Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: What is the intuitive meaning of "non-Archimedean" for a valued field?
Posted: May 14, 2013 2:48 AM

In article
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 13, 8:17 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >  mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Hi.
> >
> > > 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".

And it should be only for a > 0 and b > 0.
--

Date Subject Author
5/13/13 mike3
5/13/13 William Elliot
5/13/13 mike3
5/13/13 Virgil
5/13/13 Virgil
5/13/13 mike3
5/14/13 Virgil
5/14/13 mike3
5/14/13 Virgil
5/14/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/15/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/14/13 FredJeffries@gmail.com