“Numbers” bigger than every natural number












9












$begingroup$


In the book Understanding analysis, by Abbot, when discussing the Archimedean property, the author states that there are ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$ that include "numbers" bigger than every natural number.



Could someone provide examples and and explanation why this could be the case?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb Q$, ordered by: $f>g$ if for sufficiently large $x$, $f(x)>g(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jan 29 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sounds as though he might be talking about something related to the hyperreal system, which has infinitesimals which (i) are smaller than any real number while being bigger than $0$ and (ii) have reciprocals bigger than any real number but smaller than $infty$?
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Jan 29 at 16:24


















9












$begingroup$


In the book Understanding analysis, by Abbot, when discussing the Archimedean property, the author states that there are ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$ that include "numbers" bigger than every natural number.



Could someone provide examples and and explanation why this could be the case?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb Q$, ordered by: $f>g$ if for sufficiently large $x$, $f(x)>g(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jan 29 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sounds as though he might be talking about something related to the hyperreal system, which has infinitesimals which (i) are smaller than any real number while being bigger than $0$ and (ii) have reciprocals bigger than any real number but smaller than $infty$?
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Jan 29 at 16:24
















9












9








9


3



$begingroup$


In the book Understanding analysis, by Abbot, when discussing the Archimedean property, the author states that there are ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$ that include "numbers" bigger than every natural number.



Could someone provide examples and and explanation why this could be the case?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In the book Understanding analysis, by Abbot, when discussing the Archimedean property, the author states that there are ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$ that include "numbers" bigger than every natural number.



Could someone provide examples and and explanation why this could be the case?







analysis examples-counterexamples extension-field






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 30 at 10:01









YuiTo Cheng

750322




750322










asked Jan 29 at 16:17









user2820579user2820579

766413




766413








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb Q$, ordered by: $f>g$ if for sufficiently large $x$, $f(x)>g(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jan 29 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sounds as though he might be talking about something related to the hyperreal system, which has infinitesimals which (i) are smaller than any real number while being bigger than $0$ and (ii) have reciprocals bigger than any real number but smaller than $infty$?
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Jan 29 at 16:24
















  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb Q$, ordered by: $f>g$ if for sufficiently large $x$, $f(x)>g(x)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jan 29 at 16:22






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sounds as though he might be talking about something related to the hyperreal system, which has infinitesimals which (i) are smaller than any real number while being bigger than $0$ and (ii) have reciprocals bigger than any real number but smaller than $infty$?
    $endgroup$
    – timtfj
    Jan 29 at 16:24










3




3




$begingroup$
Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb Q$, ordered by: $f>g$ if for sufficiently large $x$, $f(x)>g(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jan 29 at 16:22




$begingroup$
Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb Q$, ordered by: $f>g$ if for sufficiently large $x$, $f(x)>g(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jan 29 at 16:22




1




1




$begingroup$
Sounds as though he might be talking about something related to the hyperreal system, which has infinitesimals which (i) are smaller than any real number while being bigger than $0$ and (ii) have reciprocals bigger than any real number but smaller than $infty$?
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 29 at 16:24






$begingroup$
Sounds as though he might be talking about something related to the hyperreal system, which has infinitesimals which (i) are smaller than any real number while being bigger than $0$ and (ii) have reciprocals bigger than any real number but smaller than $infty$?
$endgroup$
– timtfj
Jan 29 at 16:24












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















17












$begingroup$

A concrete example



Consider the ring $mathbb{Q}[x]$ of polynomials over $mathbb{Q}$. These can be linearly ordered as in this answer, in a way that preserves the ordering of the rationals. Now we have the "regular" naturals in this field: 1, 2,3, and so on. But the polynomial $x$ is larger than all of these, and $x^2$ is larger than $x$, and so on. So in this ring there are elements that are greater than all the ordinary natural numbers.



By standard abstract algebra, the ordering on $mathbb{Q}[x]$ can be extended to an ordering on the field of fractions of the ring. That will give an ordered field that contains $mathbb{Q}[x]$ as a subring, and as such contains elements larger than all the ordinary natural numbers.



There are other algebraic constructions that give other non-Archimedean ordered fields, as well.



An example from logic



In logic, the compactness theorem says that if we have a set of axioms so that every finite subset of the axioms is consistent on its own, then the whole set is consistent. Take our axioms to include the axioms of an ordered ring, and also the axiom $z > n$ for each $n$. For any finite subset of these axioms, we can choose a value of $z$ large enough to make that finite subset true in $mathbb{Q}$. So there is a model in which all the axioms are true at once. In that model, whatever $z$ is must be an element larger than every natural number.



In nonstandard analysis



In nonstandard analysis, we work with a field that extends of the reals in which there are infinitesimals. For this purpose, an infinitesimal is an element $delta$ so that $0 < delta$ but $delta < 1/n$ for each ordinary natural number $n$. Then if $delta$ is infinitesimal, $1/delta$ exists (because $delta not = 0$, and $1/delta$ is larger than $n$ for all $n$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    8












    $begingroup$

    Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb{Q}$. I don't know what the standard notation for this is, but let's denote it by $mathbb{Q}(x)$.



    $$mathbb{Q}(x)=left{frac{p(x)}{q(x)}: p(x),q(x)inmathbb{Q}[x] text{ and } q(x)neq 0 text{ is a monic polynomial.}right}$$



    To define an order on it, define $f>g$ if and only if $f-g>0$ where a rational function is positive if and only if its leading coefficient of the numerator is positive. I leave the process of checking the axioms to you.



    Now compare $frac{x}{1}$ and $frac{n}{1}$. We see that $frac{x}{1}-frac{n}{1}=frac{x-n}{1}>0$. So, $x$ is bigger than any natural number $n$.



