Model Theory

Fundamentals of Model Theory
William Weiss and Cherie DMello

Department of Mathematics
University of Toronto
c 1997 W.Weiss and C. DMello
1
Introduction
Model Theory is the part of mathematics which shows how to apply logic to
the study of structures in pure mathematics. On the one hand it is the ultimate
abstraction; on the other, it has immediate applications to every-day mathematics.
The fundamental tenet of Model Theory is that mathematical truth, like all truth,
is relative. A statement may be true or false, depending on how and where it is
interpreted. This isnt necessarily due to mathematics itself, but is a consequence
of the language that we use to express mathematical ideas.
What at rst seems like a deciency in our language, can actually be shaped into
a powerful tool for understanding mathematics. This book provides an introduction
to Model Theory which can be used as a text for a reading course or a summer
project at the senior undergraduate or graduate level. It is also a primer which will
give someone a self contained overview of the subject, before diving into one of the
more encyclopedic standard graduate texts.
Any reader who is familiar with the cardinality of a set and the algebraic
closure of a eld can proceed without worry. Many readers will have some acquain-
tance with elementary logic, but this is not absolutely required, since all necessary
concepts from logic are reviewed in Chapter 0. Chapter 1 gives the motivating ex-
amples; it is short and we recommend that you peruse it rst, before studying the
more technical aspects of Chapter 0. Chapters 2 and 3 are selections of some of the
most important techniques in Model Theory. The remaining chapters investigate
the relationship between Model Theory and the algebra of the real and complex
numbers. Thirty exercises develop familiarity with the denitions and consolidate
understanding of the main proof techniques.
Throughout the book we present applications which cannot easily be found
elsewhere in such detail. Some are chosen for their value in other areas of mathe-
matics: Ramseys Theorem, the Tarski-Seidenberg Theorem. Some are chosen for
their immediate appeal to every mathematician: existence of innitesimals for cal-
culus, graph colouring on the plane. And some, like Hilberts Seventeenth Problem,
are chosen because of how amazing it is that logic can play an important role in
the solution of a problem from high school algebra. In each case, the derivation
is shorter than any which tries to avoid logic. More importantly, the methods of
Model Theory display clearly the structure of the main ideas of the proofs, showing
how theorems of logic combine with theorems from other areas of mathematics to
produce stunning results.
The theorems here are all are more than thirty years old and due in great part
to the cofounders of the subject, Abraham Robinson and Alfred Tarski. However,
we have not attempted to give a history. When we attach a name to a theorem, it
is simply because that is what mathematical logicians popularly call it.
The bibliography contains a number of texts that were helpful in the prepa-
ration of this manuscript. They could serve as avenues of further study and in
addition, they contain many other references and historical notes. The more recent
titles were added to show the reader where the subject is moving today. All are
worth a look.
This book began life as notes for William Weisss graduate course at the Uni-
versity of Toronto. The notes were revised and expanded by Cherie DMello and
2
William Weiss, based upon suggestions from several graduate students. The elec-
tronic version of this book may be downloaded and further modied by anyone for
the purpose of learning, provided this paragraph is included in its entirety and so
long as no part of this book is sold for prot.
Contents
Chapter 0. Models, Truth and Satisfaction 4
Formulas, Sentences, Theories and Axioms 4
Prenex Normal Form 9
Chapter 1. Notation and Examples 11
Chapter 2. Compactness and Elementary Submodels 14
Compactness Theorem 14
Isomorphisms, elementary equivalence and complete theories 15
Elementary Chain Theorem 16
Lowenheim-Skolem Theorems 19
The Los-Vaught Test 21
Every complex one-to-one polynomial map is onto 23
Chapter 3. Diagrams and Embeddings 24
Diagram Lemmas 24
Every planar graph can be four coloured 25
Ramseys Theorem 26
The Leibniz Principle and innitesimals 26
Robinson Consistency Theorem 27
Craig Interpolation Theorem 31
Chapter 4. Model Completeness 32
Robinsons Theorem on existentially complete theories 32
Lindstroms Test 35
Hilberts Nullstellensatz 38
Chapter 5. The Seventeenth Problem 39
Positive denite rational functions are the sums of squares 39
Chapter 6. Submodel Completeness 45
Elimination of quantiers 45
The Tarski-Seidenberg Theorem 49
Chapter 7. Model Completions 50
Almost universal theories 52
Saturated models 54
Blums Test 55
3
CHAPTER 0
Models, Truth and Satisfaction
We will use the following symbols:
logical symbols:
the connectives , , , , called and, or, not, implies
and i respectively
the quantiers , called for all and there exists
an innite collection of variables indexed by the natural numbers N
v
0
,v
1
, v
2
, . . .
the two parentheses ), (
the symbol = which is the usual equal sign
constant symbols : often denoted by the letter c with subscripts
function symbols : often denoted by the letter F with subscripts; each
function symbol is an m-placed function symbol for some natural number
m 1
relation symbols : often denoted by the letter R with subscripts; each
relational symbol is an n-placed relation symbol for some natural number
n 1.
We now dene terms and formulas.
Definition 1. A term is dened as follows:
(1) a variable is a term
(2) a constant symbol is a term
(3) if F is an m-placed function symbol and t
1
, . . . , t
m
are terms, then
F(t
1
. . . t
m
) is a term.
(4) a string of symbols is a term if and only if it can be shown to be a term
by a nite number of applications of (1), (2) and (3).
Remark. This is a recursive denition.
Definition 2. A formula is dened as follows :
(1) if t
1
and t
2
are terms, then (t
1
= t
2
) is a formula.
(2) if R is an n-placed relation symbol and t
1
, . . . , t
n
are terms, then (R(t
1
. . . t
n
))
is a formula.
(3) if is a formula, then () is a formula
(4) if and are formulas then so are (), (), ( ) and ( )
(5) if v
i
is a variable and is a formula, then (v
i
) and (v
i
) are formulas
(6) a string of symbols is a formula if and only if it can be shown to be a
formula by a nite number of applications of (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5).
Remark. This is another recursive denition. is called the negation of ;
is called the conjunction of and ; and is called the disjunction of
and .
4
0. MODELS, TRUTH AND SATISFACTION 5
Definition 3. A subformula of a formula is dened as follows:
(1) is a subformula of
(2) if () is a subformula of then so is
(3) if any one of ( ), ( ), ( ) or ( ) is a subformula of ,
then so are both and
(4) if either (v
i
) or (v
i
) is a subformula of for some natural number i
, then is also a subformula of
(5) A string of symbols is a subformula of , if and only if it can be shown to
be such by a nite number of applications of (1), (2), (3) and (4).
Definition 4. A variable v
i
is said to occur bound in a formula i for some
subformula of either (v
i
) or (v
i
) is a subformula of . In this case each
occurence of v
i
in (v
i
) or (v
i
) is said to be a bound occurence of v
i
. Other
occurences of v
i
which do not occur bound in are said to be free.
Example 1.
F(v
3
) is a term.
(((v
3
)(v
0
= v
3
) (v
2
)(v
1
= v
2
)) (v
0
)(v
0
= v
0
))
is a formula. In this formula the variables v
2
and v
3
occurs bound, the variable v
1
occurs free, but the variable v
0
occurs both bound and free.
Exercise 1. Using the previous denitions as a guide, dene the substitution
of a term t for a variable v
i
in a formula . In particular, demonstrate how to
substitute the term for the variable v
0
in the formula of the example above.
Definition 5. A language L is a set consisting of all the logical symbols with
perhaps some constant, function and/or relational symbols included. It is under-
stood that the formulas of L are made up from this set in the manner prescribed
above. Note that all the formulas of L are uniquely described by listing only the
constant, function and relation symbols of L.
We use t(v
0
, . . . , v
k
) to denote a term t all of whose variables occur among
v
0
, . . . , v
k
.
We use (v
0
, . . . , v
k
) to denote a formula all of whose free variables occur
among v
0
, . . . , v
k
.
Example 2. These would be formulas of any language :
For any variable v
i
: (v
i
= v
i
)
for any term t(v
0
, . . . , v
k
) and other terms t
1
and t
2
:
((t
1
= t
2
) (t(v
0
, . . . , v
i1
, t
1
, v
i+1
, . . . , v
k
) = t(v
0
, . . . , v
i1
, t
2
, v
i+1
, . . . , v
k
)))
for any formula (v
0
, . . . , v
k
) and terms t
1
and t
2
:
((t
1
= t
2
) ((v
0
, . . . , v
i1
, t
1
, v
i+1
, . . . , v
k
) (v
0
, . . . , v
i1
, t
2
, v
i+1
, . . . , v
k
)))
Note the simple way we denote the substitution of t
1
for v
i
.
Definition 6. A model (or structure) A for a language L is an ordered pair
A, 1) where A is a nonempty set and 1 is an interpretation function with domain
the set of all constant, function and relation symbols of L such that:
(1) if c is a constant symbol, then 1(c) A; 1(c) is called a constant
(2) if F is an m-placed function symbol, then 1(F) is an m-placed function
on A
(3) if R is an n-placed relation symbol, then 1(R) is an n-placed relation on
A.
A is called the universe of the model A. We generally denote models with
Gothic letters and their universes with the corresponding Latin letters in boldface.
One set may be involved as a universe with many dierent interpretation functions
of the language L. The model is both the universe and the interpretation function.
Remark. The importance of Model Theory lies in the observation that mathe-
matical objects can be cast as models for a language. For instance, the real numbers
with the usual ordering <<< and the usual arithmetic operations, addition +++ and mul-
tiplication along with the special numbers 0 and 1 can be described as a model.
Let L contain one two-placed (i.e. binary) relation symbol R
0
, two two-placed
function symbols F
1
and F
2
and two constant symbols c
0
and c
1
. We build a model
by letting the universe A be the set of real numbers. The interpretation function
1 will map R
0
to <<<, i.e. R
0
will be interpreted as <<<. Similarly, 1(F
1
) will be +++,
1(F
2
) will be , 1(c
0
) will be 0 and 1(c
1
) will be 1. So A, 1) is an example of a
model for the language described by R
0
, F
1
, F
2
, c
0
, c
1
.
We now wish to show how to use formulas to express mathematical statements
about elements of a model. We rst need to see how to interpret a term in a model.
Definition 7. The value t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] of a term t(v
0
, . . . , v
q
) at x
0
, . . . , x
q
in
the universe A of the model A is dened as follows:
(1) if t is v
i
then t[x
0
, , x
q
] is x
i
,
(2) if t is the constant symbol c, then t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] is 1(c), the interpretation
of c in A,
(3) if t is F(t
1
. . . t
m
) where F is an m-placed function symbol and t
1
, . . . , t
m
are terms, then t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] is G(t
1
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
], . . . , t
m
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
]) where
G is the m-placed function 1(F), the interpretation of F in A.
Definition 8. Suppose A is a model for a language L. The sequence
x
0
, . . . , x
q
of elements of A satises the formula (v
0
, . . . , v
q
) all of whose free and
bound variables are among v
0
, . . . , v
q
, in the model A, written A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
]
provided we have:
(1) if (v
0
, . . . , v
q
) is the formula (t
1
= t
2
), then
A [= (t
1
= t
2
)[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means that t
1
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] equals t
2
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
],
(2) if (v
0
, . . . , v
q
) is the formula (R(t
1
. . . t
n
)) where R is an n-placed relation
symbol, then
A [= (R(t
1
. . . t
n
))[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means S(t
1
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
], . . . , t
n
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
])
where S is the n-placed relation 1(R), the interpretation of R in A,
(3) if is (), then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means not A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
],
(4) if is ( ), then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means both A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] and A [= [x
0
, . . . x
q
],
(5) if is ( ) then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means either A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] or A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
],
(6) if is ( ) then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means that A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] implies A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
],
(7) if is ( ) then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means that A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
],
(8) if is v
i
, then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means for every x A, A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
i1
, x, x
i+1
, . . . , x
q
],
(9) if is v
i
, then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] means for some x A, A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
i1
, x, x
i+1
, . . . , x
q
].
Exercise 2. Each of the formulas of Example 2 is satised in any model A for
any language L by any (long enough) sequence x
0
, x
1
, . . . , x
q
of A. This is where
you test your solution to Exercise 1.
We now prove two lemmas which show that the preceding concepts are well-
dened. In the rst one, we see that the value of a term only depends upon the
values of the variables which actually occur in the term. In this lemma the equal
sign = is used, not as a logical symbol in the formal sense, but in its usual sense to
denote equality of mathematical objects in this case, the values of terms, which
are elements of the universe of a model.
Lemma 1. Let A be a model for L and let t(v
0
, . . . , v
p
) be a term of L. Let
x
0
, . . . , x
q
and y
0
, . . . , y
r
be sequences from A such that p q and p r, and let
x
i
= y
i
whenever v
i
actually occurs in t(v
0
, . . . , v
p
). Then
t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] = t[y
0
, . . . , y
r
]
.
Proof. We use induction on the complexity of the term t.
(1) If t is v
i
then x
i
= y
i
and so we have
t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] = x
i
= y
i
= t[y
0
, . . . , y
r
] since p q and p r.
(2) If t is the constant symbol c, then
t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] = 1(c) = t[y
0
, . . . , y
r
]
where 1(c) is the interpretation of c in A.
(3) If t is F(t
1
. . . t
m
) where F is an m-placed function symbol, t
1
, . . . , t
m
are
terms and 1(F) = G, then
t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] = G(t
1
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
], . . . , t
m
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
]) and
t[y
0
, . . . , y
r
] = G(t
1
[y
0
, . . . , y
r
], . . . , t
m
[y
0
, . . . , y
r
]).
By the induction hypothesis we have that t
i
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] = t
i
[y
0
, . . . , y
r
] for
1 i m since t
1
, . . . , t
m
have all their variables among v
0
, . . . , v
p
. So
we have t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] = t[y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
In the next lemma the equal sign = is used in both senses as a formal
logical symbol in the formal language L and also to denote the usual equality
of mathematical objects. This is common practice where the context allows the
reader to distinguish the two usages of the same symbol. The lemma conrms that
satisfaction of a formula depends only upon the values of its free variables.
Lemma 2. Let A be a model for L and a formula of L, all of whose free and
bound variables occur among v
0
, . . . , v
p
. Let x
0
, . . . , x
q
and y
0
, . . . , y
r
(q, r p) be
two sequences such that x
i
and y
i
are equal for all i such that v
i
occurs free in .
Then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
]
Proof. Let A and L be as above. We prove the lemma by induction on the
complexity of .
(1) If (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) is the formula (t
1
= t
2
), then we use Lemma 1 to get:
A [= (t
1
= t
2
)[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i t
1
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] = t
2
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
]
i t
1
[y
0
, . . . , y
r
] = t
2
[y
0
, . . . , y
r
]
i A [= (t
1
= t
2
)[y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
(2) If (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) is the formula (R(t
1
. . . t
n
)) where R is an n-placed relation
symbol with interpretation S, then again by Lemma 1, we get:
A [= (R(t
1
. . . t
n
))[x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i S(t
1
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
], . . . , t
n
[x
0
, . . . , x
q
])
i S(t
1
[y
0
, . . . , y
r
], . . . , t
n
[y
0
, . . . , y
r
])
i A [= R(t
1
. . . t
n
)[y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
(3) If is (), the inductive hypothesis gives that the lemma is true for .
So,
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i not A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
]
i not A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
]
i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
(4) If is ( ), then using the inductive hypothesis on and we get
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i both A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] and A [= [x
0
, . . . x
q
]
i both A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
] and A [= [y
0
, . . . y
r
]
i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
(5) If is ( ) then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i either A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] or A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
]
i either A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
] or A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
]
i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
(6) If is ( ) then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] implies A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
]
i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
] implies A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
]
i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
(7) If is ( ) then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i we have A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
]
i we have A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
] i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
]
i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
(8) If is (v
i
), then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i for every z A, A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
i1
, z, x
i+1
, . . . , x
q
]
i for every z A, A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
i1
, z, y
i+1
, . . . , y
r
]
i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
The inductive hypothesis uses the sequences x
0
, . . . , x
i1
, z, x
i+1
, . . . , x
q
and y
0
, . . . , y
i1
, z, y
i+1
, . . . , y
r
with the formula .
(9) If is (v
i
), then
A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
q
] i for some z A, A [= [x
0
, . . . , x
i1
, z, x
i+1
, . . . , x
q
]
i for some z A, A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
i1
, z, y
i+1
, . . . , y
r
]
i A [= [y
0
, . . . , y
r
].
The inductive hypothesis uses the sequences x
0
, . . . , x
i1
, z, x
i+1
, . . . , x
q
and y
0
, . . . , y
i1
, z, y
i+1
, . . . , y
r
with the formula .
Definition 9. A sentence is a formula with no free variables.

