The precontraction group of the field of logarithmic transseries Tlog
José Leonardo Ángel
Abstract
As a first step to understand the theory of the structure Tlog of logarithmic transseries as an ordered valued logarithmic field, we focus on the map χ induced by the logarithm of Tlog in its value group Γlog and study the theory of the precontraction group (Γlog,χ). Particularly, we show that this theory is model complete and complete, and we characterize all definable subsets of the discrete set χ(Γlog).
Key words: Precontraction group, centripetal, logarithmic transseries.
1 Introduction
In [9, 10], Franz-Victor Kuhlmann and Salma Kuhlmann showed that in a non-archimedean exponential field the exponential induces a map, called contraction, on the value group of the field with respect to its natural valuation. Specifically, if log denotes the inverse of the exponential map and v the natural valuation of the ordered field, then for a>0 and v(a)<0 they defined the contraction map χ as χ(v(a))=v(log(a)), χ(−v(a))=−χ(v(a)) and χ(0)=0. Under this definition, the autors studied in [7, 9] the first order theory of the value group of an exponential field endowed with such contraction map and showed that this theory is complete, decidable, admits quantifier elimination and is weakly o-minimal.
We recall that an exponential field is an ordered field equipped with an order preserving group isomorphism from the additive group of the field onto the multiplicative group of positive elements. The transseries field T is an important non-archimedean exponential field introduced by Écalle in [4] and by Dahn and Göring in [3], and widely studied as a valued diferential field in [1] by Matthias Aschenbrenner, Lou van den Dries and Joris van der Hoeven. Particularly, the last authors show that the contraction map associated to the exponential map of T is definable in the asymptotic couple of T, that is the structure of the value group of T endowed with a function induced by the diferential map. In similar way, in [5] Allen Geheret shows that for the valued diferential field of logarithmic transseries Tlog, a special sufield of T defined in [1] and whose elements, informally speaking, are formal series which do not involve exponentiation, there is a precontraction map (i.e a non-surjective contraction map) definable in the asymptotic couple of Tlog.
Following the classical strategy used in model theory to study the theory of a valued field by first studying the theory of its value group and of its residual field, as a first step to understand the theory of Tlog as an ordered valued logarithmic field, i.e an ordered valued field equipped with an order preserving group morphism from the multiplicative group of positive elements of the field in the additive group. We study in this paper the model theory of its associated precontraction group, that is the structure given by its value group Γlog endowed with a function χ induced by the logarithm map.
Base on the ideas used in [7, 9] to study the theory of the contraction groups and those used in [5] to study the theory of the asymptotic couple of Tlog, we study the first order theory of the couple (Γlog,χ) as a precontraction group. We notice that although the map χ is not surjective, the image of Γlog<0 by χ is a discrete set cofinal in Γlog<0 and using this fact we prove that the theory of the precontraction group (Γlog,χ) is model complete and complete and we study the definable subsets of the image of Γlog<0 by χ.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we recall some preliminary notions and notations about ordered abelian groups and valued abelian groups and we present a short description of Tlog and its value group. In section 3, we include some definitions and results about precontraction groups. In section 4, we define the language Lpdg, of ordered groups together a symbol function for the contraction map and a constant symbol, and study the Lpdg-theory Tpdg of centripetal precontraction discrete groups. Particularly, we prove that the theory Tpdg is model complete and complete. Next, we expand the language Lpdg to ensure that the natural expansion of the theory Tpdg has quantifier elimination and use it to characterize all definable subsets of the image of the group by the precontraction map. Finally, we study the simple extensions of models of Tpdg.
For the general notions and facts about model theory, we refer the reader to [2, 6] or [1, Appendix B].
2 Preliminaries
Throughout, m and n range over N={0,1,2,...}, the set of natural numbers.
Ordered sets
By an ordered set S we mean a set S equipped with a distinguished total order relation ≤. If B is a subset of S we see B as an ordered subset of S ordered by the induced ordering and we define the set
[TABLE]
In similar way we define S>B, S≤B and S<B. Particularly, if B={b}, then we set S≥b=S≥B.
We say that a subset B of S is convex in S if for all a,c∈B and b∈S such that a≤b≤c we have b∈B, and we define the *convex hull *of B in S as
[TABLE]
Moreover, we say that B⊆S is a lower cut in S if for all b∈B and a∈A, a<b implies a∈B.
Finally, we define intervals in S as usual and for ∞∈/S, we define the set S∞=S∪{∞} and extend the order of S to S∞ setting a<∞ for all a∈S.
Ordered abelian groups
An ordered abelian group Γ, written additively, is an abelian group with an ordering such that for all a,b,c∈Γ if a<b then a+c<b+c.
For a∈Γ we set ∣a∣=max{a,−a} and define the archimedean class of a in Γ as
[TABLE]
Thus, we say that a is archimedean equivalent to b in Γ if b∈[a]. Moreover, the set [Γ] of all archimedean classes become in an ordered set putting
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
Valued abelian groups
Let Γ be an abelian group and S be an ordered set. A valuation on Γ is a surjective map v:Γ→S∞ such that for all a,b∈Γ the following conditions are satisfied:
- (1)
v(a)=∞⇔a=0.
2. (2)
v(−a)=v(a).
3. (3)
v(a+b)≥min{v(a),v(b)}.
A valued abelian group is a structure conformed by an abelian group Γ, and ordered set S and a valuation v on Γ.
For example, for an ordered abelian group Γ if we put S=[Γ] and equip S with the reversed ordering of [Γ], then the map v:Γ→S defined as v(a)=[a] is a valuation on Γ. We call this valuation the natural valuation of Γ.
The field of logarithmic transseries Tlog
The field Tlog of logarithmic transseries is a special subfield of the field T of transseries (see [1] for a definition of T), in which each element is a formal series with real coeficients and monomials of the form ℓ0r0ℓ1r1⋯ℓnrn, with ℓ0=x, ℓn+1=log(ℓn) for n>0 and r0,...,rn∈R.
Formally, we can construct Tlog as follows: First, for each n we set Ln as the formal multiplicative group given by
[TABLE]
and ordered by the relation ℓ0r0ℓ1r1⋯ℓnrn>1 if and only if the exponents r0,r1,...,rn are not all zero, and ri>0 for the least i with ri=0.
Next, for each n, we define the Hahn field R[[Ln]] of well based series with real coefficients and monomials in Ln. We mean the field of all functions f:Ln→R (written as formal sums f=m∈Ln∑fmm) such that supp(f):={m∈Ln:fm=0} has no strictly increasing infinite sequences.
Finally, since Lm is an ordered subgroup of Ln for m≤n, the ordered group inclusions
[TABLE]
induce field inclusions
[TABLE]
and we define
[TABLE]
It follows that Tlog is an ordered subfield of T and R[[L]]∩T=Tlog. Moreover, as each group Ln is divisible, the fields R[[Ln]] and Tlog are real closed.
