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 taking an abstract algebra course, and we just hit extension fields - for example, you define $\sqrt{2}$ by starting with the field $\mathbb{Q}$ and defining $\sqrt{2}$ as a solution to the irreducible (over $\mathbb{Q}$) polynomial $x^2 - 2$.

This is unintuitive to me, because I know something additional about $\sqrt{2}$: intuitively I want to be able to make statements like $1 < \sqrt{2} < 2$, but I'm not sure how $<$ is even defined when $\sqrt{2}$ is fabricated like so.

So, my question: using the extension-field definition of $\sqrt{2}$, what additional construction allows us to make comparisons such as $1 < \sqrt{2} < 2$? And why do these constructions not allow us to make comparisons on $i$, which is similarly defined via extension fields (since $1 < i < 2$ is a nonsensical statement)?

share|improve this question
3  
I like the smiley in the title. –  Martin Brandenburg Mar 8 '13 at 23:04

4 Answers 4

up vote 7 down vote accepted

They don't. You need to pick an embedding of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ into $\mathbb{R}$, which is an ordered field, and you can make such comparisons in ordered fields. ($\mathbb{Q}(i)$ has no such embeddings.) Unfortunately, there are two embeddings: in the other embedding, $\sqrt{2}$ is sent to $-\sqrt{2}$, and then it's not true that $1 < - \sqrt{2} < 2$. In other words, knowing that $\sqrt{2}$ is a root of $x^2 - 2$ is not enough information for you to conclude that it's positive.

More generally, a number field has both real and complex embeddings, and moving to a different real embedding doesn't preserve the truth value of statements involving orderings.

share|improve this answer
    
This makes sense, but it sounds like we need to define $\mathbb{R}$ before we can get a satisfactory comparison-allowing definition of $\sqrt{2}$. But we need to define $\sqrt{2}$ in order to define $\mathbb{R}$, don't we? –  GMB Mar 8 '13 at 22:53
    
@Lev: you can define an order on $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ without talking about $\mathbb{R}$, it's just not unique and the easiest way to say what this order actually is is to say it's the induced order coming from a real embedding. –  Qiaochu Yuan Mar 8 '13 at 23:04
2  
@LevDub: We can define $\Bbb R$ to be the completion of $\Bbb Q$ under the absolute difference metric $d(x,y)=|x-y|$ ($x,y\in\Bbb Q$)--or any of a number of other ways. There's no need to define $\sqrt{2}$ first, but we'll certainly want to show that there is some positive number in $\Bbb R$ whose square is $2$--otherwise, we can't embed into $\Bbb R$ as we'd like to. –  Cameron Buie Mar 8 '13 at 23:06
3  
@Qiaochu, are you sure that it’s unfortunate that there are two different embeddings of $\mathbb Q(\sqrt2)$ into $\mathbb R$? –  Lubin Mar 8 '13 at 23:32

I will call $\sqrt{2}$ by $\alpha$, instead, to distinguish it from the positive real number whose square is $2$.

Amusingly, there are two distinct ways that we can make $\Bbb Q(\alpha)$ an ordered field with the usual operations, under an order relation whose restriction to $\Bbb Q$ is just the standard order relation on $\Bbb Q$. Consider the functions $\varphi_1,\varphi_2:\Bbb Q(\alpha)\to\Bbb R$ given by $$\varphi_1(p+q\alpha)=p+q\sqrt{2}\quad\text{and}\quad\varphi_2(p+q\alpha)=p-q\sqrt{2},$$ where $p,q$ range over $\Bbb Q$. These are injective field homomorphisms, as you can check.

We can induce order relations $<_1$ and $<_2$ on $\Bbb Q(\alpha)$ from the standard order $<$ on $\Bbb R$, by saying $$x<_jy\Leftrightarrow\varphi_j(x)<\varphi_j(y)$$ for $j=1,2.$ Now, $\Bbb Q(\alpha)$ is an ordered field with the standard operations under both $<_1$ and $<_2$, and these orders are not the same. However, for any rational $p,q$, we have $p<_jq$ if and only if $p<q$ ($j=1,2$), so these orders both "act the same" on the rationals.


Upshot: You can put either $1<\alpha<2$ or $1<-\alpha<2$. Take your pick.


As for $\Bbb Q(i)$, we can't embed it into $\Bbb R$ in this way, since there isn't any real number whose square is $-1$. We can certainly order $\Bbb Q(i)$ in any number of ways, but such an ordering will never make $\Bbb Q(i)$ into an ordered field with the usual operations.

share|improve this answer

I think there can be multiple appropriate responses (the obvious, but probably not helpful, one being simply "an ordering of the field"). To give you a more satisfactory answer, I would respond that the additional construction you need to make "comparison statements" in a field $L$ is: a specified ordered field $K$ together with a specified map $f:L\to K$.

If the ordering of $K$ is denoted with "$<$", you would then define an ordering "$\prec$" on $L$ by declaring that, given elements $\alpha,\beta\in L$, we have $\alpha\prec\beta$ if and only if $f(a)<f(b)$.

share|improve this answer

The answers so far have already explained the whole issue, but here is an additional remark:

Although we cannot distinguish $\sqrt{2}$ from $-\sqrt{2}$ in $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ in the language of fields, we can do so in $\mathbb{R}$ (in fact already in $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[4]{2})$ with the same argument). In fact, the order relation on $\mathbb{R}$ can be defined by means of the field structure since $x \geq 0 \Leftrightarrow \exists y (x=y^2)$.

This observation also implies that the only ring endomorphism of $\mathbb{R}$ is the identity, which is not the case for $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$. Every endomorphism of a field can be used to twist an arbitrary ordering to get a potentially new one, but for $\mathbb{R}$ the ordering is unique.

share|improve this answer

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.