12

Is it possible to find totally ordered fields $K$ and $L$, and a map $f: K \to L$ that is an isomorphism of the ordered additive group structures such that $f(1)=1$, but which is not an isomorphism of fields?

I know that this is impossible if $K$ or $L$ is a subfield of the real numbers. My guess is that it is probably possible for non-Archimedean fields, but I don't know for sure.

My interest in this question is in relation to the foundations of plane geometry.

Thank you for any ideas.

  • I would be extra-interested in any example in which the fields $K$ and $L$ have the property that every positive element has a square root. – user121926 Jan 17 '14 at 13:50
  • To be sure, you mean fields that are definitely commutative? In geometry, ordered division rings are important, and were (a while ago) also called fields. Just let me know... thanks! – rschwieb Jan 17 '14 at 13:54
  • Yes, the question was only about commutative fields. But any information is welcome. – user121926 Jan 17 '14 at 13:57
  • What do you mean "compatible with the multiplication operations"? What about the function $f\colon \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x) = 2x$? – Jim Belk Jan 20 '14 at 07:45
  • @Jim Belk. Thank you for pointing out an error in the formulation. The unit distance should be preserved, so $f$ should satisfy $f(1) = 1$. Sorry about that. The question should be edited to reflect that. "Compatible" means $f(xy) = f(x)f(y)$. – user121926 Jan 20 '14 at 10:45
  • As far as I thought, I see that the trick for subfields of the real numbers is that the isomorphism of ordered additive groups $f:K\rightarrow L$ induces the identity over the rationals and this forces that multiplication is preserved by the density of the rationals in $K$ and $L$ under their order topologies and continuity. So it seems plausible to find a counterexample for non-arquimidean fields where the rationals does not exist. – Josué Tonelli-Cueto Jan 20 '14 at 11:35
  • Yes, any additive subgroup of the real numbers can have at most one ordered ring structure, once the unit element has been decided. – user121926 Jan 20 '14 at 11:45

1 Answers1

6

Consider $K$ the field given by the Laurent series of $t$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ which have only finitely many terms with $t$ up to a negative exponent, i.e. $$K=\left\{\sum_{k\geq n}a_kt^k\,|\,n\in\mathbb{Z}\text{, for all }k\geq n\text{, }a_k\in\mathbb{Q}\right\}$$ with the usual addition and multiplication, i.e., $$\sum_k a_kt^k+\sum_kb_kt^k=\sum_k(a_k+b_k)t^k$$ and $$\left(\sum_{k\geq n} a_kt^k\right)\left(\sum_{k\geq m} b_kt^k\right)=\sum_{k\geq n+m}\left(\sum_{\substack{i+j=k\\i\geq n,j\geq m}}a_ib_j\right)t^k\text{.}$$ This field can be made an ordered field by defining the set of positive elements to be $$K^+=\left\{\sum_{k\geq n}a_kt^k\in K\,|\,a_n>0\right\}\text{.}$$ One easily verifies that $K^+$ is closed under addition and multiplication and that every element of $K$ is in $K^+$, $-K^+$ or $\{0\}$. Therefore $x\geq y$ given by $$x-y\in K^+\cup\{0\}$$ defines a total order compatible with the field structure of $K$.

Here, the counterexamples is given by the function $$f:K\rightarrow K$$ defined by $$f\left(\sum_{k\geq n} a_kt^k\right)=\sum_{k\geq n} (1+\delta^1_k)a_kt^k\text{,}$$ where $\delta^1_k$ is the Kornecker's delta -equal to one if $1=k$, zero otherwise-, which is monotonous since it takes positives to positives. (In a more simple way, $f$ multiplies by $2$ the coefficient of $t$.) Clearly, $f$ is an isomorphism of the ordered additive groups such that $f(1)=1$, but it is not compatible with multiplication since $$t^2=f(t^2)\neq f(t)^2=4t^2\text{.}$$

(The problem is that since $Q$ is not dense in $K$ with respect the order topology, we cannot guarantee using continuity that the fact that $f$ preserves the multiplication on $\mathbb{Q}$ implies that it preserves it on $K$.)


