This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

A note on geometric theories of fields

(Date: September 19, 2025)
Abstract.

Let TT be a complete theory of fields, possibly with extra structure. Suppose that model-theoretic algebraic closure agrees with field-theoretic algebraic closure, or more generally that model-theoretic algebraic closure has the exchange property. Then TT has uniform finiteness, or equivalently, it eliminates the quantifier \exists^{\infty}. It follows that very slim fields in the sense of Junker and Koenigsmann are the same thing as geometric fields in the sense of Hrushovski and Pillay. Modulo some fine print, these two concepts are also equivalent to algebraically bounded fields in the sense of van den Dries.

From the proof, one gets a one-cardinal theorem for geometric theories of fields: any infinite definable set has the same cardinality as the field. We investigate whether this extends to interpretable sets. We show that positive dimensional interpretable sets must have the same cardinality as the field, but zero-dimensional interpretable sets can have smaller cardinality. As an application, we show that any geometric theory of fields has an uncountable model with only countably many finite algebraic extensions.

1. Introduction

Throughout the paper, TT denotes a complete theory. We use acl()\operatorname{acl}(-) to denote the model-theoretic algebraic closure. When TT expands the theory of fields, we use ()alg(-)^{\mathrm{alg}} to denote the field-theoretic algebraic closure. Following Hrushovski, Pillay, and Gagelman [HP94, Gag05], we say that TT is geometric if (1)–(2) hold and pregeometric if (1) holds:

  1. (1)

    acl()\operatorname{acl}(-) satisfies the exchange property.

  2. (2)

    TT eliminates \exists^{\infty}, or equivalently, TT has uniform finiteness.

A (pre)geometric structure is a structure MM whose complete theory is (pre)geometric.

Using a simple argument, we show that pregeometric fields are geometric (Theorem 2.5). This seems to not be well-known. For example, it is implicitly unknown in [HP94, Remark 2.12], and a special case of this implication is asked as an open problem in [JK10, Question 1].

As a consequence of Theorem 2.5, several concepts in the literature are equivalent, namely the very slim fields of Junker and Koenigsmann [JK10, Definition 1.1], the geometric fields of Hrushovski and Pillay [HP94, Remark 2.10], and (modulo some fine print) the algebraically bounded fields of van den Dries [vdD89].

Our method also shows that in a geometric field, any infinite definable set has the same cardinality as the field (Proposition 3.1), which may be of independent interest. It is natural to ask whether this extends to interpretable sets. In Proposition 3.6, we show that if XX is an interpretable set of positive dimension, then |X|=|K||X|=|K|, but there are models where all the zero-dimensional interpretable sets satisfy |X|<|K||X|<|K|. As an application, there is an uncountable model KK with only countably many finite algebraic extensions (Corollary 4.3), which may be of interest to field theorists. In the special case of ω\omega-free perfect PAC fields, this recovers examples such as [BSP13, Example 2.2].

Acknowledgments.

The first author was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12101131). The second author was partially supported by GeoMod AAPG2019 (ANR-DFG), Geometric and Combinatorial Configurations in Model Theory and the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1928930 while the second author participated in a program hosted by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California during Summer 2022. The second author would also like to thank Arno Fehm for interesting discussions.

2. Uniform finiteness from the exchange property

If MM is a geometric structure, there is a well-established dimension theory on MM defined as follows. If AMA\subseteq M and aa is a tuple, we define dim(a/A)\dim(a/A) to be the length of the maximal aclA\operatorname{acl}_{A}-independent subtuple of aa. This is well-defined by the exchange property. If XX is an AA-definable subset of MnM^{n}, we define dim(X)=max{dim(x/A):xX(𝕌)}\dim(X)=\max\{\dim(x/A):x\in X(\mathbb{U})\} for some monster model 𝕌M\mathbb{U}\succeq M.

Fact 2.1.

Let MM be a pregeometric structure, and X,YX,Y be definable sets.

  1. (1)

    dim(X)\dim(X) is well-defined, independent of the choice of AA.

  2. (2)

    dim(X)>0|X|=\dim(X)>0\iff|X|=\infty.

  3. (3)

    dim(X×Y)=dim(X)+dim(Y)\dim(X\times Y)=\dim(X)+\dim(Y).

  4. (4)

    dim(Mn)=n\dim(M^{n})=n unless MM is finite.

  5. (5)

    If f:XYf:X\to Y is a definable injection or surjection, then dim(X)dim(Y)\dim(X)\leq\dim(Y) or dim(X)dim(Y)\dim(X)\geq\dim(Y), respectively.

