I read that the set of rational functions with rational coefficients forms an ordered field, yet it is non-archimedean. I tried googling this, but I don't think I understood the solution.

  1. How does one define an order on rational functions of the form $\mathbb{Q}(x)=p(x)/q(x)$?
  2. How do you show that $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ is non-archimedean? That there is no natural number $n$, such that $n>\mathbb{Q}(x)$? Do I substitute numerical values of $x$ and show that $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ is unbounded or something?



  • $\begingroup$ Aside: "most" orderings on $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ are archimedean. For example, the map sending $x \to \pi$ is an isomorphism $\mathbb{Q}(x) \to \mathbb{Q}(\pi)$. Therefore, we can define $f < g$ iff $f(\pi) < g(\pi)$ to get an archimedean ordering. Any real transcendental can take the place of $\pi$. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Sep 9 '16 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl, I haven't taken a rigorous course in abstract algebra before, so isomorphism is sort of new to me. I will try to understand your comment. :) $\endgroup$ – Quasar Sep 11 '16 at 3:29

Consider the following order: let $f(x)=p(x)/q(x)$ be a rational function with

\begin{aligned}p(x)=a\cdot x^n &+ \text{ terms of degree less than $n$}\\ q(x)=b\cdot x^m &+ \text{ terms of degree less than $m$}\end{aligned}

where of course $a,b \in \mathbb{Q}$. Our order says that $f > 0$ if and only if $\frac{a}{b} >0$. Notice this defines the order throughout the field; if one wishes to determine whether $f_1 > f_2$, write the difference $f_1-f_2$ as a single rational function and determine whether it is $>0$, $=0$ or $<0$.

Now, this totally ordered field is not Archimedean. Indeed, consider the rational functions $f(x)=x$ and $g(x) = 1$. No matter how large you choose $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $f(x)>n\cdot g(x)$, because $\big(f-n\cdot g\big)(x)=x-n$ and the leading coefficient of $\big(f-n\cdot g\big)$ is $1$, which is positive.

  • $\begingroup$ Does the above non-Archimedean ordered field satisfy nested interval property? $\endgroup$ – M. A. SARKAR Sep 25 '18 at 2:38

The order is "eventual domination": $f(x)\geq g(x)$ iff for all sufficiently large $q\in\mathbb{Q}$, $f(q)\geq g(q)$. It takes a bit of work to show that this really is a total order on rational functions. For a more explicit version of this definition, if $f(x)=\frac{ax^n+\dots}{bx^m+\dots}$ (where the omitted terms have lower degree), then $f(x)\geq 0$ iff $\frac{a}{b}\geq 0$. To determine whether $f(x)\geq g(x)$, you then just write $h(x)=f(x)-g(x)$ in the form $\frac{ax^n+\dots}{bx^m+\dots}$ to determine whether $h(x)\geq 0$.

To see that this order is non-archimedean, just observe that $x>n$ for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. Indeed, taking $f(x)=x$ and $g(x)=n$, then $f(q)\geq g(q)$ for all $q\geq n$. In fact, it can be shown that the eventual domination order is the unique ordering on $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ compatible with the field structure for which $x>n$ for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. That is, if you declare that $x>n$ for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$, then the entire rest of the ordering can be deduced from the ordered field axioms. The intuition is that if $x$ is infinitely large, then $f(x)$ behaves like $f(q)$ for very large $q$, so you can determine whether $f(x)\geq g(x)$ by comparing $f(q)$ and $g(q)$ for large $q$.


For polynomials $f(x),g(x)\in\mathbb{Q}[x]$ define $f<g$ if and only if $f\ne g$ and the leading coefficient of $g-f$ is positive.

It's easy to see that this defines a (strict) order relation on $\mathbb{Q}[x]$ compatible with the operations, in the sense that

  1. for every $f\in\mathbb{Q}[x]$ it holds exactly one among $f>0$, $f=0$, or $0>f$;

  2. if $f,g,h\in\mathbb{Q}[x]$ and $f<g$, then $f+h<g+h$

  3. if $f,g,h\in\mathbb{Q}[x]$, $f<g$ and $0<h$, then $fh<gh$.

