Proving multiplication is compatible with ordering considering an ordered field.

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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.







share|cite|improve this question
























    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.







    share|cite|improve this question






















      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.







      share|cite|improve this question













      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.









      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Aug 26 at 13:12









      Michal Dvořák

      55112




      55112




















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • 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.
            – Michal Dvořák
            Aug 26 at 13:29











          • You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
            – Martin Argerami
            Aug 26 at 13:33










          • Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
            – Michal Dvořák
            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.
            – 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".
            – Martin Argerami
            Aug 26 at 13:41










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          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






























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • 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.
            – Michal Dvořák
            Aug 26 at 13:29











          • You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
            – Martin Argerami
            Aug 26 at 13:33










          • Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
            – Michal Dvořák
            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.
            – 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".
            – Martin Argerami
            Aug 26 at 13:41














          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • 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.
            – Michal Dvořák
            Aug 26 at 13:29











          • You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
            – Martin Argerami
            Aug 26 at 13:33










          • Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
            – Michal Dvořák
            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.
            – 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".
            – Martin Argerami
            Aug 26 at 13:41












          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          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.
            – Michal Dvořák
            Aug 26 at 13:29











          • You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
            – Martin Argerami
            Aug 26 at 13:33










          • Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
            – Michal Dvořák
            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.
            – 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".
            – 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.
            – Michal Dvořák
            Aug 26 at 13:29











          • You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
            – Martin Argerami
            Aug 26 at 13:33










          • Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
            – Michal Dvořák
            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.
            – 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".
            – 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.
          – Michal Dvořák
          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.
          – Michal Dvořák
          Aug 26 at 13:29













          You are missing my point. I'm talking about trichotomy (i), not about the difference between $<$ and $leq $.
          – 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 $.
          – Martin Argerami
          Aug 26 at 13:33












          Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
          – Michal Dvořák
          Aug 26 at 13:35




          Ah,... But if I ommit (i),... what if couldnt compare x,y in used in the theorem?
          – Michal Dvořák
          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.
          – 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.
          – 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".
          – 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".
          – Martin Argerami
          Aug 26 at 13:41

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Mutual Information Always Non-negative

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?