Can Hyperreal Numbers Form a Vector Space Over the Reals?

AI Thread Summary
The hyperreal numbers cannot be structured as a vector space over the reals with the proposed basis, as it does not span the hyperreals due to their uncountable dimension. A specific hyperreal, such as √e^1, is not included in the span of the suggested basis. Misconceptions about infinitesimals were highlighted, particularly regarding the existence of other infinitesimals that can be infinitely larger in magnitude. The discussion also touched on the necessity of including two hyperreals in any basis whose ratio is finite but not infinitesimal. Overall, the complexities of defining a basis for hyperreal numbers over the reals remain unresolved.
Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
Can the hyperreal numbers be described as a vector space over the reals with a basis (0,...,e2,e1,e0,e-1,e-2...), where e1 is a first order infinitesimal number, e0 = 1, and e1 a first order infinite number?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Nope!

Omitting zero, that is a basis for a real sub-vector space of the hyperreals. However, it certainly does not span the hyperreals -- your basis has countably many vectors, but the hyperreals are a real vector space of uncountable dimension.

A specific hyperreal that is not in the span is \sqrt{e^1}.



Also, I think you have some misconceptions about infinitessimals. In particular, for any nonzero infinitessimal e, there are other infinitessimals (such as \sqrt{e}) that are infinitely larger in magnitude. I don't think "first order infinitessimal" makes any sense -- unless you have previously chosen a reference infinitessimal to compare things to.


After pondering it for a bit, I think (but have not proven) any basis must actually contain two hyperreals whose ratio is finite, but not infinitessimal.
 
Ah, okay, I didn't realize there wasn't a natural choice of "reference infinitesimal". Would it be possible to somehow arbitrarily define a particular infinitesimal to play this role, perhaps allowing the exponents to be real numbers?
 
Hurkyl said:
After pondering it for a bit, I think (but have not proven) any basis must actually contain two hyperreals whose ratio is finite, but not infinitessimal.

For an infinitesimal e, unlimited numbers H and K, and an appreciable number b, according to Goldblatt: Lectures on the hyperreals, p. 51, e/b, e/H, b/H are infinitesimal, b/e, H/e, H/b are unlimited, for e, b not equal to 0, while e/b, H/K, eH are undetermined. So if the ratio x/y is finite (limited), wouldn't that imply x is real, and y real and nonzero? But then x/y would be a multiple of 1 = e0, or whichever other nonzero real number we had in our basis.
 
You can choose a reference infinitessimal. Arguments I've seen often start off with something like "choose an infinitessimal e" or "choose an infinite hyperinteger H".




Let e be a nonzero infinitessimal. The ratio
\frac{e+1}{e}​
is finite and not infinitessimal, but not standard, and not a real multiple of 1.


Oh, also of interest may be that, assuming we chose e positive, ee is an infinitessimal bigger than er for all positive standard numbers.
 
Last edited:
Another snag: I just remembered, Goldblatt also calls H + K undetermined where H and K are both unlimited.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top