arXiv:1803.07806v1 [] 21 Mar 2018

SELECTED METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS,
AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
F.-V. KUHLMANN
Abstract. We consider four approaches to the analysis of cuts in ordered
abelian groups and ordered fields, their interconnection, and various applications. The notions we discuss are: ball cuts, invariance group, invariance
valuation ring, and cut cofinality.

1. Introduction
In these notes we deal with (Dedekind) cuts in ordered abelian groups and in
ordered fields. (For the definition of the notion of a cut and other notions used in
this Introduction, see Section 2.) We introduce the reader to four approaches to
their classification, the links between them, and several applications. The reader
should observe that a cut in an ordered field is at the same time a cut in its
additive group. Hence even in the case that one is predominantly interested in cuts
in ordered fields, up to a certain point their study can be fruitfully carried out in
the setting of ordered abelian groups and does not need to make use of the field (or
ring) multiplication. At the same time the reader should keep in mind that ordered
abelian groups appear in field theory also as the value groups of valuations. In
this case, cuts in the value group can for instance be generated by pseudo Cauchy
sequences in the valued field. If the field is ordered and its valuation is the natural
valuation induced by the ordering (see below), then it is essential to study the
connection between cuts in the field and induced cuts in the value group.
The first approach to the classification of cuts is to ask whether a cut in an
ordered abelian group is the upper or lower edge of a convex subgroup, or of a coset
thereof. This has been used and studied more or less explicitly by many authors,
and various names have been given to such cuts. We call them ball cuts. They
appear implicitly or explicitly, sometimes with surprisingly different definitions, in
[13, 14, 15, 16, 39] for the study of cuts in ordered fields, in [49] for the study of
cuts in ordered abelian groups, and in several other papers cited in the references.
Ball cuts will be introduced and discussed in Section 3.
Spaces of R-places (i.e., places with residue fields embeddable in R) of ordered
fields are not well understood. It is a longstanding open problem which topological
spaces appear as spaces of R-places. Recently, ball cuts have been used to study
these spaces (cf. [33, 35, 37, 26]). We describe some results in Section 3.2.
Two well known deep open problems in positive characteristic are:
1) resolution of singularities in arbitrary dimension,
2) decidability of the field Fp ((t)) of Laurent series over a finite field.
Date: 28. 2. 2017.
The author would like to thank Katarzyna Kuhlmann and Marcus Tressl for useful suggestions.
1

2

F.-V. KUHLMANN

Both problems are connected with the structure theory of valued function fields
of positive characteristic p. The main obstruction here is the phenomenon of the
defect. Via ramification theory, the study of it can be reduced to the study of
purely inseparable extensions and of Galois extensions of degree p. Ball cuts are
essential for a classification of Galois extensions with nontrivial defect which is
introduced in [30]. It will be discussed in Section 3.3.
How “broad” is a given cut? One way to answer this question is to associate
to the cut the maximal set of elements that can be added to the cut sets without
changing the cut. This set turns out to be a convex subgroup of the ordered group;
we call it the (additive) invariance group. This notion was introduced by the
author in his thesis ([27]) in order to handle valued fields with non-archimedean ordered value groups in connection with the model theory of valued fields. Invariance
groups were also introduced by M. Tressl in his thesis ([45]), this time for the study
of the model theory of ordered fields (a quick example for Tressl’s use of invariance
groups is given in Section 4.4). Later, A. Fornasiero and M. Mamino ([10]) used
them in a detailed investigation of cuts of ordered abelian groups, which they then
applied to study so-called double ordered monoids. Moreover, they have been implicitly used by several other authors (e.g. by R. Rolland in [42]), or even explicitly
defined under different names (e.g. by F. Wehrung in [49], and by D. Kijima and
M. Nishi in [22]). A main link to ball cuts is the fact that invariance groups can
help to identify them (see Theorem 4.3 below). We will discuss invariance groups
in Section 4.
In mathematics, objects that are maximal with respect to a certain property are
often of particular interest. In valuation theory, this is so for maximal valued
fields, which have the property that every proper extension will necessarily enlarge
value group or residue field. Ordered abelian groups and fields carry natural
valuations which are canonically derived from their ordering. In Section 4.2 we
describe a characterization of certain ordered fields maximal with respect to their
natural valuation, given by Kijima and Nishi; it makes essential use of invariance
groups. Further, we discuss a generalization of this result, due to H.-J. Hüper, to
the case of valuations whose valuation rings are convex under the given ordering.
In Section 4.3 we discuss an analogue for the case of ordered abelian groups. We
present the Cohen-Goffman Theorem and a related result by P. Ehrlich, both of
which (implicitly) use invariance groups.
The author’s attention was drawn to the importance of invariance groups in the
study of ordered fields by a question of J. Madden. During the Special Semester
in Real Algebraic Geometry and Ordered Structures, Baton Rouge 1996, Madden
showed him the definition of what we now call the invariance valuation ring
and asked for the meaning of it. The answer to his question was first given in the
manuscript [28]. Again, the invariance valuation ring was independently introduced
and applied by M. Tressl (see [45, 46, 47]). The construction of invariance valuation
rings appears already in Rolland’s paper [42], but not in full generality.
Looking at a cut in an ordered field K, one may ask whether it originates in
some way from a cut in the residue field of K with respect to some real place. That
is, one would like to know whether the cut can be translated into some “normal
position” such that for some convex valuation ring O of K with maximal ideal M,
it induces a (Dedekind) cut in the ordered residue field O/M via the residue map.

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

3

If so, one would like to determine how this translation can be done. The invariance
valuation ring is a key tool to answer these questions (see Section 5.1).
Further, in the paper [21] F. Jahnke, P. Simon and E. Walsberg introduce certain
invariance valuation rings to exhibit definable valuations in ordered fields which are
not dense in their real closure. The details will be discussed in Section 5.2.
A remark by M. Marshall made it clear to the author of these notes that some
of his earlier results were actually a special case of a more general setting which we
will now sketch. Every ordered field K has a natural valuation v, whose residue
field is an archimedean ordered field; its valuation ring Ov is the smallest of all
convex valuation rings of K. Then every convex subgroup of the ordered additive
group of K is an Ov -module.
In the present paper, we use the additive Krull notation for valuations, i.e., the
ultrametric triangle law reads v(a + b) ≥ min{v(a), v(b)} and the value group is an
additively written ordered abelian group whose nonnegative elements are precisely
the values of the nonzero elements of Ov . In this notation, the map
M 7→ (vK \ vM, vM ) ,
where vK is the value group of (K, v) and vM := {va | 0 6= a ∈ M }, is a bijection
between the convex subgroups M of K and the cuts in the value group vK. This
holds more generally for any (Krull) valuation v of an arbitrary field K and the
set of all Ov -modules M ⊆ K. Information about M can be read off from the
invariance group of the cut (vK \ vM, vM ). One can also define the invariance
valuation ring of an Ov -module. The invariance valuation ring of a cut can then be
understood as the invariance valuation ring of the invariance group of the cut.
Tressl introduced the author to the definition and main properties of the multiplicative invariance group of a cut in an ordered field, that is, the invariance
group of the cut taken in the multiplicative group of the field. For its properties,
see [32], where a detailed study of ball cuts, invariance groups and invariance valuation rings is presented. Detailed studies of cuts using these concepts appear also
in Tressl’s papers [45, 46, 47] and T. Güldenberg’s thesis [18].
After ball cuts, invariance group and invariance valuation ring, the fourth approach to the study of Dedekind cuts is to consider the pair of cardinal numbers
(κ, λ) where κ is the cofinality of the lower cut set and λ is the coinitiality of the
upper cut set. Recall that the coinitiality of a linearly ordered set is the cofinality
of this set under the reversed ordering. Recall further that cofinalities and coinitialities of ordered sets are regular cardinals. We call (κ, λ) the cofinality of the
cut; also the name character has been used in the literature.
In his groundbreaking and comprehensive work, Hausdorff constructs for any
given collection of cofinalities (κ, λ) which satisfy some necessary conditions, a
totally ordered set where this collection is exactly the set of cofinalities of the cuts
appearing in this ordering. One aim of the already cited paper [42] of Rolland is to
construct ordered fields which realize a prescribed set of cut cofinalities.
A much studied property of ordered abelian groups or fields is that of being an
ηα -set, which is equivalent to the absence of cuts of cofinality (κ, λ) with bothκ and
λ smaller than ℵα . We discuss a characterization of such ordered abelian groups
and fields, due to N. Alling, in Section 6.1.
In Section 6.2, we present some work of N. Yu. Galanova and G. G. Pestov which
involves cut cofinalities and ball cuts.

