## Abstract We study the structure of Σ^1^~1~ equivalence relations on hyperarithmetical subsets of ω under reducibilities given by hyperarithmetical or computable functions, called h‐reducibility and FF‐reducibility, respectively. We show that the structure is rich even when one fixes the number o
On Σ-definability without equality over the real numbers
✍ Scribed by Andrei S. Morozov; Margarita V. Korovina
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2008
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 139 KB
- Volume
- 54
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0044-3050
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
In [5] (1982) it has been shown that for first‐order definability over the reals there exists an effective procedure which by a finite formula with equality defining an open set produces a finite formula without equality that defines the same set. In this paper we prove that there exists no such procedure for Σ‐definability over the reals. We also show that there exists even no uniform effective transformation of the definitions of Σ‐definable sets (i. e., Σ‐formulas) into new definitions of Σ‐definable sets in such a way that the results will define open sets, and if a definition defines an open set, then the result of this transformation will define the same set. These results highlight the important differences between Σ‐definability with equality and Σ‐definability without equality. (© 2008 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
In this paper we prove, under the assumption that the Soule´regulator map is injective, that, for all integers k50, the description by the local Tamagawa number conjecture for CM elliptic curves defined over Q, corresponding to the values of their L-functions at k þ 2, is true.
The number of points on the curve aY e =bX e +c (abc{0) defined over a finite field F q , q#1 (mod e), is known to be obtainable in terms of Jacobi sums and cyclotomic numbers of order e with respect to this field. In this paper, we obtain explicitly the Jacobi sums and cyclotomic numbers of order e
The expression q n(n&1)Â4 should be replaced with the expression q (n+2)(n&1)Â4 in the first displayed equation in the statement of Theorem 1.2 (page 427), as well as in the first displayed equation in the statement of Proposition 3.2.1 (page 445) and in the displayed equation at the bottom of page