Now it's easy to see that $0<f$ if and only if $-f<0$, so any element of $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ can be written as a quotient $f(x)/g(x)$ where $0<g$.

Define, for $f_1(x)/g_1(x),f_2(x)/g_2(x)\in\mathbb{Q}(x)$ with $0<g_1$ and $0<g_2$, $$ \frac{f_1(x)}{g_1(x)}<\frac{f_2(x)}{g_2(x)} \quad\text{if and only if}\quad f_1(x)g_2(x)<f_2(x)g_1(x) $$ and prove that this defines a (strict) order relation with the same properties above, so $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ becomes an ordered field.

Now, of $q\in\mathbb{Q}$, it's obvious that $q<x$ and therefore the order on $\mathbb{Q}(x)$ is not Archimedean. Note also that the order induced on $\mathbb{Q}$ is the usual one.


The ordering that I've seen is "$f(x) > 0$ iff $\exists X\in \Bbb R$ s.t. $x>X$ implies $f(x)>0$", in other words, if $f(x) = \frac{p(x)}{q(x)}$, with $p(x) = a_nx^n + \cdots + a_1x + a_0$ and $q(x) = b_mx^m + \cdots + b_1x + b_0$, then $f(x) > 0$ iff $\frac{a_n}{b_m} > 0$.

As usual, this means that $f>g$ iff $f-g > 0$.

It's not archimedean because if $f(x) = x$ and $g(x) = x^2$, then no matter how many times I add together copies of $f$, we will still have that $g$ is greater.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That should be $f>0 \iff (f\ne 0 \land \lim_{x\to \infty}\inf_{y>x}f(y)\geq 0)$. For example if $p=id_R$ and $q=1$ and $f=p/q$ then $f>0$ although $\lim_{x\to \infty}f(x)=0.$ $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Sep 9 '16 at 9:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That previous comment of mine has $p$ and $q$ in the wrong order. It should say $q=id_R$ and $p=1$. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Sep 9 '16 at 9:38
  • $\begingroup$ @user254665 You're right, I didn't think that one through enough. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Sep 9 '16 at 10:04

A comment on rigor.

For polynomials $p,q$ where $q(x)$ is not identically $0,$ the domain of $p/q$ must exclude the finite set of $x$ for which $q(x)=0.$ If these are the only real numbers excluded from dom $(p/q)$ then we must say that $p_1/q_1\ne p_2/q_2$ when $p_1=q_1=id_R$ and $p_2=q_2=1$ because dom$(p_1/q_1)\ne$ dom $(p_2/q_2)$. Which is not what we want to say.

For polynomials $p_1, q_1,p_2,q_2$ with $q_1\ne 0\ne q_2,$ and any finite $S_1,S_2$ such that $q_1^{-1}\{0\}\subset S_1$ and $q_2^{-1}\{0\}\subset S_2,$ let $$(p_1,q_1,S_2)\sim (p_2,q_2,S_2)\iff \forall x\in (R \backslash (S_1\cup S_2)\; (p_1(x)q_2(x)=p_2(x)q_1(x)).$$ Then for polynomials $p,q$ with $q\ne 0$ we write $p/q$ for the set of all $(p_1,q_1,S_1)$ such that $$(p,q,R \backslash q^{-1}\{0\})\sim (p_1,q_1, S_1).$$

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In abstract algebra, one usually defines polynomials and rational functions in a formal way. In fact, one pointedly avoids a definition in terms of functions and partial functions, since there aren't enough of them. e.g. there are only 9 partial functions from $\mathbf{F}_2$ to itself, but $\mathbf{F}_2[x]$ has countably infinitely many elements. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Sep 9 '16 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl. Yes of course. But for polynomials on an infinite field of characteristic 0, like Q or R, we can safely ignore this distinction. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Sep 9 '16 at 16:23

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.