![Arxiv:1809.04940V2 [Math.LO]](http://data.docslib.org/img/50c63cc829a40ce764e0238c45c13cc5-1.webp)
arXiv:1809.04940v2 [math.LO] 25 Nov 2019 yauaypeiaenaming predicate unary a by denoted oe-hoei rprisof properties model-theoretic oe hoei aeespeeti both in present tameness theoretic model n[] aaoa n ige en h oino set a of notion the define Ziegler and Casanovas [5], In omlsi h xaso ( expansion the in formulas opeiyin complexity in ( ml esaebudd loehr hsyed taeyfrpro for strategy ( a expansion yields an this of Altogether, NIP) bounded. are sets small conjecture fMrelLn o ucinfils osqec fPla’ oki t is work Pillay’s of any consequence then A minimal, fields. Hrusho strongly of function ingredients for model-theoretic Mordell-Lang the of describes also and [26], in ( e in set a hw yCenkvadSmn[6]. Simon and Chernikov by shown was ( hoy aaoa n ige 5 loioaetemr eatcnot semantic more the isolate also [5] Ziegler and Casanovas theory, ml in small 1]t rdc e aiiso tbeepnin f( Lambott of and expansions 8], stable of [7, families author new first produce the to [24], [18] Sklinos Palac´ın and by used M C C , , ie structure a Given Date oal ntneo h iuto bv ocrsepnin ft of expansions concerns above situation the of instance notable A rwn rmrslso ozt[7 n“euiu ar”o oesof models of pairs” “beautiful on [27] Poizat of results from Drawing M + + A , EKYMNMLGOP IHANWPREDICATE NEW A WITH GROUPS MINIMAL WEAKLY , , seDfiiin21,wihi eti qatfirognzto”prop organization” “quantifier certain a is which 2.1), Definition (see ssal fadol if only and if stable is ) · · M oebr2,2019. 25, November : , yafiiern ugopΓo eiaeinvrey nti setting this In variety. semi-abelian a of Γ subgroup rank finite a by ) )i tbeadΓ and stable is Γ) xaso ( expansion A Let o I)i n nyi the if only and if NIP) (or leri numbers, algebraic Abstract. eainwt leri offiins n orpae otof root repeated no of and polynomial coefficients, algebraic with relation ete etitt h aethat case the to restrict then We ihtiilfrig.Ti etn nopse oto the ( of most of encompasses expansions setting stable This forking). trivial with riiy egv e xmlso tbesrcue ftefo the of structures stable of examples new give we braicity, iia hoy and theory, minimal oal,w hwta f( if that show we notably, A M seDfiiin31) n hwta if that show and 3.10), Definition (see M ea rirr usto h universe the of subset arbitrary an be nwatermo atnsadVja seuvln otestatemen the to equivalent is Vojta) and Faltings of theorem a (now M n hnthat then and seDfiiin22,i nepeal n( in interpretable is 2.2), Definition (see ∗ A ea xaso ycntnsfra lmnaysubstructure elementary an for constants by expansion an be M ARE OATADMCALC LASKOWSKI C. MICHAEL AND CONANT GABRIEL M i ekymnml(.. superstable (i.e., minimal weakly a Fix esssi ( in persists ∗ A M A , saro fuiy hn( then unity, of root a is r qiaett one omls n o( so and formulas, bounded to equivalent are ) n set a and , M A ( A A , C ⊆ A Z M M , A + , M G ) sn aiu hrceiain fmta alge- mutual of characterizations various Using +). fa fpstructure nfcp an of ) M , M A A , · G, ⊆ smtal leri euvlnl,wal minimal weakly (equivalently, algebraic mutually is M ) seueae yahmgnoslna recurrence linear homogeneous a by enumerated is M nti iuto,the situation, this In . ssal o I) hssrtg a enrecently been has strategy This NIP). (or stable is 1. s1bsd hseuvlnei xlie yPillay by explained is equivalence This 1-based. is )i ekymnmladtv ugopo the of subgroup additive minimal weakly a is +) M ,adte hwta if that show they and ), htaepeevdi h xaso ( expansion the in preserved are that and A , idcdstructure -induced A Introduction sbuddin bounded is .Atgte,afnaetlqeto swhen is question fundamental a Altogether, ). ⊆ A M M M 1 sapr bla ru ihaweakly a with group abelian pure a is omnln fivsiainconcerns investigation of line common a , G, r tbe h nlgu eutfrNIP for result analogous The stable. are M M + eso htalfrua nthe in formulas all that show We . B , and ssprtbefrany for superstable is ) A M M M A M M M Z U se[,Crlay5.4]). Corollary [5, (see sstable is on , rn )structure 1) -rank n rtsosthat shows first one : M A , +). sas rsn n( in present also is A A A idcdsrcueon structure -induced n omdltheoretic model so and ) ssal o NIP). (or stable is eetrsac on research recent m( rm h characteristic the sbuddin bounded is ⊆ M M and M A , A , igsaiiy(or stability ving sstable is ) ecmlxfield complex he htis that sis[5 proof [15] vski’s n let and , .Most ). a fp then nfcp, has B o fa of ion M ⊆ n Point and e a if hat M A A , . . M stable a bounded , M of ) ryof erty Lang’s that t small M then A , A M A ). is is , 2 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
The first main result of this paper is that if M is weakly minimal (i.e., superstable of U-rank 1), then any subset of M is bounded in the expansion of M by constants for some M0 M (see Theorem 2.8). This generalizes Pillay’s result on strongly minimal structures (modulo the extra constants for M0, which are necessary; see Remark 2.13), and eliminates the role of smallness in the strategy for preserving stability used in [7], [8], [18], and [24]. We also obtain the following conclusion about expansions of weakly minimal structures by unary predicates. Theorem 2.9. Suppose M is weakly minimal and A ⊆ M. (a) If AM is stable of U-rank α then (M, A) is stable of U-rank at most α · ω. (b) If AM is NIP then (M, A) is NIP. In the rest of the paper, we focus on expansions of pure abelian groups G = (G, +) whose theory is weakly minimal (see Proposition 3.1 for an algebraic characteriza- tion of such groups). Given A ⊆ G, the induced structure AG decouples into two qf parts, namely, the quantifier-free induced structure AG (see Definition 3.3), along with unary predicates A ∩ nG for all n ≥ 1. The focus of [18] and [24] is on expan- sions of Z = (Z, +) by sets A ⊆ Z that are eventually periodic modulo any fixed n ≥ 1, which implies good behavior for these extra unary predicates. However, as observed by the first author in [7, 8], the sets A ⊆ Z considered in [7], [8], [18], and qf [24] all have the property that any expansion of AZ by unary predicates is stable, and so this extra assumption of periodicity is unnecessary. In the present paper, we isolate a model-theoretic setting for this phenomenon. Specifically, we consider mutually algebraic structures, which were defined by the second author in [19], and shown to satisfy the property that any expansion by unary predicates is stable and has nfcp. In Section 3, we prove the following result. Theorem 3.21. Let G = (G, +) be a weakly minimal abelian group. Fix A ⊆ G, qf and suppose AG is mutually algebraic. Then, for any finite F ⊂ G and any B ⊆ A + F , (G,B) is superstable of U-rank at most ω. Moreover, if G has finite torsion then (G,B) has nfcp; and if G = (Z, +) and B is infinite then (G,B) has U-rank ω. Preservation of nfcp in Theorem 3.21, is obtained via a result of Casanovas and Ziegler [5] involving small sets (see Proposition 3.11). In order to apply [5], we show that if G = (G, +) is a weakly minimal abelian group with finite torsion, and A ⊆ G is such that AG is mutually algebraic, then A is small in G (see Corollary 3.19). This result is also interesting in light of the fact that smallness of A and mutual algebraicity of A(Z,+) are given as separate arguments in the work on stable expansions of the form (Z, +, A) from [7], [8], [18], and [24]. Finally, in Section 4, we use Theorem 3.21 to find new examples of stable expan- sions of weakly minimal abelian groups. In particular, we show that if G = (G, +) is a weakly minimal abelian group, A is a subset of G, and one of the following qf situations holds, then AG is mutually algebraic and so Theorem 3.21 applies. ∞ an+1 §4.1. G is a subgroup of (C, +), A = {an} , and either limn→∞ | | = ∞ or n=0 an an+1 limn→∞ = τ for some transcendental τ ∈ C with |τ| > 1. an §4.2. G is an additive subgroup of an algebraically closed field K of characteristic 0, and A is contained in a finite rank multiplicative subgroup of K∗. §4.3. G is a subgroup of (Qalg, +), and A is enumerated by a linear homogeneous recurrence relation with constant coefficients whose characteristic polyno- mial has no repeated root that is also a root of unity. WEAKLYMINIMALGROUPS WITHA NEWPREDICATE 3
The examples in Section 4.1 generalize certain families of “sparse sets” considered in [7], [18], and [24]. In this case, we use methods similar to Lambotte and Point qf [18] to show that AG is interdefinable with A in the language of equality. The examples in Section 4.2 generalize work of the first author from [8], and complement many existing results about expansions of the field (C, +, ·) by finite rank multiplicative subgroups (e.g., Belegradek & Zilber [2], and Van den Dries & G¨unaydın [9]). In this case, we use a number-theoretic result of Everste, Schlickewei, qf and Schmidt [11] to give an extremely quick proof that AG is mutually algebraic. This proof also highlights a pleasing parallel between the original definition of mutual algebraicity from [19] and the behavior of solutions of linear equations which lie in a finite rank multiplicative group. Section 4.3 provides a significant generalization of the examples from [7] and [18] of stable structures of the form (Z, +, A), where A is enumerated by a homogeneous linear recurrence relation. These sources impose fairly restrictive assumptions such as irreducibility of the characteristic polynomial p(x) of the recurrence. In partic- ular, stability of (Z, +, A) even when p(x) is separable was open. Here we consider a weakly minimal subgroup G of (Qalg, +), and a set A ⊆ G enumerated by a recurrence relation whose characteristic polynomial p(x) has no roots of unity as qf repeated roots. To prove AG is mutually algebraic, we first exhibit mutual alge- Φ braicity of an auxiliary structure NK, formulated using a number field over which A qf Φ is defined, and then show that AG is suitably interpreted in NK. The proof of mu- Φ tual algebraicity for NK uses a new characterization of mutual algebraic structures, due to the second author and Terry [20], as well as a quantitative version of work of M. Laurent [21, 22], due to Schlickwei and Schmidt [30], on the number of solutions to polynomial-exponential equations over number fields. Finally, in Theorem 4.16, we give a more direct proof in the case that p(x) is separable, which also applies to any algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. Acknowledgements. This work began while both authors were participants in the Model Theory, Combinatorics and Valued Fields trimester program at Insitut Henri Poincar´ein Spring 2018. We thank IHP for their hospitality. We also thank Tom Scanlon for suggesting the work of M. Laurent, and the anonymous referee for valuable revisions and suggestions. The second author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1308546.
