Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there an upper bound on the cardinality of a field?

The "biggest" fields I know are the field of real numbers, or the field of complex numbers. Is there a field with cardinality greater than continuum?

share|cite|improve this question

migrated from Jul 15 '14 at 21:29

This question came from our site for professional mathematicians.

Have you heard of a transcendence basis? – blue Jul 15 '14 at 21:32
No, I have not... – Marco Flores Jul 16 '14 at 3:11
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Given any set $X$, you can come up with an integral domain $\mathbb Q[X]$, of polynomials with each $x\in X$ an indeterminate. This ring is an integral domain, so it has a field of fractions, and that field of fractions has at least $X$ elements.

If $X$ is infinite, I believe the field of fractions will have the same cardinality as $X$, but don't quote me.

share|cite|improve this answer
It will be, at least if we assume the axiom of choice, which I assume we are. :-) – Asaf Karagila Jul 15 '14 at 21:53

Yes, There are arbitrarily large fields. This follows from a result in logic, namely the Upward Löwenheim–Skolem theorem (see

To be more concrete, consider the countable algebriacly closed field, $\bar{\mathbb{Q}}$. Every element of this field is algebraic (meaning it is a root of a polynomial). However, we can begin adding "transcendental" elements, like $\pi$ and $e$. These don't affect the "field properties" of the field. Then, we can add any cardinality of transcendentals to construct a field of that particular size.

share|cite|improve this answer
Well there are only at most $\beth_1$ transcendentals to add – John Fernley Jul 15 '14 at 21:45
@John: The term "Transcendental" is not taken in the context of real/complex numbers here. It is taken in the context of adding elements which are not realizations of types over the model. Or in simpler words, not algebraic over a given field. – Asaf Karagila Jul 15 '14 at 21:50

No, surreal numbers form a 'field' which is a proper class, it contains all ordinals as a subclass for example. It also has subfields of every cardinality, see

share|cite|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.