I know that the following equivalence holds:
$$\text{Cauchy-complete ordered Archimedean field}\Leftrightarrow\text{Dedekind-complete ordered field}$$
I would like to know some concrete examples of a Cauchy-complete ordered field that is not Dedekind-complete.
Dedekind and Cauchy completeness
complete-spacesordered-fieldsreal numbers
Related Solutions
First we will establish some intermediate results:
Theorem 1: Every Cauchy sequence is bounded.
Proof: Take $\epsilon=1$, then there is $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
$$m, n \geq N\quad\implies |x_m-x_n|<1$$
So that $$|x_m|<|x_N|+1\quad\quad\forall\;m\geq N$$ therefore $$|x_n|\leq\max\lbrace |x_1|,\ldots,|x_N|,|x_N|+1\rbrace\quad\quad\forall\;n\in \mathbb{N}$$
Theorem 2: Every sequence has a monotone subsequence.
Proof: Lemma in Bolzano-Weierstrass
Theorem 3: Let $F$ be an ordered field with the LUB property, then every bounded and monotone sequence in $F$ is convergent.
Proof: WLOG lets assume the sequence is increasing. As it is bounded it has a supremum: $s=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\lbrace x_n\rbrace$ We claim that $s$ is the limit of the sequence.
Let $\epsilon>0$ then there is $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
$$s-\epsilon<x_N\leq x_{N+1}\leq \cdots \leq s$$
so that for any $n\geq N$ we have $$|x_n-s|<\epsilon$$
Which proves that $s$ is the limit.
To simplify discussion, we assume that the order field is $\mathbb{R}$.
For the first implication $(1)\implies (2)$:
To establish the Archimedean Property first note that the set of integers is not bounded above, if it were it would have a supremum. Let's call it $z$; then there would be an integer $n$ such that $z-1<n$ but then $z<n+1\in \mathbb{Z}$ This contradicts the fact that $z$ was the supremum.
Archimedean Property: For every real $x$ there is an integer $n$ such that $n>x$
Proof: If this is not the case, integers would be bounded by some $x$.
Theorems $(1)$, $(2)$ and $(3)$ above prove Cauchy completeness.
For the reverse implication $(2)\implies (1)$:
Theorem 4: Suppose $F$ has the Archimedean property, then every monotone bounded sequence is Cauchy.
Proof: WLOG take the sequence to be increasing. If $\lbrace x_n\rbrace_{n}$ is not Cauchy then there exists $\epsilon>0$ so that for every $N\in\mathbb{N}$
$$n>m\geq N\quad\implies x_n-x_m\geq \epsilon$$
We are going to extract a subsequence such that it is not bounded.
For $N=1$ choose ${n_1},\ {n_2}$ such that $x_{n_2}-x_{n_1}>\epsilon$ Now take $N^{\prime}>n_2$ and choose ${n_3},\ {n_4}$ such that $x_{n_4}-x_{n_3}>\epsilon$. Continue in this way to construct a subsequence. Note that there are infintely many differences greater than $\epsilon$, so by the Archimedean Principle the subsequence diverges. This contradicts the fact that the sequence was bounded.
Observe that if $F$ is also Cauchy complete then every monotone bounded sequence is convergent.
We have established:
Cauchy completeness+Archimedean Property $\implies$ Convergence of every monotone and bounded sequence
The answer in this post proves:
Convergence of every monotone and bounded sequence $\implies$ LUB Property
Let me give you two seemingly contradictory answers:
There is no Maximal Ordered Field
We can prove that there is no maximal ordered field. Based on your post, I think some of this will be new to you, but I want to keep things brief and high level. There’s a theorem in mathematical logic called the “Lowenheim-Skölem Theorem”. This theorem has a trivial corollary that says the following. Suppose we have a mathematical structure that can be defined by “first order sentences”. For example, Groups, Rings, Fields, Ordered Fields, Graphs, etc. Suppose we also can prove that there is an infinite example of our structure (like an infinite group, or $\mathbb{Q}$ as an ordered field). Then there are examples of our structure of all infinite cardinalities.
From the above corollary to Lowenheim-Skölem, there are ordered fields of all infinite cardinalities. Since there is no largest cardinality, there can be no largest ordered field.
Why doesn’t this argument apply to complete ordered fields? “completeness” isn’t a first order property. Hence the Lowenheim-Skölem Theorem does not apply.