    Edit: After Carl Mummert's wonderful comment, it is worthy to add that in order to have a well-defined order, we should first set the leading coefficient in the denominator to be $1$ by multiplying the whole fraction by the inverse of this coefficient if necessary. So, we can assume that $q(x)$ is monic. Now, we can see that the order we have defined is also an extension of the order on $mathbb{Q}$ as well.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This is a good example but the order is hard to define; $4/(-1)$ is not a positive element, but the leading coefficient of the numerator is positive.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Mummert
      Jan 29 at 17:17












    • $begingroup$
      @CarlMummert You're right. But the OP hasn't said that the order too must be an extension of the order on rational numbers. I mean it's open to interpretation. The OP's question reads "ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$". This is an ordered field and it's an extension of $mathbb{Q}$. But you're absolutely right that the orders seem not to be compatible which is a very good point. I think if we add an extra hypothesis that in cases like what you mentioned, $4/(-1)$ should be seen as $(-4)/1$, the issue might be resolved but I'm not sure. What do you think?
      $endgroup$
      – stressed out
      Jan 29 at 17:20








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I see your point; I was thinking of extensions that preserve the ordering. There is a way to do this by looking at cross products, the same way we extend the order of the integers to the order of the rationals: $a/b < c/d$ if $ad < bc$. So that reduces to the problem to ordering $mathbb{Q}[x]$. as in math.stackexchange.com/questions/1920165/…
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Mummert
      Jan 29 at 17:24








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yes, I think that resolves it.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Mummert
      Jan 29 at 18:22






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      You could also say $f>0$ whenever $f(x)>0$ for all sufficiently large $x$. For your specific field, this is equivalent to your definition, but I think it generalizes better (e.g. to fields of algebraic functions).
      $endgroup$
      – Micah
      Jan 29 at 19:37



















    5












    $begingroup$

    Here's a well known construction of an ordered field extension of $mathbb Q$ that comes from logic and from nonstandard analysis, as mentioned in the answer of @CarlMummert.



    Choose a nonprincipal ultrafilter on the natural numbers $mathbb N$: an ultrafilter is a finitely additive, $0,1$-valued measure defined on all subsets $A subset mathbb N$, such that $mathbb N$ has measure $1$; and $mu$ is nonprincipal if ${i}$ has measure zero for every $i in mathbb N$. The existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter is an exercise in applying the axiom of choice.



    Consider the set $mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$ which is the set of all sequences of rational numbers. Define an equivalence relation on this set: given $underline x = (x_i)$ and $underline y = (y_i) in mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$, define $underline x approx underline y$ if the set of indices $i$ for which $x_i = y_i$ has measure $1$. Let $[underline x] = [x_1,x_2,x_3,...]$ denote the equivalence class of $underline x = (x_1,x_2,x_3,...)$. Define addition and multiplication in the obvious way: $[underline x] + [underline y] = [underline z]$ means that the set of indices for which $x_i + y_i = z_i$ has measure $1$, and similarly for multiplication. Define inequality similarly: $[underline x] < [underline y]$ if the set of indices for which $x_i < y_i$ has measure $1$. Check that everything is well-defined, and that you get an ordered field.



    To embed $mathbb Q$ into this field, map the rational number $q$ to $[q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,...]$. Check that this is an embedding of ordered fields.



    To identify a number greater than any natural number, take $[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...]$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$





















      1












      $begingroup$

      Conway’s surreal numbers form a totally ordered Field (where the capital ‘F’ means that they are a proper class (not just a set) containing (a field isomorphic to) the real (and hence rational) numbers. They include many transfinite numbers, including the ordinals, i.e. numbers larger than all reals, rationals or natural numbers. Wikipedia also tells us that they form a universal ordered field in the sense that any ordered field may be modelled using them.



      You ask for an “explanation why this could be the case” — that is hard to provide when one does not know why you think it might not be possible, as you apparently do.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        It may be that the ordinals are included in Conway's "Field", but it probably isn't fair to "just" say that the ordinals are "numbers larger than all the reals" when cardinals and ordinals count different things, and they "agree" on the finite sets.
        $endgroup$
        – nomen
        Jan 29 at 23:24






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @nomen - it is true that ordinals, cardinals, and real numbers are distinctly different things by definition. But it is also true that there are natural isomorphisms between the countable cardinals, the countable ordinals, and the minimal subset of $Bbb R$ containing $0$ and $1$ and closed under addition. As such, we generally identify these three sets as being the "Natural numbers" and don't balk over the different definitions. Similarly the ordinals, cardinals and reals all isomorphically embed in the surreals, where PJTraill's description is true.
        $endgroup$
        – Paul Sinclair
        Jan 30 at 0:23












      • $begingroup$
        @nomen: As Paul Sinclair says, the surreals contain isomorphs of the reals and the ordinals. Since the images of the (transfinite) ordinals come out larger than those of the reals, that seems good enough to me. The questioner gave no indication that they meant a specific sort of number, mentioning $ mathbb Q $ and natural numbers, but neither cardinals nor ordinals. That the latter give notions of size of sets and well-ordered sets respectively does not matter; what matters is the order in the ordered field given in an answer. I take it that by ‘“numbers”’ they meant elements of that field.
        $endgroup$
        – PJTraill
        Jan 31 at 0:38













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3092369%2fnumbers-bigger-than-every-natural-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      17












      $begingroup$

      A concrete example



      Consider the ring $mathbb{Q}[x]$ of polynomials over $mathbb{Q}$. These can be linearly ordered as in this answer, in a way that preserves the ordering of the rationals. Now we have the "regular" naturals in this field: 1, 2,3, and so on. But the polynomial $x$ is larger than all of these, and $x^2$ is larger than $x$, and so on. So in this ring there are elements that are greater than all the ordinary natural numbers.



      By standard abstract algebra, the ordering on $mathbb{Q}[x]$ can be extended to an ordering on the field of fractions of the ring. That will give an ordered field that contains $mathbb{Q}[x]$ as a subring, and as such contains elements larger than all the ordinary natural numbers.



      There are other algebraic constructions that give other non-Archimedean ordered fields, as well.



      An example from logic



      In logic, the compactness theorem says that if we have a set of axioms so that every finite subset of the axioms is consistent on its own, then the whole set is consistent. Take our axioms to include the axioms of an ordered ring, and also the axiom $z > n$ for each $n$. For any finite subset of these axioms, we can choose a value of $z$ large enough to make that finite subset true in $mathbb{Q}$. So there is a model in which all the axioms are true at once. In that model, whatever $z$ is must be an element larger than every natural number.



