The structure $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ seems to have no elementary extension
$begingroup$
This is exercise 2.3.1 (2) from Tent/Ziegler, A Course in Model Theory.
Let $mathcal F$ be the set of all functions $mathbb N to mathbb N$. Show that $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ has no countable proper elementary extension.
My approach was to assume we have some proper elementary extension $mathfrak A$ with $mathbb N subsetneq A$. Choose $a in A setminus mathbb N$. As we have a first order sentences true in $mathbb N$ stating that there is no maximal element, either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n,m$ with $m = n+1$, or comes before every natural number. In the first case let $overline n, overline m : mathbb N to mathbb N$ the constant function giving $n$ and $m$. Then in $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ the sentence $exists x forall y ( overline n(y) < x < overline m(y) )$ is false, but in $mathfrak A$ it is true. Hence this case could not arise. Similar if $a$ comes before every natural number, using $overline 0 : mathbb N to mathbb N$ I can give a sentence true in this extension, but not true in $mathbb N$.
So, in consequence there would be no elementary extension at all. But this contradicts the Theorem stated on these slides (see slide number 7), that every infinite model has a proper elementary extension.
So what is wrong with my above reasoning? Why this contradiction?
proof-verification logic first-order-logic model-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is exercise 2.3.1 (2) from Tent/Ziegler, A Course in Model Theory.
Let $mathcal F$ be the set of all functions $mathbb N to mathbb N$. Show that $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ has no countable proper elementary extension.
My approach was to assume we have some proper elementary extension $mathfrak A$ with $mathbb N subsetneq A$. Choose $a in A setminus mathbb N$. As we have a first order sentences true in $mathbb N$ stating that there is no maximal element, either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n,m$ with $m = n+1$, or comes before every natural number. In the first case let $overline n, overline m : mathbb N to mathbb N$ the constant function giving $n$ and $m$. Then in $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ the sentence $exists x forall y ( overline n(y) < x < overline m(y) )$ is false, but in $mathfrak A$ it is true. Hence this case could not arise. Similar if $a$ comes before every natural number, using $overline 0 : mathbb N to mathbb N$ I can give a sentence true in this extension, but not true in $mathbb N$.
So, in consequence there would be no elementary extension at all. But this contradicts the Theorem stated on these slides (see slide number 7), that every infinite model has a proper elementary extension.
So what is wrong with my above reasoning? Why this contradiction?
proof-verification logic first-order-logic model-theory
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"Either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n$, $m$ with $m=n+1$, or comes before every natural number". What?? Exactly the opposite is true! It's true that $mathbb{N}models forall x, exists y, (x<y)$ (there is no maximal element), so $mathfrak{A}$ also satisfies this sentence. But this doesn't rule out having an element of $mathfrak{A}$ which is bigger than all elements of $mathbb{N}$ - it's just that there also have to be even bigger elements of $mathfrak{A}$!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 13 '18 at 21:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is exercise 2.3.1 (2) from Tent/Ziegler, A Course in Model Theory.
Let $mathcal F$ be the set of all functions $mathbb N to mathbb N$. Show that $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ has no countable proper elementary extension.
My approach was to assume we have some proper elementary extension $mathfrak A$ with $mathbb N subsetneq A$. Choose $a in A setminus mathbb N$. As we have a first order sentences true in $mathbb N$ stating that there is no maximal element, either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n,m$ with $m = n+1$, or comes before every natural number. In the first case let $overline n, overline m : mathbb N to mathbb N$ the constant function giving $n$ and $m$. Then in $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ the sentence $exists x forall y ( overline n(y) < x < overline m(y) )$ is false, but in $mathfrak A$ it is true. Hence this case could not arise. Similar if $a$ comes before every natural number, using $overline 0 : mathbb N to mathbb N$ I can give a sentence true in this extension, but not true in $mathbb N$.
So, in consequence there would be no elementary extension at all. But this contradicts the Theorem stated on these slides (see slide number 7), that every infinite model has a proper elementary extension.
So what is wrong with my above reasoning? Why this contradiction?
proof-verification logic first-order-logic model-theory
$endgroup$
This is exercise 2.3.1 (2) from Tent/Ziegler, A Course in Model Theory.
Let $mathcal F$ be the set of all functions $mathbb N to mathbb N$. Show that $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ has no countable proper elementary extension.
