Proving multiplication is compatible with ordering considering an ordered field.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Definition: Ordered field is a field $mathcal F=(BbbF,+,cdot)$ together with relation $<$ which satisfy:
$$forall x,yinBbbF: textexactly one of these 3 hold: x<yvee y<xvee x=ytagi$$
$$forall x,y,zinBbbF:x<ywedge y<z Rightarrow x<ztagii$$
$$forall x,y,zinBbbF: y<zRightarrow x+y<x+ztagiii$$
$$forall x,yin BbbF:x,y>0Rightarrow xcdot y>0tagiv$$
One of the consequences of this should be that if $x<y$ and $z>0$ then $xz<yz$ and if $z<0$ then $xz>yz$. I'm quite unsure where to start the proof of this. My attempt goes like this:
First assume that $x>y>0$ we can say that $xz>0$ and $yz>0$ now this goes $xz+yz>0$ all i can make of this that $xz>-yz$ which is quite trivial, because right side is negative and left is positive. In fact I'm struggling to somehow involve the multiplication, since there is no property that would allow me to "multiply both of an inequality". Help please.
field-theory ordered-fields
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Definition: Ordered field is a field $mathcal F=(BbbF,+,cdot)$ together with relation $<$ which satisfy:
$$forall x,yinBbbF: textexactly one of these 3 hold: x<yvee y<xvee x=ytagi$$
$$forall x,y,zinBbbF:x<ywedge y<z Rightarrow x<ztagii$$
$$forall x,y,zinBbbF: y<zRightarrow x+y<x+ztagiii$$
$$forall x,yin BbbF:x,y>0Rightarrow xcdot y>0tagiv$$
One of the consequences of this should be that if $x<y$ and $z>0$ then $xz<yz$ and if $z<0$ then $xz>yz$. I'm quite unsure where to start the proof of this. My attempt goes like this:
First assume that $x>y>0$ we can say that $xz>0$ and $yz>0$ now this goes $xz+yz>0$ all i can make of this that $xz>-yz$ which is quite trivial, because right side is negative and left is positive. In fact I'm struggling to somehow involve the multiplication, since there is no property that would allow me to "multiply both of an inequality". Help please.
field-theory ordered-fields
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Definition: Ordered field is a field $mathcal F=(BbbF,+,cdot)$ together with relation $<$ which satisfy:
$$forall x,yinBbbF: textexactly one of these 3 hold: x<yvee y<xvee x=ytagi$$
$$forall x,y,zinBbbF:x<ywedge y<z Rightarrow x<ztagii$$
$$forall x,y,zinBbbF: y<zRightarrow x+y<x+ztagiii$$
$$forall x,yin BbbF:x,y>0Rightarrow xcdot y>0tagiv$$
One of the consequences of this should be that if $x<y$ and $z>0$ then $xz<yz$ and if $z<0$ then $xz>yz$. I'm quite unsure where to start the proof of this. My attempt goes like this:
First assume that $x>y>0$ we can say that $xz>0$ and $yz>0$ now this goes $xz+yz>0$ all i can make of this that $xz>-yz$ which is quite trivial, because right side is negative and left is positive. In fact I'm struggling to somehow involve the multiplication, since there is no property that would allow me to "multiply both of an inequality". Help please.
field-theory ordered-fields
Definition: Ordered field is a field $mathcal F=(BbbF,+,cdot)$ together with relation $<$ which satisfy:
$$forall x,yinBbbF: textexactly one of these 3 hold: x<yvee y<xvee x=ytagi$$
$$forall x,y,zinBbbF:x<ywedge y<z Rightarrow x<ztagii$$
$$forall x,y,zinBbbF: y<zRightarrow x+y<x+ztagiii$$
$$forall x,yin BbbF:x,y>0Rightarrow xcdot y>0tagiv$$
One of the consequences of this should be that if $x<y$ and $z>0$ then $xz<yz$ and if $z<0$ then $xz>yz$. I'm quite unsure where to start the proof of this. My attempt goes like this:
First assume that $x>y>0$ we can say that $xz>0$ and $yz>0$ now this goes $xz+yz>0$ all i can make of this that $xz>-yz$ which is quite trivial, because right side is negative and left is positive. In fact I'm struggling to somehow involve the multiplication, since there is no property that would allow me to "multiply both of an inequality". Help please.