2. Bounded sets in weakly minimal theories Throughout this section, let T be a complete theory with infinite models in some language L. Given M |= T , when we say that a set X ⊆ M n is M-definable, we mean definable with parameters from M. Let L(P ) = L∪{P } where P is a unary relation symbol not in L. Given M |= T and A ⊆ M, let (M, A) be the L(P )-structure expanding M in which P is interpreted as A. Definition 2.1.
(1) An L(P )-formula φ(x1,...,xn) is bounded if it is of the form
Q1y1 ∈ P...Qmym ∈ P ψ(x1,...,xn,y1,...,ym)
for some quantifiers Q1,...,Qm and some L-formula ψ(¯x, y¯). (2) Given M |= T , a set A ⊆ M is bounded in M if every L(P )-formula is equivalent, modulo Th(M, A), to a bounded L(P )-formula. 4 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
M Definition 2.2. Given M |= T and a sort S from L, let LS denote the relational n language containing an n-ary relation RX of sort S , for any n ≥ 1 and any M- S n S M definable X ⊆ (M ) . Given A ⊆ M , let AM denote the LS -structure, with n universe A, in which each symbol RX is interpreted as A ∩ X. We call AM the M-induced structure on A. The following is Proposition 3.1 of [5]. Proposition 2.3 (Casanovas & Ziegler). Fix M |= T and A ⊆ M. If A is bounded in M, then (M, A) is stable if and only if M and AM are stable. We will also use the following characterization of bounded sets in stable theories, which is part of Proposition 5.3 of [5]. Proposition 2.4 (Casanovas & Ziegler). If T is stable then, for any M |= T and A ⊆ M, the following are equivalent. (i) A is bounded in M. + (ii) If (N ,B) ≡L(P ) (M, A) is |T | -saturated, f is an L-elementary map in N , which is a finite extension of a permutation of B, and a ∈ N, then there is b ∈ N such that f ∪{(a,b)} is L-elementary. For the rest of the paper, we will focus on expansions of weakly minimal theories. Definition 2.5. A complete theory T with infinite models is weakly minimal if it is stable and any forking extension of a 1-type is algebraic. We will also call models of T weakly minimal when T is weakly minimal. Recall that any stable theory has a U-rank in Ord ∪ {∞}, which is ordinal-valued if and only if the theory is superstable. Recall also that T is weakly minimal if and only if it is stable of U-rank 1. The following result is [7, Theorem 2.11], and is proved using Proposition 2.3 and techniques similar to the work of Palac´ınand Sklinos [24] on the expansion of (Z, +) by {2n : n ∈ N}. (We use · for multiplication of ordinals, which extends to Ord ∪ {∞} in the obvious way.) Theorem 2.6 (Conant). Assume T is weakly minimal and fix M |= T . Suppose A ⊆ M is bounded in M and is such that AM is stable of U-rank α. Then (M, A) is stable of U-rank at most α · ω. Definition 2.7.
(1) Given M |= T , let LM be the expansion of L by adding a constant symbol for each element of M, and let TM be the elementary diagram of M in the expanded language LM . (2) Fix M |= T and M0 M. Aset A ⊆ M is bounded in M with respect
to LM0 if it is bounded in the canonical LM0 -expansion of M, i.e., for all ¯ y¯ L(P )-formulas φ(¯x;¯y) and all b ∈ M0 , there is a bounded L(P )-formula z¯ ¯ ψ(¯x;¯z) andc ¯ ∈ M0 such that (M, A) |= ∀x¯(φ(¯x; b) ↔ ψ(¯x;¯c)). We now state our first main result.
Theorem 2.8. If T is weakly minimal, M |= T , and M0 M, then every subset of M is bounded in M with respect to LM0 . Before continuing to the proof, we use Theorem 2.8 to establish the second main result of this section. WEAKLYMINIMALGROUPS WITHA NEWPREDICATE 5
Theorem 2.9. Suppose T is weakly minimal, M |= T , and A ⊆ M. (a) If AM is stable of U-rank α, then (M, A) is stable of U-rank at most α · ω. (b) If AM is NIP then (M, A) is NIP.
Proof. By definition of AM, we may assume without loss of generality that L = LM and T = TM. By Theorem 2.8, A is bounded in M. So part (a) follows from Theorem 2.6, and part (b) follows from [6, Corollary 2.5]. The proof of Theorem 2.8 breaks into several pieces. We first note various facts about weakly minimal theories. First, note that if T is weakly minimal and M |= T , then TM is weakly minimal.
Lemma 2.10. Suppose T is weakly minimal, M0 |= T , M0 M, and M0 ⊆ A ⊆ + M. Then acl(A) |= T and M0 acl(A) M. Moreover, if M0 is |T | -saturated, then acl(A) is |T |+-saturated as well. Proof. Without loss of generality, assume A = acl(A). To show A M, we choose an L-formula φ(x;¯a), witha ¯ ⊂ A, that has a solution b ∈ M, and we show that φ(x;¯a) has a solution in A. If b ∈ A we are done, so assume b 6∈ A. Then b | a¯ ⌣M0 ∗ ∗ and so, by finitely satisfiability, there is b ∈ M0 such that M |= ϕ(b ;¯a), as desired. Next, since M0 M and M0 ⊆ A ⊆ M, it follows that M0 A. + Now assume M0 is |T | -saturated. We argue that any model N M0 must also be |T |+-saturated, which suffices. The proof is essentially the same as [14, Proposition 3.5] (in fact, the following argument can be adapted to any non- multidimensional theory by replacing the use of weak minimality with an appro- priate version of the “three-model lemma”). Let N ∗ be the |T |+-prime model over N. If N = N ∗ we finish, so assume otherwise. Choose b ∈ N ∗\N. Then tp(b/N) is a non-algebraic extension of tp(b/M0) and so b | N by weak minimality. Since ⌣M0 ∗ N is dominated by N over M0 (adapt [25, Lemma 1.4.3.4(iii)] to the category of |T |+-saturated models), we have b | N ∗, which is a contradiction. ⌣M0 Suppose now that T is weakly minimal. Then a 1-type over a model of T is regular if and only if it is non-algebraic. Suppose M N are |T |+-saturated models of T . By weak minimality and exchange for algebraic independence, we have that for any regular p, q ∈ S1(M), if p and q are non-orthogonal, and I ⊆ p(N) and J ⊆ q(N) are maximal M-independent sets, then |I| = |J| (note that by |T |+ saturation, orthogonality and weak orthogonality coincide for regular types over M; see [25, Lemma 1.4.3.1]). So, for any regular type p over some other model of T , we have a well-defined dimension dimp(N/M), namely, the cardinality of a maximal M-independent set of realizations in N of any regular q ∈ S1(M) non-orthogonal to p. The following property of dimp is a standard exercise (see [25], [32]). Fact 2.11. Assume T is weakly minimal and M N |= T are |T |+-saturated. ∗ ∗ Suppose p is a regular type over some model of T , and N N . Then dimp(N /M) ∗ is finite if and only if dimp(N /N) and dimp(N/M) are finite, and in this case ∗ ∗ dimp(N /M) = dimp(N /N) + dimp(N/M). We now prove a proposition that carries additional hypotheses, which we subse- quently remove in the proof of Theorem 2.8. + Proposition 2.12. Suppose T is weakly minimal, M0 |= T is |T | -saturated,
M0 M, and A ⊆ M is LM0 -algebraically closed (so, in particular, M0 ⊆ A ⊆
M). Then A is bounded in M with respect to LM0 . 6 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
Proof. We will apply Proposition 2.4 with respect to the LM0 -theory TM0 . Given ∗ ∗ A as in the statement, choose any sufficiently saturated (M , A ) L (M, A). M0 (P ) ¯ ∗ ∗¯ ∗ Fix finite b, c¯ ⊂ M and an LM0 -elementary bijection f : A b → A c¯ extending a permutation of A∗. Choose any d ∈ M ∗\A∗¯b. It suffices to find d′ ∈ M ∗ such ′ ∗ that f ∪{(d, d )} is LM0 -elementary. By Lemma 2.10, the structures A , M1 := ∗ ∗ + aclL (A ¯b), and M := aclL (A c¯) are |T | -saturated models of TM . Note M0 2 M0 0 ∗ that we can extend f to an LM0 -isomorphism f : M1 →M2. Let p := tp(d/M1) ′ ∗ ′ ′ ∗ and p := f (p) ∈ S1(M2). We want to show that p is realized by some d ∈ M . ′ Now, if d ∈ M1 then we are done, so assume otherwise. Then p and p are regular, ∗ and have the same restriction to M0 since f is LM0 -elementary. In particular, p ′ ∗ ∗ and p are non-orthogonal, and so dimp′ (M /M2) = dimp(M /M2). So, to show ′ ∗ ∗ p is realized in M , it suffices to show dimp(M /M2) > 0. For a contradiction, ∗ suppose dimp(M /M2) = 0. Note that dimp(M2/A∗) is finite since it is bounded ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ above by dimacl(M2/A ). So dimp(M /A ) = dimp(M2/A ) by Fact 2.11. Note ∗ ∗ ∗ also that dimp(M1/A ) = dimp(M2/A ) since f is an LM0 -isomorphism extending ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ a permutation of A . So dimp(M /A ) = dimp(M1/A ) which, by Fact 2.11, yields ∗ dimp(M /M1) = 0. But this contradicts our assumption that d 6∈ M1. We can now prove Theorem 2.8.