Gagelman observed that the dimension theory can also be extended to MeqM^{\mathrm{eq}}. If aMeqa\in M^{\mathrm{eq}}, then dim(a/A)\dim(a/A) is defined to be dim(b/Aa)dim(b/A)\dim(b/Aa)-\dim(b/A) for any tuple bb with aacleq(Ab)a\in\operatorname{acl}^{\mathrm{eq}}(Ab). If XX is an interpretable set, then dim(X)\dim(X) is defined as for definable sets. By [Gag05, Lemma 3.3], these definitions are well-defined, and all of Fact 2.1 holds except for (4) and the \Leftarrow direction of (2) [Gag05, Proposition 3.4 and p. 321].

Lemma 2.2.

Let KK be a pregeometric field. Then KK is perfect.

Proof.

Otherwise, KK is an infinite field of characteristic pp. Take aKKpa\in K\setminus K^{p}. Then the map

f(x,y)xp+aypf(x,y)\mapsto x^{p}+ay^{p}

is a definable injection f:K×KKf:K\times K\to K. But dim(K2)=2>dim(K)=1\dim(K^{2})=2>\dim(K)=1, as KK is infinite. ∎

Lemma 2.3.

Let KK be a field and XX be a subset. Then one of the following holds:

  1. (1)

    The set S={(yy)/(xx):x,y,x,yX,xx}S=\{(y-y^{\prime})/(x^{\prime}-x):x,y,x^{\prime},y^{\prime}\in X,~x\neq x^{\prime}\} equals KK.

  2. (2)

    There is an injection f:X2Kf:X^{2}\to K of the form f(x,y)=ax+yf(x,y)=ax+y.

Proof.

If aKSa\in K\setminus S, then the function f(x,y)=ax+yf(x,y)=ax+y is injective on X2X^{2}. ∎

Lemma 2.4.

Let KK be an infinite pregeometric field, and let XKX\subseteq K be definable. Then XX is infinite if and only if K={(yy)/(xx):x,y,x,yX,xx}K=\{(y-y^{\prime})/(x^{\prime}-x):x,y,x^{\prime},y^{\prime}\in X,~x\neq x^{\prime}\}.

Proof.

If XX is infinite, then dim(X)>0\dim(X)>0, so dim(X2)2>dim(K)=1\dim(X^{2})\geq 2>\dim(K)=1 and there are no definable injections f:X2Kf:X^{2}\to K. Therefore case (2) of Lemma 2.3 cannot hold, so (1) holds. Conversely, if XX is finite, then case (1) of Lemma 2.3 cannot hold, as the set SS would be finite. ∎

Theorem 2.5.

Let TT be a complete theory of fields, possibly with extra structure. If TT is pregeometric, then TT is geometric.

Proof.

It suffices to eliminate \exists^{\infty}. If models of TT are finite, then \exists^{\infty} is trivially eliminated. If the models of TT are infinite, then Lemma 2.4 gives a first-order criterion for telling whether a definable set XKX\subseteq K is infinite. ∎

The proof of Theorem 2.5 is the same argument used in [Joh18, Obeservation 3.1].

Remark 2.6.

Let (K,+,,)(K,+,\cdot,\ldots) be a field, possibly with extra structure. If acl()\operatorname{acl}(-) agrees with field-theoretic algebraic closure, then acl()\operatorname{acl}(-) satisfies exchange.

Definition 2.7 (Junker-Koenigsmann [JK10, Definition 1.1]).

A field KK is very slim if acl()\operatorname{acl}(-) agrees with field-theoretic algebraic closure in any elementary extension of KK.

Definition 2.8 (Hrushovski-Pillay [HP94, Remark 2.10]).

A strongly geometric field is a perfect field (K,+,)(K,+,\cdot) with a geometric theory that is very slim.

Hrushovski and Pillay call these geometric fields, but we prefer the term strongly geometric to distinguish strongly geometric fields from the more general case of fields that are geometric (as structures). There are geometric fields that are not strongly geometric (Remark 2.16).

Corollary 2.9.

A field KK is very slim if and only if it is strongly geometric.

Proof.

If KK is very slim, then KK is pregeometric, hence geometric by Theorem 2.5 and perfect by Lemma 2.2 (or [JK10, Proposition 4.1]). ∎

Definition 2.10 (van den Dries [vdD89]).

Let (K,+,,)(K,+,\cdot,\ldots) be an expansion of a field, and FF be a subfield. Then KK is algebraically bounded over FF if for any formula φ(x¯,y)\varphi({\bar{x}},y), there are finitely many polynomials P1,,PmF[x¯,y]P_{1},\ldots,P_{m}\in F[{\bar{x}},y] such that for any a¯{\bar{a}}, if φ(a¯,K)\varphi({\bar{a}},K) is finite, then φ(a¯,K)\varphi({\bar{a}},K) is contained in the zero set of Pi(a¯,y)P_{i}({\bar{a}},y) for some ii such that Pi(a¯,y)P_{i}({\bar{a}},y) does not vanish. Following the convention in [vdD89, JK10] we say that KK is algebraically bounded if it is algebraically bounded over KK.

