Author |
Topic: Elementary Equivalence (Read 547 times) |
|
0.999...
Full Member
Gender: 
Posts: 156
|
 |
Elementary Equivalence
« on: Aug 6th, 2015, 7:31pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Show that the abelian group of integers Z is not elementarily equivalent to the abelian group Z+Z (direct sum).
That is, find (show that there exists) a sentence involving the symbols +,*,0 (and =) that is true for one but not for the other.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 7th, 2015, 1:55am by 0.999... » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500
|
|
Re: Elementary Equivalence
« Reply #1 on: Aug 30th, 2015, 3:54pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I thought someone might have taken this by now
since it has interesting analogies in other areas
and those ideas are very similar.
Elementary equivalent means that any first-order
sentence (logical - meaning in group theory
language and using forall and there exists) that is
true for one of the groups is true for the other.
Elementary equivalence is weaker than
isomorphism - in fact, strictly weaker but you are
at liberty to think of it as an equivalence relation
as it certainly is.
In particular, the group Z is cyclic with generators
+-1. So, you can contrive a sentence asserting this
fact involving forall and there exists (not necessarily
involving its generators). This will certainly be true
in Z but not in Z+Z since Z+Z is not cyclic.
|
|
IP Logged |
Regards,
Michael Dagg
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print