Let Γlog be the ordered R-vector space n>0⨁Rℓn, where α=i=0∑nriℓi+1>0 if rk>0 for the least k in {0,1,...,n} such that rk=0. We define a convex valuation v of Tlog as the unique map
[TABLE]
such that
- (1)
v(ℓ0r0ℓ1r1⋯ℓnrn)=−r0ℓ1−r1ℓ2−⋯−rnℓn+1,
2. (2)
v(f)=v(d(f)) for all f∈Tlog=0, where d(f):=max(supp(f)) is the dominant monomial of f.
3. (3)
v(0)=∞.
Thus, Tlog becomes an ordered valued field with valuation ring \mathcal{O}_{\log}=\mathbb{R}\oplus\mathchoice{{\scriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}{{\scriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}{\scalebox{0.7}{\scriptscriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}_{\log}, maximal ideal
[TABLE]
value group Γlog, and residue field R.
Now, since each positive element f∈Tlog can be decomposed as f=d(f)⋅fd(f)⋅(1+ϵ) where d(f)∈L, fd(f)∈R>0 is the leading coefficient of f and \epsilon\in\mathchoice{{\scriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}{{\scriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}{\scalebox{0.7}{\scriptscriptstyle\mathcal{O}}}_{\log} (see [9]), we may define the logarithm of f as
[TABLE]
where logR is the logarithm in R, Lu is the logarithm on 1-units given by
[TABLE]
and Lpre is the logarithmic section defined as Lpre(ℓ0r0ℓ1r1⋯ℓnrn)=r0ℓ1+⋯+rnℓn+1.
Under this definition we see that the map log is an ordered embedding from the multiplicative group Tlog>0 into the additive group Tlog, such that
[TABLE]
is an R-vector subspace of Tlog.
Additionally, the valuation and the logarithm are related by the following property, which is known as Growth Axiom(see [10]): for all f∈Tlog>0 with v(f)<0 we have that v(log(f))>v(f), which implies
[TABLE]
Moreover, the map log induce an extra structure in the value group Γlog given by the map
[TABLE]
defined as
[TABLE]
where χ′:Γlog<0→Γlog<0 is given by χ′(α)=v(log(f)) with f∈Tlog>0, and α=v(f)<0. We see that χ is well defined, since for f,g∈Tlog>0 with v(f)=v(g)<0 there is a positive unit h in Ologsuch that f=gh. Thus, log(f)=log(g)+log(h) and
[TABLE]
By definition of χ we have v(log(h))≥0 and v(log(g))<0, and then
[TABLE]
3 Precontraction groups
The notion of contraction map was used in [9] to study the structure of the value group of an exponential field and the theory of contraction groups was studied in [7, 8]. We list here some useful definitions and results of those papers. Specifically:
Definition 1**.**
Given a totally ordered abelian group Γ and a map χ:Γ→Γ, the pair (Γ,χ) is called a precontraction group and χ is called a precontraction map if it satisfies for all a,b∈Γ the following axioms:
- (1)
χ(a)=0↔a=0,
2. (2)
a≤b→χ(a)≤χ(b),
3. (3)
χ(−a)=−χ(a),
4. (4)
if a is archimedean equivalent to b and sign(a)=sign(b), then χ(a)=χ(b).
*If in addition χ is surjective then χ is called a contraction map and (Γ,χ) is called a contraction group. Moreover, (Γ,χ) will be called centripetal if ∀a∈Γ=0(∣a∣>∣χ(a)∣) and divisible if Γ is divisible.
Example 1**.**
The map χ defined in the value group Γlog of Tlog is a precontraction map. Moreover, since the ordered valued logarithmic field Tlog satisfies the Growth Axiom, then in fact (Γlog,χ) is a centripetal precontraction group.
Proof.
We already see that χ is well defined. Now, let v(f) be archimedean equivalent to v(g) with f,g∈Tlog>0 and v(f)≤v(g)<0, then there is a natural number n such that nv(g)=v(gn)≤v(f). By convexity of v we obtain that gn≥f≥g, and then log(gn)=nlog(g)≥log(f)≥log(g). Thus v(log(g))=v(log(f)) and χ(v(f))=χ(v(g)).
Finally, if v(f)<0 with f∈Tlog>0, then by Growth Axiom we have v(f)<v(log(f))=χ(v(f)). Thus, by definition of χ we conclude that ∣v(a)∣>∣χ(a)∣ for all a∈Γ=0, i.e. (Γlog,χ) is centripetal.
∎
From the axioms we have some useful consequences:
Lemma 2**.**
Let (Γ,χ) be a precontraction group and a,b∈Γ.
- (1)
Axiom (4) is equivalent to the single statement χ(2a)=χ(a).
2. (2)
χ(Γ<0)⊆Γ<0* and χ(Γ<0)=−χ(Γ>0).*
3. (3)
χ(a+b)≥min{χ(a),χ(b)}.
4. (4)
If χ(a)<χ(b)<0 then χ(a−b)=χ(a).
5. (5)
If 0<χ(a)<χ(b) then χ(b−a)=χ(b).
6. (6)
Let b>0>a. If χ(∣a∣)>χ(∣b)∣ then χ(a−b)=χ(a), and if χ(∣b∣)>χ(∣a∣) then χ(b−a)=χ(b).
Proof.
- (1)
We just have to show that the statement ∀a∈Γ χ(2a)=χ(a) implies axiom (4). First, by axiom (2) we can observe that if χ(2a)=χ(a) then χ(na)=χ(a) for all n∈N . Now, If a is archimedean equivalent to b and sign(a)=sign(b) then there is a natural number n such that n∣a∣≥∣b∣ and n∣b∣≥∣a∣, so χ(a)=χ(na)≥χ(b)=χ(nb)≥χ(a) and thus χ(a)=χ(b).
2. (2)
If a<0 then by axioms 1 and 2 we have χ(a)<0 and by axiom (3) we have χ(−a)=−χ(a)>0.
3. (3)
Without loss of generality we can assume that a<b. Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since χ(2x)=χ(x) for all x∈Γ, then
[TABLE]
so χ(a+b)≥min{χ(a),χ(b)}.
4. (4)
Since χ(a)<χ(b)<0 then a<b<0 and a−b>a. Thus χ(a−b)≥χ(a). On the other hand, as χ(b)>χ(a) and by item (3)
[TABLE]
then χ(a)≥χ(a−b). Thus, χ(a−b)=χ(a).
Items (5) and (6) follow of item (4).
∎
Working with the natural valuation of Γ, for example we have the following immediate properties:
Lemma 3**.**
Let (Γ,χ) be a precontraction group. Then
- (1)
For all a,b∈Γ, if v(a)≤v(b) then ∣χ(a)∣≥∣χ(b)∣.
2. (2)
For all a,b∈Γ, if v(a−b)>v(a) then χ(a)=χ(b).
3. (3)
For all a1,a2,...,an∈Γ, if v(ak)<v(ai) for all i=k then χ(i=1∑nai)=χ(ak).
