> On 3 Mrz., 22:19, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> > > 2 + 2 is not forced to be equal to 4 in English, because in the field >> > > of integers mod 3, only 0, 1 and 2 occur, no 4 occurs, but 2 + 2 >> > > still does and results in 1. >> >> > So your integers form a field? >> >> The integers 0,1 and 2 can form a field if the arithmetic is that of >> integers modulo 3. >> >> Note that whether a set of objects forms a field or not depends only on >> how the relevant operations of addition and multiplication are defined >> on the objects of that set, not on what the members of that set are in >> other contexts. > > And the multiplicative inverse is not required? > Ever heard of a ring without rang and rung?
The multiplicative inverse is present. It has been said that the arithmetic of integers modulo 3 should be applied. But I readily believe that you are too stupid to see it. And that you take your ignorance as greater insight, as usual, Mr. Greatest Mathematician Of All Times And Godlike Genius Of Your "university".
