Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-stzjp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-06T19:42:44.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fields with few types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Cédric Milliet
Cédric Milliet*
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Institut Camille Jordan, UMR 5208 CNRS, 43 Boulevard DU 11 Novembre 1918, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
*
Université Galatasaray, Faculté de Sciences et de Lettres, Département de Mathématiques, Çiraǧan Caddesi N 36, 34357 Ortaköy Istamboul, Turquie, E-mail: milliet@math.univ-lyonl.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Belegradek, a first order structure is weakly small if there are countably many 1-types over any of its finite subset. We show the following results. A field extension of finite degree of an infinite weakly small field has no Artin-Schreier extension. A weakly small field of characteristic 2 is finite or algebraically closed. A weakly small division ring of positive characteristic is locally finite dimensional over its centre. A weakly small division ring of characteristic 2 is a field.

Keywords

Smallweakly smallfieldArtin-Schreier extensionCantor-Bendixson ranklocal descending chain condition

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 72 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Cherlin, Gregory and Shelah, Saharon, Superstable fields and groups, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 18 (1980), no. 3, pp. 227–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Cohn, Paul Moritz, Skew field constructions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977.Google Scholar
[3]Evans, David and Wagner, Frank, Supersimple ω-categorical groups and theories, this Journal, vol. 65 (2000), no. 2, pp. 767–776.Google Scholar
[4]Herstein, Israel N., Noncommutative rings, The Mathematical Association of America, quatrième édition, 1996.Google Scholar
[5]Herwig, Bernhard, Loveys, James G., Pillay, Anand, Tanović, Predag, and Wagner, Frank O., Stable theories without dense forking chains, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 31 (1992), no. 5, pp. 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Hrushovski, Ehud and Pillay, Anand, Weakly normal groups, Logic colloquium '85 (The Paris Logic Group, editor), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Kim, Byunghan, A note on Lascar strong types in simple theories, this Journal, vol. 63 (1998), no. 3, pp. 926–936.Google Scholar
[9]Krupiński, Krzysztof and Newelski, Ludomir, On bounded type-definable equivalence relations, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 43 (2002), no. 4, pp. 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Lang, Serge, Algebra, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Macintyre, Angus, On ω1-categorical theories of fields, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 71 (1971), no. l,pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Milliet, Cédric, Small skew fields. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 53 (2007), no. 1, pp. 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Milliet, Cédric, On properties of (weakly) small groups, this Journal, vol. 77 (2012), pp. 94–110.Google Scholar
[14]Pillay, Anand, Countable models of 1-based theories, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 31 (1992), no. 3, pp. 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Pillay, Anand and Poizat, Bruno, Pas d'imaginaires dans l'infini!, this Journal, vol. 52 (1987), pp. 400–403.Google Scholar
[16]Pillay, Anand, Scanlon, Thomas, and Wagner, Frank O., Supersimple fields and division rings, Mathematical Research Letters, vol. 5 (1998), pp. 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Poizat, Bruno, Cours de théorie des modèles, Nur al-Mantiq wal-Maʾrifah, Villeurbanne, 1985.Google Scholar
[18]Poizat, Bruno, Groupes stables, Nur al-Mantiq wal-Maʾrifah, Villeurbanne, 1987.Google Scholar
[19]Poizat, Bruno, Quelques tentatives de définir une notion générale de groupes et de corps de dimension un et de déterminer leurs propriétés algébriques, Confluentes Mathematici, vol. 1 (2009), no. 1, pp. 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Puninskaya, Vera A., Vaught's conjecture, Journal of Mathematical Sciences (New York), vol. 109 (2002), pp. 1649–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Wagner, Frank O., Small stable groups and generics, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 1026–1037.Google Scholar
[22]Wagner, Frank O., Quasi-endomorphisms in small stable groups, this Journal, vol. 58 (1993), pp. 1044–1051.Google Scholar
[23]Wagner, Frank O., Stable groups, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Wagner, Frank O., Small fields, this Journal, vol. 63 (1998), no. 3, pp. 995–1002.Google Scholar
[25]Wagner, Frank O., Minimal fields, this Journal, vol. 65 (2000), no. 4, pp. 1833–1835.Google Scholar
[26]Weispfenning, Volker, Quantifier elimination for abelian structures, preprint, 1983.Google Scholar