4. (4)
(Γ,χ)* is a centripetal precontraction group if and only if v(χ(a))>v(a) for all a∈Γ=0.*
Now, the main result about contraction groups proved in [7, 8] is the following:
Theorem 4**.**
In the language of ordered groups expanded by a unary function symbol for the contraction map, the theory of nontrivial divisible centripetal contraction groups is complete, decidable, admits quantifier elimination and is weakly o-minimal111A theory in which an order is given or definable is called weakly o-minimal if in every model of this theory, each definable subset is a finite union of convex subsets. Moreover, if each one of such convex subsets is an interval, then we say that the theory is o-minimal, and it is the model completion of the theory of centripetal precontraction groups.
4 The theory Tpdg
A key feature of the centripetal precontraction group (Γlog,χ) is that the image of Γlog<0 by χ is a discrete set with first element and where the immediate successor of an element a∈χ(Γlog<0) is χ(a). Thus, to capture this property we introduce the following definition:
Definition 5**.**
Let Lpdg={+,−,0,<,χ,c}, be the language of ordered groups augmented by a unary function symbol χ and a constant symbol c. We say that a nontrivial centripetal precontraction group (Γ,χ) is a model of the Lpdg-theory Tpdg if:
- (1)
χ(Γ<0)* has a least element c,*
2. (2)
χ:χ(Γ<0)→χ(Γ<0)>c* is a bijection,*
3. (3)
∀a,b∈χ(Γ<0)* if a<b then a<χ(a)≤b*
4. (4)
Γ* is a divisible ordered group.*
From the above definition, we can see that each substructure S of a model of Tpdg is a centripetal precontraction group where χ(S<0) has a least element and χ(a) is the immediate successor of a for each a∈χ(S<0).
Example 2**.**
- (1)
Clearly, (Γlog,χ) is a model of Tpdg. Moreover,
[TABLE]
where χ(−ℓk)=−ℓk+1 and −ℓk<−ℓk+1.
2. (2)
Let ⊕iQei be a vector space over Q with ordered basis (ei). Under the usual lexicographic order, i.e.
[TABLE]
⊕iQei* becomes an ordered abelian group and if we define the function χQ:⊕iQei→⊕iQei as*
[TABLE]
with k the minimal index such that ak=0, then (⊕iQei,χQ) is a model of Tpdg.
In addition to the properties listed in lemmas 2 and 3, we can observe that if (Γ,χ) is a model of Tpdg, then the discrete set χ(Γ<0) is cofinal in Γ<0 since for all a∈Γ<0 we have a<χ(a). Now, although in the models of Tpdg the map χ is not surjective and we can not proceed as in [7] to prove the model completeness of Tpdg, here we will use the properties of the discrete set χ(Γ<0) to do that.
4.1 Some algebraic properties of models of Tpdg
First, we can observe the following:
Lemma 6**.**
If (Γ,χ) is a model of Tpdg, then Γ is a vector space over Q and χ(Γ<0) is a linearly independent subset of Γ.
Proof.
Since Γ is a divisible ordered group it follows that Γ is a vector space over Q. Moreover, given q1,q2,...,qn∈Q with q1=0 and a1,a2,...,an∈χ(Γ<0) with a1<a2<...<an then
[TABLE]
and if α=i=1∑nqiai then by lemma 2 we have that χ(α)=χ(a1) whenever q1>0 and χ(α)=−χ(a1) whenever q1<0. Thus α=0.
∎
Regarding the construction of new precontraction groups we have the following:
Lemma 7**.**
Let (Γ,χ) be a centripetal precontraction group and Δ⊆Γ be a nonempty convex subgroup such that if χ(x)∈Δ then x∈Δ for x∈Γ. Then:
- (1)
There is a unique order ≤′ in Γ/Δ has a such that Γ/Δ is an ordered abelian group in which if a≤b then a≤′b for a,b∈Γ.
2. (2)
The map χ′:Γ/Δ→Γ/Δ given by χ′(a)=χ(a) is well defined and makes (Γ/Δ,χ′) a centripetal precontraction group.
Proof.
Since the (1) is a general property of ordered abelian groups, it is enough to put a>0 if and only if a>Δ.
First we show that χ′ is well defined. To do that we prove that if a−b∈Δ then χ(a)−χ(b)∈Δ. If χ(a)=χ(b) then clearly χ(a)−χ(b)=0∈Δ. Now, if χ(a)=χ(b) then we have the following cases:
χ(a)>χ(b)>0. Thus, a−b>0 and by centripetal property we have a−b>χ(a−b)>0. Moreover, χ(a−b)=χ(a). So, a−b>χ(a)>χ(b)>0 which implies χ(a),χ(b)∈Δ and then χ(a)−χ(b).
χ(a)<χ(b)<0. Similar to the previous case.
a<0<b. Thus a<χ(a)<0<χ(b)<b, a−b<0 and a−b<χ(a−b)<0. Moreover, a−b<χ(a)−χ(b)<0 and then χ(a)−χ(b)∈Δ.
Now, since χ(x)∈Δ implies that x∈Δ, then we can prove that (Γ/Δ,χ′) is a centripetal precontraction group.
∎
4.2 Embedding lemmas
Let (Γ,χ),(Γ′,χ′) be precontraction groups. We say that (Γ′,χ′) is an extension of (Γ,χ) if Γ′ is an extension of Γ as valued groups χ(Γ)=χ′(Γ′)∩Γ and χ′(a)=χ(a) for a∈Γ. Moreover, we say that
[TABLE]
is an embedding of precontraction groups if ϕ:Γ→Γ′ is an embedding of ordered abelian groups such that
[TABLE]
From this definition it follows that if (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) are models of Tpdg, then we have the following possibilities: First we can have χ(Γ<0)=χ′(Γ′<0), which is always true if [Γ]=[Γ′] and some times when [Γ]=[Γ′]. Secondly, we can have χ(Γ<0)=χ′(Γ′<0), and here we have again two possibilities: either there is b∈χ′(Γ′<0) such that b>χ(Γ<0) or there is a nonempty lower cut G in χ(Γ<0) and b∈χ′(Γ′<0)∖χ(Γ<0) such that χ(G)⊆G and G<b<Γ>G.
Definition 8**.**
From now on, we call G⊆χ(Γ<0) a special cut if G is a lower cut in χ(Γ<0) such that χ(G)⊆G and we denote by scut(χ(Γ<0)) the collection of all special cuts of χ(Γ<0).
Based on Gehret’s work about the theory of the asymptotic couple of Tlog in [5], in the following we present some embedding lemmas which deal with the above cases and that will be used to prove the model completeness of Tpdg.
Case 1. (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) with [Γ]=[Γ′].
From [7, lemma 3.6] we have the following result:
Lemma 9**.**
Let (Γ,χ) be a centripetal precontraction group. Then for each extension (Γ′,<) of (Γ,<) such that [Γ]=[Γ′], χ extends in a unique way to a centripetal precontraction χ′ on Γ′ and we have χ(Γ′)=χ(Γ). Particularly, if QΓ=Q⊗ZΓ is the divisible hull of Γ then χ(QΓ)=χ(Γ), since every element in QΓ is archimedean equivalent to some element of Γ.