My approach was to assume we have some proper elementary extension $mathfrak A$ with $mathbb N subsetneq A$. Choose $a in A setminus mathbb N$. As we have a first order sentences true in $mathbb N$ stating that there is no maximal element, either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n,m$ with $m = n+1$, or comes before every natural number. In the first case let $overline n, overline m : mathbb N to mathbb N$ the constant function giving $n$ and $m$. Then in $(mathbb N, <, f)_{fin mathcal F}$ the sentence $exists x forall y ( overline n(y) < x < overline m(y) )$ is false, but in $mathfrak A$ it is true. Hence this case could not arise. Similar if $a$ comes before every natural number, using $overline 0 : mathbb N to mathbb N$ I can give a sentence true in this extension, but not true in $mathbb N$.
So, in consequence there would be no elementary extension at all. But this contradicts the Theorem stated on these slides (see slide number 7), that every infinite model has a proper elementary extension.
So what is wrong with my above reasoning? Why this contradiction?
proof-verification logic first-order-logic model-theory
proof-verification logic first-order-logic model-theory
asked Dec 13 '18 at 17:14
StefanHStefanH
8,14652366
8,14652366
2
$begingroup$
"Either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n$, $m$ with $m=n+1$, or comes before every natural number". What?? Exactly the opposite is true! It's true that $mathbb{N}models forall x, exists y, (x<y)$ (there is no maximal element), so $mathfrak{A}$ also satisfies this sentence. But this doesn't rule out having an element of $mathfrak{A}$ which is bigger than all elements of $mathbb{N}$ - it's just that there also have to be even bigger elements of $mathfrak{A}$!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 13 '18 at 21:06
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
"Either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n$, $m$ with $m=n+1$, or comes before every natural number". What?? Exactly the opposite is true! It's true that $mathbb{N}models forall x, exists y, (x<y)$ (there is no maximal element), so $mathfrak{A}$ also satisfies this sentence. But this doesn't rule out having an element of $mathfrak{A}$ which is bigger than all elements of $mathbb{N}$ - it's just that there also have to be even bigger elements of $mathfrak{A}$!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 13 '18 at 21:06
2
2
$begingroup$
"Either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n$, $m$ with $m=n+1$, or comes before every natural number". What?? Exactly the opposite is true! It's true that $mathbb{N}models forall x, exists y, (x<y)$ (there is no maximal element), so $mathfrak{A}$ also satisfies this sentence. But this doesn't rule out having an element of $mathfrak{A}$ which is bigger than all elements of $mathbb{N}$ - it's just that there also have to be even bigger elements of $mathfrak{A}$!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 13 '18 at 21:06
$begingroup$
"Either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n$, $m$ with $m=n+1$, or comes before every natural number". What?? Exactly the opposite is true! It's true that $mathbb{N}models forall x, exists y, (x<y)$ (there is no maximal element), so $mathfrak{A}$ also satisfies this sentence. But this doesn't rule out having an element of $mathfrak{A}$ which is bigger than all elements of $mathbb{N}$ - it's just that there also have to be even bigger elements of $mathfrak{A}$!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 13 '18 at 21:06
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There seems to be some confusion here. Let $mathcal{M} = (mathbb{N}, < f)_{f in mathcal{F}}$. We want to show that if $mathcal{M} prec mathcal{N}$, then $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$ (by upward Löwenheim–Skolem/Ultrapower construction, we know such $mathcal{N}$ exists). Any element in $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$ will be greater than any natural number (in above, you say that it must be less than any natural number or inbetween two of them).
Now, one has to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$. Choose $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$. We know that $M models forall x exists y f(x) = y$ for every $f in mathcal{F}$. Since $M prec mathcal{N}$, we know that for every $f in mathcal{F}$, $f(a) in mathcal{N}$. Now, it's your job to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$.
(As a hint, you need to somehow incorporate the ordering.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The set of monotone functions is uncountable, and for a monotone function $f$ I would have $f(a) in mathcal N setminus mathcal M$. If I can show that all these values $f(a)$ are distinct for different $f$ this would give the result, but I guess this does not hold. So do you have one hint more how to proceed?
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 14 '18 at 13:37
1
$begingroup$
@StefanH (1) Find an uncountable subfamily $mathcal F_0subseteqmathcal F$ with the following property: for every two different $f,qinmathcal F_0$, there is $n_0inmathbb N$ such that $f(n)neq g(n)$ holds for all $n>n_0$. (2) Conclude that for different $f,ginmathcal F_0$, $f(a)neq g(a)$.