field-theory ordered-fields
asked Aug 26 at 13:12
Michal Dvoà Âák
55112
55112
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Take $x <y $, $z>0$. Using (iii), you get $y-x>0$. Now (iv) gives $$(y-x)z>0, $$ which is $$yz-xz>0, $$ and now with (iii) you get $$yz>xz. $$
When $z <0$, use (iii) to get $-z>0$ , and now by the above $$(y-x)(-z)>0, $$ and you unravel this to $$zy <zx. $$
Note that (i) is irrelevant for this. And I would call a field with (i) a "totally ordered" field.
Well, i didn't say $<$ is a total order, i just said it's a relation satisfying these properties. I could say explicitly that there is a total order $leq$ with iii) and iv) and that's basically equivalent. In MY definition, i can define $aleq bLeftrightarrow a<b vee a=b $ But I think that may differ in various books and stuff.
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:29
You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:33
Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:35
If I hear "ordered field" I assume totally ordered. You could say "partially ordered field" if you want that, but I do not know any common (non-trivial) examples of that.
â GEdgar
Aug 26 at 13:35
1
@GEdgar: if I hear "ordered field" I assume partially ordered. And I would call $mathbb C $ a "common (non-trivial) example".
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:41
 |Â
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Take $x <y $, $z>0$. Using (iii), you get $y-x>0$. Now (iv) gives $$(y-x)z>0, $$ which is $$yz-xz>0, $$ and now with (iii) you get $$yz>xz. $$
When $z <0$, use (iii) to get $-z>0$ , and now by the above $$(y-x)(-z)>0, $$ and you unravel this to $$zy <zx. $$
Note that (i) is irrelevant for this. And I would call a field with (i) a "totally ordered" field.
Well, i didn't say $<$ is a total order, i just said it's a relation satisfying these properties. I could say explicitly that there is a total order $leq$ with iii) and iv) and that's basically equivalent. In MY definition, i can define $aleq bLeftrightarrow a<b vee a=b $ But I think that may differ in various books and stuff.
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:29
You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:33
Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:35
If I hear "ordered field" I assume totally ordered. You could say "partially ordered field" if you want that, but I do not know any common (non-trivial) examples of that.
â GEdgar
Aug 26 at 13:35
1
@GEdgar: if I hear "ordered field" I assume partially ordered. And I would call $mathbb C $ a "common (non-trivial) example".
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:41
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Take $x <y $, $z>0$. Using (iii), you get $y-x>0$. Now (iv) gives $$(y-x)z>0, $$ which is $$yz-xz>0, $$ and now with (iii) you get $$yz>xz. $$
When $z <0$, use (iii) to get $-z>0$ , and now by the above $$(y-x)(-z)>0, $$ and you unravel this to $$zy <zx. $$
Note that (i) is irrelevant for this. And I would call a field with (i) a "totally ordered" field.
Well, i didn't say $<$ is a total order, i just said it's a relation satisfying these properties. I could say explicitly that there is a total order $leq$ with iii) and iv) and that's basically equivalent. In MY definition, i can define $aleq bLeftrightarrow a<b vee a=b $ But I think that may differ in various books and stuff.
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:29
You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:33
Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:35
If I hear "ordered field" I assume totally ordered. You could say "partially ordered field" if you want that, but I do not know any common (non-trivial) examples of that.
â GEdgar
Aug 26 at 13:35
1
@GEdgar: if I hear "ordered field" I assume partially ordered. And I would call $mathbb C $ a "common (non-trivial) example".
