What fields between the rationals and the reals allow a good notion of 2D distance?












20












$begingroup$


Consider a field $K$, let's say $K subseteq mathbb R$. We can consider the 'plane' $K times K$. I am wondering in which cases the distance function $d: K times K to mathbb R$, defined as is normal by $d(x, y) = sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$, takes values in $K$.



Certainly this is not true for $mathbb Q$: we have $d(1, 1) = sqrt{2} notin mathbb Q$. If we take any $K$ which is closed under taking square roots of non-negative numbers, then certainly $d$ will take values in $K$.



However, a priori it might still be true that $a in K$ positive has no square root, yet this does not provide an obstruction because there is no way to write $a = x^2 + y^2$. Thus I am wondering:




Are there fields $K subseteq mathbb R$ which do not have all square roots of positive numbers, yet are closed under $d$?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just so you know, there are other distances besides euclidean distance.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday
















20












$begingroup$


Consider a field $K$, let's say $K subseteq mathbb R$. We can consider the 'plane' $K times K$. I am wondering in which cases the distance function $d: K times K to mathbb R$, defined as is normal by $d(x, y) = sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$, takes values in $K$.



Certainly this is not true for $mathbb Q$: we have $d(1, 1) = sqrt{2} notin mathbb Q$. If we take any $K$ which is closed under taking square roots of non-negative numbers, then certainly $d$ will take values in $K$.



However, a priori it might still be true that $a in K$ positive has no square root, yet this does not provide an obstruction because there is no way to write $a = x^2 + y^2$. Thus I am wondering:




Are there fields $K subseteq mathbb R$ which do not have all square roots of positive numbers, yet are closed under $d$?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just so you know, there are other distances besides euclidean distance.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday














20












20








20


4



$begingroup$


Consider a field $K$, let's say $K subseteq mathbb R$. We can consider the 'plane' $K times K$. I am wondering in which cases the distance function $d: K times K to mathbb R$, defined as is normal by $d(x, y) = sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$, takes values in $K$.



Certainly this is not true for $mathbb Q$: we have $d(1, 1) = sqrt{2} notin mathbb Q$. If we take any $K$ which is closed under taking square roots of non-negative numbers, then certainly $d$ will take values in $K$.



However, a priori it might still be true that $a in K$ positive has no square root, yet this does not provide an obstruction because there is no way to write $a = x^2 + y^2$. Thus I am wondering:




Are there fields $K subseteq mathbb R$ which do not have all square roots of positive numbers, yet are closed under $d$?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Consider a field $K$, let's say $K subseteq mathbb R$. We can consider the 'plane' $K times K$. I am wondering in which cases the distance function $d: K times K to mathbb R$, defined as is normal by $d(x, y) = sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$, takes values in $K$.



Certainly this is not true for $mathbb Q$: we have $d(1, 1) = sqrt{2} notin mathbb Q$. If we take any $K$ which is closed under taking square roots of non-negative numbers, then certainly $d$ will take values in $K$.



However, a priori it might still be true that $a in K$ positive has no square root, yet this does not provide an obstruction because there is no way to write $a = x^2 + y^2$. Thus I am wondering:




Are there fields $K subseteq mathbb R$ which do not have all square roots of positive numbers, yet are closed under $d$?








abstract-algebra field-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday







Mees de Vries

















asked yesterday









Mees de VriesMees de Vries

17.5k12958




17.5k12958








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just so you know, there are other distances besides euclidean distance.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just so you know, there are other distances besides euclidean distance.
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday








2




2




$begingroup$
Just so you know, there are other distances besides euclidean distance.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
yesterday




$begingroup$
Just so you know, there are other distances besides euclidean distance.
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















16












$begingroup$

Consider the tower of fields



$K_0:=mathbb{Q}$,



$K_{i+1}:=K_i(sqrt{x^2+y^2}| x,yin K_i)$,



$K:=bigcup_i K_i$.



