We know that the complex field has quantifier elimination. This is usually in reference to the signature $(+,·,-,0,1)$. My question is, does it also have quantifier elimination with reference to the signature $(+,·)$?
2026-03-25 11:10:36.1774437036
Quantifier elimination for $\text{ACF0}$ over signature $(+,·)$.
159 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 FIELD-THEORY
- Square classes of a real closed field
- Question about existence of Galois extension
- Proving addition is associative in $\mathbb{R}$
- Two minor questions about a transcendental number over $\Bbb Q$
- Is it possible for an infinite field that does not contain a subfield isomorphic to $\Bbb Q$?
- Proving that the fraction field of a $k[x,y]/(f)$ is isomorphic to $k(t)$
- Finding a generator of GF(16)*
- Operator notation for arbitrary fields
- Studying the $F[x]/\langle p(x)\rangle$ when $p(x)$ is any degree.
- Proof of normal basis theorem for finite fields
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: $\exists x \forall y \,\,\varphi \models \forall y \exists x \,\ \varphi$
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?
Yes, it does. To prove this, it suffices to check that every atomic quantifier-free formula in the signature $(+,\cdot,-,0,1)$ is equivalent to one in the signature $(+,\cdot)$. Such an atomic quantifier-free formula is just a statement that two terms are equal, so by subtracting the terms we see that it is equivalent to the statement $$p(x_1,\dots,x_n)=0.$$ for some polynomial $p$ with coefficients with $\mathbb{Z}$, where $x_1,\dots,x_n$ are the free variables.
Putting all the terms with positive coefficients on one side and all the terms with negative coefficients on the other side, we can rewrite this in the form $$q(x_1,\dots,x_n)=r(x_1,\dots,x_n)$$ where $q$ and $r$ now have coefficients in $\mathbb{N}$. As long as $q$ and $r$ are not $0$ and have no constant terms, this means we can write them using only addition and multiplication. If $q$ is $0$, we can rewrite our equation as $r=r+r$, and similarly if $r$ is $0$. If both $q$ and $r$ are $0$, our equation is equivalent to $\top$.
The only remaining issue is if $q$ or $r$ has a constant term. To fix this, we can consider the equation $$x_1q(x_1,\dots,x_n)=x_1r(x_1,\dots,x_n)$$ which has no constant terms and is equivalent to our original equation as long as $x_1+x_1\neq x_1$ (i.e., $x_1\neq 0$). So by taking Boolean combinations, it suffices to also be able to express the formula $$q(0,x_2,\dots,x_n)=r(0,x_2,\dots,x_n).$$ But this formula has one fewer variable than we started with, so we can handle it by induction on the number of variables. (In the base case where there are no variables, every formula is equivalent to $\top$ or $\bot$.)