      In nonstandard analysis



      In nonstandard analysis, we work with a field that extends of the reals in which there are infinitesimals. For this purpose, an infinitesimal is an element $delta$ so that $0 < delta$ but $delta < 1/n$ for each ordinary natural number $n$. Then if $delta$ is infinitesimal, $1/delta$ exists (because $delta not = 0$, and $1/delta$ is larger than $n$ for all $n$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        17












        $begingroup$

        A concrete example



        Consider the ring $mathbb{Q}[x]$ of polynomials over $mathbb{Q}$. These can be linearly ordered as in this answer, in a way that preserves the ordering of the rationals. Now we have the "regular" naturals in this field: 1, 2,3, and so on. But the polynomial $x$ is larger than all of these, and $x^2$ is larger than $x$, and so on. So in this ring there are elements that are greater than all the ordinary natural numbers.



        By standard abstract algebra, the ordering on $mathbb{Q}[x]$ can be extended to an ordering on the field of fractions of the ring. That will give an ordered field that contains $mathbb{Q}[x]$ as a subring, and as such contains elements larger than all the ordinary natural numbers.



        There are other algebraic constructions that give other non-Archimedean ordered fields, as well.



        An example from logic



        In logic, the compactness theorem says that if we have a set of axioms so that every finite subset of the axioms is consistent on its own, then the whole set is consistent. Take our axioms to include the axioms of an ordered ring, and also the axiom $z > n$ for each $n$. For any finite subset of these axioms, we can choose a value of $z$ large enough to make that finite subset true in $mathbb{Q}$. So there is a model in which all the axioms are true at once. In that model, whatever $z$ is must be an element larger than every natural number.



        In nonstandard analysis



        In nonstandard analysis, we work with a field that extends of the reals in which there are infinitesimals. For this purpose, an infinitesimal is an element $delta$ so that $0 < delta$ but $delta < 1/n$ for each ordinary natural number $n$. Then if $delta$ is infinitesimal, $1/delta$ exists (because $delta not = 0$, and $1/delta$ is larger than $n$ for all $n$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          17












          17








          17





          $begingroup$

          A concrete example



          Consider the ring $mathbb{Q}[x]$ of polynomials over $mathbb{Q}$. These can be linearly ordered as in this answer, in a way that preserves the ordering of the rationals. Now we have the "regular" naturals in this field: 1, 2,3, and so on. But the polynomial $x$ is larger than all of these, and $x^2$ is larger than $x$, and so on. So in this ring there are elements that are greater than all the ordinary natural numbers.



          By standard abstract algebra, the ordering on $mathbb{Q}[x]$ can be extended to an ordering on the field of fractions of the ring. That will give an ordered field that contains $mathbb{Q}[x]$ as a subring, and as such contains elements larger than all the ordinary natural numbers.



          There are other algebraic constructions that give other non-Archimedean ordered fields, as well.



          An example from logic



          In logic, the compactness theorem says that if we have a set of axioms so that every finite subset of the axioms is consistent on its own, then the whole set is consistent. Take our axioms to include the axioms of an ordered ring, and also the axiom $z > n$ for each $n$. For any finite subset of these axioms, we can choose a value of $z$ large enough to make that finite subset true in $mathbb{Q}$. So there is a model in which all the axioms are true at once. In that model, whatever $z$ is must be an element larger than every natural number.



          In nonstandard analysis



          In nonstandard analysis, we work with a field that extends of the reals in which there are infinitesimals. For this purpose, an infinitesimal is an element $delta$ so that $0 < delta$ but $delta < 1/n$ for each ordinary natural number $n$. Then if $delta$ is infinitesimal, $1/delta$ exists (because $delta not = 0$, and $1/delta$ is larger than $n$ for all $n$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          A concrete example



          Consider the ring $mathbb{Q}[x]$ of polynomials over $mathbb{Q}$. These can be linearly ordered as in this answer, in a way that preserves the ordering of the rationals. Now we have the "regular" naturals in this field: 1, 2,3, and so on. But the polynomial $x$ is larger than all of these, and $x^2$ is larger than $x$, and so on. So in this ring there are elements that are greater than all the ordinary natural numbers.



          By standard abstract algebra, the ordering on $mathbb{Q}[x]$ can be extended to an ordering on the field of fractions of the ring. That will give an ordered field that contains $mathbb{Q}[x]$ as a subring, and as such contains elements larger than all the ordinary natural numbers.



          There are other algebraic constructions that give other non-Archimedean ordered fields, as well.



          An example from logic



          In logic, the compactness theorem says that if we have a set of axioms so that every finite subset of the axioms is consistent on its own, then the whole set is consistent. Take our axioms to include the axioms of an ordered ring, and also the axiom $z > n$ for each $n$. For any finite subset of these axioms, we can choose a value of $z$ large enough to make that finite subset true in $mathbb{Q}$. So there is a model in which all the axioms are true at once. In that model, whatever $z$ is must be an element larger than every natural number.



          In nonstandard analysis



          In nonstandard analysis, we work with a field that extends of the reals in which there are infinitesimals. For this purpose, an infinitesimal is an element $delta$ so that $0 < delta$ but $delta < 1/n$ for each ordinary natural number $n$. Then if $delta$ is infinitesimal, $1/delta$ exists (because $delta not = 0$, and $1/delta$ is larger than $n$ for all $n$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 29 at 20:41









          Lee Mosher

          49.1k33685




          49.1k33685










          answered Jan 29 at 17:12









          Carl MummertCarl Mummert

          66.6k7132248




          66.6k7132248























              8












              $begingroup$

              Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb{Q}$. I don't know what the standard notation for this is, but let's denote it by $mathbb{Q}(x)$.



              $$mathbb{Q}(x)=left{frac{p(x)}{q(x)}: p(x),q(x)inmathbb{Q}[x] text{ and } q(x)neq 0 text{ is a monic polynomial.}right}$$



              To define an order on it, define $f>g$ if and only if $f-g>0$ where a rational function is positive if and only if its leading coefficient of the numerator is positive. I leave the process of checking the axioms to you.



