Talk:Superreal number

It is requested that an image or photograph of Superreal number be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Context

Yes, I agree that this article lacks sufficient context, and I've made the barest, feeblest attempt to rectify this but I'm not really an expert.

Also I did have one specific question: "The quotient field F of A is a superreal field "

Quotient of A by what? We started with a Tychonoff space X, got the algebra of continuous real-valued functions, C(X) identified P, a prime ideal in this algebra and formed A, the factor algebra of C(X)/P

What are we modding out by in the next step? F = A/<what>

Zero sharp 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing; we're taking the field of fractions of A.Ben Standeven (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraically isomorphic to R but not order isomorphic to R?

The text says: The quotient field F of A is a superreal field if F strictly contains the real numbers , so that F is not order isomorphic to , though they may be isomorphic as fields.. Duh? I don't think this is possible: if F is algebraically isomorphic to R, then we can define positive or negative numbers of F using the existence or non-existence of the square root, etc. Albmont (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point.Ben Standeven (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt

The relation to Edwin Hewitt's paper should be clarified: Hewitt, Edwin (1948) Rings of real-valued continuous functions. I. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 64, 45--99. On page 74, Hewitt defined the hyper-real field. His construction is very similar to what is described here. Tkuvho (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title change?

The title is somewhat confusing.

First, the article of Dales and Woodin talks about "super-real fields" with a dash. Second, though one could say that a super-real number is an element of a super-real field, this is bad phrasing (just like saying that a ring-number is an element of a ring would be bad phrasing), and it would make more sense to directly talk about super-real fields. This avoids a further confusion in the introduction when "The field of superreal numbers" is mentioned as though it were one specific super-real field. Vincent Bagayoko (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expand upon "the algebra of continuous real-valued functions"

The term algebra here seems ambiguous. At least, ambiguous enough to warrant further clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8000:FE0:B85E:C6F5:68A0:25EC (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]