Lemma 2.11.

Suppose KK is algebraically bounded over some subfield FF.

  1. (1)

    If AA is a subset of KK, then acl(AF)\operatorname{acl}(AF) is the field-theoretic relative algebraic closure (AF)algK(AF)^{\mathrm{alg}}\cap K.

  2. (2)

    KK has uniform finiteness.

  3. (3)

    If KK^{*} is an elementary extension of KK, then KK^{*} is algebraically bounded over FF.

Proof.
  1. (1)

    Clearly (AF)algKacl(AF)(AF)^{\mathrm{alg}}\cap K\subseteq\operatorname{acl}(AF). Conversely if bacl(AF)b\in\operatorname{acl}(AF), then bb is in a finite set φ(a¯,K)\varphi({\bar{a}},K) for some tuple a¯{\bar{a}} from AFAF. By algebraic boundedness, φ(a¯,K)\varphi({\bar{a}},K) is contained in a finite zero set of some polynomial P(a¯,y)P({\bar{a}},y), where P(x¯,y)F[x¯,y]P({\bar{x}},y)\in F[{\bar{x}},y]. Therefore bb is field-theoretically algebraic over AFAF.

  2. (2)

    For a fixed formula φ(x¯,y)\varphi({\bar{x}},y), let P1,,PmF[x¯,y]P_{1},\ldots,P_{m}\in F[{\bar{x}},y] be polynomials as in Definition 2.10. Then the cardinality of finite sets of the form φ(a¯,K)\varphi({\bar{a}},K) is bounded by the maximum of the degrees of the PiP_{i}’s.

  3. (3)

    By (2), the theory of KK has uniform finiteness, and so \exists^{\infty} is uniformly eliminated across elementary extension of KK. It follows that for fixed φ,P1,,Pm\varphi,P_{1},\ldots,P_{m}, the following condition is perserved in elementary extensions:

    For any a¯{\bar{a}}, if φ(a¯,y)\varphi({\bar{a}},y) defines a finite set, then there is i{1,,m}i\in\{1,\ldots,m\} such that Pi(a¯,y)P_{i}({\bar{a}},y) has finitely many zeros and φ(a¯,y)Pi(a¯,y)=0\varphi({\bar{a}},y)\rightarrow P_{i}({\bar{a}},y)=0.

    Therefore algebraic boundedness transfers from KK to any elementary extension KK^{*}. ∎

Lemma 2.12.

Let K=(K,+,,)K=(K,+,\cdot,\ldots) be a field or an expansion of a field. Let FF be a subfield. The following are equivalent:

  1. (1)

    In any elementary extension KKK^{*}\succeq K, field-theoretic algebraic closure over FF agrees with model-theoretic algebraic closure over FF: if AKA\subseteq K^{*} and bacl(AF)b\in\operatorname{acl}(AF), then b(AF)algb\in(AF)^{\mathrm{alg}}.

  2. (2)

    Condition (1) holds and KK has uniform finiteness, or equivalently, \exists^{\infty} is eliminated in elementary extensions of KK.

  3. (3)

    KK is algebraically bounded over FF.

Proof.

(1)\implies(2). Field-theoretic algebraic closure satisfies the exchange property. Therefore acl()\operatorname{acl}(-) satisfies exchange (after naming the elements of FF as parameters). By Theorem 2.5, elementary extensions of KK eliminate \exists^{\infty}.

(2)\implies(3). Suppose (2) holds but KK fails to be algebraically bounded over FF, witnessed by some formula φ(x¯,y)\varphi({\bar{x}},y). Using elimination of \exists^{\infty}, we may assume that there is nn\in\mathbb{N} such that |φ(a¯,K)|n|\varphi({\bar{a}},K)|\leq n for every a¯{\bar{a}}. For any finite set of polynomials P1,,PmF[x¯,y]P_{1},\ldots,P_{m}\in F[{\bar{x}},y], there is a¯K{\bar{a}}\in K such that φ(a¯,K)\varphi({\bar{a}},K) is finite, but is not contained in the zero set of Pi(a¯,y)P_{i}({\bar{a}},y) unless Pi(a¯,y)0P_{i}({\bar{a}},y)\equiv 0. By compactness, there is an elementary extension KKK^{*}\succeq K and a tuple a¯K{\bar{a}}\in K^{*} such that φ(a¯,K)\varphi({\bar{a}},K^{*}) is finite, but is not contained in the zero set of P(a¯,y)P({\bar{a}},y) for any PF[x¯,y]P\in F[{\bar{x}},y] except those with P(a¯,y)0P({\bar{a}},y)\equiv 0. Then φ(a¯,K)\varphi({\bar{a}},K^{*}) contains a point not in F(a¯)algF({\bar{a}})^{\mathrm{alg}}, contradicting (2).