Proof of Theorem 2.8. Assume T is weakly minimal, M |= T , and M0 M. Choose A ⊆ M arbitrarily. We want to show A is bounded in M with respect + to LM0 . Consider the L(P,Q)-structure (M,A,M0). Choose a |T | -saturated ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ L(P,Q)-elementary extension (M , A ,M0 ), and note that M0 is the universe of + ∗ a |T | -saturated L-elementary extension M0 of M0. ∗ ∗ M∗ ∗ ∗ We now work with the theory T 0 in the language L := LM0 . Let(N ,B) ≡L (P ) ∗ ∗ + ∗ M∗ L∗ (M , A ) be |T 0 | -saturated. Let B = acl (B). We have that T is weakly ∗ + ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ minimal, M0 |= T is |T | -saturated, M0 N , and B ⊆ N is L -algebraically closed. So we may apply Proposition 2.12 to conclude that B∗ is bounded in N ∗ with respect to L∗. Now, supposec, ¯ d¯ ⊂ N ∗ are finite and h: Bc¯ → Bd¯ is an L∗- elementary bijection in N ∗ extending a permutation of B. Then h extends to an L∗-elementary bijection h∗ : B∗c¯ → B∗d¯. Since B∗ is bounded in N ∗ with respect to L∗, Proposition 2.4 implies that for every a ∈ N ∗ there is an a′ ∈ N ∗ such that h∗ ∪{(a,a′)} is L∗-elementary in N ∗. Applying Proposition 2.4 again, we conclude that B is bounded in N ∗ with respect to L∗. By elementarity, A∗ is bounded in M∗ with respect to L∗. Now, fix any L(P )-formula φ(¯x;¯y) and let Γ(¯y) be the L(P,Q)-type {y¯ ∈ Q}∪{∀z¯ ∈ Q ¬∀x¯(φ(¯x;¯y) ↔ ψ(¯x;¯z)) : ψ(¯x;¯z) is a bounded L(P )-formula}. Since A∗ is bounded in M∗ with respect to L∗, Γ(¯y) is not realized in N := ∗ ∗ ∗ (M , A ,M0 ). By saturation of N , Γ(¯y) is inconsistent with Th(N ). By compact- ness, there are finitely many bounded L(P )-formulas ψ1(¯x;¯z1),...,ψℓ(¯x;¯zℓ) such that ℓ N |= ∀y¯ ∈ Q ∃z¯i ∈ Q ∀x¯(φ(¯x;¯y) ↔ ψi(¯x;¯zi)). i=1 _ y¯ So (M,A,M0) realizes this sentence, and so we see that for everya ¯ ∈ M0 there is z¯i ¯ 1 ≤ i ≤ ℓ andc ¯ ∈ M0 such that (M, A) |= ∀x¯(φ(¯x; b) ↔ ψi(¯x;¯c)). As the L(P )-formula φ(¯x;¯y) above was arbitrary, we conclude that A is bounded in M with respect to LM0 . WEAKLYMINIMALGROUPS WITHA NEWPREDICATE 7
Remark 2.13. We make some comments on the assumptions in Theorem 2.8. (1) Theorem 2.8 cannot be generalized to arbitrary stable theories. For example, Poizat [27] constructed an ω-stable theory T and N ≺ M |= T such that the pair (M,N) is unstable. By stability of T , NM is the same as N and so, by Proposition 2.3, N is not bounded in M (or any expansion by constants). In [4], Bouscaren shows that if T is superstable, then every theory of pairs of models of T is stable if and only if T does not have the dimensional order property. (2) The additional constants naming a substructure are necessary in order to prove Theorem 2.8. For example, let T be the theory of an equivalence relation E with two infinite classes. Fix M |= T and distinct a1,a2,b ∈ M such that E(a1,a2) and ¬E(a1,b). Then A = M\{a1,a2,b} is not bounded in M. To see this, note that a1 and b clearly have different L(P )-types while, on the other hand, there is an L-elementary map from Aa1 to Ab, extending a permutation of A, and so a1 and b satisfy the same bounded L(P )-formulas. In [26], Pillay proves that if T is strongly minimal, M |= T , and A ⊆ M, then A is bounded in M without adding any extra constants (see also [5, Corollary 5.4]). Although it will not be necessary for our later results, it is interesting to see that the same holds for weakly minimal expansions of groups. Theorem 2.14. Suppose T is the theory of a weakly minimal expansion of a group, and M |= T . Then every subset of M is bounded in M. + Proof. Fix A ⊆ M and let (G,B) L(P ) (M, A) be |T | -saturated. Fix finite c,¯ d¯ ⊂ G and suppose f : Bc¯ → Bd¯ is a partial L-elementary map extending a permutation of B. Fix a ∈ G. We want to find b ∈ G such that f ∪{(a,b)} is L-elementary. Then A will be bounded in M by Proposition 2.4. For the rest of the proof, we work in T . We will focus on 1-types over acleq(∅), for which we have the following simplified version of the dimension used above. eq Given p ∈ S1(acl (∅)) and algebraically closed sets C ⊆ D ⊆ G, let dimp(D/C) be the cardinality of a maximal C-independent subset of p(D) (which is well-defined by weak minimality). eq Claim: Fix p, q ∈ S1(acl (∅)) and algebraically closed sets C ⊆ D ⊆ G. (a) dimp(G/C) is finite if and only if dimp(G/D) and dimp(D/C) are finite, and in this case dimp(G/C) = dimp(G/D) + dimp(D/C). (b) If p and q are both realized in C, then dimp(G/C) = dimq(G/C). Proof : Part (a) follows from the fact that if I ⊆ p(G) is a maximal D-independent set and J ⊆ p(D) is a maximal C-independent set, then I ∩J = ∅ and, by exchange, I ∪ J is a maximal C-independent subset of p(G). Part (b). It suffices to show dimp(G/C) ≤ dimq(G/C). Fix b0,c0 ∈ C realizing p -1 and q, respectively. Given any C-independent set I ⊆ p(G), let J = {ab0 c0 : a ∈ I}. Then we clearly have that J is C-independent, and that |J| = |I|. Moreover, for -1 0 any a ∈ I, we have stp(a) = stp(b0), and so ab0 ∈ G = Stab(q), which implies -1 ab0 c0 |= q. So J ⊆ q(G) and, altogether, dimp(G/C) ≤ dimq(G/C). ⊣claim
Now let C1 = acl(Bc¯) and C2 = acl(Bd¯). Without loss of generality, we may ∗ extend f so that it is a map from C1 to C2. Let p = stp(a), and let G be ∗ a sufficiently saturated elementary extension of G. Choose b∗ ∈ G such that f ∪{(a,b∗)} is elementary, and let q = stp(b∗). If b∗ ∈ G then we are done, so assume otherwise. In particular, b∗ 6∈ C2, which implies a 6∈ C1 and b∗ ⌣| ∅ C2. To 8 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
find our desired b, it suffices by the stationarity of q to find b ∈ G\C2 realizing q. In other words, we want to show dimq(G/C2) > 0. + Suppose first that p is not realized in C1. Since G is |T | -saturated, there is a realization b of q in G. Toward a contradiction, suppose b ∈ C2. Then stp(b∗) = -1 ∗ 0 -1 -1 0 -1 stp(b), and so b∗ b ∈ (G ) . Then a f (b) ∈ G , and so stp(a) = stp(f (b)), which contradicts that p is not realized in C1. eq Next, let r ∈ S1(acl (∅)) be the principal generic. Suppose r is not realized in C1. Since r is ∅-invariant, it is also not realized in C2. Note that if b1,b2 |= q, with -1 b1 ⌣| ∅ b2, then b1 b2 |= r. So we have dimq(C2/∅) ≤ 1. Since dimq(G/∅) is infinite + (by |T | -saturation of G), it follows that dimq(G/C2) is infinite. Finally, suppose p and r are both realized in C1. As above, r is realized in C2. Also q is realized in C2 since f(p(C1)) ⊆ q(C2). By part (b) of the claim,
dimp(G/C1) = dimr(G/C1) and dimq(G/C2) = dimr(G/C2).
In particular, we may assume dimr(G/C2) is finite. Note also that dimr(C2/B) is finite since it is bounded above by dimacl(C2/B). By part (a) of the claim,
dimr(G/C1) + dimr(C1/B) = dimr(G/B) = dimr(G/C2) + dimr(C2/B).
Since f : C1 → C2 extends a permutation of B, and r is ∅-invariant, we also have dimr(C1/B) = dimr(C2/B), and so dimr(G/C1) = dimr(G/C2). Altogether, this yields dimp(G/C1) = dimq(G/C2). Since dimp(G/C1) > 0 (witnessed by a), we have dimq(G/C2) > 0.
3. Expansions by unary predicates In this section, we give our main general result on preservation of stability and nfcp in expansions of weakly minimal abelian groups (see Theorem 3.21 below). Along with the work from Section 2, the proof will require several more ingredients. 3.1. Weakly minimal abelian groups. By a pure group, we mean a group as a structure in the group language. It is well-known that any pure abelian group is stable and eliminates quantifiers in the expansion by binary relations for equivalence modulo n for all n ≥ 1 (see, e.g., [17]). By a weakly minimal abelian group, we mean an infinite abelian group (G, +) whose pure theory is weakly minimal. The following folklore result gives an algebraic characterization of such groups. Proposition 3.1. An infinite abelian group (G, +) is weakly minimal if and only if, for all n ≥ 1, the subgroups nG = {nx : x ∈ G} and Torn(G)= {x ∈ G : nx =0} are each either finite or of finite index. Proof. It is well-known that a pure abelian group is weakly minimal if and only if every definable subgroup is finite or of finite index (see, e.g., [16, Proposition 2.1]). So suppose we only know that this holds for the subgroups nG and Torn(G). Given M (G, +), any definable subset of M is a finite Boolean combination of sets defined by mx = r or mx ≡n r where m,n ≥ 1 and r ∈ M. Using the assumption on G, it is straightforward to check that any such set is finite or LG-definable. It follows that (G, +) is weakly minimal (see [1, Theorem 21]).
We will say that (G, +) has finite torsion if Torn(G) is finite for all n ≥ 1. Proposition 3.2. If (G, +) is a weakly minimal abelian group with finite torsion and A ⊆ G, then acl(A) is the divisible hull of the subgroup generated by A. WEAKLYMINIMALGROUPS WITHA NEWPREDICATE 9
Proof. Fix A ⊆ G and let H be the divisible hull of hAi. Then H ⊆ acl(A) since G has finite torsion. So suppose φ(x) is an algebraic formula with parameters from A. By quantifier elimination, we may assume φ(x) is a conjunction of formulas of the form mx = r, mx ≡n r, and their negations, where m,n ≥ 1 and r ∈ hAi. Since G has finite torsion, any formula of the form mx = r has finitely many solutions, which all lie in H. Moreover, if n ≥ 1 then nG =∼ G/Torn(G) is infinite, and thus has finite index. So the negation of a formula of the form mx ≡n r is equivalent to a finite disjunction of positive instances of such formulas. Altogether, we may assume φ(x) is a conjunction of formulas of the form mx ≡n r. As nG is infinite for all n ≥ 1, such a formula either has infinitely many solutions or no solutions. Definition 3.3. qf (1) Given an L-structure M, and a set A ⊆ M, let AM denote the reduct of n n AM to relations of the form A ∩ X, for any n ≥ 1 and X ⊆ M definable by a quantifier-free LM -formula. (2) We say that two structures M1 and M2, with the same universe M (but possibly different languages), are interdefinable if, for any n ≥ 1 and n X ⊆ M , X is M1-definable if and only if it is M2-definable. The following is an immediate consequence of quantifier elimination.
Proposition 3.4. If G = (G, +) is an abelian group and A ⊆ G then AG is qf interdefinable with the expansion of AG by unary predicates A ∩ nG for n ≥ 1. 3.2. Mutually algebraic structures. In the examples of stable expansions of G = (Z, +) from [7], [8], [18], and [24], the sets A ⊆ Z of interest turn out to satisfy qf the property that that any expansion of AG by unary predicates is stable. In this section, we describe a robust model-theoretic setting for this behavior, which will be crucial for later results. Let A denote an arbitrary L-structure with universe A.
Definition 3.5. Fix an LA-formula R(z1,...,zn). We say that R is mutually algebraic if there is an integer N ≥ 1 such that, for any 1 ≤ i ≤ n and any b ∈ A, n−1 (a1,...,an−1) ∈ A : A |= R(a1,...,ai−1,b,ai,...,an−1) ≤ N. (In particular, any unary formula is mutually algebraic.)
