The Tarski-Seidenberg Theorem states that the polynomial image of a semi-algebraic set is semi-algebraic. A semi-algebraic subset of a Euclidean space $\Bbb{R}^n$ is by definition a finite union of subsets of the form $$ \{P_1=\dots=P_k=0, Q_1>0,\dots,Q_l>0\} $$ where $P_i$'s and $Q_j$'s belong to $\Bbb{R}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$. I wonder is there a general coordinate-free version of this theorem for morphisms of real varieties? (By a real variety I mean the set of $\Bbb{R}$-points of a variety over $\Bbb{R}$.)
-
2$\begingroup$ What does 'coordinate-free' mean? The original theorem seems coordinate-free to me …. $\endgroup$– LSpiceCommented Apr 23, 2020 at 2:38
-
1$\begingroup$ @LSpice I mean a version for abstract varieties that are not defined as subsets of a Euclidean space $\Bbb{R}^n$. $\endgroup$– KhashFCommented Apr 23, 2020 at 2:42
1 Answer
The most abstract version of the Tarski-Seidenberg theorem I know of is the following
Let $f:A\to B$ be a morphism of finite presentation of commutative rings. Then the induced map
$$f^*:\operatorname{Sper}B\to \operatorname{Sper}A$$
sends constructible sets to constructible sets.
Here $\operatorname{Sper}$ is the real spectrum of the ring, i.e. the set of all pairs $(p,<)$ where $p$ is a prime ideal and $<$ is an order on the residue field at $p$.
It is well known (e.g. theorem 7.2.3 in Bochnack-Coste-Roy Real Algebraic Geometry) that if $A$ is an algebra of finite presentation over $\mathbb{R}$, the boolean algebra of constructible subsets of $\operatorname{Sper}A$ is in natural bijection with the semialgebraic subsets of the real points of the variety $\operatorname{Spec}A$.
-
$\begingroup$ Thanks! Out of curiosity, is there a notion of a "real scheme", a ringed space which is locally isomorphic with $Sper A$? $\endgroup$– KhashFCommented Apr 23, 2020 at 21:33
-
1$\begingroup$ @KhashF Yes, they are called real closed spaces and they have been developed by Niels Schwartz (they are not really locally modeled on $\operatorname{Sper}A$, rather on proconstructible subsets of it, but the idea is the same) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 23, 2020 at 22:17