This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: ON THE EXPANSION ( N , + , 2 x ) OF PRESBURGER ARITHMETIC FRANC OISE POINT 1 1. Introduction. This is based on a preprint ([9]) which appeared in the Proceedings of the fourth Easter Conference on model theory, Gross K o ris, 1986, 1734, Seminarberichte 86, Humboldt University, Berlin , where, with G. Cherlin, we gave a detailed proof of a result of Alexei L. Semenov that the theory of ( N , + , 2 x ) is decidable and admits quantifier elimination in an expansion of the language containing the Presburger congruence predicates and a logarithmic function. Expansions of Presburger arithmetic have been (and are still) extensively studied (see, for instance [5]). Let us give a quick review on the expansions of ( N , + ,P 2 ), where P 2 is the set of powers of 2. J. Richard Buchi showed that this expansion is decidable using the fact that the definable subsets are recognizable by a finite 2automaton (and Kleenes theorem that the empty problem for finite automata is decidable). (In his article, a stronger result is claimed, namely that Th ( N ,S ), the weak monadic second order theory of N with the successor function S , is biinterpretable with Th ( N , + ,P 2 ), which is incorrect, as later pointed out by R. McNaughton ([19])). In his review, McNaughton suggested to replace the predicate P 2 by the binary predicate 2 ( x,y ) interpreted by x is a power of 2 and appears in the binary ex pansion of y . It is easily seen that this predicate is interdefinable with the unary function V 2 ( y ) sending y to the highest power of 2 dividing it. Since then, sev eral proofs of the fact that Th ( N , + ,V 2 ) is biinterpretable with Th ( N ,S ) and that Def ( N , + ,V 2 ) are exactly the 2recognizable sets (in powers of N ) appeared (see [6], [7]), where Def ( N , + ,V 2 ) are the definable sets in the structure ( N , + ,V 2 ). A.L. Semenov exhibited a family of 2recognizable subsets which are not definable in ( N , + ,P 2 ) (see [24] Corollary 4 page 418). Another way to show that this last theory has less expressive power than Th ( N , + ,V 2 ) is to use a result of C. Elgot and M. Rabin ([16] Theorem 2) that if g is a function from P 2 to P 2 with the property that g skips at least one value , namely that n > 1 m ( m > n ( y P 2 g ( m ) > y > g ( n ))), then Th ( N , + ,V 2 ,n g ( n )) is undecidable and so Th ( N , + ,V 2 , 2 x ) is undecidable (another proof was given by G. Cherlin (see [9]). Consequences are that neither the graph of 2 x is definable in ( N , + ,V 2 ), nor the graph of V 2 in ( N , + , 2 x ) and that Th ( N , + ,P 2 ) has less expressive power than Th ( N , + , 2 x ). Which unary predicate can we add to the structure ( N , + ,V 2 ) and retain decidabil ity? Let us mention two kinds of results. On one hand, R. Villemaire showed that Date : July 23, 2010....
View Full
Document
 Fall '08
 JOSHUA
 Math

Click to edit the document details