              Now compare $frac{x}{1}$ and $frac{n}{1}$. We see that $frac{x}{1}-frac{n}{1}=frac{x-n}{1}>0$. So, $x$ is bigger than any natural number $n$.



              Edit: After Carl Mummert's wonderful comment, it is worthy to add that in order to have a well-defined order, we should first set the leading coefficient in the denominator to be $1$ by multiplying the whole fraction by the inverse of this coefficient if necessary. So, we can assume that $q(x)$ is monic. Now, we can see that the order we have defined is also an extension of the order on $mathbb{Q}$ as well.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                This is a good example but the order is hard to define; $4/(-1)$ is not a positive element, but the leading coefficient of the numerator is positive.
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 17:17












              • $begingroup$
                @CarlMummert You're right. But the OP hasn't said that the order too must be an extension of the order on rational numbers. I mean it's open to interpretation. The OP's question reads "ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$". This is an ordered field and it's an extension of $mathbb{Q}$. But you're absolutely right that the orders seem not to be compatible which is a very good point. I think if we add an extra hypothesis that in cases like what you mentioned, $4/(-1)$ should be seen as $(-4)/1$, the issue might be resolved but I'm not sure. What do you think?
                $endgroup$
                – stressed out
                Jan 29 at 17:20








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I see your point; I was thinking of extensions that preserve the ordering. There is a way to do this by looking at cross products, the same way we extend the order of the integers to the order of the rationals: $a/b < c/d$ if $ad < bc$. So that reduces to the problem to ordering $mathbb{Q}[x]$. as in math.stackexchange.com/questions/1920165/…
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 17:24








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Yes, I think that resolves it.
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 18:22






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                You could also say $f>0$ whenever $f(x)>0$ for all sufficiently large $x$. For your specific field, this is equivalent to your definition, but I think it generalizes better (e.g. to fields of algebraic functions).
                $endgroup$
                – Micah
                Jan 29 at 19:37
















              8












              $begingroup$

              Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb{Q}$. I don't know what the standard notation for this is, but let's denote it by $mathbb{Q}(x)$.



              $$mathbb{Q}(x)=left{frac{p(x)}{q(x)}: p(x),q(x)inmathbb{Q}[x] text{ and } q(x)neq 0 text{ is a monic polynomial.}right}$$



              To define an order on it, define $f>g$ if and only if $f-g>0$ where a rational function is positive if and only if its leading coefficient of the numerator is positive. I leave the process of checking the axioms to you.



              Now compare $frac{x}{1}$ and $frac{n}{1}$. We see that $frac{x}{1}-frac{n}{1}=frac{x-n}{1}>0$. So, $x$ is bigger than any natural number $n$.



              Edit: After Carl Mummert's wonderful comment, it is worthy to add that in order to have a well-defined order, we should first set the leading coefficient in the denominator to be $1$ by multiplying the whole fraction by the inverse of this coefficient if necessary. So, we can assume that $q(x)$ is monic. Now, we can see that the order we have defined is also an extension of the order on $mathbb{Q}$ as well.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                This is a good example but the order is hard to define; $4/(-1)$ is not a positive element, but the leading coefficient of the numerator is positive.
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 17:17












              • $begingroup$
                @CarlMummert You're right. But the OP hasn't said that the order too must be an extension of the order on rational numbers. I mean it's open to interpretation. The OP's question reads "ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$". This is an ordered field and it's an extension of $mathbb{Q}$. But you're absolutely right that the orders seem not to be compatible which is a very good point. I think if we add an extra hypothesis that in cases like what you mentioned, $4/(-1)$ should be seen as $(-4)/1$, the issue might be resolved but I'm not sure. What do you think?
                $endgroup$
                – stressed out
                Jan 29 at 17:20








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I see your point; I was thinking of extensions that preserve the ordering. There is a way to do this by looking at cross products, the same way we extend the order of the integers to the order of the rationals: $a/b < c/d$ if $ad < bc$. So that reduces to the problem to ordering $mathbb{Q}[x]$. as in math.stackexchange.com/questions/1920165/…
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 17:24








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Yes, I think that resolves it.
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 18:22






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                You could also say $f>0$ whenever $f(x)>0$ for all sufficiently large $x$. For your specific field, this is equivalent to your definition, but I think it generalizes better (e.g. to fields of algebraic functions).
                $endgroup$
                – Micah
                Jan 29 at 19:37














              8












              8








              8





              $begingroup$

              Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb{Q}$. I don't know what the standard notation for this is, but let's denote it by $mathbb{Q}(x)$.



              $$mathbb{Q}(x)=left{frac{p(x)}{q(x)}: p(x),q(x)inmathbb{Q}[x] text{ and } q(x)neq 0 text{ is a monic polynomial.}right}$$



              To define an order on it, define $f>g$ if and only if $f-g>0$ where a rational function is positive if and only if its leading coefficient of the numerator is positive. I leave the process of checking the axioms to you.



              Now compare $frac{x}{1}$ and $frac{n}{1}$. We see that $frac{x}{1}-frac{n}{1}=frac{x-n}{1}>0$. So, $x$ is bigger than any natural number $n$.



              Edit: After Carl Mummert's wonderful comment, it is worthy to add that in order to have a well-defined order, we should first set the leading coefficient in the denominator to be $1$ by multiplying the whole fraction by the inverse of this coefficient if necessary. So, we can assume that $q(x)$ is monic. Now, we can see that the order we have defined is also an extension of the order on $mathbb{Q}$ as well.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Consider the field of rational functions over $mathbb{Q}$. I don't know what the standard notation for this is, but let's denote it by $mathbb{Q}(x)$.



              $$mathbb{Q}(x)=left{frac{p(x)}{q(x)}: p(x),q(x)inmathbb{Q}[x] text{ and } q(x)neq 0 text{ is a monic polynomial.}right}$$



              To define an order on it, define $f>g$ if and only if $f-g>0$ where a rational function is positive if and only if its leading coefficient of the numerator is positive. I leave the process of checking the axioms to you.