If is a sentence, we can write A [= without any mention of a sequence from
A since by the previous lemma, it doesnt matter which sequence from A we use.
In this case we say:
A satises
or A is a model of
or holds in A
or is true in A
If is a sentence of L, we write [= to mean that A [= for every model A
for L. Intuitively then, [= means that is true under any relevant interpretation
(model for L). Alternatively, no relevant example (model for L) is a counterexample
to so is true.
Lemma 3. Let (v
0
, . . . , v
q
) be a formula of the language L. There is another
formula
(v
0
, . . . , v
q
) of L such that
(1)
has exactly the same free and bound occurences of variables as .

(2)
can possibly contain , and but no other connective or quantier.

(3) [= (v
0
) . . . (v
q
)(
)
Exercise 3. Prove the above lemma by induction on the complexity of . As
a reward, note that this lemma can be used to shorten future proofs by induction
on complexity of formulas.
Definition 10. A formula is said to be in prenex normal form whenever
(1) there are no quantiers occurring in , or
(2) is (v
i
) where is in prenex normal form and v
i
does not occur bound
in , or
(3) is (v
i
) where is in prenex normal form and v
i
does not occur bound
in .
Remark. If is in prenex normal form, then no variable occurring in occurs
both free and bound and no bound variable occurring in is bound by more
than one quantier. In the written order, all of the quantiers precede all of the
connectives.
Lemma 4. Let (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) be any formula of a language L. There is a formula
of L which has the following properties:

(1)
is in prenex normal form

(2) and
have the same free occurences of variables, and

(3) [= (v
0
) . . . (v
p
)(
)
Exercise 4. Prove this lemma by induction on the complexity of .
There is a notion of rank on prenex formulas the number of alternations of
quantiers. The usual formulas of elementary mathematics have prenex rank 0, i.e.
no alternations of quantiers. For example:
(x)(y)(2xy x
2
+y
2
).
However, the denition of a limit of a function has prenex rank 2 and is much
more dicult for students to comprehend at rst sight:
()()(x)((0 < 0 < [x a[ < ) [F(x) L[ < ).
A formula of prenex rank 4 would make any mathematician look twice.
CHAPTER 1
Notation and Examples
Although the formal notation for formulas is precise, it can become cumbersome
and dicult to read. Condent that the reader would be able, if necessary, to put
formulas into their formal form, we will relax our formal behaviour. In particular,
we will write formulas any way we want using appropriate symbols for variables,
constant symbols, function and relation symbols. We will omit parentheses or add
them for clarity. We will use binary function and relation symbols between the
arguments rather than in front as is the usual case for plus, times and less
than.
Whenever a language L has only nitely many relation, function and constant
symbols we often write, for example:
L = <, R
0
, +, F
1
, c
0
, c
1
omitting explicit mention of the logical symbols (including the innitely many vari-
ables) which are always in L. Correspondingly we may denote a model A for L
as:
A = A, <<<, S
0
, +++, G
1
, a
0
, a
1
)
where the interpretations of the symbols in the language L are given by 1(<) = <<<,
1(R
0
) = S
0
, 1(+) = +++ , 1(F
1
) = G
1
, 1(c
0
) = a
0
and 1(c
1
) = a
1
.
Example 3. R = R, <<<, +++, , 0, 1) and Q = Q, <<<, +++, , 0, 1), where R is the
reals, Q the rationals , are models for the language L = <, +, , 0, 1. Here < is a
binary relation symbol, + and are binary function symbols, 0 and 1 are constant
symbols whereas <<<, +++, , 0, 1 are the well known relations, arithmetic functions
and constants.
Similarly, C = C, +++, , 0, 1), where C is the complex numbers, is a model for
the language L = +, , 0, 1. Note the exceptions to the boldface convention for
these popular sets.
Example 4. Here L = <, +, , 0, 1, where < is a binary relation symbol, +
and are binary function symbols and 0 and 1 are constant symbols. The following
formulas are sentences.
(1) (x)(x < x)
(2) (x)(y)(x < y y < x)
(3) (x)(y)(z)(x < y y < z x < z)
(4) (x)(y)(x < y y < x x = y)
(5) (x)(y)(x < y (z)(x < z z < y))
(6) (x)(y)(x < y)
(7) (x)(y)(y < x)
(8) (x)(y)(z)(x + (y +z) = (x +y) +z)
(9) (x)(x + 0 = x)
11
1. NOTATION AND EXAMPLES 12
(10) (x)(y)(x +y = 0)
(11) (x)(y)(x +y = y +x)
(12) (x)(y)(z)(x (y z) = (x y) z)
(13) (x)(x 1 = x)
(14) (x)(x = 0 (y)(y x = 1)
(15) (x)(y)(x y = y x)
(16) (x)(y)(z)(x (y +z) = (x y) + (y z))
(17) 0 ,= 1
(18) (x)(y)(z)(x < y x +z < y +z)
(19) (x)(y)(z)(x < y 0 < z x z < y z)
(20) for each n 1 we have the formula
(x
0
)(x
1
) (x
n
)(y)(x
n
y
n
+x
n1
y
n1
+ +x
1
y +x
0
= 0 x
n
= 0)
where, as usual, y
k
abbreviates
k
..
y y y
The latter formulas express that each polynomial of degree n has a root. The
following formulas express the intermediate value property for polynomials of degree
n: if the polynomial changes sign from w to z, then it is zero at some y between w
and z.
(21) for each n 1 we have
(x
0
) . . . (x
n
)(w)(z)[(x
n
w
n
+x
n1
w
n1
+ +x
1
w +x
0
)
(x
n
z
n
+x
n1
z
n1
+ +x
1
z +x
0
) < 0
(y)(((w < y y < z) (z < y y < w))
(x
n
y
n
+x
n1
y
n1
+ +x
1
y +x
0
= 0))]
The most fundamental concept is that of a sentence being true when inter-
preted in a model A. We write this as A [= , and we extend this concept in the
following denitions.
Definition 11. If is a set of sentences, A is said to be a model of , written
A [= , whenever A [= for each . is said to be satisable i there is some
A such that A [= .
Definition 12. A theory T is a set of sentences. If T is a theory and is a
sentence, we write T [= whenever we have that for all A if A [= T then A [= .
We say that is a consequence of T . A theory is said to be closed whenever it
contains all of its consequences.
Definition 13. If A is a model for the language L, the theory of A, denoted
by ThA, is dened to be the set of all sentences of L which are true in A,
of L : A [= .
This is one way that a theory can arise. Another way is through axioms.
Definition 14. T is said to be a set of axioms for T whenever [= for
every in T ; in this case we write [= T .
Remark. We will generally assume our theories are closed and we will often
describe theories by specifying a set of axioms . The theory will then be all
consequences of .
1. NOTATION AND EXAMPLES 13
Example 5. We will consider the following theories and their axioms:
(1) The theory of Linear Orderings (LOR) which has as axioms sentences 1-4
from Example 4.
(2) The theory of Dense Linear Orders (DLO) which has as axioms all the
axioms of LOR, and sentence 5, 6 and 7 of Example 4.
(3) The theory of Fields (FEI) which has as axioms sentences 8-17 from Ex-
ample 4.
(4) The theory of Ordered Fields (ORF) which has as axioms all the axioms
of FEI, LOR and sentences 18 and 19 from Example 4.
(5) The theory of Algebraically Closed Fields (ACF) which has as axioms all
the axioms of FEI and all sentences from 20 of Example 4, i.e. innitely
many sentences, one for each n 1.
(6) The theory of Real Closed Ordered Fields (RCF) which has as axioms all
the axioms of ORF, and all sentences from 21 of Example 4, i.e. innitely
many sentences, one for each n 1.
Exercise 5. Show that :
(1) Q [= DLO
(2) R [= RCF using the Intermediate Value theorem
(3) C [= ACF using the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
where Q, R and C are as in Example 3.
Remark. The theory of Real Closed Ordered Fields is sometimes axiomatized
dierently. All the axioms of ORF are retained, but the sentences from 21 of
Example 4, which amount to an Intermediate Value Property, are replaced by the
sentences from 20 for odd n and the sentence
(x)(0 < x (y)y
2
= x)
which states that every positive element has a square root. A signicant amount of
algebra would then be used to verify the Intermediate Value Property from these
axioms.
CHAPTER 2
Compactness and Elementary Submodels
Theorem 1. The Compactness Theorem (Malcev)
A set of sentences is satisable i every nite subset is satisable.
Proof. There are several proofs. We only point out here that it is an easy
consequence of the following, a theorem which appears in all elementary logic texts:
Proposition. The Completeness Theorem (Godel, Malcev)
A set of sentences is consistent i it is satisable.
Although we do not here formally dene consistent, it does mean what you
think it does. In particular, a set of sentences is consistent if and only if each nite
subset is consistent.
Remark. The Compactness Theorem is the only one for which we do not give
a complete proof. If the reader has not previously seen the Completeness Theorem,
there are other proofs of the Compactness Theorem which may be more easily
absorbed: set theoretic (using ultraproducts), topological (using compact spaces,
hence the name) or Boolean algebraic. However these topics are too far aeld to
enter into the proofs here. We will use the Compactness Theorem as a starting
point in fact, all that follows can be seen as its corollaries.
Exercise 6. Suppose T is a theory for the language L and is a sentence of L
such that T [= . Prove that there is some nite T
T such that T
[= . Recall
that T [= i T is not satisable.
Definition 15. If L, and L
are two languages such that L L
we say that
L
is an expansion of L and L is a reduction of L
. Of course when we say that

L L
we also mean that the constant, function and relation symbols of L remain
(respectively) constant, function and relation symbols of L
.
Definition 16. Given a model A for the language L, we can expand it to a
model A
of L
by giving appropriate interpretations to the symbols in L
L. We
say that A
is an expansion of A to L
and that A is a reduct of A
to L. We also
use the notation A
[L for the reduct of A
to L.
Theorem 2. If a theory T has arbitrarily large nite models, then it has an
innite model.
Proof. Consider new constant symbols c
i
for i N, the usual natural num-
bers, and expand from L, the language of T , to L
= L c
i
: i N.
Let
= T c
i
= c
j
: i ,= j, i, j N.
14
2. COMPACTNESS AND ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS 15
We rst show that every nite subset of has a model by interpreting the
nitely many relevant constant symbols as dierent elements in an expansion of
some nite model of T . Then we use compactness to get a model A
of .
The model that we require is for the language L, so we take A to be the reduct
of A
to L.
Definition 17. Two models A and A
for L are said to be isomorphic whenever

there is a bijection f : A A
such that
(1) for each n-placed relation symbol R of L and corresponding interpretations
S of A and S
of A
we have
S(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) i S
(f(x
1
), . . . , f(x
n
)) for all x
1
, . . . , x
n
in A
(2) for each n-placed function symbol F of L and corresponding interpreta-
tions G of A and G
of A
we have
f(G(x
1
, . . . , x
n
)) = G
(f(x
1
), . . . , f(x
n
)) for all x
1
, . . . , x
n
in A
(3) for each constant symbol c of L and corresponding constant elements a of
A and a
of A
we have f(a) = a
.
We write A
= A
. This is an equivalence relation.

