The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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

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

Posts: 2,396
Registered: 12/8/04
Re: What is the intuitive meaning of "non-Archimedean" for a valued field?
Posted: May 13, 2013 11:50 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On May 13, 8:17 pm, Virgil <> wrote:
> In article
> <>,
>  mike3 <> 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.
> --

Correct. I made a mistake/typo: it should be "na > b".

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.