How do you prove that functions definable by quantifier-free formulas must be linear? I am interested for the structure $\langle Q,+,0\rangle$.
2026-03-24 23:40:55.1774395655
Why Quantifier Free Formulas define Linear Functions.
119 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
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 PEANO-AXIOMS
- Difference between provability and truth of Goodstein's theorem
- How Can the Peano Postulates Be Categorical If They Have NonStandard Models?
- Show that PA can prove the pigeon-hole principle
- Peano Axioms and loops
- Is it true that $0\in 1$?
- Is there a weak set theory that can prove that the natural numbers is a model of PA?
- Exercises and solutions for natural deduction proofs in Robinson and Peano arithmetic
- Proof of Strong Induction Using Well-Ordering Principle
- Some questions about the successor function
- Prove addition is commutative using axioms, definitions, and induction
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
Related Questions in NONSTANDARD-MODELS
- Existence of a structure with the same properties as $\mathbb{N}$ and with an infinite element.
- Non-standard model of arithmetic - why is adding new constants to the model acceptable?
- Any non-standard halting oracles stronger than $\mathbb N$?
- Having Trouble Seeing Why Friedman's Theorem (1973) is true.
- Non-standard integers?
- Is there a combined theory of the Reals and the Naturals that has a model where the Naturals and Reals have the same cardinality
- Is the union of non-standard analogs of a family of sets a proper subset of the non-standard analog of the union of those sets?
- The satisfaction relation is undefinable, but does it still "exist"?
- Is the standard model for the language of number theory elementarily equivalent to one with a nonstandard element?
- Exponentiation and a weak fragment of arithmetic
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?
Such a function would be defined by setting it equal to a term in the above language. For example, your function definition might look something like $f(x, y, z) = 0 + x + x + y + z + 0 + z$. Using the axioms of the rational numbers, you can eliminate all $0$s and group variables together, so that the above definition would look like $f(x, y, z) = 2x + y + 2x$. (Note that "$2x$" is just shorthand for "$x + x$" and $2$ isn't actually in the language). This is clearly linear.
You can follow the same procedure for any function definable by a quantifier-free formula. I haven't been too rigorous but hopefully this answers your question.