Using the quantifier elimination of the theory of divisible ordered abelian groups we have:
Lemma 10**.**
Let (Γ,χ),(Γ′,χ′) and (Γ∗,χ∗) be models of Tpdg, such that (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′), [Γ]=[Γ′], (Γ∗,χ∗) is k-saturated for some k>card(Γ′), and ϕ:(Γ,χ)→(Γ∗,χ∗) is an embedding, then there is an embedding ϕ′:(Γ′,χ′)→(Γ∗,χ∗) which extends ϕ.
Proof.
Since Γ,Γ′ and Γ∗ are divisible ordered abelian groups and such theory has quantifier elimination, then by saturation of (Γ∗,χ∗) there is an embedding ϕ′:Γ′→Γ∗ that extends the embedding ϕ:Γ→Γ∗. Moreover, if b∈Γ′, because [Γ]=[Γ′], there is a∈Γ such that [a]=[b] and sign(a)=sign(b). Thus, χ′(b)=χ′(a) and then
[TABLE]
but as [ϕ′(b)]=[ϕ(a)] in [Γ′], then χ∗(ϕ′(b))=χ∗(ϕ(a)). Finally, since ϕ is an embedding of centripetal divisible precontraction groups, then
[TABLE]
∎
Case 2. (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) with [Γ]=[Γ′] and χ(Γ<0)=χ′(Γ′<0).
From [7, lemma 3.3] we know that:
Lemma 11**.**
*Let (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) be precontraction groups. Let a∈Γ′ such that [a]∈/[Γ] and χ′(a)=b∈Γ. Then (Γ+Za,χa) is a precontraction group with χa(Γ+Za)=χ(Γ)∪{b,−b}⊂G. Moreover, the extension of χ from (Γ,χ) to Γ+Za is uniquely determined by the assignment χ′(a)=b.
If Γ is divisible, Γ+Qa is the divisible hull of Γ+Za. Thus, by lemmas 9 and 11 we have [Γ+Qa]=[Γ+Za] and the image under χa coincide. From this we have the following lemma:
Lemma 12**.**
Let (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) be models of Tpdg with χ(Γ<0)=χ′(Γ′<0), a∈Γ′<0 such that [a]∈/[Γ] and C is the lower cut in [Γ] defined by [a]. Then there is a model (Δ,χΔ) of Tpdg such that:
- (1)
(Γ,χ)⊂(Δ,χΔ)⊆(Γ′,χ′)* with [a]∈[ΓΔ], and*
2. (2)
for any embedding ϕ of (Γ,χ) into a model (Γ∗,χ∗) of Tpdg and each a′∈Γ∗<0 with [a′]∈/[ϕ(Γ)] which realize the cut {ϕ(x):x∈C}, there is a unique embedding ϕ′:(Δ,χΔ)→(Γ∗,χ∗) that extends ϕ with ϕ′(a)=a′.
Proof.
Let a∈Γ′<0 with [a]∈/[Γ] and b=χ′(a)∈Γ. We define (Δ,χΔ)=(Γ+Qa,χa′) where χa′ is the restriction of χ′ to Γ+Qa. As χ(Γ)=χ′(Γ) then χΔ(Δ)=χ(Γ), so χΔ(Δ) is a centripetal divisible precontraction group.
∎
Case 3. (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) with χ(Γ<0)=χ′(Γ′<0).
As we saw above if (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) are model of Tpdg and χ(Γ<0)=χ′(Γ′<0), we have two cases. First, we can have that there is b∈χ′(Γ′<0) such that b>χ(Γ<0). So we want to extend (Γ,χ) to a model (Δ,χΔ) of Tpdg in which b∈χΔ(Δ<0). To do that, we can observe that if b>χ(Γ<0), then χ′k(b)>χ(Γ<0) for any integer k, where χn+1(b)=χ(χn(b)), χ0(b)=b and χ−n(b)=c means that χn(c)=b. Thus, to define the model (Δ,χΔ) we need to add a copy of Z at the end of Γ<0. Specifically, we have:
Lemma 13**.**
Let (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) be divisible centripetal precontraction groups and (bn)n≥0 a family in χ(Γ′<0) such that bn+1=χ′(bn) and bn>χ(Γ) for all n≥0, then there is a divisible centripetal precontraction group (Γ′′,χ′′) such that:
- (1)
(Γ,χ)⊂(Γ′′,χ′′)⊆(Γ′,χ′)* with bn∈χ′′(Γ′′<0) for n>1, and*
2. (2)
for any embedding ϕ of (Γ,χ) into a divisible centripetal precontraction group (Γ∗,χ∗) and any family (bn′)n≥0 in χ∗(Γ∗<0) such that bn+1′=χ∗(bn′) and bn>ϕ(χ(Γ<0)) for n≥0, there is a unique embedding ϕ′:(Γ′′,χ′′)→(Γ∗,χ∗) which extends ϕ and such that ϕ′(bn)=bn′ for all n.
Proof.
Let ((Γi,χi)i≥0) be the family given by Γ0=Γ, Γn+1=Γn+Qbn and χn the restriction of χ′ to Γn. By lemma 11 (Γn,χn) is a divisible precontraction group for each n and since (Γn,χn)⊆(Γn+1,χn) and χ′(bn)=bn+1 then (Γ′′,χ′′)=∪i≥0(Γi,χi)⊆(Γ′,χ′) is a divisible centripetal precontraction group which extends (Γ,χ).
Now, by induction if we assume that ϕn:(Γn,χn)→(Γ∗,χ∗) is an embedding such that ϕn(bi)=bi′ for i∈{0,1,...,bn−1}, then by lemma 11 there is a unique embedding
[TABLE]
which extends ϕn and such that ϕn+1(bn)=bn′. Thus, there is a unique embedding
[TABLE]
which satisfies the required properties.
∎
Now, we use the above lemma to include the predecessors of the element b0 of the family:
Lemma 14**.**
Let (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) be divisible centripetal precontraction groups and (bk)k∈Z a family in χ(Γ′<0) such that bk+1=χ′(bk) and bk>χ(Γ) for all k∈Z, then there is a divisible centripetal precontraction group (Δ,χΔ) such that:
- (1)
(Γ,χ)⊂(Δ,χΔ)⊆(Γ′,χ′)* with bk∈χΔ(Δ<0) for all k∈Z, and*
2. (2)
for any embedding ϕ of (Γ,χ) into a divisible centripetal precontraction group (Γ∗,χ∗) and any family (bk′)k∈Z in χ∗(Γ∗<0) such that bk+1′=χ∗(bk′) and bk>ϕ(χ(Γ<0)) for k∈Z, there is a unique embedding ϕ′:(Δ,χΔ)→(Γ∗,χ∗) which extends ϕ and such that ϕ′(bk)=bk′ for all k.
Proof.
First for each n∈N we define the family (ain)i≥0 where ain=b−n+i for i≥0. Clearly, we have that ai+1n=χ′(ain) and ai+1n+1=ain. Now, using the lemma 13 for each family (ain)i≥0 we obtain a divisible centripetal precontraction group (Γn′′,χn′′) such that ai+1n∈χn′′((Γn′′)<0) and χn′′(ain)=ai+1n and a unique embedding ψn:(Γn′′,χn′′)→(Γn+1′′,χn+1′′) such that ψn(ain)=ai+1n+1. Thus we obtain the increasing chain
[TABLE]
and we define (Δ,χΔ)=∪n≥0(Γn′′,χn′′).
