Imaginaries in equicharacteristic zero henselian fields

Abstract

We prove an elimination of imaginaires results for (almost all) henselian valued fields of equicharacteristic zero. To do so, we consider a mix of sorts introduced in earlier works of the two authors and define a generalized version of the k-linear imaginaries. For a large class of value groups containing all subgroups of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ for some $n$, we prove that the imaginaries of such a valued field can be elimininated in the field, the k-linear imaginaries and the imaginaries of the value group.

1 Introduction

In the model theory of valued fields, one of the most striking results is a theorem by Ax, Kochen and, independently, Ershov which roughly states that the first-order theory of an unramified henselian valued field is completely determined by the first-order theory of its residue field $\mathrm{k}$ and of its value group $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま. A natural philosophy follows from this theorem: the model theory of a henselian valued field is controlled by its residue field and its value group.

In this paper we show that this philosophy also applies to the question of eliminating imaginaries : the classification of quotients of definable sets by definable equivalence relations; or equivalently, the description of moduli spaces for families of definable sets.

Over the past thirty years, the imaginaries in various henselian valued fields have been classified, starting with the case of algebraically closed field with a non-trivial valuation ($\mathrm{ACVF}$) in the foundational work by Haskell, Hrushovski and Macpherson [HHM-EI]. This work laid the groundwork for a “geometric model theory” of valued fields. They proved that in $\mathrm{ACVF}$, every quotient can be described as a subset of produtcs of certain specific quotients, known as the geometric sorts : the main field $\mathrm{K}$, and, for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$, the space $\mathrm{Gr}_{n}:=\mathrm{GL}_{n}(K)/\mathrm{GL}_{n}(\mathcal{O})$ of free rank $n$ $\mathcal{O}$-submodules of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$ and the space $\mathrm{Lin}_{n}=\bigsqcup_{R\in\mathrm{Gr}_{n}}R/\mathfrak{m}R$, where $\mathcal{O}$ denotes the valuation ring and $\mathfrak{m}\subseteq\mathcal{O}$ is the unique maximal ideal. We say that $\mathrm{ACVF}$ eliminates imaginaries down to the geometric sorts. These results were later extended to other classes of (enriched) henselian fields [Mel-RCVF, padics, separablyclosed, VDF].

In the early 2000, Hrushovski asked if such results could be explained by general result and proposed a classification reminiscent of the Ax-Kochen-Ershov principle. This paper provides a positive answer to this question for a broad class of henselian valued fields of equicharacteristic zero.

As can be expected, the natural obstruction to elimination of imaginaries in valued fields come in two flavors: those coming from the residue field, studied in work of Hils and the first author [HilRid-EIAKE], and those coming from the value group, studied in work of the second author [Vic-EIACk].

1.1 Obstructions arising from the residue field

In [HilRid-EIAKE], Hils and the first author assume the value group to be definably complete — this only allows divisible ordered abelian groups and groups elementarily euivalent to $\mathbb{Z}$ — and classify the imaginaries that might arise. This includes the imaginaries of the residue field $\mathrm{k}$, which might be arbitrarily complicated, but also linearly twisted versions.

Given a free rank $n$ $\mathcal{O}$-submodule $R\subseteq K^{n}$, the quotient module $R/\mathfrak{m}R$ is a $\mathrm{k}$-vector space of dimension $n$, on which $\mathrm{k}$ induces a non-trivial structure. Once we name a basis, $R/\mathfrak{m}R$ is definably isomorphic to $\mathrm{k}^{n}$, but without that basis, imaginaries of $R/\mathfrak{m}R$ cannot be identified with imaginaries of $\mathrm{k}$.

The structure $(\mathrm{k},R/\mathfrak{m}R)$ can be seen as a structure in the language $\mathfrak{L}_{\mathrm{vect}}$ with two sorts:

• a field sort $\mathrm{k}$ with the ring language,

• a vector space sort $\mathrm{V}$ with the (additive) group language,

• A function $\lambda:\mathrm{k}\times\mathrm{V}\rightarrow\mathrm{V}$λらむだ : roman_k × roman_V → roman_V interpreted as scalar multiplication.

Given an $\emptyset$-interpretable set $X$ in the $\mathfrak{L}_{\mathrm{vect}}$-theory of dimension $n$ vector spaces, the interpretable sets $X^{(\mathrm{k},R/\mathfrak{m}R)}$ has to be accounted for. To do so, one introduces

$$\mathrm{Lin}_{n,X}=\bigsqcup_{R\in\mathrm{Gr}_{n}}X^{(k,R/\mathfrak{m}R)}$$

and the $\mathrm{k}$-linear sorts

$$\mathrm{k}^{\mathrm{leq}}=\bigsqcup_{n,X}\mathrm{Lin}_{n,X}.$$

In fact, it suffices to consider interpretable sets $X$ that are quotients of $\mathrm{V}$ (and not some power of $\mathrm{V}$ and $\mathrm{k}$). Note that if $X=\mathrm{V}$ then $\mathrm{Lin}_{n,X}=\mathrm{Lin}_{n}$, and if $X$ is the one element quotient of $V$ then $\mathrm{Lin}_{n,X}\cong\mathrm{Gr}_{n}$.

One of the main result of [HilRid-EIAKE], is that in that case — under some mild hypothesis on $\mathrm{k}$ — these are the only obstructions to elimination of imaginaries:

Theorem 1.1 ([HilRid-EIAKE, Theorem 6.1.1]).

Let $K$ be a henselian valued field of equicharacteristic zero such that:

• The value group is definably complete;

• The residue field eliminates $\exists^{\infty}$.

Then $K$ has weak elimination of imaginaries down to $\mathrm{K}\cup {\mathrm{k}}^{\mathrm{leq}}\cup \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\mathrm{K}\cup\mathrm{k}^{\mathrm{leq}}\cup\Gammaroman_K ∪ roman_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_leq end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∪ roman_Γがんま.

This result can be generalized to finite ramification and certain difference valued fields and is resplendent in $\mathrm{k}$ and $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま.

