\section{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - 217133147/SFB 1073, projects B07 and B03. G.S.M.J. and M.R. acknowledge funding by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. S.S. acknowledges the Dorothea Schl\"ozer Postdoctoral Program for Women. D.M.P acknowledges support from the Joint Research Project "GIQS" (18SIB07). This project has received funding from the EMPIR programme co-financed by the Participating States and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.

\section{REFERENCES}

\section{Excluding contributions of two-photon excitation processes}

In order to exclude the possible contribution of two-photon excitation processes to the occupation of high-energy regions of the conduction band [$E-E_F\geq0.8$~eV; excitation diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:fluence}~(a)], we performed fluence-dependent TR-MM experiments [Fig.~\ref{fig:fluence}~(b,c)].
We make use of the sideband photoemission intensity, which is expected to scale linearly with pump fluence~\cite{saathoff_laser-assisted_2008}. As expected, the sideband intensity scales with a slope of $1.0\pm0.1$ on the log-log scale, confirming the linear dependence.
In particular at $E-E_F=0.8$~eV, the energy for resonant two-photon excitation, the photoemission yield does not scale quadratically with the fluence, but with an exponent of $1.1 \pm 0.2$.
We can therefore conclude that two-photon absorption does not contribute to the signal at 0.8~eV, and that the majority of the detected charge carriers must have been excited through e-e scattering processes.
Furthermore, when evaluating energies above 0.8~eV up to 1.4~eV, i.e. the energy window that provides direct evidence for AR, we also extract a slope of $1.1 \pm 0.2$.

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig_S2_V2.png}
    \caption{Fluence dependence of the charge carrier occupation in the conduction band obtained with $p$-polarized pump light.
    (a) Excitation diagram for possible two-photon processes (crossed arrows) that would terminate at $E-E_F=0.8$~eV.
    (b) Momentum map at $E-E_F=0.8$~eV showing the anisotropic population of the conduction band at $\Delta t=0$~fs, as well as the contribution of the sideband (SB) centered at the $K$-point. The colored boxes indicate the regions of interest evaluated in (b).
    (c) Fluence dependence of the photoemission yield in the sideband (black), at $E-E_F=0.8$~eV where two-photon transitions would terminate, and at $E-E_F\geq0.8$~eV where we identify direct evidence for AR. The corresponding intensities have
been corrected for background counts.}
    \label{fig:fluence}
\end{figure}

\section{Excluding the influence of sideband intensities on carrier scattering analysis ($p$-polarized pump light)}

From Fig.~3~(a) of the main text, one can see that the sideband trace crosses the main Dirac cone where optical excitation proceeds resonantly (black ROI). We calibrate $\Delta t = 0$~fs in the energy- and momentum-region where the sideband does not overlap with the main Dirac cone (grey ROI). In Fig.~3~(b,c), the grey ROI and the black ROI have distinctly different $\Delta t_{\rm max}$. Such a scenario is not be expected if significant contributions of the black ROI would stem from sideband yield; instead, the dynamics measured in the black ROI are dominantly determined by the charge carrier dynamics in the conduction band. If still considering minor contributions of the sideband to the black ROI, $\Delta t_{\rm max}=8\pm1$~fs has to be treated as the lower limit. Note, in addition, that in the next section we unambiguously exclude the contribution of the sideband yield to the observed dynamics based on measurements with $s$-polarized pump light.

\section{Additional data for s-polarized pump pulses}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Fig_S1_V1.png}
    \caption{Identification of AR in the ultrafast, energy- and momentum-resolved, redistribution of non-thermal charge carriers in the conduction band of graphene. The same data processing as in Fig.~3 of the main text is carried out, but for $s$-polarized pump light.
    (a) ($E$, $k_y$)-cut at $k_x=0$. The regions of interest evaluated in (b) and (c) are indicated by colored boxes. The dotted line at $E-E_F=0.8$~eV indicates the threshold energy that can be reached with a single inter- or intraband scattering event. Higher energies can only be reached by a single AR, or multiple inter- and intraband scattering events.
    (b) The photoemission yield in the ROIs is evaluated as a function of pump-probe delay. The time of maximum charge carrier occupation ($\Delta t_{\rm max}$) in the respective ROI is indicated with a colored arrow. Note that the SB labelled time trace is obtained from a weak sideband signal.
    (c) Energy-dependence of $\Delta t_{\rm max}$ obtained by Gaussian fitting of the time traces between -20~fs and +30~fs; error bars correspond to the 1$\sigma$ standard deviation of the fit. The sideband trace (grey) is used for the calibration of the time-axis (note that its plotting on the $E-E_F$-axis is not physical and therefore marked with a $\**$). For increasing $E-E_F$, $\Delta t_{\rm max}$ first increases, saturates, and finally decreases again for energies where AR is expected to become the dominant scattering event. The brown dashed line is a guide to the eye through the data.}
    \label{fig:s-pol}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:s-pol} shows TR-MM data obtained on n-doped graphene for $s$-polarized pump light (1.2~eV, 17.3~mJ/c$\mathrm{m}^2$). The data is evaluated as done in the main text for the $p$-polarized case in Fig.~3. Similar as discussed in the main text, we observe a distinct shift of $\Delta t_{\rm max}$ = $9\pm1$ with energy and momentum that we interpret as a direct evidence for AR.

Note that when probing the Dirac cone located in the optical plane, for $s$-polarized pumping, no contributions from the laser-assisted photoelectric effect~\cite{saathoff_laser-assisted_2008} can be expected, as detailed in Ref.~\cite{Keunecke20prb}. The fact that the $s$-polarized data and analysis in Fig.~\ref{fig:s-pol} shows the same energy-dependent delay further supports that the intensity of the sideband in the p-polarized case does not contribute significantly to our analysis procedure.
\clearpage

\section{Simulation of Scattering Dynamics}

\subsection{Boltzmann Scattering}
We outline the general treatment of electron-electron scattering for a solid in the single particle picture.
We calculate the time evolution of the electronic distribution functions $f^{\nu}_{\boldsymbol{k}}$ in state $|\nu,\boldsymbol{k}\rangle$, where $\nu$ is the band index, by using the Boltzmann scattering integral~\cite{Bonitz_1996}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dt}f_{\boldsymbol{k}}(t) =&\frac{2L^{2n}}{\hbar^2(2\pi)^n}\int d^n{q}\int d^{n}l \; \big[V_{\mu_2,\mu_3}^{\nu,\mu_1}(\boldsymbol{q})\big]^{2}\Upsilon(\Delta E,t,\Gamma)\\
&[1-f^{\nu}_{\boldsymbol{k}}][1-f^{\mu_1}_{\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{q}}]f^{\mu_2}_{\boldsymbol{l}}f^{\mu_3}_{\boldsymbol{k}+\boldsymbol{q}}-f^{\nu}_{\boldsymbol{k}}f^{\mu_1}_{\boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{q}}[1-f^{\mu_2}_{\boldsymbol{l}}][1-f^{\mu_3}_{\boldsymbol{k}+\boldsymbol{q}}]
\end{split}
\label{collision-2}
\end{equation}
which describes the two-fermion scattering transition $\boldsymbol{l} \rightarrow \boldsymbol{l}+\boldsymbol{q}$ and $\boldsymbol{k}+\boldsymbol{q} \rightarrow \boldsymbol{k}$ mediated by the screened Coulomb interaction.
The energy difference $\Delta E$ between initial and final states enters here via
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon(\Delta E, t, \Gamma)=\frac{\hbar}{\Gamma^2+\Delta E^2} \Big(\Big[\Delta E \sin\Big(\frac{\Delta E}{\hbar} (t-t_0)\Big)-\Gamma\cos\Big(\frac{\Delta E}{\hbar}(t-t_0) \Big)\Big]e^{-\frac{\Gamma}{\hbar}(t-t_0)}+\Gamma \Big).
\label{verbreiterte_Delta_funktion}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the  imaginary part of the self-energy. This expression approaches $\Upsilon \to \hbar \delta(\Delta E)$ at longer times and for $\Gamma \to 0$, which conserves kinetic energy, but at short times it leads to an increase of the kinetic energy of our system during the building up of correlations.~\cite{morawetz} In order to have a computationally feasible model, the self energy will be assumed as constant $\Gamma$ . A finite constant $\Gamma$ also leads to an increase in energy and we choose $\Gamma= 0.001 \mathrm{meV}$ keep this effect small for the duration of our simulations. Equation \eqref{collision-2} can be derived from a self-consistent quantum kinetic Boltzmann equation by integrating over retardation effects. \cite{Bonitz_1996,Haug}

\subsection{Graphene}

For the numerical solution of the dynamical equation for the distribution we employ some simplifications, which are described below.
The bandstructure is  linearized around the $\Gamma$ point\cite{Knorr_Book} with a slope of 650\,meV/nm, and the matrix elements are calculated using the linearized dispersions. The Coulomb matrix elements can then be written as
\begin{equation}
V_{\mu_2,\mu_3}^{\nu,\mu_1}=V_q^{2D}g_{\mu_2,\mu_3}^{\nu,\mu_1}
\label{eq:V-graphene}
\end{equation}
and we use a statically screened Coulomb potential $V_q^{2D}$. We have assumed that an additional momentum dependent factor in Eq.~\eqref{eq:V-graphene} can be dropped,~\cite{Knorr_Book} and we use a background dielectric constant of 4 and a constant screening parameter $\kappa = 4\text{nm}^{-1}$.
The coefficient $g_{\mu_2,\mu_3}^{\nu,\mu_1}$ is determined by
\begin{align}
g_{\mu_2,\mu_3}^{\nu,\mu_1}=\frac{1}{4}\left(1+c_{\nu,\mu_2}\frac{e(\boldsymbol{k}_1)^{*}e(\boldsymbol{k}_3)}{|e(\boldsymbol{k}_1)e(\boldsymbol{k}_3)|}\right)\left(1+c_{\mu_1,\mu_3}\frac{e(\boldsymbol{k}_2)^{*}e(\boldsymbol{k}_4)}{|e(\boldsymbol{k}_2)e(\boldsymbol{k}_4)|}\right).
\end{align}
The prefactor $c_{a,b}$ equals 1 for $a=b$ (intraband processes) and $-1$ for $a\neq b$ (interband processes), further
$e(\boldsymbol{k})=-\frac{a_{0}\sqrt{3}}{2}(ik^x+k^y) $.
These matrix elements describe all scattering channels near the Dirac cone. To quantify the impact of Auger processes we are interested in index combinations $\mu_1=\mu_2=\mu_3 \neq \nu$ and all their permutations. Within these eight possible combinations, Auger recombination and impact excitation are included, both types of Auger scattering having basically the same strength.

We have made two further important simplifications: In order to focus on electron electron scattering, we did not include electron-phonon scattering  processes, which would result in a decrease of the kinetic energy. The excitation is included in a purely phenomenological way by instantaneously creating the excited carrier density.

\subsection{Numerical Details}

Finally we provide a short review of the used numerical scheme and the boundary conditions.
We implemented Eq.~\eqref{collision-2} for a Cartesian $k$ grid, which has the advantage that it does not introduce numerical errors in the carrier density conservation. Therefore we are able to calculate the scattering properties of the complete 2D k-space with an arbitrary excitation. Due to the numerical costly right-hand side of  Eq.\eqref{collision-2} we used parallelization techniques and a Dormand-Prince differential equation solver with adaptive step size. Finally the k-space was sampled with 51 grid points in each direction and with a maximal momentum of $k_{\text{max}}=2.5 \mathrm{nm^{-1}}$.
This approach using a Cartesian $k$ grid conserves carrier density by construction, which is important as we are looking
relatively small effects at high energies (> 800 meV). On the other hand, it is numerically quite costly.
The initial distribution is chosen as a Fermi-Dirac distribution $f_{\pm}^{\text{eq}}=1/(1+e^{[(E_{\pm}-\mu) /(k_{\text{B}}T)]}) $
with a chemical potential of 400 meV to model the relaxed electrons introduced by doping.