Now, if ϕ:(Γ,χ)→χ∗(Γ∗<0) is an embedding with (bk′)k∈Z a family in χ∗(Γ∗<0) such that bk+1′=χ∗(bk′) and bk>ϕ(χ(Γ<0)) for k∈Z, then by lemma 13 there is a unique embedding
[TABLE]
that extends ϕ and such that ϕn(ain)=ϕn(b−n+i)=b−n+i′. Moreover, ϕn⊆ϕn+1 because
[TABLE]
Thus we have that ϕ′=∪ϕn is the unique embedding from (Δ,χΔ) into (Γ∗,χ∗) that extends ϕ and such that ϕ′(bk)=bk′ for all k∈Z.
∎
On the other hand, if (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) are models of Tpdg, χ(Γ<0)=χ′(Γ′<0) and there is a nonempty special cut G in χ(Γ<0) and b∈χ(Γ′<0)∖χ(Γ<0) such that G<b<Γ>G, then there is a family (bk)k∈Z in χ′(Γ′<0) such that G<bk<Γ>G and bk+1=χ′(bk). So, in order to extend (Γ,χ) to a model (Δ,χΔ) of Tpdg in which b∈χΔ(Δ<0) we have to add a copy of Z between some specific elements of χ(Γ).
Lemma 15**.**
Let (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) be divisible centripetal precontraction groups, G be a nonempty special cut in χ(Γ<0) and (bk)k∈Z be a family in χ′(Γ′<0) such that G<bk<Γ>G with bk+1=χ′(bk), then there is a divisible centripetal precontraction group (ΔG,χG) such that:
- (1)
(Γ,χ)⊂(ΔG,χG)⊆(Γ′,χ′)* with bk∈χG(ΔG<0) for all k∈Z, and*
2. (2)
for any embedding ϕ of (Γ,χ) into a divisible centripetal precontraction group (Γ∗,χ∗) and any family (bk′)k∈Z in χ∗(Γ∗<0) such that bk+1′=χ∗(bk′) and ϕ(G)<bk′<ϕ(Γ>G), there is a unique embedding ϕ′:(ΔG,χG)→(Γ∗,χ∗) which extends ϕ and such that ϕ′(bk)=bk′ for all k.
Proof.
It is enough to take ΔG=Γ+⊕k∈ZQbk and χG the restriction of χ′ to ΔG.
∎
Under the hypothesis of the above lemma, for any element a∈Γ<0∖G we have bk<a<0 for all k∈Z, and by item 2 of lemma 2, we obtain
[TABLE]
Thus, taking ak=bk−a we can define ΔG=Γ+⊕k∈ZQak and χG the restriction of χ′ to ΔG, with bk∈χG(ΔG<0).
4.3 Model completeness of Tpdg
To prove the model completeness of Tpdg we use the following result (see [1, Corollary B.10.4.]):
Lemma 16**.**
The following are equivalent:
- (1)
Σ* is model complete;*
2. (2)
for all models M,N of Σ with M⊆N and every elementary extension M∗ of M that is k-saturated for some k>card(N), there is an embedding N→M∗ that extends the natural inclusion M→M∗.
Remark 1**.**
Let M,N,M∗ be models of Σ where M⊆N, M⪯M∗ and M∗ is k-saturated for some k>card(N). If we want to show that Σ is model complete, by the last lemma and Zorn’s lemma, it is enough to show that there is a substructure K of N that properly contains M, is model of Σ and embeds over M in M∗.
Under such observation, the model completeness of Tpdg is a consequence of the following theorem:
Theorem 17**.**
Let (Γ,χ),(Γ′,χ′) and (Γ∗,χ∗) be models of Tpdg, such that (Γ,χ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) and (Γ∗,χ∗) is a k-saturated elementary extension of (Γ,χ), with k>card(Γ′). Then there is a submodel (Δ,χΔ) of (Γ′,χ′) which properly extends (Γ,χ) such that (Δ,χΔ) embeds over (Γ,χ) in (Γ∗,χ∗).
Proof.
We call ϕ the embedding of (Γ,χ) into (Γ∗,χ∗) and just consider the following cases:
- (1)
[Γ]=[Γ′]: By lemma 10 it is enough to take (Δ,χΔ)=(Γ′,χ′).
2. (2)
[Γ]=[Γ′] and χ(Γ)=χ′(Γ): By hypothesis there is an element a∈Γ′<0 such that [a]∈/[Γ], and by lemma 12 there is a model (Δ,χΔ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) of Tpdg that properly extends (Γ,χ). By saturation we can extend the embedding ϕ:(Γ,χ)→(Γ∗,χ∗) to an embedding ϕ′:(Δ,χΔ)→(Γ∗,χ∗).
3. (3)
χ(Γ<0)=χ′(Γ<0) and there is b∈χ(Γ′<0) such that b>χ(Γ<0): If we define the family (bk)k∈Z of χ(Γ′<0) by b0=b, bk+1=χ′(bk) for k>0 and bk−1 as the unique element of χ(Γ′<0) such that χ(bk−1)=bk for k<0, then by lemma 14 there is a model (Δ,χΔ)⊆(Γ′,χ′) of Tpdg which properly extends (Γ,χ) and such that bk∈χΔ(Δ<0).
Using the saturation of (Γ∗,χ∗) we can find a family (bk′)k∈Z in (Γ∗,χ∗) such that bk′>ϕ(χ(Γ<0)) for all k∈Z and bk+1=χ∗(bk). Thus, again by lemma 14 there is a unique embedding
[TABLE]
that extends ϕ and such that ϕ′(bk)=bk′.
4. (4)
There is b∈χ′(Γ′<0)∖χ(Γ) such that b realize a special cut in χ(Γ<0): We define the set
[TABLE]
Since the models of Tpdg are centripetal precontraction groups then we have that χ(G)⊆G and by axioms (3) and (4) there is a family (bk)k∈Z in χ′(Γ′<0) such that G<bk<Γ>G, b0=b, bk+1=χ′(bk) for k>0 and bk−1 is the unique element of χ′(Γ′<0) such that χ(bk−1)=bk for k<0 then by lemma 15 there is a model (Δ,χΔ)=(ΔG,χG)⊆(Γ′,χ′) of Tpdg which properly extends (Γ,χ) and such that bk∈χΔ(Δ<0).
By saturation there is a family (bk′)k∈Z in (Γ∗,χ∗) such that ϕ(G)<bk′<ϕ(Γ>G), bk+1=χ∗(bk) for all k∈Z, and again by lemma 15 there is a unique embedding ϕ′:(Δ,χΔ)→(Γ∗,χ∗) that extends ϕ and such that ϕ′(bk)=bk′.
