Are There Complete Ordered Fields Larger Than 2^{\aleph_0}?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complete Fields
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

There are no complete ordered fields of cardinality greater than 2^{\aleph_0}. The theorem stating that every ordered field with the least upper bound property is isomorphic to the reals confirms that any order-complete field must have cardinality c. The discussion clarifies that while a field must contain 0 and 1, any additional elements must also be expressible in terms of existing rationals, thus reinforcing the conclusion that no larger complete ordered fields exist.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ordered fields and their properties
  • Familiarity with cardinality concepts, specifically 2^{\aleph_0} and c
  • Knowledge of the least upper bound property and its implications
  • Basic comprehension of sequences and limits in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ordered fields in depth
  • Explore the implications of the least upper bound property in real analysis
  • Investigate the relationship between completeness and cardinality in fields
  • Learn about the construction of sequences and their limits in the context of ordered fields
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those focused on field theory, set theory, and real analysis, will benefit from this discussion. It is also valuable for students studying advanced mathematical concepts related to ordered fields and cardinality.

Dragonfall
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
5
I was told that there are no complete ordered fields of cardinality greater than [tex]2^{\aleph_0}[/tex]. Why is that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i'm not 100% sure about this but..

I remember hearing a theorem that says that every ordered field with the least upper bound property is isomorphic to the reals. So every ordered field that is order-complete (ie has least upper bound property) has to have cardinality c.

hmmm..i'm not sure order-complete and complete are always equivalent
 
Let's think about it:

A field has to have 0 and 1, and hence all things of the form a/b for a,b sums of 1. This has cardinality at most |Q| the rationals, i.e. aleph_0. Now it has to be complete, so it must contain limits of all sequences of these elements. There are 2^\aleph_0 of these. The only question is now if there can be any other element. No there can't - if there were some element x I've not described, then I can assume it is positive by looking at -x if necessary, and if it's larger than 1, I can replace it with 1/x. Thus I have to show that any x such that 0<x<1 has already been described. But this is true, since I can construct a sequence of 'rationals' that approximate it by repeated bisection of the interval.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K