We assume an instantaneous excitation of the form
\begin{equation}
   \delta f= A e^{-\frac{1}{b}(\boldsymbol{k}-\boldsymbol{k}_e)^2}|\sin(k_x)| \label{df}
\end{equation}
with the amplitude $A$, the width of the excitation $b$ and the center of the excitation $\boldsymbol{k}_e$, which follows the spacial shape of the measured excitation and the calculations from Ref.~\cite{Winzer_2013}. In order to distinguish between scattering effects and building up of correlations, we let the system with the doped carrier density relax and then initialize the calculation by changing the electronic distributions by $\pm \delta f$ in the upper/lower band with positive/negative energy dispersion.

To eliminate Auger type processes, we exclude the Coulomb matrix elements relevant for these transitions by setting $g_{\mu,\mu}^{\mu,\nu}=0$. We can thus compare the scattering dynamics with and without Auger processes.
In order to replicate the photoemission experiments to some extent, we integrate the time-dependent distributions over the  $(0,k_y)$ axis for the energy interval $0.8$-$1.3$ eV to obtain the time dependent density traces shown in Fig. 4 in the main text. A numerical test case of the dynamics is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig-supplement-distributions}, where we compare the energy-dependent distributions obtained 300\,fs after the instantaneous excitation. If all scattering processes are included the system reaches a Fermi-Dirac distribution with a higher temperature and a different chemical potential, as the excitation increases the kinetic energy of carriers, and electron-electron scattering does not dissipate this energy. Switching the Auger scattering contributions off leads to the distributions in Fig.~\ref{fig-supplement-distributions}(b), which are clearly not equilibrated.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Verteilungen_gegenuber_1.pdf}
    \caption{Distribution functions after 300 fs, for the full calculation (a), and the calculation without Auger processes. The red/blue part corresponds to the lower/upper band. The full calculation reaches a quasi-equilibrium with a chemical potential of about 300\, meV. Neglecting Auger processes in the calculation prevents the system from reaching a quasi equilibrium.}
    \label{fig-supplement-distributions}
\end{figure}

\clearpage


\section{Introduction}

First-order logic naturally applies to the study of fields. Consequently, it is of interest to investigate the expressive power of first-order logic in natural classes of fields.
This is well-understood in the cases of algebraically closed fields, real-closed fields and $p$-adically closed fields.
Namely, every such field $K$ is elementary equivalent to its ``constant field'' $\kappa$ -- the relative algebraic closure of the prime field in $K$ --, and its first-order theory is decidable.

This article is concerned with fields which are at the centre of (birational) arithmetic geometry, namely the finitely generated fields
$K$,
which are the function fields
of integral $\mathbb{Z}$-schemes of finite type. For such a field $K$, let $\td(K)$ be the absolute transcendence degree, i.e., the transcendence degree over its prime field $\kappa_0$, and define the \emph{Kronecker dimension} of~$K$ by $\dim(K):=\td(K)$ if $\chr(K)>0$, and $\dim(K):=\td(K)+1$ if $\chr(K)=0$.

The \emph{Elementary Equivalence versus Isomorphism Problem,}
for short EEIP,
asks whether the elementary theory ${\mathfrak{Th}}(K)$ of a finitely generated field $K$ (always in the language of rings) encodes the isomorphism type of $K$ in the class of all finitely generated fields.
This question goes back to the 1970s and seems to have first been posed explicitly in \cite{P_EEI},
with the work of \nmnm{Rumely}~\cite{Rumely},  \nmnm{Duret} \cite{Du} and \nmnm{Pierce}~\cite{Pi} notable predecessors.

On the other hand, through the work of \nmnm{Rumely} \cite{Rumely}, much more than the EEIP is known for global fields: namely, the existence of uniformly definable G\"odel functions proved in that article implies that each global field $K$ is
axiomatizable
by a single sentence $\theta^{\rm Ru}_K$ in the class of global fields, i.e.
$\theta^{\rm Ru}_K$ holds in a global field $L$ if and only if $L \cong K$.
This was extended and sharpened by the second author in \cite{P_EEI2}, by showing that for every finitely generated field $K$ of Kronecker dimension $\dim(K)\leqslant2$ there exists a sentence $\theta_K$ such that $\theta_K$ holds in a finitely generated field $L$ iff $L\cong K$ as fields.

In this note we establish the analogue of this stronger property for all finitely generated fields $K$, thus in particular completely resolving the EEIP; in characteristic two, though, our proof is conditional, requiring a version of resolution of singularities in algebraic geometry, which we call
above $\mathbb{F}_2$.
(See Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} for the version of resolution that we need.)
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1}
Let $K$ be a finitely generated field. If $\operatorname{char}(K) = 2$
and $\dim(K)>3$, assume that resolution of singularities above $\mathbb{F}_2$
holds. Then there exists a sentence $\theta_K$ in the language of rings such that any finitely generated field $L$ satisfies $\theta_K$ if and only if $L \cong K$.
\end{theorem}

Our approach follows an idea of \nmnm{Scanlon} in \cite{Sc}, and thereby establishes an even stronger statement, giving information about the class of definable sets in finitely generated fields. Specifically, it shows that the class of definable sets is as rich as possible.
One way of making this precise (cf.~\cite[Lemma 2.17]{AKNS}) is the following statement. (See \cite[Section 2]{Sc} or \cite[Section 2]{AKNS} for a discussion of the notion of bi-interpretability.)
\begin{theorem}
Let $K$ be an infinite finitely generated field. If $\operatorname{char}(K) = 2$
and $\dim(K)>3$, assume that resolution of singularities above $\mathbb{F}_2$ holds.
Then $K$ is bi-interpretable with $\mathbb{Z}$ (where both $K$ and $\mathbb{Z}$ are considered as structures in the language of rings).
\end{theorem}
Note that while this completely characterizes the definable sets in $K$, certain questions of uniformity across the class of finitely generated fields are left
open, see e.g. \cite[Question~1.8]{PoonenUniform}.

The chief technical result on which the theorems above build, and indeed the result that occupies the bulk of this article, concerns a definability statement regarding \emph{prime divisors} of finitely generated fields. In order to state this, we recall some terminology.
A \emph{prime divisor} of a finitely generated field $K$ is
any discrete valuation $v$ whose residue field $Kv$ is finitely generated and has $\dim(Kv)=\dim(K)-1$. It is well-known that $v$ being a prime divisor of $K$ is equivalent to the latter condition $\dim(Kv)=\dim(K)-1$ on its own, see e.g.\ \cite[Theorem 3.4.3]{EnglerPrestel}.
A prime divisor is called \emph{geometric} if $\chr(K) = \chr(Kv)$ and \emph{arithmetic} otherwise. Throughout, we freely identify valuations
$v$ with their valuation rings ${\mathcal O}_v$,
and in particular do not distinguish between equivalent valuations.

Since the cases $\dim(K)\leqslant 2$ were treated already in \cite{P_EEI2} and \cite{Rumely}, we will work under the following hypothesis:
\begin{displaymath}({\rm H}_d)\quad
      \quad\left\{
      \begin{array}{ll}
             \text{-} \,\,K \text{ is finitely generated with $\dim(K)=d\geqslant3$}.\\
             \text{- If } \chr(K) = 2 \hbox{ \rm and } d >3,
             \hbox{ \rm resolution of singularities holds above } \mathbb{F}_2.
      \end{array}\right.
\end{displaymath}

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm2}
  For every $d$, the geometric prime divisors of fields satisfying $({\rm H}_d)$ are uniformly
  first-order
  definable. In other words, there exists a formula $\scalebox{.85}[1]{{\textnormal{\textbf{\textsf{val}}}}}_d(X, \underline Y)$ in the language of rings such that for every field $K$ satisfying $({\rm H}_d)$ and every geometric prime divisor $\mathcal{O}$ of $K$ there exists a tuple $\underline y$ in $K$ such that
  \[ \mathcal{O} = \{ x \in K \colon K \models \scalebox{.85}[1]{{\textnormal{\textbf{\textsf{val}}}}}_d(x, \underline y) \}, \]
  and conversely, for every tuple $\underline y$, the subset of $K$ defined above is either a geometric prime divisor or empty.
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Short historical note and the genesis of this article}

The first step in the resolution of the strong form of the EEIP
as mentioned in Theorem~\ref{thm1} above is \nmnm{Rumely}'s
work~\cite{Rumely}, which itself builds on previous ideas of
\nmnm{J.\ha2Robinson}. The next major step toward the
resolution of the strong EEIP was the introduction of the
``Pfister form machinery'' in \cite{P_EEI}, followed by the work of
\nmnm{Poonen}~\cite{PoonenUniform}, providing (among other
things) uniform first-order formulas to define the maximal global
subfields of finitely generated fields, and \nmnm{Scanlon}~\cite{Sc},
which reduces the strong EEIP to first-order defining the prime
divisors of finitely generated fields, and finally the introduction
of the higher LGPs in \cite{P_EEI2}, as a tool for recovering the
prime divisors. The resolution of the strong form of the EEIP as
mentioned in Theorem~\ref{thm1} was originally achieved independently
by the co-authors of this note, with various restrictions on the
characteristic being removed in quick succession, see the preprints at
\cite{Pop_Distinguishing1, Pop_Distinguishing2, D_DefiningSubrings1, D_DefiningSubrings2}.
The present paper represents a synthesis
of the two separate approaches. The proof builds on and expands
the above ideas and tools, but it is not
a straightforward extension of the methods of
\cite{Rumely},~\cite{P_EEI2}, especially
because the higher LGPs involved, cf.~\cite{K-S},~\cite{Ja},
lead to some additional complications compared to the Brauer--Hasse--Noether LGP for global
fields, respectively Kato's LGP in the case Kronecker dimension two.
Finally, in this note the authors do not discuss the natural
question of the complexity of the formulas describing
prime divisors, thus the sentences characterizing the isomorphism
type.
This aspect of the problem is subject of further research.
It would also be interesting to treat the EEIP for fields which are finitely generated
over natural base fields such as $\mathbb{C}$, $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{Q}_p$, cf.~\cite{PoonenPop}.

\subsection{Acknowledgements}

The writing of this work was completed while the first author was a postdoctoral fellow, and the second author a research professor, in a programme hosted by the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the Fall 2020 semester, which was supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No.\ DMS-1928930.

\section{Preliminaries: Cohomological Local--Global Principles (LGP)}
\label{sec:preliminaries}

The proof for the definability of prime divisors is
based on local--global principles for certain cohomology
groups over fields which were introduced in \cite{Kato_LGP}.
These extend the well-known Brauer--Hasse--Noether
LGP, in particular the injectivity of the map
\[
{\rm Br}(K) \to \bigoplus_v {\rm Br}(K_v),
\]
where $K$ is a global field, the sum is over all places
$v$ of $K$, and $K_v$ is the completion at $v$.
\vskip2pt
For arbitrary positive integers $n=mp^r$ with $(p,m)=1$,
set $\mathbb{Z}/n(i)=\mu_m^{\otimes i}
\oplus W_r\,\Omega^i_{\rm log}[-i]$ for arbitrary twists
$i\in{\mathbb Z}$, where $W_r\,\Omega_{\rm log}$ is the
logarithmic part of the de Rham--Witt complex on the
\'etale site on $\chr=p$, see \nmnm{Illusie}~\cite{Ill} for details.
With these notations, one has:
\[
\HHx1K0=\Hom_{\rm cont}(G_K,{\mathbb Z}/n),\quad
  \HHx 2 K 1={}_n{\rm Br}(K),
\]
\vskip3pt
\noindent
suggesting that the cohomology groups $\HHx{i+1} K i$
have a particular arithmetical significance. Noticing
that $K$ is a global field precisely if $\,\dim(K)=1$, hence
the Brauer\ha1--\ha1Hasse\ha1--Noether local-global
principle is an LGP for $\HHx 2K1$, \nmnm{Kato}
proposed that for arithmetically
significant fields $K$ with $\dim(K)=d$, e.g.\ for finitely
generated fields, there should
exist similar LGPs for $\HHx{d+1} K d$.
We refer the reader to \nmnm{Kato}'s original
paper~\cite{Kato_LGP} for details, and present only
facts in special cases relevant for our needs.
\vskip5pt
Throughout the paper $\bm{n=2}$.\footnote{\ha2Most of the facts in
the remainder of this section hold for prime powers $n=\ell^e$\hb3,
provided $K$
contains $\mu_n$.}

