My question is the following: Are there algebraic norms on the fields $\mathbb{R}, \mathbf{Q_p}$ ''other'' than the absolute value, respectively $|\cdot|_p$?

Now phrasing more precisely: If generally $F$ is a field, an algebraic norm is a map $|\cdot| : K \to [0, \infty)$ such that

1) $|x| = 0 \iff x = 0$

2) $|xy| = |x||y| \forall x,y \in F$

3) $|x + y| \leq |x| + |y| \forall x,y \in F$

Two such norms $|\cdot|, ||\cdot||$ are called equivalent if and only if they generate the same topology. One can show that this is the case iff. there is an $s > 0$ such that $|x| = ||x||^s$ for all $x$. The question is: On the fields $\mathbb{R}, \mathbf{Q_p}$ where the latter one means the p-adic numbers, are there algebraic norms that are not equivalent to the usual absolute value, respectively the p-adic norm?

Of course, every such norm induces a norm on $\mathbb{Q}$, so restricted to $\mathbb{Q}$ it must be either trivial or equivalent to one of the norms mentioned above by the Thm. of Ostrowski. The problem is that i was unable to extend that to the whole field.

Thanks in advance

Fabian Werner


It is known that $\mathbb C$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb C_p$ (completion of $({\mathbb Q}_p)^{\rm{alg}}$) as fields. See e.g. Theorem 5 in this paper. So $\mathbb R$ inherts an ultrametric absolute value from that of $\mathbb C_p$. Conversely, $\mathbb Q_p$ inherts from $\mathbb C$ an archimedian absolute value.

  • $\begingroup$ Interesting. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Fabian Werner Dec 30 '12 at 9:37
  • $\begingroup$ the link is broken. Could you update it please? $\endgroup$ – Chilote Nov 2 '16 at 18:36

The $p$-adic norm on $\mathbb Q$ can be extended to $\mathbb R$.

We can consider pairs $(F,|\cdot|_F)$ where $F$ is a field with $\mathbb Q\subseteq F\subseteq \mathbb R$ and $|\cdot|_F$ is a norm on $F$ that extends $|\cdot |_p$. The set $\mathcal F$ of such pairs is inductively ordered: We can define $(F,|\cdot|_F)\le (E,|\cdot|_E)$ if $F\subseteq E$ and $|\cdot|_F$ is the restriction of $|\cdot|_E$ to $F$. If a subset $\mathcal T\subseteq \mathcal F$ is totally ordered, then we can let $L=\bigcup_{(F,|\cdot|_F)\in\mathcal T}F$ and define $|\cdot|_L\colon L\to[0,\infty)$ by letting $|x|_L:=|x|_F$ where $(F,|\cdot|_F)\in \mathcal T$ with $x\in F$. Then $(F,|\cdot|_F)\le (L,|\cdot|_L)$ for all $(F,|\cdot|_F)\in\mathcal T$, that is every totally ordered subset of $\mathcal F$ has an upper bound in $\mathcal F$. By Zorn's lemma, $\mathcal F$ contains a maximal element $(M,|\cdot|_M)$.

Assume there exists $\alpha\in\mathbb R\setminus M$. Then we can define $|\cdot|$ on $M(\alpha)$:

Case (i): $\alpha$ is transcendental. Every nonzero element $\beta\in M(\alpha)$ can be written as $\beta=\alpha^k\frac{f(\alpha)}{g(\alpha)}$ with $k\in\mathbb Z$ and $f,g\in M[X]$ with $f(0)\ne 0, g(0)=1$. Set $|\beta|:= |f(0)|_M$. One quickly verifies that this is a norm on $M(\alpha)$.

Case (ii): $\alpha$ is algebraic with minimal polynomial $p\in M[X]$. If $p(X)=a_0+a_1X+\cdots + a_{n-1} X^{n-1}+X^n$, select $v>0$ such that $v^n=\max_{k<n}\{v^k|a_k|_M\}$. Then define $|\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c_k\alpha^k| = \max_{k<n}\{v^k|c_k|_M\}$. If I'm not mistaken, this is a norm on $M(\alpha)$.

In both cases we can extend $(M,|\cdot|_M)$, contradicting the maximality of $(M,|\cdot|_M)$. We conclude that $M=\mathbb R$.

  • $\begingroup$ I am having trouble verifying the triangle inequality for the simple case "$\alpha$ transcendental": Choose $q,w \in \mathbb{Q}$ arbitrary with $q \neq -w$ and $\beta = \alpha^0 \frac{q\alpha + 1}{1}$ and $\beta' = \alpha^0 \frac{w\alpha - 1}{1}$ then $\beta + \beta' = \alpha^1 \frac{q - w}{1}$ so their norm ist $|\beta + \beta'| = |q+w|_p$ which can be an arbitrary value but $|\beta| + |\beta'| = 1+1 = 2$. Could you check? $\endgroup$ – Fabian Werner Nov 29 '12 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ @FabianWerner Hm, I think you are right. So can we extend $|\cdot|_p$ actually only to $\overline{\mathbb Q}$? Maybe one rather needs to assign values to $f(\alpha)$ for all irrducible polynomials $f(X)$, but how to ensure triangle inequality? If $M$ is algebraically closed this might be easy. Thus maybe one should argue that according to case ii, $M$ is algebraically closed, hence the only irreducibles are linear; set $|a+b\alpha|_p=???\max\{|a|_p,|b|_p\}???$ and everything else follows by multiplication. But again the triangle inequality looks hard. $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Nov 29 '12 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ I was very impressed by your proof, because it seems really strange to me that there is more than just the ''usual'' absolute value on $\mathbb{R}$... everything that one learned in analysis should then be doubted, because this awkward absolute value might be the ''better'' one to do analysis... $\endgroup$ – Fabian Werner Nov 30 '12 at 11:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @HagenvonEitzen: I think your construction is correct if you take an ultrametric absolue value on $M$ and define (for $\alpha$ transcendental) $|\sum_n a_n\alpha^n|=\max_n\{ |a_n|_M \}$. $\endgroup$ – user18119 Dec 22 '12 at 21:45

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.