4

F.-V. KUHLMANN

More recently, a new aspect of cut cofinalities has been discovered. Transferring the concept of spherical completeness from ultrametric spaces to other
spaces equipped with distances or topologies, the authors of [34] asked the question
whether there are ordered fields, apart from the reals themselves, in which every
chain of closed bounded intervals has a nonempty intersection. This happens exactly when all appearing cut cofinalities (κ, λ) satisfy κ 6= λ. The positive answer
to the question was first given by S. Shelah in the paper [43]. In joint work with
Shelah and K. Kuhlmann, the author of these notes gave an alternative construction and a complete characterization of such fields in [36]. We will discuss some
details in Section 6.3.
These notes are not intended to be a comprehensive survey on the general theory
of cuts. However, the author hopes that they will initiate discussion and feedback
so that more comprehensive information can be gathered and later be put together
in a monograph on cuts.
2. Notation and preliminaries
For general background from valuation theory, we recommend [9]. For background on ordered fields, see [38, 40].
2.1. Cuts. Take any ordered set (S, <) (by “ordered”, we will always mean “totally
ordered”). If S1 , S2 are nonempty subsets of S and a ∈ S, we will write a < S2 if
a < b for all b ∈ S2 , and we will write S1 < S2 if a < S2 for all a ∈ S1 .
A subset S ′ of S is called convex in (S, <) if for every two elements a, b ∈ S ′
and every c ∈ S such that a ≤ c ≤ b, it follows that c ∈ S ′ . A subset S1 of S is
an initial segment of S if for every a ∈ S1 and every c ∈ S with c ≤ a, it follows
that c ∈ S1 . Symmetrically, S2 is a final segment of S if for every a ∈ S2 and
every c ∈ S with c ≥ a, it follows that c ∈ S2 . Note that S1 is an initial segment
of S if and only if S1 is convex and S1 < S \ S1 . Note also that ∅ < S and S < ∅
by definition; so ∅ is an initial segment as well as a final segment of S.
If S1 ⊆ S and S2 ⊆ S are such that S1 < S2 and S = S1 ∪ S2 , then we will call
(S1 , S2 ) a cut in S. Then S1 is an initial segment of S, S2 is a final segment of S,
and the intersection of S1 and S2 is empty. We write ΛL = S1 , ΛR = S2 , and
Λ = (ΛL , ΛR ) .
A cut (ΛL , ΛR ) with ΛL 6= ∅ and ΛR 6= ∅ is called a Dedekind cut. If Λ is a cut
in S, (T, <) is an extension of (S, <) and a ∈ T is such that ΛL ≤ a ≤ ΛR , then we
will say that a realizes Λ (in T ).
For any subset M ⊆ S, we let M + denote the cut
M + = ({s ∈ S | ∃m ∈ M : s ≤ m} , {s ∈ S | s > M }) .
That is, if M + = (ΛL , ΛR ) then ΛL is the least initial segment of S which contains
M , and ΛR is the largest final segment having empty intersection with M . If
M = ∅ then ΛL = ∅ and ΛR = M , and if M = S, then ΛL = M and ΛR = ∅.
Symmetrically, we set
M − = ({s ∈ S | s < M } , {s ∈ S | ∃m ∈ M : s ≥ m}) .
That is, if M − = (ΛL , ΛR ) then ΛL is the largest initial segment having empty
intersection with M , and ΛR is the least final segment of S which contains M . If
M = ∅ then ΛL = M and ΛR = ∅, and if M = S, then ΛL = ∅ and ΛR = M .

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

5

If M = {a}, we will write a+ instead of {a}+ and a− instead of {a}− . These two
cuts are called principal. Hence if M has a largest element a, then M + = a+ is
principal, and if M has a smallest element a, then M − = a− is principal. The cut
(ΛL , ΛR ) is principal if and only if ΛL has a largest element or ΛR has a smallest
element. In the literature, a principal cut is also called realized or filled, a nonprincipal cut is called a gap, and a cut for which ΛL has a largest element and
ΛR has a smallest element is called a jump. In [7], Ehrlich calls a cut (ΛL , ΛR )
continuous if ΛL is principal but not a jump.
2.2. Valuation theory. Take an ordered abelian group G. Two elements a, b are
archimedean equivalent if there is some n ∈ N such that n|a| ≥ |b| and n|b| ≥ |a|.
The equivalence class of a is called archimedean class of a and is denoted by
[a]. The set {[a] | 0 6= a ∈ G} is totally ordered by setting [a] < [b] if and only if
|a| > n|b| for all n ∈ N. Then the class of 0 is the largest element in the set, and it
only contains the element 0. The map v : a 7→ va := [a] is the natural valuation
of G. It satisfies the triangle inequality v(a + b) ≥ min{va, vb} and v(−a) = va.
We call {va | 0 6= g ∈ G} the value set of G (under v).
If G is the additive group of an ordered field K, then by setting [a] + [b] := [ab]
we obtain an addition on the set of archimedean classes that is compatible with the
ordering, and the natural valuation becomes a field (Krull) valuation.
Take any extension (L|K, v) of valued fields, that is, an extension L|K of fields
and a valuation v on L. By vL and vK we denote the value groups of v on L
and on K, and by Lv and Kv the residue fields of v on L and on K, respectively.
Similarly, vz and zv denote the value and the residue of an element z under v.
A valued field (K, v) is called henselian if the extension of v to every algebraic
extension field L of K is unique, or equivalently, (K, v) satisfies Hensel’s Lemma.
A henselization of (K, v) is an algebraic extension of (K, v) which is henselian
and can be embedded over K in every other henselian extension field of (K, v).
Henselizations exist and are unique up to valuation preserving isomorphism over
K. Therefore, we will speak of the henselization of (K, v) and denote it by K h .
Assume that L|K is finite and the extension of v from K to L is unique. Then
the Lemma of Ostrowski says that
(1)

[L : K] = pν · (vL : vK) · [Lv : Kv]

with ν ≥ 0

where p is the characteristic exponent of Kv, that is, p = char Kv if this is positive, and p = 1 otherwise. The factor d = pν is called the defect of the extension
(L|K, v). If d = 1, then we call (L|K, v) a defectless extension; otherwise, we
call it a defect extension. Note that (L|K, v) is always defectless if char Kv = 0.
We call a henselian field (K, v) a defectless field if every finite extension of
(K, v) is defectless. An arbitrary field is called a defectless field if its henselization
is defectless.
The extension (L|K, v) is immediate if for each z ∈ L \ K there is c ∈ K such
that v(z − c) > vz; this holds if and only if the canonical embeddings of vK in vL
and of Kv in Lv are onto.
For z ∈ L, we define
v(z − K) := {v(z − c) | c ∈ K} ⊆ vL ∪ {∞} .