Let LR be the language containing just the relation R(¯z). Given a nonempty R tuplex ¯ ⊆ z¯ and a finite set B ⊆ A, let Sx¯ (B) be the set of complete quantifier-free LR-types realized in A, which are in the variablesx ¯, and over parameters from B. R Given m ≥ 1,x ¯ ⊆ z¯ nonempty, and B ⊆ A finite, we say that a type p ∈ Sx¯ (B) supports an m-array if p has at least m pairwise disjoint realizations in A (where a,¯ ¯b |= p are disjoint ifa ¯ ∩ ¯b = ∅). We say R has uniformly bounded arrays in A if there are m,N ∈ N such that, for any nonempty tuplex ¯ ⊆ z¯ and any finite R B ⊆ A, at most N types in Sx¯ (B) support an m-array. Theorem 3.6 (Laskowski; Laskowski & Terry). The following are equivalent. (i) Th(A) is weakly minimal with trivial forking.1
(ii) Every atomic L-formula is equivalent (modulo ThLA (A)) to a Boolean com- bination of mutually algebraic LA-formulas. (iii) Every atomic L-formula has uniformly bounded arrays in A.
1Recall that a (stable) theory has trivial forking if, for any tuples a, b, c and set D in some model, if tp(a/Dbc) forks over D then either tp(a/Db) or tp(a/Dc) forks over D (see, e.g., [13]). 10 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
Proof. See Proposition 2.7 and Theorem 3.3 of [19] for the equivalence of (i) and (ii). See [20, Theorem 7.3] for the equivalence with (iii). Following [19], we call A mutually algebraic if it satisfies the conditions in Theorem 3.6. Each of these formulations of mutually algebraicity will be crucially used in our subsequent work. We will also need the following results. Theorem 3.7 (Laskowski). If A is mutually algebraic, and M is a reduct of A or an expansion of A by unary predicates, then M is mutually algebraic. Proof. This follows from Theorem 3.3 and Lemma 2.10 of [19]. Corollary 3.8. Suppose A is mutually algebraic and M is a first-order structure interpretable in A. If the universe of M has U-rank 1 as a definable set in Aeq, then M is mutually algebraic. Proof. Let M be the universe of M, which we view as a definable set in Aeq. Then M is a reduct of the Aeq-induced structure on M and so, by Theorem 3.7, we may eq eq assume M = MA. Since M is definable, it is bounded in A . Since A is stable and M has U-rank 1 as a definable set, it follows that M is weakly minimal (see, e.g., [7, Theorem 2.10]). Since Th(A) has trivial forking, so does Th(Aeq) by [13, Lemma 1]. From this one can show that Th(M) has trivial forking (see, e.g., [7, Proposition 2.7]). So M is mutually algebraic by Theorem 3.6. 3.3. Small sets and nfcp. Let T be a complete L-theory. Recall that T has nfcp if for any L-formula φ(¯x;¯y) there is k ≥ 1 such that, for any M |= T and B ⊆ M y¯, the partial type {φ(¯x; ¯b): ¯b ∈ B} is consistent if and only if it is k-consistent. Fact 3.9. (a) T has nfcp if and only if it is stable and eliminates ∃∞ in all imaginary sorts. (b) If T is weakly minimal then it has nfcp. Proof. Part (a) is one of the equivalences of Shelah’s fcp theorem [32, Theorem II.4.4]. For part (b), it follows from Section 2 of [12] that any weakly minimal theory eliminates ∃∞ in all imaginary sorts. Given M |= T and A ⊆ M, Casanovas and Ziegler [5] provide a test for trans- ferring nfcp from M and AM to (M, A). Definition 3.10. Suppose M |= T and A ⊆ M. Then A ⊆ M is small in M if ¯ there is (N ,B) ≡L(P ) (M, A) such that, for any finite tuple b from N, any type L ¯ p ∈ S1 (Bb) is realized in N . The following is [5, Proposition 5.7]. Proposition 3.11 (Casanovas & Ziegler). Suppose M |= T and A ⊆ M is small in M. Then (M, A) has nfcp if and only if M and AM have nfcp. Remark 3.12. If M |= T and A ⊆ M is M-definable, then A is small in M if and only if it is finite. Recall that T is unidimensional if any two non-algebraic stationary types are non-orthogonal. This notion is of interest to us due to the following standard fact (see, e.g., [25, Remark 4.5.11]). Fact 3.13. If T is weakly minimal and expands a group then it is unidimensional. WEAKLY MINIMAL GROUPS WITH A NEW PREDICATE 11
The next proposition gives a characterization of small sets in weakly minimal unidimensional theories, which generalizes a result of Casanovas and Ziegler for strongly minimal theories (see the remarks following [5, Corollary 5.4]). Proposition 3.14. Suppose T is weakly minimal and unidimensional. Then A ⊆ M is not small in M if and only if there is a finite tuple m¯ from M such that if (N ,B) L(P ) (M, A), then N = aclL(Bm¯ ). + Proof. First assume A ⊆ M is not small in M. Let(N ,B) L(P ) (M, A) be |TM | - + saturated, and let (U, C) L(P ) (N ,B) be |N| -saturated. By assumption on A, ¯ L ¯ there is a finite tuple d ⊂ U and a type p ∈ S1 (NCd) such that p is not realized L ¯ in U. Let p0 ∈ S1 (N) be the restriction of p. We claim that p0(U) ⊆ aclL(NCd). Suppose otherwise that there is a ∈ p0(U)\ aclL(NCd¯), and let q = tpL(a/NCd¯). Then p and q are non-algebraic types with the same restriction to N, and so p = q by weak minimality and stationarity, which contradicts that p is not realized in U. Next, we claim that U = aclL(NCd¯). So fix b ∈ U\N, and let q0 = tpL(b/N). Then q0 is non-algebraic, and thus non-orthogonal to p0 by unidimensionality. By saturation of N , q0 is not weakly orthogonal to p0. So there is a |= p0 such that b ∈ aclL(aN). By the above, a ∈ p0(U) ⊆ aclL(NCd¯), and so b ∈ aclL(NCd¯). Altogether, (U, C) omits the partial type <∞ π(x)= ∀y¯ ∈ P ∃ u φ(u;¯y) → ¬φ(x;¯y) : φ(x;¯y) is an LNd¯-formula . By saturation of (U, C ), we may choose an L-formula φ(x;¯y;¯z), and some ¯b ∈ (Nd¯)z¯ ¯ y¯ ¯ such that φ(x;¯c; b) is algebraic for allc ¯ ∈ C , and U = c¯∈Cy¯ φ(U;¯c; b). So the desired result follows from L(P )-elementarity. Conversely, suppose A ⊆ M satisfies the latter condition.S As in the arguments above, we can use elimination of ∃∞ and saturated extensions of (M, A) to express this assumption elementarily. In particular, for any (N ,B) ≡L(P ) (M, A) there is a L finite tuplec ¯ from N such that N = aclL(Bc¯), and so any non-algebraic p ∈ S1 (Bc¯) is omitted in N . This shows that A is not small in M. Remark 3.15. In the previous result, the assumption of unidimensionality cannot be removed. For example, let T be the theory of an equivalence relation E with two infinite classes. Fix M |= T and let A ⊆ M be one E-class. Then T is weakly minimal (but not unidimensional), A is not small in M by Remark 3.12, and if
(N ,B) ≡LM (P ) (M, A) is ℵ1-saturated then N 6= aclL(BM). Next, we refine Proposition 3.14 for the case of weakly minimal abelian groups with finite torsion. In particular, we show that small sets in such groups are charac- terized by a combinatorial sparsity condition analyzed in [7] for the case of (Z, +). Definition 3.16. Let (G, +) be an abelian group, and suppose A ⊆ G. (1) Given n ∈ Z, let nA = {nx : x ∈ A}. ± (2) Given n ≥ 1, let Σn (A)= {a1 + ... + an : a1,...,an ∈ A ∪ -A ∪{0}}. (3) A is generic if there is a finite set F ⊆ G such that G = A + F . Proposition 3.17. Let G be a weakly minimal abelian group with finite torsion. ± Then A ⊆ G is small in G if and only if Σn (A) is non-generic for all n ≥ 1. Proof. Let L denote the language of groups. Suppose A ⊆ G is such that G = ± Σn (A)+ F for some n ≥ 1 and finite F ⊂ G. For any (N ,B) L(P ) (G, A) we have ± N =Σn (B)+ F ⊆ aclL(B ∪ F ). So A is not small in G by Proposition 3.14. 12 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
Conversely, suppose A ⊆ G is not small in G. Let (N ,B) L(P ) (G, A) be saturated. By Proposition 3.14, N = aclL(B ∪ F ) for some finite F ⊂ G. Given ± k,n ≥ 1, set Xk,n = {x ∈ N : mx ∈ Σn (B ∪ F ) for some 1 ≤ m ≤ k}. Then each Xk,n is (N ,B)-definable, and aclL(B ∪ F )= k,n Xk,n by Proposition 3.2. So N = X which, by saturation of (N ,B), implies that there are k,n ≥ 1 such n,k k,n S that N = Xk,n. By L(P )-elementarity, it follows that for any x ∈ G there is m ≤ k S ± such that mx ∈ Σn (A ∪ F ). ± ± ± Now, setting ℓ = k!, we have ℓG ⊆ ℓn(A ∪ F ) ⊆ ℓn(A)+ ℓn(F ) by the ± ± above. So (A) is generic since ℓG is generic and (F ) is finite.2 ℓn P ℓnP P Remark 3.18.P Let G be a weakly minimal abelian groupP with finite torsion, and suppose A ⊆ G. Proposition 3.17 shows that A is small in G if and only if the ± iterated sumsets Σn (A) are “algebraically small” in the sense of being non-generic. ± In fact, this can be strengthened to say that A is small in G if and only if Σn (A) has (upper) Banach density 0 for all n ≥ 1. This follows from the standard exercise that if a set X ⊆ G has positive Banach density, then X − X is generic. Corollary 3.19. Let G be a weakly minimal abelian group with finite torsion. (a) If A ⊆ G is not small in G then AG interprets G. (b) Given A ⊆ G, if Th(AG ) is stable with trivial forking then A is small in G. Proof. Part (a). Suppose A ⊆ G is not small in G. By Proposition 3.17, we may fix ± a finite set F ⊂ G and some n ≥ 1 such that G =Σn (A)+F . From this, a standard argument shows that G is interpretable in AG (details are left to the reader). Part (b) follows from part (a) since a stable theory with trivial forking cannot interpret an infinite group. Remark 3.20. We note that some of the previous results on small sets can be used to give more elementary proofs of special cases of the main theorems in Section 2. Firstly, Proposition 3.14 yields an alternate proof that if T is weakly minimal and unidimensional, M |= T , and L = LM , then any A ⊆ M is bounded in M (a special case of Theorem 2.8). The argument splits into two cases. If A is small in M then it is bounded in M by [5, Proposition 2.1] and Fact 3.9(b). If A is not small in M then it is bounded in M by Propositions 2.4 and 3.14. Secondly, if A ⊆ Z then A satisfies the conclusion of Proposition 3.17 if and ± only if mZ 6⊆ Σn (A) for all m,n ≥ 1 (see [7, Section 4], where such sets are called sufficiently sparse). It follows that if A ⊆ Z then either A is small in (Z, +) or N = aclL(B) for any (N ,B) ≡L(P ) (Z, +, A) (where L is just the group language). So an argument similar to the one above yields an alternate proof that all subsets of Z are bounded in (Z, +), which is a special case of Theorem 2.14. 3.4. Conclusion. We now state and prove the main result of Section 3. Theorem 3.21. Let G = (G, +) be a weakly minimal abelian group. Fix A ⊆ G, qf and suppose AG is mutually algebraic. Then, for any finite F ⊂ G and any B ⊆ A + F , (G,B) is superstable of U-rank at most ω. Moreover, if G has finite torsion then (G,B) has nfcp; and if G = (Z, +) and B is infinite then (G,B) has U-rank ω.
