Differential equations as difference-differential equations

Set F:=K\langle a\rangle_\ast, J_K:=\{P\in K\{x\}_\ast:P(a)=0\} and J_L:=\{P\in L\{x\}_\ast:P(a)=0\}. Since K is algebraically closed, a\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0^\ast_K L is equivalent to linear disjointness of F and L over K. We show that this is equivalent to J_L=J_K\cdot L\{x\}_\ast, i.e., I_\ast(a/K) = I_\ast(a/L) after extending to \mathbb U\{x\}_\ast. Suppose first that F and L are linearly disjoint over K. For P\in J_L, choose a K-basis \lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r of the span of its coefficients and write P=\sum_{i=1}^r\lambda_iP_i, P_i\in K\{x\}_\ast. By linear disjointness, the \lambda_i remain linearly independent over F. Thus P_i(a)=0 for every i, which proves J_L=J_K\cdot L\{x\}_\ast. Conversely, J_L=J_KL\{x\}_\ast implies that a K-basis of K\{a\}_\ast remains linearly independent over L, so, by clearing denominators, F and L are linearly disjoint over K.

Let K \subseteq B \subseteq \mathbb{U} and a and b be two realizations of p where B is a small set, a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta B and b \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta B. As noted before, the independence a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta B means a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta B or from the definition \langle K \cup \{a\} \rangle_\Delta is algebraically independent from L := \langle B \rangle_\Delta over K. Since algebraic independence is insensitive to replacing a field by its algebraic closure, we have a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L^{\operatorname{alg}}. On the other hand, since b \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta B, we have that b \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. By minimality of p, \operatorname{tp}(a/L) is the unique nonalgebraic extension of p to S_{x,\Delta}(L). As \operatorname{tp}(b/L) is a different extension of p to S_{x,\Delta}(L), it must be algebraic. That is, the components of b belong to \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(B) = L^{\operatorname{alg}}. Thus, as a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L^{\operatorname{alg}} and B \cup \{ b \} \subseteq L^{\operatorname{alg}}, we conclude a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta B \cup \{ b \}, and hence a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_B^\Delta b by transitivity or base monotonicity, as required.

By Lemma 2.32 applied with B_0 = B and B_1=\{b\}, if a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A b, because a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A B, we would have a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A B \cup \{b\}. But then by monotonicity, a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_B b, contrary to our hypothesis. Hence, a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A b.

We prove this result by induction on n. The cases of n \leq 2 are trivial. Consider the inductive case of n+1. If \{b_1, \ldots,b_{n+1}\} were not independent, then possibly at the cost of reordering the types, we would have b_{n+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A \{b_1, \ldots, b_{n}\}. Take B_0 := \{ b_n \} and B_1 := \{ b_1, \ldots, b_{n-1}\}. By our inductive hypothesis, B_0 \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A B_1. We also have b_{n+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A B_0, by our hypothesis of pairwise independence, and b_{n+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A B_1 from the inductive hypothesis. Lemma 2.32 gives that b_{n+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A B_0 \cup B_1, that is, b_{n+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_A \{b_1, \ldots, b_n \}, contrary to our supposition. Hence, \{b_1, \ldots, b_{n+1}\} is independent and we conclude.

Let L \supseteq K be a small \Delta-field extension of K, a a realization of p, and b a realization of q witnessing that p \not \perp q. That is, a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L, b \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L, but a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_L^\Delta b. By Corollary 2.35, a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta b. Thus, by Remark 2.26, we would have \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{a\}) = \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{b\}). Let us check that, in fact, K \langle a \rangle_\Delta = K \langle b \rangle_\Delta. If b \notin K \langle a \rangle_{\Delta}, then there would be some b' \neq b and \tau\in\operatorname{Gal}(K \langle a \rangle_{\Delta}^{\operatorname{alg}} / K \langle a \rangle_\Delta) such that \tau(b)=b'. As the \Delta-field structure on any \Delta-field of characteristic zero extends uniquely to an algebraic closure, \tau is also an automorphism of \Delta-fields. Hence, b' is also a realization of q. By total disintegration of q, b \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta b'. However, \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{ b \} ) = \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{a \} ) =\tau(\operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{ b \} ))= \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{b'\}) so that b \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta b'. With this we conclude that b is a \Delta-rational function f of a. The situation is symmetric between p and q and we see that a is a differential rational function g of b.

We see that there cannot be a second differential rational map h taking realizations of p to realizations of q for if there were, then \{b, h(g(b)) \} would be a set of two distinct realizations of q which are dependent over K, contrary to total disintegration. Likewise, we cannot have another differential rational function taking realizations of q to realizations of p.

Suppose that Y is a nonempty proper A-definable subset of X. Then

defines an equivalence relation on X that is neither equality nor the universal relation, contradicting strict minimality. Thus X has no nonempty proper A-definable subset, so the formula defining X isolates p_{X,A}.

Moreover, X\cap\operatorname{acl}^{\Delta}(A)=\varnothing. Indeed, an element of this intersection would belong to a nonempty finite A-definable subset of X, a contradiction.

