MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Van der Waerden B L. Algebra Vol.I[M]. Springer, 2003, Pro. Waerden announced in page 256 that if an element $\gamma$ of a formally real field K is not a sum of squares, there exist an ordering of K, in which $\gamma$ turns out to be negative. In the proof, he deduced the equation: $\gamma=\dfrac{1+\sum \beta_{v}^{2}}{\sum \alpha_{v}^{2}}$, and claimed that $\gamma$ would then be the sum of squares. I think that he mistakenly utilized a propoty of real close field proved in page 249: in a real closed field, every sum of squares is a square. Indeed, if K is a real closed field, then $\gamma$ is a sum of squares. But here K is only a formally real field, so a sum of squares might fail to be a square. For example, in the field Q of rational numbers, $\dfrac{1}{2}=\dfrac{1}{2^2}+\dfrac{1}{2^2}$ is a sum of squares, whereas $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ does not belong to Q. So the proof given by Waerden is not correct. Did Waerden make a mistake? Or do I make a mistake?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

The product $ab$ of sums of squares $a$, $b$ is clearly a sum of squares. It follows that a quotient $a/b$ is also a sum of squares, since $a/b = ab(b^{-1})^2$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much! – Sun Mar 28 '13 at 7:52

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.