Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:32:56.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A remark on Zilber's pseudoexponentiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

David Marker
David Marker*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois At Chicago, 851 S. Morgan Street Chicago, IL 60607-7045, USA.E-mail:marker@math.uic.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When studying the model theory of

the first observation is that the integers can be defined as

Since ∂exp is subject to all of Gödel's phenomena, this is often also the last observation. After Wilkie proved that ℝexp is model complete, one could ask the same question for ∂exp, but the answer is negative.

Proposition 1.1. ∂expis not model complete

Proof. If ∂exp is model complete, then every definable set is a projection of a closed set. Since ∂ is locally compact, every definable set is Fσ. The same is true for the complement, so every definable set is also Gδ. But, since ℤ is definable, ℚ is definable and a standard corollary of the Baire Category Theorem tells us that ℚ is not Gδ.

Still, there are several interesting open questions about ∂exp.

• Is ℝ definable in ∂exp?

• (quasiminimality) Is every definable set countable or co-countable? (Note that this is true in the structure (∂, ℤ, +, ·) where we add a predicate for ℤ).

• (Mycielski) Is there an automorphism of ∂exp other than the identity and complex conjugation?1

A positive answer to the first question would tell us that ∂exp is essentially second order arithmetic, while a positive answer to the second would say that integers are really the only obstruction to a reasonable theory of definable sets.

A fascinating, novel approach to ∂exp is provided by Zilber's [6] pseudoexponentiation. Let L be the language {+, · E, 0, 1}.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 791 - 798
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Ax, J., On Schanuel's conjectures, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 2 (1971), no. 93, pp. 252–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Henson, C. W. and RUBEL, L. A., Some applications of Nevanlinna theory to mathematical logic: identities of exponential functions, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 282 (1984), no. 1, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
[3]Lang, S., Complex analysis, 4th ed., Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Dries, L. Van Den, Exponential rings, exponential polynomials and exponential functions, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 113 (1984), no. 1, pp. 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Wilkie, A., Model completeness results for expansions of the ordered field of real numbers by restricted Pfaffian functions and the exponential function, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 9 (1996), no. 4, pp. 1051–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Zilber, B., Pseudo-exponentiation on algebraically closed fields of characteristic zero, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 132 (2004), no. 1, pp. 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar