22
$\begingroup$

In an answer to this question I was led to show the trick proving that $\mathbb R$ is the fraction field of some strict subring $A\subsetneq \mathbb R=\operatorname{Frac}(A)$.
A crucial point in the trick is the existence of a transcendence basis of $\mathbb R$ over $\mathbb Q$.
So this necessitates the axiom of choice and I would be grateful to a savvy user for confirming (or infirming) my feeling that the existence of such an $A$ is indeed only possible under acceptance of the axiom of choice.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I have a feeling that you might be able to show that $A$ cannot have the Baire property; or maybe Lebesgue measurability; or that it cannot be Borel; or something like that. In either of these cases it seems that the axiom of choice is needed. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Apr 7, 2014 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ Georges, being not quite fluent in algebra; in your answer on MSE, when you consider the $A$ to be the integral closure of $\Bbb Q[r_i\mid i\in I]$, does every permutation of the $r_i$'s induce an automorphism of $A$, and can that automorphism be extended uniquely to an automorphism of $\Bbb R$? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Apr 10, 2014 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Asaf, every automorphism of $A$ can be extended to an automorphism of $\mathbb R$ (apply the automorphism to the numerator and the denominator of a fraction), but I'm far for sure that every permutation of the $r_i$'s can be extended to $A$ . $\endgroup$ Apr 15, 2014 at 7:07
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Thank you for the answer. If we can show that there are $2^\frak c$ automorphisms of $A$ then it certainly can't be doable without the axiom of choice (it is consistent there are only $\frak c$ automorphisms of $\Bbb R$ as an additive group). Of course it doesn't mean the entire result fails, just this particular approach, but it would be a first step, I suppose. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Apr 15, 2014 at 7:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The funny thing is that one can easily construct a proper additive subgroup $A$ of $\mathbb R$ that generates $\mathbb R$ as a ring without AC. I surmise you know that already, but, once you observe that, the belief that the existence theorem in your question really requires AC gets somewhat shaken, doesn't it? $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Nov 12, 2017 at 21:28

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.