Let $T$ be a theory of commutative rings , in the first order language of rings, having quantifier elimination . Let $R$ be a model for $T$ , so that $R$ is a commutative ring. Then is it necessarily true that all non-zero polynomials in $R[X]$ has only finitely many roots in $R$ ?
2026-03-25 04:39:28.1774413568
Model for a theory of commutative rings having quantifier elimination
137 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 COMMUTATIVE-ALGEBRA
- Jacobson radical = nilradical iff every open set of $\text{Spec}A$ contains a closed point.
- Extending a linear action to monomials of higher degree
- Tensor product commutes with infinite products
- Example of simple modules
- Describe explicitly a minimal free resolution
- Ideals of $k[[x,y]]$
- $k[[x,y]]/I$ is a Gorenstein ring implies that $I$ is generated by 2 elements
- There is no ring map $\mathbb C[x] \to \mathbb C[x]$ swapping the prime ideals $(x-1)$ and $(x)$
- Inclusions in tensor products
- Principal Ideal Ring which is not Integral
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 MODEL-THEORY
- What is the definition of 'constructible group'?
- Translate into first order logic: "$a, b, c$ are the lengths of the sides of a triangle"
- Existence of indiscernible set in model equivalent to another indiscernible set
- A ring embeds in a field iff every finitely generated sub-ring does it
- Graph with a vertex of infinite degree elementary equiv. with a graph with vertices of arbitrarily large finite degree
- What would be the function to make a formula false?
- Sufficient condition for isomorphism of $L$-structures when $L$ is relational
- Show that PA can prove the pigeon-hole principle
- Decidability and "truth value"
- Prove or disprove: $\exists x \forall y \,\,\varphi \models \forall y \exists x \,\ \varphi$
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?
No, this is not true. A commutative ring $R$ is Boolean if $x^2 = x$ for all $x\in R$ (from which it also follows that $x + x = 0$ for all $x\in R$). A Boolean ring $R$ is atomless if for all $x\neq 0$, there exists $y$ such that $y\neq 0$, $y\neq x$, and $xy = y$. Now there is a unique countable atomless Boolean ring $\mathcal{R}$ up to isomorphism (so the theory of atomless Boolean rings is $\aleph_0$-categorical and complete), and the theory of this ring has quantifier elimination. But the polynomial $x^2 - x$ has infinitely many roots in $\mathcal{R}$ (namely every element of $\mathcal{R}$!).
The motivation for this example comes from the well-known fact that Boolean rings and Boolean algebras are essentially the same objects. On any Boolean ring, we can define a partial ordering by $x\leq y\iff xy = x$. Under this ordering, $R$ is a Boolean algebra, with meet, join, and complement operations defined by $x\wedge y = xy$, $x\vee y = x+y+xy$, and $\lnot x = 1+x$. And conversely, given a Boolean algebra $(B,0,1,\wedge,\vee,\lnot)$, we can give $B$ the structure of a Boolean ring, by defining $xy = x\wedge y$, $x+y = (x\wedge \lnot y)\vee (\lnot x\wedge y)$, and $-x = x$. So quantifier-free formulas in the language of rings are equivalent (over Boolean rings/algebras) to quantifier-free formulas in the language of Boolean algebras, and vice versa.
Now Boolean algebras are a well-known example in Fraïssé theory: the class of finite Boolean algebras is a Fraïssé class, whose Fraïssé limit can be axiomatized by the theory of atomless Boolean algebras. So we get (from Fraïssé theory) that the theory of atomless Boolean algebras is complete, $\aleph_0$-categorical, and admits quantifier elimination. Then using our translation, it's easy to see that the theory of atomless Boolean rings satisfies the same properties.
You can learn a lot about rings with quantifier elimination in the paper Rings which admit quantifier elimination by Bruce I. Rose (doi: 10.2307/2271952, jstor). In this paper, Rose shows that for several classes of rings, the only infinite rings in these classes with quantifier elimination are algebraically closed fields. On the other hand, he generalizes the above observation about atomless Boolean rings to the class of atomless $p$-rings, showing that these also admit quantifier elimination.