MHB Existential Theory: Understanding Last Proposition

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a lemma in positive existential theory, with a specific focus on understanding the last proposition. Participants seek clarification on why this proposition holds true and its implications within the broader context of existential theory. The conversation references a survey that provides additional context but does not delve into its specifics. The need for a clearer explanation indicates a complex understanding of existential concepts among the participants. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of dissecting theoretical propositions for deeper comprehension.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I am reading the following lemma about (positive) existential theory:

View attachment 4535

Could you explain to me the last proposition?

Why does this hold?
 

Attachments

  • lemma16.PNG
    lemma16.PNG
    14.4 KB · Views: 92
Physics news on Phys.org

Thread 'Confusion about the Moyal-Weyl twist'

I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...
View full post »

Similar threads

MHB Split Epimorphisms .... Bland Proposition 3.2.4 ....
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Split Epimorphisms .... Bland Proposition 3.2.4 ....
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
MHB Understanding Bland's Proof of Proposition 4.3.14: Primitive Elements of Modules
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB Why is \{ x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n-1}, x \} a basis for F in Proposition 4.3.14?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
MHB Galois Theory - Fixed Subfield of K by H ....
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
MHB Why Does d and 1 Being Associates Imply 1 is a GCD?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
MHB Understanding Lemma 4.3.12 in Paul E. Bland's Book: "Rings and Their Modules"
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Primitive Elements and Free Modules .... ....
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Galois Theory - Fixed Subfield of K by H ....
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB Finite Integral Domains .... Adkins & Weintraub, Proposition 1.5 ....
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K