scholarly journals Ultrafilter extensions do not preserve elementary equivalence

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 511-516
Author(s):  
Denis I. Saveliev ◽  
Saharon Shelah
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
Ultrafilter Extensions

Uncountable models and infinitary elementary extensions

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 460-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gregory
Keyword(s):  
Countable Subset ◽  
Elementary Extension ◽  
Admissible Set ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
Countable Structure

Let A be a countable admissible set (as defined in [1], [3]). The language LA consists of all infinitary finite-quantifier formulas (identified with sets, as in [1]) that are elements of A. Notationally, LA = A ∩ Lω1ω. Then LA is a countable subset of Lω1ω, the language of all infinitary finite-quantifier formulas with all conjunctions countable. The set is the set of Lω1ω sentences defined in 2.2 below. The following theorem characterizes those A-Σ1 sets Φ of LA sentences that have uncountable models.Main Theorem (3.1.). If Φ is an A-Σ1set of LA sentences, then the following are equivalent:(a) Φ has an uncountable model,(b) Φ has a model with a proper LA-elementary extension,(c) for every , ⋀Φ → C is not valid.This theorem was announced in [2] and is proved in §§3, 4, 5. Makkai's earlier [4, Theorem 1] implies that, if Φ determines countable structure up to Lω1ω-elementary equivalence, then (a) is equivalent to (c′) for all , ⋀Φ → C is not valid.The requirement in 3.1 that Φ is A-Σ1 is essential when the set ω of all natural numbers is an element of A. For by the example of [2], then there is a set Φ LA sentences such that (b) holds and (a) fails; it is easier to show that, if ω ϵ A, there is a set Φ of LA sentences such that (c) holds and (b) fails.

Preservation of elementary equivalence under scalar extension

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 734-738
Author(s):  
Bruce I. Rose
Keyword(s):  
Identity Element ◽  
Positive Answer ◽  
General Question ◽  
Division Algebras ◽  
Extension Field ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
Applied Model ◽  
Finite Dimensional ◽  
Positive Statements ◽  
Finite Dimensional Algebras

In this note we show that taking a scalar extension of two elementarily equivalent finite-dimensional algebras over the same field preserves elementary equivalence. The general question of whether or not tensor product preserves elementary equivalence was originally raised in [4]. In [3] Feferman relates an example of Ersov which answers the question negatively. Eklof and Olin [7] also provide a counterexample to the general question in the context of two-sorted structures. Thus the result proved below is a partial positive answer to a general question whose status has been resolved negatively. From the viewpoint of applied model theory it seems desirable to find contexts in which positive statements of preservation can be obtained. Our result does have an application; a corollary to it increases our understanding of what it means for two division algebras to be elementarily equivalent.All algebras are finite-dimensional algebras over fields. All algebras contain an identity element, but are not necessarily associative.Recall that the center of a not necessarily associative algebra A is the set of elements which commute and “associate” with all elements of A. The notion of a scalar extension is an important one in algebra. If A is an algebra over F and G is an extension field of F, then the scalar extension of A by G is the algebra A ⊗F G.

Multiplication complexe et équivalence élémentaire dans le langage des corps (Complex multiplication and elementary equivalence in the language of fields)

2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 635-648
Author(s):  
Xavier Vidaux
Keyword(s):  
Function Fields ◽  
Complex Multiplication ◽  
Closed Field ◽  
Constant Symbol ◽  
Endomorphism Rings ◽  
Modular Invariant ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
Algebraically Closed Field

AbstractLet K and K′ be two elliptic fields with complex multiplication over an algebraically closed field k of characteristic 0. non k-isomorphic, and let C and C′ be two curves with respectively K and K′ as function fields. We prove that if the endomorphism rings of the curves are not isomorphic then K and K′ are not elementarily equivalent in the language of fields expanded with a constant symbol (the modular invariant). This theorem is an analogue of a theorem from David A. Pierce in the language of k-algebras.

On the elementary equivalence of automorphism groups of Boolean algebras; downward Skolem Löwenheim theorems and compactness of related quantifiers

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matatyahu Rubin ◽  
Saharon Shelah
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Automorphism Groups ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
First Order ◽  
Finite Models ◽  
Countably Compact

AbstractTheorem 1. (◊ℵ1,) If B is an infinite Boolean algebra (BA), then there is B1, such that ∣ Aut (B1) ≤∣B1∣ = ℵ1 and 〈B1, Aut (B1)〉 ≡ 〈B, Aut(B)〉.Theorem 2. (◊ℵ1) There is a countably compact logic stronger than first-order logic even on finite models.This partially answers a question of H. Friedman. These theorems appear in §§1 and 2.Theorem 3. (a) (◊ℵ1) If B is an atomic ℵ-saturated infinite BA, Ψ Є Lω1ω and 〈B, Aut (B)〉 ⊨Ψ then there is B1, Such that ∣Aut(B1)∣ ≤ ∣B1∣ =ℵ1, and 〈B1, Aut(B1)〉⊨Ψ. In particular if B is 1-homogeneous so is B1. (b) (a) holds for B = P(ω) even if we assume only CH.

Elementary equivalence of incidence rings over semi-perfect rings

2012 ◽  
Vol 185 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-206
Author(s):  
E. I. Bunina ◽  
A. S. Dobrokhotova-Maykova
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Equivalence
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document