3
$\begingroup$

Are there non-Archimedean fields without associated valuation or being a non-archimedan field implies it is a valuation field? I understand that a non-Archimedean field is a field which does not satisfy the Archimedean property.

  • 5
    Can you include your definition of "non-archimedean field"?2012-08-24
  • 1
    Usually, "non-archimedean" refers to the valuation. Hence, I don't see how a (non-)archimedean field could be so without it being also a valuation field.2012-08-24
  • 0
    @MTurgeon: Perhaps iago is thinking of non-Archimedean ordered fields, like the hyperreals and surreals.2012-08-24
  • 0
    @BrianM.Scott Perhaps. That's why we need his definition of NA field in order to properly answer the question :)2012-08-24
  • 0
    @MTurgeon I added my definition of NA field after the question. Should I specify anything more?2012-08-24
  • 0
    @iago With this definition, then you should look at Brian's comment.2012-08-24
  • 2
    A non-archimedian ordered field has a natural valuation on it. (Of course the values of that valuation need not be real numbers, but belong to some ordered abelian group.)2012-08-24
  • 1
    For example, [N. Alling has shown](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number#Hahn_series) that the surreal numbers are isomorphic (as an ordered and valued field) to the field of [Hahn series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hahn_series) with real coefficients and value group the surreal numbers themselves.2012-08-24
  • 1
    @iago: To make the problem more clear, $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ with the ordering defined by making $x$ larger than every integer is non-Archimedean. However, $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ with the ordering defined by making $x = \pi$ (and using the ordering on the real numbers) is Archimedean. So the question "Is $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ Archimedean?" clearly cannot make sense.2013-07-31

2 Answers 2