Then $K$ is closed under $d$ and contains $1+sqrt 5$ but not $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$, as I have found by following the Pythagorean fields Wikipedia link given by @Dirk in his answer: If $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$ were in $K$ then $1+sqrt 5$ would be a sum of two squares in some extension $K_i$, and then it would be so in an extension of $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which is impossible because that would entail that $1-sqrt 5$, which is negative, is also a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$.



The details can be found in Chapter 5 of the book Geometric constructions by Martin. The relevant results are Theorems 5.10-5.15.



Similarly, $sqrt 2in K$ but $sqrt[4]2notin K$, and more in general, this is true for any positive number which is not a sum of squares in the first extension in which it appears.



Geometrically, numbers in $K$ correspond to constructible points by ruler and dividers. Hence $sqrt[4]2$ is constructible by rule and compass but not by rule and dividers.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb Q(sqrt{5})$" -- I do not see directly how this follows from the previous sentence, but I could very well be missing something obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries Not obvious, it is a consequence of Theorems 5.10-5.13 in Martin's book.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    $K$ is countable, right?
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @PyRulez yeah the same construction which makes $mathbb Q$ countable from $mathbb N^2$ plus skipping over duplicates should work to imply that $K_{i+1}$ is countable given that $K_{i}$ is countable, skipping over duplicates; by induction therefore all $K_i$ are countable; then we should be able to repeat the same construction again with $K_m(n)$, again skipping over duplicates, to find that $K$ is countable.
    $endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PyRulez Yes: clearly, all elements of $K$ are algebraic, and algebraic numbers are countable (there is a countable number of rational polynomials, with a finite number of roots each)
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday





















5












$begingroup$

edit: Look what I found:
Wiki





The field
$$mathbb{Q}(sqrt{p} mid p in mathbb{P})$$
might be a good candidate.

At least, all fields closed under $d$ must contain this field.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Why must a field closed under $d$ contain $sqrt{3}$?
    $endgroup$
    – FredH
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @FredH, it must contain $sqrt{2} = d(1, 1)$, and thus it must contain $sqrt{3} = d(1, sqrt{2})$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_Theodorus
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think this works: $d(sqrt 2 + 1, 1) = sqrt{2sqrt2 + 4}$, but that doesn't look like a sum of square roots of rational numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    yesterday













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3156636%2fwhat-fields-between-the-rationals-and-the-reals-allow-a-good-notion-of-2d-distan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









16












$begingroup$

Consider the tower of fields



$K_0:=mathbb{Q}$,



$K_{i+1}:=K_i(sqrt{x^2+y^2}| x,yin K_i)$,



$K:=bigcup_i K_i$.



Then $K$ is closed under $d$ and contains $1+sqrt 5$ but not $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$, as I have found by following the Pythagorean fields Wikipedia link given by @Dirk in his answer: If $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$ were in $K$ then $1+sqrt 5$ would be a sum of two squares in some extension $K_i$, and then it would be so in an extension of $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which is impossible because that would entail that $1-sqrt 5$, which is negative, is also a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$.



The details can be found in Chapter 5 of the book Geometric constructions by Martin. The relevant results are Theorems 5.10-5.15.



Similarly, $sqrt 2in K$ but $sqrt[4]2notin K$, and more in general, this is true for any positive number which is not a sum of squares in the first extension in which it appears.



Geometrically, numbers in $K$ correspond to constructible points by ruler and dividers. Hence $sqrt[4]2$ is constructible by rule and compass but not by rule and dividers.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb Q(sqrt{5})$" -- I do not see directly how this follows from the previous sentence, but I could very well be missing something obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries Not obvious, it is a consequence of Theorems 5.10-5.13 in Martin's book.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    $K$ is countable, right?
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @PyRulez yeah the same construction which makes $mathbb Q$ countable from $mathbb N^2$ plus skipping over duplicates should work to imply that $K_{i+1}$ is countable given that $K_{i}$ is countable, skipping over duplicates; by induction therefore all $K_i$ are countable; then we should be able to repeat the same construction again with $K_m(n)$, again skipping over duplicates, to find that $K$ is countable.
    $endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PyRulez Yes: clearly, all elements of $K$ are algebraic, and algebraic numbers are countable (there is a countable number of rational polynomials, with a finite number of roots each)
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday


















16












$begingroup$

Consider the tower of fields



$K_0:=mathbb{Q}$,



$K_{i+1}:=K_i(sqrt{x^2+y^2}| x,yin K_i)$,



$K:=bigcup_i K_i$.



