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 ]
 mike3 Posts: 2,396 Registered: 12/8/04
Re: What is the intuitive meaning of "non-Archimedean" for a valued field?
Posted: May 14, 2013 4:27 AM

On May 13, 11:48 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  mike3 <mike4...@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.
> --

I already mentioned that a and b should be "positive elements" (i.e.
greater than 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