\vskip5pt
For arbitrary fields $F$ and $i\geqslant0$,
we denote $\HHy{i+1}F:=\HHx{i+1}F i$, and~let~%
$\KM{i}(F)$ be the $i^{\rm th}$ Milnor K-group
of $F$.\footnote{\ha2Note that some authors, e.g.\
\cite{EKM}, use the notation $\HHy{i}F:=\HHx{i}F i$.}
By the work on the Milnor Conjectures
by Kato, Gabber, Vokevodsky, Rost and others, the canonical
Kummer isomorphism $\KM1(F)/n\to\HHx1F1$ gives rise
(via cup product) to canonical isomorphisms:
\[
\KM{i}(F)/n\to\HHx iFi,\quad
\{a_i,\dots,a_1\}/n\mapsto \cppr{a_i}{a_1}\, ,
\]
where we write $a_i$ for the image of $\{ a_i \}/n$
under the Kummer isomorphism. In particular,
recalling that $n=2$, for $i\geqslant0$ one has:
\vskip2pt
\itm{25}{
\item[$\bullet$] If $\chr(F)\neq n$, then
$\mu_n\subset L$, $\Aut{}{\mu_n}=1$, therefore
$\mu_n \cong \mathbb{Z}/n$ canonically and thus $\mathbb{Z}/n(i+1) = \mathbb{Z}/n(i)$,
hence there is a canonical isomorphism:
\[
\KM{i+1}(F)/n \to\HHx{i+1}F{i+1} =\HHy{i+1}F,
\quad \{a_{i+1},\dots,a_{1}\}/n\mapsto \cppr{a_{i+1}}{a_{1}}
\]
\vskip2pt
\item[$\bullet$] If $\chr(F)=n$, viewing
$\KM i(F^{\rm s})/n$ as a $G_F$-module,
one has canonical isomorphisms
\[
\HHy 1 {F, \KM{i}{(F^{\rm s})/n}}\to
{\rm H}^1\Big(F, \HHx{i}{F^{\rm s\hb2}}i\Big
\to\HHy{i+1}F
\]
}
\vskip2pt
There are two fundamental operations relating groups ${\rm H}^i$ of different fields.
\itm{25}{
\item[$\bullet$] For an arbitrary field extension $E|F$, we have the restriction map
  $\res_{E|F}:\HHy{i+1}F\to\HHy{i+1}{E}$.
  We also denote this by $\res_w$ when $E$ is the henselization or completion of $F$ with respect to a valuation $w$.

\item[$\bullet$] If $w$ is a discrete valuation on $F$, and under some additional mild conditions if $\operatorname{char}(Fw) = n$, we have the boundary map
$\partial_w: \HHy{i+1}{F} \to \HHy i {F\hb1w}$, which factors through the group $\HHy{i+1}{F_w}$ over the completion $F_w$ via the restriction map.\footnote{\ha2See e.g.~\cite{Kato_LGP} for details. We will not explicitly use $\partial_w$ later on.}
}

The higher dimensional generalizations of the
Brauer\ha1--\ha1Hasse\ha1--\ha1Noether LGP
as proposed by \nmnm{Kato} are about (complexes
of cohomology groups involving) $\HHy{i+1}{\kappa(x)}$
for $0\leqslant i\leqslant d$, the above $\res_w$
and $\partial_w$, and the residue fields $\kappa(x)$
of points $x \in X$ with $\codim(x)=d-i$ of models $X$
for the finitely generated field $K$; in particular, the
generic point $x=\eta_X\in X$ has $\codim(\eta_X)=0$,
$\kappa(\eta_X)=K$, and the cohomology group
involved is $\HHy{d+1}K$. In the seminal paper
\cite{Kato_LGP}, \nmnm{Kato} proves: Let $K$
have $\dim(K)=2$, and $X$ be a proper connected regular
scheme over ${\mathbb Z}$ with function field $\kappa(X)=K$. Then
setting $X^1=\{x\in X\,|\,\codim_X(x)=1\}$, the
local rings ${\mathcal O}_{X,x}={\mathcal O}_{w_x}$ are the valuation
rings of prime divisors $w_x$ of $K$. Let $K_x$
be the completion of $K$ at $w_x$, and
$\res_x=\res_{w_x}$, $\partial_x=\partial_{w_x}$
be correspondingly defined. Then~one~has:
\begin{theorem}
[\nmnm{Kato}~\cite{Kato_LGP},~Corollary,~p.145]
\label{kato}
Suppose that $K$ has no orderings. Then setting
$\res_X:=\oplus_x\res_x$ and $\partial_X:=\oplus\partial_x$,
the maps below
\[
\imath_X:\HHy3
\horr{\res_X} \bigoplus_{x \in X^1} \HHy3{K_x
\horr{\partial_X}\bigoplus_{x\in X^1}\HHy2{\kappa(x)}
\]
are well-defined, $\res_X$ is injective, and
$\partial_X$ is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}

There is major progress on Kato's conjectures
hinted at above, see \nmnm{Kerz--Saito}~\cite{K-S}
and~\nmnm{Jannsen}~\cite{Ja}, where further
literature can be found. We mention below only
instances of the local-global principles under
discussion which will be used in the sequel.
\vskip5pt
First, let $K$ be finitely generated of Kronecker dimension $d$,
$k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$ a relatively algebraically
closed global subfield, ${\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$
the set of places of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$. Let $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$ be the
henselization of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ at $v$ if $v$ is a finite place,
the real closure of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ at $v$ if $v$ is a real place,
and the algebraic closure of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ if $v$ is a complex place.
Let
$K_v=Kk_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$ be the compositum of $K$ and $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$.
Then considering
the canonical restriction map
$\res_v:\HHy{i+1}K \to \HHy{i+1}{K_v} $ for every
$v\in{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$, the following holds:
\begin{theorem}
[\nmnm{Jannsen}~\cite{Ja},~Theorem~0.4\footnote{Jannsen uses completions at the places $v$ instead of henselizations, real closures or algebraic closures. This result using completions implies the version stated.}]
\label{Jannsen1}
If $n\neq\chr(K)$, the map $\imath_{k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}}:=\oplus_v\res_v$
below
\[
\imath_{k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}}:\HHy{d+1}K\to
    \bigoplus_{v\in{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})}\HHy{d+1}{K_v}
\]
is well-defined and
injective.
\end{theorem}

Next let $R$ be either a finite field, or the valuation
ring of a
henselization of a global field~$k$
at a finite place $v\in{\mathbb P}(k)$ such that $n$ is invertible
in $R$ (or equivalently, the residue characteristic of
$R$ is not equal to $n$). Let $X$ be a proper regular connected flat
$R$-variety,
$K=\kappa(X)$ be the field of rational functions on
$X$, $d = \dim X = \dim K$, and set $X^1:=\{x\in X\,|\,\codim_X(x)=1\}$.
Then ${\mathcal O}_{X,x}={\mathcal O}_{w_x}$ with $x\in X^1$ are
the valuation rings of the prime divisor $w_x$ of
$K$ having centers in $X^1$ on $X$. If $K_x$
is the completion of $K$ at $w_x$,
one has the canonical maps
$\res_x=\res_{w_x}$, $\partial_x=\partial_{w_x}$
introduced above:
\[
\partial_x:\HHy{d+1}K\horr{\res_x}\HHy{d+1}{K_x}
\horr{\partial_x}\HHy d{\kappa(x)}
\]

\begin{theorem}[\hbox{\nmnm{Kerz--Saito}~\cite{K-S},
Theorem~8.1}]
\label{KerzSaito}
In the above notation, setting $\res_X\!:=\oplus_x\res_x$
and $\partial_X:=\oplus\partial_x$, the maps below
\[
\imath_X:\HHy{d+1}K
\horr{\rm res_X\,\,}\oplus_{x\in X^1}\HHy{d+1}{K_x}
\horr{\partial_X}\oplus_{x\in X^1}\HHy d{\kappa(x)}
\]
are well-defined, and $\res_X$ is injective.
\end{theorem}

By work of \nmnm{Suwa}~\cite{Suwa} and \nmnm{Jannsen}~\cite{Ja},
the above also works in characteristic two, albeit conditionally:
Following \cite[Definition 4.18]{Ja}, we say that
\emph{resolution of singularities holds above $\mathbb{F}_2$} if for every finite field extension ${\mathbb F}\,|\,{\mathbb F}_2$ the following hold: (i) For any proper integral ${\mathbb F}$-variety $X$, there is a proper birational morphism $\tilde X \to X$, where $\tilde X$ is a smooth (or equivalently regular) ${\mathbb F}$-variety. (ii) For any affine smooth ${\mathbb F}$-variety $U$, there is an open immersion $U \hookrightarrow X$, where $X$ is a projective smooth ${\mathbb F}$-variety, and the reduced complement of $U$ in $X$ is a simple normal crossings divisor.

Resolution of singularities is well known for surfaces, and is proved in dimension three by \nmnm{Cossart--Piltant}~\cite{C-P}. Further, if resolution of singularities above $\mathbb{F}_2$ holds, then any finitely generated field of characteristic two has a smooth proper model over $\mathbb{F}_2$.

With our terminology in place, the following theorem is proved
for $\dim(K)\leqslant3$ in \cite[p.~270]{Suwa}, and for $\dim(K)$ arbitrary in \cite[Theorem~0.10]{Ja}, provided resolution of singularities holds above ${\mathbb F}_2$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Jannsen2}
Let $K$ be a finitely generated field with $\chr(K) = 2$, and if $d=\dim(K)>3$, suppose that resolution of singularities holds above $\mathbb{F}_2$.
Let $X$ be a projective smooth model for $K$. Then the maps
$\imath_X$, $\res_X:=\oplus_x\res_x$, and $\partial_X:=\oplus_x\partial_x$
below are well-defined
\[
\imath_X:\HHx{d+1}K d
\horr{\rm res_X\,\,}\bigoplus_{x\in X^1}\HHx{d+1}{K_x}d
\horr{\partial_X}\bigoplus_{x\in X^1}\HHx d{\kappa(x)}{d\!-\!1}
\]
and $\res_X$ is injective.
\end{theorem}