Then $K$ is closed under $d$ and contains $1+sqrt 5$ but not $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$, as I have found by following the Pythagorean fields Wikipedia link given by @Dirk in his answer: If $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$ were in $K$ then $1+sqrt 5$ would be a sum of two squares in some extension $K_i$, and then it would be so in an extension of $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which is impossible because that would entail that $1-sqrt 5$, which is negative, is also a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$.



The details can be found in Chapter 5 of the book Geometric constructions by Martin. The relevant results are Theorems 5.10-5.15.



Similarly, $sqrt 2in K$ but $sqrt[4]2notin K$, and more in general, this is true for any positive number which is not a sum of squares in the first extension in which it appears.



Geometrically, numbers in $K$ correspond to constructible points by ruler and dividers. Hence $sqrt[4]2$ is constructible by rule and compass but not by rule and dividers.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb Q(sqrt{5})$" -- I do not see directly how this follows from the previous sentence, but I could very well be missing something obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries Not obvious, it is a consequence of Theorems 5.10-5.13 in Martin's book.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    $K$ is countable, right?
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @PyRulez yeah the same construction which makes $mathbb Q$ countable from $mathbb N^2$ plus skipping over duplicates should work to imply that $K_{i+1}$ is countable given that $K_{i}$ is countable, skipping over duplicates; by induction therefore all $K_i$ are countable; then we should be able to repeat the same construction again with $K_m(n)$, again skipping over duplicates, to find that $K$ is countable.
    $endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PyRulez Yes: clearly, all elements of $K$ are algebraic, and algebraic numbers are countable (there is a countable number of rational polynomials, with a finite number of roots each)
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday
















16












16








16





$begingroup$

Consider the tower of fields



$K_0:=mathbb{Q}$,



$K_{i+1}:=K_i(sqrt{x^2+y^2}| x,yin K_i)$,



$K:=bigcup_i K_i$.



Then $K$ is closed under $d$ and contains $1+sqrt 5$ but not $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$, as I have found by following the Pythagorean fields Wikipedia link given by @Dirk in his answer: If $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$ were in $K$ then $1+sqrt 5$ would be a sum of two squares in some extension $K_i$, and then it would be so in an extension of $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which is impossible because that would entail that $1-sqrt 5$, which is negative, is also a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$.



The details can be found in Chapter 5 of the book Geometric constructions by Martin. The relevant results are Theorems 5.10-5.15.



Similarly, $sqrt 2in K$ but $sqrt[4]2notin K$, and more in general, this is true for any positive number which is not a sum of squares in the first extension in which it appears.



Geometrically, numbers in $K$ correspond to constructible points by ruler and dividers. Hence $sqrt[4]2$ is constructible by rule and compass but not by rule and dividers.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Consider the tower of fields



$K_0:=mathbb{Q}$,



$K_{i+1}:=K_i(sqrt{x^2+y^2}| x,yin K_i)$,



$K:=bigcup_i K_i$.



Then $K$ is closed under $d$ and contains $1+sqrt 5$ but not $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$, as I have found by following the Pythagorean fields Wikipedia link given by @Dirk in his answer: If $sqrt{1+sqrt 5}$ were in $K$ then $1+sqrt 5$ would be a sum of two squares in some extension $K_i$, and then it would be so in an extension of $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$, which is impossible because that would entail that $1-sqrt 5$, which is negative, is also a sum of squares in $mathbb{Q}(sqrt 5)$.



The details can be found in Chapter 5 of the book Geometric constructions by Martin. The relevant results are Theorems 5.10-5.15.



Similarly, $sqrt 2in K$ but $sqrt[4]2notin K$, and more in general, this is true for any positive number which is not a sum of squares in the first extension in which it appears.



