"I have a result that uses ordered fields. However, I am ignorant of the literature surrounding ordered fields. I have read the basic facts about them, such as those contained in the wikipedia page. However, in the introduction, I would like to provide some motivation. My result has the property that if it holds for some ordered field k, then it holds for any ordered subfield of k. Does that mean it is enough to prove my result for real-closed ordered fields? I also read the statement that to prove a 1st order logic statement for a real-closed ordered field, then it is enough to prove it for one real-closed ordered field, such as R for instance. Can someone please provide a reference for that? A mathematician mentioned to me a classical link between iterated quadratic extensions and ordere

nikakede 2022-09-16 Answered
I have a result that uses ordered fields. However, I am ignorant of the literature surrounding ordered fields. I have read the basic facts about them, such as those contained in the wikipedia page. However, in the introduction, I would like to provide some motivation.
My result has the property that if it holds for some ordered field k, then it holds for any ordered subfield of k. Does that mean it is enough to prove my result for real-closed ordered fields?
I also read the statement that to prove a 1st order logic statement for a real-closed ordered field, then it is enough to prove it for one real-closed ordered field, such as R for instance. Can someone please provide a reference for that?
A mathematician mentioned to me a classical link between iterated quadratic extensions and ordered fields. What is the precise statement please?
I would also like a number of interesting examples of ordered fields. I know for example of an interesting non-archimedean example using rational functions (that I have learned about from the wikipedia page on ordered fields).
Does anyone know of a survey on ordered fields, or a reference containing answers to my questions above?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

Aleah Harrell
Answered 2022-09-17 Author has 18 answers
A few remarks:
I don't know of a systematic study of ordered fields with many examples, but I can provide a few references as well as a list of types of ordered fields. For a general algebraic approach to ordered fields, you can look up the chapter "Ordered fields" in Serge Lang's Algebra. For notes about formally real fields or orderable fields, you can look at the work of Artin and Schreier. Most introductive books to model theory and its applications to algebra have a chapter about real closed fields.
Also, the book Super-real fields of Dale and Woodin studies set-theoretic properties of a class of real closed fields vaguely related to non-standard analysis, but this is not really something you need to look into unless you're interested in set theory.
As for gaining perspective on ordered fields, for good presentations of the role of different types of ordered fields in the conception of infinitesimals and continua, I suggest you look into the work of Philip Ehrlich, e.g. this one and here.
Examples of ordered fields
Here is a list of important types of ordered fields that are most frequently encountered.
-Archimedean ordered fields, in particular R, Q, and the field A of real algebraic numbers.
-Given a linear order E, and an ordered field F, the field F(E) of fractions of polynomials with indeterminates in E, see here in the case when F=Q. In particular, the field F ( X ) F ( 1 ) of rationnal functions with coefficients in F.
-Given a linearly ordered abelian group G, and an ordered field F, the field F[[G]] of Hahn series with value group G and residue field F.
-Given an ordered field F and a free ultrafilter U on an infinite set I, the ultrapower F U of F modulo U , and especially the important case when F=R and I=N.
-Given a ε-number λ, the field No( λ) of surreal numbers with birthdate strictly below λ, see here.
-Fields of real valued functions, in particular Hardy fields, see here for a perspective on those with respect to real asymptotic differential algebra.
-Fields of transseries, in particular logarithmic-exponential transseries, see here (careful: this article is about a different type of transseries than that mentionned in the Wikipedia article) or here (first preprint in the list).
Two functorial constructions
Important constructions within the class of ordered fields are the real closure and the Cauchy completion. Most of the examples above are already real-closed but few are Cauchy-complete, so this produces new examples of ordered fields.
The real closure construction F r e a l and Cauchy completion construction F C a u c h y are functors, in contrast with the algebraic closure for fields of a given characteristic). The corresponding categories are reflective within the category of ordered fields with certain types of morphisms. Moreover, we have F C a u c h y F r e a l F r e a l F C a u c h y F r e a l (i.e. the Cauchy completion of a real-closed field remains real-closed). This makes it is easy to manipulate them in conjunction.
Universal formulas
In model theory, given a first order language, a universal formula is a formula ϕ [ x ¯ ] of the form u ¯ ( θ [ x ¯ , u ¯ ] ) where θ [ x ¯ , u ¯ ] is quantifier-free.
Given a theory T, a formula φ [ u ] is said logically equivalent to a universal formula modulo T if there is a quantifer-free formula ϕ [ x ¯ ]such that T x ¯ ( φ [ x ¯ ] ϕ [ x ¯ ] ). It is equivalent that φ [ x ¯ ] be preserved by substructures, i.e. that for all models M N of T and a ¯ M n , that M φ [ a ¯ ] be equivalent to N φ [ a ¯ ].
In particular, if φ is a such a sentence in the language of ordered fields which one can prove for real closed fields, then since every ordered field embeds in a real-closed field (in particular, in its real closure), it is true in any ordered field.
By Tarski's work, the theory of real closed fields is elementary and complete, so it suffices to prove a first order result in R (or any other real closed field, but R is quite unique) to derive it in any ordered field. You will find Tarksi's result in any model theory book mentioning real closed fields.
Notice that if you take a sufficiently big cardinal κ and a free ultrafilter U on κ, then R U contains any ordered field you want, so you can prove this only in this case. Likewise, No(κ) contains all ordered fields if κ is sufficiently big.
Quadratic extensions
If a formally real field k is such that for a k × , either a is a square or −a is a square (but not both), then it is uniquely ordered by saying that an element is positive if it is a square. In fact this is an equivalence, since given a in an ordered field F such that neither a nor −a are squares, the field F [ a ] admits two orders: one where a > 0 and one where a < 0. If one iterates quadratic extensions by square roots of elements a such that −a has no square root, then one obtains such a field with exactly one compatible (and easily defined) order. This may not be the classical result you were told about.

