12

I know that the field of real numbers is the only complete, ordered field in the sense that any field satisfying these properties is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{R},+,\cdot,<)$.

Question 1. Is it true that any complete, ordered Abelian group is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{R},+,<)$? If not, is there an example of a complete, ordered Abelian group $(G,+,<)$ which is not isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$?

I am using the following definition of complete: A partially ordered set $(P,\leq)$ is complete if each subset $E\subseteq P$ which is bounded above has a least upper bound in $P$. This is modeled after the completeness axiom for $\mathbb{R}$, but I can't find a good source for this more general definition.

Edit 1. It is false. A counterexample is $\mathbb{Z}$. It is complete since any subset has a maximum, and ordered as usual, but not isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$.

Question 2. What if we require $G$ to be "dense" in the following sense?

$$\forall a,b\in G, \quad \{g\in G\mid a<g<b\}\neq\emptyset$$

Does this additional condition imply $G$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$?

Edit 2. It is true. It was shown the only complete ordered Abelian groups are $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{R}$, and the "dense" condition leaves only $\mathbb{R}$.

  • 1
    Do you mean "totally ordered" with "complete ordered"? – Dietrich Burde Oct 21 '18 at 18:46
  • 2
    No. $\Bbb Z$ is also complete (with the usual metric). – Berci Oct 21 '18 at 18:46
  • @Dietrich "Complete ordered" i.e. both complete and totally ordered –  Oct 21 '18 at 18:48
  • 1
    I am using "complete" like the completeness axiom for the real numbers. Shouldn't it work on any partially ordered set? –  Oct 21 '18 at 18:56
  • 1
    @DietrichBurde I think they mean "complete as a linear order." – Noah Schweber Oct 21 '18 at 18:56
  • @M.Nestor FTI - I deleted the 'counterexample' question. It was too unwieldy maintaining two posts with updates. Please see https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2963140/432081 - you can put any work you have there if you want. – CopyPasteIt Oct 23 '18 at 16:20

1 Answers1

13

There are in fact only two complete ordered nontrivial Abelian groups (up to isomorphism): $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{R}$. The former is complete for a silly reason, namely that every nonempty bounded-above set has a maximal element (not just a unique supremum); the latter is the interesting one

(What about e.g. the group of integer multiples of ${1\over 2}$? That's just $\mathbb{Z}$ again, up to isomorphism.)

The proof goes roughly as follows (letting $G$ be our nontrivial complete ordered Abelian group):

  • First we show that $G$ is Archimedean: fixing any positive element $a$, for every $g$ in the group there is some natural number $n$ such that $a+...+a$ ($n$ times) is greater than $g$.

  • Now we ask, is there a minimal positive element in $G$? If so, we can show that $G\cong \mathbb{Z}$.

  • We're now left with the case where there is no minimal positive element, and we want to show that $G\cong\mathbb{R}$. Fix some positive element $a\in G$, and let $A$ be the set of rational multiples of $a$: that is, $$A=\{g\in G:\exists k,l\in\mathbb{Z}(ka=lg)\},$$ where multiplication of a group element $h$ by an integer $m$ is defined as follows: if $m=0$ then $m\cdot h=e$ (the identity of $G$); if $m>0$ then $m\cdot h=h+...+h$ ($m$ times); and if $m<0$ then $m\cdot h$ is the inverse of $\vert m\vert \cdot h$.

  • Having defined $A$ as above, we show that there is a natural injection $i$ of $A$ into $\mathbb{Q}$; in fact, $i$ is the unique embedding of $A$ into $\mathbb{Q}$ as ordered Abelian groups.

  • Now we don't know a priori that the image of $i$ is all of $\mathbb{Q}$ - why should there be something in $G$ which is "a third of $a$"? However, we can show that the image of $i$ is dense in $\mathbb{R}$. Now using completeness, the Dedekind cut construction, and the Archimedean-ness of $G$, we can in fact extend $i$ to a (unique!) isomorphism between $G$ and $\mathbb{R}$.