Example 6. Number theory is ThN, +++, , <<<, 000, 111), the set of all sentences of
L = +, , <, 0, 1 which are true in N, +++, , <<<, 000, 111), the standard model which we
all learned in school. Any model not isomorphic to the standard model of number
theory is said to be a non-standard model of number theory.
Theorem 3. (T. Skolem)
There exist non-standard models of number theory.
Proof. Add a new constant symbol c to L. Consider
ThN, +, , <, 0, 1)
n
..
1 + 1 + + 1 < c : n N
and use the Compactness Theorem. The interpretation of the constant symbol c
will not be a natural number.
Definition 18. Two models A and A
for L are said to be elementarily equiv-

alent whenever we have that for each sentence of L
A [= i A
[=
We write A A
. This is another equivalence relation.

Exercise 7. Suppose f : A A
is an isomorphism and is a formula such

that A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
k
] for some a
0
, . . . , a
k
from A; prove A
[= [f(a
0
), . . . , f(a
k
)].
Use this to show that A
= A
implies A A
.
Definition 19. A model A
is called a submodel of A i ,= A
A and
(1) each n-placed relation S
of A
is the restriction to A
of the corresponding
relation S of A, i. e. S
= S (A
)
n
(2) each m-placed function G
of A
is the restriction to A
of the correspond-
ing function G of A, i. e. G
= G (A
)
m
(3) each constant of A
is the corresponding constant of A.

We write A
A.
Definition 20. Let A and B be two models for L. We say A is an elementary
submodel of Band Bis an elementary extension of A and we write A Bwhenever
(1) A B and
(2) for all formulas (v
0
, . . . , v
k
) of L and all a
0
, . . . , a
k
A
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
k
] i B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
k
].
Exercise 8. Prove that if A B then A B and A B.
Example 7. Let N be the usual natural numbers with <<< as the usual ordering.
Let B = N, <<<) and A = N 0, <<<) be models for the language with one binary
relation symbol <. Then A B and A B; in fact A

= B. But we do not
have A B; 1 satises the formula describing the least element of the ordering
in A but in B. So we see that being an elementary submodel is a very strong
condition indeed. Nevertheless, later in the chapter we will obtain many examples
of elementary submodels.
Exercise 9. Show that
if A B and B C then A C and
if A B and B C then A C.
Definition 21. A chain of models for a language L is an increasing sequence
of models
A
0
A
1
A
n
n N.
The union of the chain is dened to be the model A = A
n
: n N where
the universe of A is A = A
n
: n N and:
(1) each relation S on A is the union of the corresponding relations S
n
of A
n
;
S = S
n
: n N, i.e. the relation extending each S
n
(2) each function G on A is the union of the corresponding functions G
n
of
A
n
; G = G
n
: n N, i.e. the function extending each G
n
(3) all the models A
n
and A have the same constant elements.
Note that each A
n
A.
Example 8. For each n N, let
A
n
= n, n + 1, n + 2, . . . , 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . Z.
Let A
n
= A
n
, ). Each A
n
A
0
, but we dont have A
0
A
n
: n N.
Remark. To be sure, what is dened here is a chain of models indexed by the
natural numbers N. More generally, a chain of models could be indexed by any
ordinal. However we will not need the concept of an ordinal at this point.
Definition 22. An elementary chain is a chain of models A
n
: n N such
that for each m < n we have A
m
A
n
.
Theorem 4. (Tarskis Elementary Chain Theorem)
Let A
n
: n N be an elementary chain. For all n N we have
A
n
A
n
: n N.
Proof. Denote the union of the chain by A. We have A
k
A for each k N.
Claim. If t is a term of the language L and a
0
, . . . , a
p
are in A
k
, then the
value of the term t[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] in A is equal to the value in A
k
.
Proof of Claim. We prove this by induction on the complexity of the term.
(1) If t is the variable v
i
then both values are just a
i
.
(2) If t is the constant symbol c then the values are equal because c has the
same interpretation in A and in A
k
.
(3) If t is F(t
1
. . . t
m
) where F is a function symbol and t
1
, . . . , t
m
are terms
such that each value t
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] is the same in both A and A
k
, then the
value
F(t
1
. . . t
m
)[a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
in A is
G(t
1
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
], . . . , t
m
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
])
where G is the interpretation of F in A and the value of
F(t
1
. . . t
m
)[a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
in A
k
is
G
k
(t
1
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
], . . . , t
m
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
])
where G
k
is the interpretation of F in A
k
. But G
k
is the restriction of G
to A
k
so these values are equal.
In order to show that each A
k
A it will suce to prove the following statement
for each formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) of L.
For all k N and all a
0
, . . . , a
p
in A
k
:
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i A
k
[= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
Claim. The statement is true whenever is t
1
= t
2
where t
1
and t
2
are terms.
Proof of Claim. Fix k N and a
0
, . . . , a
p
in A
k
.
A [= (t
1
= t
2
)[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i t
1
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] = t
2
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] in A
i t
1
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] = t
2
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] in A
k
i A
k
[= (t
1
= t
2
)[a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
Claim. The statement is true whenever is R(t
1
. . . t
n
) where R is a relation
symbol and t
1
, . . . , t
n
are terms.
0
, . . . , a
p
in A
k
. Let S be the interpretation
of R in A and S
k
be the interpretation in A
k
; S
k
is the restriction of S to A
k
.
A [= R(t
1
. . . t
n
)[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i S(t
1
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
], . . . , t
n
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
])
i S
k
(t
1
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
], . . . , t
n
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
])
i A
k
[= R(t
1
. . . t
n
)[a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
Claim. If the statement is true when is , then the statement is true when
is .
0
, . . . , a
p
in A
k
.
A [= ()[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i not A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
i not A
k
[= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
i A
k
[= ()[a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
Claim. If the statement is true when is
1
and when is
2
then the state-
ment is true when is
1

2
.
0
, . . . , a
p
in A
k
.
A [= (
1

2
)[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i A [=
1
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] and A [=
2
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
i A
k
[=
1
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] and A
k
[=
2
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
i A
k
[= (
1

2
)[a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
Claim. If the statement is true when is then the statement is true when
is v
i
.
0
, . . . , a
p
in A
k
. Note that
A = A
j
: j N.
A [= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i A [= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
q
]
where q is the maximum of i and p (by Lemma 2),
i A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, a, a
i+1
, . . . , a
q
] for some a A,
i A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, a, a
i+1
, . . . , a
q
]
for some a A
l
for some l k
i A
l
[= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, a, a
i+1
, . . . , a
q
]
since the statement is true for ,
i A
l
[= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
q
]
i A
k
[= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
q
] since A
k
A
l
i A
k
[= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] (by Lemma 2).
By induction on the complexity of , we have proven the statement for all
formulas which do not contain the connectives , and or the quantier .
To verify the statement for all we use Lemma 3. Let be any formula of L. By
Lemma 3 there is a formula which does not use , , nor such that
[= (v
0
) . . . (v
p
)( ).
Now x k N and a
0
, . . . , a
p
in A
k
. We have
A [= ( )[a
0
, . . . , a
p
] and A
k
[= ( )[a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
i A
k
[= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
i A
k
[= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
which completes the proof of the theorem.

Lemma 5. (The Tarski-Vaught Condition)
Let A and B be models for L with A B. The following are equivalent:
(1) A B
(2) for any formula (v
0
, . . . , v
q
) and any i q and any a
0
, . . . , a
q
from A:
if there is some b B such that
B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, b, a
i+1
, . . . , a
q
]
then we have some a A such that
B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, a, a
i+1
, . . . , a
q
].
Proof. Only the implication (2) (1) requires a lot of proof. We will prove
that for each formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) and all a
0
, . . . , a
p
from A we will have:
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
by induction on the complexity of using only the negation symbol , the connec-
tive and the quantier (recall Lemma 3).
(1) The cases of formulas of the form t
1
= t
2
and R(t
1
. . . t
n
) come immedi-
ately from the fact that A B.
(2) For negation: suppose is and we have it for , then
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i not A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
i not B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
(3) The case proceeds similarly.
(4) For the case we consider as v
i
. If A [= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
], then the
inductive hypothesis for and the fact that A B ensure that
B [= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
]. It remains to show that if B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] then
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
Assume B [= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
]. By Lemma 2, B [= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
q
]
where q is the maximum of i and p. By the denition of satisfaction,
there is some b B such that
B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, b, a
i+1
, . . . , a
q
].
By (2), there is some a A such that
B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, a, a
i+1
, . . . , a
q
].
By the inductive hypothesis on , for that same a A,
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, a, a
i+1
, . . . , a
q
].
By the denition of satisfaction,
A [= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
q
].
Finally, by Lemma 2, A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
Recall that [B[ is used to represent the cardinality, or size, of the set B. Note
that since any language L contains innitely many variables, [L[ is always innite,
but may be countable or uncountable depending on the number of other symbols.
We often denote an arbitrary innite cardinal by the lower case Greek letter .
Theorem 5. (Downward Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem)
Let B be a model for L and let be any cardinal such that [L[ < [B[. Then B
has an elementary submodel A of cardinality .
Furthermore if X B and [X[ , then we can also have X A.
Proof. Without loss of generosity assume [X[ = . We recursively dene sets
X
n
for n N such that X = X
0
X
1
X
n
and such that for each
formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) of L and each i p and each a
0
, . . . , a
p
from X
n
such that
B [= v
i
[a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
we have x X
n+1
such that
B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
i1
, x, a
i+1
, . . . , a
p
].
Since [L[ and each formula of L is a nite string of symbols from L, there are
at most many formulas of L. So there are at most elements of B that need
to be added to each X
n
and so, without loss of generosity each [X
n
[ = . Let
A = X
n
: n N; then [A[ = . Since A is closed under functions from B and
contains all constants from B, A gives rise to a submodel A B.
The Tarski-Vaught Condition is used to show that A B.
Theorem 6. (The Upward Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem)

Let A be an innite model for L and be any cardinal such that [L[ and
[A[ < . Then A has an elementary extension of cardinality .
Proof. For each a A, let c
a
be a new constant symbol; let
L
= L c
a
: a A.
Note that sentences of L
are just formulas of L with all free variables replaced

by constant symbols.
In addition, add many new constant symbols to L
to make L
. Dene to
be the following set of sentences of L
:
d = d
: d and d
are distinct new constant symbols of L
: is a sentence of L
obtained from the formula (v

0
, . . . , v
p
) of L
by replacing each free variable v
i
by the constant symbol c
a
i
and A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
By interpreting c
a
as a and the new constant symbols as distinct elements of A
we can transform A into a model of any nite subset of . Using the Compactness
Theorem, we obtain a model D
for L
such that D
[= .
Note that D
has size at least and that for any sentence of L
, D
[= i
.
Obtain a model C
for L
from D
by simply switching elements of the universe

of D
with A to ensure that for each a A the interpretation of c

a
in C
is a.
Hence the universe of C
contains A and C
[= . Let C be the reduct of C
to L. The following argument will show that A C.

Let be any formula of L and a
0
, . . . , a
p
any elements from A. Let be the
sentence of L
formed by replacing free occurences of v

i
with c
a
i
. We have
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i
i D
[=
i C
[=
i C [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
].
However, C may have size strictly larger than . In this case we obtain our
nal B by using the previous theorem to get B C with A B. It is now
straightforward to conclude that A B.
Definition 23. A theory T for a language L is said to be complete whenever

for each sentence of L either T [= or T [= .
Lemma 6. A theory T for L is complete i any two models of T are elemen-
tarily equivalent.
Proof. () easy. () easy.
Definition 24. A theory T is said to be categorical in cardinality whenever
any two models of T of cardinality are isomorphic. We also say that T is -
categorical.
The most interesting cardinalities in the context of categorical theories are
0
,
the cardinality of countably innite sets, and
1
, the rst uncountable cardinal.
Exercise 10. Show that DLO is
0
-categorical. There are two well-known
proofs. One uses a back-and-forth construction of an isomorphism. The other
constructs, by recursion, an isomorphism from the set of dyadic rational numbers
between 0 and 1:
n
2
m
: m is a positive integer and n is an integer 0 < n < 2
m
,
onto a countable dense linear order without endpoints.
Now use the following theorem to show that DLO is complete.
Theorem 7. (The Los-Vaught Test)
Suppose that a theory T has only innite models for a language L and that T is
-categorical for some cardinal [L[. Then T is complete.
Proof. We will show that any two models of T are elementarily equivalent.
Let A of cardinality
1
, and B of cardinality
2
, be two models of T .
If
1
< use the Upward Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem to get A
such that
[A
[ = and A A
.
If
1
> use the Downward Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem to get A
such that
[A
[ = and A
A.
Either way, we can get A
such that [A
[ = and A
A. Similarly, we can
get B
such that [B
[ = and B
B. Since T is -categorical, A

= B
. Hence
A B.
Recall that the characteristic of a eld is the prime number p such that
p
..
1 + 1 + + 1 = 0
provided that such a p exists, and, if no such p exists the eld has characteristic 0.
All of our best-loved elds: Q, R and C have characteristic 0. On the other hand,
elds of characteristic p include the nite eld of size p (the prime Galois eld).
Theorem 8. The theory of algebraically closed elds of characteristic 0 is
complete.
Proof. We use the Los-Vaught Test and the following Lemma.
Lemma 7. Any two algebraically closed elds of characteristic 0 and cardinality
1
are isomorphic.
Proof. Let A be such a eld containing the rationals Q = Q, +++, , 0, 1) as a
prime subeld. In a manner completely analogous to nding a basis for a vector
space, we can nd a transcendence basis for A, that is, an indexed subset
a
: I A such that A is the algebraic closure of the subeld A
generated
by a
: I but no a
is in the algebraic closure of the subeld generated by

the rest: a
: I and ,= .
Since the subeld generated by a countable subset would be countable and the
algebraic closure of a countable subeld would also be countable, we must have
that the transcendence base is uncountable. Since [A[ =
1
, the least uncountable
cardinal, we must have in fact that [I[ =
1
.
Now let B be any other algebraically closed eld of characteristic 0 and size
1
. As above, obtain a transcendence basis b
: J with [J[ =
1
and its
generated subeld B
. Since [I[ = [J[, there is a bijection g : I J which we can

use to build an isomorphism from A to B.
Since B has characteristic 0, a standard theorem of algebra gives that the
rationals are isomorphically embedded into B. Let this embedding be:
f : Q B.
We extend f as follows: for each I, let f(a
) = b
g()
, which maps the tran-
scendence basis of A into the transcendence basis of B.
We now extend f to map A
onto B
as follows: Each element of A
is given by
p(a
1
, . . . , a
m
)
q(a
1
, . . . , a
m
)
,
where p and q are polynomials with rational coecients and the as come, of course,
from the transcendence basis.
Let f map such an element to
p(b
g(
1
)
, . . . , b
g(
m
)
)
q(b
g(
1
)
, . . . , b
g(
m
)
)
where p and q are polynomials whose coecients are the images under f of the
rational coecients of p and q.
The nal extension of f to all of A and Bcomes from the uniqueness of algebraic
closures.

Remark. Lemma 7 is also true when 0 is replaced by any xed characteristic
and
1
by any uncountable cardinal.
Theorem 9. Let H be a set of sentences in the language of eld theory which
are true in algebraically closed elds of arbitrarily high characteristic. Then H holds
in some algebraically closed eld of characteristic 0.
Proof. A eld is a model in the language +, , 0, 1 of the axioms of eld
theory. Let ACF be the set of axioms for the theory of algebraically closed elds;
see Example 5. For each n 2, let
n
denote the sentence
(
n
..
1 + 1 + + 1) = 0
Let = ACF H
n
: n 2
Let
be any nite subset of and let m be the largest natural number such
that
m

or let m = 1 by default.
Let A be an algebraically closed eld of characteristic p > m such that A [= H;
then in fact A [=
.
So by compactness there is B such that B [= . B is the required eld.
Corollary 1. Let C denote, as usual, the complex numbers. Every one-to-one

polynomial map f : C
m
C
m
is onto.
Proof. A polynomial map is a function of the form
f(x
1
, . . . , x
m
) = p
1
(x
1
, . . . , x
m
), . . . , p
m
(x
1
, . . . , x
m
))
where each p
i
is a polynomial in the variables x
1
, . . . , x
m
.
We call max degree of p
i
: i m the degree of f.
Let L be the language of eld theory and let
m,n
be the sentence of L which
expresses that each polynomial map of m variables of degree < n which is one-to-
one is also onto.
We wish to show that there are algebraically closed elds of arbitrarily high
characteristic which satisfy H =
m,n
: m, n N. We will then apply Theorem
9, Theorem 8, Lemma 6 and Exercise 5 and be nished.
Let p be any prime and let F
p
be the prime Galois eld of size p. The algebraic
closure

F
p
is the countable union of a chain of nite elds
F
p
= A
0
A
1
A
2
A
k
A
k+1

obtained by recursively adding roots of polynomials.
We nish the proof by showing that each

F
p
, +++, , 0, 1) satises H.
Given any polynomial map f : (

F
p
m
) (

F
p
m
) which is one-to-one, we show
that f is also onto. Given any elements b
1
, . . . , b
m

F
p
, there is some A
k
containing
b
1
, . . . , b
m
as well as all the coecients of f.
Since f is one-to-one, f A
m
k
: A
m
k
A
m
k
is a one-to-one polynomial map.
Hence, since A
m
k
is nite, f A
m
k
is onto and so there are a
1
, . . . , a
m
A
k
such
that f(a
1
, . . . , a
m
) = b
1
, . . . , b
m
). Therefore f is onto.
Thus, for each prime number p and each m, n N,
m,n
holds in a eld of
characteristic p, i.e.
F
p
, +++, , 000, 111) satises H.
It is a signicant problem to replace one-to-one with locally one-to-one.

CHAPTER 3
Diagrams and Embeddings
Let A = A, 1) be a model for a language L and X A. Expand L to
L
X
= Lc
a
: a X by adding new constant symbols to L. We can expand A to
a model A
X
= A, 1
) for L
X
by choosing 1
extending 1 such that 1
(c
a
) = a for
each a X. We sometimes write this as A, x)
xX
. We often deal with the case
X = A, to obtain A
A
.
Exercise 11. Let A and B be models for L with X A B. Prove:
(i) if A B then A
X
B
X
.
(ii) if A B then A
X
B
X
.
Hint: A [= [a
1
, . . . , a
p
] i A
A
[=
where
is the sentence of L
A
formed by
replacing each free occurence of v
i
with c
a
i
.
Definition 25. Let A be a model for L.
(1) The elementary diagram of A is ThA
A
, the set of all sentences of L
A
which hold in A
A
.
(2) The diagram of A, denoted by
A
, is the set of all those sentences in
ThA
A
without quantiers.
Remark. There is a notion of atomic formula, which is a formula of the form
t
1
= t
2
or R(t
1
. . . t
n
) where t
1
, . . . , t
n
are terms. Sometimes
A
is dened to be the
set of all atomic formulas and negations of atomic formulas which occur in ThA
A
.
However this is not substantially dierent from Denition 25, since the reader can
quickly show that for any model B, B [=
A
in one sense i B [=
A
in the other
sense.
Definition 26. A is said to be isomorphically embedded into B whenever
(1) there is a model C such that A
= C and C B
or
(2) there is a model D such that A D and D
= B.
Exercise 12. Prove that, in fact, (1) and (2) are equivalent conditions.
Definition 27. A is said to be elementarily embedded into B whenever
(1) there is a model C such that A
= C and C B
or
(2) there is a model D such that A D and D
= B.
Exercise 13. Again, prove that, in fact, (1) and (2) are equivalent.
Theorem 10. (The diagram lemmas) Let A and B be models for L.
24
3. DIAGRAMS AND EMBEDDINGS 25
(1) A is isomorphically embedded in B i B can be expanded to a model of
A
.
(2) A is elementarily embedded in B i B can be expanded to a model of
Th(A
A
).
Proof. We sketch the proof of 1.
() If f is as in 1 of Denition 26 above, then B, f(a))
aA
[=
A
.
() If B, b
a
)
aA
[=
A
, then let f(a) = b
a
.
Exercise 14. Give a careful proof of part 2 of the theorem.

We now apply these notions to graph theory and to calculus. The natural
language for graph theory has one binary relation symbol which we call E (to
suggest the word edge). Graph Theory has the following two axioms:
(x)(y)E(x, y) E(y, x)
(x)E(x, x).
A graph is, of course, a model of graph theory.
Corollary 2. Every planar graph can be four coloured.
Proof. We will have to use the famous result of Appel and Haken that every
nite planar graph can be four coloured. Model Theory will take us from the
nite to the innite. We recall that a planar graph is one that can be embedded,
or drawn, in the usual Euclidean plane and to be four coloured means that each
vertex of the graph can be assigned one of four colours in such a way that no edge
has the same colour for both endpoints.
Let A be an innite planar graph. Introduce four new unary relation symbols:
R, G, B, Y (for red, green, blue and yellow). We wish to prove that there is some
expansion A
of A such that A
[= where is the sentence in the expanded

language:
(x)[R(x) G(x) B(x) Y (x)]
(x)[R(x) (G(x) B(x) Y (x))] . . .
(x)(y)(R(x) R(y) E(x, y))
which will ensure that the interpretations of R, G, B and Y will four colour the
graph.
Let =
A
. Any nite subset of has a model, based upon the
appropriate nite subset of A. By the compactness theorem, we get B [= . Since
B [= , the interpretations of R, G, B and Y four colour it. By the diagram lemma
A is isomorphically embedded in the reduct of B, and this isomorphism delivers
the four-colouring of A.
A graph with the property that every pair of vertices is connected with an edge
is called complete. At the other extreme, a graph with no edges is called discrete.
A very important theorem in nite combinatorics says that most graphs contain an
example of one or the other as a subgraph. A subgraph of a graph is, of course, a
submodel of a model of graph theory.
Corollary 3. (Ramseys Theorem)
For each n N there is an r N such that if G is any graph with r vertices, then
either G contains a complete subgraph with n vertices or a discrete subgraph with
n vertices.
Proof. We follow F. Ramsey who began by proving an innite version of the
theorem (also called Ramseys Theorem).
Claim. Each innite graph G contains either an innite complete subgraph or
an innite discrete subgraph.
Proof of Claim. By force of logical necessity, there are two possiblities:
(1) there is an innite X G such that for all x X there is a nite F
x
X
such that E(x, y) for all y X F
x
,
(2) for all innite X G there is a x X and an innite Y X such that
E(x, y) for all y Y .
If (1) occurs, we recursively pick x
1
X, x
2
XF
x
1
, x
3
X(F
x
1
F
x
2
), etc,
to obtain an innite complete subgraph. If (2) occurs we pick x
0
G and Y
0
G
with the property and then recursively choose x
1
Y
0
and Y
1
Y
0
, x
2
Y
1
and
Y
2
Y
1
and so on, to obtain an innite discrete subgraph.
We now use Model Theory to go from the innite to the nite. Let be
the sentence, of the language of graph theory, asserting that there is no complete
subgraph of size n.
(x
1
. . . x
n
)[E(x
1
, x
2
) E(x
1
, x
3
) E(x
n1
, x
n
)].
Let be the sentence asserting that there is no discrete subgraph of size n.
(x
1
. . . x
n
)[E(x
1
, x
2
) E(x
1
, x
3
) E(x
n1
, x
n
)].
Let T be the set consisting of , and the axioms of graph theory.
If there is no r as Ramseys Theorem states, then T has arbitrarily large nite
models. By Theorem 2, T has an innite model, contradicting the claim.
The following theorem of A. Robinson nally solved the centuries old problem
of innitesimals in the foundations of calculus.
Theorem 11. (The Leibniz Principle)
There is an ordered eld

R called the hyperreals, containing the reals R and an
innitesimal number such that any statement about the reals which holds in R also
holds in

R.
Proof. Let R be R, +++, , <<<, 000, 111). We will make the statement of the theorem
precise by proving that there is some model H, in the same language L as R and
with the universe called

R , such that R H and there is b

R such that
0 < b < a for each positive a R.
For each real number a, we introduce a new constant symbol c
a
. In addition,
another new constant symbol d is introduced. Let be the set of sentences in the
expanded language given by:
ThR
R
0 < d < c
a
: a is a positive real
We can obtain a model C [= by the compactness theorem. Let C
be the reduct
of C to L. By the elementary diagram lemma R is elementarily embedded in C
,
and so there is a model H for L such that C

= H and R H.
Remark. This idea is extremely useful in understanding calculus. An element

x

R is said to be innitesimal whenever r < x < r for each positive r R.
0 is innitesimal. Two elements x, y R are said to be innitely close, written
x y whenever xy is innitesimal. Note: x is innitesimal i x 0. An element
x

R is said to be nite whenever r < x < r for some positive r R. Else it is
innite.
Each nite x

R is innitely close to some real number, called the standard
part of x, written st(x).
To dierentiate f, for each x

R generate y = f(x+ x) f(x). Then
f
(x) = st
_
y
x
_
whenever this exists and is the same for each innitesimal x ,= 0.
The increment lemma states that if y = f(x) is dierentiable at x and x 0,
then y = f
(x) x + x for some innitesimal .

Proofs of the usual theorems of calculus are now easier.
The following theorem is considered one of the most fundamental results of
mathematical logic. We give a detailed proof.
Theorem 12. (Robinson Consistency Theorem)
Let L
1
and L
2
be two languages with L = L
1
L
2
. Suppose T
1
and T
2
are satisable
theories in L
1
and L
2
respectively. Then T
1
T
2
is satisable i there is no sentence
of L such that T
1
[= and T
2
[= .
Proof. The direction is easy and motivates the whole theorem.
We begin the proof in the direction. Our goal is to show that T
1
T
2
is
satisable. The following claim is a rst step.
Claim. T
1
sentences of L : T
2
[= is satisable.
Proof of Claim. Using the compactness theorem and considering conjunc-
tions, it suces to show that if T
1
[=
1
and T
2
[=
2
with
2
a sentence of L, then
1
,
2
is satisable. But this is true, since otherwise we would have
1
[=
2
and
hence T
1
[=
2
and so
2
would be a sentence of L contradicting our hypothesis.
The basic idea of the proof from now on is as follows. In order to construct a
model of T
1
T
2
we construct models A [= T
1
and B [= T
2
and an isomorphism
f : A[L B[L between the reducts of A and B to the language L, witnessing
that A[L

= B[L. We then use f to carry over interpretations of symbols in L
1
L
from A to B , giving an expansion B
of B to the language L
1
L
2
. Then, since
B
[L
1

= A and B
[L
2
= B we get B
[= T
1
T
2
.
The remainder of the proof will be devoted to constructing such an A, B and
f. A and B will be constructed as unions of elementary chains of A
n
s and B
n
s
while f will be the union of f
n
: A
n
B
n
.
We begin with n = 0, the rst link in the elementary chain.
Claim. There are models A
0
[= T
1
and B
0
[= T
2
with an elementary embedding
f
0
: A
0
[L B
0
[L.
Proof of Claim. Using the previous claim, let
A
0
[= T
1
sentences of L : T
2
[=
We rst wish to show that Th(A
0
[L)
A
0
T
2
is satisable. Using the compactness
theorem, it suces to prove that if Th(A
0
[L)
A
0
then T
2
is satisable.
For such a let c
a
0
, . . . , c
a
n
be all the constant symbols from L
A
0
L which appear
in . Let be the formula of L obtained by replacing each constant symbol c
a
i
by
a new variable u
i
. We have
A
0
[L [= [a
0
, . . . , a
n
]
and so A
0
[L [= u
0
. . . u
n
By the denition of A
0
, it cannot happen that T
2
[= u
0
. . . u
n
and so
there is some model D for L
2
such that D [= T
2
and D [= u
0
. . . u
n
. So there
are elements d
0
, . . . , d
n
of D such that D [= [d
o
, . . . , d
n
]. Expand D to a model
D
for L
2
L
A
0
, making sure to interpret each c
a
i
as d
i
. Then D
[= , and so
D
[= T
2
.
Let B
0
[= Th(A
0
[L)
A
0
T
2
. Let B
0
be the reduct of B
0
to L
2
; clearly B
0
[= T
2
.
Since B
0
[L can be expanded to a model of Th(A
0
[L)
A
0
, the Elementary Diagram
Lemma gives an elementary embedding
f
0
: A
0
[L B
0
[L
and nishes the proof of the claim.
The other links in the elementary chain are provided by the following result.
Claim. For each n 0 there are models A
n+1
[= T
1
and B
n+1
[= T
2
with an
elementary embedding
f
n+1
: A
n+1
[L B
n+1
[L
such that
A
n
A
n+1
, B
n
B
n+1
, f
n+1
extends f
n
and B
n
range of f
n+1
.
A
0
A
1
A
n
A
n+1

f
0

f
1

f
n

f
n+1
B
0
B
1
B
n
B
n+1

The proof of this claim will be discussed shortly. Assuming the claim, let
A =

nN
A
n
, B =

nN
B
n
and f =

nN
f
n
. The Elementary Chain Theorem
gives that A [= T
1
and B [= T
2
. The proof of the theorem is concluded by simply
verifying that f : A[L B[L is an isomorphism.
The proof of the claim is long and quite technical; it would not be inappropriate
to omit it on a rst reading. The proof, of course, must proceed by induction on
n. The case of a general n is no dierent from the case n = 0 which we state and
prove in some detail.
Claim. There are models A
1
[= T
1
and B
1
[= T
2
with an elementary embedding
f
1
: A
1
[L B
1
[L such that A
0
A
1
, B
0
B
1
, f
1
extends f
0
and
B
0
range of f
1
.
A
0
A
1
f
0

f
1
B
0
B
1
Proof of Claim. Let A
+
0
be the expansion of A
0
to the language L
+
1
= L
1
c
a
: a A
0
formed by interpreting each c
a
as a A
0
; A
+
0
is just another notation
for (A
0
)
A
0
. The elementary diagram of A
+
0
is Th
_
A
+
0
_
A
+
0
. Let B
0
be the expansion
of B
0
[L to the language
L
= L c
a
: a A
0
c
b
: b B
0
formed by interpreting each c

a
as f
0
(a) B
0
and each c
b
as b B
0
.
We wish to prove that Th
_
A
+
0
_
A
+
0
ThB
0
is satisable. By the compactness
theorem it suces to prove that Th
_
A
+
0
_
A
+
0
is satisable for each in ThB
0
.
For such a sentence , let c
a
0
, . . . , c
a
m
, c
b
0
, . . . , c
b
n
be all those constant symbols
occuring in but not in L. Let (u
0
, . . . , u
m
, w
0
, . . . , w
m
) be the formula of L
obtained from by replacing each constant symbol c
a
i
by a new variable u
i
and
each constant symbol c
b
i
by a new variable w
i
. We have B
0
[= so
B
0
[L [= [f
0
(a
0
), . . . , f
0
(a
m
), b
0
, . . . , b
n
]
So B
0
[L [= w
0
. . . w
n
[f
0
(a
0
), . . . , f
0
(a
m
)]
Since f
0
is an elementary embedding we have :
A
0
[L [= w
0
. . . w
n
[a
0
, . . . , a
m
]
Let (w
0
, . . . , w
n
+
1
obtained by replacing occurences of u
i
in (u
0
, . . . , u
m
, w
0
, . . . , w
n
) by c
a
i
; then A
+
0
[= w
0
. . . w
n
. So, of course,
_
A
+
0
_
A
+
0
[= w
0
. . . w
n

and this means that there are d
0
, . . . , d
n
in A
+
0
= A
0
such that
(A
+
0
)
A
+
0
[= [d
0
, . . . , d
n
].
We can now expand
_
A
+
0
_
A
+
0
to a model D by interpreting each c
b
i
as d
i
to obtain
D [= and so Th
_
A
+
0
_
A
+
0
is satisable.
Let E [= Th
_
A
+
0
_
A
+
0
ThB
0
. By the elementary diagram lemma A
+
0
is ele-
mentarily embedded into E[L
+
1
. So there is a model A
+
1
for L
+
1
with A
+
0
A
+
1
and
an isomorphism g : A
+
1
E[L
+
1
. Using g we expand A
+
1
to a model A
1
isomorphic
to E. Let A
1
denote A
1
[L
; we have A
1
[= ThB
0
.
We now wish to prove that Th(A
1
)
A
1
Th
_
B
+
0
_
B
+
0
is satisable, where B
+
0
is
the common expansion of B
0
and B
0
to the language
L
+
2
= L
2
c
a
: a A
0
c
b
: b B
0
.
By the compactness theorem, it suces to show that
Th
_
B
+
0
_
B
+
0

is satisable for each in Th(A
1
)
A
1
. Let c
x
0
, . . . , c
x
n
be all those constant symbols
which occur in but are not in L
. Let (u
0
, . . . , u
n
obtained
from by replacing each c
x
i
with a new variable u
i
. Since (A
1
)
A
1
[= we have
A
1
[= [x
0
, . . . , x
n
],
and so
A
1
[= u
0
. . . u
n
.
Also A
1
[= ThB
0
and ThB
0
is a complete theory in the language L
; hence
u
0
. . . u
n
is in ThB
0
. Thus
B
0
[= u
0
. . . u
n
and so
_
B
+
0
_
B
+
0
[= u
0
. . . u
n
and therefore there are b

0
, . . . , b
n
in B
+
0
= B
0
such that
_
B
+
0
_
B
+
0
[= [b
0
, . . . , b
n
].
We can now expand
_
B
+
0
_
B
+
0
to a model F by interpreting each c
x
i
as b
i
; then
F [= and Th
_
B
+
0
_
B
+
0
is satisable.
Let G [= Th(A
1
)
A
1
Th
_
B
+
0
_
B
+
0
. By the elementary diagram lemma B
+
0
is
elementarily embedded into G[L
+
2
. So there is a model B
+
1
for L
+
2
with B
+
0
B
+
1
and an isomorphism h : B
+
1
G[L
+
2
. Using h we expand B
+
1
to a model B
1
isomorphic to G. Let B
1
denote B
1
[L
. Again by the elementary diagram lemma

A
1
is elementarily embedded into B
1
. Let this be denoted by
f
1
: A
1
B
1
.
Let a A
0
; we will show that f
0
(a) = f
1
(a). By denition we have
B
0
[= (v
0
= c
a
)[f
0
(a)] and so B
+
0
[= (v
0
= c
a
)[f
0
(a)]. Since B
+
0
B
+
1
,
B
+
1
[= (v
0
= c
a
)[f
0
(a)] and so B
1
[= (v
0
= c
a
)[f
0
(a)]. Now A
+
0
[= (c
a
= v
1
)[a]
and A
+
0
A
+
1
so A
+
1
[= (c
a
= v
1
)[a] so A
1
[= (c
a
= v
1
)[a]. Since f
1
is elementary,
B
1
[= (c
a
= v
1
)[f
1
(a)] so B
1
[= (v
0
= v
1
)[f
0
(a), f
1
(a)] and so f
0
(a) = f
1
(a).
Thus f
1
extends f
0
.
Let b B
0
; we will prove that b = f
1
(a) for some a A
1
. By denition we
have: B
0
[= (v
0
= c
b
)[b] so B
+
0
[= (v
0
= c
b
)[b]. Since B
+
0
B
+
1
, B
+
1
[= (v
0
= c
b
)[b]
so B
1
[= (v
0
= c
b
)[b]. On the other hand, since (v
1
)(v
1
= c
b
) is always satised,
we have: A
1
[= (v
1
)(v
1
= c
b
) so there is a A
1
such that A
1
[= (v
1
= c
b
)[a]. Since
f
1
is elementary, B
1
[= (v
1
= c
b
)[f
1
(a)] so B
1
[= (v
0
= v
1
)[b, f
1
(a)] so b = f
1
(a).
Thus B
0
range of f
1
.
We now let A
1
be A
+
1
[L
1
and let B
1
be B
+
1
[L
2
. We get A
0
A
1
and B
0
B
1
and f
1
: A
1
[L B
1
[L remains an elementary embedding.
This completes the proof of the claim.
Exercise 15. The Robinson Consistency Theorem was originally stated as:
Let T
1
and T
2
be satisable theories in languages L
1
and L
2
re-
spectively and let T T
1
T
2
be a complete theory in the language
L
1
L
2
. Then T
1
T
2
is satisable in the language L
1
L
2
.
Show that this is essentially equivalent to our version in Theorem 12 by rst
proving that this statement follows from Theorem 12 and then also proving that
this statement implies Theorem 12. Of course, for this latter argument you are
looking for a proof much shorter than our proof of Theorem 12; however it will help
to use the rst claim of our proof in your own proof.
Theorem 13. (Craig Interpolation Theorem)
Let and be sentences such that [= . Then there exists a sentence , called
the interpolant, such that [= and [= and every relation, function or constant
symbol occuring in also occurs in both and .
Exercise 16. Show that the Craig Interpolation Theorem follows quickly from
the Robinson Consistency Theorem. Also, use the Compactness Theorem to show
that Theorem 12 follows quickly from Theorem 13.
CHAPTER 4
Model Completeness
The quantier is sometimes said to be the universal quantier and the quan-
tier to be the existential quantier.
A formula is said to be quantier free whenever no quantiers occur in .
A formula is said to be universal whenever it is of the form x
0
. . . x
k
where is quantier free.

A formula is said to be existential whenever it is of the form x
0
. . . x
k

A formula is said to be universal-existensial whenever it is of the form
x
0
. . . x
k
y
0
. . . y
k
We extend these notions to theories T whenever each axiom of T has the
property.
Remark. Note that each quantier free formula is trivially equialent to the
existential formula v
i
where v
i
does not occur in .
Exercise 17. Let A and B be models for L with A B. Verify the following
four statements:
(i) A B i B
A
[= Th(A
A
) i A
A
[= Th(B
A
).
(ii) A B i B
A
[=
A
i A
A
[= for each quantier free of Th(B
A
).
(iii) A B i B
A
[= for each existential of Th(A
A
).
(iv) A B i A
A
[= for each universal of Th(B
A
).
Definition 28. A model A of a theory T is said to be existentially closed if
whenever A B and B [= T , we have A
A
[= for each existential sentence of
Th(B
A
).
Remark. If A is existentially closed and A

= A then A
is also existentially
closed.
Definition 29. A theory T is said to be model complete whenever T
A
is complete in the language L
A
for each model A of T .
Theorem 14. ( A. Robinson )
Let T be a theory in the language L. The following are equivalent:
(1) T is model complete,
(2) T is existentially complete, i.e. each model of T is existentially closed.
(3) for each formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) of L there is a universal formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
)
such that T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)( )
(4) for all models A and B of T , A B implies A B.
Remark. Equivalently, in part (3) of this theorem the phrase universal for-
mula could be replaced by existential formula. We chose the version which
makes the proof smoother.
32
4. MODEL COMPLETENESS 33
Proof. (1) (2):
Let A [= T and B [= T with A B. Clearly A
A
[=
A
and by Exercise 17 we
B
A
[=
A
. Now by (1), T
A
is complete and both A
A
and B
A
are models of
this theory so they are elementarily equivalent.
So let be any sentence of L
A
(existential or otherwise). If B
A
[= then
A
A
[= and (2) follows.
(2) (3):
Lemma 4 shows that it suces to prove it for formulas in prenex normal form.
We do this by induction on the prenex rank of which is the number of alternations
of quantiers in . The rst step is prenex rank 0. Where only universal quantiers
are present the result is trivial. The existential formula case is non-trivial; it is the
following claim:
Claim. For each existential formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) of L there is a universal
formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) such that
T [= (v
0
) . . . (v
p
)( )
Proof of Claim. Add new constant symbols c
0
, . . . , c
p
to L to form
L
= L c
0
, . . . , c
p
and to form a sentence
of L
obtained by replacing each free occurrence of v

i
in
with the corresponding c
i
;
is an existential sentence. It suces to prove that

there is a universal sentence of L
such that T [=
.
Let = universal sentences of L
such that T [=

We hope to prove that there is some such that T [=
. Note, however,
that any nite conjunction
1

2

n
of sentences from is equivalent to
a sentence in which is simply obtained from
1

2

n
by moving all
the quantiers to the front. Thus it suces to prove that there are nitely many
sentences
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n
from such that
T [=
1

2

n

.
If no such nite set of sentences existed, then each
T
1
,
2
, . . . ,
n

would be satisable. By the compactness theorem, T
would be satis-
able. Therefore it just suces to prove that T [=
.
In order to prove that T [=
, let A be any model of T for the

language L
. Consider the reduct A[L and form L

A
as usual but ensure that if the
interpretation of the new constant c
i
in A is a then c
a
is chosen to be c
i
. In this
way we conveniently get L
L
A
.
Let
= T

(A|L)
.
be a set of sentences for the language L
A
; we wish to show that is satisable.
By the compactness theorem it suces to consider T
, where is a
conjunction of nitely many sentences of
(A|L)
. Let be the formula obtained
from by exchanging each constant symbol from L
A
L occurring in for a new
variable u
a
. So
A[L [= u
a
0
. . . u
a
m
(u
a
0
, . . . , u
a
m
).
But then A is not a model of the universal sentence u
a
0
. . . u
a
m
(u
a
0
, . . . , u
a
m
).
Recalling that A [= , we are forced to conclude that this universal sentence is not
in and so not a consequence of T
. Therefore
T
u
a
0
. . . u
a
m
(u
a
0
, . . . , u
a
m
)
must be satisable, and any model of this can be expanded to a model of T
,
and so is satisable.
Let C [= . By the diagram lemma, there is a model B for L such that B
A

= C
and A[L B. Now, both A[L and B are models of T and B
A
[=
, so by (2) we
get that (A[L)
A
[=
. So A [=
.
This means T [=
and nishes the proof of the claim.

