A Big Difference Between Interpretability and Definability in an Expansion of the Real Field

Abstract

We say that E is R-sparse if f(Ek) has no interior, for each k 2 N and f : Rk ! R de nable in R. (Throughout, \de nable" means \de nable without parameters".) In this note, we consider the extent to which basic metric and topological properties of subsets of R de nable in (R;E)# are determined by the corresponding properties of subsets of R de nable in (R;E), when R is an o-minimal expansion of (R;<;+;0;1) and E is R-sparse. The precise statement of the main result is a bit complicated, but we can state some special cases now.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Transfer methods for o-minimal topology.Alessandro Berarducci & Margarita Otero - 2003 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 68 (3):785-794.
Expansions of o-minimal structures by fast sequences.Harvey Friedman & Chris Miller - 2005 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 70 (2):410-418.
Definability and initial segments of c-degrees.Robert S. Lubarsky - 1988 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (4):1070-1081.
Definability in functional analysis.José Iovino - 1997 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (2):493-505.
Interpretability over peano arithmetic.Claes Strannegård - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (4):1407-1425.
The fine structure of real mice.Daniel W. Cunningham - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (3):937-994.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-22

Downloads
2 (#1,787,337)

6 months
1 (#1,516,429)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Chris Miller
Oxford University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references