Can Hyperreal Numbers Form a Vector Space Over the Reals?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether hyperreal numbers can be structured as a vector space over the reals, particularly focusing on the nature of bases and the role of infinitesimals within this framework. Participants explore theoretical implications and definitions related to hyperreal numbers and their dimensionality.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a basis for the hyperreal numbers consisting of a sequence of infinitesimals and standard numbers, questioning its validity as a vector space over the reals.
  • Another participant argues that the proposed basis does not span the hyperreals due to its countable nature, contrasting it with the uncountable dimension of the hyperreals.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the concept of "first order infinitesimal," with a suggestion that a reference infinitesimal is necessary for meaningful comparisons.
  • A participant suggests the possibility of defining an arbitrary infinitesimal to serve as a reference, which could allow for more flexibility in the basis structure.
  • Further exploration of ratios involving infinitesimals and unlimited numbers is presented, with references to Goldblatt's work on hyperreals, indicating complexities in defining finite versus infinitesimal ratios.
  • Another participant notes that it is possible to choose a reference infinitesimal, providing examples of ratios that are finite but not standard or real multiples.
  • One participant highlights a complication regarding the undetermined nature of sums of unlimited hyperreals, as noted in Goldblatt's text.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the structure and properties of hyperreal numbers as a vector space over the reals. There is no consensus on the validity of the proposed basis or the implications of infinitesimals, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of a universally accepted definition of "first order infinitesimal" and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical relationships involving hyperreals and infinitesimals.

Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
Can the hyperreal numbers be described as a vector space over the reals with a basis (0,...,e2,e1,e0,e-1,e-2...), where e1 is a first order infinitesimal number, e0 = 1, and e1 a first order infinite number?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nope!

Omitting zero, that is a basis for a real sub-vector space of the hyperreals. However, it certainly does not span the hyperreals -- your basis has countably many vectors, but the hyperreals are a real vector space of uncountable dimension.

A specific hyperreal that is not in the span is [tex]\sqrt{e^1}[/tex].



Also, I think you have some misconceptions about infinitessimals. In particular, for any nonzero infinitessimal e, there are other infinitessimals (such as [itex]\sqrt{e}[/itex]) that are infinitely larger in magnitude. I don't think "first order infinitessimal" makes any sense -- unless you have previously chosen a reference infinitessimal to compare things to.


After pondering it for a bit, I think (but have not proven) any basis must actually contain two hyperreals whose ratio is finite, but not infinitessimal.
 
Ah, okay, I didn't realize there wasn't a natural choice of "reference infinitesimal". Would it be possible to somehow arbitrarily define a particular infinitesimal to play this role, perhaps allowing the exponents to be real numbers?
 
Hurkyl said:
After pondering it for a bit, I think (but have not proven) any basis must actually contain two hyperreals whose ratio is finite, but not infinitessimal.

For an infinitesimal e, unlimited numbers H and K, and an appreciable number b, according to Goldblatt: Lectures on the hyperreals, p. 51, e/b, e/H, b/H are infinitesimal, b/e, H/e, H/b are unlimited, for e, b not equal to 0, while e/b, H/K, eH are undetermined. So if the ratio x/y is finite (limited), wouldn't that imply x is real, and y real and nonzero? But then x/y would be a multiple of 1 = e0, or whichever other nonzero real number we had in our basis.
 
You can choose a reference infinitessimal. Arguments I've seen often start off with something like "choose an infinitessimal e" or "choose an infinite hyperinteger H".




Let e be a nonzero infinitessimal. The ratio
[tex]\frac{e+1}{e}[/tex]​
is finite and not infinitessimal, but not standard, and not a real multiple of 1.


Oh, also of interest may be that, assuming we chose e positive, ee is an infinitessimal bigger than er for all positive standard numbers.
 
Last edited:
Another snag: I just remembered, Goldblatt also calls H + K undetermined where H and K are both unlimited.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K