| @@ -0,0 +1,284 @@ | |||
| \documentclass{lecture} | |||
| \begin{document} | |||
| \chapter{Real algebra} | |||
| \section{Ordered fields and real fields} | |||
| \begin{definition}[] | |||
| An \emph{ordered field} is a pair $(k, \le)$ consisting of a field $k$ and | |||
| an order relation $\le$ such that | |||
| \begin{enumerate}[(i)] | |||
| \item $\le $ is a total order: if $x, y \in k$, then $x \le y$ or $y \le x$. | |||
| \item $\le $ is compatible with addition in $k$: | |||
| if $x, y, z \in k$, then $x \le y$ implies $x + z \le y + z$. | |||
| \item $\le $ is compatible with multiplication in $k$: | |||
| if $x, y\in k$, then $0 \le x$ and $0 \le y$ implies $0 \le xy$. | |||
| \end{enumerate} | |||
| A morphism between two ordered fields $(k, \le)$ and $(L, \le)$ is a field homomorphism | |||
| $\varphi\colon k \to L$ such that $x \le y$ in $k$ implies $\varphi(x) \le \varphi(y)$ in $L$. | |||
| \end{definition} | |||
| \begin{bsp}[] | |||
| \begin{enumerate}[(1)] | |||
| \item The fields $\Q$ and $\R$, equipped with their usual orderings, are | |||
| ordered fields. | |||
| \item The field $\mathbb{C}$ can be equipped with a total ordering | |||
| (the ,,lexicographic order``) but not with a structure of | |||
| ordered field. | |||
| \item The field $\R(t)$ of rational fractions with coefficients in $\R$, can | |||
| be equipped with a structure of ordered field in multiple ways: | |||
| Fix an $x \in \R$ and, for all polynomial $P \in \R[t]$, use | |||
| Taylor expansion at $x$ to write | |||
| \[ | |||
| P(t) = a_p (t - x)^{p} + \text{higher order terms} | |||
| .\] | |||
| with $a_p \neq 0$, then define | |||
| $P(t) >_{x^{+}} 0$ if $a_p > 0$, i.e. if the function | |||
| $t \mapsto P(t)$ is positive on a small interval $(x, x + \epsilon)$. Set also | |||
| $\frac{P(t)}{Q(t)} >_{x^{+}} 0$ if $P(t)Q(t) >_{x^{+}} 0$, | |||
| and define $f \le_{x^{+}} g$ in $\R(t)$ if either $f = g$ or | |||
| $g - f >_{x^{+}} 0$. | |||
| Equivalently $f \le_{x^{+}} g$ in $\R(t)$ if | |||
| either $f = g$ or $g - f$ is positively-valued on $(x, x + \epsilon)$ for $\epsilon > 0$ small | |||
| enough. | |||
| It is clear that this is a total ordering on $\R(t)$, and that this ordering is compatible | |||
| with addition and multiplication in the sense of the definition of an ordered field. | |||
| Moreover, the substitution homomorphism | |||
| $h(t) \mapsto h(t - x)$ induces an isomorphism of ordered fields | |||
| $(\R(t), \le_{0^{+}}) \xlongrightarrow{\simeq} (\R(t), \le_{x^{+}})$, | |||
| since a function $t \mapsto h(t - x)$ is positively-valued | |||
| on $(x, x + \epsilon)$ if and only if the function $t \mapsto h(t)$ is positively valued | |||
| on $(0, \epsilon)$. | |||
| Note that we can also define orderings on $\R(t)$ by setting $f \le_{x^{-}} g$ | |||
| if either $f = g$ or $g - f$ is positively-valued | |||
| on $(x-\epsilon, x)$, for $\epsilon > 0$ small enough. | |||
| The substitution homomorphism $h(t) \mapsto h(-t)$ induces an isomorphism | |||
| of ordered fields | |||
| $(\R(t), \le_{0^{-}}) \xlongrightarrow{\simeq} (\R(t), \le_{0^{+}})$. | |||
| \end{enumerate} | |||
| \end{bsp} | |||
| \begin{bem}[] | |||
