0
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

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 $a/b = ab(b^{-1})^2$.

$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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