Suppose that we define ℝ abstractly instead of by explicit construction, i.e. we just say that ℝ is any Dedekind-complete* ordered field. Can we now prove that ℝ is a complete metric space? Does the question even make sense? I mean, the definition of "metric space" refers to ℝ. What ℝ is that anyway, the abstract one or one defined by explicit construction (Dedekind cuts)?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

*) By that I mean that every set that's bounded from above has a least upper bound.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Completeness of ℝ (when ℝ is defined abstractly)

Loading...

Similar Threads for Completeness defined abstractly |
---|

B Spherical Geometry (Two dimension ) Defining a metric |

I Why can we define sequences in this fashion? |

I Relation of completeness to the l.u.b. property? |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**