Geometrically, numbers in $K$ correspond to constructible points by ruler and dividers. Hence $sqrt[4]2$ is constructible by rule and compass but not by rule and dividers.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









Jose BroxJose Brox

3,33211129




3,33211129












  • $begingroup$
    "which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb Q(sqrt{5})$" -- I do not see directly how this follows from the previous sentence, but I could very well be missing something obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries Not obvious, it is a consequence of Theorems 5.10-5.13 in Martin's book.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    $K$ is countable, right?
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @PyRulez yeah the same construction which makes $mathbb Q$ countable from $mathbb N^2$ plus skipping over duplicates should work to imply that $K_{i+1}$ is countable given that $K_{i}$ is countable, skipping over duplicates; by induction therefore all $K_i$ are countable; then we should be able to repeat the same construction again with $K_m(n)$, again skipping over duplicates, to find that $K$ is countable.
    $endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PyRulez Yes: clearly, all elements of $K$ are algebraic, and algebraic numbers are countable (there is a countable number of rational polynomials, with a finite number of roots each)
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday




















  • $begingroup$
    "which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb Q(sqrt{5})$" -- I do not see directly how this follows from the previous sentence, but I could very well be missing something obvious.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries Not obvious, it is a consequence of Theorems 5.10-5.13 in Martin's book.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    $K$ is countable, right?
    $endgroup$
    – PyRulez
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @PyRulez yeah the same construction which makes $mathbb Q$ countable from $mathbb N^2$ plus skipping over duplicates should work to imply that $K_{i+1}$ is countable given that $K_{i}$ is countable, skipping over duplicates; by induction therefore all $K_i$ are countable; then we should be able to repeat the same construction again with $K_m(n)$, again skipping over duplicates, to find that $K$ is countable.
    $endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PyRulez Yes: clearly, all elements of $K$ are algebraic, and algebraic numbers are countable (there is a countable number of rational polynomials, with a finite number of roots each)
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    yesterday


















$begingroup$
"which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb Q(sqrt{5})$" -- I do not see directly how this follows from the previous sentence, but I could very well be missing something obvious.
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
yesterday




$begingroup$
"which implies that it is a sum of squares in $mathbb Q(sqrt{5})$" -- I do not see directly how this follows from the previous sentence, but I could very well be missing something obvious.
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@MeesdeVries Not obvious, it is a consequence of Theorems 5.10-5.13 in Martin's book.
$endgroup$
– Jose Brox
yesterday




$begingroup$
@MeesdeVries Not obvious, it is a consequence of Theorems 5.10-5.13 in Martin's book.
$endgroup$
– Jose Brox
yesterday












$begingroup$
$K$ is countable, right?
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
yesterday






$begingroup$
$K$ is countable, right?
$endgroup$
– PyRulez
yesterday














$begingroup$
@PyRulez yeah the same construction which makes $mathbb Q$ countable from $mathbb N^2$ plus skipping over duplicates should work to imply that $K_{i+1}$ is countable given that $K_{i}$ is countable, skipping over duplicates; by induction therefore all $K_i$ are countable; then we should be able to repeat the same construction again with $K_m(n)$, again skipping over duplicates, to find that $K$ is countable.
$endgroup$
– CR Drost
yesterday






$begingroup$
@PyRulez yeah the same construction which makes $mathbb Q$ countable from $mathbb N^2$ plus skipping over duplicates should work to imply that $K_{i+1}$ is countable given that $K_{i}$ is countable, skipping over duplicates; by induction therefore all $K_i$ are countable; then we should be able to repeat the same construction again with $K_m(n)$, again skipping over duplicates, to find that $K$ is countable.
$endgroup$
– CR Drost
yesterday






1




1




$begingroup$
@PyRulez Yes: clearly, all elements of $K$ are algebraic, and algebraic numbers are countable (there is a countable number of rational polynomials, with a finite number of roots each)
$endgroup$
– Jose Brox
yesterday






$begingroup$
@PyRulez Yes: clearly, all elements of $K$ are algebraic, and algebraic numbers are countable (there is a countable number of rational polynomials, with a finite number of roots each)
$endgroup$
– Jose Brox
yesterday













5












$begingroup$

edit: Look what I found:
Wiki





The field
$$mathbb{Q}(sqrt{p} mid p in mathbb{P})$$
might be a good candidate.

