Generalized quantifiers and elementary extensions of countable models

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Dubiel
Keyword(s):  
Countable Model ◽  
Generalized Quantifiers ◽  
Natural Question ◽  
Elementary Extension ◽  
First Order ◽  
Transitive Model ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Countable Models

Let L be a countable first-order language and L(Q) be obtained by adjoining an additional quantifier Q. Q is a generalization of the quantifier “there exists uncountably many x such that…” which was introduced by Mostowski in [4]. The logic of this latter quantifier was formalized by Keisler in [2]. Krivine and McAloon [3] considered quantifiers satisfying some but not all of Keisler's axioms. They called a formula φ(x) countable-like iffor every ψ. In Keisler's logic, φ(x) being countable-like is the same as ℳ⊨┐Qxφ(x). The main theorem of [3] states that any countable model ℳ of L[Q] has an elementary extension N, which preserves countable-like formulas but no others, such that the only sets definable in both N and M are those defined by formulas countable-like in M. Suppose C(x) in M is linearly ordered and noncountable-like but with countable-like proper segments. Then in N, C will have new elements greater than all “old” elements but no least new element — otherwise it will be definable in both models. The natural question is whether it is possible to use generalized quantifiers to extend models elementarily in such a way that a noncountable-like formula C will have a minimal new element. There are models and formulas for which it is not possible. For example let M be obtained from a minimal transitive model of ZFC by letting Qxφ(x) mean “there are arbitrarily large ordinals satisfying φ”.

On Scott and Karp trees of uncountable models

1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 897-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tapani Hyttinen ◽  
Jouko Väänänen
Keyword(s):  
Independent Interest ◽  
Relational Models ◽  
First Order ◽  
Countable Ordinal ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Similar Relation ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Countable Models

AbstractLet and be two countable relational models of the same first order language. If the models are nonisomorphic, there is a unique countable ordinal α with the property thati.e. and are L∞ω-equivalent up to quantifier-rank α but not up to α + 1. In this paper we consider models and of cardinality ω1 and construct trees which have a similar relation to and as a above. For this purpose we introduce a new ordering T ≪ T′ of trees, which may have some independent interest of its own. It turns out that the above ordinal α has two qualities which coincide in countable models but will differ in uncountable models. Respectively, two kinds of trees emerge from α. We call them Scott trees and Karp trees, respectively. The definition and existence of these trees is based on an examination of the Ehrenfeucht game of length ω1 between and . We construct two models of power ω1 with mutually noncomparable Scott trees.

Model-theoretic properties characterizing Peano arithmetic

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 949-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Kaye
Keyword(s):  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
Elementary Extension ◽  
First Order ◽  
Complete Extension ◽  
Order Language

AbstractLet = {0,1, +,·,<} be the usual first-order language of arithmetic. We show that Peano arithmetic is the least first-order -theory containing IΔ0 + exp such that every complete extension T of it has a countable model K satisfying(i) K has no proper elementary substructures, and(ii) whenever L ≻ K is a countable elementary extension there is and such that .Other model-theoretic conditions similar to (i) and (ii) are also discussed and shown to characterize Peano arithmetic.

scholarly journals ON PRODUCTS OF ELEMENTARILY INDIVISIBLE STRUCTURES

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-971
Author(s):  
NADAV MEIR
Keyword(s):  
New Products ◽  
Elementary Substructure ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position

AbstractWe say a structure ${\cal M}$ in a first-order language ${\cal L}$ is indivisible if for every coloring of its universe in two colors, there is a monochromatic substructure ${\cal M}\prime \subseteq {\cal M}$ such that ${\cal M}\prime \cong {\cal M}$. Additionally, we say that ${\cal M}$ is symmetrically indivisible if ${\cal M}\prime$ can be chosen to be symmetrically embedded in ${\cal M}$ (that is, every automorphism of ${\cal M}\prime$ can be extended to an automorphism of ${\cal M}$). Similarly, we say that ${\cal M}$ is elementarily indivisible if ${\cal M}\prime$ can be chosen to be an elementary substructure. We define new products of structures in a relational language. We use these products to give recipes for construction of elementarily indivisible structures which are not transitive and elementarily indivisible structures which are not symmetrically indivisible, answering two questions presented by A. Hasson, M. Kojman, and A. Onshuus.

