Omitting types in logic of metric structures

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.

Download Full-text

Complete types and the natural numbers

Journal of Symbolic Logic ◽

10.2307/2273036 ◽

1973 ◽

Vol 38 (3) ◽

pp. 413-415

Author(s):

Julia F. Knight

Keyword(s):

Complete Theory ◽

Elementary Extension ◽

Constant Symbol ◽

Natural Numbers ◽

Complete Type

In this paper it is shown that, for any complete type Σ omitted in the structure , or in any expansion of having only countably many relations and operations, there is a proper elementary extension of (or of ) which omits Σ. This result (which was announced in [2]) is used to answer a question of Malitz on complete -sentences. The result holds also for countable families of types.A type is a countable set of formulas with just the variable υ free. A structure is said to omit a type Σ if no element of satisfies all of the formulas of Σ. For example, omits the type Σω = {υ ≠ n: n ∈ ω}, since n fails to satisfy υ ≠ n. (Here n is the constant symbol standing for n.)A type Σ is said to be complete with respect to a theory T if the set of sentences T ∪ Σ(e) generates a complete theory, where Σ(e) is the result of replacing υ by the new constant e in all of the formulas of Σ. The type Σω is clearly not complete with respect to Th(). (For any structure Th(), Th() is the set of all sentences true in .)

Download Full-text

Omitting types for stable ccc theories

Journal of Symbolic Logic ◽

10.2307/2274472 ◽

1990 ◽

Vol 55 (3) ◽

pp. 1037-1047 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ludomir Newelski

Keyword(s):

Real Line ◽

Basic Knowledge ◽

Complete Theory ◽

The Real ◽

Special Cases ◽

Standard Set ◽

Tarski Algebra ◽

Independence Results ◽

Omitting Types ◽

Meager Sets

In this paper we investigate omitting types for a certain kind of stable theories which we call stable ccc theories. In Theorem 2.1 we improve Steinhorn's result from [St]. We prove also some independence results concerning omitting types. The main results presented in this paper were part of the author's Ph.D. thesis [N1].Throughout, we use the standard set-theoretic and model-theoretic notation, such as can be found for example in [Sh] or [M]. So in particular T is always a countable complete theory in the language L. We consider all models of T and all sets of parameters subsets of the monster model ℭ, which is very saturated. Ln(A) denotes the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra of formulas with parameters from A and n free variables. We omit n in Ln(A) when n = 1 or when it is clear from the context what n is. If φ, ψ ∈ L(A) are consistent then we say that φ is below ψ if ψ⊢ψ. For a type p and a set A ⊆ ℭ, p(A) is the set of tuples of elements of A which satisfy p. Formulas are special cases of types. We say that a type p is isolated over A if, for some φ() ∈ L(A), φ() ⊢ p(x), i.e. φ isolates p. For a formula φ, [φ] denotes the class of types which contain φ. We assume that the reader is familiar with some basic knowledge of forking, as presented in [Sh, III] or [M].Throughout, we work in ZFC. and denote (countable) transitive models of ZFC. cov K is the minimal number of meager sets covering the real line R. In this paper we prove theorems showing connections between omitting types and the combinatorics of the real line. More results in this direction are presented in [N2] and [N3].

Download Full-text

Effective metric model theory

Mathematical Structures in Computer Science ◽

10.1017/s0960129513000352 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 25 (8) ◽

pp. 1779-1798

Author(s):

MASOUD POURMAHDIAN ◽

NAZANIN R. TAVANA ◽

FARZAD DIDEHVAR

Keyword(s):

Model Theory ◽

Urysohn Space ◽

Effective Version ◽

Effective Metric ◽

Metric Structures ◽

Omitting Types ◽

Metric Model

This paper is a further investigation of a project carried out in Didehvar and Ghasemloo (2009) to study effective aspects of the metric logic. We prove an effective version of the omitting types theorem. We also present some concrete computable constructions showing that both the separable atomless probability algebra and the rational Urysohn space are computable metric structures.