1.2 Obstructions arising from the value group

In [Vic-EIACk], the second author studied imaginaries in equicharacteristic zero henselian valued fields with algebraically closed residue field. The complexity of the value group directly impacts the complexity of definable $\mathcal{O}$-modules and this needs to be taken in account.

This can be done by introducing the stabilizer sorts which provide codes for all the definable $\mathcal{O}$-submodules of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$, for any $n$. More precisely, let $\mathcal{C}=(\mathcal{C}_{c})_{c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\star}}$ be the (ind)-definable family of proper cuts in $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま. For every $c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\star}$, let $\mathrm{I}_{c}$ denote the $\mathcal{O}$-submodule $\{x\in\mathrm{K}:\mathrm{v}(x)\in\mathcal{C}_{c}\}$. For every tuple $c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\star}$, let ${\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c$Λらむだ𝑐\Lambda_{c}roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the module $\sum_{i}I_{c_{i}}e_{i}$, where $(e_{i})_{i<n}$ is the canonical basis of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$.

The group $\mathrm{B}_{n}$ of upper triangular matrices acts on the set of all definable $\mathcal{O}$-submodules of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$, and we define

$${\mathrm{Mod}}_c={\mathrm{B}}_n/\mathrm{Stab}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c)\text{ and }\mathrm{Mod}=\underset{c}{⨆}{\mathrm{Mod}}_c.$$Λらむだ𝑐 and Modsubscriptsquare-union𝑐subscriptMod𝑐\mathrm{Mod}_{c}=\mathrm{B}_{n}/\operatorname{Stab}(\Lambda_{c})\text{ and }% \mathrm{Mod}=\bigsqcup_{c}\mathrm{Mod}_{c}.roman_Mod start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / roman_Stab ( roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and roman_Mod = ⨆ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Mod start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

In [Vic-EIACk], the second author proved that, under some hypothesis on the value group, the stabilizer sorts are the only obstructions to elimination of imaginaries:

Theorem 1.2 ([Vic-EIACk, Theorem 5.12]).

Let $K$ be a valued field of equicharacteristic zero, such that:

• the residue field is algebraically closed;

• the value group has bounded regular rank — i.e. it has countably many definable convex subgroups.

Then $K$ admits weak elimination of imaginaries down to $\mathrm{K}\cup \mathrm{Mod}\cup {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{eq}}$Γがんまeq\mathrm{K}\cup\mathrm{Mod}\cup\Gamma^{\mathrm{eq}}roman_K ∪ roman_Mod ∪ roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_eq end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

1.3 An imaginary Ax-Kochen-Ershov principle

In this paper, building on those previous works, we provide a common generalization of both Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, obtaining a general Ax-Kochen-Ershov principle for the classification of imaginaries, under a technical assumption of the value group:

Definition 1.3.

We say that an (enriched) ordered group $G$ satisfies Property D if for every finite set of formulas $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}(x,y)$Δでるた𝑥𝑦\Delta(x,y)roman_Δでるた ( italic_x , italic_y ) containing the formula $x<y_{0}$, any $A=\mathrm{acl}(A)\subseteq G^{\mathrm{eq}}$ and any $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}$Δでるた\Deltaroman_Δでるた-type $p(x)$ that is $A$-definable, there is an $A$-definable complete type $q(x)$ containing $p$.

This is a stronger property than the density of definable types, and it holds in ordered abelian groups of bounded regular rank (see the second half of the proof of [Vic-EIACk, Theorem 5.3]).

We also introduce a version of the $\mathrm{k}$-linear sorts adapted to this new setting where more $\mathcal{O}$-modules might arise. This also provides an encoding of the stabilizer sorts which is more alike the geometric sorts of [HHM-EI]. Let $\mathrm{Cut}^{\star\star}=\mathrm{Cut}^{\star}\setminus\{0^{+}\}$ — unless the value group is discrete, in which case $\mathrm{Cut}^{\star\star}=\mathrm{Cut}^{\star}$. A module $R$ is said to be $\mathfrak{m}$-avoiding if it is (coded) in $\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$, for some tuple $c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\star\star}$. The dimension of $R/\mathfrak{m}R$ only depends on $c$ — it is equal to $r=|\{i:\mathcal{C}_{c_{i}}=\gamma^{-}$γがんま start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, for some $\gamma\in\Gamma\}|$γがんま ∈ roman_Γがんま } |.

For every $\emptyset$-interpretable quotient $X$ of $\mathrm{V}$ in the $\mathfrak{L}_{\mathrm{vect}}$-theory of dimension $r$ vector spaces, We define

$$\mathrm{Lin}_{c,X}=\bigsqcup_{R\in\mathrm{Mod}_{c}}X^{(\mathrm{k},R/\mathfrak{m}R)}$$

and the (generalized) $\mathrm{k}$-linear imaginaries:

$$\mathrm{k}^{\mathrm{leq}}=\bigsqcup_{c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\star\star},X}\mathrm{Lin}_{c,X}.$$

Among those, we denote $\mathrm{Gr}=\bigsqcup_{c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\star\star}}\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$ and $\mathrm{Lin}=\bigsqcup_{c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\star\star}}\mathrm{Lin}_{c,\mathrm{V}}$. Along with $\mathrm{K}$, these form the (generalized) geometric sorts, and they encode all $\mathcal{O}$-definable submodules of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$, for any $n$.

Our main results are the following. Let $M$ be an $\mathrm{k}$-$\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま-expansion of a model of $\mathrm{Hen}_{0,0}$ — that is a $\mathrm{k}$-expansion of a $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま-expansion — such that the value groups is either:

• dense with property D;

• a pure discrete ordered abelian group of bounded regular rank — in which case, we add a constant for a uniformizer.

Theorem (Theorem 6.5).

Assume that either one of the following conditions holds:

1. for every $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{>1}$ one has $[\Gamma:n\Gamma]<\infty$Γがんま : italic_n roman_Γがんま ] < ∞ — in which case, we add constants in $\mathrm{RV}$ so that $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}/n\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}=\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}/n\mathrm{v}(\mathrm{RV}(\mathrm{acl}(\mathrm{\varnothing })))$Γがんま𝑛ΓがんまΓがんま𝑛vRVacl\Gamma/n\Gamma=\Gamma/n\mathrm{v}(\mathrm{RV}(\mathrm{acl}(\emptyset)))roman_Γがんま / italic_n roman_Γがんま = roman_Γがんま / italic_n roman_v ( roman_RV ( roman_acl ( ∅ ) ) );

2. or, the multiplicative group $k^{\times}$ is divisible.

