Many-Sorted First-Order Model Theory

Lecture 3

28th May, 2020

1 / 14
Presentation morphisms

Definition 1 (Presentation morphism)

A presentation morphism χ : (Σ, Γ) → (Σ0 , Γ0 ) is a signature morphism
χ : Σ → Σ0 such that Γ0 |= χ(Γ).

Fact 2
The presentation morphisms form a category Sigpres :
1. 1(Σ,Γ) : (Σ, Γ) → (Σ, Γ) is a presentation morphism, for all
presentations (Σ, Γ);
2. the presentation morphisms are closed under composition, i.e. if
χ : (Σ, Γ) → (Σ0 , Γ0 ) and χ0 : (Σ0 , Γ0 ) → (Σ00 , Γ00 ) are presentation
morphisms then χ; χ0 : (Σ, Γ) → (Σ00 , Γ00 ) is a presentation morphism.

2 / 14
Entailments
Definition 3 (Entailment relation)
An entailment relation is a family of binary relations between sets of sentences indexed
by first-order signatures (i.e. `:= {`Σ }Σ∈|Sig| and `Σ ⊆ P(Sen(Σ)) × P(Sen(Σ)) for all
signatures Σ ∈ |Sig|) with the following properties:

Γ0 ⊆ Γ Γ `Σ Γ0 Γ0 `Σ Γ00
I (Monotonicity ) I (Transitivity )
Γ `Σ Γ0 Γ `Σ Γ00

Γ `Σ γ 0 for all γ 0 ∈ Γ0 Γ `Σ Γ0 χ : Σ → Σ0
I (Unions) I (Translation)
Γ ` Σ Γ0 χ(Γ) `Σ0 χ(Γ0 )

Recall that Γ |=Σ Γ0 iff A |=Σ Γ implies A |=Σ Γ0 for all Σ-models A.

Lemma 4
The satisfaction relation |=:= {|=Σ }Σ∈|Sig| , where |=Σ ⊆ P(Sen(Σ)) × P(Sen(Σ)) for all
Σ ∈ |Sig|, is an entailment relation.

Proof.
Obviously |= is monotonic, it is closed under unions and it is transitive. The closure of
|= under signature morphisms is a direct consequence of the satisfaction condition.
3 / 14
More on entailments

Definition 5 (Soundness)
An entailment relation ` is sound iff `⊆|=.

Definition 6 (Compactness)
An entailment relation ` is compact iff for each entailment Γ ` E and each finite
set Ef ⊆ E there exists a finite set Γf ⊆ Γ such that Γf ` Ef .

Definition 7 (Completeness)
An entailment relation ` is complete iff |=⊆`.

Convention
Given two tuples of terms t = t1 . . . tn and t 0 = t10 . . . tn0 , we write Γ `Σ t = t 0
instead of Γ `Σ t1 = t10 . . . Γ `Σ tn = tn0 .

4 / 14
First-order reasoning

Definition 8 (First-order entailment relation)

The first-order entailment relation is the least entailment relation closed under the following
rules:
Γ `Σ t = t 0 Γ `Σ t = t 0 Γ `Σ t 0 = t 00
I (R) (S) I (T )
Γ `Σ t = t Γ `Σ t 0 = t Γ `Σ t = t 00
Γ `Σ t = t 0 Γ `Σ t = t 0 Γ ` π(t)
I (F ) I (P)
Γ `Σ σ(t) = σ(t 0 ) Γ `Σ π(t 0 )
Γ ∪ {γ} ` ⊥ Γ ` ¬γ Γ ` ¬¬γ
I (NegI ) I (NegE ) (NegD )
Γ ` ¬γ Γ ∪ {γ} ` ⊥ Γ`γ
Γ ` {γ, ¬γ} Γ`⊥
I (FalseI ) I (FalseE )
Γ`⊥ Γ`γ
Γ ` e for some e ∈ E Γ ` ∨E Γ ∪ {e} ` γ for all e ∈ E
I (DisjI ) I (DisjE )
Γ ` ∨E Γ`γ
ιX (Γ) ∪ {γ 0 } `Σ[X ] ιX (γ) Γ ∪ {∃X · γ 0 } `Σ γ
I (QuantI ) I (QuantE )
Γ ∪ {∃X · γ 0 } `Σ γ ιX (Γ) ∪ {γ 0 } `Σ[X ] ιX (γ)
Γ ` ∃Y · θ(γ 0 ) θ : X → TΣ (Y ) χ(Γ) ` χ(γ) χ is conservative
I (Sb) I (Cons)
Γ ` ∃X · γ 0 Γ`γ

