This seems like a question that should be relatively easy to answer, but for the life of me I simply can't figure it out. My question is relatively simply put in the title, and the answer seems like it should be that $\mathbb{R}$ is a one dimensional space over itself whereas $\mathbb{C}$ is a two dimensional space over it. But this is unsatisfactory. Both of these fields are infinitely dimensional vector spaces over the rationals, but only $\mathbb{R}$ coexists in the same "number line". By that logic, $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ ought to be a plane, but since that's just a subfield of the reals, its on the number line as well. I suspect the answer to this has to do with the fact that $\mathbb{R}$ is totally ordered, but shouldn't it be possible to define a totally ordering on $\mathbb{C}$ that also respects the preexisting ordering? But then why is $\mathbb{H}$ 4-dimensional? Neither it nor $\mathbb{C}$ have apparent orderings, so what property of the former prevent is from residing within the complex plane?
2026-02-23 10:04:42.1771841082
Why are real numbers on the number line but complex numbers aren't?
157 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in COMPLEX-NUMBERS
- Value of an expression involving summation of a series of complex number
- Minimum value of a complex expression involving cube root of a unity
- orientation of circle in complex plane
- Locus corresponding to sum of two arguments in Argand diagram?
- Logarithmic function for complex numbers
- To find the Modulus of a complex number
- relation between arguments of two complex numbers
- Equality of two complex numbers with respect to argument
- Trouble computing $\int_0^\pi e^{ix} dx$
- Roots of a complex equation
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
Related Questions in DIVISION-RING
- Prove that for each submodule $B$, there exist a submodule $C$ such that $A=B\oplus C$.
- Difficulties with "old" definitions
- Galois theory for (non-commutative) division rings
- Growth rates of matrices
- Is factor ring field?
- If $D$ be a division ring and $D^*$ be finitely generated group then $D^*$ is abelian group?
- division ring of left multiplications
- isomorphism between two division rings
- Is a left and right simple ring with unity a division ring?
- 2-digit number Modulus Nine.
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?
Turning my comment into an answer:
I think the right way to make your question precise is to ask about the relationship between the algebraic and geometric natures of the real numbers. The key point in this context is not that there is an ordering of $\mathbb{R}$, but rather that there is an ordering of $\mathbb{R}$ which plays well with the algebraic structure. Formally, the ordering $\le$ satisfies the following algebraic properties:
$\le$ is a total ordering: that is, it is antisymmetric, transitive, and reflexive.
$a\le b$ implies $a+c\le b+c$ for all $c$.
$a\le b$ implies $ac\le bc$ for all $0\le c$.
These properties, together with some basic algebraic properties of addition and multiplication, constitute the ordered field axioms - so the point here is that $\mathbb{R}$ equipped with the usual ordering is an ordered field. Moreover, this ordering is unique in the sense that no other ordering on $\mathbb{R}$ turns it into an ordered field, and is algebraically definable since $a\le b$ iff there is some $x$ with $a+x^2=b$. All of this together says that we have a really nice way of ordering the real numbers.
By contrast, nothing of the sort will work for $\mathbb{C}$. Although we can put an ordering on $\mathbb{C}$, there is no way to do so which will satisfy the algebraic properties above. This is a good exercise (HINT: break into cases depending on whether $i$ is taken to be $\le0$ or $\ge0$).