scholarly journals COUNTABLE MODELS OF THE THEORIES OF BALDWIN–SHI HYPERGRAPHS AND THEIR REGULAR TYPES

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 1007-1019
Author(s):  
DANUL K. GUNATILLEKA
Keyword(s):  
Large Body ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
Stable Theory ◽  
Generic Structure ◽  
Elementary Chain ◽  
Regular Type ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Original Class ◽  
Countable Models

AbstractWe continue the study of the theories of Baldwin–Shi hypergraphs from [5]. Restricting our attention to when the rank δ is rational valued, we show that each countable model of the theory of a given Baldwin–Shi hypergraph is isomorphic to a generic structure built from some suitable subclass of the original class used in the construction. We introduce a notion of dimension for a model and show that there is a an elementary chain $\left\{ {\mathfrak{M}_\beta :\beta \leqslant \omega } \right\}$ of countable models of the theory of a fixed Baldwin–Shi hypergraph with $\mathfrak{M}_\beta \preccurlyeq \mathfrak{M}_\gamma $ if and only if the dimension of $\mathfrak{M}_\beta $ is at most the dimension of $\mathfrak{M}_\gamma $ and that each countable model is isomorphic to some $\mathfrak{M}_\beta $. We also study the regular types that appear in these theories and show that the dimension of a model is determined by a particular regular type. Further, drawing on a large body of work, we use these structures to give an example of a pseudofinite, ω-stable theory with a nonlocally modular regular type, answering a question of Pillay in [11].

Note on an induction axiom

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-117
Author(s):  
J. B. Paris
Keyword(s):  
Physical World ◽  
First Order ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Relationship

Let θ(ν) be a formula in the first-order language of arithmetic and letIn this note we study the relationship between the schemas I′ and I+.Our interest in I+ lies in the fact that it is ostensibly a more reasonable schema than I′. For, if we believe the hypothesis of I+(θ) then to verify θ(n) only requires at most 2log2(n) steps, whereas assuming the hypothesis of I′(θ) we require n steps to verify θ(n). In the physical world naturally occurring numbers n rarely exceed 10100. For such n applying 2log2(n) steps is quite feasible whereas applying n steps may well not be.Of course this is very much an anthropomorphic argument so we would expect that it would be most likely to be valid when we restrict our attention to relatively simple formulas θ. We shall show that when restricted to open formulas I+ does not imply I′ but that this fails for the classes Σn, Πn, n ≥ 0.We shall work in PA−, where PA− consists of Peano's Axioms less induction together with∀u, w(u + w = w + u ∧ u · w = w · u),∀u, w, t ((u + w) + t = u + (w + t) ∧ (u · w) · t = u · (w · t)),∀u, w, t(u · (w + t) = u · w + u · t),∀u, w(u ≤ w ↔ ∃t(u + t = w)),∀u, w(u ≤ w ∨ w ≤ u),∀u, w, t(u + w = u + t → w = t).The reasons for working with PA− rather than Peano's Axioms less induction is that our additional axioms, whilst intuitively reasonable, will not necessarily follow from some of the weaker forms of I+ which we shall be considering. Of course PA− still contains those Peano Axioms which define + andNotice that, trivially, PA− ⊦ I′(θ) → I+(θ) for any formula θ.

Theories without countable models

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 562-568
Author(s):  
Andreas Blass
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
Compactness Theorem ◽  
Complete Theory ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Axiom Schema ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
The Standard Model ◽  
Skolem Theorem

Consider the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem in the form: If a theory in a countable first-order language has a model, then it has a countable model. As is well known, this theorem becomes false if one omits the hypothesis that the language be countable, for one then has the following trivial counterexample.Example 1. Let the language have uncountably many constants, and let the theory say that they are unequal.To motivate some of our future definitions and to introduce some notation, we present another, less trivial, counterexample.Example 2. Let L0 be the language whose n-place predicate (resp. function) symbols are all the n-place predicates (resp. functions) on the set ω of natural numbers. Let be the standard model for L0; we use the usual notation Th() for its complete theory. Add to L0 a new constant e, and add to Th() an axiom schema saying that e is infinite. By the compactness theorem, the resulting theory T has models. However, none of its models are countable. Although this fact is well known, we sketch a proof in order to refer to it later.By [5, p. 81], there is a family {Aα ∣ < α < c} of infinite subsets of ω, the intersection of any two of which is finite.