5 / 14
More on first-order reasoning
Lemma 9 (First-order entailment relation properties)

1. Γ `Σ ¬∃X · γ 0 iff ιX (Γ) `Σ[X ] ¬γ 0

2. Γ `Σ ∀X · γ 0 iff ιX (Γ) `Σ[X ] γ 0
3. Γ ` ¬ ∨ E iff Γ ` ¬e for all e ∈ E
4. Γ ` ∧E iff Γ ` e for all e ∈ E
5. γ1 ` γ2 iff ¬γ2 ` ¬γ1
6. ∀X · γ 0 ` ∀Y · θ(γ 0 ), where θ : X → TΣ (Y )

Proof.
1. Γ ` ¬∃X · γ 0 iff Γ ∪ {∃X · γ 0 } ` ⊥ iff ιX (Γ) ∪ {γ 0 } ` ⊥ iff ιX (Γ) ` ¬γ 0
2. Γ ` ∀X · γ 0 iff Γ ` ¬∃X · ¬γ 0 iff ιX (Γ) ` ¬¬γ 0 iff ιX (Γ) ` γ 0

6 / 14
Proof of Lemma 9.
3. For the direct implication, let e ∈ E and we have:
1 Γ ∪ {e} ` ∨E since {e} ` ∨E
2 Γ ∪ {e} ` Γ since Γ ⊆ Γ ∪ {e}
3 Γ ∪ {e} ` Γ ∪ {∨E } by (1) and (2)
4 Γ ∪ {∨E } ` ⊥ by (NegE ) applied to Γ ` ¬ ∨ E
5 Γ ∪ {e} ` ⊥ by (3) and (4)
6 Γ ` ¬e by (NegI )
For the backwards implication, assume that Γ ` ¬e for all e ∈ E , and we have:
1 Γ ∪ {∨E } ` ∨E since {∨E } ⊆ Γ ∪ {∨E }
2 Γ ∪ {e} ` ⊥ for all e ∈ E by (NegE )
3 Γ ∪ {∨E } ∪ {e} ` ⊥ for all e ∈ E since Γ ∪ {e} ⊆ Γ ∪ {∨E } ∪ {e}
4 Γ ∪ {∨E } ` ⊥ by applying (DisjE ) to (1) and (3)
5 Γ`¬∨E by (NegI )
4. Γ ` ∧E iff Γ ` ¬ ∨e∈E ¬e iff Γ ` ¬¬e for all e ∈ E iff Γ ` e for all e ∈ E .
5. γ1 ` γ2 iff γ1 ` ¬¬γ2 iff {γ1 , ¬γ2 } ` ⊥ iff ¬γ2 ` ¬γ1 .
6. ∀X · γ 0 ` ∀Y · θ(γ 0 ) iff ¬∃X · ¬γ 0 ` ¬∃Y · ¬θ(γ 0 ) iff ∃Y · ¬θ(γ 0 ) ` ∃X · ¬γ 0 , which is a
consequence of (Sb).

Problem 10
If Γ ` γ1 ⇒ γ2 and Γ ` γ1 then Γ ` γ2 .

7 / 14
Consistent sets of sentences
Definition 11 (First-order consistency)
Let ` be the first-order entailment relation.
A set of sentences Γ over a signature Σ is consistent w.r.t. ` iff Γ 6` γ for some Σ-sentence γ.
A maximally consistent set of sentences Γ is a consistent set of sentences such that γ ∈ Γ or
¬γ ∈ Γ for all Σ-sentences γ.

Lemma 12
Let ` be the first-order entailment relation. Then Γ is consistent iff Γ 6` ⊥.

Proof.
I Assume that Γ 6` γ for some Σ-sentence γ. If Γ ` ⊥ then by (FalseE ), Γ ` γ, which is a
contradiction to our assumption. Hence, Γ 6` ⊥.
I Assume that Γ 6` ⊥. By the Definition 11, Γ is consistent.

Problem 13
Let ` be the first-order entailment relation. If Γ 6` γ then Γ ∪ {¬γ} 6` ⊥.

8 / 14
Soundness
Theorem 14
The first-order entailment relation is sound, i.e. `⊆|=.