$endgroup$
– SMM
Dec 14 '18 at 16:17
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038313%2fthe-structure-mathbb-n-f-f-in-mathcal-f-seems-to-have-no-elementary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There seems to be some confusion here. Let $mathcal{M} = (mathbb{N}, < f)_{f in mathcal{F}}$. We want to show that if $mathcal{M} prec mathcal{N}$, then $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$ (by upward Löwenheim–Skolem/Ultrapower construction, we know such $mathcal{N}$ exists). Any element in $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$ will be greater than any natural number (in above, you say that it must be less than any natural number or inbetween two of them).
Now, one has to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$. Choose $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$. We know that $M models forall x exists y f(x) = y$ for every $f in mathcal{F}$. Since $M prec mathcal{N}$, we know that for every $f in mathcal{F}$, $f(a) in mathcal{N}$. Now, it's your job to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$.
(As a hint, you need to somehow incorporate the ordering.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The set of monotone functions is uncountable, and for a monotone function $f$ I would have $f(a) in mathcal N setminus mathcal M$. If I can show that all these values $f(a)$ are distinct for different $f$ this would give the result, but I guess this does not hold. So do you have one hint more how to proceed?
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 14 '18 at 13:37
1
$begingroup$
@StefanH (1) Find an uncountable subfamily $mathcal F_0subseteqmathcal F$ with the following property: for every two different $f,qinmathcal F_0$, there is $n_0inmathbb N$ such that $f(n)neq g(n)$ holds for all $n>n_0$. (2) Conclude that for different $f,ginmathcal F_0$, $f(a)neq g(a)$.
$endgroup$
– SMM
Dec 14 '18 at 16:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There seems to be some confusion here. Let $mathcal{M} = (mathbb{N}, < f)_{f in mathcal{F}}$. We want to show that if $mathcal{M} prec mathcal{N}$, then $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$ (by upward Löwenheim–Skolem/Ultrapower construction, we know such $mathcal{N}$ exists). Any element in $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$ will be greater than any natural number (in above, you say that it must be less than any natural number or inbetween two of them).
Now, one has to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$. Choose $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$. We know that $M models forall x exists y f(x) = y$ for every $f in mathcal{F}$. Since $M prec mathcal{N}$, we know that for every $f in mathcal{F}$, $f(a) in mathcal{N}$. Now, it's your job to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$.
(As a hint, you need to somehow incorporate the ordering.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The set of monotone functions is uncountable, and for a monotone function $f$ I would have $f(a) in mathcal N setminus mathcal M$. If I can show that all these values $f(a)$ are distinct for different $f$ this would give the result, but I guess this does not hold. So do you have one hint more how to proceed?
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 14 '18 at 13:37
1
$begingroup$
@StefanH (1) Find an uncountable subfamily $mathcal F_0subseteqmathcal F$ with the following property: for every two different $f,qinmathcal F_0$, there is $n_0inmathbb N$ such that $f(n)neq g(n)$ holds for all $n>n_0$. (2) Conclude that for different $f,ginmathcal F_0$, $f(a)neq g(a)$.
$endgroup$
– SMM
Dec 14 '18 at 16:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There seems to be some confusion here. Let $mathcal{M} = (mathbb{N}, < f)_{f in mathcal{F}}$. We want to show that if $mathcal{M} prec mathcal{N}$, then $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$ (by upward Löwenheim–Skolem/Ultrapower construction, we know such $mathcal{N}$ exists). Any element in $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$ will be greater than any natural number (in above, you say that it must be less than any natural number or inbetween two of them).
Now, one has to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$. Choose $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$. We know that $M models forall x exists y f(x) = y$ for every $f in mathcal{F}$. Since $M prec mathcal{N}$, we know that for every $f in mathcal{F}$, $f(a) in mathcal{N}$. Now, it's your job to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$.
(As a hint, you need to somehow incorporate the ordering.)
$endgroup$
There seems to be some confusion here. Let $mathcal{M} = (mathbb{N}, < f)_{f in mathcal{F}}$. We want to show that if $mathcal{M} prec mathcal{N}$, then $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$ (by upward Löwenheim–Skolem/Ultrapower construction, we know such $mathcal{N}$ exists). Any element in $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$ will be greater than any natural number (in above, you say that it must be less than any natural number or inbetween two of them).
