DOCSLIB.ORG

Topics in Algebra: Seminar in Model Theory and Forms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Topics in Algebra: Seminar in Model Theory and Forms FLORIAN POP’S MATH 702 FALL 2005 Topics in Algebra: Seminar in Model Theory and Forms 1. AN INTRODUCTION TO MODEL THEORY Asher Auel 1.1. First Order Predicate Calculus. Definition 1. Given index sets I and J, families of natural numbers µ = (µi)i∈I and ν = (νj)j∈J , and a set K, a first order language or language L = (µ, ν, K) is the free semigroup generated by the following elements • variable symbols X1,X2,... • constant symbols, i.e. the elements of K • for each i ∈ I, a µi-ary relation symbol Ri • the binary relation symbol = called equals • for each j ∈ J, a νj-ary function symbol Fj • the logical symbols ∀, ∃, ¬, ∧, ∨, →, ↔, called the universal quantifier, existential quantifier, negation, and (or disjunction), or (or conjunction), implication, and dou- ble implication symbols, respectively • the parentheses (, ) and bracket [, ] symbols. Words of L are called strings. The natural numbers µi and νj are called the arity of Ri and Fj, respectively. Remark 2. One need not include all the above logical symbols as independent symbols of the language L, since for the purposes of first order logic, some of them can be defined in terms of the others. For example, the convention in [3] is to include only ¬, ∨ and ∃, since for any strings ϕ, ψ ∈ L we may define, • ϕ ∧ ψ as ¬[¬ϕ ∨ ¬ψ] • ϕ → ψ as ¬ϕ ∨ ψ • ϕ ↔ ψ as [ϕ → ψ] ∧ [ψ → ϕ] • (∀Xl)[φ] as ¬(∃Xl)[¬φ]. Being even more clever, one needs in fact only define the logical symbol | called alternative denial and then define • ¬ϕ as ϕ|ϕ • ϕ ∨ ψ as ¬ϕ|¬ψ. Intuitively, ϕ|ψ means “¬[ϕ ∧ ψ].” Similarly, one need only take the “xor” symbol. Thus it’s sufficient to take | and ∃ as the only logical symbols for our language, though we’ll stick with the convention of [3]. We now define several distinguished subsets of L: terms: The subset terms ⊂ L of terms is the smallest subset containing the vari- able and constant symbols and closed under function symbols, i.e. terms contains {Xn}n∈N ∪ K and satisfies Fj(t1, . , tνj ) ∈ terms, for all t1, . , tνj ∈ terms, j ∈ J. 1 2 atomic formulae: The subset atoms ⊂ L of atomic formulae is the set of all relations among terms, i.e. the set 0 0 {t = t ,Ri(t1, . , tµi ): t, t , t1, . , tµi ∈ terms, i ∈ I}. formulae: Finally, the subset formulas ⊂ L of formula is the smallest subset contain- ing atoms and satisfying f1: ¬φ ∈ formulas for every φ ∈ formulas f2: ϕ ∨ ϕ0 ∈ formulas for every ϕ, ϕ0 ∈ formulas f3: (∃Xl)[φ] ∈ formulas for every φ ∈ formulas Example 3. The first order language of groups Lgrp is generated by a single binary function symbol ·, where we usually write ·(t, t0) as (t · t0) for terms t, t0, and constant symbol e. We also define the language of rings Lring, which is generated by two binary operations usually denoted by + and ·, and two constant symbols 0 and 1. We might as well also define the language of ordered rings Lordring by adding a single additional binary relation ≤ to Lrign. The following are example of strings, terms, atomic formula, and formula in Lordring: • )¬((1 ∨ X10 ≤ [0 · 111]∃0X3 → 111( • (1 · (1 + 1)) · (0 · (1 + (0 + 1))) • 1 ≤ (0 · (1 + 0)) • (∃X1)[X1 · (1 + 1) = X2] → (∃X3)[X3 · (1 + 1 + 1) = X2]. A languages is just a set of strings of symbols. In fact, we can write any formula ϕ(X1,...,Xm) of a language L in prenex disjunctive normal form (Q1Y1) ... (QnYn)[∨i ∧j Aij] where each Qi is a quantifier (∃ or ∀), and each Aij is an atomic formula, and where “write” we mean the two formulae are “logically equivalent,” where we’ll find out later on what that means. Remark 4. By the recursive construction of the set of formulas, we may prove properties of formulas by an induction on structure or induction of formulas. Given a property P of strings, we first prove P holds for all atomic formula and then supposing it holds for formula 0 0 ϕ and ϕ we show that P holds for ¬ϕ, ϕ ∨ ϕ and (∃Xl)[ϕ] for all l ∈ N. Definition 5. Let L be a language and X a variable symbol. Then we’ll define the notion of a free occurrence of a variable X in a formula by induction on structure. We’ll say that • any occurrence of X in any atomic formula is free • if an occurrence of X in a formula ϕ is free then this occurrence is – also free in ¬ϕ – also free in ϕ ∨ ϕ0 for any formula ϕ0 – also free in (∃X0)[ϕ] for any variable symbol X0 distinct from X and not free in (∃X)[ϕ]. Any occurrence of X in ϕ that is not free is called bound. If X has a free occurrence in a formula