              Now compare $frac{x}{1}$ and $frac{n}{1}$. We see that $frac{x}{1}-frac{n}{1}=frac{x-n}{1}>0$. So, $x$ is bigger than any natural number $n$.



              Edit: After Carl Mummert's wonderful comment, it is worthy to add that in order to have a well-defined order, we should first set the leading coefficient in the denominator to be $1$ by multiplying the whole fraction by the inverse of this coefficient if necessary. So, we can assume that $q(x)$ is monic. Now, we can see that the order we have defined is also an extension of the order on $mathbb{Q}$ as well.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Jan 29 at 17:44

























              answered Jan 29 at 17:14









              stressed outstressed out

              4,9141634




              4,9141634












              • $begingroup$
                This is a good example but the order is hard to define; $4/(-1)$ is not a positive element, but the leading coefficient of the numerator is positive.
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 17:17












              • $begingroup$
                @CarlMummert You're right. But the OP hasn't said that the order too must be an extension of the order on rational numbers. I mean it's open to interpretation. The OP's question reads "ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$". This is an ordered field and it's an extension of $mathbb{Q}$. But you're absolutely right that the orders seem not to be compatible which is a very good point. I think if we add an extra hypothesis that in cases like what you mentioned, $4/(-1)$ should be seen as $(-4)/1$, the issue might be resolved but I'm not sure. What do you think?
                $endgroup$
                – stressed out
                Jan 29 at 17:20








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I see your point; I was thinking of extensions that preserve the ordering. There is a way to do this by looking at cross products, the same way we extend the order of the integers to the order of the rationals: $a/b < c/d$ if $ad < bc$. So that reduces to the problem to ordering $mathbb{Q}[x]$. as in math.stackexchange.com/questions/1920165/…
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 17:24








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Yes, I think that resolves it.
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 18:22






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                You could also say $f>0$ whenever $f(x)>0$ for all sufficiently large $x$. For your specific field, this is equivalent to your definition, but I think it generalizes better (e.g. to fields of algebraic functions).
                $endgroup$
                – Micah
                Jan 29 at 19:37


















              • $begingroup$
                This is a good example but the order is hard to define; $4/(-1)$ is not a positive element, but the leading coefficient of the numerator is positive.
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 17:17












              • $begingroup$
                @CarlMummert You're right. But the OP hasn't said that the order too must be an extension of the order on rational numbers. I mean it's open to interpretation. The OP's question reads "ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$". This is an ordered field and it's an extension of $mathbb{Q}$. But you're absolutely right that the orders seem not to be compatible which is a very good point. I think if we add an extra hypothesis that in cases like what you mentioned, $4/(-1)$ should be seen as $(-4)/1$, the issue might be resolved but I'm not sure. What do you think?
                $endgroup$
                – stressed out
                Jan 29 at 17:20








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I see your point; I was thinking of extensions that preserve the ordering. There is a way to do this by looking at cross products, the same way we extend the order of the integers to the order of the rationals: $a/b < c/d$ if $ad < bc$. So that reduces to the problem to ordering $mathbb{Q}[x]$. as in math.stackexchange.com/questions/1920165/…
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 17:24








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Yes, I think that resolves it.
                $endgroup$
                – Carl Mummert
                Jan 29 at 18:22






              • 3




                $begingroup$
                You could also say $f>0$ whenever $f(x)>0$ for all sufficiently large $x$. For your specific field, this is equivalent to your definition, but I think it generalizes better (e.g. to fields of algebraic functions).
                $endgroup$
                – Micah
                Jan 29 at 19:37
















              $begingroup$
              This is a good example but the order is hard to define; $4/(-1)$ is not a positive element, but the leading coefficient of the numerator is positive.
              $endgroup$
              – Carl Mummert
              Jan 29 at 17:17






              $begingroup$
              This is a good example but the order is hard to define; $4/(-1)$ is not a positive element, but the leading coefficient of the numerator is positive.
              $endgroup$
              – Carl Mummert
              Jan 29 at 17:17














              $begingroup$
              @CarlMummert You're right. But the OP hasn't said that the order too must be an extension of the order on rational numbers. I mean it's open to interpretation. The OP's question reads "ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$". This is an ordered field and it's an extension of $mathbb{Q}$. But you're absolutely right that the orders seem not to be compatible which is a very good point. I think if we add an extra hypothesis that in cases like what you mentioned, $4/(-1)$ should be seen as $(-4)/1$, the issue might be resolved but I'm not sure. What do you think?
              $endgroup$
              – stressed out
              Jan 29 at 17:20






              $begingroup$
              @CarlMummert You're right. But the OP hasn't said that the order too must be an extension of the order on rational numbers. I mean it's open to interpretation. The OP's question reads "ordered field extensions of $mathbb{Q}$". This is an ordered field and it's an extension of $mathbb{Q}$. But you're absolutely right that the orders seem not to be compatible which is a very good point. I think if we add an extra hypothesis that in cases like what you mentioned, $4/(-1)$ should be seen as $(-4)/1$, the issue might be resolved but I'm not sure. What do you think?
              $endgroup$
              – stressed out
              Jan 29 at 17:20






              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              I see your point; I was thinking of extensions that preserve the ordering. There is a way to do this by looking at cross products, the same way we extend the order of the integers to the order of the rationals: $a/b < c/d$ if $ad < bc$. So that reduces to the problem to ordering $mathbb{Q}[x]$. as in math.stackexchange.com/questions/1920165/…
              $endgroup$
              – Carl Mummert
              Jan 29 at 17:24






              $begingroup$
              I see your point; I was thinking of extensions that preserve the ordering. There is a way to do this by looking at cross products, the same way we extend the order of the integers to the order of the rationals: $a/b < c/d$ if $ad < bc$. So that reduces to the problem to ordering $mathbb{Q}[x]$. as in math.stackexchange.com/questions/1920165/…
              $endgroup$
              – Carl Mummert
              Jan 29 at 17:24






