MHB Additive & Multiplicative Properties of Ordered Field

  • Thread starter Thread starter A.Magnus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Properties
A.Magnus
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
I am reading a chapter section on Ordered Field that starts off with the additive and multiplicative properties:

$\mathscr A_1$: If $x, y \in \mathbb R, x + y \in \mathbb R$ and if $x = w$ and $y = z$, then $x + y = w + z$.

$\mathscr M_1$: If $x, y \in \mathbb R, xy \in \mathbb R$ and if $x = w$ and $y = z$, then $xy = wz$.

To my untrained eyes, they do not mean anything at all. Could somebody therefore give an intuitive significance of the two properties, perhaps with examples - please. Are they about closure?

Thank you for your time and gracious helps. ~MA
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MaryAnn said:
I am reading a chapter section on Ordered Field that starts off with the additive and multiplicative properties:

To my untrained eyes, they do not mean anything at all. Could somebody therefore give an intuitive significance of the two properties, perhaps with examples - please. Are they about closure?

Thank you for your time and gracious helps. ~MA

Hey MaryAnn,

Yes, they are about closure. And they include the substitution-property of the equality-relation although I'm not exactly sure why. I haven't seen that before. Usually the substitution-property is part of the separate definition of the equality-relation and can then just be used everywhere, including as it is used here in these properties about closure.

We're starting with a set that may contain literally anything, could be symbols that resemble numbers, could be apples and pears.
Then we add the required structure to it to be able to call it an Ordered Field.
First thing to add the operations addition and multiplication.
Typically we define for instance that $1+1=2$ and that $2\times 2=4$.
If the set contains apples and pears, we have to define what the result is if we add an apple and a pear together.
That is, if we want to call it an Ordered Field.

Closure means that it doesn't suffice to just say that $1+1=2$.
Instead we have to define addition for every combination of 2 elements that are in the set.
And the result must be in the set as well.

Suppose we have the 2-element set $\{0, 1\}$.
What does it take to be able to call it and Ordered Field?
Well, first off we need to define addition, and ensure that it is closed under addition.
One way to define addition is with an addition table.
For instance:
$$\begin{array}{c|cc}+&0&1 \\
\hline
0 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{array}$$

There you go, now for any $x$ and $y$ in the set, the addition $x+y$ is defined and is included in the set.

As for the equality-substitution-property, the only way that it can fail is if $0=1$.
But then our set would only contain 1 element, which contradicts that we started with a 2-element set.
Therefore the equality-substitution-property is also satisfied.

Next we define multiplication, say with the table:
$$\begin{array}{c|cc}\times &0&1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1
\end{array}$$
Now for any $x$ and $y$ in the set, the multiplication $x\times y$ is defined and is included in the set.
And the equality-substitution-property is satisified for the same reason as before.
 
Thank you for your helps! ~MA
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top