Then $M$ weakly eliminates imaginaries down to $K\cup {\mathrm{k}}^{\mathrm{leq}}\cup {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ΓがんまeqK\cup\mathrm{k}^{\mathrm{leq}}\cup\Gamma^{\mathrm{eq}}italic_K ∪ roman_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_leq end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∪ roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_eq end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Without condition (a) or (b), the short exact sequence

$$1\to {\mathrm{k}}^{\star }\to \mathrm{RV}={\mathrm{K}}^{\star }/(1+𝔪)\to \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}\to 0$$Γがんま→01\to\mathrm{k}^{\star}\to\mathrm{RV}=\mathrm{K}^{\star}/(1+\mathfrak{m})\to% \Gamma\to 01 → roman_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → roman_RV = roman_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / ( 1 + fraktur_m ) → roman_Γがんま → 0

might not eliminate imaginaries, creating further obstructions. This is not an issue in presence of an angular component, i.e. a section of this short exact sequence.

Theorem (Theorem 6.6).

Let $M_{\mathrm{ac}}$ be an exansion of $M$ by angular components. Then $M_{\mathrm{ac}}$ weakly eliminates imaginaries down to $K\cup {\mathrm{k}}^{\mathrm{leq}}\cup {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ΓがんまeqK\cup\mathrm{k}^{\mathrm{leq}}\cup\Gamma^{\mathrm{eq}}italic_K ∪ roman_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_leq end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∪ roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_eq end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

1.4 Overview of the paper

In Section 2.2 we present background results on henselian valued fields of equicharacteristic zero. In Section 3, we introduce the stabilizer sorts and prove a unary decomposition (LABEL:decompsolv). We also show that modules can be encoded in the (generalized) geometric sorts, and we classify $\mathrm{k}$-internal sets in the geometric sorts (LABEL:almostk_int).

In Section 4, we show that definable types in the structure induced from the maximal unramified algebraic extension are dense, cf. Theorem 4.1. This is the first main step of the proof. Density of definable types is a cornerstone of recent work on elimination of imaginaries, but it cannot hold in an arbitrary (equicharacteristic zero) henselian field $K$ due to the complexity of the residue field. However, the second author showed ([Vic-EIACk, Theorem 5.9]) that its holds in its maximal unramified algebraic extension $K^{\mathrm{ur}}$ (assuming Property D). In Section 4, we show that the definable types in $K^{\mathrm{ur}}$ are also dense among the sets definable in $K$. The main new challenge is to relate the germs of functions definable in $K$ to those of functions definable in $K^{\mathrm{ur}}$ — see Section 4.3.

In Section 5, we show that partial definable types build in Section 4 have completions that are invariant over $\mathrm{RV}$ and families of $\mathrm{k}$-vector spaces of the form $R/\mathfrak{m}R$ for some $\mathfrak{m}$-avoiding definable modules $R$. This is the second main step of the proof. The bulk of the work (Proposition 5.17) revolves around showing that geometric points can be lifted to the valued field by a sufficiently invariant type. This, in turn, relies heavily on the computation of germs of function into sets of the form $R/\mathfrak{m}R$ — cf. Proposition 5.4.

Finally, in Section 6, we wrap everything together and show our two main theorems.

Acknowledgments

S. Rideau-Kikuchi was partially supported by GeoMod AAPG2019 (ANR-DFG), Geometric and Combinatorial Configurations in Model Theory. The authors also wish to thank E. Hrushovski, T. Scanlon and P. Simon for many enlightening discussions on this topic.

2 Preliminaries

2.1 Imaginaries

We refer the reader to [TenZie, Section 8.4] for a detailed exposition.

Let $T$ be an $\mathcal{L}$-theory. Consider the language $\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ obtained by adding to $\mathfrak{L}$ a new sort $S_{X}$ for every $\mathcal{L}$-definable set $X\subseteq Y\times Z$, where $Y$ and $Z$ are product of sorts, and a new symbol $f_{X}:Z\to S_{X}$. The $\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{eq}}$-theory $T^{\mathrm{eq}}$ is then obtained as the union of $T$, the fact that the $f_{X}$ are surjective and that their fibers are the classes of the equivalence relation defined by $X_{z_{1}}=\{y\in Y:(y,z_{1})\in X\}=X_{z_{2}}$.

Any $M\models T$ has a unique expansion to a model of $T^{\mathrm{eq}}$ denoted $M^{\mathrm{eq}}$ — whose points are called the imaginaries. Throughout this paper, when considering types, definable closures or algebraic closures, we will work in the $\mathfrak{L}^{\mathrm{eq}}$-structure, unless otherwise specified.

Given $M\models T$ and an $\mathcal{L}(M)$-definable set $X$, we denote by $\ulcorner X\urcorner\subseteq M^{\mathrm{eq}}$ the intersection of all $A=\mathrm{dcl}(A)\subseteq M^{\mathrm{eq}}$ such that $X$ is $\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{eq}}(A)$-definable. It is the smallest $\mathrm{dcl}$-closed set of definition for $X$. Any $\mathrm{dcl}$-generating subset of $\ulcorner X\urcorner$ is called a code of $X$. More generally, if $A\subseteq M^{\mathrm{eq}}$ is a set of parameters, any tuple $e$ such that $\mathrm{dcl}(Ae)=\mathrm{dcl}(A\ulcorner X\urcorner)$ is called a code of $X$ over $A$.

If $\mathcal{D}$ is a collection of sorts of $\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{eq}}$ — equivalently, a collection of $\mathcal{L}$-interpretable sets — and $A\subseteq M^{\mathrm{eq}}$ is a set of parameters, we say that $X$ is coded in $\mathcal{D}$ over $A$ if it is $\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{eq}}(A\cup\mathcal{D}(\ulcorner X\urcorner))$-definable — i.e., it admits a code in $\mathcal{D}$ over $A$.

