A generalized model companion for a theory of partially ordered fields

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-652
Author(s):  
Werner Stegbauer
Keyword(s):  
General Model ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Model Companion ◽  
Generalized Model ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Ordered Fields ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields ◽  
Model Completion

The notion of a model companion for a first-order theory T was introduced and discussed in [1] and [2] as a generalization of the concept of a model completion of a theory. Both concepts reflect, on a general model theoretic level, properties of the theory of algebraically closed fields. The literature provides many examples of first-order theories with and without model companions—see [3] for a survey of these results. In this paper, we give a further generalization of the notion of a model companion.Roughly speaking, we allow instead of embeddings more general classes of maps (e.g. homomorphisms) and we allow any set of formulas which is preserved by these maps instead of existential formulas. This plan is worked out in detail in [5], where we discuss also several examples. One of these examples is given in this paper.In order to clarify the model theoretic background, we now introduce the relevant concepts and theorems from [5].

The model-companion of a class of structures

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 546-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. L. Cherlin
Keyword(s):  
Order Theory ◽  
Model Companion ◽  
Elementary Substructure ◽  
Closed Model ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Logical Equivalence ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields ◽  
Model Completion

If Σ is the class of all fields and Σ* is the class of all algebraically closed fields, then it is well known that Σ* is characterized by the following properties:(i) Σ* is the class of models of some first order theory K*.(ii) If m1m2 are in Σ* and m1 ⊆ m2 then m1 ≺ m2 (m1 is an elementary substructure of m2, i.e. any first order sentence true in m1 is true in m2).(iii) If m1 is in Σ then there is a structure m2 in Σ* such that m1 ⊆ m2.If Σ is some other class of models of a first order theory K and a subclass Σ* of Σ exists satisfying (i)–(iii) then Σ* is uniquely determined and K* (which is unique up to logical equivalence) is called the model-companion of K. This notion is a generalization of the fundamental notion of model-completion introduced and extensively studied by A. Robinson [6], When the model-companion exists it provides the basis for a satisfactory treatment of the notion of an algebraically closed model of K.Recently A. Robinson has developed a more general formulation of the notion of “algebraically closed” structures in Σ, which is applicable to any inductive elementary class Σ of structures (by elementary we always mean ECΔ). Condition (i) must be weakened to(i′) Σ* is closed under elementary substructure (i.e. if m1 is in Σ* and m2 ≺ m1 then m2 is in Σ*).

Properties of forking in ω-free pseudo-algebraically closed fields

2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 957-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoé Chatzidakis
Keyword(s):  
Galois Group ◽  
Finite Fields ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Absolute Galois Group ◽  
Prime Field ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

The study of pseudo-algebraically closed fields (henceforth called PAC) started with the work of J. Ax on finite and pseudo-finite fields [1]. He showed that the infinite models of the theory of finite fields are exactly the perfect PAC fields with absolute Galois group isomorphic to , and gave elementary invariants for their first order theory, thereby proving the decidability of the theory of finite fields. Ax's results were then extended to a larger class of PAC fields by M. Jarden and U. Kiehne [21], and Jarden [19]. The final word on theories of PAC fields was given by G. Cherlin, L. van den Dries and A. Macintyre [10], see also results by Ju. Ershov [13], [14]. Let K be a PAC field. Then the elementary theory of K is entirely determined by the following data:• The isomorphism type of the field of absolute numbers of K (the subfield of K of elements algebraic over the prime field).• The degree of imperfection of K.• The first-order theory, in a suitable ω-sorted language, of the inverse system of Galois groups al(L/K) where L runs over all finite Galois extensions of K.They also showed that the theory of PAC fields is undecidable, by showing that any graph can be encoded in the absolute Galois group of some PAC field. It turns out that the absolute Galois group controls much of the behaviour of the PAC fields. I will give below some examples illustrating this phenomenon.

RAISING TO POWERS IN ALGEBRAICALLY CLOSED FIELDS

2003 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 217-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. ZILBER
Keyword(s):  
Characteristic Zero ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

We study structures on the fields of characteristic zero obtained by introducing (multi-valued) operations of raising to power. Using Hrushovski–Fraisse construction we single out among the structures exponentially-algebraically closed once and prove, under certain Diophantine conjecture, that the first order theory of such structures is model complete and every its completion is superstable.

More on definable sets of p-adic numbers

1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 912-920 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Scowcroft
Keyword(s):  
Cross Section ◽  
Quantifier Elimination ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Model Completeness ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Ordered Fields ◽  
Definable Sets ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Primitive Recursive

To eliminate quantifiers in the first-order theory of the p-adic field Qp, Ax and Kochen use a language containing a symbol for a cross-section map n → pn from the value group Z into Qp [1, pp. 48–49]. The primitive-recursive quantifier eliminations given by Cohen [2] and Weispfenning [10] also apply to a language mentioning the cross-section, but none of these authors seems entirely happy with his results. As Cohen says, “all the operations… introduced for our simple functions seem natural, with the possible exception of the map n → pn” [2, p. 146]. So all three authors show that various consequences of quantifier elimination—completeness, decidability, model-completeness—also hold for a theory of Qp not employing the cross-section [1, p. 453; 2, p. 146; 10, §4]. Macintyre directs a more specific complaint against the cross-section [5, p. 605]. Elementary formulae which use it can define infinite discrete subsets of Qp; yet infinite discrete subsets of R are not definable in the language of ordered fields, and so certain analogies between Qp and R suggested by previous model-theoretic work seem to break down.To avoid this problem, Macintyre gives up the cross-section and eliminates quantifiers in a theory of Qp written just in the usual language of fields supplemented by a predicate V for Qp's valuation ring and by predicates Pn for the sets of nth powers in Qp (for all n ≥ 2).