              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Yes, I think that resolves it.
              $endgroup$
              – Carl Mummert
              Jan 29 at 18:22




              $begingroup$
              Yes, I think that resolves it.
              $endgroup$
              – Carl Mummert
              Jan 29 at 18:22




              3




              3




              $begingroup$
              You could also say $f>0$ whenever $f(x)>0$ for all sufficiently large $x$. For your specific field, this is equivalent to your definition, but I think it generalizes better (e.g. to fields of algebraic functions).
              $endgroup$
              – Micah
              Jan 29 at 19:37




              $begingroup$
              You could also say $f>0$ whenever $f(x)>0$ for all sufficiently large $x$. For your specific field, this is equivalent to your definition, but I think it generalizes better (e.g. to fields of algebraic functions).
              $endgroup$
              – Micah
              Jan 29 at 19:37











              5












              $begingroup$

              Here's a well known construction of an ordered field extension of $mathbb Q$ that comes from logic and from nonstandard analysis, as mentioned in the answer of @CarlMummert.



              Choose a nonprincipal ultrafilter on the natural numbers $mathbb N$: an ultrafilter is a finitely additive, $0,1$-valued measure defined on all subsets $A subset mathbb N$, such that $mathbb N$ has measure $1$; and $mu$ is nonprincipal if ${i}$ has measure zero for every $i in mathbb N$. The existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter is an exercise in applying the axiom of choice.



              Consider the set $mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$ which is the set of all sequences of rational numbers. Define an equivalence relation on this set: given $underline x = (x_i)$ and $underline y = (y_i) in mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$, define $underline x approx underline y$ if the set of indices $i$ for which $x_i = y_i$ has measure $1$. Let $[underline x] = [x_1,x_2,x_3,...]$ denote the equivalence class of $underline x = (x_1,x_2,x_3,...)$. Define addition and multiplication in the obvious way: $[underline x] + [underline y] = [underline z]$ means that the set of indices for which $x_i + y_i = z_i$ has measure $1$, and similarly for multiplication. Define inequality similarly: $[underline x] < [underline y]$ if the set of indices for which $x_i < y_i$ has measure $1$. Check that everything is well-defined, and that you get an ordered field.



              To embed $mathbb Q$ into this field, map the rational number $q$ to $[q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,...]$. Check that this is an embedding of ordered fields.



              To identify a number greater than any natural number, take $[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...]$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                5












                $begingroup$

                Here's a well known construction of an ordered field extension of $mathbb Q$ that comes from logic and from nonstandard analysis, as mentioned in the answer of @CarlMummert.



                Choose a nonprincipal ultrafilter on the natural numbers $mathbb N$: an ultrafilter is a finitely additive, $0,1$-valued measure defined on all subsets $A subset mathbb N$, such that $mathbb N$ has measure $1$; and $mu$ is nonprincipal if ${i}$ has measure zero for every $i in mathbb N$. The existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter is an exercise in applying the axiom of choice.



                Consider the set $mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$ which is the set of all sequences of rational numbers. Define an equivalence relation on this set: given $underline x = (x_i)$ and $underline y = (y_i) in mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$, define $underline x approx underline y$ if the set of indices $i$ for which $x_i = y_i$ has measure $1$. Let $[underline x] = [x_1,x_2,x_3,...]$ denote the equivalence class of $underline x = (x_1,x_2,x_3,...)$. Define addition and multiplication in the obvious way: $[underline x] + [underline y] = [underline z]$ means that the set of indices for which $x_i + y_i = z_i$ has measure $1$, and similarly for multiplication. Define inequality similarly: $[underline x] < [underline y]$ if the set of indices for which $x_i < y_i$ has measure $1$. Check that everything is well-defined, and that you get an ordered field.



                To embed $mathbb Q$ into this field, map the rational number $q$ to $[q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,...]$. Check that this is an embedding of ordered fields.



                To identify a number greater than any natural number, take $[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...]$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  5












                  5








                  5





                  $begingroup$

                  Here's a well known construction of an ordered field extension of $mathbb Q$ that comes from logic and from nonstandard analysis, as mentioned in the answer of @CarlMummert.



                  Choose a nonprincipal ultrafilter on the natural numbers $mathbb N$: an ultrafilter is a finitely additive, $0,1$-valued measure defined on all subsets $A subset mathbb N$, such that $mathbb N$ has measure $1$; and $mu$ is nonprincipal if ${i}$ has measure zero for every $i in mathbb N$. The existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter is an exercise in applying the axiom of choice.



                  Consider the set $mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$ which is the set of all sequences of rational numbers. Define an equivalence relation on this set: given $underline x = (x_i)$ and $underline y = (y_i) in mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$, define $underline x approx underline y$ if the set of indices $i$ for which $x_i = y_i$ has measure $1$. Let $[underline x] = [x_1,x_2,x_3,...]$ denote the equivalence class of $underline x = (x_1,x_2,x_3,...)$. Define addition and multiplication in the obvious way: $[underline x] + [underline y] = [underline z]$ means that the set of indices for which $x_i + y_i = z_i$ has measure $1$, and similarly for multiplication. Define inequality similarly: $[underline x] < [underline y]$ if the set of indices for which $x_i < y_i$ has measure $1$. Check that everything is well-defined, and that you get an ordered field.



                  To embed $mathbb Q$ into this field, map the rational number $q$ to $[q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,...]$. Check that this is an embedding of ordered fields.



                  To identify a number greater than any natural number, take $[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...]$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Here's a well known construction of an ordered field extension of $mathbb Q$ that comes from logic and from nonstandard analysis, as mentioned in the answer of @CarlMummert.



                  Choose a nonprincipal ultrafilter on the natural numbers $mathbb N$: an ultrafilter is a finitely additive, $0,1$-valued measure defined on all subsets $A subset mathbb N$, such that $mathbb N$ has measure $1$; and $mu$ is nonprincipal if ${i}$ has measure zero for every $i in mathbb N$. The existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter is an exercise in applying the axiom of choice.



