2

I was wondering what would happen if we wanted to do "complex-like" analysis but, instead, of $\mathbb{C}$, we would use the simplest (in terms of inclusion) characteristic $0$ algebraically closed field, the field of algebraic numbers $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$.

$\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ is dense in $\mathbb{C}$ and it can inherit $\mathbb{C}$ topology (sub-question that it raises: can we define this topology without making reference to $\mathbb{C}$, for instance by "extending" the topology on $\mathbb{Q}$?).

This topology allows use to define things like limits, derivatives and $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$-holomorphic functions.

Question: Do these functions have some nice properties?

Weier
  • 571
  • One big difficulty if you inherit the topology from $\mathbb C$ is that then $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$, like the rationals, is totally disconnected (it's actually homeomorphic to the rationals, incidentally). So there are many locally constant functions, which of course would be holomorphic, with derivative identically $0$, even though globally they may fluctuate wildly.

    Because of this, you essentially lose any ability to infer global properties from infinitesimal ones, which some might call the essence of analysis, and especially complex analysis.

    – M W Sep 30 '23 at 08:45
  • Related (analysis on $\mathbb{Q}$): https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1586543/why-is-the-rational-number-system-inadequate-for-analysis – Weier Sep 30 '23 at 08:56
  • 1
    This is probably related. Anyway, you could arguably still recover some of the geometry, although you obviously lost e.g. the periodicity of $\exp$ and just about everything to do with the exponential sheaf sequence. Same with normal families, Riemann mapping theorem, etc. – user10354138 Sep 30 '23 at 09:13
  • I could be missing something but most people seem to be saying variants of "the resulting theory wouldn't be strong enough to prove classical theorems," but I don't see how this is a response. Constructive analysis, for instance, exists for anyone who wants to trudge through it, even though it is strictly weaker than classical analysis. I personally am not willing to give up classical theorems, so I don't care [no offense] whether there's any corresponding theory of analysis, but I don't see why there couldn't be. – Brian Moehring Sep 30 '23 at 09:28
  • @BrianMoehring What I'm getting is more "the resulting theory wouldn't be strong enough to prove much of anything." – Tabes Bridges Sep 30 '23 at 17:52

1 Answers1

1

(too long for a comment)

A problem is that $\overline{\Bbb Q}$ is not closed topologically, which means that there are convergent sequences in $\overline{\Bbb Q}$ whose limit is not in $\overline{\Bbb Q}$. You can of course include the limits of all convergent sequences, but then you will just get $\Bbb R$.

And the reason one wants the limits of sequences be included in the set is that derivatives are usually defined by taking limits.

It can be done without limits in an axiomatic approach, though:

Let $F=\{f \mid f: \overline{\Bbb Q}\to\overline{\Bbb Q}\}$ be all mappings. Suppose that on a subset $F^*$ of $F$ there exists a function(al) $D:F^* \to F$ such that:

$$\begin{array}{rll} D(f+g) &=~~ D(f)+ D(g) & \quad \text{ for all }f, g\in F^* \\ D(a\cdot f) &=~~ a\cdot D(f) &\quad\text{ for all } a\in \overline{\Bbb Q}\text{ and }f \in F^* \\ D(f\cdot g) &=~~ D(f)\cdot g + f\cdot D(g) & \quad\text{ for all } f, g\in F^* \\ \end{array}$$

The first two requirements state that $D$ is a linear operator, and the third one is the Leibniz rule.

The question is then whether there are non-trivial $D$'s that are interesting enough to start calculus, and that are not already treated as part of (non-standard) analysis.

emacs drives me nuts
  • 10,390
  • 2
  • 12
  • 31
  • Why would $D$ image need to be $F^*$? (I mean it's true with complex holomorphic function, but maybe here the derivation would be more similar to the usual derivation on $\mathbb{R}$ which doesn't have this property) – Weier Sep 30 '23 at 11:29
  • @Weier: A right. Fixed it. – emacs drives me nuts Sep 30 '23 at 11:33