Proof. We may assume A is infinite. By Proposition 3.4 and Theorem 3.7, AG is mutually algebraic. Fix a finite set F ⊂ G. Then (A + F )G is interpretable in AG
2The authors are grateful to the referee for simplifying the end of this proof. WEAKLY MINIMAL GROUPS WITH A NEW PREDICATE 13 as a structure on (A × F )/E, where E is the AG -definable equivalence relation on A × F given by a1 + f1 = a2 + f2. Since F is finite, (A × F )/E has U-rank 1 as an interpretable set in AG. So (A + F )G is mutually algebraic by Corollary 3.8. Now fix B ⊆ A + F . Then A := ((A + F )G ,B) is mutually algebraic by Theorem 3.7. Therefore B has U-rank 1 as an A-definable set. Since BG is interpretable in A as a structure with universe B, we conclude from Corollary 3.8 that BG is mutually algebraic. By Theorem 2.9, (G,B) is superstable of U-rank at most ω. Finally, if G has finite torsion then B is small in G by Corollary 3.19(b) and Theorem 3.6. So (G,B) has nfcp by Fact 3.9(b) and Proposition 3.11. Note also that if B is infinite then it is not G-definable by Remark 3.12. So if G = (Z, +) and B is infinite then (G,B) does not have finite U-rank by [24, Theorem 1]. Remark 3.22. Suppose K = (K, +) is an abelian group and A ⊆ K is such that qf AK is mutually algebraic. Let G = (G, +) be a subgroup of K, such that A ⊆ G. qf qf Then AG is a reduct of AK and so, if G is weakly minimal, then the conclusion of Theorem 3.21 holds. In all examples of stable structures of the form (Z, +, A), considered in [7], [8], [18], and [24], the induced structure A(Z,+) is mutually algebraic, and so these results fall under the umbrella of Theorem 3.21. However, in many of these results, a considerable amount of work is still required to demonstrate mutual algebraicity for A(Z,+). Indeed, this is usually done by showing that A(Z,+) is interpretable in a more familiar structure (e.g., N with the successor function). As we will see later, there are some cases where it is significantly easier to just show A(Z,+) is mutually algebraic. Theorem 4.4 is a notable example. Moreover, as shown in the proof of Theorem 3.21, once one knows that A(Z,+) is mutually algebraic, it quickly follows that B(Z,+) is mutually algebraic for any B ⊆ A + F where F ⊂ Z is finite. This also eliminates a nontrivial amount of technical and tedious work in some examples considered in the sources above (e.g., [8, Lemma 4.17]).
4. Stable expansions of weakly minimal abelian groups In this section, we give several new families of stable expansions of weakly min- imal abelian groups. The main results are Theorems 4.3, 4.4, and 4.9. Each one of these theorems is formulated for a weakly minimal abelian group G = (G, +) satisfying certain further properties, which always hold for (Z, +). The conclusion of each of these theorems is that some expansion of the form (G,B) is superstable of U-rank at most ω. For each result, we obtain this by showing that the induced structure BG is mutually algebraic. Therefore, if G = (Z, +) and B is infinite, then (G,B) has U-rank exactly ω by Theorem 3.21. Given an integer n ≥ 1, we let [n]= {1,...,n}.
∞ 4.1. Strongly lacunary sets in C. An increasing sequence (an)n=0 in R is often an+1 called lacunary if lim inf →∞ > 1. This motivates the following definition. n an Definition 4.1. Suppose A ⊆ C is countable. Then A is strongly lacunary if ∞ an+1 there is an enumeration {a } of A\{0} such that either lim →∞ | | = ∞ or n n=0 n an an+1 lim →∞ = κ for some κ ∈ C such that |κ| > 1. n an ∞ Suppose A ⊆ C is strongly lacunary, witnessed by an enumeration {an}n=0. Then there is some N ≥ 0 such that |an+1| > |an| for all n ≥ N. It follows from this 14 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
∞ that if {cn}n=0 is another enumeration witnessing that A is strongly lacunary, then an+1 cn+1 an+1 cn+1 either lim →∞ | | = ∞ = lim →∞ | |, or lim →∞ = κ = lim →∞ n an n cn n an n cn with |κ| > 1. In the former case we call A divergent, and in the latter case we call A convergent and call κ the Kepler limit of A (this terminology is often used in the context of Fibonacci sequence, whose Kepler limit is the golden ratio). In [7, Theorem 7.16(a)] the first author showed that any divergent strongly lacu- nary set A ⊆ Z+ yields a stable expansion (Z, +, A) (this was shown independently by Lambotte and Point [18] under the extra assumption that the set is eventually periodic modulo any n ≥ 1). We will reprove this below in a more general setting. On the other hand, there are strongly lacunary sets A ⊆ Z such that (Z, +, A) is unstable (the existence of such sets was questioned in [7] and [18]). For example, n given q ≥ 2, if Aq = {q + n : n ∈ N}, then (Z, +, Aq) is interdefinable with x (Z, +,<,x 7→ q ) (see [8, Theorem 4.8]). The proof generalizes to {Fn +n : n ∈ N}, th where Fn is the n Fibonacci number, and so we also have a strongly lacunary set A ⊆ Z+, with an irrational Kepler limit, such that (Z, +, A) is unstable. In this section, we show that this cannot happen for a strongly lacunary set with a tran- scendental Kepler limit. This generalizes a similar result of Lambotte and Point [18] for certain expansions of (Z, +).
Lemma 4.2. Suppose A ⊆ C is strongly lacunary, and either divergent or conver- qf gent with transcendental Kepler limit. Then A(C,+) is interdefinable with A in the language of equality.
Proof. The proof uses techniques similar to those of Palac´ınand Sklinos [24] and ∞ Lambotte and Point [18]. Let A = {an}n=0 be an enumeration of A witnessing that A is strongly lacunary. We may assume |an+1| > |an| for all n ∈ N. qf Let N be the structure on N induced from A(C,+) via the map an 7→ n. It suffices to show N is interdefinable with the structure N in the language of equality, which we denote by N˙ . Given k ≥ 1, d¯∈ Zk, and r ∈ C, define
k k Xd¯;r = n¯ ∈ N : ni 6= nj for all distinct i, j ∈ [k] and i=1 diani = r . n P o Note that any Xd¯;r is ∅-definable in N . Let N0 be the reduct of N to symbols for ¯ ∗ k Xd¯;r, where d ∈ (Z ) and r ∈ C. It is easy to see that N is interdefinable with N0, ∗ k and so it suffices to show that N0 is interdefinable with N˙ . Fix k ≥ 1, d¯ ∈ (Z ) , and r ∈ C. Toward a contradiction, suppose Xd¯;r is infinite. By pigeonhole, there are infinitely many tuples in Xd¯;r of the same order type. ∞ After permuting the coordinates, we may fix an infinite sequence (¯n(t))t=0 from ∞ Xd¯;r, such that n(t)1 <...