We will now do the general cases for the proof of the induction on prenex rank.
There are two cases, corresponding to the two methods available for increasing the
number of alternations of quantiers:
(a) the addition of universal quantiers
(b) the addition of existential quantiers.
For the case (a), suppose (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) is w
0
. . . w
m
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
, w
0
, . . . , w
m
)
and has prenex rank lower than so that we have by the inductive hypothesis
that there is a quantier free formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
, w
0
, . . . , w
m
, x
0
, . . . , x
n
) with new
variables x
0
, . . . , x
n
such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
w
0
. . . w
m
)( x
0
. . . x
n
)
Therefore, case (a) is concluded by noticing that this gives us
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
w
0
. . . w
m
x
0
. . . x
n
).
Exercise 18. Check this step using the denition of satisfaction.
For case (b), suppose (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) is w
0
. . . w
n
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
, w
0
, . . . , w
m
) and
has prenex rank less than . Here we will use the inductive hypothesis on
which of course also has prenex rank less than . We obtain a quantier free formula
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
, w
0
, . . . , w
m
, x
0
, . . . , x
n
) with new variables x
0
, . . . , x
n
such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
w
0
. . . w
m
)( x
0
. . . x
n
)
So T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
w
0
. . . w
m
x
0
. . . x
n
)
And T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
w
0
. . . w
m
x
0
. . . x
n
)
Now w
0
. . . w
m
x
0
. . . x
n
is an existential formula, so by the claim there is a
universal formula such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
x
0
. . . x
n
).
Hence T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
n
)
which is the nal result which we needed.
(3) (4)
Let A [= T and B [= T with A B. Let be a formula of L and let a
0
, . . . , a
p
be
in A such that
B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
Obtain a universal formula such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)( )
so
B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
Since A B
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
and so A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] and A B.
(4) (1):
Let A [= T . We will show that T
A
is complete by showing that for any model
B for L
A
, B [= T
A
implies B [= Th(A
A
).
Letting B be such a model, we note that B[L, the restriction of B to L, can
be expanded to B, a model of
A
. So by the diagram lemma A is isomorphically
embedded in B[L. Furthermore, by checking the proof of the diagram lemma we
can ensure that there is an
f : A B[L
such that for each a A, f(a) is the interpretation of c
a
in B. (Recall that
L
A
= L c
a
: a A). Moreover, as in Exercise 12, there is a model D for L
such that A D and an isomorphism g : D B[L with the property that for each
a A, g(a) is the interpretation of c
a
in B.
Now let Th(A
A
), so that A
A
[= . Let (u
0
, . . . , u
k
obtained by replacing each occurence of c
a
i
in by the new variable u
i
. We have
A [= [a
0
, . . . , a
k
]
Since A D we can use (4) to get A D and so we have D [= [a
0
, . . . , a
k
].
With the isomorphism g we get that
B[L [= [g(a
0
), . . . , g(a
k
)]
and since g(a
i
) is the interpretation of c
a
i
in B we have B [= . Thus B [= Th(A
A
)
and this proves (1).
Example 9. We will see later that the theory ACF is model complete. But
ACF is not complete because the characteristic of the algebraically closed eld can
vary among models of ACF and the assertion that I have characteristic p can
easily be expressed as a sentence of the language of ACF.
Exercise 19. Suppose that T is a model complete theory in L and that either
(1) any two models of T are isomorphically embedded into a third or
(2) there is a model of T which is isomorphically embedded in any other.
Then prove that T is complete.
Example 10. Let N be the usual natural numbers and < the usual ordering.
Let B = N, <) and A = N 0, <) be models for the language with one binary
relation symbol <. ThA is, of course, complete, but it is not model complete
because it is not existentially complete. In fact the model A is not existentially
closed because B [= ThA and A B and B
A
[= (v
0
)(v
0
< c
1
) where c
1
is the
constant symbol with interpretation 1. But A
A
does not satisfy this existential
sentence.
Theorem 15. (Lindstroms Test)
Let T be a theory in a countable language L such that
(1) all models of T are innite,
(2) the union of any chain of models of T is a model of T , and
(3) T is -categorical for some innite cardinal .
Then T is model complete.
Proof. W.L.O.G. we assume that T is satisable. We use conditions (1) and
(2) to prove the following:
Claim. T has existentially closed models of each innite size .
Proof of Claim. By the Lowenheim-Skolem Theorems we get A
0
[= T with
[A
0
[ = . We recursively construct a chain of models of T of size
A
0
A
1
. . . A
n
A
n+1

with the property that
if B [= T and A
n+1
B and is an existential sentence of Th(B
A
n
), then
(A
n+1
)
A
n
[= .
Suppose A
n
is already constructed; we will construct A
n+1
. Let
n
be a max-
imally large set of existential sentences of L
A
n
such that for each nite

n
there is a model C for L
A
n
such that
C [=
T
A
n
By compactness T
n

A
n
has a model D and without loss of generosity
A
n
D. By the Downward Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem we get E such that
A
n
E, [E[ = and E D.
Let A
n+1
= E[L; we will show that A
n+1
has the required properties. Since
E D, E [= T
A
n
and so A
n
A
n+1
(See Exercise 17).
Let B [= T with A
n+1
B and be an existential sentence of Th(B
A
n
); we
will show that (A
n+1
)
A
n
[= . Since
n
consists of existential sentences and D
E (A
n+1
)
A
n
B
A
n
we have (see Exercise 17) that B
A
n
[=
n
. The maximal
property of
n
then forces to be in
n
because if /
n
then there must be some
nite

n
for which there is no C such that C [=
T
A
n
; but B
A
n
is such a C! Now since
n
and E D [=
n
we must have E = (A
n+1
)
A
n
[= .
Now let A be the union of the chain. By hypothesis A [= T . It is easy to check
that [A[ = . To check that A is existentially closed, let B [= T with A B and
let be an existential sentence of ThB
A
. Since can involve only nitely many
constant symbols, is a sentence of L
A
n
for some n N. Thus A
n+1
A B
gives that (A
n+1
)
A
n
[= . Since is existential (see Exercise 17 again) we get that
A [= . This completes the proof of the claim.
We now claim that T is model complete using Theorem 14 by showing that
every model A of T is existentially closed. There are three cases to consider:
(1) [A[ =
(2) [A[ >
(3) [A[ <
where T is -categorical.
Case (1). Let A
be an existentially closed model of T of size . Then there

is an isomorphism f : A A
. Hence A is existentially closed.

Case (2). Let be an existential sentence of L
A
and B [= T such that A B
and B
A
[= . Let X = a A : c
a
occurs in . By the Downward Lowenheim-
Skolem Theorem we can nd A
such that A
A, X A
and [A
[ = . Now by
Case (1) A
is existentially closed and we have A
B and in L
A
so A
A
[= .
But since Th(A
A
) and A
A we have A
A
[= .
Case (3). Let and B be as in case (2). By the Upward Lowenheim-Skolem
Theorem we can nd A
such that A A
and [A
[ = . By case (1) A
is existen-
tially closed.
Claim. There is a model B
such that A
and B
A
B
A
.
Assuming this claim, we have B
[= T and B
A
[= and by the fact that A
is
existentially closed we have A
A
[= . Since A A
we have A
A
[= .
The following lemma implies the claim and completes the proof of the theorem.
Lemma 8. Let A, B and A
be models for L such that A B and A A
.
Then there is a model B
for L such that A
and B
A
B
A
.
Proof. Let A, B, A
and L be as above. Note that since A B we have

B
A
[=
A
and so A
A
B
A
.
Let be a sentence from
A
. Let d
j
: 0 j m be the constant symbols
from L
A
L
A
appearing in . Obtain a quantier free formula (u
0
, . . . , u
m
) of
L
A
by exchanging each d
j
in with a new variable u
i
. Since A
A
[= we have
A
A
[= u
0
. . . u
m
. Since A A
we have A
A
A
A
and so A
A
[= u
0
. . . u
m
.
Since A
A
B
A
, B
A
[= u
0
. . . u
m
. Hence for some b
0
, . . . , b
m
in B, B
A
[=
[b
0
, . . . , b
m
]. Expand B
A
to be a model B
A
for the w language L
A
d
j
: 0 j
m by interpreting each d
j
as b
j
. Then B
A
[= and so Th(B
A
) is satisable.
This shows that ThB
A
is satisable for each nite subset
A
. By
the Compactness Theorem there is a model C [=
A
ThB
A
. Using the Diagram
Lemma for the language L
A
we obtain a model B
for L such that A
A
B
A
and
B
= C[L
A
. Hence B
A
[= ThB
A
and so B
A
B
A
.
Exercise 20. Suppose A A
are models for L. Prove that for each sentence

of L
A
, if
A
[= then
A
[= .
Exercise 21. Prove that if T has a universal-existential set of axioms, then
the union of a chain of models of T is also a model of T .
Remark. The converse of this last exercise is also true; it is usually called the
Chang - Los - Suszko Theorem.
Theorem 16. The following theories are model complete:
(1) dense linear orders without endpoints. (DLO)
(2) algebraically closed elds. (ACF)
Proof. (DLO): This theory has a universal existential set of axioms so that it
is closed under unions of chains. It is
0
-categorical (by Exercise 10) so Lindstroms
test applies.
(ACF): We rst prove that for any xed characteristic p, the theory of alge-
braically closed elds of characteristic p is model complete. The proof is similar to
that for DLO, with
1
-categoricity (Lemma 7 ).
Let A B be algebraically closed elds. They must have the same character-
istic p. Therefore A B.
Corollary 4. Any true statement about the rationals involving only the usual
ordering is also true about the reals.
Proof. Let A = Q, <
1
<
1
<
1
) and B = R, <
2
<
2
<
2
) where <
1
<
1
<
1
and <
2
<
2
<
2
are the usual
orderings. The precise version of this corollary is: A B. This follows from
Theorem 14 and Theorem 16 and the easy facts that A [= DLO, B [= DLO and
A B. The reader will appreciate the power of these theorems by trying to prove
A B directly, without using them.
Corollary 5. (Hilberts Nullstellensatz)
Let be a nite system of polynomial equations and inequations in several
variables with coecients in the eld A. If has a solution in some eld extending
A then has a solution in the algebraic closure of A.
Proof. Let be the existential sentence of the language L
A
which asserts
the fact that there is a solution of . Suppose has a solution in a eld B with
A B. Then B
A
[= . So B
A
[= where B
is the algebraic closure of B. Let A
be the algebraic closure of A. Since A B, we have A
.
By Theorem 16, ACF is model complete, so A
. Hence A
A
B
A
and
A
A
[= .
Remark. We cannot apply Lindstroms Test to the theory of real closed or-
dered elds (RCF) because RCF is not categorical in any innite cardinal. This
is because, as demonstrated in Theorem 11, RCF neither implies nor denies the
existence of innitesimals. Nevertheless, as we shall later prove, RCF is indeed
model complete.
Exercise 22. Use Exercise 19 and the fact that RCF is model complete to
show that the theory RCF
Q
is complete, where Q is from Example 3. Hint:
step 0 the rationals, step 1 the algebraic numbers, step 2 . . .
CHAPTER 5
The Seventeenth Problem
We will give a complete proof later that RCF, the theory of real closed ordered
elds, is model complete. However, by assuming this result now, we can give a
solution to the seventeenth problem of the list of twenty-three problems of David
Hilberts famous address to the 1900 International Congress of Mathematicians in
Paris.
Corollary 6. (E. Artin)
Let q(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) be a rational function with real coecients, which is positive def-
inite. i.e.
q(a
1
, . . . , a
n
) 0 for all a
1
, . . . , a
n
R
Then there are nitely many rational functions with real coecients
f
1
(x
1
, . . . , x
n
), . . . , f
m
(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) such that
q(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) =
m
j=1
(f
j
(x
1
, . . . , x
n
))
2
We give a proof of this theorem after a sequence of lemmas. The rst lemma
just uses calculus to prove the special case of the theorem in which q is a polynomial
in only one variable. This result probably motivated the original question.
Lemma 9. A positive denite real polynomial is the sum of squares of real
polynomials.
Proof. We prove this by induction on the degree of the polynomial. Let
p(x) R[x] with degree deg(p) 2 and p(x) 0 for all real x. Let p(a) =
minp(x) : x R, so
p(x) = (x a)q(x) +p(a) and p
(a) = 0
for some polynomial q. But
p
(a) = [(x a)q
(x) +q(x)]
x=a
= q(a)
so q(a) = 0 and q(x) = r(x)(x a) for some polynomial r(x). So
p(x) = p(a) + (x a)
2
r(x).
For all real x we have
(x a)
2
r(x) = p(x) p(a) 0.
Since r is continuous, r(x) 0 for all real x, and deg(r) = deg(p) 2. So, by
induction r(x) =
n
i=1
(r
i
(x))
2
where each r
i
(x) R[x].
So p(x) = p(a) +
n
i=1
(x a)
2
(r
i
(x))
2
.
39
5. THE SEVENTEENTH PROBLEM 40
i.e. p(x) =
_
_
p(a)
_
2
+
n
i=1
[(x a)r
i
(x)]
2
.
The following lemma shows why we deal with sums of rational functions rather
than sums of polynomials.
Lemma 10. x
4
y
2
+ x
2
y
4
x
2
y
2
+ 1 is positive denite, but not the sum of
squares of polynomials.
Proof. Let the polynomial be p(x, y). A little calculus shows that the mini-
mum value of p is
26
27
and conrms that p is positive denite.
Suppose
p(x, y) =
l
i=1
(q
i
(x, y))
2
where q
i
(x, y) are polynomials, each of which is the sum of terms of the form ax
m
y
n
.
First consider powers of x and the largest exponent m which can occur in any of
the q
i
. Since no term of p contains x
6
or higher powers of x, we see that we must
have m 2. Considering powers of y similarly gives that each n 2. So each
q
i
(x, y) is of the form:
a
i
x
2
y
2
+b
i
x
2
y +c
i
xy
2
+d
i
x
2
+e
i
y
2
+f
i
xy +g
i
x +h
i
y +k
i
for some coecients a
i
, b
i
, c
i
, d
i
, e
i
, f
i
, g
i
, h
i
and k
i
. Comparing coecients of x
4
y
4
in p and the sum of the q
2
i
gives
0 =
l
i=1
a
2
i
so each a
i
= 0. Comparing the coecients of x
4
and y
4
gives that each d
i
= 0 = e
i
.
Now comparing the coecients of x
2
and y
2
gives that each g
i
= 0 = h
i
. Now
comparing the coecients of x
2
y
2
gives
1 =
l
i=1
f
2
i
which is impossible.
The next lemma is easy but useful.

