Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We have an o-minimal structure M with the order topology. $X \subseteq M^n$ with the induced topology. The article "Definable compactness and definable subgroups of o-minimal groups" by Steinhorn and Peterzil shows that $X \subseteq M^n$ is definable compact if and only if X is being bounded and closed.

Definable compactness of X means that any M-definable curve in X is completable. (a curve in X is a M-definable continuous embedding f:(a,b)→X). It is said to be completable if $lim_{x\downarrow a}f(x)$ and $lim_{x \uparrow b}f(x)$ exists.)

In a lecture course at Paris VI, I saw another definition of definable compactness: X is definable compact if and only if any M-definable type sur X has a limit in X. An M-definable type is a homomorphismus of boolean algebras $d_x$ from the boolean algebra of all first-order formulas in a language L to the boolean algebra of all first-order formulas in the language L(M). A M-definable type defines a n-type complet on X: $$p\vert_X = { \phi(x_1, \dots, x_n, b_1, \dots, b_m) \vert (b_1, \dots, b_m) \in B^m, M \models d_x \phi (b_1, \dots , b_m) } $$ A n-type $p$ is said to be on a definable set $X$, if the formule that defines X, is contained in $p$. Un n-type $p$ has $x \in M^n$ as limit, if for any definable neighborhood $V$ of $x$, $p$ is on $V$.

Why are these two definitions equivalent? I can't find anything on the second definition. Are there any sources easily accessible that explain that equivalence?

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.