Newsgroups: sci.math From: Erland.Gadde@sm.luth.se (Erland Gadde ) Subject: Re: Metrization (Was: Re: Non-standard analysis) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 16:46:27 GMT I wrote: > To me, the field of rational functions over R doesn't seem to have > a countable basis. I can't prove that right now, but I dare to make the > following stronger conjecture: > > Let F be an ordered field, with the topology which has the family of > all open intervals as a basis. > If F has a countable basis, then F can be isomorphically and homeomorphically > embedded in R. > > In fact, I suspect that this true even if F is assumed to be metrizable. > > > Does anyone know if I'm right or wrong? Well, I was right about the rational functions over R having no countable basis, but my conjecture was wrong. Theorem 1. Let F denote the field of rational functions over R, with the order relation defined as pM, p(x) and q(x) are both defined and p(x)0, let e_n, denote the rational function given by e_n(x)=1/x^n, for all x in R. For each constant rational function k, the intervals I_n= (k-e_n,k+e_n) is a strictly decreasing local basis at k. If B is a basis for F, then, if we put i_1=1, there must exist a set U_i_1 in B such that k is in U_i_1 and U_i_1 subset I_i_1. Then, there is a integer i_2>i_1 such that I_i_2 subset U_i_1. Then, there is an U_i_2 in B such that k is in U_i_2 and U_i_2 subset I_i_2. Continuing in this manner, we ontain a sequence {U_i_j} (j>0) of sets around k from B. There is such a sequence of sets from B around every constant k, and no two such sets around different k:s intersect each other. Since there are uncountably many constant functions in F, B is uncountable. But B was an arbitrary basis for B, so F has no countable basis Q.E.D. Theorem 2. Let F be as in Theorem 1, but with Q substituted for R everywhere. Then F is metrizable. Proof: The family of all open intervals over in F is a countable basis for F, and F is clearly regular. Hence, (by the theorem quoted by T. Murphy) F is metrizable Q.E.D. Erland Gadde.