∞ For any 1 ≤ i<ℓ, since (u(t)i)t=0 diverges, we have that, for any u ∈ N,
|an t | |an t −u t | |an t −u| 0 ≤ lim ( )i = lim ( )k ( )i ≤ lim ( )k . t→∞ t→∞ t→∞ |an(t)k | |an(t)k | |an(t)k |
an(t)i So we have limt→∞ a = 0 for all 1 ≤ i<ℓ (if A is divergent this is clear, and n(t)k if A is convergent then this follows from |τ| > 1). Recall thatn ¯(t) ∈ Xd¯;r for all ∞ t ∈ N, and that (n(t)k)k=0 diverges. Altogether, k k r an(t)i an(t)k−ui (†) 0 = lim = lim di = lim di . t→∞ a t→∞ a t→∞ a n(t)k i=1 n(t)k i ℓ n(t)k X X= Recall that uℓ >...>uk = 0. Therefore, if A is divergent then the rightmost limit k -ui in (†) is dk, and if A is convergent then the rightmost limit in (†) is i=ℓ diτ . In either case, this contradicts di 6= 0 for all ℓ ≤ i ≤ k. P Theorem 4.3. Suppose G = (G, +) is a weakly minimal subgroup of (C, +), and A ⊆ G is strongly lacunary and either divergent or convergent with transcendental Kepler limit. Then, for any finite F ⊆ G and infinite B ⊆ A + F , (G,B) has nfcp and is superstable of U-rank at most ω. Proof. Apply Lemma 4.2 and Theorem 3.21 (via Remark 3.22). 4.2. Finite rank multiplicative groups. Throughout this section, we fix an al- gebraically closed field K of characteristic 0 and a subgroup G = (G, +) of the additive group (K, +). Let K∗ denote the multiplicative subgroup of nonzero ele- ments of K. Recall that the rank of an abelian group is the cardinality of a maximal Z-linearly independent set. We will give a short proof of the following theorem. Theorem 4.4. Suppose G is weakly minimal, and A ⊆ G is contained in a finite rank subgroup of K∗. Then, for any finite F ⊂ G and any B ⊆ A + F , (G,B) has nfcp and is superstable of U-rank at most ω. For the case G = (Z, +), this was proved by the first author in [8, Theorem 3.1] (although explicitly only for A ⊆ Z+ and F = {0}). The proof relies on results con- cerning the structure of solutions to linear equations from finite rank multiplicative groups. This goes back to work of Mann, and is connected to number-theoretic results around Lang’s Conjecture (proved by Faltings and Vojta) and Schmidt’s Subspace Theorem. See [26] for a model-theoretic account of this relationship. In [2], Belegradek and Zilber use these type of results to prove stability for the expansion of the field (C, +, ·) by a finite rank multiplicative subgroup of the unit circle. Similar results for arbitrary finite rank subgroups of C∗ were proved by Van den Dries and G¨unaydın [9]. Note however that the full conclusion of Theorem 4.4 does not hold for expansions of fields. For instance, if Γ = {2n : n ∈ Z} and Π= {2n : n ∈ N}, then (C, +, ·, Γ) is stable while (C, +, ·, Π) defines the ordering on Π. Note also that Γ(C,+,·) is interdefinable with (Z, +), and thus is weakly minimal but does not have trivial forking. The work in [8] uses the following result, which is [11, Theorem 1.1]. Theorem 4.5 (Evertse, Schlickewei, Schmidt). Suppose Γ is a subgroup of (K∗)k of rank at most ρ, for some k,ρ ∈ N. Then there is an integer N = N(k,ρ) such that, ∗ for any c1,...,ck ∈ K and any r ∈ K , there are at most N tuples (x1,...,xk) ∈ Γ such that c1x1 + ... + ckxk = r and i∈I cixi 6=0 for all nonempty I ⊆ [k]. P 16 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
qf We will use this result to directly show that, for A ⊆ G as in Theorem 4.4, AG is mutually algebraic. Proof of Theorem 4.4. Let A ⊆ G be as in the theorem. We assume A is infinite. qf By Theorem 3.21, it suffices to show AG is mutually algebraic. Given k ≥ 1, k k c¯ ∈ {1, -1} , and r ∈ G, define A(¯c; r) := {a¯ ∈ A : c1a1 + ... + ckak = r} and define A0(¯c; r) to be the set ofa ¯ ∈ A(¯c; r) such that i∈I ciai 6= 0 for all nonempty I ( [k]. Note that any A(¯c; r) is a finite Boolean combination of sets of the form ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ P A0(¯c ; r ) for some k -tuplec ¯ and r ∈ G. So it suffices to show that, for any k ≥ 1, k c¯ ∈{1, -1} , and r ∈ G, A0(¯c; r) is mutually algebraic as a k-ary relation on A. Fix k ≥ 1,c ¯ ∈{1, -1}k, and r ∈ G. Suppose A ⊆ Γ, where Γ is a subgroup of K∗ k ∗ k of rank ρ ∈ N. Note that Γ is a subgroup of (K ) of rank kρ. LetΓ0(¯c; r) be the set k ofx ¯ ∈ Γ such that c1x1 +...+ckxk = r and i∈I cixi 6= 0 for all nonempty I ( [k]. ∗ We have A0(¯c; r) ⊆ Γ0(¯c; r), and so if r ∈ K then A0(¯c; r) is finite by Theorem 4.5. P So we may assume r = 0. Given i ∈ [k], set Γ0,i =Γ0(c1,...,ci−1,ci+1,...,ck;-ci). By Theorem 4.5, there is some N ≥ 0 such that |Γ0,i| ≤ N for all i ∈ [n]. Fix i ∈ [n] and b ∈ A and set k−1 X = (a1,...,ak−1) ∈ A : (a1,...,ai−1,b,ai,...,ak−1) ∈ A0(¯c; 0) . -1 Then b X⊆ Γ0,i, and so |X|≤ N, as desired. 4.3. Linear recurrence relations. In this section, we consider sets of algebraic numbers, which are enumerated by linear homogeneous recurrence relations with constant coefficients. Once again, our main task will be to show mutual algebraicity of AG , where A and G satisfy certain assumptions. Toward this end, we first generalize the behavior found in Theorem 4.5 in order to formulate a combinatorial criterion for generating mutually algebraic structures. In contrast to Section 4.2 however, we will need to use the characterization of mutual algebraicity involving uniformly bounded arrays. Fix an infinite set A, an abelian group G = (G, +), and a set Φ of functions from A to G. (We do not assume A ⊆ G.) Definition 4.6. (1) Given k ≥ 1,ϕ ¯ ∈ Φk, and r ∈ G, define k A(¯ϕ; r) := a¯ ∈ A : ϕ1(a1)+ ... + ϕk(ak)= r , and A0(¯ϕ; r) := a¯ ∈ A(¯ϕ; r): ϕi(ai) 6= 0 for all ∅ 6= I ( [k] . ( i∈I ) X Φ (2) Let AG be the relational structure with universe A and a k-ary relation k Rϕ¯;r interpreted as A(¯ϕ; r), for all k ≥ 1,ϕ ¯ ∈ Φ , and r ∈ G. The following is the main technical lemma.
Lemma 4.7. Suppose that, for any k ≥ 1, there is nk ∈ N such that |A0(¯ϕ; r)|≤ nk k Φ for any ϕ¯ ∈ Φ and r 6=0. Then AG is mutually algebraic. k Proof. Given k ≥ 1,ϕ ¯ ∈ Φ , r ∈ G,x ¯ ⊆ z¯ = (z1,...,zk), and finite B ⊆ A, set
ϕ¯;r Rϕ¯;r Sx¯ (B)= Sx¯ (B) Φ (working in AG ). We show, by induction on k ≥ 1, that there are mk,Nk ∈ N such k that, for anyϕ ¯ ∈ Φ , r ∈ G, finite B ⊆ A, and any nonemptyx ¯ ⊆ z¯ = (z1,...,zk), WEAKLY MINIMAL GROUPS WITH A NEW PREDICATE 17
ϕ¯;r there are at most Nk types in Sx¯ (B) supporting an mk-array. By Theorem 3.6, Φ this suffices to show that AG is mutually algebraic. For the base case k = 1, note that any unary relation R(z) has uniformly bounded R arrays. Indeed, given finite B ⊆ A, there are at most two types in Sz (B) which contain z 6= b for all b ∈ B. So fix k > 1 and suppose we have defined mk−1 and k Nk−1 satisfying the desired properties. Letz ¯ = (z1,...,zk). Givenϕ ¯ ∈ Φ , r ∈ G, ϕ¯;r finite B ⊆ A,x ¯ ⊆ z¯, and an equivalence relation E onx ¯, let Sx,E¯ (B) be the set of ϕ¯;r p ∈ Sx¯ (B) such that: (i) zi 6= b ∈ p for all zi ∈ x¯ and b ∈ B, and (ii) given zi,zj ∈ x¯, zi = zj ∈ p if and only if E(zi,zj ). ∗ ∗ k We claim that it suffices to find mk and Nk such that, for anyϕ ¯ ∈ Φ , r ∈ G, finite ∗ B ⊆ A, nonemptyx ¯ ⊆ z¯, and any equivalence relation E onx ¯, at most Nk types ϕ¯;r ∗ in Sx,E¯ (B) support an mk-array. Indeed, there are only finitely many choices forx ¯ ϕ¯;r and E; and if p ∈ Sx¯ (B) is such that zi = b ∈ p for some zi ∈ x¯ and b ∈ B, then ∗ ∗ p cannot support a 2-array. Therefore, setting mk = max{mk, 2} and Nk = hNk , where h is the number of pairs (¯x, E) as above, it follows that mk and Nk satisfy the desired properties. Define ∗ ℓ Nk = 2+max{Nk−1(2 − 2):1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k} and ∗ ℓ mk = 1+max{nℓ + (mk−1 − 1)(2 − 2):1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k}. Fixϕ ¯ ∈ Φk, r ∈ G, finite B ⊆ A,x ¯ ⊆ z¯ nonempty, and an equivalence relation E ∗ ϕ¯;r ∗ onx ¯. Let S be the set of types in Sx,E¯ (B) that support an mk-array. We want to ∗ ∗ show |S |≤ Nk . u¯ Foru ¯ ⊆ z¯ anda ¯ ∈ A , let Σu¯a¯ denote zi∈u¯ ϕi(ai). Lety ¯ =z ¯\x¯. Given t ∈ G, ∗ ∗ y¯ let S (t) be the set of types p ∈ S such that p |= Rϕ¯;r(¯x; ¯b) for some ¯b ∈ B ∗ P satisfying Σy¯¯b = t. We claim that |S (t)| ≤ 1 for any t ∈ G. Indeed, suppose we have p, q ∈ S∗(t) for some t ∈ G. By construction, p and q agree on atomic formulas in the language of equality. So we just need to show that they agree on instances 1 2 x¯ ∗ of Rϕ¯;r(¯x;¯y). Leta ¯ , a¯ ∈ A realize p and q, respectively. Since p, q ∈ S (t), we 1 2 y¯ have r − Σx¯a¯ = t = r − Σx¯a¯ . Given d¯∈ B , we have 1 2 p |= Rϕ¯;r(¯x; d¯) ⇔ Σy¯d¯= r − Σx¯a¯ ⇔ Σy¯d¯= r − Σx¯a¯ ⇔ q |= Rϕ¯;r(¯x; d¯). Altogether, we have p = q. ∗ ∗ Let X = {t ∈ G : S (t) 6= ∅} and, for t ∈ X, let qt be the unique type in S (t). ϕ¯;r ¯ Note that there is at most one type in Sx,E¯ (B) which contains ¬Rϕ¯;r(¯x; b) for all ¯b ∈ By¯. Altogether, |S∗| ≤ |X| + 1. So, to finish the proof, it suffices to show ∗ |X\{r}| ≤ Nk − 2. Suppose, for a contradiction, that we have pairwise distinct ∗ t1,...,tM ∈ X\{r}, where M := Nk − 1. For 1 ≤ i ≤ M, let pi = qti . ∗ Let ℓ = |x¯|. Fix i ∈ [M]. Since pi ∈ S , we may fix pairwise disjoint realizations ∗ 1 m x¯ i y¯ i a¯ ,..., a¯ k of pi in A . Moreover, there is ¯b ∈ B such that Σy¯¯b = ti and i j ∗ pi |= Rϕ¯;r(¯x; ¯b ). So we have Σx¯a¯ = si := r − ti for all j ∈ [m ]. In particular, ∗ k 1 mk a¯ ,..., a¯ ∈ A((ϕj )zj ∈x¯; si). Since si 6= 0, we have |A0((ϕj )zj ∈x¯; si)| ≤ nℓ and 1 m so, after renaming the tuples, we may assumea ¯ ,..., a¯ 6∈ A0((ϕj )zj ∈x¯; si), where ∗ ℓ m := mk − nℓ ≥ 1 + (mk−1 − 1)(2 − 2). Let Ω be the set of nonempty proper subtuples ofx ¯, and note that |Ω| =2ℓ −2. For each j ∈ [m], there arex ¯i,j ∈ Ω such j ℓ ′ i,j i,j that Σx¯ (al )zl∈x¯ = 0. Since m ≥ 1 + (mk−1 − 1)(2 − 2), there arex ¯ ∈ Ω and i,j ′ I ⊆ [m] such that |I| = mk−1 andx ¯ =x ¯ for all j ∈ I. After renaming tuples, 18 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
i ′ j j i we may assume I = [mk−1]. Setx ¯ =x ¯\x¯ ∈ Ω. For j ∈ [mk−1], leta ¯∗ = (al )zl∈x¯ . 1 mk−1 Thena ¯∗,..., a¯∗ are pairwise disjoint tuples, which all realize the same type i ∗ ϕ¯ ;r i ∗ i pi ∈ Sx¯i (B), whereϕ ¯ = (ϕj )zj ∈x¯ . So pi supports an mk−1-array. Note also ∗ i ¯i that pi |= Rϕ¯i;r(¯x , b ). ℓ ∗ Since M ≥ 1+ Nk−1(2 − 2), there arex ¯ ∈ Ω and I ⊆ [M] such that |I| = i ∗ N := Nk− +1andx ¯ =x ¯ for all i ∈ I. After renaming the types, we may assume 1 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ϕ¯ ;r ∗ ∗ I = [N]. Letϕ ¯ = (ϕj )zj ∈x¯ . Then p1,...,pN are types in Sx¯ (B). For each ∗ ∗ i i i ∈ [N], we have p |= Rϕ¯∗;r(¯x , ¯b ) and Σy¯¯b = ti. So, if i, j ∈ [N] are distinct, i ∗ ∗ ∗ ϕ¯ ;r then pi 6= pj since ti 6= tj . So we have N types in Sx¯∗ (B), each of which supports ∗ an mk−1-array. This is a contradiction, since N = Nk−1 + 1 and |x¯ |≤ k − 1. Example 4.8. Note that if G = (G, +) is an abelian group, A ⊆ G, and Φ consists Φ qf of the maps x 7→ x and x 7→ -x, then AG is interdefinable with AG . With this qf choice of Φ, one can use Lemma 4.7 to prove mutual algebraicity of AG , where G and A ⊆ G are as in Theorem 4.3 or Theorem 4.4. (In the latter case this claim is immediate from Theorem 4.5; we leave the former case as an exercise.) We now consider linear recurrence relations. Let Qalg denote the field of algebraic numbers. We say that a set A ⊆ Qalg is enumerated by a linear recurrence ∞ relation if A is enumerated by a sequence (an)n=0 such that, for some d ≥ 1 and alg β1,...,βd ∈ Q , we have
an+d = β1an+d−1 + ... + βdan for any n ∈ N. In this case, the characteristic polynomial of A, denoted pA(x), d d−1 is x − β1x − ... − βd−1x − βd. We assume d is minimal, so pA(x) is uniquely determined. In particular, βd 6= 0,andso0isnotarootof pA(x). Let µ1,...,µd∗ ∈ alg Q be the distinct roots of pA(x) where d∗ ≤ d. By the general theory, there are alg nonzero polynomials α1(x),...,αd∗ (x) ∈ Q [x] such that αi(x) has degree strictly less than the multiplicity of µi as a root of pA(x), and, for any n ∈ N, n n an = α1(n)µ1 + ... + αd∗ (n)µd∗ .