Lemma 11. The reciprocal of a sum of squares is a sum of squares.
Proof. For example
1
A
2
+B
2
=
A
2
+B
2
(A
2
+B
2
)
2
=
_
A
A
2
+B
2
_
2
+
_
B
A
2
+B
2
_
2
The following lemma is an algebraic result of E. Artin and O. Schreier, who

invented the theory of real closed elds.
Lemma 12. Let A = A, +++, , <<<
A
, 000, 111) be an ordered eld such that each positive
element of A is the sum of squares of elements of A. Let B be a eld containing
the reduct of A to +, , 0, 1 as a subeld and such that zero is not the sum of
non-zero squares in B.
Let b B A be such that b is not the sum of squares of elements of B. Then
there is an ordering <<<
B
on B with b <<<
B
0 such that A is an ordered subeld of
B, +++, , <<<
B
, 000, 111) .
Proof. It suces to nd a set P B of positive elements of B such that
(1) b P
(2) 0 / P
(3) c
2
P for each c B 0
(4) P is closed under + and
(5) for any c B 0 either c P or c P.
Once P has been obtained, we dene <<<
B
as follows:
c
1
<<<
B
c
2
i c
2
c
1
P.
For each a A, if 0 <<<
A
a then a is a sum of squares and so by (3) and (4) a P.
Thus <<<
B
extends <<<
A
.
So that all that remains to do is to construct such a P. The rst approximation
to P is P
0
.
Let P
0
=
_
_
_
l
i=1
c
2
i

m
j=1
d
2
j
b : l, m N, c
i
B, d
j
B not all zero
_
_
_
We claim that (1), (2), (3) and (4) hold for P
0
. (1) and (3) are obvious. In
order to verify (2), note that if

m
j=1
d
2
j
b =

l
i=1
c
2
i
, then by the previous lemma
about reciprocals of sums of squares, b would be a sum of squares. Now (4) holds
by denition of P
0
, noting that c
2
i
(d
2
j
b) = (c
i
d
j
)
2
b and
(d
2
j
b)(d
2
k
b) = (d
j
d
k
b)
2
.
We now construct larger and larger versions of P
0
to take care of requirement
(5). We do this in the following way. Suppose P
0
P
1
, P
1
satises (1), (2), (3)
and (4), and c / P
1
0. We dene P
2
to be:
p(c) : p is a polynomial with coecients in P
1
.
It is easy to see that c P
2
, P
1
P
2
and that (1), (3) and (4) hold for P
2
.
To show that (2) holds for P
2
we suppose that p(c) = 0 and bring forth a
contradiction. Considering even and odd exponents we obtain:
p(x) = q(x
2
) +xr(x
2
)
for some polynomials q and r with coecients in P
1
.
If q(c
2
) = 0, then by (3) and (4), q must be the zero polynomial and r could
not be. But we would have
0 = p(c) = cr(c
2
)
which gives r(c
2
) = 0 and a contradiction to (3) and (4). Similarly, r(c
2
) ,= 0. Now
0 = p(c) = q(c
2
) cr(c
2
)
means that
c = q(c
2
) r(c
2
)
_
1
r(c
2
)
_
2
and since each of the factors on the right hand side is in P
1
we get a contradiction.
Now we need:
Lemma 13. Every ordered eld can be embedded as a submodel of a real closed
ordered eld.
Proof. It suces to prove that for every ordered eld A there is an ordered
eld B such that A B and for each natural number n 1, B [=
n
where
n
is
the sentence in the language of eld theory which formally states:
If p is a polynomial of degree at most n and w < y such that
p(w) < 0 < p(y) then there is an x such that w < x < y and
p(x) = 0.
Consider the statement called IH(n):
For any ordered eld E there is an ordered eld F such that E F
and F [=
n
.
IH(1) is true since any ordered eld E [=
1
. We will prove below that for each
n, IH(n) implies IH(n + 1).
Given our model A [= ORF, we will then be able to construct a chain of models:
A B
1
B
2
. . . B
n
B
n+1

such that each B
n
[= ORF
n
. Let B be the union of the chain. Since the
theory ORF is preserved under unions of chains (see Exercise 21), B [= ORF.
Furthermore, the nature of the sentences
n
allows us to conclude that for each n,
B [=
n
and so B [= RCF. All that remains is to prove that for each n, IH(n)
implies IH(n + 1). We rst make a claim:
Claim. If E [= ORF
n
and p is a polynomial of degree at most n+1 with
coecients from E and a < d are in E such that p(a) < 0 < p(d) then there is a
model F such that E F, F [= ORF and there is b F such that a < b < d and
p(b) = 0.
Let us rst see how this claim helps us to prove that IH(n) implies IH(n+1).
Let E [= ORF; we will use the claim to build a model F such that E F and
F [=
n+1
.
We rst construct a chain of models of ORF
E = E
0
E
1
. . . E
m
E
m+1

such that for each m and each polynomial p of degree at most n+1 with coecients
from E
m
and each pair of a, d of elements of E
m
such that p(a) < 0 < p(d) there
is a b E
m+1
such that a < b < d and p(b) = 0.
Suppose E
m
has been constructed; we construct E
m+1
as follows: let
m
be
the set of all existential sentences of L
E
m
of the form
(x)(c
a
< x x < c
d
p(x) = 0)
where p is a polynomial of degree at most n + 1 and such that c
a
, c
d
and the
coecients of the polynomial p are constant symbols from L
E
m
and
(E
m
)
E
m
[= p(c
a
) < 0 0 < p(c
d
)
We claim that
ORF
E
m

m
is satisable.
Using the Compactness Theorem, it suces to nd, for each nite subset
1
, . . . ,
k
of
m
, a model C such that E
m
C and
C [= ORF
1
, . . . ,
k
.
By IH(n), obtain a model F
1
such that E
m
F
1
and F
1
[= ORF
n
. By the
claim, obtain a model F
2
such that F
1
F
2
and F
2
[= ORF
1
. Again by IH(n),
obtain F
3
such that F
2
F
3
and F
3
[= ORF
n
. Again by the claim, obtain F
4
such that F
3
F
4
and F
4
[= ORF
2
. Continue in this manner, getting models
of ORF
E
m
F
1
. . . F
2k
with each F
2j
[=
j
. Since each
j
is existential, we get that F
2k
is a model of each
j
(see Exercise 17).
Let D [= ORF
E
m

m
and then use the Diagram Lemma to get E
m+1
such that E
m
E
m+1
, E
m+1
[= ORF
and E
m+1
[=
m
, thus satisfying the required property concerning polynomials from
E
m
.
Let F be the union of the chain. Since ORF is a universal-existential theory,
F [= ORF (see Exercise 21) and F [=
n+1
by construction. So IH(n+1) is proved.
We now nish the entire proof by proving the claim.
Proof of Claim. Suppose that p(x) = q(x) s(x) with the degree of q at
most n. Since E [=
n
we are guaranteed c E with a < c < d and q(c) = 0. Hence
p(c) = 0 and we can let F = E.
So we can assume that p is irreducible over E. Introduce a new element b to E
where the place of b in the ordering is given by:
b < x i p(y) > 0 for all y with x y d.
Note that continuity-style considerations show that b < d.
The fact that p is irreducible over E means that we can extend E, +++, , 000, 111)
by quotients of polynomials in b of degree n in the usual way to form a eld
F, +++, , 000, 111) in which p(b) = 0. We leave the details to the reader, but point out
that the construction cannot force q(b) = 0 for any polynomial q(x) with coecients
from E of degree n. This is because we could take such a q(x) of lowest degree
and divide p(x) by it to get
p(x) = q(x) s(x) +r(x)
where degree of r is less than the degree of q. This means that r(x) = 0 constantly
and so p could have been factored over E.
Now we must expand F, +++, , 000, 111) to an ordered eld F while preserving the
order of E. We are aided in this by the fact that if q is a polynomial of degree at
most n with coecients from E then there are a
1
and a
2
in E such that a
1
< b < a
2
and q doesnt change sign between a
1
and a
2
; this comes from the fact that E [=
n
.
Proof of the Corollary. Using Lemma 11 we see that it suces to prove

the corollary for a polynomial p(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) such that p(a
1
, . . . , a
n
) 0 for all
a
1
, . . . , a
n
R.
Let B = R(x
1
, . . . , x
n
), +++, , 0, 1) be the eld of rational functions. Note
that B contains the reduct of R to +, , 0, 1 as a subeld, where R is dened as
in Example 3 as the usual real numbers.
By Lemma 12, if p is not the sum of squares in B, then we can nd an ordering
<
B
on B, extending the ordering on the reals, such that the expansion B
of B is
an ordered eld and p(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) <
B
0.
We now use Lemma 13 to embed B
as a submodel of a real closed eld M,

B
M.
Let (v
1
, . . . , v
n
) be the quantier free formula which we informally write as
p(v
1
, . . . , v
n
) < 0 where involves constant symbols c
r
i
for the real coecients r
i
of p. Let be the formula of the language of eld theory, obtained from by
substituting a new variable u
i
for each c
r
i
. We have
B
[= v
1
. . . v
n
[r
1
, . . . , r
k
]
and so M[= v
1
. . . v
n
[r
1
, . . . , r
k
]
Since RCF is model complete and R B
M, Theorem 14 gives R M and

so
R [= v
1
. . . v
n
[r
1
, . . . , r
k
]
i.e. there exist a
1
, . . . , a
n
in R such that p(a
1
, . . . , a
n
) < 0.
Hilbert also asked:

If the coecients of a positive denite rational function are rational
numbers (i.e. it is an element of Q(x
1
, . . . , x
n
)) is it in fact the sum
of squares of elements of Q(x
1
, . . . , x
n
)?
The answer is yes and the proof is very similar. Let Q = Q, +++., <<<, 000, 111) be
the ordered eld of rationals as in Example 3. Lemma 12 holds for A = Q and
B = Q(x
1
, . . . , x
n
), +++, , 000, 111); by Lemma 11 every positive rational number is the
sum of squares since every positive integer is the sum of squares n = 1+1+ +1.
Exercise 23. Finish the answer to Hilberts question by making any appro-
priate changes to the proof of the corollary. Hint: create a real closed ordered eld
into which B
Q
and R
Q
are each isomorphically embedded. Exercise 15 and Exercise
22 may be useful.
CHAPTER 6
Submodel Completeness
Definition 30. A theory T is said to admit elimination of quantiers in L
whenever for each formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) of L there is a quantier free formula
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
) such that:
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)((v
0
, . . . , v
p
) (v
0
, . . . , v
p
))
Remark. There is a ne point with regard to the above denition. If is
actually a sentence of L there are no free variables v
0
, . . . , v
p
. So T [=
for some quantier free formula with no free variables. But if L has no constant
symbols, there are no quantier free formulas with no free variables. For this
reason we assume that L has at least one constant symbol, or we restrict to those
formulas with at least one free variable. This will become relevant in the proof
of Theorem 17 for (2) (3).
Exercise 24. If T admits elimination of quantiers in L and L has no constant
symbols, show that for each sentence of L there is a quantier free formula (v
0
)
such that
T [= v
0
v
0
Definition 31. A theory T is said to be submodel complete whenever T