| The ordered field $(\R(t), \le_{0^{+}})$ | |||
| is non-Archimedean: the element $t$ is | |||
| \emph{infinitely small with respect to any real $\delta > 0$} in the sense that for all $n \in \N$, | |||
| $nt < \delta$ (indeed $t \mapsto n t - \delta$ is negatively-valued | |||
| on $(0, \epsilon)$ for $\epsilon > 0$ small enough). Equivalently, $\frac{1}{t}$ | |||
| is infinitely large with respect to $ 0 < \delta \in \R$ in the sense that | |||
| $\frac{1}{t} > n \delta$ for all $n \in \N$. | |||
| \end{bem} | |||
| \begin{satz}[] | |||
| Let $(k, \le)$ be an ordered field and $x, y, z \in k$. Then the following properties hold: | |||
| \begin{enumerate}[(a)] | |||
| \item $x \ge 0$ or $- x \ge 0$. | |||
| \item $-1 < 0$ and $1 > 0$. | |||
| \item $k$ is of characteristic $0$. | |||
| \item if $x < y$ and $z > 0$, then $x z < y z$. | |||
| \item if $x < y$ and $z < 0$, then $x z > y z$. | |||
| \item $x y \ge 0$ if and only if $x$ and $y$ have the same sign. | |||
| \item $x^2 \ge 0$ and, if $x \neq 0$, then $x$ and $\frac{1}{x}$ have the same sign. | |||
| \item if $0 < x \le y$, then $0 < \frac{1}{y} \le \frac{1}{x}$. | |||
| \end{enumerate} | |||
| \label{satz:ordered-field-basics} | |||
| \end{satz} | |||
| \begin{proof} | |||
| Elementary verifications. | |||
| \end{proof} | |||
| It turns out that it is possible to characterise ordered fields without explicitly mentioning | |||
| the order relation, using cones of positive elements. | |||
| \begin{definition} | |||
| Let $k$ be a field. A \emph{cone} in $k$ is a subset $P \subseteq k$ such that | |||
| for all $x, y \in P$ and $z \in k$: | |||
| \begin{enumerate}[(i)] | |||
| \item $x + y \in P$ | |||
| \item $xy \in P$ | |||
| \item $z^2 \in P$ | |||
| \end{enumerate} | |||
| A cone $P \subseteq k$ is called a \emph{positive cone} if, additionally, one has: | |||
| \begin{enumerate}[(i)] | |||
| \setcounter{enumi}{3} | |||
| \item $-1 \not\in P$ | |||
| \end{enumerate} | |||
| \end{definition} | |||
| \begin{satz}[] | |||
| Let $k$ be a field. Assume that there exists a positive cone $P \subseteq k$. Then: | |||
| \begin{enumerate}[(i)] | |||
| \item $0 \in P$ and $1 \in P$. | |||
| \item $k$ is of characteristic $0$. | |||
| \item $P \cap (-P) = \{0\}$ | |||
| \end{enumerate} | |||
| \end{satz} | |||
| \begin{proof} | |||
| \begin{enumerate}[(i)] | |||
| \item $0 = 0^2 \in P$ and $1 = 1^2 \in P$ by axiom (iii). | |||
| \item Since $1 \in P$, by induction and axiom (i), | |||
| $n \cdot 1 = \underbrace{1 + \ldots + 1}_{n \text{ times}} \in P$ for all $n \in \N$. | |||
| Assume that there exists $n \in \N$, such that $n \cdot 1 = 0$ in $k$. | |||
| Since $1 \neq 0$ in $k$, it follows $n \ge 2$ so, | |||
| \[ | |||
| -1 = 0 - 1 = n \cdot 1 - 1 = (n - 1) \cdot 1 \in P | |||
| ,\] which contradicts axiom (iv). | |||
| \item Assume that there exists $x \in P \cap (-P) \setminus \{0\}$. In particular | |||
| $x \neq 0$ and $-x \in P$. So | |||
| $- x^2 = (-x) x \in P$ by axiom (ii) and $\frac{1}{x^2} = \left( \frac{1}{x} \right)^2 \in P$ | |||
| by axiom (iii). Again by axiom (ii) | |||
| \[ | |||
| -1 = \frac{1}{x^2} (-x^2) \in P | |||
| \] which contradicts axiom (iv). | |||
| \end{enumerate} | |||
