What is the Dimension of the Field Extension R[dx]?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vshiro
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the dimension of the field extension R[dx], where dx is a quantity greater than zero but less than any positive real number. It explores the implications of adding dx to R and how this affects the order and structure of the field. The participants clarify that R[dx] is isomorphic to R[x], which is countably infinite dimensional over R, while R(dx) is isomorphic to the field of rational functions R(x). The conclusion drawn is that the dimension of R(dx) is |R|, indicating a more complex structure than initially assumed. The standard definitions of dimension in field extensions do not apply in this context.
vshiro
Consider R, or rather the equivalence class of fields isomorphic to R, endowed with an order type of the same kind. Let us consider a new object, dx, a quantity such that dx > 0, but for all a > 0 in R, dx < a. (We are considering dx, something outside of R, but without the context of a larger universe set.)
Now let add dx to R, and field-ify it. That is, we are considering the infinite field extension R[dx]. Furthermore we inherit the order of R, but extend it to include dx. The way I think about the order type is that, suppose we can sort of magnify R until we see a, b, and a, b have no more elts of R between them (there is no c with a<c<b)... we can't actually do this, but entertain this idea for a moment. Adding dx to R is like fitting another whole copy of R between a and b: we have between them a < a + k*dx < b for all k in R. But then we magnify this new copy of R until we get to a, b and add another copy of R (dx^2) and so on, and do this for all nonexistent pairs a, b satisfying there is no c st a<c<b...
My question is, what is the "dimension" of R[dx]? It is not 2.. The above thought experiment suggests that it is |Z| (aleph-1), but I don't believe that is true. It may well be |R|, but I suspect the answer is much more sinister...

Note that the standard definition of dimension in field extension doesn't apply.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What definition of dimension are you wanting to use?
 
Now let add dx to R, and field-ify it. That is, we are considering the infinite field extension R[dx]

Do you mean R(dx)? R[dx] is merely a ring in this case, because dx cannot be written as a root of a polynomial in R[x].


My question is, what is the "dimension" of R[dx]?

For R[dx], it's easy. R[dx] is isomorphic to R[x], which is countably infinite dimensional over R; its basis is
{1, x, x^2, x^3, x^4, ... }


R(dx) is isomorphic (ignoring the order) to R(x), the field of rational functions. Finding a vector space basis of R(x) over R is a lot trickier, but we can solve our problem without it:

Consider S = {p(x)/q(x) | p and q are in R[x] and q(x) is not 0}

Clearly S is a spanning set of R(x) (it includes every element of R(x)!), and |S| = |R|, so the dimension of the extension can be no more than |R|.

However, consider T = {1/(x - a) | a in R}

linearly independant, so the dimension of the extension can be no less than |T| = |R|.


So, R(dx) is a field extension of R with dimension |R|


Note that the standard definition of dimension in field extension doesn't apply.

Why?


Hurkyl
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top