Hierarchies of Subsystems of Weak Arithmetic

We do a suitable and modified version of Smith’s process to construct a Bezout model of open induction (Smith [smith] Theorem 10.7.). We shall inductively construct an \omega-chain of models M_{i} such that \bigcup_{i}M_{i}=M_{\omega} will be a model of (ZR)_{S} + Bez+ \neg(ZR)_{q}. We work inside the ordered field \mathbb{Q}(x_{1},...,x_{i},...) so that for each i\in\omega, x_{i+1} is larger than any element of \mathbb{Q}(x_{1},...,x_{i}) and x_{1} is infinitely large. We will do the F-construction at odd stages and the \widehat{\mathbb{Z}}_{S}-construction at even stages.

Take M_{0}=\mathbb{Z} together the natural remainder S-parsimonious homomorphism \varphi:M_{0}\longrightarrow\widehat{\mathbb{Z}}_{S}. Let us show what we do at stages 2k+1. Suppose M_{2k} and a S-parsimonious map \varphi:M_{2k}\longrightarrow\widehat{\mathbb{Z}}_{S}, have been constructed. At this stage we consider a pair of distinct primes v and w belonging to M_{2k} such that w is nonstandard. (Of course we do this in such a way that every such pair of primes in M_{\omega} will have been considered at some stage 2k+1). Thus (v,w)=1 in M_{2k}. We define M_{2k+1}=M_{2k}[x_{k},\frac{1-x_{k}v}{w}] according to Theorem 3.8. Suppose y_{k}=\frac{1-x_{k}v}{w}, then we have x_{k}v+y_{k}w=1 in M_{2k+1}. So (v,w)_{B}=1 in M_{2k+1}. ((v,w)_{B} is the Bezout greatest common divisor of v and w, it means that (v,w)_{B}|v and (v,w)_{B}|w and there exist r and s in M_{2k+1} such that rv+su=1). We refer to (Smith [smith], Section 3) for the basic related definitions and theorems. By Theorem 3.9 \varphi is extended to a S-parsimonious map \varphi: M_{2k+1}\longrightarrow\widehat{\mathbb{Z}}_{S}. At stage 2k+2, we employ Lemma 3.1 and define M_{2k+2}=(M_{2k+1})_{\varphi,S} which is a model of (ZR)_{S}. Lemma 3.3 gives us the desired parsimonious extensions \varphi: M_{2k+2}\longrightarrow\widehat{\mathbb{Z}}_{S}. Since (ZR)_{S} is a \forall\exists-theory, then it is preserved in chains, therefore M_{\omega}\models(ZR)_{S}.

Now we show that M_{\omega} is a Bezout domain. The proof is similar to (Smith [smith], Theorem 10.7) with a minor change. By Theorems 3.4 and 3.8, each M_{i} has the GCD and DCC, so by Theorem 3.10 M_{\omega} has both the GCD and DCC (by Lemmas 3.11, 3.12 and 3.13 we know that no irreducible is killed) and from Theorem 3.7 we conclude that M_{\omega} is a factorial domain. In order to show that M_{\omega} is a Bezout domain, by considering the fact that M_{\omega} has the GCD property, it suffices to prove that any two elements of M_{\omega} has the Bezout greatest common divisor. Let a,b\in M_{\omega} and let c=(a,b) in M_{\omega}. We can assume a,b>1. Let a=a^{'}c, b=b^{'}c in M_{\omega}. So (a^{'},b^{'})=1 in M_{\omega}. Since M_{\omega} is factorial, we can write a^{'}=m{P_{1}}^{e_{1}}\ldots{P_{k}}^{e_{k}} and b^{'}=n{Q_{1}}^{f_{1}}\ldots{Q_{l}}^{f_{l}}, where m,n\in\mathbb{N} are nonzero, k,l\geq 0 and the P_{i},Q_{j} are nonstandard primes such that P_{i}\neq Q_{j} for all i,j. We will show that (a^{'},b^{'})_{B}=1. Clearly (m,n)_{B}=1. Suppose m={g_{1}}^{v_{1}}\ldots{g_{r}}^{v_{r}} and n={h_{1}}^{w_{1}}\ldots{h_{s}}^{w_{s}} are the prime factorizations of m,n in \mathbb{N}. By the F-construction every one of (P_{i},g_{j})_{B}=1, (Q_{i},h_{j})_{B}=1 and (P_{i},Q_{j})_{B}=1, occur at some odd stage of our construction. Therefore by iterated applications of (Smith [smith], Lemma 3.4), we conclude that (a^{'},b^{'})_{B}=1. By (Smith [smith], Lemma 3.4), we have c=(a,b)_{B} at some odd stage and then using (Smith [smith], Lemma 3.7) we ensure that c=(a,b)_{B} in M_{\omega}. This completes the proof of the Bezoutness of M_{\omega}.

Note that in the original proof of Smith ([smith], Theorem 10.7) he just considers pairs of nonstandard primes and doesn’t need to consider pairs of primes such that one is standard and the other is nonstandard. Since his chain of domains are ZR-rings, this gives automatically the Bezout greatest common divisor for such pairs. But as we want ZR to fail in our model, we are forced to consider pairs of standard and nonstandard primes in the F-construction, as well.