(3)\implies(1). Lemma 2.11 shows that if KK^{*} is an elementary extension of KK, then

  • KK^{*} is algebraically bounded over FF.

  • Field-theoretic and model-theoretic algebraic agree over FF.

Therefore (1) holds. ∎

Specializing to the case where KK is a pure field and FF is the prime field, we get the following:

Theorem 2.13.

Let KK be a pure field. Then KK is algebraically bounded over the prime field if and only if KK is very slim.

We have thus answered [JK10, Question 1] positively.

Remark 2.14.

If (K,+,,)(K,+,\cdot,\ldots) is an expansion of a field, and (K,+,,)(K,+,\cdot,\ldots) is algebraically bounded over the prime field, then the reduct (K,+,)(K,+,\cdot) is also algebraically bounded over the prime field, and so the underlying field (K,+,)(K,+,\cdot) is very slim.

Remark 2.15.

Reducts of geometric structures are geometric structures. This is folklore, but we include a proof for completeness. Let NN be a geometric structure and MM be a reduct. Without loss of generality, NN and MM are highly saturated. Uniform finiteness transfers from NN to MM in a trivial way: if MM fails uniform finiteness, the same definable family fails uniform finiteness in NN. Suppose aclM()\operatorname{acl}^{M}(-) does not satisfy exchange. Then there are some a,bMa,b\in M and CMC\subseteq M such that aaclM(C)a\notin\operatorname{acl}^{M}(C), baclM(Ca)b\notin\operatorname{acl}^{M}(Ca), but aaclM(Cb)a\in\operatorname{acl}^{M}(Cb). Let p(x)p(x) and q(x,y)q(x,y) be tpM(a/C)\operatorname{tp}^{M}(a/C) and tpM(a,b/C)\operatorname{tp}^{M}(a,b/C). The number of realizations of p(x)p(x) is large, so we may find apa^{\prime}\models p with aaclN(C)a^{\prime}\notin\operatorname{acl}^{N}(C). Similarly, the number of realizations of q(a,y)q(a^{\prime},y) is large, so we may find a realization baclN(Ca)b^{\prime}\notin\operatorname{acl}^{N}(Ca^{\prime}). Then abCaba^{\prime}b^{\prime}\equiv_{C}ab in MM, so aaclM(Cb)aclN(Cb)a^{\prime}\in\operatorname{acl}^{M}(Cb^{\prime})\subseteq\operatorname{acl}^{N}(Cb^{\prime}). Then aa^{\prime} and bb^{\prime} contradict the exchange property in NN.

Therefore, any reduct of an algebraically bounded field is geometric, though not necessarily strongly geometric.

Remark 2.16.

In future work, we will give an example of a pure field (K,+,)(K,+,\cdot) of characteristic 0 with a subfield K0K_{0} such that

  1. (1)

    Field-theoretic algebraic closure and model-theoretic algebraic closure agree over K0K_{0}, and this remains true in elementary extensions.

  2. (2)

    acl()\operatorname{acl}(\varnothing) contains elements of K0K_{0} that are transcendental over \mathbb{Q}. In particular, field-theoretic algebraic closure and model-theoretic algebraic closuse do not agree over \mathbb{Q}.

It follows that this field KK is algebraically bounded over K0K_{0}, but not over \mathbb{Q}. In particular, KK is algebraically bounded (over KK) but not not very slim and not a strongly geometric field.111This contradicts the claim in [JK10, p. 482] that algebraically bounded fields are very slim. Additionally, the field KK is geometric (by Remark 2.15) but not strongly geometric.

Failure of acl()\operatorname{acl}(\varnothing) to be algebraic over the prime field is the only way an algebraically bounded field can fail to be very slim:

Proposition 2.17.

If K=(K,+,,)K=(K,+,\cdot,\ldots) is algebraically bounded, then KK is algebraically bounded over the subfield F=dcl()F=\operatorname{dcl}(\varnothing).

Proof.

We use the criterion of Lemma 2.12(1) to show that KK is algebraically bounded over FF. Embed KK into a monster model 𝕂\mathbb{K}. Suppose b,c¯𝕂b,{\bar{c}}\in\mathbb{K} and bacl(Fc¯)b\in\operatorname{acl}(F\bar{c}). We must show bF(c¯)algb\in F({\bar{c}})^{\mathrm{alg}}. By Remark 2.15, Th(K)\mathrm{Th}(K) is geometric, because it is geometric after naming parameters from FF. Replacing c¯{\bar{c}} by a basis of c¯{\bar{c}} in the acl\operatorname{acl}-pregeometry, we may assume that the tuple c¯{\bar{c}} is field- theoretically algebraically independent over FF. Now suppose for the sake of contradiction that bF(c¯)algb\notin F({\bar{c}})^{\mathrm{alg}}. Then (c¯,b)({\bar{c}},b) is also field-theoretically algebraically independent over FF.