The theory $T$ is said to eliminate imaginaries down to $\mathcal{D}$ if, for every $M\models T$, every $\mathcal{L}(M)$-definable set $X$ is coded in $\mathcal{D}$ — equivalently, for every $e\in M^{\mathrm{eq}}$, there is some $d\in\mathcal{D}(\mathrm{dcl}(e))$ such that $e\in\mathrm{dcl}(d)$. Finally, we say that the theory $T$ weakly eliminates imaginaries down to $\mathcal{D}$ if for every $e\in M^{\mathrm{eq}}$, there is some $d\in\mathcal{D}(\mathrm{acl}(e))$ such that $e\in\mathrm{dcl}(d)$.

2.2 Equicharacteristic zero henselian fields

Throughout this text, whenever $X$ is a definable set and $A$ is a subset of a structure, $X(A)$ denotes $X\cap A$. We change structures too often to not be explicit with the definable closures at play.

Let $\mathrm{Hen}_{0,0}$ be the theory of residue characteristic zero valued fields $(\mathrm{K},\mathrm{v})$ in some language $\mathfrak{L}$. The exact language we use does not matter much since we really work in $\mathfrak{L}^{\mathrm{eq}}$. In this section, we recall some useful results about these structures. We denote by $\mathrm{RV}^{\star}$ the group $\mathrm{K}^{\star}/(1+\mathfrak{m})$, where $\mathfrak{m}$ is the maximal ideal of the valuation ring $\mathcal{O}\subseteq\mathrm{K}$ and $\mathrm{rv}:\mathrm{K}\to\mathrm{RV}=\mathrm{RV}^{\star}\cup\{0\}$ the canonical projection (extended by $\mathrm{rv}(0)=0$). Let $M\models\mathrm{Hen}_{0,0}$ and $A\leq\mathrm{K}(M)$.

Theorem 2.1 ([Bas, Theorem B]).

Every $A$-definable subset of $\mathrm{K}^{x}\times\mathrm{RV}^{y}$ is of the form $\{(x,y):(\mathrm{rv}(P(x)),y)\in X\}$, for some tuple $P\in A[x]$ and some $X\subseteq\mathrm{RV}^{n}$ which is $\mathrm{rv}(A)$-definable in the short exact sequence

$$1\to {\mathrm{k}}^{\star }\to {\mathrm{RV}}^{\star }\to \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}\to 0.$$Γがんま→01\to\mathrm{k}^{\star}\to\mathrm{RV}^{\star}\to\Gamma\to 0.1 → roman_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → roman_RV start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → roman_Γがんま → 0 .

where $\mathrm{k}=\mathcal{O}/\mathfrak{m}$ is the residue field and $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}=\mathrm{v}(\mathrm{K})$ΓがんまvK\Gamma=\mathrm{v}(\mathrm{K})roman_Γがんま = roman_v ( roman_K ) is the value group. Moreover, this remains true in $\mathrm{RV}$-expansions.

From the result above, either by adding a section or proving a quantifier elimination result for short exact sequences, we can deduce the following:

Proposition 2.2.

The sets $\mathrm{k}$ and $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま are stably embedded (with respectively the structure of a field and an ordered group) and they are orthogonal. In other words, any $M$-definable subset of ${\mathrm{k}}^x\times {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}^y$Γがんま𝑦\mathrm{k}^{x}\times\Gamma^{y}roman_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a finite union of products $X\times Y$ where $X$ is definable in the field $\mathrm{k}$ and $Y$ is definable in the ordered group $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま.

Moreover, any $A$-definable $X\subseteq {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}^n$Γがんま𝑛X\subseteq\Gamma^{n}italic_X ⊆ roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is $\mathrm{v}(A)$-definable. In particular,

$${\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}^{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathrm{acl}(A))\subseteq \mathrm{acl}(\mathrm{v}(A)).$$Γがんまeqacl𝐴aclv𝐴\Gamma^{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathrm{acl}(A))\subseteq\mathrm{acl}(\mathrm{v}(A)).roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_eq end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_acl ( italic_A ) ) ⊆ roman_acl ( roman_v ( italic_A ) ) .

These results remain true in $\mathrm{k}$-$\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま-expansions.

Theorem 2.1 can also be refined for unary sets — showing that $\mathrm{Hen}_{0,0}$ is 0-h-minimal.

Proposition 2.3 ([Fle, Proposition 3.6]).

Let $X\subseteq\mathrm{K}\times\mathrm{RV}^{n}$ be $A$-definable. There exists a finite set $C\subseteq A^{\mathrm{a}}\cap\mathrm{K}(M)$ such that for every $\xi\in\mathrm{RV}^{n}$ξくしー ∈ roman_RV start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, $X_{\xi}=\{x\in\mathrm{K}:(x,\xi)\in X\}=\mathrm{rv}_{C}^{-1}(\mathrm{rv}_{C}(X_{\xi}))$ξくしー end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x ∈ roman_K : ( italic_x , italic_ξくしー ) ∈ italic_X } = roman_rv start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_rv start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξくしー end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) where $\mathrm{rv}_{C}(x)=(\mathrm{rv}(x-c))_{c\in C}$.

In other words, for any ball $b$ that does not intersect $C$, $b\cap X_{\xi}=b$ξくしー end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_b or $b\cap X_{\xi}=\emptyset$ξくしー end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∅.

Definition 2.4.

Let $a\in\mathrm{K}(M)$ and let $C$ be a cut in $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}(M)$Γがんま𝑀\Gamma(M)roman_Γがんま ( italic_M ) — that is, an upwards closed subset. We define the generalized ball $b_{C}(a)$ of cut $C$ around $a$ to be $\{x\in\mathrm{K}:\mathrm{v}(x-a)\in C\}$. A generalized ball is open if its cut is not of the form ${\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}_{\ge \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}$Γがんまabsent𝛾\Gamma_{\geq\gamma}roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_γがんま end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for some $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}\in \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}(M)$Γがんま𝑀\gamma\in\Gamma(M)italic_γがんま ∈ roman_Γがんま ( italic_M ).

