User serge r. - MathOverflowmost recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-19T13:46:09Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/user/3770http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/81353/interdefinability-of-two-expansions-of-the-real-field/81358#81358Answer by Serge R. for Interdefinability of two expansions of the Real FieldSerge R.2011-11-19T17:02:13Z2011-11-19T17:02:13Z<p>I am not sure I see the difficulty. </p>
<p>Let's assume $f'>0$ on $I$. The function $s$ that sends $x$ to $\frac{f'(x)\cos(f(x))}{|f'(x)\cos(f(x))|}$ if $f'(x)\cos(f(x))\neq 0$ and to $0$ else is definable in the first structure and, as you noted, $\cos(f(x))=s(x)|cos(f(x))|$ is therefore also definable. </p>
<p>Or did I miss something ?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/78467/thom-polynomial-for-contact-algebraic-structures/78845#78845Answer by Serge R. for Thom polynomial for contact algebraic structuresSerge R.2011-10-22T20:02:50Z2011-10-22T20:02:50Z<p>I think that the answer to 1) is positive. $f$ could even be chosen not to depend on $g$ and the distribution would not need to be taken contact. This would be a consequence of the fact that the complex field has a so-called <em>strongly minimal theory</em> and that the tangency condition is closed.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/29300/whats-wrong-with-the-surreals/30167#30167Answer by Serge R. for What's wrong with the surreals?Serge R.2010-07-01T11:04:58Z2010-07-01T11:04:58Z<p>This is not a major issue but there was a remark made in the master thesis that can be found at the following address <a href="http://www.mamane.lu/concoq/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mamane.lu/concoq/</a> that there is a small gap in the proof of the transitivity of the ordre relation in the original book of Conway.
See the report, page 49-53.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23259/thom-first-isotopy-lemma-in-o-minimal-structures/23263#23263Answer by Serge R. for Thom first isotopy lemma in o-minimal structuresSerge R.2010-05-02T16:45:59Z2010-05-02T16:45:59Z<p>Shiota sent this preprint on the arXiv not long ago :
<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1508" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1508</a></p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/78467/thom-polynomial-for-contact-algebraic-structures/78845#78845Comment by Serge R.Serge R.2011-10-24T07:50:21Z2011-10-24T07:50:21ZThe proof would be similar to jvp's: as the parameters that describe the distribution and the curve vary, the set of points on the curve at which the distribution is tangent gives a family of sets each of dimension 1 or 0. When the dimension is 1, we get all the curve to be tangent. Else we get a finite collection of points; but by strong minimality, there should be an uniform bound for the number of these finitely many points.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/78467/thom-polynomial-for-contact-algebraic-structures/78845#78845Comment by Serge R.Serge R.2011-10-24T07:46:33Z2011-10-24T07:46:33ZI don't have my books now but Poizat "Cours de théorie des modèles" should contain some about it (and is translated in many languages, some translations being freely available on the web). Marker's "Model theory: an introduction" should do too (chapter 3 and 8 ?).http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23259/thom-first-isotopy-lemma-in-o-minimal-structures/23263#23263Comment by Serge R.Serge R.2010-05-02T22:56:20Z2010-05-02T22:56:20Z(Also a limitation of the results in Shiota's 97 book is that they "only" deals with expansions of the field of reals and not with general o-minimal expansions of a real closed fields.)http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23259/thom-first-isotopy-lemma-in-o-minimal-structures/23263#23263Comment by Serge R.Serge R.2010-05-02T17:21:44Z2010-05-02T17:21:44ZIt was indeed not a very sharp reference.
More relevant could be the appendix (Theorem A.5.) of
###
Computing o-minimal topological invariants using differential topology
Author(s): Ya'acov Peterzil; Sergei Starchenko
Journal: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 1375-1401.
###
(it states the result for a proper function, not a general proper mapping.)