As bacl(Fc¯)=acl(c¯)b\in\operatorname{acl}(F{\bar{c}})=\operatorname{acl}({\bar{c}}), there is a 0-definable set D𝕂nD\subseteq\mathbb{K}^{n} with (b,c¯)D(b,{\bar{c}})\in D and Dc¯D_{{\bar{c}}^{\prime}} finite for each c¯{\bar{c}}^{\prime}. By algebraic boundedness over KK, there are finitely many non-zero polynomials P1,,PiK[x,y¯]P_{1},\ldots,P_{i}\in K[x,{\bar{y}}] such that DD is contained in the union of the zero-sets of the PiP_{i}.

Let M=𝕂algM=\mathbb{K}^{\mathrm{alg}} and let VV be the Zariski closure of DD in Mn+1M^{n+1}. The polynomials PiP_{i} show that VMn+1V\subsetneq M^{n+1}, and so dim(V)<n+1\dim(V)<n+1. By elimination of imaginaries in ACF, there is a finite tuple ee in MM which codes VV. Recall that 𝕂\mathbb{K} is perfect by Lemma 2.2. If σAut(M/𝕂)=Gal(𝕂)\sigma\in\operatorname{Aut}(M/\mathbb{K})=\operatorname{Gal}(\mathbb{K}), then σ(D)=D\sigma(D)=D, σ(V)=V\sigma(V)=V, and σ(e)=e\sigma(e)=e. As the tuple ee is fixed by Gal(M/𝕂)\operatorname{Gal}(M/\mathbb{K}), it must be in the perfect field 𝕂\mathbb{K}.

If σ\sigma is any automorphism of 𝕂\mathbb{K}, then σ\sigma can be extended to an automorphism σ\sigma^{\prime} of MM. The fact that DD is 0-definable implies that σ(D)=σ(D)=D\sigma^{\prime}(D)=\sigma(D)=D, which then implies σ(V)=V\sigma^{\prime}(V)=V and σ(e)=σ(e)=e\sigma(e)=\sigma^{\prime}(e)=e. Thus ee is Aut(𝕂)\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{K})-invariant, which implies that ee is in F=dcl()F=\operatorname{dcl}(\varnothing). Therefore, in the structure MM, the ee-definable set VV is in fact FF-definable. However, the tuple (b,c¯)DV(b,{\bar{c}})\in D\subseteq V is algebraically independent over FF, so this implies dim(V)=n+1\dim(V)=n+1, contradicting the earlier fact that dim(V)<n+1\dim(V)<n+1. ∎

Remark 2.18.

Algebraically bounded fields are closely related to fields of size at most S in the sense of [JK10]. For fields of size at most S, [JK10, Proposition 3.4] and Lemma 2.12 show that they are algebraically bounded over dcl()\operatorname{dcl}(\varnothing). On the other hand, by Lemma 2.12 and 2.17, any algebraically bounded field with tr.deg(dcl())\mathrm{tr.deg}(\operatorname{dcl}(\varnothing))\in\mathbb{N} is of size at most S.

Question 2.19.

Is there a pure field KK that is geometric, but not algebraically bounded?

3. Cardinalities

Fix a complete geometric theory TT expanding the theory of fields, not necessarily algebraically bounded.

Proposition 3.1.

If KTK\models T and XKnX\subseteq K^{n} is an infinite definable set, then |X|=|K||X|=|K|.

Proof.

Clearly |X||K||X|\leq|K|. We must show |X||K||X|\geq|K|. Replacing XX with a projection onto one of the coordinate axes, we may assume XK1X\subseteq K^{1}. By Lemma 2.4, K={(yy)/(xx):x,y,x,yX,xx}K=\{(y-y^{\prime})/(x^{\prime}-x):x,y,x^{\prime},y^{\prime}\in X,~x\neq x^{\prime}\}. Therefore |K||X|4=|X||K|\leq|X|^{4}=|X|. ∎

Proposition 3.1 does not generalize to interpretable sets, as exhibited by the example of the value group \mathbb{Z} in the geometric field p\mathbb{Q}_{p}. In Proposition 3.6 below, we will see that the obstruction is precisely the zero-dimensional interpretable sets. Before proving this, we need a few general lemmas on geometric structures.

Lemma 3.2.

Suppose MM is a geometric structure and XX is an interpretable set in MM with dim(X)=d>0\dim(X)=d>0.

  1. (1)

    There is an interpretable set YY and finite-to-one interpretable functions f:YXf:Y\to X and g:YMdg:Y\to M^{d} such that the image g(Y)g(Y) has dimension dd.

  2. (2)

    There is an infinite definable set DD with |X||D||X|\geq|D|.

Proof.