We also use the fact that an \aleph_0-categorical strongly minimal set in \mathrm{DCF}_{0,m} is geometrically trivial (see [Nagloo–Pillay-2017, Lemma 2.23] whose proof extends to several commuting derivations using [Pillay-foundational, Corollary 4.2(ii)]). For x,y\in X, define

Since every element of X is nonalgebraic over A, \sim is an equivalence relation. By \aleph_0-categoricity, this relation is A-definable, and each of its classes \operatorname{acl}^{\Delta}(A,x)\cap X is finite. As X is infinite, \sim is not the universal relation. Strict minimality therefore implies that \sim is equality and for each x\in X, \operatorname{acl}^{\Delta}(A,x)\cap X=\{x\}. Since p_{X,A} is geometrically trivial, pairwise independence of a set of distinct realizations implies its independence. Thus, p_{X,A} is totally disintegrated.

These invariance properties follow easily from the fact that \sigma preserves \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta. Let us elaborate, considering first the minimality. Let L be a \Delta-field extending K and suppose that \sigma^N(a) \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. Because \sigma, and thus also \sigma^N, is an automorphism of \mathbb{U} as a \Delta-field, we have a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta \sigma^{-N}(L). Since \operatorname{tp}(a/K) is minimal, it must be that a is algebraic over \sigma^{-N}(L). Applying \sigma^N and observing that \sigma^N preserves algebraicity, we see that \sigma^N(a) is algebraic over L. Likewise, because a is not algebraic over K, neither is \sigma^N(a). That is, we have demonstrated that \operatorname{tp}(\sigma^N(a)/K) is minimal.

The argument for triviality is similar: suppose that \{a_1, \ldots, a_n\} is a finite list of realizations of \operatorname{tp}_{\Delta}(\sigma^N(a)/K) and that a_i \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta a_j for 1 \leq i < j \leq n. Then \sigma^{-N}(a_i) is a realization of \operatorname{tp}(a/K) for each i and \sigma^{-N}(a_i) \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta \sigma^{-N}(a_j) for 1 \leq i < j \leq n as \sigma^{-N} respects \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta. Since \operatorname{tp}_{\Delta}(a/K) is trivial, the set \{ \sigma^{-N}(a_1), \ldots, \sigma^{-N}(a_n) \} is K-independent. Applying \sigma^{N} we see that \{a_1, \ldots, a_n\} is also K-independent, verifying that \operatorname{tp}_{\Delta}(\sigma^{N}(a)/K) is trivial.

We first argue by induction on n to show that a_1, \ldots, a_n \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. As each a_i is not algebraic over L and p_i=\operatorname{tp}(a_i/K)\in S_{\Delta}(K) is minimal, a_i\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K L. Let us consider the inductive case of k+1. Our inductive hypothesis is that a_1, \ldots, a_k \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L for 1\leq k<n. There are two subcases to consider: a_{k+1} \in \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{a_1, \ldots, a_k\}) or a_{k+1} \notin \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{a_1, \ldots, a_k\}). In the first case, since independence is insensitive to taking algebraic closures, we have that a_1, \ldots, a_k \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L implies that \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{a_1, \ldots, a_k\}) \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. Since in this case \{a_1, \ldots, a_k, a_{k+1}\} \subseteq \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K \cup \{a_1, \ldots, a_k\}), we conclude by monotonicity that a_1, \ldots, a_{k+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. In the nonalgebraic case, since p_{k+1} is minimal, we have a_{k+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta a_1, \ldots, a_k. By the hypothesis of the lemma, a_{k+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. By our inductive hypothesis we have a_1, \ldots, a_k \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. Thus, taking B_0 := \{ a_1, \ldots, a_k\} and B_1 := L in Lemma 2.32, we conclude that a_{k+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K \{ a_1, \ldots, a_k \} \cup L. By transitivity, this implies that a_{k+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_{K \cup \{a_1, \ldots, a_k \}}^\Delta L. Using our inductive hypothesis that a_1, \ldots, a_k \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L and transitivity again, we conclude a_1, \ldots, a_{k+1} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L, as required. So by induction, we conclude that a_1, \ldots, a_{n} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L.

Assume in addition that \{a_1,\ldots,a_n\} is K-independent. Fix i, and let b:=(a_j)_{j\neq i}. Then a_i,b\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. By symmetry and transitivity, a_i\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_{K\langle b\rangle_\Delta}^\Delta L. By the K-independence of the set \{a_1,\ldots,a_n\}, a_i\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^{\Delta}K\langle b\rangle_\Delta. By transitivity, a_i\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L\langle b\rangle_\Delta. By base monotonicity, a_i\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_L^\Delta L\langle b\rangle_\Delta. Thus, for every i, a_i\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_L L\langle a_j:j\neq i\rangle_\Delta. Hence \{a_1,\ldots,a_n\} is L-independent.

If q were algebraic, then it would have a realization a in \operatorname{acl}^{\sigma\text{-}\Delta}(K). Since \operatorname{acl}^{\sigma\text{-}\Delta}(K) is the field theoretic algebraic closure of the inversive \sigma-\Delta-field generated by K and K is already an inversive \sigma-\Delta-field, we have \operatorname{acl}^{\sigma\text{-}\Delta}(K) = \operatorname{acl}^\Delta(K) = K^{\operatorname{alg}}. That is, the coordinates of a would lie in K^{\operatorname{alg}}, meaning that p would be algebraic, contrary to our hypotheses.

