative transformation on an exponential relation is periodic forall of the bases.
Theorem 3.8. Let
for a prime number q, and let
be a unit which is not a square root of unity. If
, then
Proof. By the assumption
, so that
, which implies that
some positive integer t. □
The Exponential Values e
In real analysis the exponential relation
is characterized by its derivative, in the sense that it is the only relation with derivative equals the relation itself. Given a finite ring with additive cyclically ordering, do we have an analog of the exponential relation with respect the derivative we have defined? The answer is not necessarily! But some rings have indeed got a pair of es. The result below gives a sufficient condition for that to happen.
Theorem 3.9. Let
, where
is prime. If 2 is a quadratic residue in R, then the elements
has the property that
, where
is the k-th relation of the relation
.
Proof. Consider the relation
, where e is in R. Suppose that
has the property that
for all k. Then one has that
, which means
. □
5. Finding Directions
Throughout this section
for an odd prime q, and the ordering of R is the unity ordering. Recall that for a relation
, the set of directions of
is denoted by
(see (1)). Let us denote the set of all
-th derivatives of
by
i.e.
(16)
From the definition of derivative we see that
for all
.
For a relation
, the bound on the size of
has be well studied. But there are only few relations
over R whereby the exact size of
is known. So far these are the known ones: Redei [1] shows that for linear functions
,
, while Ball [8] establihed that functions of the form
have
. We will try to add to this collection. We need the following lemma.
Lemma 4.1. Let
be a unit of order
, and consider the relation
. Then for all
,
for all
.
Proof. For
such that
, we have that
for all
, by Corollary 2.6. One can easily verify that
, for all
. □
Suppose that
is a unit, and let
be a relation. Then by Theorem 3.9, applying the derivative transformation repeatedly gives back
. We have two cases for
:
Case 1: If
is in
, then we get a permutation of
whose order it the order of subgroup generated by
.
Case 2: If
is not in
, then the collection
partitions a bigger subgroup of
containing
. If this happens, then we say that
partitions the subgroup.
We have the following result.
Lemma 4.2. Let
be a unit in R, and let
be a relation. Then the order of
divides
for all
. In particular, if
is a generator of
, then
for all
.
Proof. We know that the set
is a coset of
in
for all
. Then the result follows, since all cosets of a subgroup have the same size. □
Now we have our main result of this section, which establishes a connection between
and
for exponential relations
.
Theorem 4.3. Suppose that
is a unit in R of order
, consider the
relation
, and let s be the order of
.
1) If
partitions
, then for all k
(17)
2) If
is a generator of
, then
(18)
Proof. 1) Let
. Then
, since
partitions
. We also have that 0 is not in
for all
, by Lemma 4.1. Since
and
for all i, the result follows.
2) By Lemma 4.2 we have that
and
by Lemma 4.1, for all
. Since
for all
, and
, the result follows. □
6. Conclusion
The notion of derivatives over certain finite ring is developed and is used to find the number of directions of exponential relations in the sence of Redei [1] . The developed theory is limited to finite rings of the form
for an odd integer n. It is an open problem to develop the notion of derivatives to fit other finite algebraic setting.