Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:23:18.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Hanf number for complete Lω1,ω-sentences (without GCH)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

James E. Baumgartner*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755

Extract

The Hanf number for sentences of a language L is defined to be the least cardinal κ with the property that for any sentence φ of L, if φ has a model of power ≥ κ then φ has models of arbitrarily large cardinality. We shall be interested in the language Lω1,ω (see [3]), which is obtained by adding to the formation rules for first-order logic the rule that the conjunction of countably many formulas is also a formula.

Lopez-Escobar proved [4] that the Hanf number for sentences of Lω1,ω is ⊐ω1, where the cardinals ⊐α are defined recursively by ⊐0 = ℵ0 and ⊐α = Σ{2β: β < α} for all cardinals α > 0. Here ω1 denotes the least uncountable ordinal.

A sentence of Lω1,ω is complete if all its models satisfy the same Lω1,ω-sentences. In [5], Malitz proved that the Hanf number for complete sentences of Lω1,ω is also ⊐ω1, but his proof required the generalized continuum hypothesis (GCH). The purpose of this paper is to give a proof that does not require GCH.

More precisely, we will prove the following:

Theorem 1. For any countable ordinal α, there is a complete Lω1,ω-sentence σαwhich has models of power ⊐α but no models of higher cardinality.

Our basic approach is identical with Malitz's. We simply use a different combinatorial fact at the crucial point.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1974

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]Baumgartner, J., Almost-disjoint sets, the dense-set problem, and the partition calculus (to appear).Google Scholar
[2]Hausdorff, F., Über zwei Sätze von G. Fichtenholz und L. Kantorovich, Studia Mathematica, vol. 6 (1936), pp. 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Karp, C., Languages with expressions of infinite length, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1964.Google Scholar
[4]Lopez-Escobar, E. G. K., On defining well-orderings, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 59 (1966), pp. 13–21.Google Scholar
[5]Malitz, J., The Hanf number for complete Lω1,ω sentences, The syntax and semantics of infinitary languages (Barwise, J., Editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 72, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1968, pp. 166–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Mitchell, W., Aronszajn trees and the independence of the transfer property, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 5 (19721973), pp. 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Scott, D., Logic with denumerably long formulas and finite strings of quantifiers, The theory of models (Addison, J., Henkin, L. and Tarski, A., Editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 329–341.Google Scholar