Let $\mathrm{B_{g}}$ denote the set of (codes for) generalized balls.

Note that, for every $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}\in \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}(M)$Γがんま𝑀\gamma\in\Gamma(M)italic_γがんま ∈ roman_Γがんま ( italic_M ), $b_{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}_{>\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}}(a)$Γがんまabsent𝛾𝑎b_{\Gamma_{>\gamma}}(a)italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_γがんま end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a ) is the open ball of radius $\gamma$γがんま around $a$, $b_{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}_{\ge \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}}(a)$Γがんまabsent𝛾𝑎b_{\Gamma_{\geq\gamma}}(a)italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_γがんま end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a ) is the closed ball of radius $\gamma$γがんま around $a$ — $b_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}(a)=\mathrm{K}$Γがんま𝑎Kb_{\Gamma}(a)=\mathrm{K}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γがんま end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a ) = roman_K is also considered an open ball. Hence, a generalized ball is either a closed ball, an open ball or an open generalized ball which is not a ball.

Corollary 2.5.

Let $b$ be an $A$-algebraic generalized ball which is not an open ball. Then there exists a finite $C\subseteq A^{\mathrm{a}}$ such that $C\cap b(M)\neq\emptyset$ and the valuation between any two distinct points of the $\mathrm{Gal}(A)$-orbit of $C$ is smaller than the radius of $b$.

Here we identify the radius of $b$ with its upwards closure in $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}(M^{\mathrm{a}})$Γがんまsuperscript𝑀a\Gamma(M^{\mathrm{a}})roman_Γがんま ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Proof.

Let $B$ be the union of $A$-conjugates of $b$. Then, there exists $C\subseteq\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{acl}(A))\subseteq A^{\mathrm{a}}$ be such that, for any ball $d$ avoiding $C$, either $d\subseteq B$ or $d\cap B=\emptyset$. If $b\cap C=\emptyset$, then $b$ is the largest ball around $b$ avoiding $C$, i.e. the open ball around $b$ with radius $\min_{c\in C}\mathrm{v}(x-c)$, for any $x\in b$. This contradicts the fact that $b$ is not an open ball. So $b(M)\cap C\neq\emptyset$.

Let $C_{b}\subseteq\mathrm{Gal}(A)\cdot C$ be the subset of points that are at a valuation larger than the radius of $b$ from $b(M)\cap C$. Since $M$ is henselian, the average $c$ of $C_{b}$ is in $M$ and, since we are in equicharacteristic zero, it is in $b$. By construction, each $\mathrm{Gal}(A)$-conjugates of $c$ is at a valuation smaller than the radius of $b$ from $c$. ∎

Finally, when the residue field is algebraically closed, Theorem 2.1 can be further simplified:

Theorem 2.6 ([Vic-EIACk, Corollary 2.33]).

Assume the residue field $\mathrm{k}(M)$ is algebraically closed. Every $A$-definable subset of $\mathrm{K}^{x}$ is of the form $\mathrm{v}(P(x))\in X$ where $P\in A[x]$ is a tuple and $X\subseteq {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}}^n$Γがんま𝑛X\subseteq\Gamma^{n}italic_X ⊆ roman_Γがんま start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is $\mathrm{v}(A)$-definable in the ordered group structure. Moreover, this remains true in $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま-expansions.

3 Codes of $\mathcal{O}$-modules

3.1 The stabilizer sorts

Let $M$ be an (enriched) valued field.

Notation 3.1.

We fix an (ind-)definable family $\mathcal{C}=(\mathcal{C}_{c})_{c\in\mathrm{Cut}}$ of cuts in $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま such that any $M$-definable cut is of the of form $\mathcal{C}_{c}$ for some unique $c\in\mathrm{Cut}(M)$. We will further assume that $c$ is a canonical parameter for $\mathcal{C}_{c}$.

For every $c\in\mathrm{Cut}$, let $\mathrm{I}_{c}$ denote the $\mathcal{O}$-submodule $\{x\in\mathrm{K}:\mathrm{v}(x)\in\mathcal{C}_{c}\}$. Note that, by hypothesis, any $\mathfrak{L}(M)$-definable $\mathcal{O}$-submodule of $\mathrm{K}$ is of the form $a\mathrm{I}_{c}$ for some $a\in\mathrm{K}(M)$ and some unique $c\in\mathrm{Cut}(M)$. We also denote ${\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_c=\{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}\in \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}:\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}+{𝒞}_c={𝒞}_c\}$Δでるた𝑐conditional-set𝛾Γがんま𝛾subscript𝒞𝑐subscript𝒞𝑐\Delta_{c}=\{\gamma\in\Gamma:\gamma+\mathcal{C}_{c}=\mathcal{C}_{c}\}roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_γがんま ∈ roman_Γがんま : italic_γがんま + caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } — it is a convex subgroup of $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま.

The following results are well-established and go back to Bauer’s work on separated extensions.

Definition 3.2.

A definable valuation $v$ on an interpretable $\mathrm{K}$-vector space $V$ is a map to some interpretable set $X$ with an order preserving action of $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま such that

• for every $a\in\mathrm{K}$ and $x\in V$, $v(ax)=\mathrm{v}(a)+v(x)$;

• for every $x,y\in V$, $v(x+y)\geq\min\{v(x),v(y)\}$.

Proposition 3.3.

Assume that $M$ is definably spherically complete — that is, the intersection of any $M$-definable chain of balls is non empty.

1. For every $M$-definable valuation $v$ on $\mathrm{K}^{n}$, there exists a triangular basis $(a_{i})_{i<n}$ of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$ such that, for all $i$, $v(a_{i})\in\mathrm{dcl}(\ulcorner v\urcorner)$ and for every $\lambda_{i}\in\mathrm{K}$λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_K,

   $$v(\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}a_{i})=\max_{i}\mathrm{v}(\lambda_{i})\cdot v(a_{i}).$$λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_v ( italic_λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋅ italic_v ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

2. Any $M$-definable $\mathcal{O}$-submodule $R$ of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$ is of the form $\sum_{i<n}\mathrm{I}_{c_{i}}a_{i}$, where $a_{i}$ is a triangular basis of $\mathrm{K}^{n}(M)$ and $c_{i}\in\mathrm{Cut}(\ulcorner R\urcorner)$.