A lattice of interpretability types of theories

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Mycielski
Keyword(s):  
Order Theory ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Relative Consistency ◽  
Infinite Distributivity ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Interpretability Type ◽  
Consistency Proofs

We consider first-order logic only. A theory S will be called locally interpretable in a theory T if every theorem of S is interpretable in T. If S is locally interpretable in T and T is consistent then S is consistent. Most known relative consistency proofs can be viewed as local interpretations. The classic examples are the cartesian interpretation of the elementary theorems of Euclidean n-dimensional geometry into the first-order theory of real closed fields, the interpretation of the arithmetic of integers (rational numbers) into the arithmetic of positive integers, the interpretation of ZF + (V = L) into ZF, the interpretation of analysis into ZFC, relative consistency proofs by forcing, etc. Those interpretations are global. Under fairly general conditions local interpretability implies global interpretability; see Remarks (7), (8), and (9) below.We define the type (interpretability type) of a theory S to be the class of all theories T such that S is locally interpretable in T and vice versa. There happen to be such types and they are partially ordered by the relation of local interpretability. This partial ordering is of lattice type and has the following form:The lattice is distributive and complete and satisfies the infinite distributivity law of Brouwerian lattices:We do not know if the dual lawis true. We will show that the lattice is algebraic and that its compact elements form a sublattice and are precisely the types of finitely axiomatizable theories, and several other facts.

A characterization of companionable, universal theories

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 402-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Amalgamation Property ◽  
Finiteness Condition ◽  
Model Companion ◽  
Coherence Property ◽  
Finite Presentation ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Inductive Theory ◽  
Model Completion ◽  
Finitely Presented

A first-order theory is companionable if it is mutually model-consistent with a model-complete theory. The latter theory is then called a model-companion for the former theory. For example, the theory of formally real fields is a companionable theory; its model-companion is the theory of real closed fields. If a companionable, inductive theory has the amalgamation property, then its model-companion is actually a model-completion. For example, the theory of fields is a companionable, inductive theory with the amalgamation property; its model-completion is the theory of algebraically closed fields.The goal of this paper is the characterization, by “algebraic” or “structural” properties, of the companionable, universal theories which satisfy a certain finiteness condition. A theory is companionable precisely when the theory consisting of its universal consequences is companionable. Both theories have the same model-companion if either has one. Accordingly, nought is lost by the restriction to universal theories. The finiteness condition, finite presentation decompositions, is an analogue for an arbitrary theory of the decomposition of a radical ideal in a Noetherian, commutative ring into a finite intersection of prime ideals for the theory of integral domains. The companionable theories with finite presentation decompositions are characterized by two properties: a coherence property for finitely generated submodels of finitely presented models and a homomorphism lifting property for homomorphisms from submodels of finitely presented models.

scholarly journals Nonexistence of universal orders in many cardinals

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 875-891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Menachem Kojman ◽  
Saharon Shelah
Keyword(s):  
Linear Order ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Order Property ◽  
Universal Model ◽  
Covering Theorem ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Ordered Fields ◽  
Singular Cardinals ◽  
Universal Order

AbstractOur theme is that not every interesting question in set theory is independent of ZFC. We give an example of a first order theory T with countable D(T) which cannot have a universal model at ℵ1; without CH; we prove in ZFC a covering theorem from the hypothesis of the existence of a universal model for some theory; and we prove—again in ZFC—that for a large class of cardinals there is no universal linear order (e.g. in every regular ). In fact, what we show is that if there is a universal linear order at a regular λ and its existence is not a result of a trivial cardinal arithmetical reason, then λ “resembles” ℵ1—a cardinal for which the consistency of having a universal order is known. As for singular cardinals, we show that for many singular cardinals, if they are not strong limits then they have no universal linear order. As a result of the nonexistence of a universal linear order, we show the nonexistence of universal models for all theories possessing the strict order property (for example, ordered fields and groups, Boolean algebras, p-adic rings and fields, partial orders, models of PA and so on).

scholarly journals HYPER-REF: A General Model of Reference for First-Order Logic and First-Order Arithmetic

2022 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Rivas-Robledo
Keyword(s):  
General Model ◽  
Heuristic Method ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Self Reference ◽  
Do So

Abstract In this article I present HYPER-REF, a model to determine the referent of any given expression in First-Order Logic (FOL). I also explain how this model can be used to determine the referent of a first-order theory such as First-Order Arithmetic (FOA). By reference or referent I mean the non-empty set of objects that the syntactical terms of a well-formed formula (wff) pick out given a particular interpretation of the language. To do so, I will first draw on previous work to make explicit the notion of reference and its hyperintensional features. Then I present HYPER-REF and offer a heuristic method for determining the reference of any formula. Then I discuss some of the benefits and most salient features of HYPER-REF, including some remarks on the nature of self-reference in formal languages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document