| \end{proof} | |||
| Given a positive cone $P$ in a field $k$, let us set $P^{+} = P \setminus \{0\} $ | |||
| and $P^{-} = (-P) \setminus \{0\} = - P^{+}$. Then we have a disjoint union | |||
| \[ | |||
| P^{-} \sqcup \{0\} \sqcup P^{+} \subseteq k | |||
| .\] | |||
| Note that $P^{+}$ satisfies axioms (i) and (ii) of the definition of a cone, as well | |||
| as the property that $x \in k \setminus \{0\} \implies x^2 \in P^{+}$. | |||
| We now prove that positive curves can be enlarged, that the resulting notion of | |||
| maximal positive cone satisfies $P \cup (-P) = k$, and that | |||
| this defines a structure of ordered field on $k$ by setting $x \le y$ if and only if $y - x \in P$. | |||
| \begin{lemma} | |||
| Assume that $P$ is a positive cone in a field $k$. If $a \in k \setminus P \cup (-P)$, then the set | |||
| \[ | |||
| P[a] \coloneqq \{ x + a y \in k \colon x, y \in P\} | |||
| \] | |||
| is a positive cone in $k$, satisfying $P \subsetneq P[a]$. | |||
| \label{lemma:positive-cone-extend-by-one-element} | |||
| \end{lemma} | |||
| \begin{proof} | |||
| Let $x, y, x', y' \in P$. Then | |||
| \[ | |||
| (x + ay) + (x' + a y') = x + x' + a(y + y') \in P[a] | |||
| \] and | |||
| \[ | |||
| (x+ay)(x' + ay') = x x' + a^2 y y' + a (x y' + x' y) \in P[a] | |||
| .\] Moreover $z^2 \in P \subseteq P[a]$ for all $z \in k$. | |||
| Now assume $-1 = x + a y$ for some $x, y \in P$. | |||
| If $y = 0$, then $-1 = x \in P$ which is a contradiction. Thus $y \neq 0$ and | |||
| \[ | |||
| - a = \frac{1 + x}{y} = \left( \frac{1}{y} \right)^2 y (1+x) \in P | |||
| ,\] which contradicts the assumption on $a$. Finally, we have $P \subseteq P[a]$ and, | |||
| if $P[a] \subseteq P$ then $a \in P$, again contradicting the assumption on $a$. So | |||
| $P \subsetneq P[a]$. | |||
| \end{proof} | |||
| \begin{satz} | |||
| Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the set of positive cones of a field $k$ ordered | |||
| by inclusion. If $\mathcal{P} \neq \emptyset$, then | |||
| $\mathcal{P}$ admits a maximal element and such an element $P$ satisfies | |||
| $P \cup (-P) = k$. | |||
| \label{satz:existence-maximal-positive-cones} | |||
| \end{satz} | |||
| \begin{proof} | |||
| To obtain a maximal element of $\mathcal{P}$, | |||
| by Zorn's lemma, it suffices to show, that every | |||
| chain $(P_i)_{i \in I}$ in $\mathcal{P}$ has an upper bound. We set | |||
| \[ | |||
| P = \bigcup_{i \in I} P_i \subseteq k | |||
| .\] One verifies immediately that $P$ is a positive cone and an upper bound of the chain $(P_i)_{i \in I}$. | |||
| Let $P$ be such a maximal element. If there exists $a \in k \setminus P \cup (-P)$, then by | |||
| \ref{lemma:positive-cone-extend-by-one-element} $P \subsetneq P[a]$ contradicts the maximality of $P$. Thus | |||
| $P \cup (-P) = k$. | |||
| \end{proof} | |||
| \begin{satz} | |||
| Let $k$ be a field and denote by | |||
| \[ | |||
| \Sigma k^{[2]} \coloneqq | |||
| \left\{ y \in k \mid \exists (a_x)_{x \in k} \in \{0, 1\}^{(k)}, y = \sum_{x \in k} a_x x^2 \right\} | |||
| \] | |||
| the set of sums of squares in $k$. Then | |||
| $\Sigma k^{[2]}$ is a cone and $-1 \not\in \Sigma k^{[2]}$ if and only if | |||