Note that (2) implies (1), by taking D=g(Y)D=g(Y). We prove (1). Embed MM into a monster model 𝕄M\mathbb{M}\succeq M. Take eXe\in X with dim(e/M)=d\dim(e/M)=d. Then e𝕄eqe\in\mathbb{M}^{\mathrm{eq}}. Every imaginary is definable from a real tuple, so there is a real tuple a¯𝕄m{\bar{a}}\in\mathbb{M}^{m} with eacleq(Ma¯)e\in\operatorname{acl}^{\mathrm{eq}}(M{\bar{a}}). Replacing a¯{\bar{a}} with a subtuple, we may assume that a¯{\bar{a}} is independent over MM. By [Gag05, Lemma 3.1], acl()\operatorname{acl}(-) continues to satisfy exchange after naming the parameter ee. Therefore, we can meaningfully talk about real tuples being independent over eMeM. Write a¯{\bar{a}} as b¯c¯{\bar{b}}{\bar{c}} where b¯{\bar{b}} is a maximal subtuple that is independent over eMeM. Then c¯acl(b¯eM){\bar{c}}\in\operatorname{acl}({\bar{b}}eM). At the same time, eacl(b¯c¯M)e\in\operatorname{acl}({\bar{b}}{\bar{c}}M), so ee is interalgebraic with c¯{\bar{c}} over b¯M{\bar{b}}M.

Meanwhile, dim(b¯/eM)=dim(b¯/M)=|b¯|\dim({\bar{b}}/eM)=\dim({\bar{b}}/M)=|{\bar{b}}|, because b¯{\bar{b}} is an independent tuple over eMeM. Then b¯{\bar{b}} and ee are independent from each other over MM, implying dim(e/b¯M)=dim(e/M)=d\dim(e/{\bar{b}}M)=\dim(e/M)=d by symmetry. As ee and c¯{\bar{c}} are interalgebraic over b¯M{\bar{b}}M, we have dim(c¯/b¯M)=d\dim({\bar{c}}/{\bar{b}}M)=d. But b¯c¯{\bar{b}}{\bar{c}} is an independent tuple over MM, so dim(c¯/b¯M)\dim({\bar{c}}/{\bar{b}}M) is the length of c¯{\bar{c}}. Thus c¯Md{\bar{c}}\in M^{d}.

As ee and c¯{\bar{c}} are interalgebraic over b¯M{\bar{b}}M, there is a b¯M{\bar{b}}M-interpretable set Y0X×𝕄dY_{0}\subseteq X\times\mathbb{M}^{d} such that (e,c¯)Y0(e,{\bar{c}})\in Y_{0}, and the projections f0:Y0Xf_{0}:Y_{0}\to X and g0:Y0𝕄dg_{0}:Y_{0}\to\mathbb{M}^{d} have finite fibers. By saturation, there is a uniform bound NN on the fiber size. The image g0(Y0)g_{0}(Y_{0}) is b¯M{\bar{b}}M-definable and contains the point c¯{\bar{c}} with dim(c¯/b¯M)=d\dim({\bar{c}}/{\bar{b}}M)=d. Therefore g0(Y0)g_{0}(Y_{0}) has dimension dd.

Now we have the desired configuration (Y0,f0,g0)(Y_{0},f_{0},g_{0}), but defined over the parameter b¯{\bar{b}} outside MM. Because M𝕄M\preceq\mathbb{M} and dimension is definable in families [Gag05, Fact 2.4], we can replace the parameter b¯{\bar{b}} with something in MM, getting a MM-definable configuration (Y,f,g)(Y,f,g) in which the fibers of ff and gg are still bounded in size by NN. ∎

Definition 3.3.

Let MM be a structure. A definable notion of largeness222This is a purely model-theoretic notion and should not be confused with the notion of large fields. on MM is a partition of the MM-definable sets into two classes—large and small—such that the following axioms hold:

  1. (1)

    Any finite set is small.

  2. (2)

    Any definable subset of a small set is small.

  3. (3)

    If YY is small and {Xa}aY\{X_{a}\}_{a\in Y} is a definable family of small sets, then the union aYXa\bigcup_{a\in Y}X_{a} is small.

  4. (4)

    Smallness is definable in families: if {Xa}aY\{X_{a}\}_{a\in Y} is a definable family, then the set {aY:Xa is small}\{a\in Y:X_{a}\text{ is small}\} is definable.

If NMN\succeq M, then any definable notion of largeness on MM extends in a canonical way to a definable notion of largeness on NN by extending the definition according to (4) above.

Fact 3.4.

Let MM be a countable structure in a countable language. Fix a definable notion of largeness on MM. Then there is an elementary extension NMN\succeq M such that if XX is definable in NN, then XX is uncountable if and only if XX is large.