As the set A is completely determined by β1,...,βd, and a0,...,ad−1, we sometimes identify A with the notation LRR(β1,...,βd; a0,...,ad−1). We are interested in stable expansions of weakly minimal subgroups of Qalg by sets enumerated by a linear recurrence relation. For (Z, +), the previous literature on this question is as follows. Palac´ın& Sklinos [24] and Poizat [28] proved stability for the expansion of (Z, +) by {qn : n ∈ N} = LRR(q;1), where q ≥ 2.3 In [7], the first author proved stability of (Z, +, A), for any A ⊆ Z enumerated by linear recurrence relation such that pA(x) is separable (so d∗ = d), and there is some 1 ≤ t ≤ d such that µt ∈ R>1 and |µi|≤ 1 for all i 6= t (e.g., the Fibonacci sequence LRR(1, 1, 0, 1)). In [18], Lambotte and Point proved stability for the case when pA(x) is irreducible over Q and there is some 1 ≤ t ≤ d such that µt ∈ R>1 and |µi| < |µt| for all i 6= t. There are also well-known examples of unstable expansions k of (Z, +) by linear recurrences. For instance, given k ≥ 1, the set Pk := {n : n ∈ N} is enumerated by a linear recurrence with characteristic polynomial (x − 1)k+1. By the Hilbert-Waring Theorem, (Z, +, Pk) defines the ordering, and it also defines multiplication when k ≥ 2 (see [3, Proposition 6]). Another unstable example is
3The first author recently learned that this also follows from an older result of Moosa and Scanlon, namely, [23, Theorem 6.11]. WEAKLY MINIMAL GROUPS WITH A NEW PREDICATE 19 the expansion of (Z, +) by {qn + n : n ∈ N}, for any fixed integer q ≥ 2, which is enumerated by a recurrence relation with characteristic polynomial (x − q)(x − 1)2 (see [8, Theorem 4.8]). In this section, we separate the stable examples from the unstable ones using the observation that, in each unstable example above, 1 is a repeated root of pA(x). Theorem 4.9. Suppose G = (G, +) is a weakly minimal subgroup of (Qalg, +), and A ⊆ G is enumerated by a linear recurrence relation such that no repeated root of the characteristic polynomial is a root of unity. Then, for any finite F ⊆ G and any B ⊆ A + F , (G,B) has nfcp and is superstable of U-rank at most ω. Note that this is a significant generalization of the previous results described above, since it includes any case where pA(x) is separable. We also note that the absence of roots of unity as repeated roots of pA(x) does not characterize stability of (G, +, A) (see Remark 4.15 below). To prove Theorem 4.9, we will use Lemma 4.7, together with a number-theoretic tool of a similar flavor as Theorem 4.5. To state this result, we need some fur- ther notation. For the rest of this section, let A ⊆ Qalg be enumerated by linear recurrence relation. We may assume A is infinite. Fix a number field K ⊆ Qalg containing µ1,...,µd∗ and the coefficients of α1(x),...,αd∗ (x). Given an integer ∗ k x¯ k k ≥ 1 and a tuple λ¯ = (λ1,...,λk) ∈ (K ) , define the function λ¯ : Z → K such ¯(n1,...,nk) n1 nk that λ = λ1 · ... · λk . The following result (which holds for any number field) is a quantitative version of work of Laurent [21, 22], due to Schlickewei and Schmidt [30] (see also [31, Theorem 12.1]). Theorem 4.10 (Schlickewei & Schmidt). Fix k,m ≥ 1 and, for each i ∈ [m], fix ∗ k λ¯i ∈ (K ) and Pi(x1,...,xk) ∈ K[x1,...,xk] of degree δi. Assume:
(i) no Pi(¯x) is identically 0, and k ¯n¯ ¯n¯ ¯ (ii) for any n¯ ∈ Z , if λ1 = ... = λm then n¯ = 0. k m ¯n¯ Then there are OK,m,k,δ1,...,δm (1) tuples n¯ ∈ Z such that i=1 Pi(¯n)λi = 0 and n¯ Pi(¯n)λ¯ 6=0 for any nonempty I ( [m]. i∈I i P ∗ P Given i ∈ [d∗], will use the notation αµi (x) for αi(x). Set Λ = {µ1,...,µd∗ }, and partition Λ = Λ0 ∪ Λ1 so that µi ∈ Λ1 if and only if µi is a root of unity. Let Φ ∗ x denote the set of functions from N to K of the form x 7→ cαλ(x)λ for some λ ∈ Λ0 and c ∈{1, -1}. Let K = (K, +) be the additive group in K.
Φ Lemma 4.11. NK is mutually algebraic. Proof. We will apply Lemma 4.7. In particular, we show that for any k ≥ 1, k ∗ there is some wk ∈ N such that |N0(¯ϕ; r)| ≤ wk for anyϕ ¯ ∈ Φ and r ∈ K . In particular, let δ be the maximum degree of any αi(x), for i ∈ [d∗]. Given k ≥ 1, let wk ∈ N be greater than the OK,k+1,k,δ1 ,...,δk+1 (1) bound from Theorem 4.10, for any δ1,...,δk+1 ≤ δ. k ∗ Fix k ≥ 1,ϕ ¯ ∈ Φ , and r ∈ K . For i ∈ [k], let ci ∈ {1, -1} and λi ∈ Λ0 be ∗ n such that ϕi(x) = ciαλi (x)λi , and let Pi(¯x) ∈ K[x1,...,xk] be the polynomial ¯ i−1 k−i ∗ k ciαλi (xi). Let Pk+1(¯x)=-r. For i ∈ [k], let λi = (1, ..., 1, λi, 1, ..., 1) ∈ (K ) . ¯ k k ¯n¯ ¯n¯ ni Let λk+1 = (1, ..., 1). Note that for anyn ¯ ∈ Z , λk+1 = 1 and λi = λi for any m ¯x¯ i ∈ [k]. In particular, N0(¯ϕ; r) is precisely the set of solutions to i=1 Pi(¯x)λi =0 k x¯ in N such that Pi(¯x)λ¯ 6= 0 for all nonempty I ( [k]. i∈I i P P 20 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
k ¯n¯ ¯n¯ n1 nk Supposen ¯ ∈ Z is such that λ1 = ... = λk+1. Then λ1 = ... = λk = 1, and so ni = 0 for all i ∈ [k] since λi is not a root of unity. Altogether, by Theorem 4.10, we have |N0(¯ϕ; r)|≤ wk. ∗ We now assume that no λ ∈ Λ1 is a repeated root of pA(x), and so αλ(x) is a ∗ ∗ constant αλ ∈ K . Define
∗ n ∗ n B = αλ(n)λ : n ∈ N and F = αλλ : n ∈ N . (λ∈ ) (λ∈ ) XΛ0 XΛ1 Note that B, F ⊆ K and A ⊆ B + F . Moreover, if λ ∈ Λ then {λn : n ∈ N} is finite if and only if λ ∈ Λ1. So F is finite and B is infinite. qf Lemma 4.12. BK is mutually algebraic. k Proof. Let Λ0 = {λ1,...,λℓ} with ℓ ≤ d∗. For k ≥ 1,c ¯ ∈{1, -1} , and r ∈ K, set k ℓ k ∗ nt Dc¯;r = n¯ ∈ N : ctαλi (nt)λi = r . ( t=1 i=1 ) X X Φ Then Dc¯;r is ∅-definable in NK sincen ¯ ∈ Dc¯;r if and only if, setting t ℓ ∗ x ∗ x n¯ = (nt, ...,nt) andϕ ¯t = (ctαλ1 (x)λ1 ,...,ctαλℓ (x)λℓ ) 1 k for t ∈ [k], we have (¯n ,..., n¯ ) ∈ A((ϕ ¯1,..., ϕ¯k); r). Let E be the equivalence relation on N such that E(m,n) holds if and only if ℓ ℓ ∗ m ∗ n αλi (m)λi = αλi (n)λi . i=1 i=1 X X 2 Φ Then E is defined by D(1,-1);0 ⊆ N , and thus is ∅-definable in NK. Note also that, k k for anyc ¯ ∈{1, -1} and r ∈ K, Dc¯;r is E-invariant as a subset of N . qf Now BK is clearly interdefinable with the structure with universe N/E and k qf relations Dc¯;r/E for all k ≥ 1,c ¯ ∈ {1, -1} , and r ∈ K. So BK is mutually algebraic by Lemma 4.11 and Corollary 3.8. qf Corollary 4.13. AK is mutually algebraic. qf qf Proof. Let M = (B + F )K . Then AK is a reduct of AM, and so, as in the proof of Theorem 3.21, it suffices to show that M is mutually algebraic. Fix a finite set F0 ⊆ B with |F | = |F0|, and let σ : F0 → F be a bijection. Let D = B × F0, and 2 qf k note that D ⊆ B is BK -definable of U-rank 1. Given k ≥ 1,c ¯ ∈ {1, -1} , and r ∈ K, define k k Dc¯;r = ((b1,f1),..., (bk,fk)) ∈ D : ci(bi + σ(fi)) = r . ( i=1 ) X Then, for any k ≥ 1,c ¯ ∈{1, -1}k, and r ∈ K, we have k k
Dc¯;r = ((b1,f1),..., (bk,fk)) : cibi = r − ciσ(fi) , f¯∈F k ( i=1 i=1 ) [0 X X qf and so Dc¯;r is BK -definable. Moreover, the equivalence relation E on D given qf by b1 + σ(f1) = b2 + σ(f2) is BK -definable by D(1,1,-1,-1);0, and any D(¯c; r) is WEAKLY MINIMAL GROUPS WITH A NEW PREDICATE 21
E-invariant. Finally, M is clearly interdefinable with the structure with universe D/E and relations for D(¯c; r)/E, for any k ≥ 1,c ¯ ∈{1, -1}k, and r ∈ K. So M is mutually algebraic by Lemma 4.12 and Corollary 3.8. As before, Corollary 4.13, Theorem 3.21, and Remark 3.22 yield Theorem 4.9. Remark 4.14. Suppose (G, +) is a weakly minimal subgroup of (Qalg, +), A ⊆ alg Q is enumerated by a linear recurrence relation, and no repeated root of pA(x) is a root of unity. Via Remark 3.18 and Corollary 3.19(b), Corollary 4.13 implies ± that Σn (A) has upper Banach density 0 (in G) for all n ≥ 1. In fact, if pA(x) is ± separable then one can use Theorem 4.5 to show that for any n ≥ 1, Σn (A) does not contain arbitrarily large finite arithmetic progressions (see [8, Remark 3.6]).
