21
$\begingroup$

Let $L$ be a first-order language and $M$ be an $L$-structure. Let $D \subseteq M^n$ . Let us say $D$ is definable in $M$ if for some finite set (possibly empty) $A=\{a_1,...,a_m\} \subseteq M$ and some formula $\psi[x_1,...,x_n,y_1,...,y_m]$ , $D=\{(b_1,...,b_n)\in M^n : M\vDash \psi[b_1,...,b_n,a_1,...,a_m] \}$.

(i.e. $D$ is definable by a finite set of parameters according to this definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definable_set ).

Now consider the first order theory of commutative rings. Take $M=\mathbb C[[X]]$ (the formal power series ring with complex coefficients) .

My questions are : Is $\mathbb C$ definable in $\mathbb C[[X]]$ ? Is $\mathbb C[X]$ definable in $\mathbb C[[X]]$

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The answer to the second question is no: pick any power series $Y = X + \ldots$, then there is an automorphism of $\mathbb{C}[[X]]$ sending $X$ to $Y$, and hence $\mathbb{C}[X]$ to $\mathbb{C}[Y]$. $\endgroup$
    – Piotr Achinger
    Commented Mar 1, 2018 at 14:09
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @PiotrAchinger Note that the OP is interested in definability with parameters. Your argument is blocked if you take e.g. $X$ as a parameter. $\endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Commented Mar 1, 2018 at 15:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Nevertheless, I think that some kind of automorphism argument might work. In particular, since $\mathbb C$ has infinite transcendence degree, I would expect that even if you fix finitely many parameters, there should be an automorphism of $\mathbb C[[X]]$ that moves some element of $\mathbb C$ outside $\mathbb C[X]$. $\endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Commented Mar 1, 2018 at 15:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hmm. So, that means the question is cross-posted from math.stackexchange.com/questions/2667763/… . $\endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Commented Mar 1, 2018 at 15:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is also vast literature on quantifier elimination in henselian valued fields (or valuation rings, for that matter), which I am mostly unfamiliar with, but very likely some of it can be applied here. $\endgroup$
    – Emil Jeřábek
    Commented Mar 1, 2018 at 15:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11
$\begingroup$

Emil's idea about quantifier elimination is a good one.

The paper "Model Theory of valued fields" by Raf Cluckers cites the thesis "Quelques propriétés des corps valués" by F. Delon, which I wasn't able to find online, for the claim that the field $\mathbb C((t))$ admits quantifier elimination for the language of Macintyre which consists of the language of field theory, a symbol for elements of the valuation ring $\mathbb C[[t]]$, and a symbol for $n$th powers. Thus any set definable in your sense is definable, without quantifiers, in this language.

It is clear that any set definable in this language has only finitely many isolated points and therefore cannot be $\mathbb C$ or $\mathbb C[x]$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ What do you get from eliminating quantifiers in "x is the difference of two non-squares in C[[x]]"? I.e. $\exists y \in C[[x]] \exists z \in C[[x]] \forall w \in C[[x] \ x = y - z\ \&\ y \neq w^2\ \&\ z \neq w^2$. That should, at least roughly, define the elements with 0 constant term. $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Mar 7, 2018 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Matt F. If you want to define the elements with zero constant term, you just need to state that $X^{-1} x$ is an element of $C[[x]]$. I think this is in fact equivalent to your statement. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Mar 7, 2018 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ So then X (or t in your answer) is in the language too? $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Mar 7, 2018 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @MattF. All elements of the field are in the language. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Mar 7, 2018 at 18:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you explain a bit more the assertion about finitely many isolated points? Do you mean in the topology induced by the valuation? Doesn't $\mathbb{C}[X]$ have no isolated points in this topology? $\endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Commented Mar 9, 2018 at 5:36

You must log in to answer this question.