Understanding Ordered Fields: A Beginner's Guide

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zli034
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of Ordered Fields, exploring their definitions, properties, and implications in mathematics. Participants seek to clarify the foundational aspects of Ordered Fields, particularly in relation to the rational numbers (\mathbb{Q}) and real numbers (\mathbb{R}), as well as the nature of order in complex numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a simpler explanation of Ordered Fields, expressing difficulty with pure mathematical concepts.
  • Another participant explains that Ordered Fields allow elements to be arranged in a specific order and discusses the properties of addition and multiplication that define fields.
  • There is a mention of the properties of partial orders and how they apply to \mathbb{R} and \mathbb{Q}, highlighting the unique ordering of these fields compared to complex numbers.
  • A participant proposes that complex numbers can be partially ordered based on their magnitudes, though this is contested by others who clarify that complex numbers do not form an ordered field.
  • One participant introduces the concept of Archimedean Ordered Fields, noting that while \mathbb{Q} satisfies certain axioms, \mathbb{R} includes the Completeness Axiom, which \mathbb{Q} does not satisfy.
  • Another participant emphasizes that being a subset does not guarantee that \mathbb{Q} will inherit all properties of \mathbb{R}, specifically regarding the existence of least upper bounds.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of order in complex numbers and the implications of the Completeness Axiom for \mathbb{Q} and \mathbb{R}. There is no consensus on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the ordering of complex numbers and the properties of subsets.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific axioms and properties without fully resolving the implications of these definitions or the relationships between the sets discussed. The discussion reflects a range of understanding and interpretations of mathematical concepts.

zli034
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Could anyone explain me the concept of Ordered Field? I have googled it, all came up are definitions I don't know how to handle. Numbers and calculations with statistical means I can understand fairly simple; but pure math has never worked for me.

Can anyone make the ordered field with simple understandable meanings?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I wouldn't sweat this to much, it means the elements of the field can be put in order according to some relation.
 
Hi zli034, :smile:

May I ask why you need this? Maybe my explanation will be better if I know this.

Basically, we want to generalize number system such as [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex]. In particular, there are some results on these systems that can be explained by means of a minimal number of axioms. Why do we do this? First, to get a better understanding of [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex]. Second, because there are a lot of other systems out there which also share the same properties and the theory of ordered fields will unify these systems.

What do we have on [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex]? Well, we have an addition. This addition + satisfies following properties:
  • Associativity: [tex]a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c[/tex]
  • Neutral element: [tex]a+0=a=0+a[/tex]
  • Inverse element: [tex]a+(-a)=0=(-a)+a[/tex]
  • Commutativity: [tex]a+b=b+a[/tex]
Anything else which shares the same properties is called an abelian group. The theory of abelian groups is extremely useful and it arises everywhere!

Now, what else do we have on [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex]? A multiplication of course? This satisfies:
  • Associativity: [tex]a(bc)=(ab)c[/tex]
  • Neutral element: [tex]a1=a=1a[/tex]
  • Inverse element: [tex]aa^{-1}=1=a^{-1}a[/tex] for all nonzero a.
  • Commutativity: [tex]ab=ba[/tex]
  • Distributivity: [tex]a(b+c)=ab+ac[/tex]
This is called a field. Other fields include the complex numbers. But there is something on [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex] that the complex numbers don't have: an order!

Basically, we have a relation [tex]\leq[/tex] that satisfies
  • Reflexivity: [tex]a\leq a[/tex]
  • Anti-symmetry: [tex]a\leq b~\text{and}~b\leq a[/tex] implies a=b
  • Transitivity: [tex]a\leq b~\text{and}~b\leq c[/tex] implies [tex]a\leq c[/tex]
This is what we call a partial order. But there order on [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex] satisfies some additional properties:
  • Every two elements are comparable: for all a,b we have either [tex]a\leq b[/tex] or [tex]b\leq a[/tex] (or both).
  • If [tex]a\leq b[/tex], then [tex]a+c\leq b+c[/tex]
  • If [tex]0\leq a[/tex] and [tex]0\leq b[/tex], then [tex]0\leq ab[/tex]

A structure which satisfies all these axioms is called an ordered field...
 
micromass said:
Hi zli034, :smile:

May I ask why you need this? Maybe my explanation will be better if I know this.