Noah Schweber
  • 260,658
  • Thanks! This "completely" answers my question. –  Oct 21 '18 at 19:10
  • Thank Noah! Only thing left is if it is easier to define multiplication in the semigroup or group. References/links? – CopyPasteIt Oct 21 '18 at 22:06
  • @CopyPasteIt I don't really understand what you're asking; are you just asking how we define multiplication etc. via Dedekind cuts? (Note that that's not the question here.) – Noah Schweber Oct 21 '18 at 22:18
  • @NoahSchweber The bijective automorphisms of the reals (or magnitudes) can be used. Gotta show that it is a commutative group. – CopyPasteIt Oct 21 '18 at 22:21
  • @CopyPasteIt I have no idea what you're asking here, and it seems unrelated to the actual question at hand (which is simply to classify the complete ordered Abelian groups up to isomorphism). Nowhere is the commutativity of any automorphism group being used at all. – Noah Schweber Oct 21 '18 at 22:22
  • I'll ask a new question when I get a chance. – CopyPasteIt Oct 21 '18 at 22:28
  • 4
    Actually there's a third complete ordered abelian group: The trivial group. It is obviously abelian, it is totally ordered (because every one-element set is trivially totally ordered), and it is order-complete (because the only non-empty set has both a maximum and a minimum, which both are its only element). – celtschk Jul 11 '19 at 12:55
  • @celtschk I just saw this, and have edited to address it! – Noah Schweber Sep 12 '21 at 02:01
  • What if we drop the commutativity hypothesis? A totally ordered dense and complete group is isomorphic to the reals? – Emanuele Paolini Oct 23 '21 at 16:40
  • 1
    @NoahSchweber, this is critically useful to something I'm working on, thank you. Is there a reference I could use? – Crispost May 16 '24 at 18:37
  • @NoahSchweber I'm also interested in a reference. – Enrico May 20 '25 at 15:18
  • @Enrico I don't know a great reference. A now-deleted answer to this question points out that there's a paper of Frolicher from 1972 ("Eine einfache Charakterisierung der reellen Zahlen") which proves this, but surely the result was known before then, so I think it's just folklore. (Also the paper's in German, so I'm trusting the quoted MSN review re: its contents.) – Noah Schweber May 20 '25 at 17:13
  • @Crispost Sorry, just saw this. See my comment to Enrico. – Noah Schweber May 20 '25 at 17:21
  • @NoahSchweber Found this: http://rjm-cs.utcb.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024v14i1_4.pdf#page=1 but I believe it's not exactly following your steps. Makes heavy use of topology. – Enrico May 20 '25 at 19:20
  • @NoahSchweber I have a doubt: why is the isomorphism unique? – Enrico May 21 '25 at 17:55
  • 1
    @Enrico Note the "fix $a$" bit. If $G,H$ are complete ordered (nontrivial dense) abelian groups with distinguished positive elements $a,b$, there is exactly one isomorphism $f:G\rightarrow H$ satisfying $f(a)=b$. The idea is that first we map $a$ to $b$, then we determine where to send all "rational multiples" of $a$, and then that determines (by density of the rationals in the reals, basically) where to send every element of $G$. – Noah Schweber May 21 '25 at 18:00
  • 1
    @Enrico Another way to see it is to suppose that there were two different isomorphisms $f,g$ between $G$ and $\mathbb{R}$, each sending the positive $G$-element $a$ to $1$. Then the map $fg^{-1}$ would be a non-identity self-isomorphism of $\mathbb{R}$ (as an abelian group) which fixes $1$; it's not mathematically different from my previous comment to show that this is impossible since all group automorphisms of $\mathbb{R}$ must be linear, but it might feel more concrete. – Noah Schweber May 21 '25 at 18:01
  • @NoahSchweber Ah ok, it is unique for each $a$. In the case of fields, it is unique in an "absolute" sense. Right? – Enrico May 21 '25 at 21:25
  • @Enrico Yes, that's right. – Noah Schweber May 21 '25 at 23:53