| for all $x_1, \ldots, x_n \in k$: | |||
| \[ | |||
| x_1^2 + \ldots + x_n^2 = 0 \implies x_1 = \ldots = x_n = 0 | |||
| .\] | |||
| \label{satz:sums-of-squares-cone} | |||
| \end{satz} | |||
| \begin{proof} | |||
| One verifies immediately that $\Sigma k^{[2]}$ is a cone in $k$. If | |||
| $-1 \in \Sigma k^{[2]}$, then | |||
| $-1 = x_1^2 + \ldots + x_n^2$ for some $x_i \in k$. Thus | |||
| \[ | |||
| 0 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i^2 + 1 | |||
| \] but $1 = 1^2$ and $1 \neq 0$. Conversely let | |||
| $0 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i^2$ with $x_1 \neq 0$. Then | |||
| \[ | |||
| -1 = \frac{1}{x_1^2} \sum_{i=2}^{n} x_i^2 = | |||
| \sum_{i=2}^{n} \left(\frac{x_i}{x_1}\right)^2 | |||
| \in \Sigma k^{[2]} | |||
| .\] | |||
| \end{proof} | |||
| \begin{definition} | |||
| A field $k$ is called a \emph{real field} if $-1 \not\in \Sigma k^{[2]}$, or equivalently | |||
| if $\sum_{k=1}^{n} x_i^2 = 0$ in $k$ implies $x_k = 0$ for all $k$. | |||
| \end{definition} | |||
| \begin{korollar} | |||
| Let $k$ be a field. $k$ is real if and only if $k$ contains | |||
| a positive cone. | |||
| \end{korollar} | |||
| \begin{proof} | |||
| $(\Rightarrow)$: By \ref{satz:sums-of-squares-cone} $\Sigma k^{[2]}$ is a positive | |||
| cone. | |||
| $(\Leftarrow)$: Let $P$ be a positive cone. Since | |||
| $P$ is closed under addition and for all $z \in k\colon z^2 \in P$, | |||
| $\Sigma k^{[2]} \subset P$. Since $P$ is positive, $-1 \not\in \Sigma k^{[2]}$. | |||
| \end{proof} | |||
| \begin{satz} | |||
| Let $(k, \le)$ be an ordered field. Then the set | |||
| \[ | |||
| P \coloneqq \{ x \in k \mid x \ge 0\} | |||
| \] is a maximal positive cone in $k$. In particular, | |||
| $k$ is a real field. Conversely, if $k$ is a real field and $P$ is a maximal | |||
| positive cone in $k$, then the relation $x \le_P y$ if $y - x \in P$ is an order | |||
| relation and $(k, \le_P)$ is an ordered field. | |||
| \end{satz} | |||
| \begin{proof} | |||
| $(\Rightarrow)$: | |||
| Let $(k, \le )$ be an ordered field. Then by | |||
| definition and \ref{satz:ordered-field-basics}, $P$ is a maximal positive cone. | |||
| $(\Leftarrow)$: Let $P$ be a maximal positive cone in $k$. Since | |||
| $0 \in P$, we have $x \le_P x$. Suppose that $x \le_P y$ and $y \le_P x$. Then | |||
| $y - x \in P \cap (-P) = \{0\} $, so $x = y$. Moreover, if $x \le_P y$ | |||
| and $y \le_P z$, then $z - x = (z - y) + (y - x) \in P$. Thus $x \le_P z$, hence | |||
| $\le_P$ is an order relation. Moreover, it is a total order, because if | |||
| $x, y \in k$, then $y - x \in k = P \cup (-P)$, so either $x \le_P y$ or $y \le_P x$. | |||
| Finally, | |||
| this total order on $k$ is compatible with addition and multiplication because | |||
| $x \le_P y$ and $z \in k$ implies $(y + z) - (x + z) = y - x \in P$, so | |||
| $x + z \le_P y + z$, and $x \ge_P 0$, $y \ge_P 0$ means that $x \in P$ and $y \in P$, so $xy \in P$, | |||
| hence $xy \ge_P 0$. | |||
| \end{proof} | |||
| \begin{korollar} | |||
| Let $k$ be a field. Then $k$ admits a structure of ordered field | |||
| if and only if $k$ is real. | |||
| \end{korollar} | |||
| \end{document} | |||