Fact 3.4 is essentially Keisler’s completeness theorem for (Q)\mathcal{L}(Q) [Kei70, Section 2], but the translation between these settings is sufficiently confusing that we give the details.

Proof (of Fact 3.4).

Let TT be the elementary diagram of MM. Let \mathcal{L} be the language of TT, and let (Q)\mathcal{L}(Q) be the language obtained by adding a new quantifier (Qx)(Qx). Let ψψ\psi\mapsto\psi^{*} be the map from (Q)\mathcal{L}(Q)-formulas to \mathcal{L}-formulas interpreting (Qx)φ(x,y¯)(Qx)\varphi(x,{\bar{y}}) as “the set of xx such that φ(x,y¯)\varphi(x,{\bar{y}}) holds is large.” More precisely,

  • φ=φ\varphi^{*}=\varphi if φ\varphi doesn’t involve the quantifier QQ.

  • (φψ)=φψ(\varphi\wedge\psi)^{*}=\varphi^{*}\wedge\psi^{*}, and similarly for the other logical operators including \exists and \forall.

  • ((Qx)φ(x,y¯))((Qx)\varphi(x,{\bar{y}}))^{*} is the formula ψ(y¯)\psi({\bar{y}}) such that in models NTN\models T,

    Nψ(b¯)(φ(N,b¯) is large).N\models\psi({\bar{b}})\iff\left(\varphi^{*}(N,{\bar{b}})\text{ is large}\right).

Let TT^{\prime} be the set of (Q)\mathcal{L}(Q)-sentences φ\varphi such that TφT\vdash\varphi^{*}. It is straightforward to verify that TT^{\prime} is closed under the rules of inference on pages 6–7 of [Kei70]. For example, the “axioms of (Q)\mathcal{L}(Q)[Kei70, p. 6] correspond to the axioms in Definition 3.3. By the completeness theorem for (Q)\mathcal{L}(Q) [Kei70, Section 2], there is an \mathcal{L}-structure NN which satisfies the sentences TT^{\prime}, when (Qx)(Qx) is interpreted as “there are uncountably many xx such that…” Ignoring the sentences involving QQ, we see that NTN\models T, and so NMN\succeq M. Finally, suppose X=φ(N,b¯)X=\varphi(N,{\bar{b}}) is definable in NN. Let ψ(y¯)\psi({\bar{y}}) be the \mathcal{L}-formula such that ψ(b¯)\psi({\bar{b}}) holds iff φ(N,b¯)\varphi(N,{\bar{b}}) is large. Then TT^{\prime} contains the sentence

(y¯)[ψ(y¯)(Qx)φ(x,y¯)],(\forall{\bar{y}})[\psi({\bar{y}})\leftrightarrow(Qx)\varphi(x,{\bar{y}})],

because its image under ()(-)^{*} is the tautology

(y¯)[ψ(y¯)ψ(y¯)].(\forall{\bar{y}})[\psi({\bar{y}})\leftrightarrow\psi({\bar{y}})].

Therefore

φ(N,b¯) is uncountableNψ(b¯)φ(N,b¯) is large.\varphi(N,{\bar{b}})\text{ is uncountable}\iff N\models\psi({\bar{b}})\iff\varphi(N,{\bar{b}})\text{ is large}.\qed
Lemma 3.5.

Let TT be a complete geometric theory in a countable language. Then there is a model NTN\models T such that for any interpretable set XX, dim(X)>0|X|>0\dim(X)>0\iff|X|>\aleph_{0}.

Proof.

Take a model MTM\models T. There is a definable notion of largeness on MeqM^{\mathrm{eq}} in which XX is large iff dim(X)>0\dim(X)>0. The requirements of Definition 3.3 hold by properties of dimension in MeqM^{\mathrm{eq}} [Joh22, Propositions 2.8, 2.9, 2.12]. Applying Fact 3.4, we get an elementary extension NeqMeqN^{\mathrm{eq}}\succeq M^{\mathrm{eq}} such that if XX is definable in NeqN^{\mathrm{eq}}, then XX is uncountable iff dim(X)>0\dim(X)>0. ∎

Proposition 3.6.

Let TT be a complete, geometric theory of infinite fields, possibly with extra structure.

  1. (1)

    If KTK\models T and XX is an interpretable set of positive dimension, then |X|=|K||X|=|K|.

  2. (2)

    If the language is countable, there is a model KTK\models T of cardinality 1\aleph_{1}, such that every zero-dimensional interpretable set is countable.

Proof.
  1. (1)

    Suppose XX has positive dimension. Lemma 3.2 shows that |X||D||X|\geq|D| for some infinite definable set DD. Then |D||X||K||D|\geq|X|\geq|K| by Proposition 3.1. Finally, |K||X||K|\geq|X| is clear.

