Take $\mathbb{H}=\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N}/\mathcal{U}$, where $\mathcal{U}$ is some ultrafilter. Questions:

  • Are there more than one independent infinitessimal in this field. This means $\epsilon_1 > 0$ and $\epsilon_2 > 0$ such that $0 < \epsilon_1 < \epsilon_2 < r$ for all $0 < r \in \mathbb{R}$, and there is no relation (lineair or algebraic) between them ?
  • If there are, are there examples ?


  1. This is like asking for an "hyperlarge number comparable to the ordinal $\omega_n$ with $n>1$", I only wish to know if they can be constructed in $\mathbb{H}$.
  2. I suspect you can proof the existence of more infinitessimals in $\mathbb{H}$ by roughly the same diagonal argument which is used to proof the uncountability of $\mathbb{R}$, but I can't lay my finger on it, and it doesn't lead to a construction (I am not one of the constructionalist. but in this case I wish to know if you can do more than an existence result).


I thought of introducing "a second infinitessimal" to $\mathbb{H}=\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N}/\mathcal{U}$ by looking at $(\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N}/\mathcal{U})^\mathbb{N}/\mathcal{V}$, with a second ultrafilter, but (aside from the seond ultrafilter), I don't know in wich swamp I am moving then. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "No relation" is a slippery concept. We could try to specify it as "there is no polynomial $p(x,y)$ with standard coefficients such that $p(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)=0$. But even then something like $\epsilon_1 = e^{-1/\epsilon_2}$ would probably count as "independent" under that definition. $\endgroup$ Jul 5 '12 at 22:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Willem, I am not sure how this is "like asking for an ordinal $\omega_n$ with $n>1$". $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jul 5 '12 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ If you are a constructivist, you will have trouble with the existence of a non-principal ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ needed to produce the non-standard model. $\endgroup$ Jul 5 '12 at 23:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ One should also be careful when saying "the hyperreals" since unlike the real numbers there are several non-isomorphic hyperreal fields. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jul 5 '12 at 23:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf 1) The $\omega_n$ stuff is to be seen with two large quotes around it, of course you cannot expect that (for example) $\omega_1 \in \mathbb{H}$. This, and the fact that ordinals are not the same as hyperlarge numbers. I did put some quotes around that remark. $\endgroup$ Jul 6 '12 at 7:25

Let $$\epsilon_2=\left\langle\frac1{n+1}:n\in\omega\right\rangle^{\mathscr{U}}$$ and $$\epsilon_1=\left\langle\frac1{n!}:n\in\omega\right\rangle^{\mathscr{U}}\;;$$ clearly $a\epsilon_1^b<\epsilon_2$ for any $a,b\in\Bbb R^+$. Is that sufficient independence?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One might or might not consider $\epsilon_1 = \frac{1}{\Gamma(1/\epsilon_2)}$ a relation... $\endgroup$ Jul 7 '12 at 11:05

Here is a partial answer for linearly independence:

Let $V=\{\pm\epsilon\in\Bbb H\mid\epsilon\text{ is infinitesimal}\}\cup\{0\}$. Note that the sum of two infinitesimals is either zero or an infinitesimal. Furthermore, if $a\in\mathbb R$ then $a\cdot\epsilon$ is also an infinitesimal.

This is a vector space over $\mathbb R$. Its dimension cannot be $1$ since $\epsilon^2\neq\epsilon$, but if $\epsilon^2=a\cdot\epsilon$ then $\epsilon=a\in\mathbb R$ but that could only be if $\epsilon=0$ to begin with.

So linearly independent over $\mathbb R$ there has to be more than one infinitesimal. I suspect that a similar argument will show that there cannot be finitely many.

We can also observe that $V$ is closed under products and forms an integral domain. I think we can squeeze this argument down to show that as an algebra it is also not finitely generated, so the independence is not only linear but also polynomial.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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