Now we show that (ZR)_{q} fails in M_{\omega}. We first observe that in the first step of our construction, namely, when passing from M_{0}=\mathbb{Z} to M_{1}, there is no nonstandard prime in M_{0}. So M_{1} is just \mathbb{Z}[x_{1}] and we have no y_{1}. On the other hand from the construction it is evident that elements of M_{\omega} are of the form f(x_{1},x_{2},y_{2},...,x_{k},y_{k}), for some k, where f is a polynomial with the coefficients in the set \mathbb{Z}_{\langle S\rangle}=\{a/k;a\in\mathbb{Z} and k\in\langle S\rangle\}. Now for a contradiction, suppose M_{\omega} is a model of (ZR)_{q}. Then there is a b\in M_{\omega} such that x_{1}=bq+r with 0\leq r< q. Take b=f(x_{1},x_{2},y_{2},...,x_{k},y_{k}), so we have x_{1}=f(x_{1},x_{2},y_{2},...,x_{k},y_{k})q+r. Observe that x_{2}, y_{2}, \ldots, x_{k}, y_{k} are transcendental over \mathbb{Q}(x_{1}), then f does not depend on them, so we can assume x_{1}=f(x_{1})q+r. Since x_{1} is also transcendental over \mathbb{Q}, it follow that the degree of f must be one. Thus f(x_{1})=ax_{1} and a\in\mathbb{Z}_{\langle S\rangle}. So x_{1}=ax_{1}q+r and then x_{1}(1-aq)=r, which implies that a=1/q and this is in contradiction with a\in\mathbb{Z}_{\langle S\rangle}, since q\notin\langle S\rangle.

In [moh2] we proved that if n\neq 3, there is a \lambda which is real algebraic of degree n+1 over \mathbb{Q} and doesn’t belong to RC_{n}(\mathbb Q). Now suppose x is an infinitely large element. For n\neq3, fix \lambda as above. For n=3 we choose \lambda as a root of an irreducible polynomial of degree 4 such that \lambda\notin RC_{2}(\mathbb Q). Let A be the ring of integers of the algebraic number field \mathbb{Q}(\lambda). Form A_{\langle S\rangle}=\{a/k;a\in A and k\in\langle S\rangle\}. It is an elementary fact from algebraic number theory that A is a normal ring. Since A_{\langle S\rangle} is a localization of A relative to a multiplicative set, then it is also normal. Let M=\mathbb{Z}[rx;r\in A_{\langle S\rangle}]. We claim that M witnesses Theorem B. It is obvious that M\vDash(ZR)_{S}. By an argument similar to the last paragraph of the proof of theorem A, it is easily shown that M\vDash\neg (ZR)_{q}.

Now we prove M\vDash\neg(N)_{n+1}. Let v\in\mathbb{N} be such that v\lambda is an algebraic integer. Suppose P(t)\in\mathbb{Z} is its minimal polynomial of degree n+1 which is monic. Obviously v\lambda x\in M. But we have P(v\lambda x/x)=0, while v\lambda\notin M. So M is not a model of (N)_{n+1}.

It remains to show that M\vDash(N)_{n}. Let u,v be nonzero elements of M such that

We will show that u/v\in M. Notice that elements of M are those elements of A_{\langle S\rangle}[x] with integer constant coefficient. A_{\langle S\rangle} is normal, so is A_{\langle S\rangle}[x]. Thus u/v\in A_{\langle S\rangle}[x]. On the other hand, since \mathbb{Q}(\lambda)[x] is a factorial ring, u/v can be written as:

in which \rho\in\mathbb{Q}(\lambda), the P_{i}’s are irreducible in \mathbb{Q}(\lambda)[x], without constant coefficient and Q_{j}’s are irreducible in \mathbb{Q}(\lambda)[x] with the constant coefficient one. If I is nonempty, then \rho\prod_{i\in I}P_{i}\prod_{j\in J}Q_{j} has no constant coefficient and thus u/v\in M. Now suppose I=\O. Put x=0 in u, v, z_{1}, \ldots, z_{s}. Therefore \rho is an algebraic integer with the degree, equal or less than n over \mathbb{Z}. We show it is one. If n=1 there is nothing to prove. If not, we have [\mathbb{Q}(\lambda): \mathbb{Q}(\rho)]< n+1. But

Then [\mathbb{Q}(\lambda): \mathbb{Q}(\rho)] divides [\mathbb{Q}(\lambda): \mathbb{Q}]=n+1. So we have a chain of field extensions, \mathbb{Q}\subset\mathbb{Q}(\rho)\subset\mathbb{Q}(\lambda) such that [\mathbb{Q}(\lambda): \mathbb{Q}(\rho)]\leq n-1 and [\mathbb{Q}(\rho): \mathbb{Q}]\leq n-1. This implies that \lambda\in RC_{n-1}(\mathbb Q) which is in contradiction with the choice of \lambda. Hence \rho is an algebraic integer of degree one. So \rho\in\mathbb{Z} and this implies that u/v\in M, which means that M is model of (N)_{n}. This completes the proof of Theorem B.