                  Consider the set $mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$ which is the set of all sequences of rational numbers. Define an equivalence relation on this set: given $underline x = (x_i)$ and $underline y = (y_i) in mathbb Q^{mathbb N}$, define $underline x approx underline y$ if the set of indices $i$ for which $x_i = y_i$ has measure $1$. Let $[underline x] = [x_1,x_2,x_3,...]$ denote the equivalence class of $underline x = (x_1,x_2,x_3,...)$. Define addition and multiplication in the obvious way: $[underline x] + [underline y] = [underline z]$ means that the set of indices for which $x_i + y_i = z_i$ has measure $1$, and similarly for multiplication. Define inequality similarly: $[underline x] < [underline y]$ if the set of indices for which $x_i < y_i$ has measure $1$. Check that everything is well-defined, and that you get an ordered field.



                  To embed $mathbb Q$ into this field, map the rational number $q$ to $[q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,q,...]$. Check that this is an embedding of ordered fields.



                  To identify a number greater than any natural number, take $[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...]$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Jan 29 at 20:39

























                  answered Jan 29 at 17:43









                  Lee MosherLee Mosher

                  49.1k33685




                  49.1k33685























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      Conway’s surreal numbers form a totally ordered Field (where the capital ‘F’ means that they are a proper class (not just a set) containing (a field isomorphic to) the real (and hence rational) numbers. They include many transfinite numbers, including the ordinals, i.e. numbers larger than all reals, rationals or natural numbers. Wikipedia also tells us that they form a universal ordered field in the sense that any ordered field may be modelled using them.



                      You ask for an “explanation why this could be the case” — that is hard to provide when one does not know why you think it might not be possible, as you apparently do.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        It may be that the ordinals are included in Conway's "Field", but it probably isn't fair to "just" say that the ordinals are "numbers larger than all the reals" when cardinals and ordinals count different things, and they "agree" on the finite sets.
                        $endgroup$
                        – nomen
                        Jan 29 at 23:24






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        @nomen - it is true that ordinals, cardinals, and real numbers are distinctly different things by definition. But it is also true that there are natural isomorphisms between the countable cardinals, the countable ordinals, and the minimal subset of $Bbb R$ containing $0$ and $1$ and closed under addition. As such, we generally identify these three sets as being the "Natural numbers" and don't balk over the different definitions. Similarly the ordinals, cardinals and reals all isomorphically embed in the surreals, where PJTraill's description is true.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Paul Sinclair
                        Jan 30 at 0:23












                      • $begingroup$
                        @nomen: As Paul Sinclair says, the surreals contain isomorphs of the reals and the ordinals. Since the images of the (transfinite) ordinals come out larger than those of the reals, that seems good enough to me. The questioner gave no indication that they meant a specific sort of number, mentioning $ mathbb Q $ and natural numbers, but neither cardinals nor ordinals. That the latter give notions of size of sets and well-ordered sets respectively does not matter; what matters is the order in the ordered field given in an answer. I take it that by ‘“numbers”’ they meant elements of that field.
                        $endgroup$
                        – PJTraill
                        Jan 31 at 0:38


















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      Conway’s surreal numbers form a totally ordered Field (where the capital ‘F’ means that they are a proper class (not just a set) containing (a field isomorphic to) the real (and hence rational) numbers. They include many transfinite numbers, including the ordinals, i.e. numbers larger than all reals, rationals or natural numbers. Wikipedia also tells us that they form a universal ordered field in the sense that any ordered field may be modelled using them.



                      You ask for an “explanation why this could be the case” — that is hard to provide when one does not know why you think it might not be possible, as you apparently do.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        It may be that the ordinals are included in Conway's "Field", but it probably isn't fair to "just" say that the ordinals are "numbers larger than all the reals" when cardinals and ordinals count different things, and they "agree" on the finite sets.
                        $endgroup$
                        – nomen
                        Jan 29 at 23:24






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        @nomen - it is true that ordinals, cardinals, and real numbers are distinctly different things by definition. But it is also true that there are natural isomorphisms between the countable cardinals, the countable ordinals, and the minimal subset of $Bbb R$ containing $0$ and $1$ and closed under addition. As such, we generally identify these three sets as being the "Natural numbers" and don't balk over the different definitions. Similarly the ordinals, cardinals and reals all isomorphically embed in the surreals, where PJTraill's description is true.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Paul Sinclair
                        Jan 30 at 0:23












                      • $begingroup$
                        @nomen: As Paul Sinclair says, the surreals contain isomorphs of the reals and the ordinals. Since the images of the (transfinite) ordinals come out larger than those of the reals, that seems good enough to me. The questioner gave no indication that they meant a specific sort of number, mentioning $ mathbb Q $ and natural numbers, but neither cardinals nor ordinals. That the latter give notions of size of sets and well-ordered sets respectively does not matter; what matters is the order in the ordered field given in an answer. I take it that by ‘“numbers”’ they meant elements of that field.
                        $endgroup$
                        – PJTraill
                        Jan 31 at 0:38
















                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      Conway’s surreal numbers form a totally ordered Field (where the capital ‘F’ means that they are a proper class (not just a set) containing (a field isomorphic to) the real (and hence rational) numbers. They include many transfinite numbers, including the ordinals, i.e. numbers larger than all reals, rationals or natural numbers. Wikipedia also tells us that they form a universal ordered field in the sense that any ordered field may be modelled using them.



                      You ask for an “explanation why this could be the case” — that is hard to provide when one does not know why you think it might not be possible, as you apparently do.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$



                      Conway’s surreal numbers form a totally ordered Field (where the capital ‘F’ means that they are a proper class (not just a set) containing (a field isomorphic to) the real (and hence rational) numbers. They include many transfinite numbers, including the ordinals, i.e. numbers larger than all reals, rationals or natural numbers. Wikipedia also tells us that they form a universal ordered field in the sense that any ordered field may be modelled using them.



