Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2507.01760

Dimension theory for the asymptotic couple of the field of logarithmic transseries

Allen Gehret·Elliot Kaplan·Nigel Pynn-Coates
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper we completely characterize all dimension functions on all models of the theory $T_{\log}$ of the asymptotic couple of the field of logarithmic transseries (Dimension Theorem). This is done by characterizing the "small" $1$-variable definable sets (Small Sets Theorem). As a byproduct, we show that $T_{\log}$ is d-minimal and does not eliminate imaginaries. Separately, we provide an abstract criterion for d-minimality, which we use to observe some new examples of d-minimal expansions of valued fields.

Explore related subjects

math.LO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Allen Gehret, Elliot Kaplan, Nigel Pynn-Coates. 2025-11-03. Dimension theory for the asymptotic couple of the field of logarithmic transseries. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01760

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Applications of the Gelfand--Naimark duality

Stone duality is an indispensable tool for the study of compact, zero-dimensional, Hausdorff spaces. In the case of general compact Hausdorff spaces one can get quite a bit of mileage by considering the `Wallman duality' between compact spaces and lattices of closed sets. I will argue that the Gelfand--Naimark duality between compact Hausdorff spaces and unital, commutative C*-algebras provides great insight into compact Hausdorff spaces as well as into \v Cech--Stone remainders and their autohomeomorphisms in particular.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

The Limits of Arithmetical Pluralism: Incompleteness, Large Cardinals, and Graded Non-Pluralism

Gödelian incompleteness yields arithmetical sentences $A$ such that $PA+A$ and $PA+\neg A$ are both consistent. Are such extensions equally legitimate? I propose graded epistemic arithmetical non-pluralism: justification for choosing between them varies with the set-theoretic strength of $A$. I defend $PA+Con(PA)$ and show Koellner's non-pluralism for first-order arithmetic is inadequate given Friedman's concrete incompleteness. Resolving the selection problem for such sentences turns on justifying large cardinals. Defending graded non-pluralism thus engages Gödel's programme and the justification of very large cardinals.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

CIC + EM $\vdash$ Con(ZF): the consistency of ZF in type theory with excluded middle and no choice

The sets-as-trees interpretation of set theory in a dependent type theory with an impredicative universe of propositions validates Zermelo set theory, and it validates Replacement if the type theory has a choice or description operator, which turns a functional relation into a function. It has been natural to expect that without such an operator the strength of the type theory drops well below that of $\mathrm{ZF}$. We show that it does not. In the type theory of Lean with two predicative universes, from excluded middle as the only assumption and with no axiom (no choice, no propositional extensionality, no quotients), we prove the consistency of $\mathrm{ZF}$, stated outright for a first-order proof system. The proof is formalized. The mechanism is the large elimination of the accessibility predicate over a type as large as the type of sets: a recursion on accessibility whose recursive calls are guarded by propositions, and whose later calls are indexed by the value of an earlier call, computes as a term any ordinal that is specified by a proposition through a well-founded tree of a certain shape. We give a rule that produces such a tree for every ordinal, unless some $V_ρ$ is already a model of $\mathrm{ZF}$; the rule does not choose a cofinal map into a limit ordinal but takes all definable ones at once. In the first case the sets-as-trees satisfy Replacement for arbitrary propositional relations. Either way $\mathrm{ZF}$ has a model. Finally, the double negation of excluded middle suffices, and what remains of it is exactly that membership is not not well-founded in the stable reading of sets; this in turn implies the double negation of Markov's principle.

math.LO↗