Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:25:19.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEFINABLE HENSELIAN VALUATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2015

FRANZISKA JAHNKE  and
JOCHEN KOENIGSMANN
FRANZISKA JAHNKE
Affiliation:
INSTITUT FÜR MATHEMATISCHE LOGIK, EINSTEINSTR. 62, 48149 MÜNSTER, GERMANYE-mail: franziska.jahnke@wwu.de
JOCHEN KOENIGSMANN
Affiliation:
MATHEMATICAL INSTITUTE, WOODSTOCK ROAD, OXFORD OX2 6CG, UKE-mail: koenigsmann@maths.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this note we investigate the question when a henselian valued field carries a nontrivial ∅-definable henselian valuation (in the language of rings). This is clearly not possible when the field is either separably or real closed, and, by the work of Prestel and Ziegler, there are further examples of henselian valued fields which do not admit a ∅-definable nontrivial henselian valuation. We give conditions on the residue field which ensure the existence of a parameter-free definition. In particular, we show that a henselian valued field admits a nontrivial henselian ∅-definable valuation when the residue field is separably closed or sufficiently nonhenselian, or when the absolute Galois group of the (residue) field is nonuniversal.

Keywords

Primary: 03C4012E3012J10. Secondary: 03C6012L12Valuationshenselian valued fieldsdefinable valuationsabsolute Galois groups
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 85 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adler, Hans, An introduction to theories without the independence property. Archive for Mathematical Logic, to appear, 2008.Google Scholar
Anscombe, Will and Koenigsmann, Jochen, An existential ∅-definition of Fq[[t]] in Fq((t)), this Journal, vol. 79 (2014), no. 4, pp. 1336–1343.Google Scholar
Bröcker, Ludwig, Characterization of fans and hereditarily Pythagorean fields. Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 151 (1976), no. 2, pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
Cluckers, Raf, Derakhshan, Jamshid, Leenknegt, Eva, and Macintyre, Angus, Uniformly defining valuation rings in Henselian valued fields with finite or pseudo-finite residue fields. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 164 (2013), no. 12, pp. 1236–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delon, Françoise and Farré, Rafel, Some model theory for almost real closed fields, this Journal, vol. 61 (1996), no. 4, pp. 1121–1152.Google Scholar
Engler, Antonio J. and Prestel, Alexander, Valued Fields, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.Google Scholar
Fehm, Arno, Existential ∅-definability of henselian valuation rings, this Journal, vol. 80 (2015), no. 1, pp. 301–307.Google Scholar
Fried, Michael D. and Jarden, Moshe, Field Arithmetic, third ed., Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge, A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics, vol. 11, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008, Revised by Jarden.Google Scholar
Hong, Jizhan, Definable non-divisible Henselian valuations. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 46 (2014), no. 1, pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
Jahnke, Franziska and Koenigsmann, Jochen, Uniformly definining p-henselian valuations, 2014, preprint, available on ArXiv:1407.8156 [math.LO].Google Scholar
Kaplan, Itay, Scanlon, Thomas, and Wagner, Frank O., Artin-Schreier extensions in NIP and simple fields. Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 185 (2011), pp. 141–153.Google Scholar
Koenigsmann, Jochen, p-Henselian fields. Manuscripta Mathematica, vol. 87 (1995), no. 1, pp. 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenigsmann, Jochen, Encoding valuations in absolute Galois groups, Valuation theory and its applications, Vol. II (Saskatoon, SK, 1999), Fields Institute Communications, vol. 33, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003, pp. 107–132.Google Scholar
Koenigsmann, Jochen, Elementary characterization of fields by their absolute Galois group. Siberian Advances in Mathematics, vol. 14 (2004), no. 3, pp. 16–42.Google Scholar
Koenigsmann, Jochen, Products of absolute Galois groups. International Mathematics Research Notics, vol. 24 (2005), pp. 1465–1486.Google Scholar
Nikolov, Nikolay and Segal, Dan, On finitely generated profinite groups. I. Strong completeness and uniform bounds. Annals of Mathematics (2), vol. 165 (2007), no. 1, pp. 171–238.Google Scholar
Prestel, Alexander, Definable henselian valuation rings, 2014, preprint, available on ArXiv:1401.4813 [math.AC].Google Scholar
Prestel, Alexander and Ziegler, Martin, Model-theoretic methods in the theory of topological fields. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, vol. 299, 300 (1978), pp. 318–341.Google Scholar
Wagner, Frank O., Simple Theories, Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 503, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000.Google Scholar