Omitting types in incomplete theories

1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 236-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Casanovas ◽  
Rafel Farré
Keyword(s):  
Omitting Types ◽  
Countable Theory

AbstractWe characterize omissibility of a type, or a family of types, in a countable theory in terms of non-existence of a certain tree of formulas. We extend results of L. Newelski on omitting < covK non-isolated types. As a consequence we prove that omissibility of a family of < covK types is equivalent to omissibility of each countable subfamily.

A new omitting types theorem for L(Q)

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-521
Author(s):  
Matt Kaufmann
Keyword(s):  
General Theorem ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Omitting Types ◽  
Compactness Theorems ◽  
Countable Theory ◽  
Analogous Theorem

For L a countable first-order language, let L(Q) be logic with the quantifier Qx which means “there exist uncountably many x”. We assume a little familiarity with Keisler's paper [8]. One finds there completeness and compactness theorems for L(Q), as well as an omitting types theorem: a syntactic condition is given for a consistent countable theory to have a model satisfying ∀x⋁Σ(x), where Σ is a countable set of formulas of L(Q). (See also Chang and Keisler [3] for the first-order omitting types theorem, due to Henkin and Orey.) An analogous theorem is proved in Barwise, Kaufmann, and Makkai [1] and in Kaufmann [6] for stationary logic. However, a more general theorem than just an anlaogue to Keisler's is proved there. Conditions are given which are sufficient for a theory T to have models satisfying sentences such as aas1aas2 … aasn⋁Σ(s1, … sn), ∀xaas ∨ Σ(x, s), and so forth. Bruce [2] had asked whether such a theorem can be proved for L(Q). with “aa” replaced by “Q*”, where Q* is ¬Q¬ (“for all but countably many”).

Omitting types and the real line

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1020-1026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludomir Newelski
Keyword(s):  
Real Line ◽  
Logical Structure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Family ◽  
Omitting Types ◽  
Countable Theory ◽  
Meager Sets ◽  
The Ideal

We investigate some relations between omitting types of a countable theory and some notions defined in terms of the real line, such as for example the ideal of meager subsets ofR. We also try to express connections between the logical structure of a theory and the existence of its countable models omitting certain families of types.It is well known that assuming MA we can omit <nonisolated types. But MA is rather a strong axiom. We prove that in order to be able to omit <nonisolated types it is sufficient to assume that the real line cannot be covered by less thanmeager sets; and this is in fact the weakest possible condition. It is worth pointing out that by means of forcing we can easily obtain the model of ZFC in whichRcannot be covered by <meager sets. It suffices to add to the ground modelCohen generic reals.We also formulate similar results for omitting pairwise contradictory types. It turns out that from some point of view it is much more difficult to find the family of pairwise contradictory types which cannot be omitted by a model ofT, than to find such a family of possibly noncontradictory types. Moreover, for any two countable theoriesT1,T2without prime models, the existence of a family ofκtypes which cannot be omitted by a model ofT1is equivalent to the existence of such a family forT2. This means that from the point of view of omitting types all theories without prime models are identical. Similar results hold for omitting pairwise contradictory types.

Model completions and omitting types

1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 654-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrence Millar
Keyword(s):  
Partial Order ◽  
Omitting Types

AbstractUniversal theories with model completions are characterized. A new omitting types theorem is proved. These two results are used to prove the existence of a universal ℵ0-categorical partial order with an interesting embedding property. Other aspects of these results also are considered.

Omitting types in -minimal theories

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Marker
Keyword(s):  
Finite Union ◽  
Structure Theory ◽  
Real Closed Fields ◽  
Minimal Theory ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Hanf Number ◽  
Definable Sets ◽  
Omitting Types ◽  
Binary Relation Symbol

Let L be a first order language containing a binary relation symbol <.Definition. Suppose ℳ is an L-structure and < is a total ordering of the domain of ℳ. ℳ is ordered minimal (-minimal) if and only if any parametrically definable X ⊆ ℳ can be represented as a finite union of points and intervals with endpoints in ℳ.In any ordered structure every finite union of points and intervals is definable. Thus the -minimal structures are the ones with no unnecessary definable sets. If T is a complete L-theory we say that T is strongly (-minimal if and only if every model of T is -minimal.The theory of real closed fields is the canonical example of a strongly -minimal theory. Strongly -minimal theories were introduced (in a less general guise which we discuss in §6) by van den Dries in [1]. Extending van den Dries' work, Pillay and Steinhorn (see [3], [4] and [2]) developed an extensive structure theory for definable sets in strongly -minimal theories, generalizing the results for real closed fields. They also established several striking analogies between strongly -minimal theories and ω-stable theories (most notably the existence and uniqueness of prime models). In this paper we will examine the construction of models of strongly -minimal theories emphasizing the problems involved in realizing and omitting types. Among other things we will prove that the Hanf number for omitting types for a strongly -minimal theory T is at most (2∣T∣)+, and characterize the strongly -minimal theories with models order isomorphic to (R, <).