A basis as in the fist assertion is said to be separated. A module as in the second assertion is said to be of type $c=(c_{i})_{i<n}$.

Proof.

If $M$ is (elementarily equivalent to a) maximally complete field, the first assertion is [Vic-EIACk, Lemma 5.7]. If $M$ is only definably spherically complete, the same proof works using [HilRid-EIAKE, Claim 3.3.9] instead of [Vic-EIACk, Fact 2.55].

Let us now prove the second assertion. For every $a\in\mathrm{K}^{n}$, we define $v_{R}(a)=\{v(x):xa\in R\}$ a (non-empty) cut of $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま. We order them by inclusion (so $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}=v_R(0)$Γがんまsubscript𝑣𝑅0\Gamma=v_{R}(0)roman_Γがんま = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) is the maximal element and $\{\infty\}$ is the minimal element). Note that, for every $x\in\mathrm{K}$, $v_{R}(xa)=v_{R}(a)-\mathrm{v}(x)$ and for this action of $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$Γがんま\Gammaroman_Γがんま, $v_{R}$ is an $M$-definable valuation.

By the first assertion, we can find a separated triangular basis $(a_{i})_{i}$ of $\mathrm{K}^{n}(M)$, such that $v_{R}(a_{i})\in\mathrm{dcl}(\ulcorner R\urcorner)$. Then $\sum_{i}x_{i}a_{i}\in R$ if and only if $0=\mathrm{v}(1)\in v_{R}(\sum_{i}x_{i}a_{i})=\min_{i}v_{R}(a_{i})-\mathrm{v}(x_{i})$, i.e. $\mathrm{v}(x_{i})\in v_{R}(a_{i})$ for all $i$. Let $c_{i}\in\mathrm{Cut}(\mathrm{dcl}{\ulcorner R\urcorner})$ be such that $v_{R}(a_{i})=\mathcal{C}_{c_{i}}$. We then have $R=\sum_{i}\mathrm{I}_{c_{i}}a_{i}$, as required. ∎

Notation 3.4.

1. We write $B_{n}$ to denote the set of $n\times n$ upper triangular and invertible matrices. We write $\mathrm{D}_{n}\leq\mathrm{B}_{n}$ for the subgroup of diagonal matrices and $\mathrm{U}_{n}\leq\mathrm{B}_{n}$ for the subgroup of unipotent matrices, that is upper triangular matrices with ones on the diagonal.

2. For every $n$-tuple $c\in\mathrm{Cut}$, we define $\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$ to be the interpretable set of modules of type $c$ and ${\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c=\sum {\mathrm{I}}_{c_i}{e}_i$Λらむだ𝑐subscriptIsubscript𝑐𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖\Lambda_{c}=\sum\mathrm{I}_{c_{i}}e_{i}roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ roman_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the canonical module of type $c$, where $e_{i}$ is the canonical basis of $K^{n}$. Then Λらむだ𝑐\sum_{i<n}\mathrm{I}_{c_{i}}a_{i}=A\cdot\Lambda_{c}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i < italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A ⋅ roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where $A\in\mathrm{B}_{n}$ is the upper triangular matrix of the $a_{i}$. In other words, $\mathrm{B}_{n}$ acts transitively on $\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$ and

   $${\mathrm{Mod}}_c\simeq {\mathrm{B}}_n/\mathrm{Stab}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c).$$Λらむだ𝑐\mathrm{Mod}_{c}\simeq\mathrm{B}_{n}/\operatorname{Stab}(\Lambda_{c}).roman_Mod start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≃ roman_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / roman_Stab ( roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

   We will now identify $\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$ with this quotient of $\mathrm{B}_{n}$ and for every $s\in\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$, we write $R_{s}$ for the $\mathcal{O}$-module of type $c$ coded by $s$. Let $\mu_{c}:\mathrm{B}_{n}\to\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$μみゅー start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → roman_Mod start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the natural quotient map.

If $\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}\le \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}$ΔでるたΓがんま\Delta\leq\Gammaroman_Δでるた ≤ roman_Γがんま is a (definable) convex subgroup, we write ${𝒪}_{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}=\{x\in \mathrm{K}:\mathrm{v}(x)\in \mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}\}$Δでるたconditional-set𝑥Kv𝑥Δでるた\mathcal{O}_{\Delta}=\{x\in\mathrm{K}:\mathrm{v}(x)\in\Delta\}caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δでるた end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x ∈ roman_K : roman_v ( italic_x ) ∈ roman_Δでるた } for the associated (definable) valuation ring. If $I,J\leq\mathrm{K}$ are two (definable) $\mathcal{O}$-submodules, let $(I:J)$ denote the (definable) $\mathcal{O}$-submodule $\{x\in\mathrm{K}:xJ\subseteq I\}$.

Proposition 3.5.

Let $c\in\mathrm{Cut}$ be a tuple. For every $a\in\mathrm{B}_{n}$, we have

$$a\in\operatorname{Stab}(\Lambda_{c})\text{ if and only if }\left\{\begin{array}[]{cl}a_{i,i}\in\mathcal{O}_{\Delta_{c_{i}}}^{\times}&\text{for all }i<n\text{, and}\\ a_{i,j}\in(\mathrm{I}_{c_{i}}:\mathrm{I}_{c_{j}})&\text{for all i < j < n.}\end{array}\right.$$Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) if and only if { start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL for all italic_i < italic_n , and end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( roman_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL start_CELL for all i < j < n. end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY

Proof.

