 
 
 
 
 
   
 of subsets of a set
 of subsets of a set  is called
a filter on
 is called
a filter on  if the following conditions are 
satisfied.
 if the following conditions are 
satisfied.
 ,
, 
 .
.
 .
.
 .
.
 is called an ultra filter on
 is called an ultra filter on  .
.Those readers who are not familiar with the arguments are invited to read for example [15] or the book of Bourbaki [2].
 be a filter on a set
 be a filter on a set  The following statements are equivalent.
The following statements are equivalent.
 is an ultrafilter. That means, a maximal filter.
 is an ultrafilter. That means, a maximal filter.
 , we have either
, we have either 
 or
 or
 
 is an ultra filter of the form
 is an ultra filter of the form 
 where
 where  is an element of
 is an element of  . 
A ultrafilter which is not principal filter is called non-principal.
. 
A ultrafilter which is not principal filter is called non-principal.
 , the following statements are equivalent.
, the following statements are equivalent.
 is principal.
 is principal.
 is not free. 
That means,
 is not free. 
That means, 
 .
.
 of
 of  
 which is a finite set
 (
 which is a finite set
 (
 ).
).
 of
 of  (that means,
(that means,  
 ,) such that
,) such that
 
 .
.
 is a non-principal ultrafilter on a set
 is a non-principal ultrafilter on a set  ,
then  any co-finite subset
,
then  any co-finite subset  of
 of  of
is a member of
 of
is a member of 
 .
. 
An ultrafilter 
 on a set
 on a set  may 
be identified with a  point 
of Stone-Cech compactification of (
 may 
be identified with a  point 
of Stone-Cech compactification of ( with discrete topology). 
A non principal ultrafilter is identified with a
boundary point.
 with discrete topology). 
A non principal ultrafilter is identified with a
boundary point.
 be a number field with the ring 
of integers
 be a number field with the ring 
of integers 
 .
Let
.
Let 
 be a non-principal ultrafilter on the set
 be a non-principal ultrafilter on the set 
 of all primes of
 of all primes of 
 of height 1.
 of height 1. 
Let 
 be an ideal of
 be an ideal of 
 defined as follows:
 
defined as follows:
 
Then we define a ring
 as follows:
 as follows:
 
We denote by
 the canonical projection from
 the canonical projection from 
 to
 to 
 .
.
 is a field of characteristic 0
.
 is a field of characteristic 0
. be a non zero element in
 be a non zero element in 
 .
Let
.
Let 
 . 
Then for any
. 
Then for any 
 , 
intersection
, 
intersection  is non empty. 
Maximality of
 is non empty. 
Maximality of 
 now implies that
 now implies that
 itself is a member of
 itself is a member of 
 .
The inverse
.
The inverse 
 of
 of  in
 in 
 is given by the following formula.
 is given by the following formula.
 
If
 in
 in 
 for a positive integer
for a positive integer  , 
 then there exists
, 
 then there exists 
 such that
such that 
 . On the other hand, 
as we have mentioned in Lemma 4.5 above, 
being a member of a non-principal filter
. On the other hand, 
as we have mentioned in Lemma 4.5 above, 
being a member of a non-principal filter 
 ,
, 
 cannot be a finite set.
This is a contradiction,
since  non-zero member
 cannot be a finite set.
This is a contradiction,
since  non-zero member  in
 in 
 has only finite ``zeros'' on
the ``arithmetic curve''
 has only finite ``zeros'' on
the ``arithmetic curve'' 
 .
Thus the characteristic of
.
Thus the characteristic of 
 is zero.
 is zero. 
  
The definition above is partly inspired by works of
Kirchberg (See [12] for example.)
We would like to give a
little explanation on 
 . We regard it as a kind of `limit'.
If we are given a member
. We regard it as a kind of `limit'.
If we are given a member  of
 of 
 and 
we have an element, say,
 and 
we have an element, say, 
 of
 of 
 for each primes
 
for each primes 
 , then, by assigning
arbitrary element to `exceptional' primes (that means, primes which 
are not in
, then, by assigning
arbitrary element to `exceptional' primes (that means, primes which 
are not in  ), we may interpolate
), we may interpolate  and
 consider
 and
 consider
 
The element ('limit') does not actually depend on the interpolation. Thus we may refer to the element without specifying the interpolation. In particular, this applies to the case where we have
 for almost all primes
 for almost all primes 
 .
The same type of argument applies for polynomials. We summarize this in the
following Lemma.
.
The same type of argument applies for polynomials. We summarize this in the
following Lemma.
 of
 of 
 and a collection
 
 and a collection 
![$ \{F_\mathfrak{p}\}_{\mathfrak{p}\in Y} \in
(\mathfrak{O}/\mathfrak{p})[T_1,T_2,\dots,T_n,U_1,U_2,\dots,U_n]$](img91.png) of polynomials. Assume we have a bound
 
of polynomials. Assume we have a bound  for the degrees of the polynomials.
That means,
 for the degrees of the polynomials.
That means, 
 
Then we may define the `limit'
 
by taking `limit' of each of the coefficients. The same arguments also applies for polynomial maps.
For any non-principal ultra filter 
 on
 on 
 (prime numbers)
,
We may consider the following ring.
(prime numbers)
,
We may consider the following ring.
 $U$ คว $0$
$U$ คว $0$ 
It turns out that,
 is an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0
.
 is an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0
.
 has the same cardinality as
 has the same cardinality as 
 .
.
 
 
 
 
 
