Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I wonder if there is an integral domain $A\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ which is not a field, and such that the field of fractions of $A$ is equal to $\mathbb{R}$?

Edit: here as a possible direction: it is known that there is no finite field extension $k\subseteq \mathbb{R}$. Given such an $A$, can we produce such a $k$, contradicting this theorem?

share|improve this question
Well, in the prime case it works: you take $\mathbb{Z}$, complete it with respect to the $p$-adic topology, and then take the field of fractions, and you get $\mathbb{Q}_p$ which is an analog of $\mathbb{R}$. –  the L Feb 2 '12 at 10:45
@Ali Bleybel, I don't understand your comments. Why is completion the only way to proceed? –  the L Feb 2 '12 at 11:09

2 Answers 2

up vote 11 down vote accepted

The field extension $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Q}$ posesses a transcendence basis $T$. Consider the polynomial ring $\mathbb{Q}[T]$; it is not a field. The extension $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Q}(T)$, $\mathbb{Q}(T)$ the fraction field of $\mathbb{Q}[T]$ is algebraic. Let $A$ be the integral closure of $\mathbb{Q}[T]$ in $\mathbb{R}$. The fraction field of $A$ then equals $\mathbb{R}$, and $A$ is not a field, because by the Lying-over-Theorem there exists a prime ideal of $A$ lying over a given non-zero prime ideal of $\mathbb{Q}[T]$.

Remark: one can show that an integral domain $A$ having $\mathbb{R}$ as field of fractions is not noetherian.

Remark 2: the argument just given essentially shows: if a field $K$ does not contain an integral domain $A$ such that $K$ is the field of fractions of $A$ and $A$ is not a field, then $K$ is an algebraic extension of a finite field.

share|improve this answer
Dear Hagen: Great answer! For those who haven't seen this: If a field $B$ is integral over a domain $A$, then $A$ is a field. Proof: If $0\neq x\in A$, then $x^{-1}\in B$, so $$x^{-n}=a_1x^{1-n}+\cdots+a_n,\quad a_i\in A,$$ and thus $$x^{-1}=a_1+\cdots+a_nx^{n-1}\in A.$$ –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Feb 2 '12 at 13:42

The question was asked and answered on MathOverflow in 2010, in somewhat greater generality, and by two different methods.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.