Suppose towards a contradiction that there exists a\models p such that the family (\sigma^i(a))_{i\in\mathbb Z} is not independent over K relative to \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta. Choose such a realization a so that the least positive integer \ell for which a,\sigma(a),\ldots,\sigma^\ell(a) are K-dependent relative to \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta is as small as possible. Then we would have a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta \sigma(a), \ldots, \sigma^{\ell-1} a and \sigma^\ell(a) \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta \sigma(a), \ldots, \sigma^{\ell-1} a as \sigma(K)=K, whereas \sigma^\ell(a) \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta a, \sigma(a),\ldots,\sigma^{\ell-1}(a). By transitivity and symmetry, this gives a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_{K \langle \sigma(a), \ldots, \sigma^{\ell-1}(a) \rangle_\Delta}^\Delta \sigma^{\ell}(a). Hence, p \not \perp p^{\sigma^\ell}, contrary to our hypothesis. Thus, we have proved that for every realization a\models p, the family (\sigma^i(a))_{i\in\mathbb Z} is independent over K relative to \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta. In particular, if a is a single element in \mathbb U, a is \sigma-transcendental over K.

We now prove the assertion about quantifier-free type extensions. Let a\models p. Every quantifier-free \sigma-\Delta-formula in a can be written as a \Delta-formula in finitely many transforms (\sigma^i(a))_{i\in I} for some finite I\subseteq\mathbb Z. By stationarity and the independence of (\sigma^i(a))_{i\in I} proved above, \operatorname{tp}_{\Delta}\left((\sigma^i(a))_{i\in I}/K\right) is uniquely determined by the individual types p^{\sigma^i}. These types depend only on p and the action of \sigma on K. Hence all realizations of p have the same quantifier-free \sigma-\Delta-type over K, proving uniqueness of the complete quantifier-free extension, say q.

To prove minimality, let L\supseteq K be a small algebraically closed \sigma-\Delta-field, and let a\models p be nonalgebraic over L. Set p_L=\operatorname{tp}_\Delta(a/L). By minimality and stationarity of p^{\sigma^i}, p_L^{\sigma^i}=\operatorname{tp}_\Delta(\sigma^i(a)/L) is the unique nonforking extension of p^{\sigma^i} to L. In particular, \sigma^i(a)\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_K L for every i\in\mathbb Z. Orthogonality is preserved under nonforking extensions, so p_L\perp p_L^{\sigma^i} for every i>0. By the independence assertion proved above with L in place of K, we get (\sigma^i(a))_{i\in\mathbb Z} is independent over L. Consequently, for every finite I\subseteq\mathbb Z, the tuple (\sigma^i(a))_{i\in I} is independent over L. Since \sigma^i(a)\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_{K}L for each i, by transitivity, (\sigma^i(a))_{i\in I}\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_K L. By finite character and [LS-DCFAm, Proposition 3.1(v)], we obtain a\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^{\sigma\text{-}\Delta}_K L. This holds for arbitrary small \sigma-\Delta-field extensions of K, by passing to their algebraic closures. This proves the minimality of q.

Suppose a is not \sigma-transcendental. Then a is \sigma-algebraic. Let A \in \mathbb{Z}_+ be minimal so that a, \ldots, \sigma^{A} a are not K-independent relative to \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta. By triviality and minimality of p, and hence also of p^{\sigma^i} for every i \in \mathbb{Z}, this dependence yields \sigma^i(a) \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta \sigma^j(a) for some 0 \leq i < j \leq A. Applying \sigma^{-i} we may take i = 0 and by minimality of A, we have j = A. That is, \sigma^A(a)\in\operatorname{acl}(K,a) and p\not \perp p^{\sigma^A}. By Proposition 2.37, there is some bijective (on p) \Delta-rational function h taking realizations of p to realizations of p^{\sigma^A}. Since both h(a) and \sigma^A(a) are realizations of the totally disintegrated type p^{\sigma^A} in \operatorname{acl}(K,a) with a a realization of a minimal type p, we have h(a) = \sigma^A(a).

We claim that A is a multiple of \ell. Since A\geq \ell, we can write A = \ell n + r with 0 \leq r < \ell and n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}. Suppose towards a contradiction that r \neq 0. By Remark 3.7, f^{\diamond^{\sigma^\ell} n-1} is a bijective \Delta-rational function from p(\mathbb U) to p^{\sigma^{\ell n}}(\mathbb U). Let g be the \Delta-rational function which is inverse to f^{\diamond^{\sigma^\ell} n-1} on p^{\sigma^{\ell n}} given by Proposition 2.37. Then (h \circ g)^{\sigma^{-\ell n}} is a \Delta-rational function which takes realizations of p to realizations of p^{\sigma^{r}}. Hence, p \not \perp p^{\sigma^r}. As \ell was minimal with p \not \perp p^{\sigma^\ell}, we see that we must have had r = 0. So A=\ell n.

From the uniqueness assertion in Proposition 2.37, we see that h = f^{\diamond^{\sigma^\ell} n-1}. That is, a satisfies \sigma^{\ell n}(x) = f^{\diamond^{\sigma^\ell}n-1}(x).

Since K=K^{\sigma}, p^{\sigma^\ell}=p for each \ell\in\mathbb N_{>0}. Thus, if for some a realizing p we have a dependence amongst a, \sigma(a), \ldots, \sigma^N(a) for some N, then we have a dependence amongst realizations of p itself. Since p is totally disintegrated, this would force \sigma^i(a) = \sigma^j(a) for some 0 \leq i < j \leq N. Setting \ell := j - i, we would have \sigma^\ell(a) = a.