scholarly journals Omitting types in logic of metric structures

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (02) ◽  
pp. 1850006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilijas Farah ◽  
Menachem Magidor
Keyword(s):  
Complete Theory ◽  
Simple Test ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Complete Type ◽  
Metric Structures ◽  
Omitting Types ◽  
Theory Formula

This paper is about omitting types in logic of metric structures introduced by Ben Yaacov, Berenstein, Henson and Usvyatsov. While a complete type is omissible in some model of a countable complete theory if and only if it is not principal, this is not true for the incomplete types by a result of Ben Yaacov. We prove that there is no simple test for determining whether a type is omissible in a model of a theory [Formula: see text] in a countable language. More precisely, we find a theory in a countable language such that the set of types omissible in some of its models is a complete [Formula: see text] set and a complete theory in a countable language such that the set of types omissible in some of its models is a complete [Formula: see text] set. Two more unexpected examples are given: (i) a complete theory [Formula: see text] and a countable set of types such that each of its finite sets is jointly omissible in a model of [Formula: see text], but the whole set is not and (ii) a complete theory and two types that are separately omissible, but not jointly omissible, in its models.

Types omitted in uncountable models of arithmetic

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia F. Knight
Keyword(s):  
Completeness Theorem ◽  
Elementary Extension ◽  
Ramsey's Theorem ◽  
Definable Set ◽  
Ramsey’S Theorem ◽  
Hanf Number ◽  
Definable Sets ◽  
Omitting Types ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

In [4] it is shown that if the structure omits a type Σ, and Σ is complete with respect to Th(), then there is a proper elementary extension of which omits Σ. This result is extended in the present paper. It is shown that Th() has models omitting Σ in all infinite powers.A type is a countable set of formulas with just the variable ν occurring free. A structure is said to omit the type Σ if no element of satisfies all of the formulas of Σ. A type Σ, in the same language as a theory T, is said to be complete with respect to T if (1) T ∪ Σ is consistent, and (2) for every formula φ(ν) of the language of T (with just ν free), either φ or ¬φ is in Σ.The proof of the result of this paper resembles Morley's proof [5] that the Hanf number for omitting types is . It is shown that there is a model of Th() which omits Σ and contains an infinite set of indiscernibles. Where Morley used the Erdös-Rado generalization of Ramsey's theorem, a definable version of the ordinary Ramsey's theorem is used here.The “omitting types” version of the ω-completeness theorem ([1], [3], [6]) is used, as it was in Morley's proof and in [4]. In [4], satisfaction of the hypotheses of the ω-completeness theorem followed from the fact that, in , any infinite, definable set can be split into two infinite, definable sets.

Martin's axiom in the model theory of LA

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-176
Author(s):  
W. Richard Stark
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Equivalence Theorem ◽  
Compactness Theorem ◽  
Compactness Result ◽  
First Order ◽  
Martin's Axiom ◽  
New Class ◽  
Martin’S Axiom ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Omitting Types

Working in ZFC + Martin's Axiom we develop a generalization of the Barwise Compactness Theorem which holds in languages of cardinality less than . Next, using this compactness theorem, an omitting types theorem for fewer than types is proved. Finally, in ZFC, we prove that this compactness result implies Martin's Axiom (the Equivalence Theorem). Our compactness theorem applies to a new class of theories—ccΣ-theories—which generalize the countable Σ-theories of Barwise's theorem. The Omitting Types Theorem and the Equivalence Theorem serve as examples illustrating the use of ccΣ-theories.Assume = (A, ε) or = (A, ε R1,…,Rm) where is admissible. L() is the first-order language with constants for elements of A and relation symbols for relations in . LA is A ⋂ L∞ω where the L of L∞ω is any language in A. A theory T in LA is consistent if there is no derivation in A of a contradiction from T. is LA with new constants ca for each a and A. The basic terms of consist of the constants of and the terms f(ca1,…,cam) built directly from constants using functions f of . The symbol t is used for basic terms. A theory T in LA is Σ if it is defined by a formula of L(). The formula φ⌝ is a logical equivalent of ¬φ defined by: (1) φ⌝ = ¬φ if φ is atomic; (2) (¬φ)⌝ = φ (3) (⋁φ∈Φ φ)⌝ = ⋀φ∈Φ φ⌝; (4) (⋀φ∈Φ φ) ⋁φ∈Φ φ⌝; (5) (∃χφ(x))⌝ ∀χφ⌝(x); ∀χφ(x))⌝ = ∃χφ⌝(x).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document