∎
Corollary 18**.**
Tpdg* is model complete.*
Now, we can observe that the model (⊕iQei,χQ) of Tpdg defined in the first example of section 4 embeds in any model (Γ,χ′) of Tpdg, since we can take any element b∈χ′(Γ<0), define the family (bn)n>0 such that b1=b and bn+1=χ′(bn), and identify the element −en with the element bn for all n≥1. Thus we obtain that Tpdg has a prime model and:
Corollary 19**.**
Tpdg* is complete.*
4.4 Quantifier elimination of Tpdg∗
Expanding the language Lpdg to Lpdg∗=Lpdg∪{∞,χ−1,δ1,δ2,δ3,...}, where ∞ is a constant symbol, χ−1 and δn for n>0 are unary function symbols, each model (Γ,χ) of Tpdg can be seen as a Lpdg∗-structure with underlying set Γ∞=Γ∪{∞} in which:
∞ is such that ∞∈/Γ, ∞+∞=χ(∞)=−∞=∞ and for all x∈Γ we have x+∞=∞, and
we interpret δn as division by n and χ−1 as a function from Γ∞ to Γ∞ such that its restriction
[TABLE]
is the inverse of χ:χ(Γ<0)→χ(Γ<0)>c, χ−1(0)=0,χ−1(c)=∞ and χ−1(a)=∞ for all a in Γ∞=0∖χ(Γ).
Thus, we define the theory Tpdg∗ as the Lpdg∗-theory whose models are the expansion of models of Tpdg.
Now, we observe that each Lpdg∗-substructure of a model of Tpdg∗ has a Tpdg∗-closure in the following sense:
Lemma 20**.**
Let (Γ,χ) be a model of Tpdg∗ and (Γ0,χ0) be a Lpdg∗-substructure of (Γ,χ). There is a model (Γ′,χ′) of Tpdg∗ such that
- (1)
(Γ′,χ′)⊆(Γ,χ), and
2. (2)
(Γ′,χ′)* can be embedded over (Γ0,χ0) into every model of Tpdg∗ which extends (Γ0,χ0).*
Proof.
If there is a∈Γ0 such that χ(a)=c, then in fact (Γ0,χ0) is a model of Tpdg∗ and we finish. Otherwise, there is a∈Γ<0 such that χ(a)=c, so we define Γ′ as the divisible ordered abelian group generated by Γ0∪{a}, and χ′=χ∣Γ′. Thus, (Γ′,χ′) is a model of Tpdg∗.
Finally, given any model (Γ∗,χ∗) of Tpdg∗ which extends (Γ0,χ0), there is b∈Γ∗ such that χ(b)=c. We see that a and b have the same type over Γ0. Thus, we define the embedding ϕ:(Γ′,χ′)→(Γ∗,χ∗) as ϕ(Γ0)=Γ0 and ϕ(a)=b.
∎
As a consequence of this lemma and mimicking the proof of the theorem 17, but considering Lpdg∗-structures instead of Lpdg-structures, we can prove that the Lpdg∗-theory Tpdg∗ has quantifier elimination.
4.5 Definable subsets of χ(Γ<0)
In this section we mimic the study made by Gehret in [2] about some definable sets in the asymptotic couple of Tlog and show that given a model (Γ,χ) of Tpdg∗, each definable subset of χ(Γ<0) is a finite union of intervals in χ(Γ<0) and singletons. Specifically, to prove such result we will use a special kind of functions called χ-functions222The notion of χ-function used here was inspired in the notion of χ-polynomial defined in [8].
Now, for any element a∈χ(Γ<0) and integer k<0 we put χk(x)=(χ−1)−k(x) and χ0(x)=x.
Definition 21**.**
We say that a function G:χ(Γ<0)→Γ is a χ-function333The notion of χ-function used here was inspired in the notion of χ-polynomial defined in [8] if it is constant or
[TABLE]
*for some n>0, k1<k2<...<kn in Z, q1,...,qn∈Q=0 and α∈Γ.
Since for each k∈Z<0, the χ-function χk(x) has image ∞ for x<χ−k(c) with x∈χ(Γ<0), and it is injective and strictly increasing in χ(Γ<0)k={x∈χ(Γ<0):x≥χ−k(c)}, then if for any χ-function G(x)=i=1∑nqiχki(x)+α we define
[TABLE]
then we have:
Lemma 22**.**
Let G:χ(Γ<0)→Γ be the χ-function given by G(x)=i=1∑nqiχki(x)+α, then
- (1)
G(a)=∞* for any a∈χ(Γ<0)∖DomG.*
2. (2)
G(x)* is injective on DomG.*
3. (3)
If q1>0 then G(x) is strictly increasing on DomG, and if q1<0 then G(x) is strictly decreasing on DomG.
Proof.
- (1)
If k1<0 then χk1(a)=∞ for all a<χ−kn(c). Now, if kn>0, then the proof is immediate.
2. (2)
If x∈DomG then χk1(x)<χk2(x)<...<χkn(x). So, if y,x∈DomG⊆χ(Γ<0) with y=x, then χki(y)=χki(x) for all 1≤i≤n, and by lemma 6 we have that G(x)=G(y).
3. (3)
If a,b∈DomG with a<b, then [a]<[b], χ(a)<χ(b) and by lemma 2 χ(a−b)=χ(a). Thus, for all i,j∈Z with i<j we have that
[TABLE]
and then
[TABLE]
So, since χk1(b)>χk1(a), we have that G(b)−G(a)=i=1∑nqi(χki(b)−χki(a))>0 if and only if q1>0.
∎
Since by lemma 6 we know that χ(Γ<0) is a linearly independent subset of Γ as Q-vector space, then depending on the constant value α we observe how many images has the restriction of the χ-function
[TABLE]
to DomG in χ(Γ<0):
Lemma 23**.**
Given the χ-function G(x)=i=1∑nqiχKi(x)+α then we have one of the following possibilities:
- (1)
α=0, n=1, q1=1 and G(χ(Γ<0))⊆χ(Γ<0), or
2. (2)
card(G(DomG)∩χ(Γ<0))≤2.
Proof.
Considering the element α we have two main cases: α does not belongs to spanQχ(Γ<0) or α belong to spanQχ(Γ<0). In the first case, G(x)∈/χ(Γ<0) for all x∈DomG. In the second case we can assume that for some natural m>0 there are r1,r2,...,rm∈Q and a1,a2,...,am∈χ(Γ<0) with a1<a2<...<an such that α=r1a1+r2a2+...+rmam. Clearly, if x∈DomG then G(x)∈χ(Γ<0) if and only if G(x)=χkh(x) for some 1≤h≤n or G(x)=as for some 1≤s≤m, which is possible only if all components except one of G(x) are canceled. We analyze the possible cases:
If m=0, i.e α=0 and n=1, q1=1 then for all x∈DomG we have G(x)=χk1(x)∈χ(Γ<0).
If ∣m−n∣>1 then for each element x of DomG the value of G(x) is a linear combination of at least two elements of χ(Γ<0). Thus, G(DomG)∩χ(Γ<0)=∅.
If m=n+1, then G(x) belongs χ(Γ<0) only if card({a1,a2,...,am}∩{χki(x):i∈{1,2,...,n}})=n. Thus if G(x)∈χ(Γ<0) we have only two possibilities or χk1(x)=a1 or χ(kn)=am. So, since G is injective on DomG then card(G(DomG)∩χ(Γ<0))≤2.
