Relaxing the hypotheses of the theorem that any complete ordered field is isomorphic to the real numbers

104 Views Asked by At

One of the central theorems in real analysis states that any complete ordered field $X$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb R$. Here, I mean "complete" in the sense of the least upper bound property, but I am open to the possibility that by considering a different form of the completeness axiom (e.g. Cauchy-completeness), my question might have a more interesting answer.

What I am wondering about is whether we can relax the hypotheses placed on $X$, since most of the obvious ways don't work:

  • If we drop the assumption that $X$ is complete, then the conclusion no longer follows: $\mathbb Q$ is an ordered field, but it is certainly not isomorphic to $\mathbb R$.
  • If we drop the assumption that $X$ is a field, and replace it with the assumption that $X$ is an ordered set, then again the conclusion no longer follows: the empty set is a complete ordered set! (And there are other non-trivial examples, such as the long line.)
  • The assumption that $X$ is ordered cannot, by itself, be dropped, since we need $X$ to be ordered to make sense of any of the forms of the completeness axiom.

There is a positive result: up to an isomorphism, the only complete ordered abelian groups are the trivial group, the integers, and the real numbers. But note that in a way this makes our job harder: this means that there is a complete ordered commutative ring which is not isomorphic to $\mathbb R$, namely the integers.

Question: Is there a non-trivial way of relaxing the hypotheses on $X$ in such a manner that it still follows that $X$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb R$?

It should be noted that to change the hypotheses, we might also have to change the type of isomorphism being considered.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

Turning my comment into an answer:

  • $(\mathbb{R};+)$ is up to isomorphism the unique nontrivial divisible completely orderable abelian group.

  • $(\mathbb{R};<)$ is up to isomorphism the unique nonempty complete separable linear order without endpoints.

Interestingly, a slight tweak of that second definition takes us into serious set theory: $\mathsf{ZFC}$ alone cannot decide whether every nonempty dense complete linear order without endpoints with the countable chain condition is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{R};<)$. A linear order satisfies the c.c.c. iff it has no uncountable family of pairwise-disjoint nontrivial open intervals. This question is Suslin's problem, and its solution(?) required the introduction of iterated forcing by Solovay and Tennenbaum.