ϕ, then X is called a free variable of ϕ, and we’ll write ϕ as ϕ(X1,...,Xm) to indicate that X1,...,Xm include all free variables of ϕ. We’ll call a formula without free variables a sentence of L, and denote by sents the set of sentences of L. 3 1.2. Structures. Though a language is a completely formal object, we usually “interpret” a language through a structure, and usually don’t even realize there is an ambient language. Unless otherwise stated, let L = (µ, ν, K) be a fixed language. A A Definition 6. A structure A for L (or an L-structure) is a 4-tuple A = (A, φ, (Ri )i∈I , (Fj )j∈J ), where • φ : K → A is a map of sets A µi • Ri ⊂ A is a µi-ary relation on A A νi • Fj : A → A is a µi-ary operation on A and where the elements of φ(K) ⊂ A are called constants and the set A is called the domain of A.. We “see” or “interpret” languages through their structures via substitutions. Definition 7. Let A be an L-structure, then a substitution from L into A is a function f : terms → A defined by images • f : Xi 7→ xi ∈ A for all variables Xi, i ∈ N • f : k 7→ φ(k) ∈ A for all constant symbols k ∈ K ⊂ terms such that for each j ∈ J the following diagram commute Fj termsνj −→ terms f ↓ ↓ f A Fj Aνj −→ A A i.e. f(Fj(t1, . , tνj )) = Fj (f(t1), . , f(tνj )) for all terms t1, . , tνj of L. Definition 8. Let A be an L-structure. Then we’ll define the truth value of a formula ϕ under a substitution f or the f-truth of ϕ by induction on structure: • t = t0 is true if f(t) = f(t0) ∈ A A • Ri(t1, . , tµi ) is true if (f(t1), . , f(tµi )) ∈ Ri • and supposing that formulas ϕ, ϕ0 have a true value under every substitution then – ¬ϕ is true if ϕ is false – ϕ ∨ ϕ0 is true if ϕ is true and/or if ϕ0 is true – (∃X)[ϕ] is true if there exists x ∈ A such that ϕ is true under the modified 0 0 0 substitution fX7→x defined by X 7→ x and X 7→ f(X ) for all variables X distinct from X. It’s clear that the f-truth of a formula ϕ = ϕ(X1,...,Xm) only depends on the images of f : Xi 7→ xi, and so if ϕ is f-true then we’ll write A |=f ϕ or A |= ϕ(x1, . , xm). In particular, if ϕ is a sentence, then the truth value of ϕ is independent of the substitution f and so we’ll write simply A |= ϕ if ϕ is f-true for any substitution f of L into A. Remark 9. The standard truth tables hold for the composite logical symbols ∧, →, ↔, ∀, as expected. Example 10. How could you tell the structures N, Z, and Z/3 apart as structures of the language Lgrp? 4 1.3. Models. Models are structures for a language satisfying axioms. They are what we’re used to calling groups, rings, fields, etc. Definition 11. • A theory of L or an L-theory is a subset T ⊂ sents of sentences of L. • An L-structure A is called a model of a theory T if A |= ϕ for every ϕ ∈ T, and in this case we’ll write A |= T . • If T 0 is another L-theory, then we’ll write T 0 |= T if A |= T 0 ⇒ A |= T. • If Π is an L-theory and T = {ϕ ∈ sents :Π |= ϕ}, then we’ll say that Π is a set of axioms for T . • Denote by Mod(T ) the class of all models of a theory T . If A is an L-structure, denote by Th(A, L) the set of all sentences of L that are true in A, called the theory of A. For an L-structure A, we’ll denote by L(A) the language L(µ, ν, K tA) gotten by adding a constant symbol for each element of A. Example 12. We write the standard axioms for the algebraic objects we know and love. • Axioms for a group: in Lgrp we have the following set Π of axioms for the theory T of groups, (∀X)(∀Y )(∀Z)[(X · Y ) · Z = X · (Y · Z)] (∀X)[e · X = X · e = X] (∀X)(∃Y )[X · Y = Y · X = e] Then any model G |= T is a group. Now for a given group H, in the language Lgrp(H) we can extend Π by the positive diagram of H, i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ⊥N AS an ABSTRACT ELEMENTARY CLASS We Show
    ⊥N AS AN ABSTRACT ELEMENTARY CLASS JOHN T. BALDWIN, PAUL C. EKLOF, AND JAN TRLIFAJ We show that the concept of an Abstract Elementary Class (AEC) provides a unifying notion for several properties of classes of modules and discuss the stability class of these AEC. An abstract elementary class consists of a class of models K and a strengthening of the notion of submodel ≺K such that (K, ≺K) satisfies ⊥ the properties described below. Here we deal with various classes ( N, ≺N ); the precise definition of the class of modules ⊥N is given below. A key innovation is ⊥ that A≺N B means A ⊆ B and B/A ∈ N. We define in the text the main notions used here; important background defini- tions and proofs from the theory of modules can be found in [EM02] and [GT06]; concepts of AEC are due to Shelah (e.g. [She87]) but collected in [Bal]. The surprising fact is that some of the basic model theoretic properties of the ⊥ ⊥ class ( N, ≺N ) translate directly to algebraic properties of the class N and the module N over the ring R that have previously been studied in quite a different context (approximation theory of modules, infinite dimensional tilting theory etc.). Our main results, stated with increasingly strong conditions on the ring R, are: ⊥ Theorem 0.1. (1) Let R be any ring and N an R–module. If ( N, ≺N ) is an AEC then N is a cotorsion module. Conversely, if N is pure–injective, ⊥ then the class ( N, ≺N ) is an AEC. (2) Let R be a right noetherian ring and N be an R–module of injective di- ⊥ ⊥ mension ≤ 1.