Let D:=p(\mathbb U). Since \sigma fixes K pointwise and commutes with the derivations, \sigma(D)=D. For every finite B\subseteq D, the set \operatorname{acl}^{\Delta}(K\cup B)\cap D is finite. Indeed, \aleph_0-categoricity implies that there are only finitely many relatively (K\cup B)-definable subsets of D. Every element of \operatorname{acl}^{\Delta}(K\cup B)\cap D belongs to a finite such subset, so their union is finite.

Suppose that \alpha is not \sigma-transcendental over K. Then there exists r\geq 1 such that \alpha,\sigma(\alpha),\ldots,\sigma^r(\alpha) are algebraically dependent over K, and hence dependent over K relative to \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta. Write b_i:=\sigma^i(\alpha), and choose the least \ell\geq1 such that b_0,b_1,\ldots,b_\ell is dependent over K relative to \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta. Such an \ell exists and is positive because p is nonalgebraic.

By the choice of \ell, the tuple (b_0,\ldots,b_{\ell-1}) is independent over K. Applying \sigma, we see that (b_1,\ldots,b_\ell) is also independent over K. Since every b_i realizes the minimal type p, the dependence of the full tuple implies

Consequently,

Let F:= \operatorname{acl}^{\Delta}(K,b_0,\ldots,b_{\ell-1}) \cap D. The set F is finite and contains \alpha. Moreover,

Thus \sigma permutes the finite set F, and hence \sigma^N(\alpha)=\alpha for some N\geq1.

If X and Y are nonorthogonal, then there is a relatively Kolchin closed subset Z \subseteq \Xi^*(\mathbb{P}^1,\omega_1) \times \Xi^*(\mathbb{P}^1,\omega_2) which projects dominantly and finite-to-one in both directions. We may take Z to be irreducible. By strict minimality, we may take Z to be defined over the same algebraically closed set of parameters as X and Y. From strict minimality of these sets, Z must be the graph of a bijection as if a, b \in \Xi^*(\mathbb{P}^1,\omega_1) and c \in \Xi^*(\mathbb{P}^1,\omega_2) with (a,c) \in Z and (b,c) \in Z, then b would lie in a finite set definable from a, which by strict minimality can consist only of a itself. Hence, Z is a single-rooted relation. Reasoning with the two factors reversed, we see that Z is the graph of a function. In general, a definable function is piecewise differential rational. By strong minimality of X, one piece is defined on a cofinite definable subset of X and the remaining pieces consist of algebraic points. As X is strictly minimal, X has no algebraic points, and thus the definable function is a single differential rational function. Since the derivative of any point in \Xi^*(\mathbb{P}^1,\omega_1) is rational over that point, it must be that Z is the graph of an invertible rational function, that is, of a rational automorphism of \mathbb{P}^1: an element of \operatorname{PGL}_2(\mathbb{U}).

By Lemma 4.3, p_1 and p_2 are nonorthogonal if and only if there is a Möbius transformation \phi(y)=\frac{\alpha y+\beta}{\gamma y+\eta} with \alpha, \beta, \gamma, \eta\in \mathbb U and \alpha\eta-\beta\gamma\neq 0, which carries a generic solution of \delta y=f_1(y) to a generic solution of \delta z=f_2(z). Take a solution y of \delta y=f_1(y) transcendental over E:=K\langle \alpha, \beta, \gamma, \eta\rangle. Differentiating \phi(y) and clearing denominators gives the following identity in E[y]:

The expression in brackets is (\alpha\eta-\beta\gamma)f_1(y)+R(y), where \deg R\leq 2. If \gamma\neq 0, the left-hand side therefore has degree 2n-2 and leading coefficient f_{1,n}\gamma^{n-2}(\alpha\eta-\beta\gamma)\neq 0. The right-hand side has degree at most n. Since 2n-2>n, this is impossible. Hence \gamma=0.

Set a=\alpha/\eta and b=\beta/\eta. The above identity now becomes

Comparing coefficients of y^n gives a^{n-1}=f_{1,n}/f_{2,n}. Since K is algebraically closed and f_{1,n}/f_{2,n}\in C_K, we have a\in C_K^\times. Comparing coefficients of y^{n-1} gives

and therefore

Thus \delta a=\delta b=0 and f_2(ay+b)=a f_1(y).

Now suppose that u\models p_1, v\models p_2, and u\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\delta v. Minimality gives

by Remark 2.26. For an affine bijection \phi(y)=ay+b as above, \phi(u)\models p_2 and

Strict minimality of p_2 therefore implies v=\phi(u).

Suppose that \xi is \sigma-algebraic over K. Since \xi is transcendental over K, there is an integer k\geq 1 such that \xi,\sigma(\xi),\ldots,\sigma^k(\xi) are algebraically dependent over K. For i\geq 0, write

As \sigma(K)=K and \sigma commutes with \delta, each p_i is the strictly minimal generic type of \delta y=f^{\sigma^i}(y) over K. These types are geometrically trivial. Hence Proposition 2.36 yields indices 0\leq i<j\leq k such that \xi_i\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\delta\xi_j. This dependence is also ordinary algebraic dependence over K, for \delta\xi_r=f^{\sigma^r}(\xi_r) implies K\langle\xi_r\rangle_\delta=K(\xi_r). Thus there exists a nonzero G\in K[y,z] such that G(\xi_i,\xi_j)=0.

Set s=j-i\geq 1. Applying \sigma^{-i} gives G^{\sigma^{-i}}(\xi,\sigma^s(\xi))=0, where G^{\sigma^{-i}}\in K[y,z]\setminus\{0\}. Since both \xi and \sigma^s(\xi) are transcendental over K, p_0 and p_s are not weakly orthogonal. Apply the final assertion of Lemma 4.4 to this particular pair of realizations, with f_1=f and f_2=f^{\sigma^s}. Since both polynomials are monic of degree n, it yields a\in(K^\delta)^\times and b\in K^\delta with the desired form satisfying

By Theorem 4.6, it suffices to show that the differential equations \frac{\partial g}{\partial y}=\frac{1}{f(y)} and \frac{\partial h(y)}{\partial y}=\frac{c}{f}\cdot h(y) for all c\in K^{\operatorname{alg}}\backslash\{0\} do not have nonzero solutions in K^{\operatorname{alg}}(y). Assume the solutions of f(y)=0 are \beta_1,\ldots, \beta_d. Since f is square-free, \beta_i\neq\beta_j for i\neq j. So r_i:=\text{res}(1/f,\beta_i)=\frac{1}{f'(\beta_i)} and \text{res}(c/f,\beta_i)=cr_i. Since r_i\neq0, by Proposition 4.7 (1), \frac{\partial g}{\partial y}=\frac{1}{f(y)} does not have a rational function solution over K (or equivalently over K^{\operatorname{alg}}). It remains to show there does not exist nonzero c\in K^{\operatorname{alg}} such that cr_i\in\mathbb Z for every i=1,\ldots,d. Suppose the contrary. Then for any pair (i,j), r_i/r_j\in\mathbb Q, a contradiction to the hypothesis. Thus, by Proposition 4.7 (2) and Theorem 4.6, the generic type of y'=f(y) is orthogonal to the constants.

Let L\supset K_f be a splitting field of f, and write

Since f is irreducible over K_f, its roots are distinct and the residues of 1/f at these roots are

where f'(y)=\frac{\partial f(y)}{\partial y}. By Lemma 4.8, it suffices to show that there exists i\neq j such that r_i/r_j\notin \mathbb Q.

Suppose, towards a contradiction, that all these ratios lie in \mathbb Q. Since the Galois group \operatorname{Aut}(L/K_f) acts transitively on the roots of f, for each i, there exists \tau_i\in \operatorname{Aut}(L/K_f) such that \tau_i(\beta_1)=\beta_i. So

Set N:=|\operatorname{Aut}(L/K_f)|. Then r_1=\tau_i^N(r_1)=q_{i1}^Nr_1 and q_{i1}^N=1. As q_{i1}\in\mathbb Q, q_{i1}=\pm 1 and r_i=\pm r_1 for each i. Let

So the partial fraction decomposition of 1/f over L is

Let P(y)=\prod_{i\in I_1}(y-\beta_i)\in L[y] and Q(y)=\prod_{i\in I_2}(y-\beta_i)\in L[y], where an empty product is 1. Then P(y) and Q(y) are coprime with f=\lambda P(y)Q(y). So we have

So \frac{\partial P(y)}{\partial y} Q-P\frac{\partial Q(y)}{\partial y}=1/(r_1\lambda)\in L.

If I_2=\varnothing, then Q=1 and \deg P=n\geq 3, so P' cannot be of degree zero. Thus this case is impossible. Set n_1=\deg P and n_2=\deg Q. If n_1\neq n_2, then P'Q-PQ' has leading coefficient n_1-n_2\neq 0 and degree

again a contradiction. It remains to consider n_1=n_2=k. Then n=2k\geq 3, so k\geq 2. Put D=Q(y)-P(y). As P and Q are monic, \deg(D)<k whenever D\neq 0. If D=0, then P'Q-PQ'=0, contradicting P'Q-PQ'=1/(r_1\lambda)\neq0. Otherwise, let d=\deg D<k. We have P'Q-PQ'=P'D-PD'. Its leading coefficient is (k-d)\operatorname{lc}(D)\neq 0, and its degree is k+d-1\geq 1. It therefore cannot be a nonzero element in L. Thus, we get a contradiction. This proves the claim that there always exists i\neq j such that r_i/r_j\notin\mathbb Q. By Lemma 4.8, the generic type is orthogonal to the constants.

Scaling by the leading coefficient, we may assume that f is monic. Let f=y^3+cy^2+by+d=(y-\alpha_1)(y-\alpha_2)(y-\alpha_3), where \alpha_i\in K_f^{\text{alg}}. Then r_i:=\text{res}(1/f,\alpha_i)=1/f'(\alpha_i). Suppose on the contrary that there exists i\neq j such that r_i/r_j\in\mathbb Q. Without loss of generality, suppose r_1/r_2=-\frac{\alpha_2-\alpha_3}{\alpha_1-\alpha_3}=q\in\mathbb Q. Since we also have \alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3=-c, \alpha_2=q_1\alpha_3+c(q_1-1)/3, where q_1=(1+2q)/(1-q)\in\mathbb Q (here q\neq1, for otherwise, \alpha_3=-c/3\in \mathbb Q(c)). By taking the powers of \alpha_2 up to degree 3 and adding them together with corresponding coefficients of f, we get

Thus, \alpha_3 satisfies a linear polynomial, which must be the zero polynomial, by irreducibility of f. Note that q_1\neq0, or 1, or -1, for otherwise, \alpha_2=-c/3\in\mathbb Q(c), or \alpha_2=\alpha_3, or \alpha_1=-c/3\in\mathbb Q(c) respectively, contradicting the irreducibility of f. So b=c^2/3. Substituting b=c^2/3 into the degree zero term of the above equation, we get (1-q_1^3)(d-c^3/27)=0. As q_1\in\mathbb Q and q_1\neq1, d=c^3/27. So we have f=y^3+cy^2+c^2y/3+c^3/27=(y+c/3)^3, a contradiction to the irreducibility of f. Thus, no two distinct residues r_i, r_j are rational multiples of each other. By Lemma 4.2, the generic type of y'=f(y) is strictly minimal.

Choose \beta\in\mathbb U with \beta^3=-a, and let \omega be a primitive cube root of unity. Since a\neq0, \beta, \beta\omega and \beta\omega^2 are all the simple poles of dy/f(y) and it has no other poles. Its residues are

For distinct i,j\in\{0,1,2\}, we have \frac{r_i}{r_j} = \omega^{2(j-i)} \in\{\omega,\omega^2\} \subseteq\mathbb U\setminus\mathbb Q. Thus no two residues are rational multiples of one another. By Lemma 4.2, V is strictly minimal over k. Since \sigma(a)\neq0 and \delta(\sigma(a))=0, the same argument applies to V^\sigma.

Applying Lemma 4.4 over k^{\operatorname{alg}} to V and V^\sigma, we have V and V^\sigma are non-orthogonal if and only if there exists \varepsilon\in\{1,-1\} such that f^\sigma(\varepsilon y) = \varepsilon f(y), equivalently, \sigma(a)=\varepsilon a.

Set M=L^{\mathrm{alg}}\subset\mathbb U. Then M is an algebraically closed \sigma-\delta-field, and \xi remains transcendental over M. For each i\geq 0, let

and let p_i\in S_{\delta}(K) be its generic type over K. By Lemma 4.11, each p_i is strictly minimal relative to \operatorname{DCF}_0. Hence, by Lemma 2.43 and the remark following it, each p_i is totally disintegrated.

Since \xi is transcendental over M, \operatorname{tp}_\delta(\xi/M) is a nonforking extension of p_0 over M. Minimality of p_0 therefore gives \xi\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\delta M. Applying Theorem 3.1 over K=K^{\operatorname{alg}}\subseteq M, we obtain \xi\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^{\sigma\text{-}\delta}M. By Proposition 2.22, I_{\sigma\text{-}\delta}(\xi/M) = I_{\sigma\text{-}\delta}(\xi/K). In particular, for every r\geq 0, the entries of \bigl(\xi,\sigma(\xi),\ldots,\sigma^r(\xi)\bigr) are algebraically independent over M if and only if they are algebraically independent over K. Thus \xi is \sigma-transcendental over M if and only if it is \sigma-transcendental over K.

Suppose that \xi is not \sigma-transcendental over L. Then it is \sigma-algebraic over M, and hence, is \sigma-algebraic over K. Apply Theorem 4.5 to f(y)=y^3+a. There exist n\geq 1, \varepsilon\in\{1,-1\}, and b\in K^\delta such that

and

Comparing coefficients of y^2 and the constant terms on both sides gives b=0 and \sigma^n(a)=\varepsilon a. Consequently, \sigma^n(\xi)=\varepsilon\xi, as required.

Set M=L^{\mathrm{alg}}\subset\mathbb U. Then M is an algebraically closed \sigma-\delta-field containing K, and \xi is transcendental over M. By Lemma 4.10, the nonconstant solution locus of \delta y=f(y) has a strictly minimal generic type. Its generic type over M is a nonforking extension and is again totally disintegrated by Corollary 2.35.

Suppose that \xi is \sigma-algebraic over L. It is then \sigma-algebraic over M, so Theorem 4.5, applied over M, yields s\geq 1, \varepsilon\in\{1,-1\}, and b\in C_M such that

Comparing coefficients of y^2 gives

Hence b=(\varepsilon a_2-\sigma^s(a_2))/3\in C_K.

By definition of \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^{\sigma\text{-}\Delta}, we have that (\sigma^j(a))_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_K L. By finite character of dependence, there are M,N \in \mathbb{N} so that (\sigma^j(a))_{-M \leq j \leq N} \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}_K^\Delta L. Applying \sigma^M and using the fact that K and L are inversive, we may assume that M = 0. Minimize N. If N = 0, then a \in L^{\operatorname{alg}} which implies because L is inversive that \sigma^i(a) is algebraic over L for every i \in \mathbb{Z}. That is, \operatorname{ord}_\sigma(a/L) = 0. Consider now the case that N > 0. We have that a, \ldots, \sigma^{N-1}(a) \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_K L so that by transitivity \sigma^N(a) \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_{K \langle a, \ldots, \sigma^{N-1}(a) \rangle_\Delta} L \langle a, \ldots, \sigma^{N-1}(a) \rangle_\Delta. Since \operatorname{tp}_\Delta(a/K) is minimal, so is \operatorname{tp}_\Delta(\sigma^N(a)/K). Hence, this dependence gives that \sigma^N(a) is algebraic over L \langle a, \ldots, \sigma^{N-1}(a) \rangle_\Delta. Iterating \sigma, we see that

Applying \sigma^{-1} to the above gives \sigma^{N-1}(a)\in L\langle\sigma^{-1}(a),a,\ldots,\sigma^{N-2}(a)\rangle_{\Delta}^{\operatorname{alg}}. We claim that \sigma^{N-1}(a)\notin L\langle a,\ldots,\sigma^{N-2}(a)\rangle_{\Delta}^{\operatorname{alg}}. Otherwise, since a,\ldots,\sigma^{N-1}(a)\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_K L, we would get \sigma^{N-1}(a)\in K\langle a,\ldots,\sigma^{N-2}(a)\rangle_{\Delta}^{\operatorname{alg}}. Applying \sigma, we get \sigma^{N}(a)\in K\langle \sigma(a),\ldots,\sigma^{N-1}(a)\rangle_{\Delta}^{\operatorname{alg}}, whence K\langle a,\ldots,\sigma^N(a)\rangle_{\Delta}^{\operatorname{alg}}=K\langle a,\ldots,\sigma^{N-1}(a)\rangle_{\Delta}^{\operatorname{alg}} would be independent from L over K, a contradiction to a,\ldots,\sigma^{N}(a)\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_K L. This proves the claim. Thus, we have \sigma^{N-1}(a)\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^\Delta_{L\langle a,\ldots,\sigma^{N-2}(a)\rangle_\Delta} \sigma^{-1}(a). By symmetry and minimality of \operatorname{tp}_\Delta(\sigma^{-1}(a)/K), we obtain \sigma^{-1}(a)\in L\langle a,\ldots,\sigma^{N-1}(a)\rangle_{\Delta}^{\operatorname{alg}}. Iterating \sigma^{-1}, we see that L \langle a \rangle_{\sigma\text{-}\Delta} = L \langle \{ \sigma^j(a) : j \in \mathbb{Z} \} \rangle_\Delta \subseteq L \langle a, \ldots, \sigma^{N-1}(a) \rangle_\Delta^{\operatorname{alg}}. That is, \operatorname{ord}_\sigma(a/L) \leq N.

Suppose to the contrary that \operatorname{SU}(a/K) > \omega. Then by definition of the Lascar rank we can find a small inversive \sigma-\Delta-extension L \subseteq \mathbb{U} of K so that a \mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef \nn=12854\hss$\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^{\sigma\text{-}\Delta}_K L and \operatorname{SU}(a/L) \geq \omega. By Lemma 5.3, \operatorname{ord}_\sigma(a/L) < \infty. But then Proposition 5.4 yields \operatorname{SU}(a/L) \leq \operatorname{ord}_\sigma(a/L) < \omega, contrary to our hypothesis.

Since a minimal group is commutative [Reineke], we use additive notation. Define the \operatorname{DCF}_{0,m}\operatorname{A}-definable endomorphism

For each N\geq0, let H_N:=\ker(\psi^N), where \psi^0=\operatorname{id}_G and H_0=\{0\}. Thus, H_1 =\{x\in G:\sigma^\ell(x)=f(x)\}.

Let us now show how to use the geometric axioms to see that \psi is surjective and that H_1 is infinite.

By [LS-DCFAm, Proposition 3.4(v)], (\mathbb U,\Delta,\sigma^\ell) is a model of \operatorname{DCF}_{0,m}\operatorname{A}. Fix b\in G(\mathbb U) and an arbitrary finite set E\subseteq G(\mathbb U). Choose a small algebraically closed \sigma^\ell-\Delta-subfield K\subseteq\mathbb U containing b, the coordinates of E, and the parameters defining G and f. Since G is connected, it has a unique generic differential type p over K. By saturation, choose c\in G(\mathbb U) realizing p, and set d:=f(c)+\sigma^\ell(b). Then d realizes the unique generic differential type p^{\sigma^\ell} of G^{\sigma^\ell} over K.

Let Z be the Kolchin locus of c over K, and let W be the Kolchin locus of (c,d) over K. Since d realizes p^{\sigma^\ell}, its Kolchin locus is Z^{\sigma^\ell}. Hence W\subseteq Z\times Z^{\sigma^\ell}, and both coordinate projections are \Delta-dominant. Consider the K-definable set

Note that (c,d)\in D, since c is generic over K and E\subseteq G(K) is finite. By quantifier elimination in \operatorname{DCF}_{0,m}, D is Kolchin-constructible. Because it contains the generic point (c,d) of W, there is a nonempty \Delta-open subset O\subseteq W contained in D.

Applying [LS-DCFAm, Fact 2.1] to W\subseteq Z\times Z^{\sigma^\ell} and its open subset O, we obtain x\in Z(\mathbb U) such that (x,\sigma^\ell(x))\in O\subseteq D. Therefore x\in G(\mathbb U)\setminus E and \sigma^\ell(x)=f(x)+\sigma^\ell(b). Applying \sigma^{-\ell} gives \psi(x)=x-\sigma^{-\ell}(f(x))=b.

Taking E=\varnothing and allowing arbitrary b proves that \psi is surjective. Taking b=0 and allowing arbitrary finite E shows that H_1=\ker\psi is infinite.

For every N\geq0, the restriction \psi^N:H_{N+1}\longrightarrow H_1 is a surjective homomorphism with kernel H_N. Indeed, if x\in H_{N+1}, then \psi(\psi^N(x))=0, so \psi^N(x)\in H_1. Conversely, given z\in H_1, surjectivity of \psi^N provides x\in G with \psi^N(x)=z, and then \psi^{N+1}(x)=\psi(z)=0. The kernel of this restriction is precisely H_N. Therefore, H_{N+1}/H_N\cong H_1. In particular, [H_{N+1}:H_N] is infinite.

Thus G contains an increasing chain of \operatorname{DCF}_{0,m}\operatorname{A}-definable subgroups \{0\}=H_0<H_1<H_2<\cdots, each of infinite index in the next. By the Lascar inequalities [Wagner-simple, Theorem 5.1.6(1)], \operatorname{SU}(H_{N+1}) \geq \operatorname{SU}(H_N) +\operatorname{SU}(H_{N+1}/H_N) \geq \operatorname{SU}(H_N)+1. It follows that \operatorname{SU}(G)\geq\omega.

Since G is connected and the \Delta-type p is minimal, G is strongly minimal relative to \operatorname{DCF}_{0,m}. Thus p is the unique nonalgebraic \Delta-type over K on G.

Let q be a generic type of G over K relative to \operatorname{DCF}_{0,m}\operatorname{A}. Its \Delta-restriction is nonalgebraic: otherwise, q would contain a \Delta-formula over K with finitely many solutions and would itself be algebraic. Consequently, q extends p.

Generic types of a definable group in a supersimple theory have the same \operatorname{SU}-rank as the group. Hence Proposition 5.6 gives

On the other hand, let q be any complete \sigma-\Delta-type over K extending p, and b\models q. Since \operatorname{tp}_\Delta(b/K)=p is minimal, Corollary 5.5 gives \operatorname{SU}(q)=\operatorname{SU}(b/K)\leq\omega. Taking the supremum over all such completions q, we obtain \operatorname{SU}(p)\leq\omega. Therefore \operatorname{SU}(p)=\omega.

Apply Corollary 5.7 to the group G = (\{ x \in \mathbb{U} : \delta x = 0 \text{ for all } \delta \in \Delta \}, +) and the definable homomorphism f:G \to G being the identity map given by x \mapsto x.

By [Casale-Freitag-Nagloo-I, Fact 5.1], A^\sharp is strongly minimal. In particular, p is minimal and stationary. For each \ell>0, the generic \Delta-type of (A^{\sigma^\ell})^\sharp= (A^\sharp)^{\sigma^\ell} is p^{\sigma^\ell}. By [Casale-Freitag-Nagloo-I, Fact 5.6], for every \ell>0,

Suppose first that no such isogeny exists. Then p\perp p^{\sigma^\ell} for every \ell>0. By Proposition 3.8, p has a unique complete quantifier-free \sigma-\delta-extension, and this extension is minimal. It remains to show that every full completion of p has \operatorname{SU}-rank one. Let q be such a completion, let a\models q, and let E\supseteq K be a small parameter set such that \operatorname{tp}_{\sigma\text{-}\delta}(a/E) is nonalgebraic. Set L:=\operatorname{acl}^{\sigma\text{-}\delta}(E). By [LS-DCFAm, Proposition 3.1(i)], L is an algebraically closed \sigma-\delta-field. Moreover, a is nonalgebraic over L. The proof of Proposition 3.8 therefore gives a\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{$x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\mid$\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^{\sigma\text{-}\delta}_K L, and hence a\mathop{\mathpalette\setbox0=\hbox{x}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss} \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss\hss}\kern\wd0{}}^{\sigma\text{-}\delta}_K E. Thus every nonalgebraic extension of q is nonforking, so every forking extension of q is algebraic. Since q itself is nonalgebraic, \operatorname{SU}(q)=1.

Suppose now that there is an isogeny f:A\to A^{\sigma^\ell} for some \ell>0, which necessarily will be defined over K [Chow-AV]. We show that f restricts to a definable surjective homomorphism A^\sharp\to (A^{\sigma^\ell})^\sharp.

Since f sends \operatorname{Tor}(A), the set of torsion points of A, to \operatorname{Tor}(A^{\sigma^\ell}), \operatorname{Tor}(A)\subseteq f^{-1}((A^{\sigma^\ell})^\sharp). As the Manin kernel A^\sharp is the smallest \Delta-definable subgroup containing \operatorname{Tor}(A)[BBP-semiabelian, Lemma 3.3(i)], A^\sharp\subseteq f^{-1}((A^{\sigma^\ell})^\sharp), and thus f(A^\sharp)\subseteq (A^{\sigma^\ell})^\sharp. Since f has finite kernel and A^\sharp is infinite, f(A^\sharp) is an infinite \Delta-definable subgroup of (A^{\sigma^\ell})^\sharp. Strong minimality of (A^{\sigma^\ell})^\sharp therefore gives f(A^\sharp)=(A^{\sigma^\ell})^\sharp.

We have therefore obtained a K-definable surjective homomorphism

The strongly minimal group A^\sharp is connected: a proper definable subgroup of finite index would be infinite and coinfinite. Corollary 5.7 now gives \operatorname{SU}(p)=\omega.