scholarly journals MINIMUM MODELS OF SECOND-ORDER SET THEORIES

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (02) ◽  
pp. 589-620
Author(s):  
KAMERYN J. WILLIAMS
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Minimal Models ◽  
Transitive Model ◽  
Transfinite Recursion ◽  
Order Set ◽  
Countable Models

AbstractIn this article I investigate the phenomenon of minimum and minimal models of second-order set theories, focusing on Kelley–Morse set theory KM, Gödel–Bernays set theory GB, and GB augmented with the principle of Elementary Transfinite Recursion. The main results are the following. (1) A countable model of ZFC has a minimum GBC-realization if and only if it admits a parametrically definable global well order. (2) Countable models of GBC admit minimal extensions with the same sets. (3) There is no minimum transitive model of KM. (4) There is a minimum β-model of GB+ETR. The main question left unanswered by this article is whether there is a minimum transitive model of GB+ETR.

scholarly journals ENAYAT MODELS OF PEANO ARITHMETIC

2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (04) ◽  
pp. 1501-1511 ◽  
Author(s):  
ATHAR ABDUL-QUADER
Keyword(s):  
Linear Order ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
Natural Question ◽  
Conservative Extension ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Definable Elements

AbstractSimpson [6] showed that every countable model ${\cal M} \models PA$ has an expansion $\left( {{\cal M},X} \right) \models P{A^{\rm{*}}}$ that is pointwise definable. A natural question is whether, in general, one can obtain expansions of a nonprime model in which the definable elements coincide with those of the underlying model. Enayat [1] showed that this is impossible by proving that there is ${\cal M} \models PA$ such that for each undefinable class X of ${\cal M}$, the expansion $\left( {{\cal M},X} \right)$ is pointwise definable. We call models with this property Enayat models. In this article, we study Enayat models and show that a model of $PA$ is Enayat if it is countable, has no proper cofinal submodels and is a conservative extension of all of its elementary cuts. We then show that, for any countable linear order γ, if there is a model ${\cal M}$ such that $Lt\left( {\cal M} \right) \cong \gamma$, then there is an Enayat model ${\cal M}$ such that $Lt\left( {\cal M} \right) \cong \gamma$.

On generalized quantifiers in arithmetic

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Morgenstern
Keyword(s):  
Axiom System ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Generalized Quantifiers ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Truth Definition ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Infinite Set

In this note we investigate an extension of Peano arithmetic which arises from adjoining generalized quantifiers to first-order logic. Markwald [2] first studied the definability properties of L1, the language of first-order arithmetic, L, with the additional quantifer Ux which denotes “there are infinitely many x such that…. Note that Ux is the same thing as the Keisler quantifier Qx in the ℵ0 interpretation.We consider L2, which is L together with the ℵ0 interpretation of the Magidor-Malitz quantifier Q2xy which denotes “there is an infinite set X such that for distinct x, y ∈ X …”. In [1] Magidor and Malitz presented an axiom system for languages which arise from adding Q2 to a first-order language. They proved that the axioms are valid in every regular interpretation, and, assuming ◊ω1, that the axioms are complete in the ℵ1 interpretation.If we let denote Peano arithmetic in L2 with induction for L2 formulas and the Magidor-Malitz axioms as logical axioms, we show that in we can give a truth definition for first-order Peano arithmetic, . Consequently we can prove in that is Πn sound for every n, thus in we can prove the Paris-Harrington combinatorial principle and the higher-order analogues due to Schlipf.

On the ring of differentially-algebraic entire functions

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee A. Rubel
Keyword(s):  
Differential Equation ◽  
Finite Length ◽  
Complex Variable ◽  
Entire Functions ◽  
Algebraic Differential Equation ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Image Position

Let be the ring of all entire functions of one complex variable, and let DA be the subring of those entire functions that are differentially algebraic (DA); that is, they satisfy a nontrivial algebraic differential equation.where P is a non-identically-zero polynomial in its n + 2 variables. It seems not to be known whether DA is elementarily equivalent to . This would mean that DA and have exactly the same true statements about them, in the first-order language of rings. (Roughly speaking, a sentence about a ring R is first-order if it has finite length and quantifies only over elements (i.e., not subsets or functions or relations) of R.) It follows from [NAN] that DA and are not isomorphic as rings, but this does not answer the question of elementary equivalence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document