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis 11
    AN INTRODUCTION TO NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS ISAAC DAVIS Abstract. In this paper we give an introduction to nonstandard analysis, starting with an ultrapower construction of the hyperreals. We then demon- strate how theorems in standard analysis \transfer over" to nonstandard anal- ysis, and how theorems in standard analysis can be proven using theorems in nonstandard analysis. 1. Introduction For many centuries, early mathematicians and physicists would solve problems by considering infinitesimally small pieces of a shape, or movement along a path by an infinitesimal amount. Archimedes derived the formula for the area of a circle by thinking of a circle as a polygon with infinitely many infinitesimal sides [1]. In particular, the construction of calculus was first motivated by this intuitive notion of infinitesimal change. G.W. Leibniz's derivation of calculus made extensive use of “infinitesimal” numbers, which were both nonzero but small enough to add to any real number without changing it noticeably. Although intuitively clear, infinitesi- mals were ultimately rejected as mathematically unsound, and were replaced with the common -δ method of computing limits and derivatives. However, in 1960 Abraham Robinson developed nonstandard analysis, in which the reals are rigor- ously extended to include infinitesimal numbers and infinite numbers; this new extended field is called the field of hyperreal numbers. The goal was to create a system of analysis that was more intuitively appealing than standard analysis but without losing any of the rigor of standard analysis. In this paper, we will explore the construction and various uses of nonstandard analysis. In section 2 we will introduce the notion of an ultrafilter, which will allow us to do a typical ultrapower construction of the hyperreal numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Theory and Ultraproducts
    P. I. C. M. – 2018 Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 2 (101–116) MODEL THEORY AND ULTRAPRODUCTS M M Abstract The article motivates recent work on saturation of ultrapowers from a general math- ematical point of view. Introduction In the history of mathematics the idea of the limit has had a remarkable effect on organizing and making visible a certain kind of structure. Its effects can be seen from calculus to extremal graph theory. At the end of the nineteenth century, Cantor introduced infinite cardinals, which allow for a stratification of size in a potentially much deeper way. It is often thought that these ideas, however beautiful, are studied in modern mathematics primarily by set theorists, and that aside from occasional independence results, the hierarchy of infinities has not profoundly influenced, say, algebra, geometry, analysis or topology, and perhaps is not suited to do so. What this conventional wisdom misses is a powerful kind of reflection or transmutation arising from the development of model theory. As the field of model theory has developed over the last century, its methods have allowed for serious interaction with algebraic geom- etry, number theory, and general topology. One of the unique successes of model theoretic classification theory is precisely in allowing for a kind of distillation and focusing of the information gleaned from the opening up of the hierarchy of infinities into definitions and tools for studying specific mathematical structures. By the time they are used, the form of the tools may not reflect this influence. However, if we are interested in advancing further, it may be useful to remember it.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction in a Topological Space, the Closure Is Characterized by the Limits of the Ultrafilters
