Complex numbers ordering: Is there a consistent order for complex numbers?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of ordering complex numbers and whether a consistent order can be established, contrasting it with the ordering of real numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster questions the nature of ordering in complex numbers, seeking clarification on how it differs from real numbers. Some participants explore the implications of complex numbers being defined in a plane versus real numbers on a line. Others delve into the properties of ordered fields and present arguments regarding contradictions arising from assuming an order for complex numbers.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the nature of ordering and exploring the implications of the definitions involved. There is no explicit consensus yet, but various interpretations and reasoning are being examined.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the definitions and properties of ordered fields and the implications of these properties when applied to complex numbers. The original poster's question reflects a need for deeper understanding of these concepts.

ashraf.yusoff
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
i have 1 question..
the question is: Given any 2 distinct real numbers a and b, exactly one a<b or b<a must be true. The real numbers are said to be ordered. Show that there is no ordering of the complex numbers.

my problems is not understand that orders~~anybody help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, complex numbers are defined in a plane, while real numbers are defined along a line. See how there could be a problem in ordering complex numbers?
 
An "ordered field" is a field (so we have the usual rules for addition and multiplication) together with an order, x< y, such that:
1) if a< b, then a+ c< b+ c
2) if a< b and 0< c, then ac< bc
3) For any a and b one and only of
i) a= b
ii) a< b
iii) b< a
is true.

Clearly [itex]i\ne 0[/itex] so by (3) we must have either i> 0 or i< 0.

If i> 0 then, multiplying both sides by i, by (2), i(i)> i(0) or -1> 0. That is not, by itself a contradiction since this is not necessarily the "regular" order on the real numbers. But since -1> 0, multiplying both sides of i> 0 by -1, by (2) again, (-1)(i)> (-1)(0) so that -i> 0. Now add i to both sides- by (1), -i+ i> 0+ i or 0> i which contradicts i> 0.

If i< 0, then, adding -i to both sides, by (1), i- i< 0- i or 0< -i. Multiplying both sides of i< 0 by -i, by (2), (-i)(i)< (-i)(0) or 1< 0. Adding -1 to both sides, by (1), 0< -1. Again that is not itself a contradiction but multiplying both sides of i< 0 by -1, by (2), i(-1)< 0(-1) or -i< 0. Adding i to both sides, -i+ i< 0+ i so 0< i which does contradict i< 0.
 
Multiplying an inequality by a negative number inverts the direction of the inequality
 
planck42 said:
Multiplying an inequality by a negative number inverts the direction of the inequality
In the usual order relation on the real numbers, yes, but that has nothing to do with the problem here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K