Proof.
By Lemma 4, it suffices to prove that |= is closed to all proof rules described in Definition 8.
I (F ): Assume that Γ |= t = t 0 . We show that Γ |= σ(t) = σ(t 0 ).
1 assume that A |= Γ
2 A |= t = t 0 since Γ |= t = t 0
A A
3 σ (t ) = σ (t ) A 0A by the definition of satisfaction relation
5 A |= σ(t) = σ(t 0 ) by the definition of satisfaction relation
6 Γ |= σ(t) = σ(t 0 ) since A was arbitrarily chosen
I (DisjE ): Assume that Γ |= ∨E and Γ ∪ {e} |= γ for all e ∈ E . We show that Γ |= γ.
1 assume A |= Γ
2 A |= e for some e ∈ E since Γ |= ∨E
3 A |= Γ by (1) and (2), since Γ ∪ {e} |= γ
I (QuantE ): Assume that Γ ∪ {∃X · e 0 } |= γ. We show that ιX (Γ) ∪ {e 0 } |= ιX (γ).
1 assume A |= ιX (Γ) ∪ {e 0 }
2 A Σ |= Γ by the satisfaction condition, since A |= ιX (Γ)
3 A Σ |= ∃X · e 0 since A is a ιX -expansion of A Σ such that A |= e 0
4 A Σ |= γ by (1) and (2), since Γ ∪ {∃X · e 0 } |= γ
5 A |= ιX (γ) by the satisfaction condition

9 / 14
Compactness
Lemma 15
Let ` be an arbitrary entailment relation. There exists a compact entailment relation `c defined
as follows: Γ `c E iff for each finite set Ef ⊆ E there exists a finite set Γf ⊆ Γ such that Γf ` Ef .

Proof.
We show that `c is an entailment relation.
I (Unions): Assuming Γ `c ρ for all ρ ∈ T we show Γ `c T .
1 let Tf be an arbitrary finite subset of T
2 for each ρ ∈ T there exists Γρ ⊆ Γ finite by the def. of `c
such that Γρ ` ρ
4 Γf ` ρ for allSρ ∈ Tf , by (Monononicity )
where Γf = ρ∈Tf Γρ is finite
5 Γf ` Tf by (Unions)
6 Γ `c T since Tf was an arbitrary finite
subset of T
I (Translation): Assuming Γ `c Γ0 we show χ(Γ) `c χ(Γ0 ).
1 let E be an arbitrary finite subset of χ(Γ0 )
2 χ(Γ0f ) = E for some finite subset Γ0f ⊆ Γ0
3 Γf ` Γ0f for some finite subset Γf ⊆ Γ since Γ `c Γ0 and Γ0f ⊆ Γ0 is finite
4 χ(Γf ) ` χ(Γ0f ) = E by (Translation)
5 χ(Γ) `c χ(Γ0 ) from (1) and (4)

10 / 14
More on compactness
Theorem 16
The first-order entailment relation ` described in Definition 8 is compact.

Proof.
It suffices to show that the compact entailment relation `c ⊆` is closed to the proof rules
described in Definition 8.
I (F ): assuming Γ `c t = t 0 we prove Γ `c σ(t) = σ(t 0 ).
1 Γf ` t = t 0 for finite subset Γf ⊆ Γ since Γ `c t = t 0
2 Γf ` σ(t) = σ(t 0 ) by (F )
3 Γ `c σ(t) = σ(t 0 ) by the definition of `c
I (DisjE ): Assuming Γ `c ∨E and Γ ∪ {e} `c γ for all e ∈ E we show Γ `c γ.
1 Γ0f ` ∨E for some finite subset Γ0f ⊆ Γ since Γ `c ∨E
2 for each e ∈ E there exists a finite subset since Γ ∪ {e} `c γ for all e ∈ E
Γe ⊆ Γ such that Γe ∪ {e} ` γ
3 Γf ` ∨E andSΓf ∪ {e} ` γ from (1) and (2)
where Γf = e∈E Γe ∪ Γ0f by (Unions) and (Transitivity )
4 Γf ` γ from (3) by (DisjE )
5 Γ `c γ by the definition of `c

11 / 14
Completeness for equations and relations
Theorem 17 (Atomic completeness)
For any set of equations or relations E over a non-void signature Σ, the following are equivalent:
(a) E |= ρ, (b) AE |= ρ and (c) E ` ρ,
for all equations or relations ρ over Σ, where AE is the initial model of E .

Proof.
By initiality Lemma, the set of terms TΣ can be organized as a Σ-model.
We define the following congruence on TΣ , ≡E := {(t, t 0 ) | E ` t = t 0 }.
By (R), (S), (T ) and (F ), the relation ≡E is a congruence on TΣ .
Let AE be the model obtained from TΣ /≡E by interpreting each (π : w ) ∈ P as {tb | E ` π(t)}.
Notice that π AE is well-defined: if E ` π(t) and tb = tb0 then E ` t = t 0 , and by (P), E ` π(t 0 ).

