I was reading the wiki page about quantifier elimination and it says that the theory of algebraically closed fields is decidable using quantifier elimination, what I understand by this is that all the formulae about that theory has an equivalent formula without quantifiers, but I don't really understand how this is possible, could someone explain to me what this concept really means, and how it can be applied to some theory?
2026-03-31 06:05:16.1774937116
I don't understand how the theory of algebraically closed fields admits quantifier elimination
1k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in FIRST-ORDER-LOGIC
- Proving the schema of separation from replacement
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Exchanging RAA with double negation: is this valid?
- Translate into first order logic: "$a, b, c$ are the lengths of the sides of a triangle"
- Primitive recursive functions of bounded sum
- Show formula which does not have quantifier elimination in theory of infinite equivalence relations.
- Logical Connectives and Quantifiers
- Is this proof correct? (Proof Theory)
- Is there only a finite number of non-equivalent formulas in the predicate logic?
- How to build a list of all the wfs (well-formed sentences)?
Related Questions in QUANTIFIERS
- Show formula which does not have quantifier elimination in theory of infinite equivalence relations.
- Prove or disprove: $\exists x \forall y \,\,\varphi \models \forall y \exists x \,\ \varphi$
- Variables, Quantifiers, and Logic
- Express least and greatest fixed point using predicate and quantifiers
- Nested Quantifiers - Excluding Self
- Logical Equivalences Involving Quantifiers
- Translating Propositional Functions
- Valid Set builder notations for simple set.
- Explanation about quantifier sequence ∀x∃y and ∃y∀x
- Contrapositive of a quantified statement
Related Questions in QUANTIFIER-ELIMINATION
- How quantifier elimination works
- Proof concerning quantifier elimination and substructures
- Show that the theory of $ (\mathbb{Z}, s)$ has quantifier elimination.
- Complete theory with quantifier elimination has finite boolean algebra
- Quantificational formatting and going from using logic with words, to using it for math proofs
- How much arithmetic is required to formalize quantifier elimination in Presburger arithmetic?
- If $T$ admits quantifier elimination in $\mathcal{L}$, does it admit quantifier elimination in $\mathcal{L}(c)$?
- Why is quantifier elimination desirable for a given theory?
- Exercise 3.4.3 in David Marker's "Model Theory"
- Quantifier elimination exercise
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Here is an example of quantifier elimination in action in the case of algebraically closed fields. Consider the question of whether a polynomial (of degree $3$, say) has a root. We can express this as a formula in the first-order language of rings (which is usually taken to consist of binary operations $+$ and $\cdot$, a unary operation $-$, and constants $0$ and $1$) as $$\exists x (ax^3+bx^2+cx+d=0).$$ Here $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ are all free variables. Quantifier elimination says that the condition on $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$, that a root exists can be expressed in the language of rings without using any quantifiers. How do we do this? Well, because we are in an algebraically closed field, we just need to know that the polynomial is not a nonzero constant, that is: $$\neg (a=0)\vee \neg (b=0)\vee\neg(c=0)\vee (d=0).$$
Or for a slightly more complicated example, consider the formula $$\exists x\exists y (ax^2+bx+c=0)\wedge (ay^2+by+c=0)\wedge\neg(x=y)$$ with free variables $a$, $b$, and $c$. This says that a quadratic polynomial has two distinct roots. In this case, we know that this is equivalent to the discriminant being nonzero (and also $a$ being nonzero, or else all the coefficients being zero), i.e. $$(\neg(a=0)\wedge\neg(b^2-4ac=0))\vee((a=0)\wedge(b=0)\wedge(c=0)).$$
In general, a quantifier-free formula must just be a Boolean combination of equations between polynomials in the free variables. Quantifier elimination says that any first-order formula in some free variables is equivalent to such a quantifier-free formula. This is a very strong and not at all obvious statement! For the examples above it was easy, but if I give you some really complicated statement with 12 nested quantifiers, it's quite impressive to know that it is equivalent to some equalities and inequalities between polynomials in the free variables!