Define C Q to be the ring of Cauchy sequences in Q (Where in the ring of sequences in Q , addition and multiplication are usual sequence addition and multiplication) and define Z Q to be the ideal in C Q of sequences that converge to 0 . Are all elements of the field C Q / Z Q algebraic over { { q } n > 0 + Z Q ∣ q ∈ Q } (a subfield of cosets represented by constant sequences)?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Adding to Jonathans solution, R is isomorphic to C Q / Z Q because there is a surjective homomorphism f from C Q to R whose kernel is Z Q . f exists because the completion of Q is R and thus by the first isomorphism theorem there is an isomorphism from C Q / Z Q to R
Yeah. In fact, the point of the problem was to bring up this construction of a complete ordered field given the field of rational numbers (of course, you need to give C Q / Z Z the structure of a total order when doing this using the total order on the rational numbers).
Log in to reply
Do you know whether there's some simplified way of proving R is a field using this construction?Like some proof that C Z is a maximal ideal?I presume not because most proofs that equivalence classes of cauchy sequences form a field involve actually dealing with limits.
Log in to reply
I feel like if you are dealing with C Q and Z Q , at some point you need to deal with epsilons, even if you are showing something like the statment that Z Q is a maximal ideal in C Q .
I was in a hurry not all elements in R are algebraic over Q. Example pi.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
No. C Q / Z Q ≅ R and { { q } n > 0 + Z Q ∣ q ∈ Q } ≅ Q . But R is not an algebraic extension of Q .