6

F.-V. KUHLMANN

If (L|K, v) is immediate, then v(z−K) is a subset of vK without a maximal element,
and even more, it is an initial segment.
Immediate extensions of valued abelian groups can be defined as in the case of
valued fields. Valued abelian groups and valued fields are called maximal if they
do not admit proper immediate extensions.
2.3. Pseudo Cauchy sequences. A pseudo Cauchy sequence in a valued
abelian group or field is a sequence (aν )ν<λ of elements, indexed by a limit ordinal
λ (which is called the length of the sequence), such that for all ρ < σ < τ < λ,
v(aσ − aρ ) < v(aτ − aσ ) .
In this case, v(aσ − aρ ) = v(aρ+1 − aρ ) . If (aν )ν<λ is a pseudo Cauchy sequence,
then the sequence of values (v(aν+1 − aν ))ν<λ is strictly increasing. The set {b |
∀ν < λ : v(b) > v(aν+1 − aν )} is called the breadth of the sequence (aν )ν<λ . An
element a (in some valued extension group or field) is a limit of the sequence if
v(a − aν ) = v(aν+1 − aν ) for all ν < λ. If a is a limit of the sequence, than also a′
is a limit if and only if a − a′ is an element of the breadth.
A valued abelian group or field is called spherically complete if it admits
a limit for every pseudo Cauchy sequence. If the valued abelian group G′ is an
immediate extension of the valued group G, then every element a ∈ G′ \ G is the
limit of a pseudo Cauchy sequence in G that does not have a limit in G. Hence,
every spherically complete valued abelian group or field is maximal. The converse is
also true; in the case of valued fields this is shown by I. Kaplansky in [24], where the
theory of pseudo Cauchy sequences (which he calls “pseudo-convergent sequences”)
is nicely laid out.
If α is an ordinal, then G is called α-maximal if every pseudo Cauchy sequence
in G of length less than ℵα has a limit in G.
2.4. Hahn products and power series fields. Given a linearly ordered index
set I and for every γ ∈ I an arbitrary abelian group Cγ , we define a group called
the Hahn product
(also called Hahn group), denoted by Hγ∈I Cγ . Consider
Q
the product γ∈I Cγ and an element c = (cγ )γ∈I of this group. Then the support
of
Q c is the set supp c := {γ ∈ I | cγ 6= 0}. As a set, the Hahn product is the subset of
γ∈I Cγ containing all elements whose support is a wellordered subset of I, that is,
every nonempty subset of the support has a minimal element. The Hahn product
is a subgroup of the product group. Indeed, the support of the (componentwise)
sum of two elements is contained in the union of their supports, and the union of
two wellordered sets is again wellordered.
The support of every nonzero element c in the Hahn product has a minimal
element γ0 . This enables us to define a group valuation by setting vc = γ0 and
v0 = ∞; this is called the canonical valuation of the Hahn product Hγ∈I Cγ .
If the Cγ are (not necessarily archimedean) ordered abelian groups, we obtain the
ordered Hahn product, also called lexicographic product, where the ordering
is defined as follows. Given a nonzero element c = (cγ )γ∈I , let γ0 be the minimal
element of its support. Then we take c > 0 if and only if cγ0 > 0. If all Cγ are
archimedean ordered, then the canonical valuation of the Hahn product coincides
with the natural valuation of the ordered Hahn product. The Hahn Embedding
Theorem states that every ordered abelian group G can be embedded in the Hahn

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

7

product with its set of archimedean classes as index sets and all Cγ equal to the
ordered group of real numbers.
′
Take any ordered abelian group G. If H ⊂
6= H are convex subgroups of G
′
such that the ordering induced on H /H is archimedean (and hence H ′ /H can be
seen as an ordered subgroup of the reals), then H ′ /H is called an archimedean
component of G. If G = Hγ∈I Cγ and all Cγ are archimedean ordered, then the
Cγ are precisely the archimedean components of G.
Take a field k and an ordered abelian group G. Then k((G)) := Hγ∈G k is
a valued abelian group. Since all supports are
P wellordered, a multiplication can
be defined as follows: (cg )g∈G · (c′g )g∈G = ( h+h′ =g ch · c′h′ )g∈G . Then k((G))
becomes a valued field, called a power series field. The canonical valuation of
the underlying Hahn product makes it a valued field with value group G and residue
field k.
Under their canonical valuation, all Hahn products and all power series fields
are spherically complete and hence maximal. All maximal fields with residue fields
of characteristic 0 are power series fields, but for positive residue characteristic this
is not true.
3. Ball cuts
L

R

We say that a cut Λ = (Λ , Λ ) in an ordered abelian group is a group + -cut
if it is induced by the upper edge of a convex subgroup H of G, i.e., if Λ = H + .
We will say that Λ is a group − -cut if it is induced by the lower edge of a convex
subgroup H of G, i.e., if Λ = H − . In both cases, we will call Λ a group-cut. Note
that 0+ and 0− are the only principal group-cuts. We call Λ a ball + -cut (or a
ball − -cut) if it is induced by the upper edge (or lower edge, respectively) of some
coset of a convex subgroup H of G, i.e., if it is of the form (g + H)+ (or (g + H)− ,
respectively) for some g ∈ G. Ball + -cuts and ball − -cuts are called ball-cuts, and
cosets H + g of convex subgroups H are also called balls. Note that all group-cuts
are ball-cuts.
Ball cuts are called asymmetric cuts in [13, 14, 15, 16, 39]. This name is
unfortunate; it may have been chosen by the authors after they observed that there
are no cuts in ordered fields that are at the same time a ball− -cut and a ball+ -cut.
But the situation is different in ordered abelian groups, as the following example
shows. Consider the lexicographic ordering on Z × Z. Then {(0, m) | m ∈ Z}+ =
{(1, m) | m ∈ Z}− .
In Tressl’s paper [47], the ball+ -cuts are the cuts with signature 1, and the
ball− -cuts are the cuts with signature −1. All non-ball cuts have signature 0.
Güldenberg also uses signatures in his thesis [18], but defines them in a slightly
different way.
3.1. Monoids of cuts. On the set of cuts in an ordered abelian group, an addition
can be defined in various ways. The two immediately obvious ways to define Λ1 +Λ2
are the following:
L +
L
L +
1) set Λ1 + Λ2 := (ΛL
1 + Λ2 ) = {α + β | α ∈ Λ1 , β ∈ Λ2 } ,
R
R −
2) set Λ1 + Λ2 := (Λ1 + Λ2 ) .
The two additions are usually not the same, but their properties are very similar.
The following fact is easy to prove:

8

F.-V. KUHLMANN

The idempotent elements in these monoids are precisely the group cuts.
Monoids of cuts are studied in [49], [18], [10] and [11]. In the latter paper,
the results are used for the intrinsic construction (without the use of embeddings in
power series fields) of towers of complements to all (possibly fractional) ideals of the
valuation ring in henselian valued fields of residue characteristic 0, and in Kaplansky
fields (i.e., valued fields satisfying “Hypothesis A” in [24]) which do not admit
proper immediate algebraic extensions. They are also used by N. Alling in [1] for
the characterization of ηα ordered abelian groups and fields (see Section 6.1 below).
Alling gives credit to A. H. Clifford ([4]) for introducing the monoid structure (but
it had very probably already been observed before, when Dedekind completions of
ordered abelian groups were considered).
3.2. Applications to spaces of R-places. For any formally real (i.e., orderable)
field K, the question arises which orderings induce the same natural valuations.
The places associated with natural valuations are called R-places as their residue
fields are archimedean ordered and can thus be embedded in R. We will therefore
always assume that the residue field of an R-place is a subfield of R. The above
question was answered in [35] for an interesting special case.
Take a real closed field R. There is a one-to-one correspondence between orderR
ings P of R(X) and cuts of R (see [17]). The cut ΛP = (ΛL
P , ΛP ) corresponding to
L
R
P is given by ΛP = {a ∈ R | a <P X} and ΛP = {b ∈ R | b >P X}. Conversely, if
Λ is a cut in R, then the set
P = {f ∈ R(X) | ∃a ∈ ΛL ∃b ∈ ΛR ∀c ∈ (a, b) : f (c) ∈ Ṙ2 }
is an ordering of R(X) with ΛP = Λ (here, Ṙ = R \ {0}).
In [35] the following result is proved:
Theorem 3.1. Two distinct orderings of R(X) induce the same R-place if and
only if they correspond to the upper and lower edges of the same ball, that is, there
is a convex subgroup H of the additive group of R and c ∈ R such that one of the
places corresponds to (H + c)− and the other to (H + c)+ .
This means that the space of R-places of R(X) is obtained from the line R by
identifying the upper and lower edges of balls. If this is done for R = R then we
obtain the circle (up to homeomorphism). But if R is a non-archimedean ordered
field, then the structure is much more complex; it may be thought of as an infinite
pearl necklace in which every pearl contains a pearl necklace that is similar to the
whole necklace. The rich self-similarities of this space have been exhibited in [37]
by observing that the transformations a 7→ a+ c, a 7→ ca and a 7→ a−1 all transform
balls into balls.
The following result is also proved in [35]:
Theorem 3.2. Take an ordering on R(X) which extends the ordering of R, and
take v to be the natural valuation on R(X) w.r.t. this ordering. Then X induces
in R a cut of the form (c + H)− or (c + H)+ (as in Theorem 3.1) if and only if
vR ⊂
6= vR(X), and if the former is the case, then v(X − c) is rationally independent
over vR.
From this theorem we conclude that a cut of R is a ball cut if and only if
the natural value group vR(X) of the corresponding ordering on R(X) satisfies
[vR(X) : 2vR(X)] = 2.

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

9

In the paper [26] P. Koprowski and K. Kuhlmann consider the more general case
of an algebraic function field F of transcendence degree 1 over a real closed field R.
Choose any smooth projective model of F , i.e., a smooth, projective algebraic curve
over R with function field F . In [25] M. Knebusch shows that the curve consists of
finitely many semialgebraic connected components, each of which can be endowed
with a cyclic order. In [26] this is used to define cuts in these components; the
collection of all of them is taken to be the set of cuts on the curve. The following
result is proved:
Theorem 3.3. The space of all cuts on the curve (endowed with the order topology)
is homeomorphic to the space of all orderings on F (endowed with the Harrison
topology).
Take any ordering of F and let v denote the natural valuation of F w.r.t. this
ordering. Note that the value group vR of v on R is divisible since R is real closed.
Therefore, as trdeg F |K = 1, there are only two possible cases:
a) vF = vK, which implies that (vF : 2vF ) = 1,
b) vF = vK ⊕ Zα for some α ∈ vF \ vK, whence (vF : 2vF ) = 2.
By the Baer–Krull Theorem, in the first case there is no other ordering on F that
induces the same place as the given one. In the second case there is exactly one
other ordering that induces the same place.
Now consider the cut that corresponds to the given ordering according to Theorem 3.3. In analogy to the case of a rational function field discussed above, the
authors of [26] call this cut a ball cut if the second case holds. The following
argument justifies this definition. Pick any element X ∈ F \ K. Then F |K(X) is
algebraic, thus vF/vK(X) is a torsion group. This implies that case b) holds for F
with the given ordering if and only if it holds for R(X) with the restriction of this
ordering, as the corresponding natural valuation on R(X) is just the restriction of
the natural valuation on F . From this one obtains:
Proposition 3.4. The following are equivalent:
1) the cut corresponding to the given ordering on F is a ball cut,
2) for some X ∈ F \ K, the cut induced by X in R under the restriction of the
ordering to R(X) is a ball cut,
3) for each X ∈ F \ K, the cut induced by X in R under the restriction of the
ordering to R(X) is a ball cut.
All results above can be obtained in an abstract setting for abstract real curves.
However, once we embed the curve in an affine space we obtain a clearer picture.
Note that every n-dimensional affine space An R over R is an ultrametric space with
the ultrametric generated by the natural valuation v of R. The ultrametric distance
between points (x1 , ..., xn ) and (y1 , ..., yn ) can be defined and computed as follows:

1 X
(xi − yi )2 .
u((x1 , ..., xn ), (y1 , ..., yn )) = min{v(xi − yi )} = v
2
Therefore we can consider ultrametric balls in An R. We say that an ultrametric
ball B in An R cuts a curve C if B ∩ C =
6 ∅ and (An R \ B) ∩ C =
6 ∅. In this case
B determines a cut (always more then one) on the curve. In [26] it is shown that
such a cut is a ball cut, and the following theorem is proved:
Theorem 3.5. Every ball cut on a smooth and complete real affine curve in An R
is induced by some ultrametric ball. If the orderings corresponding to two ball cuts

10

F.-V. KUHLMANN

induce the same R-place, then there is an ultrametric ball in An R which induces
both cuts on the curve.
The converse of the second assertion is not true, a counterexample is given in
[26]. The ball mentioned in this assertion can well induce more than two cuts on
the curve. It is an open question how to determine the pairs of cuts that induce
the same R-place.
3.3. Classification of Artin-Schreier defect extensions. An Artin-Schreier
extension is a field extension L|K of degree p of fields of characteristic p generated
by an element ϑ that satisfies ϑp − ϑ ∈ K. Such an extension has nontrivial defect
if and only if it is immediate. In this case, the cut v(ϑ − K)+ taken in the divisible
hull of vK enables us to distinguish two types of Artin-Schreier defect extensions.
We call such an extension dependent if it can be derived by a transformation from
a purely inseparable defect extension of degree p, and independent otherwise. In
[30] the following result is proved:
Theorem 3.6. An Artin-Schreier defect extension is independent if and only if the
cut v(ϑ − K)+ is a group− -cut.
This classification of Artin-Schreier defect extensions is important because work
by M. Temkin (see e.g. [44]) and by the author indicates that dependent defect
appears to be more harmful to the above cited problems than independent defect.
In the paper [6], S. D. Cutkosky and O. Piltant give an example of an extension of
valued function fields consisting of a tower of two Artin-Schreier defect extensions
where so-called strong monomialization fails. As the valuation on this extension is
defined by use of so-called generating sequences, it is hard to determine whether the
Artin-Schreier defect extensions are dependent or independent. However, Cutkosky,
L. Ghezzi and S. ElHitti show that both of them are dependent (see e.g. [8]); this
again lends credibility to the hypothesis that dependent defect is the more harmful
one.
Moreover, the classification is an important tool in the proof of the following
theorem in [30]:
Theorem 3.7. A valued field of positive characteristic is henselian and defectless
if and only if each purely inseparable extension is defectless and the field does not
allow any proper immediate algebraic extensions.
This theorem in turn is used in [29] for the construction of an example showing
that a certain natural axiom system for the elementary theory of Fp ((t)) (“henselian
defectless valued field of characteristic p with residue field Fp and value group a
Z-group”) is not complete.
It would be desirable to have a classification of Galois defect extensions of prime
degree and an analogue of Theorem 3.7 also in the case of valued fields of mixed
characteristic (i.e., valued fields of characteristic 0 with residue fields of positive
characteristic). The obvious problem is to find the suitable definition of “dependent”, since there are no purely inseparable extensions. Some guidance can be
obtained from the theory of perfectoid fields, as these allow an exchange of information between the mixed characteristic case and the case of equal positive
characteristic. If we follow this guidance, then all Galois defect extensions of prime
degree of perfectoid fields should be called independent. An indication that this

