T-convexity and tame extensions

1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lou van den Dries ◽  
Adam H. Lewenberg
Keyword(s):  
Convex Hull ◽  
Residue Field ◽  
Quantifier Elimination ◽  
Convex Hulls ◽  
Minimal Extension ◽  
Elementary Substructure ◽  
Real Closed Fields ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Natural Expansion

AbstractLet T be a complete o-minimal extension of the theory of real closed fields. We characterize the convex hulls of elementary substructures of models of T and show that the residue field of such a convex hull has a natural expansion to a model of T. We give a quantifier elimination relative to T for the theory of pairs (ℛ, V) where ℛ ⊨ T and V ≠ ℛ is the convex hull of an elementary substructure of ℛ. We deduce that the theory of such pairs is complete and weakly o-minimal. We also give a quantifier elimination relative to T for the theory of pairs with ℛ a model of T and a proper elementary substructure that is Dedekind complete in ℛ. We deduce that the theory of such “tame” pairs is complete.

T-convexity and tame extensions II

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lou van den Dries
Keyword(s):  
Residue Class ◽  
Residue Field ◽  
Elementary Substructure ◽  
Real Closed Fields ◽  
Minimal Theory ◽  
Ordered Field ◽  
Closed Fields

I solve here some problems left open in “T-convexity and Tame Extensions” [9]. Familiarity with [9] is assumed, and I will freely use its notations. In particular, T will denote a complete o-minimal theory extending RCF, the theory of real closed fields. Let (, V) ⊨ Tconvex, let = V/m(V) be the residue field, with residue class map x ↦ : V ↦ , and let υ: → Γ be the associated valuation. “Definable” will mean “definable with parameters”. The main goal of this article is to determine the structure induced by (, V) on its residue fieldand on its value group Γ. In [9] we expanded the ordered field to a model of T as follows. Take a tame elementary substructure ′ of such that R′ ⊆ V and R′ maps bijectively onto under the residue class map, and make this bijection into an isomorphism ′ ≌ of T-models. (We showed such ′ exists, and that this gives an expansion of to a T-model that is independent of the choice of ′.).

scholarly journals The domination monoid in o-minimal theories

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosario Mennuni
Keyword(s):  
Residue Field ◽  
Formal Logic ◽  
Valued Fields ◽  
Real Closed Fields ◽  
Minimal Theory ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Text Types ◽  
Global Invariant

We study the monoid of global invariant types modulo domination-equivalence in the context of o-minimal theories. We reduce its computation to the problem of proving that it is generated by classes of [Formula: see text]-types. We show this to hold in Real Closed Fields, where generators of this monoid correspond to invariant convex subrings of the monster model. Combined with [C. Ealy, D. Haskell and J. Maríková, Residue field domination in real closed valued fields, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 60(3) (2019) 333–351], this allows us to compute the domination monoid in the weakly o-minimal theory of Real Closed Valued Fields.

A note on valuation definable expansions of fields

1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 739-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deirdre Haskell ◽  
Dugald Macpherson
Keyword(s):  
Valuation Ring ◽  
Quantifier Elimination ◽  
Real Closed Field ◽  
Closed Field ◽  
Real Closed Fields ◽  
Ordered Field ◽  
Valued Field ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Binary Predicate ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

In this note, we consider models of the theories of valued algebraically closed fields and convexly valued real closed fields, their reducts to the pure field or ordered field language respectively, and expansions of these by predicates which are definable in the valued field. We show that, in terms of definability, there is no structure properly between the pure (ordered) field and the valued field. Our results are analogous to several other definability results for reducts of algebraically closed and real closed fields; see [9], [10], [11] and [12]. Throughout this paper, definable will mean definable with parameters.Theorem A. Let ℱ = (F, +, ×, V) be a valued, algebraically closed field, where V denotes the valuation ring. Let A be a subset ofFndefinable in ℱv. Then either A is definable in ℱ = (F, +, ×) or V is definable in.Theorem B. Let ℛv = (R, <, +, ×, V) be a convexly valued real closed field, where V denotes the valuation ring. Let Abe a subset ofRndefinable in ℛv. Then either A is definable in ℛ = (R, <, +, ×) or V is definable in.The proofs of Theorems A and B are quite similar. Both ℱv and ℛv admit quantifier elimination if we adjoin a definable binary predicate Div (interpreted by Div(x, y) if and only if v(x) ≤ v(y)). This is proved in [14] (extending [13]) in the algebraically closed case, and in [4] in the real closed case. We show by direct combinatorial arguments that if the valuation is not definable then the expanded structure is strongly minimal or o-minimal respectively. Then we call on known results about strongly minimal and o-minimal fields to show that the expansion is not proper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document