\section{Consequences/Applications of the
                        Local-Global Principles}
\label{sec:Florian1}
\noindent
In this section we give a few consequences of the
cohomological local-global principles mentioned
above. These are about the local-global behavior
of Pfister forms, which are at the core of first-order
definability of prime divisors.
\vskip2pt
Let namely $F$ be an arbitrary field, and
$\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a:=(a_i,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_0)$ be a system of non-zero
elements in $F$. The $(i+1)$-fold
Pfister form defined by $\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a=(a_i,\dots,a_0)$
is the following quadratic form (see \cite[9.B]{EKM}):
\vskip2pt
\itm{15}{
\item[-] If $\chr(F)\neq2$, then setting\footnote{\ha2Some other sources prefer the convention $\Pff a=x_1^2 + ax_2^2$.}
$\Pff a=x_1^2-ax_2^2$ for $a\in F^{\hb1\times}\!$, the
$(i+1)$-fold Pfister form defined by ${\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a}$
is $\Pff{a_i}\otimes\dots\otimes\Pff{a_0}$.
Hence $q_{\bm a}:=\Pff{\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a}=\sum_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi} a_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi} x^2_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}$
has coefficients
$a_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}:=\prod_j(-a_j)^{{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}(j)}$
and variables $x_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}$ indexed by the maps
$\chi:\{0,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,i\}\to\{0,1\}$.
\vskip5pt
\item[-] If $\chr(F)=2$, then setting $\Pft a:=
x_1^2+x_1x_2+ax_2^2$, the $(i+1)$-fold Pfister form
defined by ${\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a}$ is $\Pft{\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a}=\Pff{a_i}\otimes\dots\Pff{a_1}\otimes\Pft{a_0}$.
Hence if $a_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}:=\prod_ja_j^{{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}(j)}$ for
$\chi:\{1,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,i\}\to\{0,1\}$,
one has by definition that \ $q_{\bm a}:=\Pft{\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a}=\sum_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi} a_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi} (x_{_1{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}}^2+x_{_1{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}}x_{_2{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}}+a_0x^2_{_2{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}})$.
}
\vskip2pt
It is well known, see \cite[Corollary 9.10]{EKM}, that the $(i+1)$-fold Pfister forms
$q_{\bm a}$ defined above satisfy: $q_{\bm a}$ is isotropic iff $q_{\bm a}$ is hyperbolic.
Further, recalling that $\HHy{i+1} F:=\HHx{i+1}F i$
as introduced above,
by \cite{EKM}, Section 16,\footnote{\ha2There is a typo in \cite{EKM}, the right object to work with in the notation of \cite{EKM} would
be $\HHy{i+1,i}F$.} to every Pfister form $q_{\bm a}=\Pff{\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a}$ or
$q_{\bm a}=\Pft{\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a}$, one can attach in a canonical way a cohomological invariant
\[
e(q_{\bm a})\in\HHy{i+1}F
\]
by the rule: $e(q_{\bm a}):=\cppr{a_i}{a_0}$
if $\chr(F)\neq2$, respectively $e(q_{\bm a})=
\cppr{a_i}{a_1}\hbox{$\ha1\scriptstyle\cup\ha2$} \chi_{a_0}$ if $\chr(F)=2$, where
$\chi_{a_0}\in{\rm H}^1(G_F,{\mathbb Z}/2)$ is defined via Artin--Schreier Theory by $a_0\in F/\wp(F)$. We recall the following fundamental fact on the behavior of $e(q_{\bm a})$. Here, assertion~1) relates to the Milnor Conjectures (cf.~\cite[Fact 16.2]{EKM}), although its proof much precedes the full resolution of the latter (see \cite{ElmanLam_MilnorConj, Kato_Quadratic}), assertion~2) follows by mere definition,
and assertion~3) follows from the fact that the projective quadric described by a Pfister form is smooth using \cite[Corollary 3.6.10]{BLR_NeronModels}.
\begin{fact}
\label{fkt0}
{\it Let $q_{\bm a}$ be a Pfister form over $F$, $E|F$ be a field extension,
$q_{\bm a,E}$ be $q_{\bm a}$ viewed over~$E$, and $\res_{E|F}:\HHy{i+1}F\to\HHy{i+1}E$ be the canonical restriction map.
The following hold:
\vskip2pt
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=25pt]
\item[{\rm1)}] The Pfister form $q_{\bm a}$ is isotropic over $F$ if and only if
$e(q_{\bm a})=0$ in $\HHy{i+1}F$.
\vskip2pt
\item[{\rm2)}] One has $e(q_{\bm a,E})=\res\big(e(q_{\bm a})\big)$
under $\res_{E|F}:\HHy{i+1}F\to\HHy{i+1}E$.
\vskip2pt
\item[{\rm3)}] Let $w$ be a rank-$1$ valuation on $F$. Then
$q_{\bm a}$ is isotropic over the henselization with respect to $w$ if and only if
it is isotropic over the completion with respect to $w$.
\end{itemize}
}
\end{fact}
\noindent
We conclude this preparation with the following facts scattered throughout the literature (although some of them might be new in the generality presented here); variants of these will be used later. For the reader's sake we give the (straightforward) full proofs.

\begin{proposition}
  \label{prop1}
  \label{prop:basicProperties}
Let $F$ be henselian with respect to a non-trivial valuation $w$ which is non-dyadic, i.e., if $\chr(F)=0$, then $\chr(Fw)\neq2$. Let $\bm\varepsilon=(\varepsilon_r,\dots,\varepsilon_0)$ be $w$-units in $F$, $\bm{\overline\varepsilon}$ be the image of $\bm\varepsilon$ under the residue map ${\mathcal O}_w^\times\to F\!w$. In the above notation, the following hold:
\vskip2pt
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=25pt]
\item[{\rm1)}] Suppose that $w(\varepsilon_1-1)\!>\!0$. Then $q_{\varepsilon_1\hb1,\varepsilon_0}$ is isotropic over~$F$, thus $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$ is isotropic over~$F$.
\vskip2pt
\item[{\rm2)}] Let $\bm\pi=(\pi_s,\dots,\pi_1)\in F^s$ be such that
$w(\pi_s),\dots,w(\pi_1)$ are ${{\mathbb F}}_2$-independent in $wF/2$. Then $q_{\overline{\bm\varepsilon}}$ is isotropic over $F\!w$ iff $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$
is isotropic over $F$ iff $q_{\bm\pi,\bm\varepsilon}$ is isotropic over~$F$.
\vskip2pt
\item[{\rm3)}] Suppose that $\,\dim(F)= r$, and $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$ is
isotropic over $F_v\!=Fk_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$ for all real places $v\!\in\!{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$
of the constant field $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset F$ $($if there are any such places$\,)$.
Then $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$ is isotropic over $F$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} Let $N=2^{r+1}$, hence $q_{\bm\varepsilon}=q_{\bm\varepsilon}(\bm x)$ is a quadratic form in $N$ variables $\bm x=(x_1,\dots,x_N)$. Since $w$ is non-dyadic,
$V(q_{\bm\varepsilon})\hookrightarrow{\mathbb P}^{N-1}_{{\mathcal O}_w}$ is a smooth ${\mathcal O}_w$-subvariety
of ${\mathbb P}^{N-1}_{{\mathcal O}_w}$, with special fiber the projective smooth $Kw$-variety $V(q_{\overline{\bm\varepsilon}})\hookrightarrow{\mathbb P}^{N-1}_{F\!w}$. Hence by Hensel's Lemma, one has:
\vskip4pt
\centerline{$\hb{20}(*)$ \ {\it The  specialization map on rational points
$V(q_{\bm\varepsilon})(F) \to V(q_{\overline{\bm\varepsilon}})(F\!w)$ is surjective.}}
\vskip4pt
To 1):  Let $q_{\varepsilon_0}:=\Pff{\varepsilon_0}$ if $\chr\neq2$,
$q_{\varepsilon_0}=\Pft{\varepsilon_0}$ if $\chr=2$. If $q_{\varepsilon_0}$ is
isotropic, so is $q_{\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_0}$, and there is nothing to prove.
If $q_{\varepsilon_0}$ is not isotropic, then $q_{\varepsilon_0}(x_1,x_2)$ is
the norm form of the unramified quadratic extension $F_{\varepsilon_0}|F$
defined by $\varepsilon_0$. Since $\varepsilon_1\in 1+{\fam\eufam\teneu m}_w$, by Hensel's
Lemma, the simple solution $(1,0)$ of $q_{\overline \varepsilon_0}(x_1,x_2)=\oli1$
lifts to a solution of $q_{\varepsilon_0}(x_1,x_2)=\varepsilon_1$ in $F$.
This forces $q_{\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_0}$ to be isotropic.
\vskip2pt
To 2): Setting $\bm x_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}=(x_{{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}, i})_{i\leqslant N}$,
$\pi_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}=\prod_i\pi_i^{{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}(i)}$ for $\chi:\{1,\dots,s\}\to\{0,\!1\}$,
$\bm y=(\bm x_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi})_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}$, one has
$q_{\bm\pi,\bm\varepsilon}(\bm y)=\sum_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi} \pi_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi} q_{\bm\varepsilon}(\bm x_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi})$.
By $(*)$ above, $q_{\overline{\bm\varepsilon}}$ is isotropic over $F\!w$ iff
$q_{\bm\varepsilon}$ is isotropic over $F$, and if so, $q_{\bm\pi,\bm\varepsilon}$
is isotropic over $F$. For the converse, let $q_{\overline{\bm\varepsilon}}$ be
anisotropic. Then $w\big(q_{\bm\varepsilon}(\bm\nu)\big)\in2\cdot wF$ for all
$\bm\nu\neq0$ in $F^N\!$, and for $\bm\mu=(\bm\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi})_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}\neq\bm0$,
one has:  Since $w(\pi_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi})=\sum_i\chi(i)w(\pi_i)$, and
$w\big(q_{\bm\varepsilon}(\bm\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi})\big)\in2\cdot wF$, and
$\big(w(\pi_i)\big)_i$ are independent in $wF/2$, it follows that the summands
in $q_{\bm\pi,\bm\varepsilon}(\bm\mu)=\sum_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi}\pi_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi} q_{\bm\varepsilon}
(\bm\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle\chi})$ have distinct values. Hence $q_{\bm\pi,\bm\varepsilon}(\bm\mu)
\neq0$, thus $q_{\bm\pi,\bm\varepsilon}$ is anisotropic.
\vskip2pt
To 3): Since $w$ is non-trivial, by Abhyankar's inequality (see \cite[Theorem 3.4.3]{EnglerPrestel}),
$e:=\dim(F\!w)<r=\dim(F)$.
\vskip2pt
\underbar{Case 1}. \ $\chr(F\!w)=p>0$. Then $e=\dim(F\!w)=\td(F\!w)$, and
$q_{\overline{\bm\varepsilon}}$ is a quadratic form in $2^{r+1}$ variables over $F\!w$. Since $e<r$, and $F\!w$ is a $C_e$-fiel
, $q_{\overline{\bm\varepsilon}}(\bm x\hb{8}\bm x)=0$ has non-trivial solutions in $F\!w$, i.e., $V(q_{\overline{\bm\varepsilon}})(F\!w)\neq\emptyset$, hence by~$(*)$ above, $V(q_{\bm\varepsilon})(F)\neq\emptyset$. Thus $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$ is isotropic over $F$.
\vskip2pt
\underbar{Case 2}. \ $\chr(F\!w)=0$. \ By Hensel's Lemma, there are fields of representatives $E\subset F$ for $F\!w$, any such $E$ is relatively algebraically closed in $F$, thus has constant field $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$, and $\dim(E)=e=\dim(F\!w)$.
Let ${\bm\gamma}=(\gamma_r,\dots,\gamma_0)\in E^{r+1}$ be the of lifting $\overline {\bm\varepsilon}=(\overline \varepsilon_r,\dots,\overline \varepsilon_0)$. Then $\varepsilon_i=\gamma_i \epsilon'_i$ with $\epsilon'_i \in F$ and $w(\epsilon'_i-1)>0$. By Hensel's Lemma, $\epsilon'_i$ is a square in $F$, thus~$q_{\bm\varepsilon}\approx q_{\bm\gamma}$ over $F$. Hence $V(q_{\bm\varepsilon})(F_v)\neq\emptyset$ implies $V(q_{\bm\gamma})(F_v)\neq\emptyset$ for all real places $v\in{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$.
If $v$ is a non-real place of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$, $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$ has no orderings, hence $E_v$ has no orderings, thus $\cd(E_v)\leqslant\dim(E_v)+1<r+1$. Hence $\HHy{r+1}{E_v}=0$, implying $e(q_{\bm\gamma,E_v})=0$, thus $e(q_{\bm\gamma,F_v})=0$, because by Fact~\ref{fkt0},~2), one has $e(q_{\bm\gamma,F_v})=\res_{F_v|E_v}\big(e(q_{\bm\gamma})\big)$. Hence $e(q_{\bm\gamma,F_v})=0$ for all $v\in{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$. Finally, since cohomology is compatible with inductive limits, by \nmnm{Jannsen}'s~Theorem \ref{Jannsen1}, $\HHy{r+1}F\to\prod_v\HHy{r+1}{F_v}$ is injective. Hence $e(q_{\bm\gamma})=0$, thus $q_{\bm\gamma}$ is isotropic over $F$ by Fact~\ref{fkt0}. Hence so is $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$.
\end{proof}

\noindent
A) \ {\bf Prime divisors via anisotropic
$k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice Pfister forms}.
We now state a technical condition for the Pfister forms we are
going to work with. This technical condition in particular serves
to ensure that orderings and dyadic places can always be eliminated
from our subsequent considerations.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:nice}
Let $K$ be a field satisfying Hypothesis (H$_d$)
from the Introduction, and $q_{\bm a}$ be a
$(d+1)$-fold Pfister form $q_{\bm a}$ defined by
$\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a:=(a_d,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_1,a_0)$ with $a_i\in K^{\hb1\times}\!$.
\vskip2pt
\itm{25}{
\item[1)] $q_{\bm a}$ is called \emph{nice} if there
is a global subfield $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$ such that
$a_1$ and $a_0$ are elements of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$, and the $2$-fold Pfister form $q_1:=q_{a_1,a_0}$ defined by $(a_1, a_0)$ satisfies:
\vskip4pt
\item[] $\hb4(*)$ If $v\in{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$ is real, or dyadic, or
$v(a_0)\neq0$, or $v(a_1)<0$, then $q_1$ is
isotropic~over~$k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$.

\vskip2pt
\item[2)] In the above notation, we will also say
that $q_{\bm a}$ is $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice. We will usually tacitly
assume that $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ is relatively algebraically closed in $K$.
}
\end{definition}
Note that being nice is not an isometry invariant of Pfister forms, so strictly speaking it is a property of the concrete presentation; this should not lead to confusion.

Due to the results of the previous section, we now have the following local--global principle for isotropy of nice Pfister forms.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:niceLocalGlobal}
Let $K$ satisfying Hypothesis~{\rm(H$_d$)}, and $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$ be a global subfield. Then for every anisotropic $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice Pfister form $q_{\bm a}$ there is a geometric prime divisor $w$ of $K$ such that $q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic over the completion $K_w$ of $K$ at $w$.
Further, $w(a_0)=0$, $w(a_1)\geqslant0$, and $w(a_i)\neq0$ for some $i=1,\dots,d$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}

By Fact~\ref{fkt0}~1) above, proving that $q_{\bm a}$
is anisotropic over $K_w$ is equivalent to proving
that $e(q_{\bm a})\neq0$ over $K_w$ under the
restriction map $\res_w:\HHy{d+1}K\to\HHy{d+1}{K_w}$.
Noticing that $e(q_{\bm a})\neq0$ in $\HHy{d+1}K$,
denote $q_1:=q_{a_1,a_0}$, and proceed as follows:
\vskip2pt
\underbar{Case 1)}. If $\chr(K)=n$, then choosing
a smooth projective ${\mathbb F}_2$-model $X$ for $K$,
by~\nmnm{Jannsen}'s and \nmnm{Suwa}'s Theorem
\ref{Jannsen2} above, there is a prime divisor $w$ of
$K$, say $w=w_x$ for some point $x\in X^1\!$, such
that $\res_w\big(e(q_{\bm a})\big)\neq0$ in $\HHy{d+1}{K_w}$.
On the other hand, if $q_{\bm a,w}$ is the Pfister
form $q_{\bm a}$ viewed over $K_w$, then
$\res_w\big(e(q_{\bm a})\big)=e(q_{\bm a,w})$ by Fact~\ref{fkt0},~2).
Hence $e(q_{\bm a,w})\neq0$, implying that
$q_{\bm a,w}$ is anisotropic over $K_w$, or
equivalently, $q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic
over $K_w$. Finally, if the restriction $v$ of $w$ to $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ is non-trivial, one has $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}\subset K_w$, and $q_1:=q_{a_1.a_0}$ is anisotropic over~$k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$. Hence $w(a_0)=v(a_0)=0$ and $w(a_1)=v(a_1)\geq 0$ by the fact that $q_1$ is $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice, and even $w(a_1) > 0$ by Proposition \ref{prop:basicProperties}, 3).
\vskip2pt
\underbar{Case 2)}. If $\chr(K)\neq n$, we apply \nmnm{Jannsen}'s
Theorem~\ref{Jannsen1} above, so there is $v\in{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$
such that $e(q_{\bm a})\neq0$ in $\HHy{d+1}{K_v}$.
Hence if $q_{\bm a,v}$ is the Pfister
form $q_{\bm a}$ viewed over $K_v$, then
$\res_v\big(e(q_{\bm a})\big)=e(q_{\bm a,v})$,
implying that $e(q_{\bm a,v})\neq0$
in $\HHy{d+1}{K_v}$. Equivalently, $q_{\bm a,v}$
is anisotropic over $K_v$, hence its Pfister
subform $q_1:=q_{a_1,a_0}$ is anisotropic
over $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}\subset K_v$, thus by condition~i)
of Definition~\ref{def:nice} above, $v$ is a finite non-dyadic
place of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$.
In particular, letting $R\subsetk_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$
be the henselization of ${\mathcal O}_v$, it follows that
$n=2$ is invertible in $R$.
Let $X_v$ be any
projective $R$-model of $K_v$. Then using
{\it prime to $n$-alterations,\/} see \cite{ILO},
Expos\'e~X, Theorem~2.4, there is a projective
regular $R$-variety ${\tilde X}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$ and a projective
surjective $R$-morphism ${\tilde X}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}\to X_v$ defining
a finite field extension ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}\,|\,K_v$ of degree
prime to~$n$. In particular, the restriction of
$e(q_{\bm a,v})$ in $\HHy{d+1}{{\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}$ is non-zero.
Hence by \nmnm{Kerz--Saito}
Theorem \ref{KerzSaito} above, there exists
${\tilde x}\in {\tilde X}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}{}^1$ such that setting ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}:=w_{{\tilde x}}$,
one has $\res_{{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}\big(e(q_{\bm a,v})\big)\neq0$ in
$\HHy{d+1}{{\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}$. Hence letting $q_{\bm a,{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}$
be the Pfister form $q_{\bm a}$ viewed over
${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$, one has $e(q_{\bm a, {\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}})=
\res_{{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}\big(e(q_{\bm a,v})\big)\neq0$ in
$\HHy{d+1}{{\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}$, concluding by Fact~\ref{fkt0}
that $q_{\bm a,{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}$ is anisotropic over ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$.
Let $w:={\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}|_K$. Then since ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}\,|\,K$ is an
algebraic extension, and ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$ is a prime divisor of
${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$, it follows that $w={\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}|_K$ is a prime divisor
of $K$. Further, since ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$ is complete with
respect to ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$, it follows that ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$ contains
the completion $K_w$ of $K$ with respect to~$w$.
Hence  $q_{\bm a,{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}$ being anisotropic over
${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$ implies that $q_{\bm a}$ is
anisotropic of $K_w\subset{\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$.
\vskip2pt
Finally, since $q_{\bm a}$ is isotropic over $K_v=Kk_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$
for all real or dyadic places $v\in{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$, $w$ is not dyadic.
Hence by Proposition~\ref{prop1},~3), it follows that $w(a_i)\neq0$ for some $i=1,\dots,d$.
\end{proof}
\vskip2pt
\noindent
B) \ {\bf Abundance of anisotropic $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice Pfister forms}
\vskip2pt

We saw in the last section that anisotropy of nice Pfister forms over the fields we are concerned with is always explained by completions of geometric prime divisors.
In this section, we conversely prove that given any geometric prime divisor, there are many nice Pfister forms that remain anisotropic over its completion.
Our actual result, Proposition \ref{prop:existsTestForm} below, is more complicated to state, because we want to realize additional restrictions on the Pfister form, and work with a pair of fields $L/K$ instead of a single field $K$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sepExtGlobalAnisoPfister}
  Let $l_1/k_1$ be a finite separable extension of global fields, and $P \subset {\mathbb P}_{\mathrm{fin}}(k_1)$ a finite set of finite places of $k_1$.
  Then there exist $a_0, a_1 \in k_1^\times$ such that the Pfister form $q = q_{a_1, a_0}$ over $k_1$ is nice and remains anisotropic over $l_1$. We can further achieve that $v(a_1) = v(a_0) = 0$ for all $v \in P$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  We may enlarge $P$ to contain all dyadic places of $k_1$.
  There are infinitely many finite places of $k_1$ which split completely in $l_1$. Pick one such place $w$ which is not in $P$.
  Using weak approximation, choose $a_0 \in k_1^\times$ such that $w(a_0) = 0$ and the reduction of the polynomial $X^2 - X - a_0$ in $k_1w$ is irreducible, and further $v(a_0) = 0$ for all $v \in P$.

  Let $l'=k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\alpha_0)$, with $\alpha_0$ a root of $X^2 - X - a_0$.
  Pick a place $w' \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathrm{fin}}(k_1)$ distinct from $w$ and not in $P$ which splits completely in $l'$.
  Using strong approximation (see \cite[II.§15]{CasselsFroehlich}), let $a_1 \in k_1^\times$ such that $w(a_1) = 1$, $a_1$ is positive at all real places of $k_1$, $a_1$ is a norm of the local extension $l'_v|k_{1 v}$ for all the finitely many $v \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathrm{fin}}(k_1)$ for which $v(a_0) \neq 0$, $v(a_1) = 0$ for all $v \in P$, and $v(a_1) \geqslant 0$ at all $v \in {\mathbb P}_{\mathrm{fin}}(k_1) \setminus \{ w' \}$.
  Then $q_{a_1, a_0}$ is anisotropic over $l_1$ since it is anisotropic over the completion of $k_1$ with respect to $w$ by construction. It is easy to check that $q_{a_1, a_0}$ is nice.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lmm2}
Let $K$ satisfy Hypothesis~{\rm(H$_d$)}, and $w$ be a geometric prime divisor of $K$. There are global subfields $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$, and $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-algebraically independent elements $\bm u=(u_i)_{1<i<d}$ of $K$ such that $w$ is trivial on $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm u)$ and $Kw$ is finite separable over $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm u)$. Moreover, if $u_d\in K$ has
$w(u_d)=1$, then $(u_d,\bm u)$ is a separating transcendence basis of $K|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $w$ is geometric, $K$ and $K\!w$ have the same
prime field $\kappa_0$, and are separably generated
over $\kappa_0$. Proceed as follows: (i) If $\chr(K)=0$,
let $(u_i)_{1<i<d}$ be any $w$-units which lift a transcendence
basis of $Kw$. (ii) If $\chr(K)>0$, let $(u_i)_{0<i<d}$ be
$w$-units which lift a separating transcendence basis of $Kw$.
Let $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$ be the constant field in case (i), and
the relative algebraic closure of $\kappa_0(u_1)$ in $K$ in case~(ii),
and set $\bm u=(u_i)_{1<i<d}$ in both cases. Then $w$ is
trivial on $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm u)$, and the residue of $\bm u$ in $K\hb{1}w$ is
a separating transcendence basis of $Kw$ over $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$.
Finally, if $K|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(u_d,\bm u)$ is not separable, then
$\chr(K)>0$ divides $w(u_d)$, as follows easily from the theory of algebraic function fields.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Let $K$ satisfy Hypothesis (H$_d$), $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$
be a global subfield, and $\bm t=(t_i)_{1<i<d}$ be
$k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-algebraically independent elements of $K$.
A $\,k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}},\hb1\bm t\hb{5}\bm t\,$-\ha1{\it test form\/} for an element
$a_d\in K^{\hb1\times}\!$ is any $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice Pfister form $q_{\bm a}$
defined by $\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a=(a_d,a_{d-1},\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_1,a_0)$, where $(a_i)_{1<i<d}
=\bm t\hb{5}\bm t-\bm\epsilon$ and $\bm\epsilon=(\epsilon_i)_i\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}^{d-2}$
satisfies: All $\epsilon_i$, $1\!<\!i\!<\!d$, are $v$-units for all
$v\in{\mathbb P}_{\rm fin}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$ with $v(a_1)>0$.
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:existsTestForm} Let $K$ satisfy Hypothesis
{\rm (H$_d$)}, $L|K$ be a finite extension, and ${\mathcal V}_w$
be the unramified prolongations $w_L|w$ of a geometric
prime divisor $w$ of $K$ to $L$. Let $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$ be a
global subfield, $\bm t\hb{5}\bm t=(t_i)_{1<i<d}$ be $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-algebraically
independent elements of $K$ such that $w$ is trivial
on $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$, and $K\!w\ha1|\ha1k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$ is
finite separable. Then there is a Zariski open dense
subset $\,U_{w,\bm t, L}\subsetk_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}^{d-2}$ satisfying:
For every $\bm\epsilon=(\epsilon_i)_{1<i<d}\in U_{w,\bm t,L}$,
there are $a_1,a_0\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ such that setting $(a_i)_{1<i<d}=\bm t\hb{5}\bm t-\bm\epsilon$,
one has: If $w(a_d)$ is odd, the $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}},\bm t\hb{5}\bm t$-test form $q_{\bm a}$ for $a_d$
defined by $\bm a=(a_d,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_0)$ is anisotropic over $L_{w_L}$ for all $w_L\in{\mathcal V}_w$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $l | K\hb{1}w$ be a finite separable
extension containing $L\hb{1}w_L|K\hb{1}w$ for all $w_L\in{\mathcal V}_w$.
Then the normalization morphism $S\to S_{w_L}\to S_w\to{\mathbb A}_{\bm t}$
of ${\mathbb A}_{\bm t}=\Speck_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}[\bm t]$ in the finite separable field
extensions $l\hookleftarrowL\hb{1}w_L\hookleftarrowK\hb{1}w\hookleftarrowk_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$ are finite generically
separable covers, thus \'etale above a Zariski open dense subset
$U_l\subset{\mathbb A}_{\bm t}$. Hence for
$\bm\epsilon:=(\epsilon_i)_{1<i<d} \in U_{w,\bm t,L}:=U_l(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$,
the points $s_{\bm\epsilon}\mapsto s_{w_L}\mapsto s_w\mapsto\bm\epsilon$
above $\bm\epsilon$ are smooth, and one has: $\bm\pi\hb2:=(a_i)_{1<i<d}:=(t_i-\epsilon_i)_{1<i<d}$ is a regular system of parameters at
$s_{\bm\epsilon}\mapsto s_w\mapsto s_w\mapsto\bm\epsilon$,
and the residue field extensions $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}=\kappa(\bm\epsilon)\hookrightarrow\kappa(s_w)\hookrightarrow\kappa(s_{w_L})\hookrightarrow\kappa(s_{\bm\epsilon})=:l_{\bm\epsilon}$ are finite separable.
In particular (see e.g. \cite[Proposition 10.16]{Eisenbud_CommAlg}), the completion of the local ring
${\mathcal O}_{s_{\bm\epsilon}}$ is the ring of formal powers series
$\widehat{\mathcal O}_{s_{\bm\epsilon}}=l_{\bm\epsilon}\fps{\bm\pi}$ in the variables
$\bm\pi=(a_{d-1},\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_2)$ over $l_{\bm\epsilon}$. Hence one has $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm\pi)$-embeddings
\[
l=\Quot({\mathcal O}_{s_{\bm\epsilon}})\hookrightarrow\Quot(\widehat{\mathcal O}_{s_{\bm\epsilon}})=
\Quot\big(l_{\bm\epsilon}\fps{a_2,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_{d-1}}\big)\hookrightarrowl_{\bm\epsilon}\lps{a_2}\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1\lps{a_{d-1}}=:\hat l.
\]
Let $P\subset{\mathbb P}(k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}})$ be any finite set of finite places such that all $(\epsilon_i)_{1<i<d}$ are $P$-units, and for $l_{\scriptscriptstyle1}:=l_{\bm\epsilon}$, consider $a_1,a_0\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ as in Lemma~\ref{lem:sepExtGlobalAnisoPfister}. Then setting $\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a:=(a_d,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_0)$ with $(a_i)_{0\leqslant i<d}$ as introduced above, and $a_d\in K$ with $w(a_d)$ odd, we claim that the $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}},\bm t$-test form $q_{\bm a}$ satisfies the requirements of Proposition~\ref{prop:existsTestForm}.
\vskip2pt
Indeed, $q_{a_1,a_0}$~is anisotropic over $l_{\scriptscriptstyle1}=l_{\bm\epsilon}$, by the choice of
$a_1,a_0\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$. Hence $q_{\bm\pi,a_1,a_0}$ is anisotropic over $\hat l$,
by Proposition~\ref{prop1},~2), thus anisotropic over $l\subset\hat l$.
Finally, if $u\in K$ has $w(u)=1$, then $w_L(u)=1$, and $L_{w_L}\subset (Lw_L)\lps u\subset l\lps u$. Set $\bm\varepsilon=(\bm\pi,a_1,a_0)$. Since $w(a_d)=w_L(a_d)$ is odd, $q_{\bm a}\!=q_{a_d,\bm\varepsilon}$ is anisotropic over $l\lps u$, by Proposition~\ref{prop1},~2).
Thus finally, $q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic over $L_{w_L}\hb3\subset\!l\lps u$.
\end{proof}