If m=n, then G(x) belongs χ(Γ<0) only if card({a1,a2,...,am}∩{χki(x):i∈{1,2,...,n}})=n or equivalent χki(x)=ai for all 1≤i≤n. Since G is injective on DomG then
[TABLE]
If n=m+1, then analysis is similar to the case m=n+1.
∎
Clearly if G(x) and H(x) are two χ-functions then G(x)+H(x), G(x)−H(x) and δn(G(x)) for all n>0 are again χ-functions. Thus
Lemma 24**.**
The set of χ-functions is closed under +,−,δn.
On the other hand, although the composition χ(G(x)) of χ and a χ-function G(x) is not necessarily a χ-function, we can prove that χ(G(x)) is given piecewise by χ-functions (lemma 25), which means that there are a1,a2,...,an∈χ(Γ0)∪{0} with c=a1<a2<...<an=0 such that for any i∈{1,2,...,n−1} the restriction of χ(G(x)) to [ai,ai+1)χ is given by a χ-function.
To prove this, we first observe that by lemma 6, for any element θ=i=1∑nqiai of Γ where q1,q2,...,qn∈Q=0 and a1,a2,...,an∈χ(Γ<0) with a1<a2<...<an, we have that χ(θ)=χ(a1) if q1>0 and χ(θ)=−χ(a1) if q1<0. Thus we have:
Lemma 25**.**
Let G(x) be a χ-function. Then χ(G(x)) is given piecewise by χ-functions.
Proof.
If G(x) is constant, then χ(G(x)) is also a constant, which means that χ(G(x)) is a χ-function. And if G(x)=i=1∑nqiχki(x)+α then clearly, for all x∈χ(Γ<0)∖DomG we have χ(G(x))=χ(∞)=∞ which is constant. So, from now on G(x) will be a χ-function of the form G(x)=i=1∑nqiχki(x)+α and we will focus on the values of G on DomG.
If α=0 by the above lemma χ(G(x))=sign(q1)χ(χk1(x)) for all x∈DomG. Putting now α=0 and θ(x)=i=1∑nqiχKi(x) we have χ(G(x))=χ(θ(x)+α).
Without loss of generality we can assume q1>0. Thus χ(θ(x))=χ(χk1(x)) for all x∈DomG, and there is a unique x0∈χ(Γ<0) such that ∣χ(α)∣=∣x0∣. Thus we have two possibilities:
- (1)
∣χ(θ(x))∣=∣x0∣ for all x∈DomG. If χ(α)=x0 then either x0<χ(θ(x)) for all x∈DomG and χ(G(x))=x0 for all x∈DomG, or there is a unique x1∈DomG such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Now, if χ(α)=−x0 then χ(G(x))=χ(χk1(x)) for all x∈DomG.
2. (2)
There is a unique x1∈DomG such that ∣χ(θ(x1))∣=∣x0∣. We can see that χ(G(x)) has the same behavior for all x=x1 that in the previous case . However, if x=x1 then we have the following cases: If χ(α)=x0 then χ(G(x))=x0, but if χ(α)=−x0 then:
Let α1=α+q1χk1(x). If χ(α1)=χ(χk1(x)) then χ(G(x))=χ(χk1(x)). In other case, we compare ∣χ(χk2(x))∣ with ∣χ(α1)∣. If ∣χ(χk2(x))∣=∣χ(α1)∣ then the value of G(x) is determined by the min{sign(q2)χ(χk2(x)),χ(α1)}. If ∣χ(χk2(x))∣=∣χ(α1)∣ then we have two cases, if sign(q2)χ(χk2(x))=χ(α1) then χ(G(x))=sign(q2)χ(χk2(x)), but if not, then we define α2=α1+q2χk2(x) and repeat the analysis done for α1. This process is finite because in the possible last step we analyze αn=αn−1+qnχkn(x).
In conclusion, for each χ-function G(x)=i=1∑nqiχki(x)+α, χ(G(x)) is given piecewise by χ-functions.
∎
From lemmas 23, 24 and 25 we obtain:
Proposition 26**.**
Let t(x):Γ→Γ be an Lpdg∗-term and G:χ(Γ<0)→Γ the restriction of t to χ(Γ<0). Then G is given piecewise by χ-functions.
Proof.
The proof follows from lemmas 23, 24 and 25 doing induction on the complexity of the Lpdg∗-terms.
∎
As a consequence of this proposition and the quantifier elimination in Tpdg∗ we have:
Corollary 27**.**
*Every definable A⊆χ(Γ<0) is a finite union of intervals in χ(Γ<0) and singletons.
Remark 2**.**
*For each model (Γ,χ) of Tpdg∗, the definable set χ(Γ<0) is infinite and discrete, so (Γ,χ) is not weakly o-minimal.
Now, if we expand the language Lpdg∗ by a new constant symbol d and define the theory Tpdg∗∗ as
[TABLE]
then Tpdg∗∗ has quantifier elimination and a universal axiomatization. Thus, from proposition 26 we have the following:
Theorem 28**.**
Let G:χ(Γ<0)→Γ be a definable function. Then G is given piecewise by χ-functions.
Proof.
Since Tpdg∗∗ has quantifier elimination and has a universal axiomatization, then by corollary B.11.15 of [1] there are Lpdg∗∗-terms t1(x),t2(x),...,tn(x) such that G(x)=tk(x) for x∈χ(Γ0) and some k∈{1,2,...,n}. Thus, by proposition 26 the restriction of G(x) to
[TABLE]
is given piecewise by χ-functions.
∎
4.6 Simple extensions
Let M=(M,χM) be a monster model of Tpdg∗ and (Γ,χ) a small submodel of M. In this section we show that each simple extension Γ⟨a⟩ for a∈M∖Γ of Γ is isomorphic to a specific extension of Γ obtained utilizing the extensions given in lemmas 14 and 15.
To do that, first we will combine the lemmas 14 and 15 to define extensions of Γ which are built including many copies of Z in a specific and ordered way. Specifically, if scutop(χ(Γ<0)) denote the linear ordered set of the elements G⊆χ(Γ<0) such that χ(Γ<0)∖G is a special cut of χ(Γ<0) and where G1≤G2 in scutop(χ(Γ<0)) if and only if G2⊆G1, then given an ordinal δ and an increasing function f:δ→scutop(χ(Γ<0))∖{χ(Γ<0)}, for each f(α) with α<δ we want to include a specific copy of Z between χ(Γ<0)∖f(α) and f(α). Moreover, if δ=β+1, it may happen that f(β)=∅, which means that we have to include a copy of Z at the end of χ(Γ<0).
