3
$\begingroup$

This is an exercise (1.4.11) from Marker. Fix a language $\mathcal L$ and $\mathcal L$-structure $\mathcal M$. For a subset $A \subseteq M$, an element of $M$ is algebraic over $A$ if it is a member of a finite $A$-definable subset of $M$. Let $\bar A$ denote the set of algebraic elements over $A$. We would like to show that $\bar {\bar A} = \bar A$.

Here's a failed attempt to solve the problem. Let a formula $\psi(x, b)$ defines a finite set with a parameter $b$ from $\bar A$ and $\phi (y, a)$ defines a finite set with a parameter $a$ from $A$ (for simplicity we assume the number of parameters is one). Then, naively, the formula $\exists z (\psi(x, z) \wedge \phi(z, a))$ will do the job. However, this formula is not known to define a finite set a priori.

I'd be grateful if you could help me in this problem.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Let $b\in\textrm{acl}\big(\textrm{acl}(A)\big)$. Then there is an $a\in\textrm{acl}(A)$ and formula $\psi(x,y)\in L(A)$ such that $\exists^n x\,\psi(x,a)\wedge\psi(b,a)$ for some $n$

As $a\in\textrm{acl}(A)$, there is a formula $\varphi(y)\in L(A)$ such that $\exists^m y\,\varphi(y)\wedge\varphi(a)$ for some $m$.

The following is a formula over $A$ that has at most $n\cdot m$ solutions and among these $b$:

$$\exists y \Big[\psi(x,y)\wedge\varphi(y)\wedge\exists^n x\,\psi(x,y)\Big]$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn't it be "and among these $b$" ? $\endgroup$ – Pece Sep 21 '14 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Pece Corrected, thank you. $\endgroup$ – Primo Petri Sep 21 '14 at 8:58
1
$\begingroup$

There is a nice semantic proof (a syntactic proof in my other answer). We use the following characterization of acl$(A)$.

acl$(A)$ is the intersection of all models that contain $A$.

Work in a large saturated structure $\cal U$ containing $A$ and as model understand elementary substructure of $\cal U$.

As a model contains $A$ if and only if it contains acl$(A)$, the intersection of all models containing acl$(A)$ is again acl$(A)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For this to make sense, one has to take the convention that we are working with a large saturated "monster model" $M$, and all models are elementary submodels of $M$. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to take the intersection of all models containing $A$ (or if it does, the result is trivially just $A$). $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 22 '14 at 6:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex Kruckman I have added that models means as usual elementary substructure of a large saturated model. (Though I do not know if saturation is really necessary.) $\endgroup$ – Primo Petri Sep 22 '14 at 10:40
  • $\begingroup$ Well, you need some level of saturation, otherwise the intersection might be larger than $\text{acl}(A)$. I think $|A|^+$-saturation will do. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 22 '14 at 16:30

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.