I Monad in non-standard analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinitesimal
Click For Summary
In non-standard analysis, 0 is considered an infinitesimal in the hyperreals, despite initial confusion. The monad of a real number x includes values that are infinitesimally close to x, which leads to the implication that x itself is not included. However, the standard part of x, which is the unique real number in the monad, suggests that real numbers can be associated with their monads. Clarification from a referenced source indicates that 0 is the only real infinitesimal. This discussion highlights the nuances and complexities in understanding monads and infinitesimals in non-standard analysis.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
243
Quick two questions:
(a) In the hyperreals, is 0 considered an infinitesimal?
(b) Does a monad include the real number?
I seem to get contradictory answers in the Internet.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nomadreid said:
(a) In the hyperreals, is 0 considered an infinitesimal?
No. Reconsidering, I'll say yes.

I don't know the answer to your b part. Can you provide more information
 
Last edited:
In the Wiki page on monads
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(nonstandard_analysis)
it defines the monad with respect to a real number x as anything is difference to x is infinitesimal. To me, that would exclude x (since, as you wrote, 0 is not an infinitesimal).
Yet is also says
"the unique real number in the monad of x is called the standard part of x"
Which would seem to imply that r was in the monad.
So what am I reading incorrectly here?
Thanks.
 
Thank you, Frabjous. Accordingly, 0 is an infinitesimal, so the monad definition in Wiki works after all .
Mark44 -- you answered that 0 is not an infinitesimal; are there two different definitions to be found?
 
nomadreid said:
Mark44 -- you answered that 0 is not an infinitesimal; are there two different definitions to be found?
No. After reading the first few pages of the link that @Frabjous provided, I retract my earlier response. From that source, "the only real infinitesimal is 0."
 
Last edited:
Mark44 said:
No. After reading the first few pages of the link that @Frabjous provided, I retract my earlier response. From that source, "the only real infinitesimal is 0."
The only real or Real infinitesimal?
 
WWGD said:
The only real or Real infinitesimal?
The only infinitesimal that happens also to be real. Again, according to the paper/book by Keisler.
 
Mark44 said:
The only infinitesimal that happens also to be real. Again, according to the paper/book by Keisler.
Not doubting you, just curious as to what you meant.
 

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K