The
third edition of my introduction to the *p*-adic numbers was
published in July 2020. In addition to correcting all known typos, I
added a lot of new material: doing *p*-adic numbers with Sage and
GP, a section on visualizing the *p*-adic integers, a short
discussion of integration, etc. I hope I made it better!

This book is aimed at advanced undergraduates and graduate students
interested in beginning to learn about the *p*-adic numbers. It
is written in a way that I hope makes it usable for independent study
as well as for a class. The idea is to set you up for the deeper
treatments and applications you will find in graduate texts and
research monographs. An annotated list of some of what is available
appears in an appendix.

*p-adic Numbers* is part of the *Universitext* series from
Springer. The ISBNs are 978-3-030-47295-5 (ebook) and
978-3-030-47294-8 (softcover). You can
access
it at SpringerLink. It is also on Amazon, of course.

The table of contents is reproduced below after the Errata.

I’ll try to collect here any typos or mistakes that are brought to my attention. If you think you’ve found something, send me an email!

- Page 26, last paragraph: the reference should be to figure 1.2, not 1.3. There is no figure 1.3.
- On page 29, we see 1 + 3 + 3
^{2}+ ... + 3^{n}+ ... = ...33331, which is of course nonsense, since 3 is not even an allowable digit in**Q**_{3}. It should be ...111111. - Page 30, fourth displayed equation: this is supposed to be an infinite series, so it should end with ...
- Page 30, Fact 1.4.1: As stated, this might suggest that the partial
sums are integers, which of course they are not. So one should take
“divisible by 2
^{M}” to mean that the numerator of the partial sum (in lowest terms) is divisible by 2^{M}. - Page 30, Problem 30: My hint for this is to look at D. P. Parent's solution. Unfortunately, there are some problems with the solution there, so I have written my version of Parent's proof. See also Problem 175.
- Page 128, middle: the description of what happens in the classical case is incorrect. What I should have said is that in the classical case there is always a disk |x|<r on which the composed power series converges to the composed function. But we can't just look at the value of g(x) (for example, we might have g(x)=0 for a value of x outside the radius of convergence of the composed series).

**Table of contents**

Introduction

On the Third Edition

**1. Apéritif:** Hensel’s Analogy, How to Compute,
Solving Congruences Modulo *p*^{n}, Other Examples.

**2. Foundations:** Absolute Values on a Field, Basic
Properties, Topology, Algebra.

**3. The p-adic Numbers:** Absolute Values on

**4. Exploring Q_{p}:** What We Already
Know,

**5. Elementary Analysis in Q_{p}:**
Sequences and Series, Functions, Continuity, Derivatives, Integrals,
Power Series, Functions Defined by Power Series, Strassman’s
Theorem, Logarithm and Exponential Functions, The Structure
of

**6. Vector Spaces and Field Extensions:** Normed Vector Spaces
over Complete Valued Fields, Finite-dimensional Normed Vector Spaces,
Extending the *p*-adic Absolute Value, Finite Extensions of
**Q**_{p}, Classifying Extensions of
**Q**_{p}, Analysis, Example: Adjoining a
*p*-th Root of Unity, On to **C**_{p}.

**7. Analysis in C_{p}:** Almost
Everything Extends, Deeper Results on Polynomials and Power Series,
Entire Functions, Newton Polygons.

**8. Fun With Your New Head:** problems to explore.

**Appendix B. Hints, Solutions, and Comments on the Problems**

**Appendix C. A Brief Glance at the Literature **