EDIT: For a counterexample with an ordered field whose positive elements are the squares, consider a field $L$ whose elements are the formal series given by $$\sum_{k\geq n}a_kt^{k/2^m}$$ with $a_k\in\mathbb{R}$ and $n,m\in\mathbb{Z}$. Define the sum, multiplication and order in an identical way as we did in the previous field. For concreteness, this means that in $L$: $$\sum_{\gamma}a_\gamma t^{\gamma}+\sum_{\gamma}b_\gamma t^{\gamma}=\sum_\gamma (a_\gamma+b_\gamma)t^\gamma\text{,}$$ $$\left(\sum_{k\geq n_0}a_kt^{k/2^{m_0}}\right)\left(\sum_{k\geq n_1}a_kt^{k/2^{m_1}}\right)=\sum_{k\geq n_02^{m_1}+n_12^{m_1}}\left(\sum_{\substack{i2^{m_1}+j2^{m_0}=k\\i\geq n_0,j\geq n_1}}a_ib_j\right)t^{k/2^{m_0+m_1}} \text{,}$$ and $$L^+=\left\{\sum_{k\geq n}a_kt^{k/2^m}\in L\,|\,a_n>0\right\}\text{.}$$ In this way the previous counterexample works in exactly the same way, we consider $$f:L\rightarrow L$$ that multiplies the coefficient of $t$ by $2$. And ones easily check that is $f$ is also in this case an isomorphism of ordered additive groups, such that it is not compatible with the multiplicative structure.

We only have to check that every element has an square root, for that we will use a direct computation. If $$f=\sum_{k\geq n}a_kt^{k/2^m}\in L^+\text{,}$$ with $a_n>0$, for $$g=\sum_{k\geq n}b_kt^{k/2^{m+1}}$$ we plan the equation $$g^2=f$$ which translates into $$ (2-\delta_{k-n}^n)b_{k-n}b_n+\sum_{\substack{i+j=k\\i,j> n}}b_ib_j=\sum_{\substack{i+j=k\\i,j\geq n}}b_ib_j=\begin{cases} a_{k/2}&\text{ if }k\text{ even}\\ 0&\text{ if }k\text{ odd} \end{cases}\text{,}$$ for $k\geq 2n$. By solving -which it is only possible when $a_n\geq 0$, otherwise $b_{n}^2=a_n$ has not solution-, we have that $$g^2=f$$ when $$ b_k=\begin{cases} \sqrt{a_n} & \text{if }k=n\\ (2\sqrt{a})^{-1}\left(a_{k+n}-\sum_{\substack{i+j=n+k\\i,j>n}}b_ib_j\right) &\text{if }k+n\neq 2n\text{ even}\\ -(2\sqrt{a})^{-1}\sum_{\substack{i+j=n+k\\i,j>n}}b_ib_j&\text{if }k+n\text{ odd} \end{cases}\text{.}$$ In other words, $g$ is an square root of $f$.

  • Good answer. You just need to add that $f$ is increasing because it takes positive elements to positive elements. Can the example be modified so that every positive element of $K$ has a square root? – user121926 Jan 20 '14 at 12:17
  • @user121926 Corrected and added the counterexample for real closed fields. – Josué Tonelli-Cueto Jan 20 '14 at 13:54
  • 2
    Excellent answer. I didn't check the computation at the end, however, because I proved that $f$ had a square root in a different way. Namely, it is the product of $a_n$, $t^{n/2^m}$, and an element $h$ with leading term $1$. Since the first two of these have square roots, it is enough to prove that $h$ has a square root. After writing $s = t^{1/2^m}$, it is enough to prove that any power series $1 + sk(s)$ has a square root. Letting $p(x)$ be the Taylor series of $(1 + x)^{1/2}$, it's enough to take $p(sk(s))$. You may have known this but wanted to make the proof more elementary. Thank you! – user121926 Jan 22 '14 at 07:08
  • Let me add that I don't see why this would be a real closed field, which is something different than having square roots of arbitrary positive elements. But I didn't need a real closed field, so your example answers my question perfectly as it stands. It was an excellent idea to use Laurent series. – user121926 Jan 22 '14 at 07:11
  • @user121926 You are right, my mistake. I will correct it. – Josué Tonelli-Cueto Jan 22 '14 at 10:43