Basically, we want to generalize number system such as [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex]. In particular, there are some results on these systems that can be explained by means of a minimal number of axioms. Why do we do this? First, to get a better understanding of [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex]. Second, because there are a lot of other systems out there which also share the same properties and the theory of ordered fields will unify these systems.

What do we have on [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex]? Well, we have an addition. This addition + satisfies following properties:
  • Associativity: [tex]a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c[/tex]
  • Neutral element: [tex]a+0=a=0+a[/tex]
  • Inverse element: [tex]a+(-a)=0=(-a)+a[/tex]
  • Commutativity: [tex]a+b=b+a[/tex]
Anything else which shares the same properties is called an abelian group. The theory of abelian groups is extremely useful and it arises everywhere!

Now, what else do we have on [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex]? A multiplication of course? This satisfies:
  • Associativity: [tex]a(bc)=(ab)c[/tex]
  • Neutral element: [tex]a1=a=1a[/tex]
  • Inverse element: [tex]aa^{-1}=1=a^{-1}a[/tex] for all nonzero a.
  • Commutativity: [tex]ab=ba[/tex]
  • Distributivity: [tex]a(b+c)=ab+ac[/tex]
This is called a field. Other fields include the complex numbers. But there is something on [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex] that the complex numbers don't have: an order!

Basically, we have a relation [tex]\leq[/tex] that satisfies
  • Reflexivity: [tex]a\leq a[/tex]
  • Anti-symmetry: [tex]a\leq b~\text{and}~b\leq a[/tex] implies a=b
  • Transitivity: [tex]a\leq b~\text{and}~b\leq c[/tex] implies [tex]a\leq c[/tex]
This is what we call a partial order. But there order on [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex] satisfies some additional properties:
  • Every two elements are comparable: for all a,b we have either [tex]a\leq b[/tex] or [tex]b\leq a[/tex] (or both).
  • If [tex]a\leq b[/tex], then [tex]a+c\leq b+c[/tex]
  • If [tex]0\leq a[/tex] and [tex]0\leq b[/tex], then [tex]0\leq ab[/tex]

A structure which satisfies all these axioms is called an ordered field...

I believe that sqrt[a+bi*a-bi] forms a partial order on C with all complex numbers having the same magnitude parceled into and ordered set of equivalence classes.

It may not have a total order as do the reals.
 
Well, of course the complex numbers have an order. Every set has an order :smile:
The complex numbers also have a total order, as does every set.

But it doesn't have an order which makes it into an ordered field. I should have been more clear on that...
 
How cool is that!

I counted there are 4 addition properties, 5 multiplication properties.

Let's call the order, 10th property.
 
I would like to continue this Question & Answer because the new confusions.

From the book I'm reading that set Q is an Archimedean Ordered Field. However set R of real number will obey all the axioms for Archimedean Ordered Field together with one more axiom, called the Completeness Axiom, which is not satisfied by Q.

Q is a subset of R, why is it the thing assumed in R is not satisfied by Q?
 
xxxx0xxxx said:
I believe that sqrt[a+bi*a-bi] forms a partial order on C with all complex numbers having the same magnitude parceled into and ordered set of equivalence classes.

It may not have a total order as do the reals.
Aside: after fixing your parentheses... that isn't a partial ordering; that is a (total) pre-ordering.
 
zli034 said:
I would like to continue this Question & Answer because the new confusions.

From the book I'm reading that set Q is an Archimedean Ordered Field. However set R of real number will obey all the axioms for Archimedean Ordered Field together with one more axiom, called the Completeness Axiom, which is not satisfied by Q.

Q is a subset of R, why is it the thing assumed in R is not satisfied by Q?

Firstly, a subset does not necessarily have all of the same properties as any of its supersets, so it's perfectly reasonable that a subset of R would not satisfy the Completeness Axiom.

Consider [itex]\{x\in \mathbb{Q}: x\leq \sqrt{2}\}[/itex]. Is there a least upperbound for this set in Q? No, because Q is dense in R.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K