MODEL THEORY 2011 Solutions sheet 5

1. (a) As was observed in previous comments about the theory, the models
of DTFAG can be represented as vector spaces over Q.
(i) It is known from linear algebra that two vector spaces over a given
eld are isomorphic i they are of equal dimensions. On the other hand, by
cardinal arithmetic, the cardinality of a vector space of dimension over an
innite eld of cardinality is + . Hence, when = + > , we get
= for the dimension of every model of cardinality . Hence any two such
models are isomorphic.
(ii) In cardinality
0
we have vector spaces over Q of dimension 1, 2, . . .
and
0
. They are all pairwise non-isomorphic.
(iii) Vaughts Theorem. A -categorical theory without nite models is
complete.
(iv) Suppose a denable subset S A contains a non-zero element a.
Given any other non-zero element b A there is a bijective linear transfor-
mation of the vector space / which takes a to b. By denition is an
automorphism of / and since automorphisms must preserve denable sets,
b S. It follows that S is either equal to A or is A 0.
(b) DTFAG does not admit QE as it is not even model complete: 0, Q [=DTFAG
with 0 Q, but 0 ,_

Q.
However, DTFAG
+
:=DTFAGvv 0 does admit QE: Let /, B [=DTFAG
+
with a common substructure (, and let be a simple existential L
C
-sentence.
We have to show that /
C
[= i B
C
[= .
( is a semigroup. The subgroups generated by ( in / and B are isomor-
phic, so we may assume ( is a group (and, of course, torsion-free, as / and B
are torsion-free). The divisible hull of ( in / and B are also isomorphic (by
torsion-freeness, every element in a model of DTFAG is uniquely divisible by
n). Hence w.l.o.g. ( [=DTFAG.
Now is of the shape x(x), where is quantier-free, say in disjunctive
normal form (x) =

n
i=1

i
(x), where the
i
(x) are conjuncts of atomic or
negated atomic L
C
-formulas with Free(
i
) x.
Assume /
C
[= , so for some a A, /
C
[= (a), say /
C
[=
i
(a). Then,
w.l.o.g.,

i
(x) =
l

j=1
m
j
x c
j

m

k=1
n
k
x d
k
for some m
j
, n
k
Z, c
j
, d
k
C (of course, there may be further things not
involoving x, i.e., from the diagram of (, but they hold in / and B likewise,
so we may skip them). If a satises some (and hence all) nontrivial equalities
(i.e. l 1 and some m
j
,= 0) then a C, hence ( [= and so B [= . If
there are no equalities then
i
(x) simply says that x avoids the nitely many
elements with n
k
x = d
k
for k = 1, . . . , m. But as B [=DTFAG
+
, B is innite,
so thats ne.
The converse holds by symmetry.
2.(i) Let / be a model of T
S
. Denote C
A
0
A the subset s
n
(0
A
) : n N
and A

= A C
A
0
. We now dene the binary relation E on A

to be
E(a, b) i s
z
(a) = b, for some z Z,
where s
z
(a) for z = n, n 0, denotes the application of s
1
(well-dened
because of axioms (a) and (b)) to a. This is an equivalence relation. The
equivalence class represented by an element a, denote it C
a
, is in one-to one
correspondence with Z by s
z
(a) z, by the axioms (c)
n
. Moreover, if b is an
element outside C
B
0
in any model B of the theory, the mapping s
z
(a) s
z
(b)
is a bijection between C
a
and C
b
and preserves the function s.
By (a) and (c)
n
the mapping C
A
0
C
B
0
by s
n
(0
A
) s
n
(0
B
) is a bijection
preserving s, as well.
Obviously, if / and B are of the same uncountable cardinality , the
cardinality of classes of the form C
a
outside C
0
is , for both / and B. In
each class C
a
, a A

x one representative, say a. The same for C

b
, b B

.
The one-to-one correspondence between the -many classes C
a
, a A

, and
-many classes C
b
, b B

, gives rise to a correspondence : a b between

the xed representatives of the classes. This generates : s
z
(a) s
z
(b), all
representatives a and all z Z. We can extend to : s
n
(0
A
) s
n
(0
B
),
n N. Thus is dened on the whole of A, is a bijection onto B and
preserves s, hence is an isomorphism. Thus T
S
is proved to be categorical in
each such .
(ii) T
S
admits QE similarly as DTFAG
+
in question 1: s
n
(x) = s
m
(c) has
a unique solution, so w.l.o.g. ( [= T
S
.
3.(i) Let /, B [=DLO with a common substructure (, and let = x(x)
be a simple -L
C
-sentence (so is quantier-free) with /
C
[= (a) for some
a A. Note that
x < y x = y y < x
x = y x < y y < x,
so we may assume is of the shape

j

ij
(x) with the
ij
(x) unnegated
atomics. Now pick i such that / [=

ij
(a). Then, after reshueling the
js, we have

ij
(x) =

k
c
k
< x

l
d
l
x

m
x < e
m
,
where c
k
, d
l
, e
m
C. (Again bits from the diagram of ( can be dropped).
Since /
C
[=
ij
(a), this implies that for all k, l, m: c
l
< d
l
< e
m
, and for all
l, l

: d
l
= d
l
. If there are equalities at all, then a = d
l
C B satises

ij
(x) in B. Otherwise, as B [=DLO, we always nd some b B with
c
l
< b < e
m
for all l, m, so again B [= .
(ii) Let 1
1
= R; < and let 1
2
= R 0; <. Then 1
1
and 1
2
are
not isomorphic (and hence, assuming the continuum hypothesis, DLO is not

1
-categorical):
Any order preserving bijection : R R 0 would give rise to a
partition of R = A B into non-empty disjoint sets A =
1
(R
<0
) and
B =
1
(R
>0
) such that each element in A is smaller than each element
in B, but A has no supremum and B has no inmum - this contradicts
completness of R.
4. Suppose, for a contradiction, that there is an L
K
-formula = (v
1
, . . . , v
n
)
expressing linear independence. Let L
+
= L
K
c
1
, . . . , c
n
be the expansion
of L
K
obtained by adjoining n new constant symbols and consider the set
= V
K
s
k
1
(c
1
) + +s
k
n
(c
n
)
.
= 0 [ (k
1
, . . . , k
n
) K
n
(0, . . . , 0)
of L
+
-sentences. The models of are then exactly the ( n-dimensional) K-
vector spaces in which the constants c
1
, . . . , c
n
are interpreted by n K-linearly
independent vectors.
By assumption, V
K
(c
1
, . . . , c
n
) is logically equivalent to . In par-
ticular, by the compactness theorem, is a logical consequence of some nite
subset of . But since K is innite, any nite subset
0
of can be satised
by a vector space in which c
1
, . . . , c
n
are interpreted by linearly dependent
vectors (only avoiding the nitely many linear dependences forbidden by
0
).
Hence cannot express linear independence after all.