We have step-by-step solutions for your answer!

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-09-07
Why am I not allowed to use P ( A B ) = P ( A ) P ( B ) formula?
Question: A survey of 1000 people determines that 80% like walking and 60% like biking, and all like at least one of the two activities. What is the probability that a randomly chosen person in this survey likes biking but not walking?
What I did was use the formula:
P ( A B ) = P ( A ) P ( B ) = 0.8 0.6 = 0.48
P ( B ) P ( A B ) = P ( A B ) = 0.6 0.48 = 0.12
but the answer should be 0.2.
In the answer key, P ( A B ) = P ( A ) + P ( B ) P ( A B ) is used instead. Why?
asked 2022-09-23
How do I 'reverse engineer' the standard deviation?
My problem is fairly concrete and direct.
My company loves to do major business decisions based on many reports available on the media. These reports relates how our products are fairing in comparison to the competitor's offerings.
The latest report had these scores (as percentages):
Input values (%) 73.5, 16.34, 1.2, 1.15, 0.97, 0.94, 0.9, 0.89, 0.81, 0.31
Our product in the 'long' tail of this list. I argued with them that besides spots #2 and #1 all the other following the tail are on a 'stand', since, probably, the standard deviation will be much bigger that the points that separates everyone in the tail.
So the question is: How may I calculate the standard deviation having only these percentual values available?
asked 2022-09-04
I am confused about creating a Venn diagram from the question below from one of the past papers as there is a negative number involved. Is this possible in Venn diagrams?
A survey of students in a lecture revealed that a total of 15 played rugby, 30 played football and 35 played cricket. 4 people played all three sports, while 2 played only football and rugby, 14 played only cricket and football, and 6 played only cricket and rugby.
If 4 people played all three sports and 2 played only football and rugby, how is it possible to create the Venn diagram? Are negative numbers allowed, as 2−4=−2?
asked 2022-09-17
I have a bag of toys. 10% of the toys are balls. 10% of the toys are blue.
If I draw one toy at random, what're the odds I'll draw a blue ball?
asked 2022-09-12
Tensor product of varieties : What's this notation V 1 V 2 ?
I saw this notation V = V 1 V 2 in a survey on universal algebra, where was a variety, but the survey in question didn't define this notation. Could anyone explain what it means ?
asked 2022-09-10
First off, this is a vague question about a survey which is, I guess, meant to be vague. So bear with me
In Morel's "Motivic Homotopy Theory" survey he mentioned the following fact in motivating the Tate circles. One notes that P 1 is equivalent to S 1 G m while, if we follow our topological intuition, P 1 ought to be S 2 which is equivalent S 1 S 1 . So we need to keep track of this difference between the "usual" topological situation and count the number of G m 's.
Now Morel justified the first equivalence by saying that A 1 is invertible in the the unstable homotopy category. With just this information, is there an "intuitive", or maybe "geometric" (i.e. without going to the details of the motivic unstable category) way to see how this fact leads to the equivalence above?
asked 2022-09-13
Sample size requirements in survey
If am doing some market research and want to answer the question "What percentage of the users of a service, searched for the given service online?". Lets say I go out and get people to take a survey.
How do I calculate the required sample size that would create the correct distribution for a given country or region?

New questions