Now, one has to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$. Choose $a in mathcal{N} backslash mathcal{M}$. We know that $M models forall x exists y f(x) = y$ for every $f in mathcal{F}$. Since $M prec mathcal{N}$, we know that for every $f in mathcal{F}$, $f(a) in mathcal{N}$. Now, it's your job to show that $|mathcal{N}| > aleph_0$.
(As a hint, you need to somehow incorporate the ordering.)
edited Dec 14 '18 at 1:58
answered Dec 13 '18 at 20:32
KyleKyle
5,29821334
5,29821334
$begingroup$
The set of monotone functions is uncountable, and for a monotone function $f$ I would have $f(a) in mathcal N setminus mathcal M$. If I can show that all these values $f(a)$ are distinct for different $f$ this would give the result, but I guess this does not hold. So do you have one hint more how to proceed?
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 14 '18 at 13:37
1
$begingroup$
@StefanH (1) Find an uncountable subfamily $mathcal F_0subseteqmathcal F$ with the following property: for every two different $f,qinmathcal F_0$, there is $n_0inmathbb N$ such that $f(n)neq g(n)$ holds for all $n>n_0$. (2) Conclude that for different $f,ginmathcal F_0$, $f(a)neq g(a)$.
$endgroup$
– SMM
Dec 14 '18 at 16:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The set of monotone functions is uncountable, and for a monotone function $f$ I would have $f(a) in mathcal N setminus mathcal M$. If I can show that all these values $f(a)$ are distinct for different $f$ this would give the result, but I guess this does not hold. So do you have one hint more how to proceed?
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 14 '18 at 13:37
1
$begingroup$
@StefanH (1) Find an uncountable subfamily $mathcal F_0subseteqmathcal F$ with the following property: for every two different $f,qinmathcal F_0$, there is $n_0inmathbb N$ such that $f(n)neq g(n)$ holds for all $n>n_0$. (2) Conclude that for different $f,ginmathcal F_0$, $f(a)neq g(a)$.
$endgroup$
– SMM
Dec 14 '18 at 16:17
$begingroup$
The set of monotone functions is uncountable, and for a monotone function $f$ I would have $f(a) in mathcal N setminus mathcal M$. If I can show that all these values $f(a)$ are distinct for different $f$ this would give the result, but I guess this does not hold. So do you have one hint more how to proceed?
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 14 '18 at 13:37
$begingroup$
The set of monotone functions is uncountable, and for a monotone function $f$ I would have $f(a) in mathcal N setminus mathcal M$. If I can show that all these values $f(a)$ are distinct for different $f$ this would give the result, but I guess this does not hold. So do you have one hint more how to proceed?
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 14 '18 at 13:37
1
1
$begingroup$
@StefanH (1) Find an uncountable subfamily $mathcal F_0subseteqmathcal F$ with the following property: for every two different $f,qinmathcal F_0$, there is $n_0inmathbb N$ such that $f(n)neq g(n)$ holds for all $n>n_0$. (2) Conclude that for different $f,ginmathcal F_0$, $f(a)neq g(a)$.
$endgroup$
– SMM
Dec 14 '18 at 16:17
$begingroup$
@StefanH (1) Find an uncountable subfamily $mathcal F_0subseteqmathcal F$ with the following property: for every two different $f,qinmathcal F_0$, there is $n_0inmathbb N$ such that $f(n)neq g(n)$ holds for all $n>n_0$. (2) Conclude that for different $f,ginmathcal F_0$, $f(a)neq g(a)$.
$endgroup$
– SMM
Dec 14 '18 at 16:17
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038313%2fthe-structure-mathbb-n-f-f-in-mathcal-f-seems-to-have-no-elementary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
"Either $a$ is between two natural numbers $n$, $m$ with $m=n+1$, or comes before every natural number". What?? Exactly the opposite is true! It's true that $mathbb{N}models forall x, exists y, (x<y)$ (there is no maximal element), so $mathfrak{A}$ also satisfies this sentence. But this doesn't rule out having an element of $mathfrak{A}$ which is bigger than all elements of $mathbb{N}$ - it's just that there also have to be even bigger elements of $mathfrak{A}$!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 13 '18 at 21:06