We proceed by induction on $n$. Write $a$ as $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a_{0,0}&b\\ 0&e\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, with $e\in\mathrm{B}_{n-1}$, and $c$ as $(c_{0},d)$, with $d\in\mathrm{Cut}^{n-1}$. If $a{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c\subseteq {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c$Λらむだ𝑐subscriptΛらむだ𝑐a\Lambda_{c}\subseteq\Lambda_{c}italic_a roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then, considering the action on $\mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}$ and ${\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_d$Λらむだ𝑑\Lambda_{d}roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we see that $a_{0,0}\mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}\subseteq\mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}$, $b{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_d\subseteq {\mathrm{I}}_{c_0}$Λらむだ𝑑subscriptIsubscript𝑐0b\Lambda_{d}\subseteq\mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}italic_b roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ roman_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT — so, considering the action on each $\mathrm{I}_{c_{j}}$, for every $j>0$, $a_{0,j}\mathrm{I}_{c_{j}}\subseteq\mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}$ — and $e{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_d\subseteq {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_d$Λらむだ𝑑subscriptΛらむだ𝑑e\Lambda_{d}\subseteq\Lambda_{d}italic_e roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; and the converse also holds.

Since $a{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c={\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c$Λらむだ𝑐subscriptΛらむだ𝑐a\Lambda_{c}=\Lambda_{c}italic_a roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if, moreover, Λらむだ𝑐superscriptsubscript𝑎001superscriptsubscript𝑎001𝑏superscript𝑒10superscript𝑒1subscriptΛらむだ𝑐subscriptΛらむだ𝑐a^{-1}\Lambda_{c}=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a_{0,0}^{-1}&-a_{0,0}^{-1}be^{-1}\\ 0&e^{-1}\end{smallmatrix}\right)\Lambda_{c}\subseteq\Lambda_{c}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ROW start_CELL italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW ) roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, it follows that we must further have $a_{0,0}\mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}=\mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}$, i.e. $\mathrm{v}(a_{0,0})\in {\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{c_0}$Δでるたsubscript𝑐0\mathrm{v}(a_{0,0})\in\Delta_{c_{0}}roman_v ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and $e{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_d={\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_d$Λらむだ𝑑subscriptΛらむだ𝑑e\Lambda_{d}=\Lambda_{d}italic_e roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. These conditions are sufficient since, in that case, $a_{0,0}^{-1}b{e}^{-1}{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_d=a_{0,0}^{-1}b{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_d\subseteq a_{0,0}{\mathrm{I}}_{c_0}={\mathrm{I}}_{c_0}$Λらむだ𝑑superscriptsubscript𝑎001𝑏subscriptΛらむだ𝑑subscript𝑎00subscriptIsubscript𝑐0subscriptIsubscript𝑐0a_{0,0}^{-1}be^{-1}\Lambda_{d}=a_{0,0}^{-1}b\Lambda_{d}\subseteq a_{0,0}% \mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}=\mathrm{I}_{c_{0}}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The claim now follows by induction. ∎

Definition 3.6.

Let ${\mathrm{Cut}}^{\star }=\mathrm{Cut}\setminus \{\mathrm{\varnothing },\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}\}$Γがんま\mathrm{Cut}^{\star}=\mathrm{Cut}\setminus\{\emptyset,\Gamma\}roman_Cut start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Cut ∖ { ∅ , roman_Γがんま } and $\mathrm{Mod}$ be the collection of all the $\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$ where $c$ is a tuple in $\mathrm{Cut}^{\star}$.

Corollary 3.7.

Any $M$-definable $\mathcal{O}$-submodule $R$ of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$ is coded in $\mathrm{K}\cup\mathrm{Mod}$.

Proof.

Let $V\subseteq\mathrm{K}^{n}$ be the $\mathrm{K}$-span of $R$ and $W=\{x\in\mathrm{K}^{n}:\mathrm{K}x\subseteq R\}$. Then $V/W$ is $\mathrm{K}(\ulcorner R\urcorner)$-definably isomorphic to some $\mathrm{K}^{r}$ and $R$ is entirely determined by its image in $V/W$. So we may assume $V=\mathrm{K}^{r}$ and $W=0$ and hence that $R$ is of type $c$ with $c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\star}$. By definition, it is coded in $\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$. ∎

Remark 3.8.

There is a lot of redundancy in $\mathrm{Mod}$. If $c$ and $c^{\prime}$ are tuples in $\mathrm{Cut}$ of the same length such that for every $i<n$, $c_{i}^{\prime}$ is a translate of $c_{i}$, then there is a natural bijection between $\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$ and $\mathrm{Mod}_{c^{\prime}}$ given by the action of a diagonal matrix.

If there exists an (ind-)definable subset $\mathrm{Cut}^{\prime}\subseteq\mathrm{Cut}$ such that any definable cut is of the form $a+\mathcal{C}_{c}$ for a unique $c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\prime}$, it follows that every $M$-definable $\mathcal{O}$-submodule of $\mathrm{K}^{n}$ is coded in $\mathrm{K}\cup {\bigcup }_{c\in {\mathrm{Cut}}^{\prime }\setminus \{\mathrm{\varnothing },\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}\}}{\mathrm{Mod}}_c$ΓがんまsubscriptMod𝑐\mathrm{K}\cup\bigcup_{c\in\mathrm{Cut}^{\prime}\setminus\{\emptyset,\Gamma\}}% \mathrm{Mod}_{c}roman_K ∪ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ roman_Cut start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ { ∅ , roman_Γがんま } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Mod start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Similarly, we can replace $\mathrm{Cut}$ by $\mathrm{Cut}^{\prime}$ in the definition of the geometric sorts (Definition 3.12).

This is the case, for example, in ordered abelian groups of bounded regular rank (cf. [Vic-EIACk, Corollary 2.24]).

Let us now describe the structure of $\mathrm{Mod}$. The solvability of the upper triangular invertible matrices will play a central role in this description.

We go through the elements of an upper triangular matrix diagonal by diagonal starting at the middle diagonal, and in each diagonal, we proceed from top to bottom. In other words, we order pairs $(i,j)$ such that $i\leq j<n$ first by $i-j$ and then by $i$. We will identify the set of such pairs with the set of non-negative integers smaller than $n(n+1)/2$, according to that order.