  2. (2)

    Lemma 3.5 gives an uncountable model KK in which every zero-dimensional interpretable set is countable. By downward Löwenheim-Skolem, we can replace KK with an elementary substructure of cardinality 1\aleph_{1}. ∎

4. Finite extensions

Let TT be a complete, geometric theory of fields, possibly with extra structure, not necessarily algebraically bounded.

Proposition 4.1.

If KTK\models T and n>0n\in\mathbb{N}_{>0}, then the (interpretable) set of degree nn finite extensions has dimension zero.

Proof.

By Lemma 2.2, KK is perfect. Hence any finite extension of KK is a simple extension. Let XX be the set of irreducible monic polynomials of degree nn. We can regard XX as a definable subset of KnK^{n} by identifying a polynomial P(x)=xn+cn1xn1++c0P(x)=x^{n}+c_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\cdots+c_{0} with the nn-tuple (c0,c1,,cn1)(c_{0},c_{1},\ldots,c_{n-1}). Let YY be the interpretable set of degree nn finite extensions. Let f:XYf:X\to Y be the map sending P(x)P(x) to the extension K[x]/(P(x))K[x]/(P(x)).

Note that dim(X)dim(Kn)=n\dim(X)\leq\dim(K^{n})=n. By the definition of dimension for interpretable sets, it suffices to show that each fiber of ff has dimension at least nn. Fix some bYb\in Y corresponding to a degree nn extension L/KL/K. We claim f1(b)f^{-1}(b) has dimension nn. By identifying LL with KnK^{n}, we can regard LL as a definable set with dim(L)=n\dim(L)=n. Because KK is perfect, there are only finitely many fields between KK and LL. Let UU be the union of the intermediate fields. Then UU has lower dimension than nn, so dim(LU)=n\dim(L\setminus U)=n. The elements of LUL\setminus U are generators of LL. The fiber f1(b)f^{-1}(b) is the set of minimal polynomials of elements of LUL\setminus U. Let ρ:(LU)f1(b)\rho:(L\setminus U)\to f^{-1}(b) be the map sending aLUa\in L\setminus U to its minimal polynomial. Then ρ\rho is finite-to-one, so dim(f1(b))dim(LU)=n\dim(f^{-1}(b))\geq\dim(L\setminus U)=n. ∎

We recover the following corollary, which is presumably well-known (for example, it follows from [Gag05, Corollary 3.6] and [PP95, Théorème]).

Corollary 4.2.

If TT eliminates imaginaries, then models of TT have bounded Galois group—there are only finitely many extensions of degree nn for each nn.

Proof.

Zero-dimensional definable sets are finite. If elimination of imaginaries holds, then zero-dimensional interpretable sets are finite. ∎

Combining Propositions 3.6 and 4.1, we have the following.

Corollary 4.3.

If TT is a geometric theory of infinite fields in a countable language, then there is an uncountable model KTK\models T with countably many finite extensions of degree nn for each nn.

For example, since perfect PAC fields are geometric [CH04], Corollary 4.3 recovers results such as [BSP13, Example 2.2]. The fact that all very slim fields satisfy this property might have some field-theoretic consequences.

References

  • [BSP13] Lior Bary-Soroker and Elad Paran, Fully Hilbertian fields, Israel J. Math. 194 (2013), no. 2, 507–538. MR 3047081
  • [CH04] Zoé Chatzidakis and Ehud Hrushovski, Perfect pseudo-algebraically closed fields are algebraically bounded, J. Algebra 271 (2004), no. 2, 627–637. MR 2025543
  • [Gag05] Jerry Gagelman, Stability in geometric theories, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 132 (2005), no. 2-3, 313–326. MR 2110828
  • [HP94] Ehud Hrushovski and Anand Pillay, Groups definable in local fields and pseudo-finite fields, Israel J. Math. 85 (1994), no. 1-3, 203–262. MR 1264346
  • [JK10] Markus Junker and Jochen Koenigsmann, Schlanke Körper (slim fields), J. Symbolic Logic 75 (2010), no. 2, 481–500. MR 2648152
  • [Joh18] Will Johnson, The canonical topology on dp-minimal fields, J. Math. Log. 18 (2018), no. 2, 1850007, 23. MR 3878469
  • [Joh22] Will Johnson, Topologizing interpretable groups in pp-adically closed fields, arXiv:2205.00749v1 [math.LO], 2022.
  • [Kei70] H. Jerome Keisler, Logic with the quantifier “there exist uncountably many”, Annals of Math. Logic 1 (1970), no. 1, 1–93.
  • [PP95] Anand Pillay and Bruno Poizat, Corps et chirurgie, J. Symbolic Logic 60 (1995), no. 2, 528–533. MR 1335134
  • [vdD89] Lou van den Dries, Dimension of definable sets, algebraic boundedness and Henselian fields, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 45 (1989), no. 2, 189–209, Stability in model theory, II (Trento, 1987). MR 1044124