10
$\begingroup$

In 2009, Jochen Koenigsmann showed that $\mathbb{Z}$ is universally definable in the field $\mathbb{Q}$. My question is, are there any other number fields in which $\mathbb{Z}$ is universally definable?

Or failing that, what is the lowest complexity definition of $\mathbb{Z}$ known for a number field other than $\mathbb{Q}$?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Of course there are the results of Jennifer Park generalizing Koenigsmann's result to number fields, but in the sense of giving a universal definition of the ring of integers of $K$ in $K$... Combining that with the results of Denef and others one can at least get an $\exists\forall$-definition of $\mathbb{Z}$ in $K$ for many $K$. $\endgroup$
    – Arno Fehm
    Jan 24, 2021 at 7:20
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnoFehm I think this should be an answer. $\endgroup$ Jan 24, 2021 at 8:41
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek: Ok, will do so, but I'm not sure that one doesn't know an $\forall$-definition at least in some cases. $\endgroup$
    – Arno Fehm
    Jan 24, 2021 at 8:55

1 Answer 1

12
$\begingroup$

Koenigsmann's result was generlized by Jennifer Park to number fields, giving a universal definition of the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_K$ in $K$. Then there is a series of results proving that $\mathbb{Z}$ is existentially definable in $\mathcal{O}_K$ for certain $K$, starting I think with results by Jan Denef (totally real number fields, or quadratic extension of a totally real field). Combining the two, one gets an $\exists\forall$-definition of $\mathbb{Z}$ in $K$ at least for these number fields.

It is possible though that one also has an $\forall$-definition of $\mathbb{Z}$ in $K$ for some number fields $K\neq\mathbb{Q}$, but I don't remember right now.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.