Remark 4.15. A root of unity appearing as a repeated root of pA(x) does not necessarily mean (G, +, A) is unstable. For example, Z = LRR(2, 0, -1, 0;0, 0, 1, -1), which has characteristic polynomial (x − 1)2(x + 1)2. This situation would likely be clarified by focusing on recurrence relations which are non-degenerate, i.e., there do not exist distinct roots µi and µj of pA(x) such that µi/µj is a root of unity. In general, any recurrence relation can be effectively partitioned into finitely many non-degenerate pieces (see [10, Theorem 1.2]). Note also that if A is non-degenerate and some root µ of pA(x) is a root of unity, then µ is the unique such root and µ ∈ {1, -1}. A tentative conjecture is that if A ⊆ Z is enumerated by a linear recurrence relation as above, and some repeated root of pA(x) is a root of unity, then either (Z, +, A) is unstable or A is degenerate. Finally, we point out that the restriction to Qalg in Theorem 4.9 is due to the fact that the work of Schlickewei and Schmidt from [30] (namely, Theorem 4.10 above) applies only to number fields. Suppose instead that we have a set A enumerated by a recurrence relation as above, but with a0,...,ad−1,β1,...,βd in an arbitrary algebraically closed field K of characteristic 0. In order to carry out the work in this section, one would need a version of Theorem 4.10, where OK,m,k,δ1,...,δm (1) is replaced by some bound depending only on k, m, and A. Such a result is known to hold in the case that pA(x) is separable, due to various “specialization” techniques (see [31]). On the other hand, we can use Theorem 4.5, and arguments similar to the proof of Theorem 4.4, to give a more direct argument. Theorem 4.16. Let K be an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0, and let G = (G, +) be a weakly minimal subgroup of the additive group K of K. Fix A ⊆ G enumerated by a linear homogeneous recurrence relation with constant coefficients in K and separable characteristic polynomial. Then, for any finite F ⊂ G and any B ⊆ A + F , (G,B) has nfcp and is superstable of U-rank at most ω. Proof. We use the same notation for A as above, but with Qalg replaced by K. Since pA(x) is separable, we have d∗ = d. Moreover, for all i ∈ [d], αi(x) is ∗ ∗ a constant αi ∈ K , which we also denote by αµi . LetΛ = {µ1,...,µd}, and partition Λ = Λ0 ∪ Λ1 as above. Let Φ denote the set of functions from N to K of ∗ x Φ the form x 7→ cαλλ for some λ ∈ Λ0 and c ∈ {1, -1}. If we can show that NK is mutually algebraic, then the rest of the proof follows as above. Φ k To show that NK is mutually algebraic, we fix k ≥ 1,ϕ ¯ ∈ Φ , and r ∈ K, and show that N0(¯ϕ; r) is mutually algebraic as a k-ary relation on N. Letϕ ¯ = ∗ x (ϕ1,...,ϕk) where ϕi : x 7→ ciαλi λi for λi ∈ Λ0 and ci ∈ {1, -1}. Let Γ be the ∗ k subgroup of K generated by λ1,...,λk, and let ∆ be the set ofx ¯ ∈ Γ such that 22 G.CONANTANDM.C.LASKOWSKI
k ∗ ∗ ( i=1 ciαλi xi = r and i∈I ciαλi xi 6= 0 for all nonempty I [k]. Then the map n1 nk σ :n ¯ → (λ1 ,...,λk ) is well-defined from N0(¯ϕ; r) to ∆, and injective since no λi Pis a root of unity. So itP suffices to show ∆ is mutually algebraic as a k-ary relation on Γ. This follows from Theorem 4.5 exactly as in the proof of Theorem 4.4.
∞ Remark 4.17. A recurrence sequence (an)n=0 as above can be extended to to (an)n∈Z using the same recurrence relation, and the representation of an using the roots of pA(x) still holds. Thus the analogues of Theorems 4.9 and 4.16 hold for a set A ⊆ G enumerated in this fashion as well. In the proofs one only needs to Φ Φ replace NK by ZK, where the maps in Φ are extended to Z in the obvious way.
References
[1] Oleg Belegradek, Ya’acov Peterzil, and Frank Wagner, Quasi-o-minimal structures, J. Sym- bolic Logic 65 (2000), no. 3, 1115–1132. [2] Oleg Belegradek and Boris Zilber, The model theory of the field of reals with a subgroup of the unit circle, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 78 (2008), no. 3, 563–579. [3] Alexis B`es, A survey of arithmetical definability, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin (2001), no. suppl., 1–54, A tribute to Maurice Boffa. [4] Elisabeth Bouscaren, Dimensional order property and pairs of models, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 41 (1989), no. 3, 205–231. [5] Enrique Casanovas and Martin Ziegler, Stable theories with a new predicate, J. Symbolic Logic 66 (2001), no. 3, 1127–1140. [6] Artem Chernikov and Pierre Simon, Externally definable sets and dependent pairs, Israel J. Math. 194 (2013), no. 1, 409–425. [7] Gabriel Conant, Stability and sparsity in sets of natural numbers, Israel J. Math. 230 (2019), no. 1, 471–508. [8] Gabriel Conant, Multiplicative structure in stable expansions of the group of integers, Illinois J. Math. 62 (2019), no. 1-4, 341-364. [9] Lou van den Dries and Ayhan G¨unaydın, The fields of real and complex numbers with a small multiplicative group, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 93 (2006), no. 1, 43–81. [10] Graham Everest, Alf van der Poorten, Igor Shparlinski, and Thomas Ward, Recurrence se- quences, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 104, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003. [11] J.-H. Evertse, H. P. Schlickewei, and W. M. Schmidt, Linear equations in variables which lie in a multiplicative group, Ann. of Math. (2) 155 (2002), no. 3, 807–836. [12] Jerry Gagelman, Stability in geometric theories, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 132 (2005), no. 2-3, 313–326. [13] John B. Goode, Some trivial considerations, J. Symbolic Logic 56 (1991), no. 2, 624–631. [14] John Goodrick and Michael C. Laskowski, The Schr¨oder-Bernstein property for a-saturated models, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 142 (2014), no. 3, 1013–1023. [15] Ehud Hrushovski, The Mordell-Lang conjecture for function fields, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1996), no. 3, 667–690. [16] Ehud Hrushovski and James Loveys, Strongly and co-strongly minimal abelian structures, J. Symbolic Logic 75 (2010), no. 2, 442–458. [17] Shingo Ibuka, Hirotaka Kikyo, and Hiroshi Tanaka, Quantifier elimination for lexicographic products of ordered abelian groups, Tsukuba J. Math. 33 (2009), no. 1, 95–129. [18] Quentin Lambotte and Fran¸coise Point, On expansions of (Z, +, 0), arXiv:1702.04795, 2017. [19] Michael C. Laskowski, Mutually algebraic structures and expansions by predicates, J. Sym- bolic Logic 78 (2013), no. 1, 185–194. [20] M. C. Laskowski and C. Terry, Uniformly bounded arrays and mutually algebraic structures, arXiv:1803.10054, 2018. [21] Michel Laurent, Equations´ exponentielles polynˆomes et suites r´ecurrentes lin´eaires, Ast´erisque (1987), no. 147-148, 121–139, 343–344, Journ´ees arithm´etiques de Besan¸con (Be- san¸con, 1985). [22] Michel Laurent, Equations´ exponentielles-polynˆomes et suites r´ecurrentes lin´eaires. II, J. Number Theory 31 (1989), no. 1, 24–53. WEAKLY MINIMAL GROUPS WITH A NEW PREDICATE 23
[23] Rahim Moosa and Thomas Scanlon, F -structures and integral points on semiabelian varieties over finite fields, Amer. J. Math. 126 (2004), no. 3, 473–522. MR 2058382 [24] Daniel Palac´ın and Rizos Sklinos, Superstable expansions of free abelian groups, Notre Dame J. Form. Log. 59 (2018), no. 2, 157–169. [25] Anand Pillay, An introduction to stability theory, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 8, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1983. [26] Anand Pillay, The model-theoretic content of Lang’s conjecture, Model theory and algebraic geometry, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1696, Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 101–106. [27] Bruno Poizat, Paires de structures stables, J. Symbolic Logic 48 (1983), no. 2, 239–249. [28] Bruno Poizat, Superg´en´erix, J. Algebra 404 (2014), 240–270, A` la m´emoire d’Eric´ Jaligot. [In memoriam Eric´ Jaligot]. [29] H. P. Schlickewei and W. M. Schmidt, Linear equations in members of recurrence sequences, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 20 (1993), no. 2, 219–246. [30] H. P. Schlickewei and W. M. Schmidt, The number of solutions of polynomial-exponential equations, Compositio Math. 120 (2000), no. 2, 193–225. [31] Wolfgang M. Schmidt, Linear recurrence sequences, Diophantine approximation (Cetraro, 2000), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1819, Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 171–247. [32] Saharon Shelah, Classification theory and the number of nonisomorphic models, second ed., Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 92, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1990.
Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46656, USA E-mail address: [email protected]
Department of Mathematics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA E-mail address: [email protected]