At least, all fields closed under $d$ must contain this field.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Why must a field closed under $d$ contain $sqrt{3}$?
    $endgroup$
    – FredH
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @FredH, it must contain $sqrt{2} = d(1, 1)$, and thus it must contain $sqrt{3} = d(1, sqrt{2})$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_Theodorus
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think this works: $d(sqrt 2 + 1, 1) = sqrt{2sqrt2 + 4}$, but that doesn't look like a sum of square roots of rational numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    yesterday


















5












$begingroup$

edit: Look what I found:
Wiki





The field
$$mathbb{Q}(sqrt{p} mid p in mathbb{P})$$
might be a good candidate.

At least, all fields closed under $d$ must contain this field.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Why must a field closed under $d$ contain $sqrt{3}$?
    $endgroup$
    – FredH
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @FredH, it must contain $sqrt{2} = d(1, 1)$, and thus it must contain $sqrt{3} = d(1, sqrt{2})$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_Theodorus
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think this works: $d(sqrt 2 + 1, 1) = sqrt{2sqrt2 + 4}$, but that doesn't look like a sum of square roots of rational numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    yesterday
















5












5








5





$begingroup$

edit: Look what I found:
Wiki





The field
$$mathbb{Q}(sqrt{p} mid p in mathbb{P})$$
might be a good candidate.

At least, all fields closed under $d$ must contain this field.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



edit: Look what I found:
Wiki





The field
$$mathbb{Q}(sqrt{p} mid p in mathbb{P})$$
might be a good candidate.

At least, all fields closed under $d$ must contain this field.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









DirkDirk

4,408218




4,408218












  • $begingroup$
    Why must a field closed under $d$ contain $sqrt{3}$?
    $endgroup$
    – FredH
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @FredH, it must contain $sqrt{2} = d(1, 1)$, and thus it must contain $sqrt{3} = d(1, sqrt{2})$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_Theodorus
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think this works: $d(sqrt 2 + 1, 1) = sqrt{2sqrt2 + 4}$, but that doesn't look like a sum of square roots of rational numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    yesterday




















  • $begingroup$
    Why must a field closed under $d$ contain $sqrt{3}$?
    $endgroup$
    – FredH
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @FredH, it must contain $sqrt{2} = d(1, 1)$, and thus it must contain $sqrt{3} = d(1, sqrt{2})$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_Theodorus
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I don't think this works: $d(sqrt 2 + 1, 1) = sqrt{2sqrt2 + 4}$, but that doesn't look like a sum of square roots of rational numbers.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    yesterday


















$begingroup$
Why must a field closed under $d$ contain $sqrt{3}$?
$endgroup$
– FredH
yesterday




$begingroup$
Why must a field closed under $d$ contain $sqrt{3}$?
$endgroup$
– FredH
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@FredH, it must contain $sqrt{2} = d(1, 1)$, and thus it must contain $sqrt{3} = d(1, sqrt{2})$.
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
yesterday




$begingroup$
@FredH, it must contain $sqrt{2} = d(1, 1)$, and thus it must contain $sqrt{3} = d(1, sqrt{2})$.
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_Theodorus
$endgroup$
– lhf
yesterday




$begingroup$
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_Theodorus
$endgroup$
– lhf
yesterday




2




2




$begingroup$
I don't think this works: $d(sqrt 2 + 1, 1) = sqrt{2sqrt2 + 4}$, but that doesn't look like a sum of square roots of rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
yesterday






$begingroup$
I don't think this works: $d(sqrt 2 + 1, 1) = sqrt{2sqrt2 + 4}$, but that doesn't look like a sum of square roots of rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
yesterday




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3156636%2fwhat-fields-between-the-rationals-and-the-reals-allow-a-good-notion-of-2d-distan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How did Captain America manage to do this?

迪纳利

南乌拉尔铁路局