    Pr´e-Publica¸c˜oes do Departamento de Matem´atica Universidade de Coimbra Preprint Number 08–37 THE ULTRAFILTER CLOSURE IN ZF GONC¸ALO GUTIERRES Abstract: It is well known that, in a topological space, the open sets can be characterized using filter convergence. In ZF (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the Axiom of Choice), we cannot replace filters by ultrafilters. It is proven that the ultrafilter convergence determines the open sets for every topological space if and only if the Ultrafilter Theorem holds. More, we can also prove that the Ultrafilter Theorem is equivalent to the fact that uX = kX for every topological space X, where k is the usual Kuratowski Closure operator and u is the Ultrafilter Closure with uX (A) := {x ∈ X : (∃U ultrafilter in X)[U converges to x and A ∈U]}. However, it is possible to built a topological space X for which uX 6= kX , but the open sets are characterized by the ultrafilter convergence. To do so, it is proved that if every set has a free ultrafilter then the Axiom of Countable Choice holds for families of non-empty finite sets. It is also investigated under which set theoretic conditions the equality u = k is true in some subclasses of topological spaces, such as metric spaces, second countable T0-spaces or {R}. Keywords: Ultrafilter Theorem, Ultrafilter Closure. AMS Subject Classification (2000): 03E25, 54A20. 1. Introduction In a topological space, the closure is characterized by the limits of the ultrafilters. Although, in the absence of the Axiom of Choice, this is not a fact anymore.
    [Show full text]
  • Ultraproducts and Elementary Classes *
    MATHEMATICS ULTRAPRODUCTS AND ELEMENTARY CLASSES * BY H. JEROME KEISLER (Communicated by Prof. A. HEYTING at the meeting of May 27, 1961 INTRODUCTION In the theory of models of the first order predicate logic with identity we study the relationship between notions from logic and purely mathe­ matical objects, called relational systems, or (first order) structures, m, consisting of a set A and a sequence of relations on A corresponding to the predicate symbols of the logic. In such studies some of the most useful methods are those which permit us to form structures which have certain semantical properties. For example, the completeness theorem permits us to form a structure which satisfies a given consistent set of sentences. A more recent tool is the reduced product operation, which is particularly simple and direct from the mathematical point of view. Speaking very roughly, a reduced product Iliei ill:i/D of the structures mi, i El, is formed by first taking their direct product and then forming the quotient system determined in a certain way by the filter D on the index set 1. If D is an ultrafilter we have an ultraproduct (or prime reduced product), and if each m:i coincides with a fixed system ill: we have a reduced power, or ultrapower, ill: I j D. Ultraproducts have recently been applied to obtain new, comparatively direct mathematical proofs and at the same time stronger forms of a number of theorems in model theory. An outstanding example is the proof of the compactness theorem outlined in [33]. They have also been used to obtain several completely new results in the theory of models (for example, see [35]).
    [Show full text]
  • Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5 Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics Vladimir Kanovei · Mikhail G. Katz · Thomas Mormann © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract We examine some of Connes’ criticisms of Robinson’s infinitesimals starting in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes’ own earlier work in func- tional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as both a “virtual theory” and a “chimera”, yet acknowledged that his argument relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes’ “dart-throwing” thought experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being “vir- tual” if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes’ claim that a theory of the hyperreals is “virtual” is refuted by the existence of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free ultrafilters aren’t definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and in Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not be vulnera- ble to Connes’ criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical underpinnings of Connes’ argument based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and detect an apparent circularity in Connes’ logic. We document the reliance on non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace − (featured on the front cover of Connes’ magnum opus) V.
