mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > New To GIMPS? Start Here! > Homework Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-04-26, 20:44   #12
jyb
 
jyb's Avatar
 
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA

33128 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy5214 View Post
Note the difference. The axioms for the rational numbers (an ordered field) are the same as the real numbers (essentially the only Dedekind-complete ordered field) minus the least upper bound property/Dedekind completeness, so if your book has axioms for the real numbers, you can derive the axioms for the rational numbers from those.
This isn't quite correct. The axioms of the reals minus the least upper bound property gives you an ordered field, but it is not sufficient to characterize the rationals. Specifically, it need not be Archimedean, which the rationals are. E.g. see the surreal numbers, for which these axioms apply, but which are certainly not isomorphic to the rationals.
jyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-04-26, 21:15   #13
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

28D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jyb View Post
This isn't quite correct. The axioms of the reals minus the least upper bound property gives you an ordered field, but it is not sufficient to characterize the rationals. Specifically, it need not be Archimedean, which the rationals are. E.g. see the surreal numbers, for which these axioms apply, but which are certainly not isomorphic to the rationals.
Correct. The rationals are the smallest ordered field, in the sense that they are embedded in every other ordered field, so that would be the missing axiom. I couldn't tell you how that implies the Archimedean property (I proved it for the reals in my analysis class, but that proof is based on completeness).
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-04-27, 08:39   #14
Nick
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Dec 2012
The Netherlands

25×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy5214 View Post
I couldn't tell you how that implies the Archimedean property
In that case, it's time for our 2nd important general principle of the thread:
given any property, always consider whether the set of all elements with that property
is just a subset or a substructure (subgroup, subring, subfield or whatever).
Here: all you have to do is show that the set of rational numbers that have the Archimedean property form a subfield.
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-04-29, 15:35   #15
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

4,591 Posts
Default

The Archimedean property is that if x and y are in an ordered field, x > 0 and y > 0, there is a positive integer n such that n*x > y.

Assuming the ordered field is the field of rational numbers with the usual ordering, I note that if x and y are positive rational numbers, there is a positive integer M such that M*x and M*y are both positive integers. Then taking n = M*y + 1, we have

n*(M*x) >= n*1 = M*y + 1 > M*y, so that n*x > y.

If we ignore the ordering, and use instead a "non-Archimedean valuation" (p-adic valuation), anything dependent on ordering (like "upper bound" or "least upper bound," and therefore "Dedekind completeness") goes out the window.

Luckily, "Cauchy completeness" (every Cauchy sequence in the field has a limit in the field) can still be used to embed the p-adic rationals (and their extensions) into fields that are (Cauchy) complete WRT a non-Archimedean valuation.

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2021-04-29 at 15:35 Reason: xifgin posty
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do I prove (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2 from axioms? drkirkby Homework Help 10 2021-04-22 15:41
something I think is true but can't prove wildrabbitt Math 5 2019-04-30 22:45
So how must we be able to prove the following? George M Miscellaneous Math 5 2018-01-02 11:11
I have to prove everything PawnProver44 Miscellaneous Math 40 2016-03-19 07:33
Is this to prove/already known? MatWur-S530113 Math 4 2007-06-27 05:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:05.

Sat Jun 19 04:05:50 UTC 2021 up 22 days, 1:53, 0 users, load averages: 2.89, 2.82, 2.40

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.