Lemma 29**.**
Let δ be an ordinal. Given a increasing function f:δ→scutop(χ(Γ<0))∖{χ(Γ<0)}, there is a model (Γf,χf) of Tpdg and a family (bk,ρ)k∈Z,ρ<δ in χ(Γf<0) such that:
- (1)
(Γ,χ)⊂(Γf,χf),
2. (2)
Γ<f(ρ)<bk,ρ<f(ρ)* and χf(bk,ρ)=bk+1,ρ for all k∈Z, and ρ<δ,*
3. (3)
bk1,ρ1<bk2,ρ2* for all k1,k2∈Z and ρ1<ρ2<δ, and*
4. (4)
*for any embedding ϕ of (Γ,χ) into a model (Γ∗,χ∗) of Tpdg and any family (bn,k∗)n∈Z,k<δ in *χ(Γ∗<0)such that ϕ(Γ<f(ρ))<bk,ρ<ϕ(f(ρ)) and χ∗(bk,ρ∗)=bk+1,ρ∗ for all k∈Z, and ρ<δ, and bk1,ρ1∗<bk2,ρ2∗ for all k1,k2∈Z and ρ1<ρ2<δ, there is a unique embedding ϕ′ from (Γf,χf) into (Γ∗,χ∗) which extends ϕ and such that ϕ′(bk,ρ)=bk,ρ∗ for all k∈Z and ρ<δ.
Proof.
The proof is by induction on δ and we only have to observe that for the successor step, if δ=β+1, then by inductive hypothesis there is an extension (Γf∣β,χf∣β) of (Γ,χ) corresponding to
[TABLE]
and f(β)∈scutop(χ(Γf∣β<0)).
∎
Now, to study the simple extension Γ⟨a⟩ of Γ with a∈M∖Γ, we consider first if (Γ⊕Qa)<0 is closed under χ and to do that we use the set
[TABLE]
Specifically, we have the following results:
Lemma 30**.**
**
- (1)
For all x∈M<0 and y∈ΔΓ with x<y, x∈ΔΓ if and only if x∈χ(Γ<0).
2. (2)
For all x∈χ(Γ<0) and y∈ΔΓ∩χ(Γ<0), if x<y then x∈ΔΓ∩χ(Γ<0).
3. (3)
card(ΔΓ∖χ(Γ<0))≤1.
4. (4)
If ΔΓ∖χ(Γ<0)={b} with b∈χ(M<0)∖χ(Γ<0), then b realize the special cut
[TABLE]
in χ(Γ<0)
Proof.
- (1)
Let y=χ(b+qa) for some b∈Γ and q∈Q=0. If x∈ΔΓ, then x=χ(d+ra) for some d∈Γ and r∈Q=0. Without loss of generality we can assume that q,r>0. Thus, x=χ(rqd+qa) and since x<y<0 then
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if x∈χ(Γ<0) then x=χ(d) for some d∈Γ<0. Thus
[TABLE]
If q<0 or r<0, the demonstration is similar.
2. (2)
It follows from (1).
3. (3)
If we assume that there are x,y∈ΔΓ∖χ(Γ<0), with x<y, then since x,y∈ΔΓ then by item (1) we obtain that x∈χ(Γ<0), a contradiction.
4. (4)
It follows by items (2) and (3).
∎
As a consequence of the above, we have two possibilities χ(ΔΓ)⊆ΔΓ or χ(ΔΓ)∖ΔΓ=∅. Hence it follows that:
Corollary 31**.**
Exactly one of the following is true:
- (1)
There is a nonempty special cut B in χ(Γ<0) such that ΔΓ=B.
2. (2)
There is b∈χ(Γ<0) such that ΔΓ=(χ(Γ<0))≤b⊆χ(Γ<0).
3. (3)
There is a nonempty special cut B in χ(Γ<0) and b∈χ(M<0)∖χ(Γ<0) such that B<b, b<(χ(Γ<0)∖B) and ΔΓ=B∪{b}
As a particular case, if ΔΓ⊆χ(Γ<0) then the ordered divisible abelian subgroup Γ⊕Qa of M is closed under χ and Γ⟨a⟩=(Γ⊕Qa,χ). In general we have the following:
Theorem 32**.**
If a∈M∖Γ, then Γ⟨a⟩ is isomorphic over Γ to one of the following:
- (1)
Γf* for some increasing function f:n→scutop(Γ)∖{χ(Γ<0)} and some natural n.*
2. (2)
Γf⊕Qa* for some increasing function f:n→scutop(Γ)∖{χ(Γ<0)} and some natural n*
3. (3)
Γf⊕Qa* for some increasing function f:ω→scutop(Γ)∖{χ(Γ<0)}*
Proof.
The main idea of the proof is to construct by induction a chain Γ0⊆Γ1⊆Γ2⊆...⊆Γ⟨a⟩ of models of Tpdg∗ in the model M, each one isomorphic to Γf for some increasing function
[TABLE]
To do that, we put first Γ0=Γ. Clearly, Γ0 is isomorphic to Γf for f:0→scutop(Γ)∖{χ(Γ<0)}. Assume we have built Γn with n∈N and Γn≅Γf for some increasing f:n→scutop(Γ)∖{χ(Γ<0)} then we have two possibilities:
- (1)
Γn=Γ⟨a⟩, and then Γ⟨a⟩≅Γf.
2. (2)
a∈/Γn. Thus we consider the set ΔΓn for Γn, and we have other two cases:
ΔΓn⊆χ(Γn). Thus, we put Γn+1=Γn⊕Qa. So, Γ⟨a⟩≅Γf=Γn+1 and Γf≅Γf⊕Qa.
χ(ΔΓn)∖ΔΓ. Here, ΔΓn=B∪{b} for some special cut B⊆χ(Γn<0) and b∈χ(M<0)∖χ(Γn<0) with B<b<(χ(Γn<0∖B. Thus, we define Γn+1 as the model of Tpdg given by lemma 15 by including the copy of Z corresponding to b. Thus, there is g:n+1→scutop(Γ)∖{χ(Γ<0)} such that Γn+1≅Γg.
Now, if Γ⟨a⟩=Γn for some n we have finish. Otherwise, we put Γ⟨a⟩=∪nFn⊕Qa. By construction, Γ⟨a⟩≅Γf⊕Qa for some increasing f:ω→scutop(Γ)∖{χ(Γ<0)}.
∎
Example 3**.**
- (1)
Let (⊕iQei,χQ)⊆(Γlog,χ) be the model of Tpdg considered in the first example of section 4, r∈R<0∖Q and a=rem∈Γlog∖⊕iQei, for some m. Since for each b+qa∈(Γlog+Q=0a)<0 the entry m never is [math], then
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
where χ′ is the restriction of χ to ⊕iQei⊕Q.
2. (2)
Let (Γ,χ) be a model of Tpdg and (Γf,χf) be a fixed extension of (Γ,χ) for some increasing function
[TABLE]
with n≥1. Let’s take one element aj∈(spanQ(bk,j)k∈Z)=0 for each j<n, where (bk,j)k∈Z are the elements of the j-th copy of Z added to Γ in Γf. Given c∈Γ we define the element
[TABLE]
Thus, Γ⟨a⟩=Γf.
Acknowledgements The author thank Lou van den Dries and Xavier Caicedo for the helpful remarks and suggestions. Particularly, this paper was written with the support of the research fund of the faculty of sciences at the Universidad de los Andes, within the framework of the ”Convocatoria 2018-1 para la financiación de Proyectos de Investigación y Participación en Eventos Académicos categoria Estudiantes de Doctorado” and the project INV-2017-26-1141.