\noindent
C) \ {\bf A strengthening of Proposition~\ref{prop:niceLocalGlobal}}
\vskip5pt

In this section, we prove a strengthening of Proposition \ref{prop:niceLocalGlobal} under stronger hypotheses. Specifically, we obtain a geometric prime divisor over whose completion a given Pfister form is anisotropic, with additional information on the leading coefficient.

For the proof of the following proposition, we need the notion of the patch (or constructible) topology on the space of valuations of some field.
Recall, for instance from \cite[Section 1]{HuberKnebusch}, that this consists of the set of all valuation rings (or equivalence classes of valuations) $v$ of the field, with the coarsest topology that makes sets of the form ${\mathcal V}_\Sigma\hb2:=\{ v\,|\, v(a)\geqslant 0\;\forall\, a\in\Sigma \}$ open-closed, where $\Sigma$ are arbitrary finite sets of non-zero field elements.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:constructiblyOpen}
  Let $F$ be a field and $E/F$ a finite extension. Then the set of (equivalence classes of) valuations $w$ of $F$ such that $E$ embeds over $F$ into the henselization of $F$ with respect to $w$ is open in the patch topology.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  Suppose that $w$ is a valuation on $F$ and $E$ a finite subextension of the henselization $F_w/F$; we also write $w$ for the prolongation of $w$ to $F_w$ and its restriction to $E$.
  By Theorem~1.2 of \cite{HenselianElements}, $E$ is generated over $F$ by an element $\eta$ whose minimal polynomial $p \in F[t]$ has coefficients that are integral with respect to $w$, and $w(\eta) = w(p'(\eta)) = 0$.
  Since $F_w/F$ is an immediate extension, we can find an integral element $x \in F$ with the same residue as $\eta$, so that $w(p'(x)) = 0$ and $w(p(x)) > 0$ since $p(\eta) = 0$.

For any other valuation $w'$ on $F$ such that $p \in \mathcal{O}_{w'}[t]$, $w'(p(x)) > 0$ and $w'(p'(x)) = 0$, the polynomial $p$ has a zero in the henselization $F_{w'}$, and therefore $E$ embeds into $F_{w'}$.
This set of valuations $w'$ is open in the patch topology, proving the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:testForms} Suppose that $K$ satisfies
Hypothesis $({\rm H}_d)$. Let $L|K$ be finite separable,
and $a_d\in K$.
Suppose that there are a global subfield $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$, and $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-algebraically independent elements $\bm u=(u_i)_{1<i<d}$ of $K$, such that setting $\bm t=\bm u^2-\bm u$,
there is a $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}},\hb1\bm t\hb{5}\bm t\,$-\ha1test form $q_{\bm a}$ for $a_d$ which is anisotropic over the fields $L_{\theta}:=L(\alpha)$ with $\alpha^2-\alpha=a_d/{\theta}$
for all $\,\theta=(a_{d-1}\dotsm a_1)^N\!$, $N>0$.
Then there exists a prime divisor $w_L$ of $L|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$ with
$w_L(a_d)>0$ odd, and $q_{\bm a}$ anisotropic
over~$L_{w_L}$.

\end{proposition}
In the proof it will be necessary to consider the henselization of $L$ with respect to $w_L$ instead of the completion, which we still notate $L_{w_L}$.
By Fact~\ref{fkt0},~3), for rank-$1$ valuations moving between henselization and completion does not affect isotropy of the quadratic form $q_{\bm a}$.
\begin{proof} Since $q_{\bm a}$ is an anisotropic
$k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice Pfister form over ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}:=L_{\theta}$, by
Proposition~\ref{prop:niceLocalGlobal}, there is a prime divisor ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$
of ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$ such that $q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic
over the completion ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$.
\vskip2pt
{\bf Claim 1}. $\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a=(a_d,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_0)$ satisfies:
${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_i)\geqslant0$ for $d>i\geqslant0$,
and ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)>0$, ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)\geqslant{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta}^2)$.
\vskip2pt
{\it Proof of Claim 1.\/}
For a contradiction, suppose that ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_i)<0$ for some~$i$. First, if $v:={\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}|_{k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}}$ is non-trivial, then $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}\subset{\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}$, hence $q_{\bm a}$ anisotropic over ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}}$ implies that $q_{a_1\!,a_0}$ is anisotropic over $k_{{\scriptscriptstyle1}v}$. Since $q_{\bm a}$ is $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice, Proposition~\ref{prop:niceLocalGlobal} implies that $v(a_1)>0$ and
$v(a_0)=0$. Thus $a_i=t_i-\epsilon_i$ with $\epsilon_i\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ all $v$-units, implying
${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(\epsilon_i)=v(\epsilon_i)=0$. Hence since ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_i)<0$, one has ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(t_i)<0$ and $t_i=u_i^2-u_i$ in $K$ implies that ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(u_i)<0$. Therefore, $a_i=u_i^2-u_i-\epsilon_i=u^2_ia'_i$ with $a'_i=1-1/u_i+\epsilon_i/u_i^2$ a principal ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$-unit. Then $q_{a'_i, a_0}$ is isotropic over ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}_{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$ by Proposition~\ref{prop1},~1), hence so are $q_{a_i,a_0}$ and $q_{\bm a}$ -- contradiction!
Second, if $v:={\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}|_{k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}}$ is trivial, ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(\epsilon_i)=0$, hence ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_i)<0$
implies ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(t_i)<0$, getting a contradiction as above.
In particular, ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta})=N\sum_{0<i<d}{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_i)\geqslant0$,
and ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta})>0$ iff ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_i)>0$ for some $0<i<d$. It remains to show
that ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)\geqslant{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta}^2)$. By contradiction, let ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)<{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta}^2)$.
Then  $\alpha^2-\alpha=a_d/{\theta}^2$ in ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$ implies ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(\alpha)<0$. Hence $a_d=(\alpha{\theta})^2(1-1/\alpha)=u^2\eta$ with $u=\alpha{\theta}$ and $\eta=1-1/\alpha$ a principal ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$-unit, getting a contradiction as above.
Finally, if ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta})>0$, then ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)>0$ by the fact that ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)\geqslant{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta})$. And if ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta})=0$, then $a_i$ are $w$-units for $0\leqslant i<d$, and since $q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic over ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}$, by Proposition~\ref{prop1},~3), it follows that ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)\neq0$, hence ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)\geqslant{\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}({\theta}^2)$ implies ${\tilde w}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}(a_d)>0$.
Claim 1 is proved.
\vskip2pt
Next for integers $N>0$, let ${\mathcal V}_{\bm a, N}$ be the
set of a valuations $w$ on $L$ satisfying the conditions:
\vskip3pt
$\ha{10}$ i) $q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic over the
henselization $L_w$.
\vskip2pt
$\ha{8}$ ii) $w(a_i)\geqslant0$ for $0 \leqslant i<d$, and
$w(a_d)> N w(a_i)$ for $0\leqslant i<d$.
\vskip3pt
\noindent
We claim that ${\mathcal V}_{\bm a,N}$ is closed
in the patch topology. Indeed, let $w'\in\Val L$ lie in
the closure~of ${\mathcal V}_{\bm a,N}$ in $\Val L$.
Then by definition of the patch topology,
$w'$ satisfies condition~(ii). For~condition~(i),
by contradiction, suppose that $q_{\bm a}$ is
isotropic over the henselization~$L_{w'}$.
Then there
is a finite subextension $L'|L$ of $L_{w'}$ such that
$q_{\bm a}$ is isotropic over any field extension
of $L$ containing $L'\!$. Hence by Lemma~\ref{lem:constructiblyOpen},
$w'$ has a neighborhood ${\mathcal V}_{L'}$ such that for all $w\in{\mathcal V}_{L'}$
one has $L'\hookrightarrow L_w$. Hence choosing $w\in{\mathcal V}_{L'}\cap{\mathcal V}_{\bm a,N}$,
it follows that $q_{\bm a}$ is isotropic over $L_w$, contradiction!

