Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: What is the intuitive meaning of "non-Archimedean" for a valued field?
Replies: 11   Last Post: May 15, 2013 4:29 PM

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 7,021
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: What is the intuitive meaning of "non-Archimedean" for a valued field?
Posted: May 13, 2013 11:17 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<bf23b508-9d6c-459b-b797-5022f1dd0e5d@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I'm curious about this. The "Archimedean property" for an _ordered_
> field F means that given any positive elements a and b in F, with a <
> b, then there exists a natural number n such that na < b.

Not quite as stated above.

Given 0 < a < b there must be some natural n such that na > b.

But if a is negative, one will have na < b for all naturals n.

The standard ordered field of reals and all of of its subfields have
the property, but fields with infinitesimal elements do not.
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.