There is a Maximal Ordered Field
The above argument assumes we are defining an ordered field as a set with additional structure. In set theory, there are collections of sets that are “too big” to be sets. We call such collections “proper classes”. For example, there is no set of all sets, but there is a class of all sets. Suppose we allow the underlying collection of objects for our ordered field to be a proper class.
Then we can define the field of Surreal Numbers! This ordered field has the property that every ordered field defined on a set can be embedded inside it.
This can be formalized in set theories other than ZFC, like NBG set theory.
Conclusion
Whether or not there is a “maximal” ordered field is going to depend on what exactly we mean by “maximal ordered field” and our underlying set theory.
Regarding the Comments
Here I’ll try to clear up some of the concerns raised in the comments:
“Joe, so the surreal numbers are not really a set, but a class?” — Yes. The underlying collection of objects on which the surreal field is defined is a proper class.
“Why is completeness a second order property when we have the axiom of power set?” — This is a subtle point, and to really understand what’s going on you’re going to need to learn some mathematical logic. If you’re interested in learning this, Chris Leary’s book is an exceptionally gentle treatment. Enderton’s book is also consider canonical, but it’s harder.
When we say “completeness is a second order property”, we mean as a property of ordered fields. We can only quantify over elements of the field. You are absolutely correct that in set theory, we can “hack this” by declaring there is a power set. But to quantify over the power set of elements of an ordered field is different than quantifying over elements of the field itself. Specifically, when quantifying over elements of the ordered field, there is no sentence we can build out of quantifications, and, or, not, $+,\cdot, <, 0,1$ that corresponds to completeness.
From the perspective of mathematical logic, our ordered field axioms are purely “syntactic”. We then find sets in a meta-theoretic set theory and interpretations of $0,1,+,\cdot,<$ that satisfy those axioms. The axioms we write down exist in their own domain. They can’t appeal to the power set of a model of the axioms.
The point you raise, is, in some sense though, the way we prove that the “real numbers” that we can construct in set theory are complete. It is also how we are able to talk about “complete ordered fields” in set theory.
Followup Question
You are correct that Dedekind completing a non-Archimedean field will not give you a field. You then made the following proposition:
Proposition: Let $\mathbb{F}$ be an ordered field. Let $0^* := \{ x \in \mathbb{F} : x < 0 \}$ denote the zero-cut. If for all Dedekind cuts $A \subseteq \mathbb{F}$ there is an additive inverse $-A$ such that $A + (-A) =0^*$, then $\mathbb{F}$ is Archimedean.
Proof: This proposition is correct. Indeed, it is easy to demonstrate that the contrapositive is true. Suppose that $\mathbb{F}$ is not Archimedean. Consider the following set: $$X := \{x \in \mathbb{F} : \text{ there is a } q \in \mathbb{Q} \text{ such that } x < q \}$$ Since $\mathbb{F}$ is non-Archimedean, $X$ is non-empty and forms a left Dedekind cut. Further, it is easy to see that $X$ has no additive inverse. Suppose that there’s another cut $Y$ such that $X + Y = 0^*$. I leave the details to be filled in by you, but we may following the following outline of a proof:
- There are $x \in X$ and $y \in Y$ such that $x + y > -1$.
- By the definition of $X$, there is a $q \in \mathbb{Q}$ such that $q + y > -1$. It follows that $q + 1 + y > 0$.
- $q + 1 \in \mathbb{Q} \subseteq X$, so $q + 1 + y \in X + Y = 0^*$.
This is a contradiction. Thus $X$ has no additive inverse.
Best Answer
Generic example: the Cauchy-completion of a non-Archimedean ordered field (see also this answer).
Concrete example: the Laurent series ring $\mathbb{R}((x))$ (see also this answer and this answer). In fact, the proof does not use any special properties of the reals, so we have the following extension:
Proposition 1. Let $R$ be an ordered field. Then $R((x))$, ordered by the positive cone $$ R((x))_+ = \{0\} \cup \left\{\sum_{i=k}^\infty \alpha_i x^i \, : \, \alpha_k > 0\right\}, $$ is a Cauchy-complete ordered field.
The unit $1 \in R((x))$, and therefore the prime field $\mathbb{Q} \subseteq R((x))$, are contained in the subfield $R = \{\alpha_ix^0 \, : \, \alpha_i \in R\} \subseteq R((x))$, so it is clear from the definition that $x^{-1} > q$ ($\, = qx^0$) for all $q\in\mathbb{Q}$. Therefore:
Proposition 2. Let $R$ be an ordered field. Then $R((x))$, ordered as in Proposition 1, is not Archimedean.