ARQMATH LAB
Math Stack Exchange

Definable orders

2
$\begingroup$

Let $(K, <)$ be an order field, can I define the order "<" in $K$ ?

I know that $K \models 0 if and only if there is $b$ in the real closure of $K$ such that $b*b = a$. Can I "interpret" the real closure of $K$ in $K$?

abstract-algebra logic model-theory ordered-fields
asked 2012-10-19
user id:35458
16
22bronze badges
  • 0
    I don't see how it's impossible. For example, you have two different roots for$a$square, but in order fields, you can define$a$particular one. Likewise, having two orders on a field doesn't necesarily means you can't define a particular one. – 2012-10-21

2 Answers 2

2

A slightly more convoluted solution than Hagen's:

Consider the field $K=\mathbb Q(t)$, any interpretation of $t$ as a transcendental real number will define an embedding of $\Bbb Q(t)$ into $\Bbb R$, and by that an ordering and real-closure. If we map $t=\pi$ and $t=-e$ we get that $t>0$ and $t<0$ respectively.

Hence, definability of the real-closure or the order is impossible.

asked 2012-10-19
user id:622
311k
3232gold badges 424424silver badges 754754bronze badges
1

Consider $K=\mathbb Q[X]/(X^2-2)$. There are two orders on $K$, depending on if we map $X\mapsto\sqrt 2 $ or $X\mapsto-\sqrt 2$. Hence $<$ cannot be recovered from the field $K$ alone.

asked 2012-10-19
user id:39174
288k
2121gold badges 269269silver badges 495495bronze badges

Related Posts

No Related Post Found