Download Full-text

Omitting types, type spectrums, and decidability

Journal of Symbolic Logic ◽

10.2307/2273331 ◽

1983 ◽

Vol 48 (1) ◽

pp. 171-181 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Terrence Millar

Keyword(s):

Characteristic Function ◽

Fixed Number ◽

Characteristic Functions ◽

Complete Type ◽

Free Variables ◽

Type Spectrum ◽

Omitting Types

Notations, conventions, and definitions. {μi∣i < ω} will be an effective enumeration of all partial recursive μi{ω → 2. A type of a theory T will be a set of formulas in the language of T, in finitely many free variables, which is consistent with T. A complete type is a maximal type in some fixed number of free variables. A type is recursive if, relative to some effective enumeration of the formulas of the language, the characteristic function for the type is recursive. A set ψ of recursive types has property P if some set of indices of characteristic functions for all the types in ψ has property P. So, for example, we might say that a set of recursive types is . If is an L-structure, then the type spectrum of , denoted ‘TySp()’, is the set of complete types realized in (we will assume that an n-type has formulas with free variables among {x1, …, xn}). A type spectrum for a theory T is a type spectrum of some model of T. ‘TySp0(T)’ will denote the set of principal types of T.We will assume that the reader is familiar with Henkin constructions of models, and of passing from a maximal consistent set of sentences, with “Henkin constants”, to a model. In particular, for a theory T in L we will let {ai∣i < ω} be new distinct constant symbols, and {φi < ω} a list of all sentences in the expanded language. ‘ΔN’ will denote the elementary diagram constructed at stage N, and .

Download Full-text

A proof of completeness for continuous first-order logic

Journal of Symbolic Logic ◽

10.2178/jsl/1264433914 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 75 (1) ◽

pp. 168-190 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Itaï Ben Yaacov ◽

Arthur Paul Pedersen

Keyword(s):

Model Theory ◽

Completeness Theorem ◽

Order Logic ◽

First Order Logic ◽

Complete Theory ◽

Strong Completeness ◽

First Order ◽

Completeness Result ◽

Metric Structures ◽

Natural Classes

AbstractContinuous first-order logic has found interest among model theorists who wish to extend the classical analysis of “algebraic” structures (such as fields, group, and graphs) to various natural classes of complete metric structures (such as probability algebras, Hilbert spaces, and Banach spaces). With research in continuous first-order logic preoccupied with studying the model theory of this framework, we find a natural question calls for attention. Is there an interesting set of axioms yielding a completeness result?The primary purpose of this article is to show that a certain, interesting set of axioms does indeed yield a completeness result for continuous first-order logic. In particular, we show that in continuous first-order logic a set of formulae is (completely) satisfiable if (and only if) it is consistent. From this result it follows that continuous first-order logic also satisfies anapproximatedform of strong completeness, whereby Σ⊧φ(if and) only if Σ⊢φ∸2−nfor alln < ω. This approximated form of strong completeness asserts that if Σ⊧φ, then proofs from Σ, being finite, can provide arbitrarily better approximations of the truth ofφ.Additionally, we consider a different kind of question traditionally arising in model theory—that of decidability. When is the set of all consequences of a theory (in a countable, recursive language) recursive? Say that a complete theoryTisdecidableif for every sentenceφ, the valueφTis a recursive real, and moreover, uniformly computable fromφ. IfTis incomplete, we say it is decidable if for every sentenceφthe real numberφTois uniformly recursive fromφ, whereφTois the maximal value ofφconsistent withT. As in classical first-order logic, it follows from the completeness theorem of continuous first-order logic that if a complete theory admits a recursive (or even recursively enumerable) axiomatization then it is decidable.

Download Full-text

Hanf numbers for omitting types over particular theories

Journal of Symbolic Logic ◽

10.1017/s002248120005115x ◽

1976 ◽

Vol 41 (3) ◽

pp. 583-588 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Julia F. Knight

Keyword(s):

Complete Theory ◽

Careful Study ◽

Infinite Cardinal ◽

Complete Extension ◽

Higher Power ◽

Hanf Number ◽

Omitting Types ◽

Present Section

The main result of this paper is the fact that for T a complete extension of either P or ZF + V = L, with no new symbols, there is a type which is omitted in a model of T of power ℵ1 but which is realized in all models of higher power. Therefore, the “Hanf number” for omitting types over T is greater than ℵ2.The present section contains some basic definitions and a discussion of related results. §1 discusses generic relations on models of P and ZFC, and describes a special forcing technique due to Addison. In §2, this technique is used to obtain the main result.The use of forcing is not essential. Those who do not wish to read a forcing argument may skip §1. At the point in §2 where forcing is used, a proof without forcing is sketched. This proof was obtained only after a careful study of the forcing argument. The forcing argument is given because it is simple, and because the technique of forcing makes intuitively clear why this and other similar results should be true.All theories in the paper are assumed to be countable and to have infinite models. Let T be a complete theory in a language L. The Hanf number for omitting types over T, denoted by H(T), is the first infinite cardinal κ such that for all L-types, Σ, if T has models omitting Σ in all infinite powers less than κ, then T has models omitting Σ in all infinite powers.

Download Full-text