Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T08:41:25.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Compactly expandable models and stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Enrique Casanovas*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Lógica, Historia y Filosofía de la Ciencia, Universidad de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain, E-mail: casanova@cerber.mat.ub.es

Extract

In analogy to ω-logic, one defines M-logic for an arbitrary structure M (see [5],[6]). In M-logic only those structures are considered in which a special part, determined by a fixed unary predicate, is isomorphic to M. Let L be the similarity type of M and T its complete theory. We say that M-logic is κ-compact if it satisfies the compactness theorem for sets of < κ sentences. In this paper we introduce the related notion of compactness for expandability: a model M is κ-compactly expandable if for every extension T′T of cardinality < κ, if every finite subset of T′ can be satisfied in an expansion of M, then T′ can also be satisfied in an expansion of M. Moreover, M is compactly expandable if it is ∥M+-compactly expandable. It turns out that M-logic is κ-compact iff M is κ-compactly expandable.

Whereas for first-order logic consistency and finite satisfiability are the same, consistency with T and finite satisfiability in M are, in general, no longer the same thing. We call the model Mκ-expandable if every consistent extension T′ ⊇ T of cardinality < κ can be satisfied in an expansion of M. We say that M is expandable if it is ∥M+-expandable. Here we study the relationship between saturation, expandability and compactness for expandability. There is a close parallelism between our results about compactly expandable models and some theorems of S. Shelah about expandable models, which are in fact expressed in terms of categoricity of PC-classes (see [7, Th. VI.5.3, VI.5.4 and VI.5.5]). Our results could be obtained directly from these theorems of Shelah if expandability and compactness for expandability were the same notion.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Baldwin, John T. and Kueker, David W., Ramsey quantifiers and the finite cover property, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 90 (1980), pp. 1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Keisler, H. JeromeUltraproducts which are not saturated, this Journal, vol. 32 (1967), pp. 2346.Google Scholar
[3] Kojman, Menachem and Shelah, SaharonNonexistence of universal orders in many cardinals, this Journal, vol. 57 (1992), pp. 875891.Google Scholar
[4] Kojman, Menachem and Shelah, Saharon, The universality spectrum of stable unsuperstable theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 58 (1992), pp. 5772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Morley, MichaelThe Lowenheim-Skolem theorem for models with standard part, Symposia Mathematica, vol. 5 (1970), pp. 4352.Google Scholar
[6] Morley, MichaelCountable models with standard part, Logic, methodology and philosophy of science iv (Suppes, , Moisil, , and Joja, , editors), North Holland P.C., 1973.Google Scholar
[7] Shelah, Saharon, Classification theory, North Holland P.C., Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
[8] Shelah, SaharonIndependence results, this Journal, vol. 45 (1980), pp. 563573.Google Scholar