I read on MO that if an integer $a$ is a square mod $p$ for sufficiently large primes $p$, then $a$ is a square. Now that's a statement that looks awfully like a Lefschetz-principle-type statement; and so I'm wondering whether there'd be a model-theoretic proof.

It could start as follow: fix such an $a$; let $T$ be a theory looking like the theory of rings + $\exists x, (x^2 = 1+...+1) \land P(x)$ (there are $a$ $1$'s) + for all $p$, $char \neq p$; where $P$ is a nice formula expressing something that looks like "$x$ is an integer".

One reason this might work is that for instance $\mathbb{N}$ is definable in $(\mathbb{Q},+,\times)$, and so we may expect that such a "nice" formula $P$ may exist. With a bit of luck, using compactness would then allow us to conclude.

Of course I haven't done much here, I just threw a bunch of ideas but it's mostly because I don't see how to do better for the moment.

So my question is :

Is there a known model-theoretic proof of this fact? Has one ever been attempted ? Are there number-theoretic obstructions to the existence of such a proof ? (like for instance "this theorem implies such and such deep theorems that for some reason are essentially number-theoretic")


I don't believe this can work. It is hard to prove that something can't be done, but here is what persuaded me: For every prime $p$, we can solve $x^2+y^2 \equiv -1 \bmod p$, but there is no solution to $x^2+y^2 = -1$ in the integers.

To give an example that uses only one variable, for all primes $p$, we can solve $(z^2-2)(z^2-3)(z^2-6) \equiv 0 \bmod p$, but we can't solve $(z^2-2)(z^2-3)(z^2-6) =0$ in the integers.

So there is no logical principle that let us go from $\forall_p \exists_{x,y} \ (\mbox{polynomial relation}) \bmod p$ to $\exists_{x,y} \ (\mbox{same polynomial relation})$ in the integers. You have to use some special properties of the quadratic polynomial in question, and that strikes me as too specific for model theory.

Proof of the statement that $x^2+y^2 \equiv -1 \bmod p$ is solvable: Clear for $p=2$, so we focus on $p$ odd. The function $x^2+1$ takes $(p+1)/2$ distinct values, and $-y^2$ does as well, so by the pigeonhole principle, we can solve $x^2+1 \equiv -y^2 \bmod p$.

Proof of the statement that $(z^2-2)(z^2-3)(z^2-6) \equiv 0 \bmod p$ is solvable: Clear for $p=2$ or $3$. For $p$ larger than that, note that $$\left( \frac{2}{p} \right) \left( \frac{3}{p} \right) \left( \frac{6}{p} \right) = \left( \frac{36}{p} \right) =1$$ so the residue symbols on the left hand side cannot all be $-1$.


I don't think this can be done. The problem is that if $a$ is not a square, then there are still infinitely many primes $p$ for which $a$ is a square modulo $p$.

Let us make this argument more formal. Suppose we have such a formula $P(x)$ that expresses that $x$ is an integer. As you proposed, we can now look at the theory given by

  • the theory of fields,
  • the statement $\exists x: (x^2 = 2 \wedge P(x))$ and
  • for each prime $p$, the statement $p \neq 0$.

The point is now that this theory does not have a model, since there is no field of characteristic zero in which 2 is the square of an integer. However, every finite subtheory does have a model. Namely, $2$ is the square of an integer in every field $\mathbb{F}_p$ for $p \equiv 1,7 \pmod 8$, and it is well-known that there are infinitely many such primes, so we can just take $p$ big enough. This contradicts the compactness theorem, hence such a formula $P(x)$ does not exists.

Maybe another approach would lead to a model-theoretic proof, but I don't see how one could avoid the above problem.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well. The set of primes for which $a$ is a square modulo $p$ is an ideal. So that gives us countably many ideals. It is conceivable by diagonalization to find an ideal that avoids all of these sets. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 24 '18 at 19:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.