Let $\theta=(a_0 \dotsm a_{d-1})^N$. Then Claim 1 applied for $\theta$  implies that each ${\mathcal V}_{\bm a, N}$ is non-empty: Namely, the $\tilde{w}$ from Claim 1 in that case satisfies $\tilde{w}(a_i) \geqslant0$ for all $0<i<d$, and further,  $\tilde{w}(a_d) \geqslant 2N (\tilde{w}(a_{d-1}) + \dotsb + \tilde{w}(a_0))$ together with
$w(a_d)>0$ implies that $\tilde{w} \in {\mathcal V}_{\bm a, N}$.
Because
${\mathcal V}_{\bm a,N+1}\subset{\mathcal V}_{\bm a,N}$,
it follows from compactness of the valuation space
that ${\mathcal V}_{\bm a}:=\cap_N{\mathcal V}_{\bm a,N}$
is non-empty, and by mere definitions, every
$w \in{\mathcal V}_{\bm a}$ satisfies:
$q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic over $L_{w_{\bm a}}$,
and $w(a_i)\geqslant0$, $w(a_d)> N w(a_i)$ for
all $N > 0$ and $0\leqslant i<d$. Finally, let
${\fam\eufam\teneu p}\subset{\mathcal O}_{w}$ be the
minimal prime ideal with $a_d\in{\fam\eufam\teneu p}$, and
${\mathcal O}_{w_L}=({\mathcal O}_{w})_{\fam\eufam\teneu p}$ be the
corresponding valuation ring of $L$; this is the coarsest coarsening of $w$ with $w_L(a_d) > 0$. Then
$w(a_d/a_i^N)\geqslant0$ for all $N > 0$
implies $a_i\not\in{\fam\eufam\teneu p}$, hence $a_i$ are
$w_L$-units for $0\leqslant i<d$; second,
one has an inclusion of henselizations
$L_{w_L}\subset L_w$. In particular,
$q_{\bm a}$ is not isotropic over the henselization $L_{w_L}$.
\vskip5pt
{\bf Claim 2}. $w_L$ is trivial on $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$,
hence $w_L$ is a prime divisor of $L|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$.
\vskip5pt
{\it Proof of Claim 2.\/} By contradiction, suppose that $w_L$ is not trivial on $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$. Let $F\subset L_{w_L}$ be the relative algebraic closure of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$ in $L_{w_L}$, set $\bm\varepsilon:=(a_{d-1},\dots,a_1,a_0)$, and $w:=(w_L)|_F$.
Then $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$ is defined over $F$, and $w$ is a non-trivial henselian valuation of $F$ such that all entries $a_i$ of ${\bm\varepsilon}$ are $w$-units.
In particular, since $w$ is non-trivial, by Abhyankar's inequality one has $\dim(F\!w)<\dim(F)\leqslant d-1$,
hence by Proposition~\ref{prop1},~3), it follows that $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$ is isotropic over $F$, hence over $L_{w_L}$, because $F\subset L_{w_L}$. Since $q_{\bm\varepsilon}$ is a Pfister subform of $q_{\bm a}$, it follows that $q_{\bm a}$ is isotropic over $L_{w_L}$, contradiction! Claim~2 is proved.
\vskip2pt
We conclude the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:testForms}
as follows: By contradiction, suppose that $w_L(a_d)$ is
even. Equivalently, one can write $a_d=u^2a'_d$ with $u,a'_d\in L_{w_L}$ and
$a'_d$ some $w_L$-unit. Then setting $\bm{a'}:=(a'_d,a_{d-1},\dots,a_0)$, it follows that $q_{\bm a}\approx q_{\bm{a'}}$ over $F:=L_{w_L}$,
and $q_{\bm{a'}}$ is anisotropic over $F$, because $q_{\bm a}$ is so.
Since $w:=w_L$ is non-trivial, one has $\dim(F\!w)<\dim(F)=d$. Hence by Proposition~\ref{prop1},~3), $q_{\bm{a'}}$ is isotropic, contradiction!
\end{proof}
\section{Uniform definability of the geometric
            prime divisors of $K$}
\noindent
In this section we show that geometric prime divisors of
finitely generated fields are uniformly first
order definable. This relies in an
essential way on the consequences of the
cohomological principles presented in the
previous section, and on the (obvious) fact
that for an $n$-fold Pfister form $q_{\bm a}$,
whether that $q_{\bm a}$ is (an)isotropic, or
universal, over $K$ and/or ${\tilde K}}  %{{\hat{s}}}   %{{\tilde s}=K[\sqrt{-1}\,]$
is expressed by formulae in which the $n$ entries in
$\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a=(a_n,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_1)$ are the only free
variables.
Further,  the Kronecker dimension
$\dim(K)$, the relatively algebraically closed
global subfields $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$ of finitely
generated fields $K$, and algebraic
independence over such fields $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ are
uniformly first order definable (by
\nmnm{Pop}~\cite{P_EEI}, \nmnm{Poonen}~\cite{PoonenUniform}).
Finally recall that if $\dim(K)=1$, i.e., $K$ is
a global field, the prime divisors of $K$ are
uniformly first-order definable by the formulae $\scalebox{.85}[1]{{\textnormal{\textbf{\textsf{val}}}}}_1$
given by \nmnm{Rumely}~\cite{Rumely} -- in particular,
this holds for subfields $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$ as above;
and if  $\dim(K)=2$, the {\it geometric\/} prime
divisors of $K|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ are
uniformly first-order definable by the formulae $\scalebox{.85}[1]{{\textnormal{\textbf{\textsf{val}}}}}_2$
given by \nmnm{Pop}~\cite{P_EEI2}. Hence it is left to
consider the case $\dim(K)>2$, i.e.\ $K$ satisfying
Hypothesis (H$_d$) from Introduction.
\vskip-8pt
$\ha2$
\noindent
\begin{notations}
\label{notax}
Let $K$ satisfy Hypothesis~(H$_d$) from Introduction. For
$a_d\in K^{\hb1\times}\!$ consider:
\vskip2pt
\itm{25}{
\item[a)] relatively algebraically closed global subfields $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$, and
$a_1,a_0\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}^{\hb1\times}\!$ such that $q_{a_1,a_0}$ is a
$k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-nice Pfister form.
\vskip2pt
\item[b)] $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$-algebraically independent
elements $\bm u\hb{8}\bm u=(u_i)_{1<i<d}$ of $K$,
and set $\bm t\hb{5}\bm t=(t_i)_i=\bm u\hb{8}\bm u^2-\bm u\hb{8}\bm u$,
and let $k_{\bm t}\subset K$ be the relative algebraic
closure of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$ in $K$.
\vskip2pt
\item[c)] $\bm\epsilon=(\epsilon_i)_{1<i<d}\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}^{d-2}$
systems of elements of $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$ which are $v$-units
for all $v$ with  $v(a_1)>0$.
\vskip2pt
\item[d)] Setting $\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a=(a_d,\,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_1,a_0)$,
where $a_i=t_i-\epsilon_i$ for $1<i<d$, consider
$q_{\bm a}$.
\vskip2pt
\item[e)] For ${\theta},\tau\in K$, set $K_\tau:=K(\beta)$,
$\beta^2\!-\beta=\tau^2\hb1/a_d$, $K_{\theta}=K(\alpha)$,
$\alpha^2\!-\alpha=a_d/{\theta}^2\!$, $\,K_{\tau,{\theta}}:=K_{\theta} K_\tau$.
}
\end{notations}
\begin{proposition}
\label{keyprop}
In the above notation, for $\tau\in K$ the following
are equivalent:
\vskip2pt
\itm{25}{
\item[{\rm (i)$\,$}] There exists $q_{\bm a}$ as in
Notations~\ref{notax} which is anisotropic over
$K_{\tau,{\theta}}$ for all ${\theta}\in k_{\bm t}$.
\vskip2pt
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
There is a geometric prime divisor $w$ of $K|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$
with $w(\tau^2)> w(a_d)>0$ and $w(a_d)$~odd.
}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} To (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii): This follows
from Proposition~\ref{prop:testForms} by setting $L=K_\tau$. Indeed,
if $q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic over $L_\theta=K_{\theta, \tau}$ for all ${\theta}\in k_{\bm t}$,
then $q_{\bm a}$ is anisotropic over $L_{\theta}$ for all ${\theta}=(a_{d-1}\dots a_1)^N$,
$N>0$. Hence if $w_L$ is the valuation of $L$ given in loc.cit., then
$w_L(a_d)>0$ is odd. By contradiction, assume
$w_L(\tau^2)\leqslant w_L(a_d)$, hence
$w_L(\tau^2)< w_L(a_d)$, because $w_L(a_d)$ is odd.
Then $w_L(\tau^2/a_d)<0$, hence $w_L(\beta)<0$, so
$a'_d:=1 - 1/\beta$ is a principal $w_L$-unit, thus $q_{a'_d,a_0}$ is isotropic over $L_{w_L}$ by Proposition~\ref{prop1},~1).
Since $a_d=(a_d \beta/\tau)^2(1-1/\beta)$, one has
$q_{a_d,a_0}\approx q_{a'_d,a_0}$ over $L_{w_L}$,
hence $q_{a_d, a_0}$ is isotropic over $L_{w_L}$,
hence $q_{\bm a}$ is isotropic over $L_{w_L}$,
contradiction!
\vskip2pt
To (ii)$\Rightarrow$(i): This follows from
Proposition~\ref{prop:existsTestForm} as follows.
Namely given the prime divisor $w$, proceeding as
in Lemma~\ref{lmm2}, choose $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\subset K$
and $\bm u$ such that $w$ is trivial on $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm u)$ and
$K\hb{1}w|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm u)$ is finite separable. Set $\bm t\hb{5}\bm t:=\bm u\hb{8}\bm u^2-\bm u\hb{8}\bm u$.
Then $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm u)|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t)$ is a finite abelian extension,
hence $K\hb{1}w|k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}(\bm t\hb{5}\bm t)$ is finite separable. Hence
by Proposition~\ref{prop:existsTestForm},
there are $\bm\epsilon=(\epsilon_i)_{1<i<d}\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}^{d-2}$
and $a_1,a_0\ink_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$
such that setting $a_i=t_i-\epsilon_i$, $1<i<d$, the
quadratic form $q_{\bm a}$ defined by $\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a=(a_d,\,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_0)$
is a $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}},\bm t\hb{5}\bm t\,$-\ha1test form for $a_d$ which is anisotropic over $K_w$,
in particular, $w(a_d)>0$ is odd. Then $\alpha,\beta\in K_w$
by the fact that $w(\tau^2\!/a_d),w(a_d/{\theta}^2)>0$.
\end{proof}
\vskip2pt
Next for $\bm t\hb{5}\bm t=(t_i)_{1<i<d}$ as in Notations~\ref{notax}
above, recall that $k_{\bm t}\subset K$ is uniformly
first-order definable in terms of $\bm t\hb{5}\bm t$ by \nmnm{Poonen}'s result.
Since $\td(K|k_{\bm t})=1$, one has
$K=k_{\bm t}(C)$ for a (unique) projective normal
$k_{\bm t}$-curve $C$, and the prime divisors $w$ of
$K|k_{\bm t}$ are in bijection with the closed
points $P\in C$ via ${\mathcal O}_w={\mathcal O}_P$.
By Riemann-Roch (for the projective normal
$k_{\bm t}$-curve $C$), for every $P\in C$ and
$m\gg0$, there are functions $f\in K$ with
$(f)_\infty=m\,P$, hence $a_d:=1/f$ has $P\in C$
as its unique zero, and $v_P(a_d)=m$. Further,
${\fam\eufam\teneu a}:=\{\tau\in K\,|\,v_P(\tau^2)>v_P(a_d)\}\subset{\mathcal O}_P$
is an ideal, and ${\mathcal O}_P=\{a\in K\,|\,a\!\cdot{\fam\eufam\teneu a}\subset{\fam\eufam\teneu a}\}$.
Hence noticing that we can always choose
$m\gg0$ odd, one has the following:

\begin{recipe}
\label{therecipe}
One gets the valuation rings of all the geometric prime
divisors $w$ of $K$ along the following steps:
\vskip4pt
\itm{25}{
\item[1)] Consider the uniformly first-order
definable $k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}$, $\bm t\hb{5}\bm t=(t_i)_{1<i<d}$, and
$k_{\scalebox{.5}[.5]{\rm1}}\!\subset\!k_{\bm t}\subset\!K$ as above.
\vskip2pt
\item[2)] For all $\bm a\hb{7.5}\bm a=(a_d,\,\hb1.\ha1.\ha1.\ha1,a_1,a_0)$
as in Notations~\ref{notax}, define:
\[
{\fam\eufam\teneu a}:=\{\tau\in K\,|\,q_{\bm a} \ \hbox{is
not isotropic over $K_{\tau,{\theta}}$} \ \forall\,{\theta}\in k_{\bm t}\},
\ \quad \
{\mathcal O}_{\fam\eufam\teneu a}:=\{a\in K\mid a\hb1\cdot\hb1{\fam\eufam\teneu a}\subset{\fam\eufam\teneu a}\}
\]
\vskip2pt
\item[3)] Check whether ${\mathcal O}_{\fam\eufam\teneu a}$ is a valuation
ring. If so, $w_{{\mathcal O}_{\fam\eufam\teneu a}}$ is a geometric prime
divisor of $K|k_{\bm t}$.
\vskip2pt
\item[4)] Finally, all the valuation rings of
geometric prime divisors of $K$ arise in
the form above.
}
\vskip2pt
Conclude that the geometric prime divisors of $K$ are
uniformly first-order definable.
\end{recipe}

\section{Proof of the Main Theorem}

We will now prove that every field satisfying Hypothesis $({\rm H}_d)$ is bi-interpretable with the ring $\mathbb{Z}$, building on the uniform definability of the geometric prime divisors. The insight that this is possible is due to \nmnm{Scanlon}~\cite{Sc} (more precisely one can use \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Sc}, because the part of the proof needed here is not affected by the gap in the recipe of the definability of prime divisors in that paper).
For the convenience of the reader, we instead build on the later \cite{AKNS}, where the bi-interpretability result is established for finitely generated integral domains (as well as some other rings).