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

11

is the right choice comes from the fact that perfectoid fields are deeply ramified
fields in the sense of Section 6.6 of [12]; recent work of the author of these notes
indicates that when ϑ is a suitably chosen generator of any Galois defect extension
of prime degree of a deeply ramified field, then as in Theorem 3.6, v(ϑ − K)+ is a
group−-cut.
3.4. Approximation of elements in henselizations. Complete valued fields of
rank 1 (i.e., with archimedean ordered value group) are henselian, but for valuations
v of arbitrary rank this does not hold in general. However, there is a connection
between Hensel’s Lemma and completions, but these completions have to be taken
for residue fields of suitable coarsenings of v. This connection was worked out by
P. Ribenboim in [41] who used distinguished pseudo Cauchy sequences to
characterize the so called stepwise complete fields; it had been shown by Krull
that these fields are henselian.
Take any immediate extension (L|K, v) of valued fields and z ∈ L \ K. We
call z weakly distinguished over K if v(z − K)+ is a ball+ -cut, and we call
z distinguished over K if it is a group+-cut. The latter name is chosen since
distinguished elements are limits of distinguished pseudo Cauchy sequences.
Now take an arbitrary valued field (K, v) and extend its valuation v to its algebraic closure K̃. Then K̃ contains a unique henselization K h with respect to
this extension. The following result is proved in [31], answering a question from
B. Teissier. It has recently been reproven by Teissier using methods from algebraic
geometry.
Theorem 3.8. Each element in K h \ K is weakly distinguished over K.
Note that if (K, v) is of rank 1, then its henselization lies in its completion and
every element a ∈ K h \ K is distinguished over K (with v(a − K)+ = (vK)+ ).
By “α > v(a − K)” we mean α > v(a − c) for all c ∈ K. Theorem 3.8 is used in
[31] to prove the following result:
Theorem 3.9. Take z ∈ K̃ \ K such that
v(a − z) > v(a − K)
h

h

for some a ∈ K . Then K and K(z) are not linearly disjoint over K, that is,
[K h (z) : K h ] < [K(z) : K]
and in particular, K(z)|K is not purely inseparable.
This theorem has a crucial application in [30] to the classification of ArtinSchreier defect extensions which we discussed in the previous section. The classification was originally obtained in [27] under the additional assumption that the
fields in question are henselian. With the help of Theorem 3.9 this assumption can
be dropped, and so the classification becomes available for valued function fields.
4. The invariance group
For every cut Λ in an ordered abelian group G, we define
G(Λ) := {g ∈ G | ΛL + g = ΛL }

12

F.-V. KUHLMANN

and call it the invariance group of Λ; other authors (e.g. Ehrlich in [7], following
Kijima and Nishi [22]) call it the breadth of the cut Λ. Note that ΛL + g = ΛL is
equivalent to ΛR + g = ΛR .
The proof of the following facts is straightforward (see e.g. [32]).
Lemma 4.1. Take an ordered abelian group G and a Dedekind cut Λ in G. Then
G(Λ) is a convex subgroup of G, and G is the disjoint union of the three convex
subsets ΛL − ΛR , G(Λ) and ΛR − ΛL , with
ΛL − ΛR < G(Λ) < ΛR − ΛL .
Corollary 4.2. The invariance group of Λ is trivial if and only if
ΛR − ΛL = G>0 .
The following theorem is proved in [32], but has also been stated (more or less
explicitly) by other authors:
Theorem 4.3. A cut Λ in an ordered abelian group is a ball cut if and only if it
is the upper or lower edge of a coset of its invariance group, i.e., if there is some
g ∈ G such that Λ = (g + G(Λ))+ or Λ = (g + G(Λ))− .
Remark 4.4. R. Baer ([3]) introduced the notion eigentlicher Schnitt, that is,
a Dedekind cut Λ in an ordered abelian group G such that for every positive g ∈ G
there are a ∈ ΛL and b ∈ ΛR such that b − a < g. By Lemma 4.1 this condition
is equivalent to the invariance group of G being trivial. Ehrlich ([7]) calls them
Veronese cuts, and Galanova and Pestov call them fundamental cuts. The
non-principal cuts with trivial invariance group are called dense in Tressl’s papers
[46, 47].
Several authors, e.g. Rolland in [42] and Wehrung in [49], work with the ball+ cuts G(Λ)+ rather than the invariance groups themselves. The set of all of these
cuts in an ordered abelian group G coincides with the set of cuts H + where H runs
through all (proper) convex subgroups of G. (Note that G itself is the invariance
group of the two cuts (G, ∅) and (∅, G), which are not Dedekind cuts.)
If Λ is a cut in an ordered field K and is positive (i.e., 0 ∈ ΛL ), then it is also
a cut in the ordered abelian multiplicative group of positive elements of K. Its
invariance group there is called the multiplicative invariance group of Λ, and
we denote it by G × (Λ).
4.1. Invariance group and pseudo Cauchy sequences. From what we have
said about immediate extensions and pseudo Cauchy sequences in Section 2.3, ordered abelian groups or fields that are maximal with respect to their natural valuation contain limits for all pseudo Cauchy sequences. This is why several authors
employ pseudo Cauchy sequences to study and to characterize such ordered abelian
groups or fields. Certain cuts can induce, or be induced by, pseudo Cauchy sequences. For example, if (aν )ν<λ is a pseudo Cauchy sequences which is also strictly
increasing, then it is cofinal in the lower cut set of the cut Λ = {aν | ν < λ}+ , and
the following holds:
Theorem 4.5. The invariance group of {aν | ν < λ}+ is equal to the breadth of
the pseudo Cauchy sequence (aν )ν<λ .
If the pseudo Cauchy sequence lies in an ordered abelian group G, then it induces
a Cauchy sequence (i.e., a pseudo Cauchy sequence with breadth {0}) in G/G(Λ).

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

13

4.2. Ordered fields with maximal natural valuation. Take an ordered field
K. We will denote the ordered additive group of K by K+ . In [22], Kijima and
Nishi use the invariance group for the following result:
Theorem 4.6. The following assertions are equivalent:
1) the natural valuation of K is maximal and its residue field is R,
2) for each cut Λ = (ΛL , ΛR ) in K, the induced cut (ΛL /G(Λ), ΛR /G(Λ)) in the
ordered abelian group K+ /G(Λ) is principal.
Here, the induced cut is ({a/G(Λ) | a ∈ ΛL } , {b/G(Λ) | b ∈ ΛR }); note that the
two sets are disjoint by the defining property of G(Λ).
This theorem also holds for any ordered abelian group G in place of the ordered
field K if we replace “its residue field is R” by “all of its archimedean components
are isomorphic to R”; see the next section.
In his thesis [20] Hüper considers ordered fields with arbitrary compatible valuations (i.e., valuations whose valuation ring is convex, or equivalently, contains the
valuation ring of the natural valuation). We will cite one of his main results; in its
formulation he uses a notion that is derived from Baer’s “eigentlicher Schnitt” (see
Remark 4.4) without explicitly using invariance groups. But using them as follows
puts the result in a wider context:
Theorem 4.7. Take an ordered field K with a compatible valuation v. Then the
following assertions are equivalent:
1) the valuation v is maximal,
2) if H is a Ov -submodule of K not contained in a larger Ov -submodule H ′ such
that there is no Ov -submodule properly between H ′ and H, and if Λ is a cut such
that Λ/H := (ΛL /H, ΛR /H) is a Dedekind cut in K+ /H with trivial invariance
group, then Λ/H is principal.
Let us evaluate this theorem for the case of v being the natural valuation. In
this case, condition 2) can be reformulated as follows:
2’) if H is a convex subgroup of K which is not contained in a larger convex
subgroup H ′ such that H ′ /H is archimedean ordered, and if Λ is a cut such that
Λ/H := (ΛL /H, ΛR /H) is a Dedekind cut in K+ /H with trivial invariance group,
then Λ/H is principal.
Condition 2’) can be further reformulated and thereby simplified by using the following two facts:
Lemma 4.8. Take a Dedekind cut Λ in an ordered abelian group G and a proper
convex subgroup H of G. Then the following assertions hold.
a) Λ/H is a Dedekind cut in G/H if and only if H ⊆ G(Λ).
b) G(Λ/H) = {0} if and only if G(Λ) ⊆ H.
In view of these facts, condition 2) is equivalent to:
2”) if H is a convex subgroup of K+ which is not contained in a larger convex subgroup H ′ such that H ′ /H is archimedean ordered, and if Λ is a cut with invariance
group H, then Λ/H is principal.
What is the role of the assumption on H in conditions 2’) and 2”)? Well, if H ′
is a larger convex subgroup of K+ such that H ′ /H is archimedean ordered, then
H ′ /H is an archimedean component of K+ and therefore isomorphic to the additive

