As I understand it, any axiomatisation of a complete linearly ordered field, must be second order in nature. Does that mean that the fact that all complete linearly ordered fields are isomorphic to the reals is a second order theorem and is in fact undecidable in the first order case? My intuition tells me that this is so because there are infinitely many solutions to the continuum hypothesis and each one would give a first order non-isomorphic complete linearly ordered field, could someone tell me if such intuition makes formal logical sense, i.e. is there such a thing as first order non-isomorphic complete linearly ordered fields?
2026-03-25 17:18:27.1774459107
Axiomatisation of complete ordered fields
156 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in ORDER-THEORY
- Some doubt about minimal antichain cover of poset.
- Partially ordered sets that has maximal element but no last element
- Ordered set and minimal element
- Order relation proof ...
- Lexicographical covering of boolean poset
- Every linearly-ordered real-parametrized family of asymptotic classes is nowhere dense?
- Is there a name for this property on a binary relation?
- Is the forgetful functor from $\mathbf{Poset}$ to $\mathbf{Set}$ represented by the object 2?
- Comparing orders induced by euclidean function and divisibility in euclidean domain
- Embedding from Rational Numbers to Ordered Field is Order Preserving
Related Questions in REAL-NUMBERS
- How to prove $\frac 10 \notin \mathbb R $
- Possible Error in Dedekind Construction of Stillwell's Book
- Is the professor wrong? Simple ODE question
- Concept of bounded and well ordered sets
- Why do I need boundedness for a a closed subset of $\mathbb{R}$ to have a maximum?
- Prove using the completeness axiom?
- Does $\mathbb{R}$ have any axioms?
- slowest integrable sequence of function
- cluster points of sub-sequences of sequence $\frac{n}{e}-[\frac{n}{e}]$
- comparing sup and inf of two sets
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
The usual statement of completeness is inherently a second-order statement: you can't even write it down in first-order logic. And, as it turns out, there is no "clever" way to encode completeness in first-order logic.
So either your question ends there, or you have to figure out what you mean by a "first-order complete linearly ordered field".
There is, incidentally, a very nice way to make sense of that: it's called a real closed field. There is a lot of literature on these, but let me highlight two facts that may be related to your line of thought.
Note that the language of ordered rings consists of the constants $0,1$, the operations $+,-,\cdot$, and the relation $\leq$.
There are real closed fields that are not isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$. The simplest (and smallest) is the field of real algebraic numbers. There are also non-Archimedean real closed fields.