    [Show full text]
  • First Order Logic and Nonstandard Analysis
    First Order Logic and Nonstandard Analysis Julian Hartman September 4, 2010 Abstract This paper is intended as an exploration of nonstandard analysis, and the rigorous use of infinitesimals and infinite elements to explore properties of the real numbers. I first define and explore first order logic, and model theory. Then, I prove the compact- ness theorem, and use this to form a nonstandard structure of the real numbers. Using this nonstandard structure, it it easy to to various proofs without the use of limits that would otherwise require their use. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 An Introduction to First Order Logic 2 2.1 Propositional Logic . 2 2.2 Logical Symbols . 2 2.3 Predicates, Constants and Functions . 2 2.4 Well-Formed Formulas . 3 3 Models 3 3.1 Structure . 3 3.2 Truth . 4 3.2.1 Satisfaction . 5 4 The Compactness Theorem 6 4.1 Soundness and Completeness . 6 5 Nonstandard Analysis 7 5.1 Making a Nonstandard Structure . 7 5.2 Applications of a Nonstandard Structure . 9 6 Sources 10 1 1 Introduction The founders of modern calculus had a less than perfect understanding of the nuts and bolts of what made it work. Both Newton and Leibniz used the notion of infinitesimal, without a rigorous understanding of what they were. Infinitely small real numbers that were still not zero was a hard thing for mathematicians to accept, and with the rigorous development of limits by the likes of Cauchy and Weierstrass, the discussion of infinitesimals subsided. Now, using first order logic for nonstandard analysis, it is possible to create a model of the real numbers that has the same properties as the traditional conception of the real numbers, but also has rigorously defined infinite and infinitesimal elements.
    [Show full text]
  • ULTRAPRODUCTS in ANALYSIS It Appears That the Concept Of
    ULTRAPRODUCTS IN ANALYSIS JUNG JIN LEE Abstract. Basic concepts of ultraproduct and some applications in Analysis, mainly in Banach spaces theory, will be discussed. It appears that the concept of ultraproduct, originated as a fundamental method of a model theory, is widely used as an important tool in analysis. When one studies local properties of a Banach space, for example, these constructions turned out to be useful as we will see later. In this writing we are invited to look at some basic ideas of these applications. 1. Ultrafilter and Ultralimit Let us start with the de¯nition of ¯lters on a given index set. De¯nition 1.1. A ¯lter F on a given index set I is a collection of nonempty subsets of I such that (1) A; B 2 F =) A \ B 2 F , and (2) A 2 F ;A ½ C =) C 2 F . Proposition 1.2. Each ¯lter on a given index set I is dominated by a maximal ¯lter. Proof. Immediate consequence of Zorn's lemma. ¤ De¯nition 1.3. A ¯lter which is maximal is called an ultra¯lter. We have following important characterization of an ultra¯lter. Proposition 1.4. Let F be a ¯lter on I. Then F is an ultra¯lter if and only if for any subset Y ½ I, we have either Y 2 F or Y c 2 F . Proof. (=)) Since I 2 F , suppose ; 6= Y2 = F . We have to show that Y c 2 F . De¯ne G = fZ ½ I : 9A 2 F such that A \ Y c ½ Zg.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 25: Ultraproducts
    LECTURE 25: ULTRAPRODUCTS CALEB STANFORD First, recall that given a collection of sets and an ultrafilter on the index set, we formed an ultraproduct of those sets. It is important to think of the ultraproduct as a set-theoretic construction rather than a model- theoretic construction, in the sense that it is a product of sets rather than a product of structures. I.e., if Xi Q are sets for i = 1; 2; 3;:::, then Xi=U is another set. The set we use does not depend on what constant, function, and relation symbols may exist and have interpretations in Xi. (There are of course profound model-theoretic consequences of this, but the underlying construction is a way of turning a collection of sets into a new set, and doesn't make use of any notions from model theory!) We are interested in the particular case where the index set is N and where there is a set X such that Q Xi = X for all i. Then Xi=U is written XN=U, and is called the ultrapower of X by U. From now on, we will consider the ultrafilter to be a fixed nonprincipal ultrafilter, and will just consider the ultrapower of X to be the ultrapower by this fixed ultrafilter. It doesn't matter which one we pick, in the sense that none of our results will require anything from U beyond its nonprincipality. The ultrapower has two important properties. The first of these is the Transfer Principle. The second is @0-saturation. 1. The Transfer Principle Let L be a language, X a set, and XL an L-structure on X.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis
    An Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis Jeffrey Zhang Directed Reading Program Fall 2018 December 5, 2018 Motivation • Developing/Understanding Differential and Integral Calculus using infinitely large and small numbers • Provide easier and more intuitive proofs of results in analysis Filters Definition Let I be a nonempty set. A filter on I is a nonempty collection F ⊆ P(I ) of subsets of I such that: • If A; B 2 F , then A \ B 2 F . • If A 2 F and A ⊆ B ⊆ I , then B 2 F . F is proper if ; 2= F . Definition An ultrafilter is a proper filter such that for any A ⊆ I , either A 2 F or Ac 2 F . F i = fA ⊆ I : i 2 Ag is called the principal ultrafilter generated by i. Filters Theorem Any infinite set has a nonprincipal ultrafilter on it. Pf: Zorn's Lemma/Axiom of Choice. The Hyperreals Let RN be the set of all real sequences on N, and let F be a fixed nonprincipal ultrafilter on N. Define an (equivalence) relation on RN as follows: hrni ≡ hsni iff fn 2 N : rn = sng 2 F . One can check that this is indeed an equivalence relation. We denote the equivalence class of a sequence r 2 RN under ≡ by [r]. Then ∗ R = f[r]: r 2 RNg: Also, we define [r] + [s] = [hrn + sni] [r] ∗ [s] = [hrn ∗ sni] The Hyperreals We say [r] = [s] iff fn 2 N : rn = sng 2 F . < is defined similarly. ∗ ∗ A subset A of R can be enlarged to a subset A of R, where ∗ [r] 2 A () fn 2 N : rn 2 Ag 2 F : ∗ ∗ ∗ Likewise, a function f : R ! R can be extended to f : R ! R, where ∗ f ([r]) := [hf (r1); f (r2); :::i] The Hyperreals A hyperreal b is called: • limited iff jbj < n for some n 2 N.
    [Show full text]
  • Elementary Model Theory Notes for MATH 762
    George F. McNulty Elementary Model Theory Notes for MATH 762 drawings by the author University of South Carolina Fall 2011 Model Theory MATH 762 Fall 2011 TTh 12:30p.m.–1:45 p.m. in LeConte 303B Office Hours: 2:00pm to 3:30 pm Monday through Thursday Instructor: George F. McNulty Recommended Text: Introduction to Model Theory By Philipp Rothmaler What We Will Cover After a couple of weeks to introduce the fundamental concepts and set the context (material chosen from the first three chapters of the text), the course will proceed with the development of first-order model theory. In the text this is the material covered beginning in Chapter 4. Our aim is cover most of the material in the text (although not all the examples) as well as some material that extends beyond the topics covered in the text (notably a proof of Morley’s Categoricity Theorem). The Work Once the introductory phase of the course is completed, there will be a series of problem sets to entertain and challenge each student. Mastering the problem sets should give each student a detailed familiarity with the main concepts and theorems of model theory and how these concepts and theorems might be applied. So working through the problems sets is really the heart of the course. Most of the problems require some reflection and can usually not be resolved in just one sitting. Grades The grades in this course will be based on each student’s work on the problem sets. Roughly speaking, an A will be assigned to students whose problems sets eventually reveal a mastery of the central concepts and theorems of model theory; a B will be assigned to students whose work reveals a grasp of the basic concepts and a reasonable competence, short of mastery, in putting this grasp into play to solve problems.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 14 Hilbert System for Predicate Logic 1 Completeness
    CHAPTER 14 Hilbert System for Predicate Logic 1 Completeness Theorem for First Order Logic There are many proofs of the Completeness Theorem for First Order Logic. We follow here a version of Henkin's proof, as presented in the Handbook of Mathe- matical Logic. It contains a method for reducing certain problems of first-order logic back to problems about propositional logic. We give independent proof of Compactness Theorem for propositional logic. The Compactness Theorem for first-order logic and L¨owenheim-Skolem Theorems and the G¨odelCompleteness Theorem fall out of the Henkin method. 1.1 Compactness Theorem for Propositional Logic Let L = L(P; F; C) be a first order language with equality. We assume that the sets P, F, C are infinitely enumerable. We define a propositional logic within it as follows. Prime formulas We consider a subset P of the set F of all formulas of L. Intuitively these are formulas of L which are not direct propositional com- bination of simpler formulas, that is, atomic formulas (AF) and formulas beginning with quantifiers. Formally, we have that P = fA 2 F : A 2 AF or A = 8xB; A = 9xB for B 2 Fg: Example 1.1 The following are primitive formulas. R(t1; t2); 8x(A(x) ):A(x)); (c = c); 9x(Q(x; y) \ 8yA(y)). The following are not primitive formulas. (R(t1; t2) ) (c = c)); (R(t1; t2) [ 8x(A(x) ):A(x)). Given a set P of primitive formulas we define in a standard way the set P F of propositional formulas as follows.
    [Show full text]