14

F.-V. KUHLMANN

group of Kv. As the theorem does not assume that the latter is equal to R, H ′ /H
may have a non-principal Dedekind cut, which then gives rise to a non-principal
Dedekind cut of G/H. So if we are only interested in maximality, then we have
to take this case into account. However, if we assume in addition to condition
1) that Kv is equal to R, then all Dedekind cuts in archimedean components are
principal, and we can drop the assumption on H. This shows that Theorem 4.6 is
a consequence of Theorem 4.7.
Remark 4.9. In [23], the authors state that “the notion of maximal ordered fields
was first introduced” in earlier papers of theirs, the earliest published in 1987
by Kijimi and Nishi. This statement is correct only as far as it concerns results
published in journals, as the work of Hüper shows.
4.3. Archimedean complete ordered abelian groups. An ordered abelian
group (G, <) is called archimedean complete (a notion introduced by H. Hahn)
if every proper ordered abelian group extension (G′ , <) of (G, <) introduces new
archimedean classes, or in other words, the natural valuation on (G′ , <) has a larger
value set than on G. Hence the archimedean complete ordered abelian groups are
precisely the ordered abelian groups that are maximal w.r.t. their natural valuation
and whose archimedean components are as large as possible, that is, isomorphic to
the additive group of real numbers. Hahn shows in [19] that archimedean complete
ordered abelian groups are precisely the ones that admit an order preserving isomorphism onto a so-called Hahn product with all of its archimedean components
equal to the additive group of real numbers. (Hahn products are the analogues for
ordered abelian groups of the power series fields.)
Archimedean complete ordered abelian groups G are characterized in the paper
[5] by L. W. Cohen and C. Goffman as follows:
Theorem 4.10. An ordered abelian group (G, <) is archimedean complete if and
only if for every proper convex subgroup H, the ordered factor group G/H is dense
and every cut in G/H with trivial invariance group is principal.
Ehrlich revisits this topic in [7]. Relying on the Theorem of Cohen and Goffman,
Ehrlich proves:
Theorem 4.11. An ordered abelian group (G, <) is archimedean complete if and
only if for every cut Λ, the induced cut in G/G(Λ) is principal, but not a jump.
Since ordered fields admit no jumps, this theorem can be seen as an analogue of
Theorem 4.6. Ehrlich shows that the induced cut has trivial invariance group; this
is a special case of part b) of Lemma 4.8.
We recommend Ehrlich’s paper [7] for interesting historical remarks and a detailed list of references.
4.4. Model theory of ordered fields with cuts. In [45, 46, 47], Tressl studies
the model theory of real closed fields with a fixed cut. Given a model M of an ominimal extension T of the theory of real closed fields in a language L, he determines
the model theoretic properties of M in the language L(D) where D is a predicate
L
for the left cut set ΛL of a fixed cut Λ in M . If (M1 , ΛL
1 ) and (M2 , Λ2 ) are two
L
structures obtained in this way, conditions are found for (M1 , Λ1 ) and (M2 , ΛL
2 ) to
be elementarily equivalent in the language L(D) enhanced by parameters from a

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

15

common elementary substructure of M and M ′ . The main result is rather technical
in nature, but for special classes of cuts, the situation is much easier. To illustrate
this, the following theorem is taken from [47]:
Theorem 4.12. Let A ≺ M1 , M2 be models of T and let Λ1 , Λ2 be non-principal
cuts in M1 , M2 respectively, with trivial invariance groups. Then (M1 , ΛL
1 ) ≡A
(M2 , ΛL
2 ) if and only if the restrictions of Λ1 and Λ2 to A coincide.
5. The invariance valuation ring
The invariance valuation ring of a cut Λ in an ordered field K is defined as
O(Λ) := {b ∈ K | b G(Λ) ⊆ G(Λ)} .
We denote its maximal ideal {b ∈ K | b G(Λ) ⊂
6= G(Λ)} by M(Λ).
According to Lemma 4.1 G(Λ) is a convex subgroup of the ordered additive
group K+ of K, and we have already noted in the Introduction that every convex
subgroup of K+ is an Ov -module, where v denotes the natural valuation. In this
way, the above definition becomes a special case of the following.
Take any valued field K with valuation ring Ov and an Ov -module M in K. The
invariance valuation ring of an Ov -module M in K is defined as
O(M ) := {b ∈ K | bM ⊆ M } .
The relation between multiplicative invariance group and invariance valuation
ring is determined in [32]. Also Tressl and Güldenberg obtain results on this topic.
5.1. Projecting cuts into residue fields. Take a convex valuation ring O of an
ordered field K, with maximal ideal M. Its residue field O/M is again an ordered
field, with the ordering induced through the residue map. We will say that the cut
Λ can be projected into the residue field O/M if there are elements a, c ∈ K
such that c > 0 and cΛ + a induces a Dedekind cut

(2)
((cΛL + a) ∩ O)/M , ((cΛR + a) ∩ O)/M
in O/M via the residue map.
The following theorem shows for which convex valuation rings O a cut can be
projected into the associated residue field. For a proof, see [32].

Theorem 5.1. 1) Take any convex valuation ring O of (K, <). If O(Λ) ⊂
6= O,
then the cut Λ can be projected into the residue field O/M. If O ⊂
O(Λ),
then
it
6=
cannot be projected into O/M.
2) The cut Λ can be projected into O(Λ)/M(Λ) if and only if (vG(Λ))− is a ball + cut.
5.2. Definable valuation rings in ordered fields. It is obvious that if a cut
(that is, its lower cut set ΛL ) is definable in some extension of the language of
ordered rings, then so is G(Λ). It then follows that also the invariance valuation
ring is definable.
This observation is put to work in [21], where the following is proved:
Proposition 5.2. Take an ordered field K with real closure R. If K is not dense in
R, then K admits a nontrivial valuation definable in the language of ordered rings.