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:41
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Take $x <y $, $z>0$. Using (iii), you get $y-x>0$. Now (iv) gives $$(y-x)z>0, $$ which is $$yz-xz>0, $$ and now with (iii) you get $$yz>xz. $$
When $z <0$, use (iii) to get $-z>0$ , and now by the above $$(y-x)(-z)>0, $$ and you unravel this to $$zy <zx. $$
Note that (i) is irrelevant for this. And I would call a field with (i) a "totally ordered" field.
Take $x <y $, $z>0$. Using (iii), you get $y-x>0$. Now (iv) gives $$(y-x)z>0, $$ which is $$yz-xz>0, $$ and now with (iii) you get $$yz>xz. $$
When $z <0$, use (iii) to get $-z>0$ , and now by the above $$(y-x)(-z)>0, $$ and you unravel this to $$zy <zx. $$
Note that (i) is irrelevant for this. And I would call a field with (i) a "totally ordered" field.
answered Aug 26 at 13:25
Martin Argerami
117k1071165
117k1071165
Well, i didn't say $<$ is a total order, i just said it's a relation satisfying these properties. I could say explicitly that there is a total order $leq$ with iii) and iv) and that's basically equivalent. In MY definition, i can define $aleq bLeftrightarrow a<b vee a=b $ But I think that may differ in various books and stuff.
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:29
You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:33
Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:35
If I hear "ordered field" I assume totally ordered. You could say "partially ordered field" if you want that, but I do not know any common (non-trivial) examples of that.
â GEdgar
Aug 26 at 13:35
1
@GEdgar: if I hear "ordered field" I assume partially ordered. And I would call $mathbb C $ a "common (non-trivial) example".
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:41
 |Â
show 6 more comments
Well, i didn't say $<$ is a total order, i just said it's a relation satisfying these properties. I could say explicitly that there is a total order $leq$ with iii) and iv) and that's basically equivalent. In MY definition, i can define $aleq bLeftrightarrow a<b vee a=b $ But I think that may differ in various books and stuff.
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:29
You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:33
Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:35
If I hear "ordered field" I assume totally ordered. You could say "partially ordered field" if you want that, but I do not know any common (non-trivial) examples of that.
â GEdgar
Aug 26 at 13:35
1
@GEdgar: if I hear "ordered field" I assume partially ordered. And I would call $mathbb C $ a "common (non-trivial) example".
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:41
Well, i didn't say $<$ is a total order, i just said it's a relation satisfying these properties. I could say explicitly that there is a total order $leq$ with iii) and iv) and that's basically equivalent. In MY definition, i can define $aleq bLeftrightarrow a<b vee a=b $ But I think that may differ in various books and stuff.
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:29
Well, i didn't say $<$ is a total order, i just said it's a relation satisfying these properties. I could say explicitly that there is a total order $leq$ with iii) and iv) and that's basically equivalent. In MY definition, i can define $aleq bLeftrightarrow a<b vee a=b $ But I think that may differ in various books and stuff.
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:29
You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:33
You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:33
Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:35
Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
â Michal Dvoà Âák
Aug 26 at 13:35
If I hear "ordered field" I assume totally ordered. You could say "partially ordered field" if you want that, but I do not know any common (non-trivial) examples of that.
â GEdgar
Aug 26 at 13:35
If I hear "ordered field" I assume totally ordered. You could say "partially ordered field" if you want that, but I do not know any common (non-trivial) examples of that.
â GEdgar
Aug 26 at 13:35
1
1
@GEdgar: if I hear "ordered field" I assume partially ordered. And I would call $mathbb C $ a "common (non-trivial) example".
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:41
@GEdgar: if I hear "ordered field" I assume partially ordered. And I would call $mathbb C $ a "common (non-trivial) example".
â Martin Argerami
Aug 26 at 13:41
 |Â
show 6 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2895028%2fproving-multiplication-is-compatible-with-ordering-considering-an-ordered-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password