This question is to better explain my previous question, which got closed. I once asked whether the theory of real addition with a nonzero constant $r$ depends on which $r$ it is. The answer is no. So that proves that there are two types of theories of $(\mathbb{R},+,r)$, depending on whether $r$ is zero or not. Of course the same two-fold classification under multiplication does not work. For example, we can define $r$ to be $1$ by the axiom $(\forall x) x * r = x$, and we can define $r$ to be $-1$ by the conjunction of the negation of $r=1$ and $(\forall x) x * r * r = x$. We can also distinguish between negative and positive $r$ by the axiom $(\exists x)x * x = r$. I conjecture that, in a sense, this is all we can do with just multiplication in the signature. Is this true, or are there in fact more types of theories than just those 5?
2026-03-30 17:05:30.1774890330
On
What kinds of theories of real multiplication with one real constant are possible?
128 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
2
There are 2 best solutions below
1
On
Via exponentiation, $(\Bbb R_{>0},\cdot)$ is the same as $(\Bbb R,+)$. Thereafter, $(\Bbb R,\cdot)$ is the same as the disjoint union of $\{0\}$ and $(\Bbb R_{>0},\cdot)$ and the negatives of $(\Bbb R_{>0},\cdot)$; here, the bijecton between positivies comes from multiplication with $-1$, which you saw is definable. Ultimately, everything we can say about $(\Bbb R,\cdot)$ can be expressed in terms of $(\Bbb R,+)$ this way. So indeed, for $(\Bbb R,\cdot,r)$, we have
- the same distinctions as fro $(\Bbb R,+,\ln r)$ if $r>0$, namely $r=1$ or $0<r\ne1$.
- the above cases transported to the negatives by multiplication with $-1$, i.e., $r=-1$ or $0>r\ne -1$
- the remaining case $r=0$
So the two cases from addition indeed translate into five cases for multiplication. If there were any additional case for multiplication, this would translate back to an additional case for addition.
Yes, you are correct.
We show something stronger: for any $a,b\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-1,0,1\}$ with the same sign there is an automorphism $\pi_{a,b}$ of $(\mathbb{R},\cdot)$ with $\pi(a)=b$. A fortiori $(\mathbb{R};\cdot, a)\equiv(\mathbb{R};\cdot,b)$.
Specifically, for $s\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$ let $$f_s:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}: x\mapsto {\vert x\vert\over x}(\vert x\vert^s).$$ Each such $f_s$ is an automorphism of $(\mathbb{R};\cdot)$, the key points being $u^wv^w=(uv^w)$ and $u^w=v^w\implies u=v$ for $u,v\ge 0$ and $w\not=0$.
Now for $a,b\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-1,0,1\}$ with the same sign, taking the appropriate logarithm gives an $f_s$ with $f_s(a)=b$.