16

F.-V. KUHLMANN

The idea of the proof is as follows. If K is not dense in R, then there is an element
r ∈ R \ K and a positive element a ∈ R such that |r − c| > a for all c ∈ K. Since
R|K is algebraic, the set K >0 of positive elements in K is coinitial in R>0 , so we
can choose a ∈ K. If we set ΛL = {c ∈ K | c < r}, then we obtain a cut Λ such
>0
that ΛR −ΛL ⊂
. By Corollary 4.2, its invariance group is thus nontrivial. This
6= K
implies that the invariance valuation ring is not all of K, so the associated valuation
is nontrivial. Since r lies in a real closure of K, the set ΛL = {c ∈ K | c < r} is
definable, and by what we said above, so are the invariance valuation ring and thus
also the associated valuation.
The above arguments also prove the following general principle:
If the lower cut set of some Dedekind cut with nontrivial invariance group in an
ordered field is definable, then the field admits a nontrivial definable valuation ring.
Similarly, if an Ov -module M in a valued field (K, v) is definable, then so is
its invariance valuation ring O(M ). If K 6= M 6= {0}, then O(M ) is a nontrivial
valuation ring. This yields the following general principle:
If a proper nontrivial Ov -module in a valued field (K, v) is definable, then the field
admits a nontrivial definable valuation ring containing Ov .
Note that if a cut Λ is definable in the value group vK in a suitable language of
valued fields, then the Ov -module {a ∈ K | va ∈ ΛR } is also definable, and it is
proper and nontrivial if and only if the cut is a Dedekind cut.
6. Cut cofinalities
Recall that by the cofinality of the cut Λ we mean the pair (κ, λ) where κ is
the cofinality of ΛL , and λ is the coinitiality of ΛR .
6.1. Ordered abelian groups and fields that are ηα -sets. Take any ordinal
α. An ηα -set is an ordered set S such that for any two subsets A ⊆ S and B ⊆ S
of cardinality less than ℵα with A < B, there is some s ∈ S such that A < s < B.
This is equivalent to saying that S does not admit any cuts of cofinality (κ, λ) where
both κ and λ are smaller than ℵα . In [1], Alling proves:
Theorem 6.1. a) An ordered abelian group is an ηα -set if and only if it is αmaximal, its value set w.r.t. the natural valuation is an ηα -set, and all of its
archimedean components are isomorphic to Z or R.
b) An ordered field is an ηα -set if and only if it is α-maximal, its value group w.r.t.
the natural valuation is an ηα -set, and its residue field is R.
Every ℵα -saturated ordered abelian group or field is an ηα -set. For the converse,
the reader may note that divisible ordered abelian groups and real closed fields
are o-minimal. This implies that for them, the property of being an ηα -set is
equivalent to that of being ℵα -saturated. For results on the variety of ηα ordered
abelian groups or fields, for fixed α, see [2].
Ball cuts and invariance groups do not appear explicitly in [1] or [2]. But Rolland
draws a connection in [42]. He states that an ordered abelian group is an ηα -set if
and only if its value set is an ηα -set and for every Dedekind cut Λ with nontrivial
invariance group G(Λ, the coinitiality of the upper cut set of G(Λ)+ is not less than
ℵα .

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

17

6.2. Cuts in ordered power series fields. The papers [13, 14, 15, 16] of Galanova
and Pestov are devoted to the study of cuts in power series fields and in restricted
power series fields (in the latter, the cardinalities of the supports of the power series
are bounded by a given cardinal number). We cite three theorems from [16]. The
cardinality of a set S is denoted by |S|, and |S|+ denotes its successor cardinal.
Theorem 6.2. Take any ordered abelian group G. Then all cuts in the power series
field R((G)) are ball cuts.
The proof of this theorem in [16] is long and technical. Let us give the sketch
of a shorter and more conceptual proof. We write K = R((G)). Every cut Λ
in K is realized in some ordered field extension L of K (for instance, if L is a
|K|+ -saturated elementary extension of the ordered field K). As a power series
field, K is maximal w.r.t. its natural valuation. Extend v to the natural valuation
of L. Then it follows that for every x ∈ L \ K there is some a ∈ K such that
v(x − a) = max{v(x − c) | c ∈ K} since otherwise, x would be a limit of some
pseudo Cauchy sequence in K without a limit in K, contradicting the fact that K
is maximal. The value v(x − a) can only be maximal if either v(x − a) ∈
/ vK or
there is d ∈ K such that vd = v(x − a) and d−1 (x − a)v ∈
/ Kv. But the latter
cannot be the case: since Kv = R and v on L is a natural valuation, we must have
that Lv = Kv. Hence γ := v(x − a) ∈
/ vK. We leave it as an exercise to the reader
to show that Λ = (a + {b ∈ K | vb > γ})+ or Λ = (a + {b ∈ K | vb > γ})− .
Theorem 6.3. Take any ordered abelian group G and a cardinal number κ such that
ℵ0 < κ < |G|. Denote by R((G, κ)) the subfield of R((G)) consisting of all power
series with support of cardinality less than κ. Take a non-ball cut in R((G, κ)) of
cofinality (λ, λ). Then λ is equal to the cofinality of κ. In particular, if κ is regular,
then λ = κ.
Theorem 6.4. Take a non-principal cut Λ in some ordered field K with trivial
invariance group, and let (κ, κ) be its cofinality. Then κ is equal to the cofinality
of K.
In [42], Rolland states the existence of power series fields that admit cuts with
preassigned cofinalities (κi , λi ), i ∈ I, where the κi and λi are infinite regular
cardinals. The proof he gives is insufficient, but the result also follows from the
work we will discuss in the next section. He uses it to show the existence and to
(partially) characterize the ordered fields which admit a closed bounded interval
and a continuous function which is unbounded on this interval.
6.3. Symmetrically complete ordered abelian groups and fields. A Dedekind cut with cofinality (κ, λ) is called symmetric if κ = λ, and asymmetric
otherwise. Note that the notion of symmetry used by Galanova and Pestov is quite
different from the one defined here. However, Pestov states in [39], without proof
or reference) that if a cut in an ordered field is symmetric in their sense (i.e., it is
not a ball cut), then it is also symmetric in the sense of the above definition. A
proof is given by Galanova in [13]. In [42], Rolland states the same in full generality
for non-ball cuts in ordered abelian groups. The statement is correct, but his proof
appears to have a serious gap.
A linearly ordered set (I, <) is called symmetrically complete if every symmetric cut in I has cofinality (1, 1), i.e., is a jump. In dense linear orderings (and

18

F.-V. KUHLMANN

hence in ordered fields) there are no jumps. Consequently, a dense linear ordering
is symmetrically complete if and only if all of its cuts are asymmetric.
For example, Z and R are symmetrically complete, but Q is not. In Z and R,
every Dedekind cut is principal; in Z all of them have cofinality (1, 1), and in R
they have cofinalities (1, ℵ0 ) and (ℵ0 , 1). In contrast, in Q the Dedekind cuts have
cofinalities (1, ℵ0 ), (ℵ0 , 1) and (ℵ0 , ℵ0 ).
In [36] it is shown that a symmetrically complete ordered abelian group is spherically complete w.r.t. its natural valuation and hence a Hahn product, with all of
its archimedean components isomorphic to R. Similarly, a symmetrically complete
ordered field is spherically complete w.r.t. its natural valuation and hence a power
series field, with residue field R. For Hahn products with all of its archimedean
components isomorphic to R the set of all cut cofinalities is computed from the set
of all cut cofinalities of the value set of its natural valuation, and a similar computation is done for power series fields with residue field R. Based on this computation,
a full characterization of symmetrically complete ordered abelian groups and fields
is obtained. We will cite a selection of the main results.
We call an ordered set strongly symmetrically complete if it is symmetrically
complete and does not have any cuts with cofinalities (1, ℵ0 ) or (ℵ0 , 1).
Theorem 6.5. A non-archimedean ordered field is symmetrically complete if and
only if it is spherically complete w.r.t. its natural valuation, has residue field R and
a dense strongly symmetrically complete value group.
A nontrivial densely ordered abelian group is symmetrically complete if and only
if it is spherically complete w.r.t. its natural valuation v, has a dense strongly
symmetrically complete value set, and all archimedean components are isomorphic
to R. It is strongly symmetrically complete if and only if in addition, the value set
has uncountable cofinality.
In particular, it follows that symmetrically complete ordered abelian groups are
divisible and symmetrically complete ordered fields are real closed.
Further, it is shown in [36] that every ordered set can be extended to a dense
strongly symmetrically complete ordered set with uncountable cofinality. The
reader may note that this result is not explicitly stated in Hausdorff’s work. The
authors of [36] also tried to give a construction that is as short as possible. It
turns out that the constructed orderings are themselves lexicographic, as are the
orderings on Hahn products and power series fields. Such orderings deserve to be
studied in more detail.
Using the above results and the fact that every ordered set is the natural value
set of some Hahn product with all components isomorphic to R, and every ordered
abelian group is the natural value group of some power series field with residue field
R, the following result of [43] is reproved:
Theorem 6.6. Every ordered field can be embedded in a symmetrically complete
ordered field. Every ordered abelian group can be embedded in a symmetrically
complete ordered abelian group.
References
[1] Alling, N. L. : On the existence of real-closed fields that are ηα -sets of power ℵα , Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962), 341–352
[2] Alling, N. L. – Kuhlmann, S. : On ηα -groups and fields, Order 11 (1994), 85–92