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:goodDefinableSubring}
Let $K$ satisfying Hypothesis $({\rm H}_d)$, ${\mathcal T}$ denote a
transcendence basis of~$K$, and $R_{{\mathcal T}}$ be the integral
closure in $K$ of the subring generated by ${\mathcal T}$. Then the
rings $R_{{\mathcal T}}$ are uniformly first order definable finitely
generated domains.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} %
First, let $R_{\mathcal T}^0:={\mathbb F}_p[{\mathcal T}]$ if $\chr(K)=p$,
and $R_{\mathcal T}^0:={\mathbb Z}[{\mathcal T}]$ if $\chr(K)=0$. By \cite{Eisenbud_CommAlg},
Corollary\ha213.13, and Prop.~13.14, $R_{\mathcal T}$ is a finite
$R_{\mathcal T}^0$-module, hence a finitely generated ring.
\vskip2pt
Next let $\kappa\subset K$ be the constant field
of $K$, and recall that both: By \nmnm{Poonen}~\cite{PoonenUniform},
$\kappa$ is uniformly first order definable, and if
$\chr(K)=0$, or equivalently $\kappa$ is a number field,
by \nmnm{Rumely}~\cite{Rumely}, the ring of integers
$A={\mathcal O}_\kappa$ is uniformly first-order definable. To
fix notations, let $A=\kappa$ if $\chr(K)>0$, respectively
$A={\mathcal O}_\kappa$ if $\chr(K)=0$,
and ${\mathcal D}_\kappa$ be the non-archimedean places
of $\kappa$, including the trivial valuation.
Let $e=\td(K)=\td(K|\kappa)$, i.e., $e=\dim(K)-\dim(\kappa)$.
Recall that the geometric prime $e$-divisors of $K$ are
valuations ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}$ of $K$ trivial on $\kappa$ with value group
${\fam\eufam\teneu w} K\cong{\mathbb Z}^e$ lexicographically ordered.
Equivalently, ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}=w_e\circ\dots\circ w_1$, where
$w_{i+1}$ is a geometric prime divisor of $\kappa(w_i)$,
$1\leqslant i<e$.  In particular, by induction on $i$, is
follows that the set ${\mathcal D}^e(K|\kappa)$ of geometric prime
$e$-divisors ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}=w_e\circ\dots\circ w_1$ of $K$
is a first-order definable family by \nmnm{Pop}~\cite{P_EEI2}
if $\dim(K)=2$, and Theorem~1.3 above if $\dim(K)>2$.
Further, the residue fields $\kappa_w:=K\!{\fam\eufam\teneu w}$ are finite
extensions of $\kappa$, and the non-archimedean places
$v\in{\mathcal D}_{\kappa_w}$ of $\kappa_w$, hence
the integral closures $A_w|A$ of $A$ in $\kappa_w$
are uniformly first-order definable by~\cite{Rumely}. For every
${\fam\eufam\teneu w}\in{\mathcal D}^e(K|\kappa)$ and every prime divisor
$v\in{\mathcal D}_{\kappa_w}$, we set ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v:=v\circ{\fam\eufam\teneu w}$,
and for a given transcendence basis ${\mathcal T}$ of $K|\kappa$, denote:
\[
{\mathcal W}(K)=\{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v\,|\,{\fam\eufam\teneu w}\in{\mathcal D}^e(K|\kappa),
v\in{\mathcal D}_{\kappa_w}\},\quad
{\mathcal W}_{\mathcal T}(K)=\{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v\in{\mathcal V}(K)\,|\,{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v({\mathcal T})\geqslant0\}\,.
\]
{\it Claim.}
One has $R_{\mathcal T}=\cap_{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v\in{\mathcal W}_{\mathcal T}(K)}{\mathcal O}_{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v}$.
Hence $R_{\mathcal T}$ is first order definable.

\noindent
{\it Proof of the claim.} Let
$R_{0,{\mathcal T}}\!:=A[{\mathcal T}]\subset\kappa[{\mathcal T}]$, and $R_{\mathcal T}$ be
the integral closures of $R_{0,{\mathcal T}}$ in a finite
extension $K|K_0$, where $K_0=\kappa(t)$. Defining
${\mathcal W}_{\mathcal T}(K_0)\subset{\mathcal W}(K_0)$ for $K_0$ instead of $K$,
it follows that ${\mathcal W}_\bullet(K)$ consists exactly of the
prolongations of the members of
${\mathcal W}_\bullet(K_0)$ to $K$. Hence one has that $R'_{\mathcal T}:=
\cap_{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v\in{\mathcal W}_{\mathcal T}(K)}{\mathcal O}_{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v}$,
$R'_{0,{\mathcal T}}:=\cap_{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v\in{\mathcal W}_{\mathcal T}(K_0)}{\mathcal O}_{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v}$
are integrally closed, and $R'_{\mathcal T}$ is the integral closure
of $R'_{0,{\mathcal T}}$ in $K$. Since $R$ is the integral closure
of $R_{0,{\mathcal T}}$ in $K$, it is sufficient to prove
the claim in the case
$K=K_0=\kappa({\mathcal T})$, $R_{\mathcal T}=R_{0,{\mathcal T}}=A[{\mathcal T}]$.
Let ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}=w_e\circ\dots\circ w_1$. Then one has
${\mathcal O}_{{\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v}\subset{\mathcal O}_{\fam\eufam\teneu w}\subset{\mathcal O}_{w_1}$, and therefore,
$R'_{\mathcal T}\subset\cap_{w_1\in{\mathcal D}^1_{\mathcal T}(K|\kappa)}{\mathcal O}_{w_1}$.
On the other hand, since ${\mathcal D}^1_{\mathcal T}(K|\kappa)$ are of the form
$\kappa[{\mathcal T}]_{(p)}$ with $p\in\kappa[{\mathcal T}]$ all the prime polynomials, it
follows that $\kappa[{\mathcal T}]=\cap_{w_1\in{\mathcal D}^1_{\mathcal T}(K|\kappa)}{\mathcal O}_{w_1}$,
hence $R'_{\mathcal T}\subset\kappa[{\mathcal T}]$. Further, if $f({\mathcal T})\in A[{\mathcal T}]$,
and ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v({\mathcal T})\geqslant0$, it follows that ${\fam\eufam\teneu v}_v\big(f({\mathcal T})\big)
\geqslant0$, hence $f({\mathcal T})\in R'_{\mathcal T}$, and finally, $R_{\mathcal T}\subset R'_{\mathcal T}$.
To prove the converse inclusion $R_{\mathcal T}\supset R'_{\mathcal T}$, we show that if
$f({\mathcal T})\not\in R_{\mathcal T}=A[{\mathcal T}]$, then $f({\mathcal T})\not\in R'_{\mathcal T}$.
Indeed, if $f({\mathcal T})\not\in A[{\mathcal T}]$, one must have $\chr(K)=0$,
hence $A={\mathcal O}_\kappa$, and there exist $v\in{\mathbb P}_{\rm fin}(\kappa)$
such that $f({\mathcal T})\not\in{\mathcal O}_v[{\mathcal T}]$. Setting $f({\mathcal T})=
\sum_{\bm i\hb3\bm i}a_{\bm i\hb3\bm i}{\mathcal T}^{\bm i\hb3\bm i}$,
choose $a\in\kappa$ such that $v(a)=\min_{\bm i\hb3\bm i}
v(a_{\bm i\hb3\bm i})$, and set $f({\mathcal T})=a \big(f_0({\mathcal T})+ f_1({\mathcal T})\big)$
with all the non-zero coefficients $b_{\bm i\hb3\bm i}$ of
$f_0({\mathcal T})$ having $v(b_{\bm i\hb3\bm i})=0$, and
all the coefficients $b_{\bm j\hb4\bm j}$ of $f_1({\mathcal T})$ having
$v(b_{\bm j\hb4\bm j})>0$. Then for ``sufficiently general'' primitive
roots of unity $\bm\zeta=(\zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_e)$ of order prime
to $\chr(\kappa v)$, one has: $v\big(f_0(\bm\zeta)\big)=0$,
$v\big(f_1(\bm\zeta)\big)>0$, hence $v\big(f(\bm\zeta)\big)=v(a)<0$.
Thus choosing ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}$ such that ${\mathcal T}\mapsto\bm\zeta$
under ${\mathcal O}_{\fam\eufam\teneu w}\to K{\fam\eufam\teneu w}$, one has ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v({\mathcal T})\geqslant0$,
but ${\fam\eufam\teneu w}_v\big(f({\mathcal T})\big)<0$, implying that
$f({\mathcal T})\not\in R'_{\mathcal T}$, as claimed. The claim is proved.
\vskip2pt
This concludes the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:goodDefinableSubring}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
  The first-order definition from the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:goodDefinableSubring} is easily seen to be uniform for fixed $d$, i.e.~allowing for variables for the elements of ${\mathcal T}$, the defining formula can be chosen not to vary for all fields $K$ satisfying Hypothesis $({\rm H}_d)$.
\end{remark}

We are now ready to prove the bi-interpretability theorem: a field $K$ satisfying Hypothesis $({\rm H}_d)$ is bi-interpretable with $\mathbb{Z}$, where both $K$ and $\mathbb{Z}$ are considered as structures in the language of rings.
We refer the reader to \cite[Section 2]{AKNS} for an introduction to the notion of bi-interpretability.
\begin{proof}[Proof of the bi-interpretability theorem]
  Let $K$ be a field satisfying $({\rm H}_d)$, and $R \subseteq K$ the definable subring from Proposition \ref{prop:goodDefinableSubring} for some choice of transcendence basis ${\mathcal T}$.
  Since $R$ is a finitely generated integral domain, it is bi-interpretable with the ring $\mathbb{Z}$ by Theorem 3.1 of \cite{AKNS}.

  The field $K$ is interpretable in $R$ as a localization, cf. \cite[Examples 2.9 (4)]{AKNS}.
  Then $K$ is definably isomorphic to the interpreted copy of $K$ in the definable subset $R \subseteq K$, namely by assigning to each $x \in K$ the class of pairs $(a, b) \in R \times (R \setminus \{ 0 \})$ with $x = a/b$,
  and likewise $R$ is definably isomorphic to the copy of $R$ defined in the interpreted copy of $K$, namely by identifying $r \in R$ with the pair $(r, 1)$ (thought of as standing for $\frac{r}{1}$ in $\operatorname{Frac}(R) = K$).
  Thus $K$ is even bi-interpretable with $R$, and therefore transitively bi-interpretable with $\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{proof}

The existence of a characteristic sentence for $K$, i.e.~the resolution of the strong form of the EEIP, now follows from \cite[Proposition 2.28]{AKNS}.