AE
∃!g
/> A
We show that AE |= E : a
1. E ` t = t 0 iff tb = tb0 iff AE |= t = t 0 . 
f h
2. E ` π(t) iff tb ∈ π AE iff AE |= π(t).
TΣ
Assume that A |= E . Let h : TΣ → A be the unique homomorphism defined by h(t) = t A for all
t ∈ TΣ . Since A |= E , we have ≡E ⊆ ker(h). By the first isomorphism theorem, there exists a
unique homomorphism g : AE → A such that f ; g = h, where f : TΣ → AE .
(a) ⇒ (b) Since AE |= E , we have E |= ρ implies AE |= ρ.
(b) ⇔ (c) By the first and the second item above, AE |= ρ iff E ` ρ.
(c) ⇒ (a) By soundness, E ` ρ implies E |= ρ. 12 / 14
Signature extensions
Lemma 18
Consider a signature Σ. Let α be the cardinal of Sen(Σ). Let C be a set of new constants such
that Cs = α for all sort s ∈ S. For all enumerations {ρi ∈ Sen(Σ[C ]) | i < α} there exists a
chain of signature morphisms

χ0,1 χ1,2 χi,i+1

Σ[C0 ] ,→ Σ[C1 ] ,→ . . . Σ[Ci ] ,→ . . . Σ[Cα ]

such that
Σ[Ci , Xi ] Xi
I Ci ∈ Pα (C ) for all i < α, and Cα = C , :
ιX
I ρi = χi,α (γi ) for some γi ∈ Sen(Σ[Ci ]), and i
ϑi ϑi
I if γi is of the form ∃Xi · γi0 then there exists ,  
an injective mapping ϑi : Xi → Ci+1 \ Ci . Σ[Ci ]
 / Σ[Ci+1 ] Ci+1 \ Ci
χi,i+1

Proof.
We denote by Cρi the subset of constants from C which occur in ρi . We define two chains of
I {Ci ∈ Pα (C ) | i < α},
sets of constants from C :
I {Di ∈ Pω (C ) | Di ⊆ Ci+1 \Ci and i < α}.
We proceed by induction on ordinals.

13 / 14
Proof of Lemma 18.
I i = 0 Let C0 := Cρ0 . Clearly, C0 ∈ Pα (C ).
Since Cρ0 = C0 , ρ0 = χ0,α (γ0 ) for some γ0 ∈ Sen(Σ[C0 ]), where χ0,α : Σ[C0 ] ,→ Σ[C ].
I γ0 = ∃X0 · γ00 Since for all sorts s ∈ S, (a) card(Cs ) = α, (b) card(C0,s ) < α, and
(c) X0,s is finite, there exists ϑ0 : X0 → C \ C0 injective. Let D0 := ϑ0 (X0 ).
I γ0 is not existentially quantified Let D0 := ∅.

I i is a successor ordinal Let Ci := Ci−1 ∪ Di−1 ∪ Cρi . Since (a) Ci−1 ∈ Pα (C ), (b) Di−1
is finite, (c) Cρi is finite, we have Ci ∈ Pα (C ).
Since Cρi ⊆ Ci , ρi = χ0,α (γi ) for some γi ∈ Sen(Σ[Ci ]), where χi,α : Σ[Ci ] ,→ Σ[C ].
I γi = ∃Xi · γi0 Since for all sorts s ∈ S, (a) card(Cs ) = α, (b) card(Ci,s ) < α,
(c) Xi,s is finite, there exists ϑi : Xi → C \ Ci injective. Let Di := ϑi (Xi ).
I γi is not existentially quantified Let Di := ∅.

I i < α is a limit ordinal Let Ci := j<i Cj ∪ Cρi . Since (a) card(Cj ) ∈ Pα (C ) for all
S

j < i, (b) i < α, and (c) Cρi is finite, we have Ci ∈ Pα (C ).

Since Cρi ⊆ Ci , ρi = χ0,α (γi ) for some γi ∈ Sen(Σ[Ci ]), where χi,α : Σ[Ci ] ,→ Σ[C ].
I γi = ∃Xi · γi0 Since for all sorts s ∈ S, (a) card(Cs ) = α, (b) card(Ci,s ) < α, and
(c) Xi,s is finite, there exists ϑi : Xi → C \ Ci injective. Let Di := ϑi (Xi ).
I γi is not existentially quantified Let Di := ∅.

14 / 14