METHODS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUTS

19

[3] Baer, R. : Archimedizität und Starrheit geordneter Körper, Math. Ann. 188 (1970), 165–205
[4] Clifford, A. H. : Completion of semi-continuous ordered commutative semigroups, Duke
Math. J. 26 (1959), 41–59
[5] Cohen, L. W. – Goffman, C. : On completeness in the sense of Archimedes, Amer. J. Math.
72 (1950). 747–751
[6] Cutkosky, D. – Piltant, O. : Ramification of valuations, Adv. Math. 183 (2004), 1–79
[7] Ehrlich, P. : Dedekind cuts of Archimedean complete ordered abelian groups, Algebra Universalis 37 (1997), 223–234
[8] ElHitti, S. – Ghezzi, L. : Dependent Artin-Schreier defect extensions and strong monomialization, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 220 (2016), 1331–1342
[9] Engler, A. J. – Prestel, A. : Valued fields, Springer Monographs in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2005
[10] Fornasiero, A. – Mamino, M. : Arithmetic of Dedekind cuts of ordered abelian groups, Ann.
Pure Appl. Logic 156 (2008), 210–244
[11] Fornasiero, A. – Kuhlmann, F.-V. – Kuhlmann, S. : Towers of complements to valuation
rings and truncation closed embeddings of valued fields, J. Algebra 323 (2010), 574–600
[12] Gabber, O. – Ramero, L. : Almost ring theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1800, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2003
[13] Galanova, N. Yu. : Symmetry of sections in fields of formal power fields and on the nonstandard real line, Algebra Logika 42 (2003), 26–36, 125; translation in Algebra Logic 42 (2003),
4–20
[14] Galanova, N. Yu. : Symmetric and asymmetric gaps in some fields of formal power series,
Serdica Math. J. 30 (2004), 495–504
[15] Galanova, N. Yu. : An investigation of the fields of bounded formal power series by means of
theory of cuts, Acta Appl. Math. 85 (2005), 121–126
[16] Galanova, N. Yu. – Pestov, G. G. : Symmetry of sections in fields of formal power series,
Algebra Logika 47 (2008), 174–185, 265; translation in Algebra Logic 47 (2008), 100–106
[17] Gilmer, R. : Extension of an order to a simple transcendental extension, Contemp. Math. 8
(1981), 113–118
[18] Güldenberg, T. : Elementare Invarianten von Dedekindschnitten angeordneter Körper,
Diplomarbeit (MSc thesis), Universität Regensburg, 2004; available at:
http://math.usask.ca/fvk/asom3.pdf
[19] Hahn, H. : Über die nichtarchimedischen Grössensysteme, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 116
(Abteilung IIa) (1907), 601–655
[20] Hüper, H.-J. : Über ordnungsverträglich bewertete, angeordnete Körper, Dissertation, Univ.
München, Munich, 1977
[21] Jahnke, F. – Simon, P. – Walsberg, E. : dp-minimal valued fields, preprint
[22] Kijima, D. – Nishi, M. : The pseudo-convergent sets and the cuts of an ordered field, Hiroshima Math. J. 19 (1989), 89–98
[23] Kijima, D. – Nishi, M. – Sakaibara, M. : Maximal extensions of ordered fields, Hiroshima
Math. J. 18 (1988), 485–492
[24] Kaplansky, I. : Maximal fields with valuations I, Duke Math. Journ. 9 (1942), 303–321
[25] Knebusch, M : On algebraic curves over real closed fields. I and II, Math. Z. 150 (1976),
49–70 and 151 (1976), 189–205
[26] Koprowski, P. – Kuhlmann, K. : Places, Cuts and Orderings of Function Fields, to appear
in J. Alg.
[27] Kuhlmann, F.-V. : Henselian function fields and tame fields, extended version of doctoral
thesis, Heidelberg (1990)
[28] Kuhlmann, F.-V. : Invariance valuation ring of cuts in ordered fields, manuscript, Baton
Rouge, (1996)
[29] Kuhlmann, F.-V. : Elementary properties of power series fields over finite fields, J. Symb.
Logic 66 (2001), 771–791
[30] Kuhlmann, F.-V. : A classification of Artin Schreier defect extensions and a characterization
of defectless fields, Illinois J. Math. 54 (2010), 397–448
[31] Kuhlmann, F.-V. : Approximation of elements in henselizations, Manuscripta math. 136
(2011), 461–474

20

F.-V. KUHLMANN

[32] Kuhlmann, F.-V. : Invariance group and invariance valuation ring of a cut, in preparation;
preliminary version available at http://math.usask.ca/˜fvk/CUTS.pdf
[33] Kuhlmann, F.-V. – Kuhlmann, K. : Embedding theorems for spaces of R-places of rational
function fields and their products, Fundamenta Math. 218 (2012), 121–149
[34] Kuhlmann, F.-V. – Kuhlmann, K: A common generalization of metric, ultrametric and
topological fixed point theorems, Forum Math. 27 (2015), 303–327; and: Correction
to “A common generalization of metric, ultrametric and topological fixed point theorems”, Forum Math. 27 (2015), 329–330; alternative corrected version available at:
http://math.usask.ca/fvk/GENFPTAL.pdf
[35] Kuhlmann, F.-V. – Machura, M. – Osiak, K. : Metrizability of spaces of R-places of function
fields of transcendence degree 1 over real closed fields, Comm. in Alg. 39 (2011), 3166–3177
[36] Kuhlmann, F.-V. – Kuhlmann, K. – Shelah, S. : Symmetrically Complete Ordered Sets,
Abelian Groups, and Fields, Israel J. Math. 208 (2015), 261–290
[37] Kuhlmann, K. : The structure of spaces of R-places of rational function fields over real closed
fields, Rocky Mountains J. Math. 46 (2016), 533–557
[38] Lam, T.Y. : Orderings, valuations and quadratic forms, CBMS Regional Conf. Ser. Math.
52. Published for the Conf. Board of the Math. Sciences, Washington (1983)
[39] Pestov, G. G. : On the theory of sections in ordered fields, Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. 42 (2001),
1350–1360; translation in Siberian Math. J. 42 (2001), 1123–1131
[40] Prestel, A. : Lectures on formally real fields, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1093, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1984
[41] Ribenboim, P. : Théorie des valuations, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal (1964)
[42] Rolland, R. : Étude des coupures dans les groupes et corps ordonnés, Real algebraic geometry
and quadratic forms (Rennes, 1981), 386–405, Lecture Notes in Math. 959, Springer, Berlin
– New York, 1982
[43] Shelah, S.: Quite Complete Real Closed Fields, Israel J. Math. 142 (2004), 261–272
[44] Temkin, M. : Inseparable local uniformization, J. Algebra 373 (2013), 65–119
[45] Tressl, M. : Dedekind cuts in polynomially bounded, o-minimal expansions of real closed
fields, doctoral thesis, Regensburg (1996)
[46] Tressl, M. : Model completeness of o-minimal structures expanded by Dedekind cuts, J. Symbolic Logic 70 (2005), 29–60
[47] Tressl, M. : The elementary theory of Dedekind cuts in polynomially bounded structures,
Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 135 (2005), 113–134
[48] Tressl, M. : Pseudo completions and completions in stages of o-minimal structures, Arch.
Math. Logic 45 (2006), 983–1009
[49] Wehrung, F. : Monoids of intervals of ordered abelian groups, J. Algebra 182 (1996), 287–328
Institute of Mathematics, University of Silesia at Katowice, Bankowa 14, 40-007
Katowice, Poland
E-mail address: fvk@math.us.edu.pl