For every pair $(i,j)$, let $p_{i,j}:\mathrm{B}_{n}\to\mathrm{K}$ be the projection on coordinate $(i,j)$. Let also $\varepsilon_{i,j}=1$εいぷしろん start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 if $i=j$ and $0$ otherwise. For every pair $\ell$, let $G_{\ell}=\{a\in\mathrm{B}_{n}:p_{k}(a)=\varepsilon_{k},\ \forall k<\ell\}$εいぷしろん start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_k < roman_ℓ }. Then $G_{0}=\mathrm{B}_{n}$, $G_{n}=\mathrm{U}_{n}$ and $G_{n(n+1)/2}=\{\mathrm{id}\}$. By choice of the order, for every $\ell$, $G_{\ell+1}\triangleleft G_{\ell}$ and $p_{\ell}$ induces an isomorphism from $G_{\ell}/G_{\ell+1}$ to $\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}$, if $\ell<n$, and to $\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{a}}$ otherwise. Note also that $H_{\ell}=\{a\in G_{\ell}:p_{k}(a)=\varepsilon_{k},\ \forall k>\ell\}$εいぷしろん start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_k > roman_ℓ }, is a section of $p_{\ell}$ restricted to $G_{\ell}$ and hence $G_{\ell}=G_{\ell-1}\rtimes H_{\ell}$.

Furthermore, we have $G_{n}=\mathrm{U}_{n}$, $\mathrm{B}_{n}=\mathrm{U}_{n}\rtimes\mathrm{D}_{n}$ and, for every $\ell\geq n$, $G_{\ell}$ is central in $G_{n}$ module $G_{\ell+1}$ — actually modulo the next upper triangular group $G_{0,j}$,— if $\ell$ is a pair $(i,i+j-1)$. In particular $G_{\ell}\trianglelefteq\mathrm{U}_{n}$.

We can now prove the following unary decomposition.

Proposition 3.9.

Let $s\in\mathrm{Mod}_{c}$. There exists a finite tuple $b=(b_{\ell})_{\ell}\in M^{\mathrm{eq}}$ (identified with a subset of some $\mathrm{K}^{r_{\ell}}$) and $cb_{<\ell}$-interpretable sets $X_{\ell}$ such that:

• for every $\ell$, $b_{\ell}\in X_{\ell}$;

• $\mathrm{dcl}(s)=\mathrm{dcl}(cb)$;

• if $\ell<n$, then $X_{\mathrm{\ell }}=\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Gamma </rb><rt>がんま</rt></ruby>}/{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{c_i}$ΓがんまsubscriptΔでるたsubscript𝑐𝑖X_{\ell}=\Gamma/\Delta_{c_{i}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Γがんま / roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where $\ell=(i,i)$;

• if $\ell\geq n$, then $X_{\ell}$ has a $cb_{<\ell}$-definable $\mathrm{K}/\mathrm{I}_{\ell}$-torsor structure where $\mathrm{I}_{\ell}$ is a $cb_{<\ell}$-definable multiple of $(\mathrm{I}_{c_{i}}:\mathrm{I}_{c_{j}})$ and $\ell=(i,j)$.

Moreover, for any choice of $a_{k}\in b_{k}$ there is a (uniformly) $ca_{<\ell}$-definable isomorphism $f_{\ell}:X_{\ell}\to\mathrm{K}/\mathrm{I}_{\ell}$ and a $ca_{<\ell}$-definable function $g_{\ell}:f_{\ell}(b_{\ell})\to b_{\ell}$.

Proof.

Let $F=\mathrm{Stab}({\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Lambda </rb><rt>らむだ</rt></ruby>}}_c)$Λらむだ𝑐F=\operatorname{Stab}(\Lambda_{c})italic_F = roman_Stab ( roman_Λらむだ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), we identify $s$ with a coset $gF$ for some $g\in\mathrm{B}_{n}$. Let $d\in\mathrm{D}_{n}$ and $u\in\mathrm{U}_{n}$ be such that $g=ud$. Note that, by Proposition 3.5, $F=F_{\mathrm{U}}\rtimes F_{\mathrm{D}}$ where $F_{\mathrm{U}}=F\cap\mathrm{U}_{n}$ and $F_{\mathrm{D}}=F\cap\mathrm{D}_{n}$, so, by (the proof of) [HHM, Lemma 11.10], $\mathrm{dcl}(s)=\mathrm{dcl}(\ulcorner dF_{\mathrm{D}}\urcorner,\ulcorner uF_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}\urcorner)$, where $F_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}=dFd^{-1}\cap\mathrm{U}_{n}$. Then, by Proposition 3.5, Δでるたℓsimilar-to-or-equalssubscriptproductℓ𝑛ΓがんまsubscriptΔでるた𝑖\mathrm{D}_{n}/F_{\mathrm{D}}\simeq\prod_{\ell<n}\mathrm{K}^{\star}/\mathcal{O% }^{\star}_{\Delta_{\ell}}\simeq\prod_{\ell<n}\Gamma/\Delta_{i}roman_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_D end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≃ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ < italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / caligraphic_O start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋆ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≃ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ < italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γがんま / roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and, for every $\ell<n$, we chose $b_{\mathrm{\ell }}=v_{{\mathrm{<ruby><rb>\Delta </rb><rt>でるた</rt></ruby>}}_{\mathrm{\ell }}}(d_{\mathrm{\ell }})$Δでるたℓsubscript𝑑ℓb_{\ell}=v_{\Delta_{\ell}}(d_{\ell})italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δでるた start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) to be the $\ell$th coordinate in this product.

Now, for every $\ell\geq n$, note that $F_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}G_{\ell}=G_{\ell}F_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}$ is a subgroup, since $G_{\ell}$ is normal in $\mathrm{U}_{n}$ and moreover, $F_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}G_{\ell+1}\trianglelefteq F_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}G_{\ell}$ since for every $g\in G_{\ell}$, $(F_{\mathrm{U}}^{d})^{g}\subseteq F_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}G_{\ell+1}$ by centrality of the sequence. For every $\ell\geq n$, let $X_{\ell}=uF_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}G_{\ell}/F_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}G_{\ell+1}$ for the right regular action and $b_{\ell}=uF_{\mathrm{U}}^{d}G_{\ell+1}\in X_{\ell}$. Note that $X_{\ell}$ is a torsor for the group

$$F_{\mathrm{U}}^d{}_{}$$