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'm trying to prove that; If any Cauchy sequence is convergent in an ordered field F, every nonempty subset of F that has an upperbound has a sup in F.

Let A be a nonempty subset of F that is not a singleton and has an upperbound in F. Let $a_0 \notin v(A)$ and $b_0 \in v(A)$. It's written in my book that for every $e \in P_F$, there exists $N \in \omega$ such that $N≧(b_0 - a_0)/e$.

I think this is not accurate since it hasn't showed that such F is Archimedean.. Is such F archimedean? Or in such a condition does there exist such N?

-Definition of a Cauchy sequence; For every $e\in P_F$, there exists $N\in \omega$ such that if $i,j≧N$, then $|x(i) - x(j)| < e$. ($x:\omega \to F$ is a sequence)

Least Upper Bound Property $\implies$ Complete

share|improve this question
    
What are $P_F$, and $\nu(A)$? –  William Jun 19 '12 at 9:56
    
I assume that $P_F$ is the positive cone of $F$ and $v(A)$ is the set of upper bounds of $A$? Also, what exactly is your definition of a Cauchy sequence in $F$? –  Brian M. Scott Jun 19 '12 at 9:56
1  
Brian's right. My definition of a cauchy sequence is 'for every $e\in P_F$, there exists $N\in \omega$ such that if $i,j ≧ N$, then |$x(i) - x(j)$| < $e$. ($x:\omega →F$ is a sequence) –  Katlus Jun 19 '12 at 10:02
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

You’re right: there is a problem with the argument, because there is a Cauchy-complete non-Archimedean ordered field, and a non-Archimedean ordered field is not complete in the sense of having least upper bounds.

The standard example starts with the field $F$ of rational functions over $\Bbb R$, with positive cone consisting of those functions $f/g$ such that the leading coefficients of $f$ and $g$ have the same algebraic sign. Then form the Cauchy completion by extending this to equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences in $F$. This is Example 7 on page 17 of Gelbaum & Olmsted, Counterexample in Analysis; you may be able to see it here.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.