4

A common way to define multiplication for Dedekind cuts is to first define it for pairs of positive reals, and to then extend it to general pairs of reals case by case. Is there an alternative definition that is less ham-fisted?

edit: I suppose one way is to identify the positive and negative reals with the upward- and downward-portions of their cuts, respectively. Multiplication can then just be defined element-wise... but I think this complicates the other elementary operation, addition.

  • I wouldn't call the definition ham-fisted. 2. The power of Dedekind cuts comes from the ordering on $\mathbb{Q}$, but multiplication by a negative reverses that ordering, so there needs to be some maneuvering to get around this problem.
  • – vadim123 Jul 15 '15 at 00:33
  • alternative definition of the product of Dedekind cuts, or an alternative construction of the reals in which the product is more fluently given? – Ittay Weiss Jul 15 '15 at 00:33
  • @IttayWeiss What I had in mind was the former, but I would appreciate either. – user235033 Jul 15 '15 at 00:37
  • 1
    JH Conway remarked of the Dedekind cut construction that some proofs require consideration of 64 cases and that no-one would actually have checked so many cases by hand. A pleasant alternative is to use the Dedekind construction to construct the additive structure of the reals and then derive the multiplicative structure by an analysis of the order-preserving morphisms of the additive group. – Rob Arthan Jul 15 '15 at 00:54
  • @RobArthan do you have a reference for Conway's comment about Dedekind cuts requiring 64 cases checked? – Ittay Weiss Oct 13 '15 at 01:59
  • @IttayWeiss: I don't have the book to hand to check, but I believe you'll find it fairly early on in "On Numbers and Games". – Rob Arthan Oct 13 '15 at 05:16
  • @RobArthan, yes I found the reference in "On Numbers and Games" but it's not clear (to me) there that Conway actually refers to a proof of the Dedekind construction which requires 64 cases. Thanks in any case :) I was hoping you had a different source in mind. – Ittay Weiss Oct 13 '15 at 08:47