                      You ask for an “explanation why this could be the case” — that is hard to provide when one does not know why you think it might not be possible, as you apparently do.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Jan 31 at 0:36

























                      answered Jan 29 at 23:03









                      PJTraillPJTraill

                      671518




                      671518












                      • $begingroup$
                        It may be that the ordinals are included in Conway's "Field", but it probably isn't fair to "just" say that the ordinals are "numbers larger than all the reals" when cardinals and ordinals count different things, and they "agree" on the finite sets.
                        $endgroup$
                        – nomen
                        Jan 29 at 23:24






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        @nomen - it is true that ordinals, cardinals, and real numbers are distinctly different things by definition. But it is also true that there are natural isomorphisms between the countable cardinals, the countable ordinals, and the minimal subset of $Bbb R$ containing $0$ and $1$ and closed under addition. As such, we generally identify these three sets as being the "Natural numbers" and don't balk over the different definitions. Similarly the ordinals, cardinals and reals all isomorphically embed in the surreals, where PJTraill's description is true.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Paul Sinclair
                        Jan 30 at 0:23












                      • $begingroup$
                        @nomen: As Paul Sinclair says, the surreals contain isomorphs of the reals and the ordinals. Since the images of the (transfinite) ordinals come out larger than those of the reals, that seems good enough to me. The questioner gave no indication that they meant a specific sort of number, mentioning $ mathbb Q $ and natural numbers, but neither cardinals nor ordinals. That the latter give notions of size of sets and well-ordered sets respectively does not matter; what matters is the order in the ordered field given in an answer. I take it that by ‘“numbers”’ they meant elements of that field.
                        $endgroup$
                        – PJTraill
                        Jan 31 at 0:38




















                      • $begingroup$
                        It may be that the ordinals are included in Conway's "Field", but it probably isn't fair to "just" say that the ordinals are "numbers larger than all the reals" when cardinals and ordinals count different things, and they "agree" on the finite sets.
                        $endgroup$
                        – nomen
                        Jan 29 at 23:24






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        @nomen - it is true that ordinals, cardinals, and real numbers are distinctly different things by definition. But it is also true that there are natural isomorphisms between the countable cardinals, the countable ordinals, and the minimal subset of $Bbb R$ containing $0$ and $1$ and closed under addition. As such, we generally identify these three sets as being the "Natural numbers" and don't balk over the different definitions. Similarly the ordinals, cardinals and reals all isomorphically embed in the surreals, where PJTraill's description is true.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Paul Sinclair
                        Jan 30 at 0:23












                      • $begingroup$
                        @nomen: As Paul Sinclair says, the surreals contain isomorphs of the reals and the ordinals. Since the images of the (transfinite) ordinals come out larger than those of the reals, that seems good enough to me. The questioner gave no indication that they meant a specific sort of number, mentioning $ mathbb Q $ and natural numbers, but neither cardinals nor ordinals. That the latter give notions of size of sets and well-ordered sets respectively does not matter; what matters is the order in the ordered field given in an answer. I take it that by ‘“numbers”’ they meant elements of that field.
                        $endgroup$
                        – PJTraill
                        Jan 31 at 0:38


















                      $begingroup$
                      It may be that the ordinals are included in Conway's "Field", but it probably isn't fair to "just" say that the ordinals are "numbers larger than all the reals" when cardinals and ordinals count different things, and they "agree" on the finite sets.
                      $endgroup$
                      – nomen
                      Jan 29 at 23:24




                      $begingroup$
                      It may be that the ordinals are included in Conway's "Field", but it probably isn't fair to "just" say that the ordinals are "numbers larger than all the reals" when cardinals and ordinals count different things, and they "agree" on the finite sets.
                      $endgroup$
                      – nomen
                      Jan 29 at 23:24




                      2




                      2




                      $begingroup$
                      @nomen - it is true that ordinals, cardinals, and real numbers are distinctly different things by definition. But it is also true that there are natural isomorphisms between the countable cardinals, the countable ordinals, and the minimal subset of $Bbb R$ containing $0$ and $1$ and closed under addition. As such, we generally identify these three sets as being the "Natural numbers" and don't balk over the different definitions. Similarly the ordinals, cardinals and reals all isomorphically embed in the surreals, where PJTraill's description is true.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Paul Sinclair
                      Jan 30 at 0:23






                      $begingroup$
                      @nomen - it is true that ordinals, cardinals, and real numbers are distinctly different things by definition. But it is also true that there are natural isomorphisms between the countable cardinals, the countable ordinals, and the minimal subset of $Bbb R$ containing $0$ and $1$ and closed under addition. As such, we generally identify these three sets as being the "Natural numbers" and don't balk over the different definitions. Similarly the ordinals, cardinals and reals all isomorphically embed in the surreals, where PJTraill's description is true.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Paul Sinclair
                      Jan 30 at 0:23














                      $begingroup$
                      @nomen: As Paul Sinclair says, the surreals contain isomorphs of the reals and the ordinals. Since the images of the (transfinite) ordinals come out larger than those of the reals, that seems good enough to me. The questioner gave no indication that they meant a specific sort of number, mentioning $ mathbb Q $ and natural numbers, but neither cardinals nor ordinals. That the latter give notions of size of sets and well-ordered sets respectively does not matter; what matters is the order in the ordered field given in an answer. I take it that by ‘“numbers”’ they meant elements of that field.
                      $endgroup$
                      – PJTraill
                      Jan 31 at 0:38






                      $begingroup$
                      @nomen: As Paul Sinclair says, the surreals contain isomorphs of the reals and the ordinals. Since the images of the (transfinite) ordinals come out larger than those of the reals, that seems good enough to me. The questioner gave no indication that they meant a specific sort of number, mentioning $ mathbb Q $ and natural numbers, but neither cardinals nor ordinals. That the latter give notions of size of sets and well-ordered sets respectively does not matter; what matters is the order in the ordered field given in an answer. I take it that by ‘“numbers”’ they meant elements of that field.
                      $endgroup$
                      – PJTraill
                      Jan 31 at 0:38




















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3092369%2fnumbers-bigger-than-every-natural-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

                      Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

                      Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?