Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:37:11.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Theories without countable models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Andreas Blass*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Extract

Consider the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem in the form: If a theory in a countable first-order language has a model, then it has a countable model. As is well known, this theorem becomes false if one omits the hypothesis that the language be countable, for one then has the following trivial counterexample.

Example 1. Let the language have uncountably many constants, and let the theory say that they are unequal.

To motivate some of our future definitions and to introduce some notation, we present another, less trivial, counterexample.

Example 2. Let L0 be the language whose n-place predicate (resp. function) symbols are all the n-place predicates (resp. functions) on the set ω of natural numbers. Let be the standard model for L0; we use the usual notation Th() for its complete theory. Add to L0 a new constant e, and add to Th() an axiom schema saying that e is infinite. By the compactness theorem, the resulting theory T has models. However, none of its models are countable. Although this fact is well known, we sketch a proof in order to refer to it later.

By [5, p. 81], there is a family {Aα ∣ < α < c} of infinite subsets of ω, the intersection of any two of which is finite.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1972

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]Hausdorff, F., Über zwei Sätze von G. Fichtenholz und L. Kantorovitch, Studia Mathematica, vol. 6 (1936), pp. 1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Martin, D. A. and Solovay, R., Internal Cohen extensions, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 2 (1970), pp. 143178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Rasiowa, H. and Sikokski, R., A proof of the completeness theorem of Gödel, Fundatnenta Mathematicae, vol. 37 (1950), pp. 193200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Rosser, J. B., Simplified independence proofs, Academic Press, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
[5]Sierpinski, W., Cardinal and ordinal numbers, PWN, Warsaw, 1965.Google Scholar