A
is complete in L
A
for each submodel A of a model of T .
Exercise 25. Use Theorem 14 and the following theorem to nd four proofs
that every submodel complete theory is model complete.
Theorem 17. Let T be a theory of a language L. The following are equivalent:
(1) T is submodel complete
(2) If B and C are models of T and A is a submodel of both B and C, then
every existential sentence which holds in B
A
also holds in C
A
.
(3) T admits elimination of quantiers
(4) whenever A B, A C, B [= T and C [= T there is a model D such that
both B
A
and C
A
are elementarily embedded in D
A
.
Proof. (1) (2)
Let B [= T and C [= T with A B and A C. Then B
A
[= T
A
and
C
A
[= T
A
. So (1) and Lemma 6 give B
A
C
A
. Thus (2) is in fact proved for
all sentences, not just existential ones.
(2) (3)
Lemma 4 shows that it suces to prove (3) for formulas in prenex normal form.
We do this by induction on the prenex rank of . This claim is the rst step.
Claim. For each existential formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) of L there is a quantier free
formula (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)( )
45
6. SUBMODEL COMPLETENESS 46
Proof of Claim. Add new constant symbols c
0
, . . . , c
p
to L to form
L
= L c
0
, . . . , c
p
and to form a sentence
of L
obtained by replacing each free occurrence of v

i
in
with the corresponding c
i
;
is an existential sentence. It suces to prove that

there is a quantier free sentence of L
such that
T [=
.
Let S = quantier free sentences of L
: T [=
.
It suces to nd some in S such that T [=
. Since a nite conjunction of

sentences of S is also in S, it suces to nd
1
, . . . ,
n
in S such that
T [=
1

n

.
If no such nite subset
1
, . . . ,
n
of S exists, then each
T
1
, . . . ,
n

would be satisable. So it suces to prove that T S [=
.
Let C [= T S with the intent of proving that C [=
. Let A be the least

submodel of C in the sense of the language L
. That is, every element of A is the

interpretation of a constant symbol from L c
0
, . . . , c
p
or built from these using
the functions of C. As in the proof of Theorem 14, we can ensure that L
L
A
.
Let P =
A
: is a sentence of L
.
We wish to show that T
P is satisable. By compactness, it suces to

consider T
, where is a sentence in P. If this set is not satisable then

T [=
so that by denition of S we have S and hence C [= . But

this is impossible since A C means that C
A
[=
A
.
Let B
[= T
P. The interpretations of c
0
, . . . , c
p
generate a submodel
of B
isomorphic to A. So there is a model B for L
such that B
= B
and A B.
In order to invoke (2) we use the restrictions A[L, B[L and C[L of A, B and C
to the language L. We have B[L [= T , C[L [= T , A[L B[L and A[L C[L.
is
an existential sentence of L
L
A
and since B
[=
we have (B[L)
A
[=
. So
by (2), (C[L)
A
[=
and nally C [=
which completes the proof of the claim.

We now do the general cases for the proof of the induction on prenex rank.
There are two cases, corresponding to the two methods available for increasing the
number of alternations of quantiers:
(a) the addition of universal quantiers
(b) the addition of existential quantiers.
For case (a), suppose (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) is w
0
. . . w
m
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
, w
0
, . . . , w
m
) and
has prenex rank lower than . Then also has prenex rank lower than
and we can use the inductive hypothesis on to obtain a quantier free formula
1
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
, w
0
, . . . , w
m
) such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
)(
1
)
So T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
w
0
. . . w
m
1
)
By the claim there is a quantier free formula
2
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
) such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
1

2
)
So T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m

2
)
So T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m

2
)
and so
2
is the quantier free formula equivalent to .
For case (b), suppose (v
0
, . . . , v
p
) is w
0
. . . w
m
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
, w
0
, . . . , w
m
) and
has prenex rank lower than . We use the inductive hypothesis on to obtain a
quantier free formula
1
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
, , w
0
, . . . , w
m
) such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
)(
1
)
So T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
w
0
. . . w
m
1
)
By the claim there is a quantier free formula
2
(v
0
, . . . , v
p
) such that
T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m
1

2
)
So T [= (v
0
. . . v
p
)(w
0
. . . w
m

2
)
and so
2
is the quantier free formula equivalent to . This completes the proof.
(3) (4)
Let A B, A C, B [= T and C [= T . Using the Elementary Diagram
Lemma it will suce to show that Th(B
B
) Th(C
C
) is satisable. Without loss of
generosity, we can ensure that L
B
L
C
= L
A
.
By the Robinson Consistency Theorem, it suces to show that there is no
sentence of L
A
such that both:
Th(B
B
) [= and Th(C
C
) [=
Suppose is such a sentence and let c
a
0
, . . . , c
a
p
be the set of constant sym-
bols from L
A
L appearing in .
Let (u
0
, . . . , u
p
) be obtained from by exchanging each c
a
i
for a new variable
u
i
. Let (u
0
, . . . , u
p
) be the quantier free formula from (3):
T [= (u
0
, . . . , u
p
)( )
Let
be the result of substituting c

a
i
for each u
i
in .
is also quantier
free.
Since B
B
[= , B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]. Since B [= T , B [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] and so
B
A
[=
. Since
is quantier free and A

A
B
A
we have A
A
[=
; since
A
A
C
A
we then get that C
A
[=
. Hence C [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] and then since
C [= T we then get that C [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]. But then this means that C
A
[= and
so C
C
[= so is in Th(C
C
) and we are done.
(4) (1)
Let B [= T and A B; we show that T
A
is complete. Noting that B
A
[=
T
A
, we see that it suces by Lemma 6 to show that B
A
C
for each
C
[= T
A
.
For each such C
, by the Diagram Lemma, there is a model C for L such that

A C and C
A

= C
. Then C [= T so by (4) there is a D into which both B

A
and
C
A
are elementarily embedded.
In particular B
A
D
A
C
A
so we are done.
Example 11. (Chang and Keisler)
Let T be the theory in the language L = U, V, W, R, S where U, V and W are
unary relation symbols and R and S are binary relation symbols having axioms
which state that there are innitely many things, that U V W is everything,
that U, V and W are pairwise disjoint, that R is a one-to-one function from U onto
V and that S is a one-to-one function from U V onto W.
Exercise 26. Show that T above is complete and model complete but not
submodel complete.
Hints: For completeness, use the Los-Vaught test and for model completeness
use Lindstroms test. For submodel completeness use (2) of the theorem with
B [= T and A B where a A = b B : B [= W(v
0
)[b] along with the
sentence
(v
0
)(U(v
0
) S(v
0
, c
a
)).
Remark. We will prove in the next chapter that each of the following theories
admits elimination of quantiers:
(1) dense linear orders with no end points (DLO)
(2) algebraically closed elds (ACF)
(3) real closed ordered elds (RCF)
C. H. Langford proved elimination of quantiers for DLO in 1924. The cases of
ACF and RCF were more dicult and were done by A. Tarski. Thus, by Exercise 25,
we will have model completeness of RCF which was promised at the beginning of
Chapter 5.
Exercise 27. Use the fact that RCF admits elimination of quantiers to prove
that RCF is complete; another result originally due to A. Tarski.
Hint: Show that the standard model of Number Theory of Example 6 can be
isomorphically embedded into any real closed eld and then use (4) from Theo-
rem 17.
Exercise 28. Let T be the theory DLO in the language L = <, c
1
, c
2
where
c
1
and c
2
are constant symbols. Use the fact that DLO admits elimination of
quantiers in its own language < to show that T is submodel complete. But,
show also, that T is not complete.
As an application of quantier elimination of ACF we have the following:
Corollary 7. (Tarski)
The truth value of any algebraic statement about the complex numbers can be de-
termined algebraically in a nite number of steps.
Proof. Let C be the complex numbers in the language of eld theory L; let
be a sentence of L
C
. Then let Abe the nite subset of C consisting of those elements
of C (other than 0 or 1 ) which are mentioned in . Let be the formula of L
formed by exchanging each c
a
for a new variable. Then ACF [= v
0
. . . v
p
( )
for some quantier free . Hence C [= i C [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
] i C [= [a
0
, . . . , a
p
]
but checking this last statement amounts to evaluating nitely many polynomials
in a
0
, . . . , a
p
.
Remark. In fact Tarskis original proof actually gave an explicit method for
nding the quantier free formulas and this led, via the corollary above, to an ef-
fective decision proceedure for determining the truth of elementary algebraic state-
ments about the reals or the complex numbers.
As an application of quantier elimination of RCF we have:
Corollary 8. (The Tarski-Seidenberg Theorem)
The projection of a semi-algebraic set in R
n
to R
m
for m < n is also semi-
algebraic. The semi-algebraic sets of R
n
are dened to be all those subsets of R
n
which can be obtained by repeatedly taking unions and intersections of sets of the
form
x
1
, . . . , x
n
) R
n
: p(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) = 0
and x
1
, . . . , x
n
) R
n
: q(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) < 0
where p and q are polynomials with real coecients.
Proof. We rst need two simple results which we state as exercises.
Let R = R, +++, , <<<, 0, 1) be the usual model of the reals. Let T be RCF
considered as a theory in the language L
R
.
Exercise 29. Since RCF admits elimination of quantiers, T admits elimina-
tion of quantiers as a theory in the language L
R
.
Exercise 30. A set X R
n
is semi-algebraic i there is a quantier free
formula (v
1
, . . . , v
n
) of L
R
such that
X = x
1
, . . . , x
n
) : R
R
[= [x
1
, . . . , x
n
].
Now, in order to prove the corollary, let X R
n
be semi-algebraic and let
be its associated quantier free formula. The projection Y of X into R
m
is
x
1
, . . . , x
m
) : for some x
m+1
, . . . , x
n
x
1
, . . . , x
m
, x
m+1
, . . . , x
n
) X
So Y = x
1
, . . . , x
m
) : R
R
[= v
m+1
. . . v
n
[x
1
, . . . , x
m
]
Since T admits elimination of quantiers, there is a quantier free formula
of L
R
such that
T [= (v
1
. . . v
m
)(v
m+1
. . . v
n
)
So for all x
1
, . . . , x
m
R
R
[= v
m+1
. . . v
n
[x
1
, . . . , x
m
] i R
R
[= [x
1
, . . . , x
m
]
So Y = x
1
, . . . , x
m
) : R
R
[= [x
1
, . . . , x
m
]
and by the exercise, Y is semi-algebraic.
CHAPTER 7
Model Completions
Closely related to the notions of model completeness and submodel complete-
ness is the idea of a model completion.
Definition 32. Let T T
be two theories in a language L. T
is said to be
a model completion of T whenever T

A
is satisable and complete in L
A
for
each model A of T .
Lemma 14. Let T be a theory in a language L.
(1) If T
is a model completion of T , then for each A [= T there is a B [= T
such that A B.
(2) If T
is a model completion of T , then T
is model complete.
(3) If T is model complete, then it is a model completion of itself.
(4) If T
1
and T
2
are both model completions of T , then T
1
[= T
2
and T
2
[=
T
1
.
Proof. (1) Easy. (2) Easier. (3) Easiest. (4) This needs a proof.
Let A [= T
2
. It will suce to prove that A [= T
1
.
Let A
0
= A. since A
0
[= T and T
1
is a model completion of T we obtain, from
(1), a model A
1
[= T
1
such that A
0
A
1
. Similarly, since A
1
[= T and T
2
is a
model completion of T we obtain A
2
[= T
2
such that A
1
A
2
.
Continuing in this manner we obtain a chain:
A
0
A
1
A
2
. . . A
n
A
n+1

Let Bbe the union of the chain, A
n
: n N. For each n N we have A
2n
[= T
2
.
By part (2) of this lemma and by part (4) of Theorem 14 we get that for each n,
A
2n
A
2n+2
. By the Elementary Chain Theorem A
0
B. Similarly A
1
B. So
A
0
A
1
and hence A [= T
1
.
Remark. Part (4) of the above lemma shows that model completions are es-
sentially unique. That is, if model completions T
1
and T
2
of T are closed theories
in the sense of Denition 12 then T
1
= T
2
. Since there is no loss in assuming
that model completions are closed theories, we speak of the model completion of a
theory T .
Theorem 18. Suppose T T
are theories for a language L such that for

each A [= T there is a B [= T
with A B. The following are equivalent:

(1) T
is the model completion of T .

(2) For each A [= T , B [= T
and C [= T
such that A B and A C

we have a model D such that both B
A
and C
A
are elementarily embedded
into D
A
.
50
7. MODEL COMPLETIONS 51
(3) For each A [= T , B [= T
and C [= T
such that A B and A C we

have a model D such that B
A
D
A
and C
A
is elementarily embedded
into D
A
.
(4) For each A [= T , B [= T
and C [= T

A
is isomorphically embedded into D
A
and
C D.
Proof. (1) (2) By the Elementary Diagram Lemma it suces to prove
that the union of the elementary diagrams of B
A
and C
A
, is satisable. By the
Robinson Consistency Theorem it suces to show that there is no sentence of
L
A
such that ThB
A
[= and ThC
A
[= .
By (1) we have that T

A
is a complete theory in L
A
. By assumption
and the Diagram Lemma both B
A
[= T

A
and C
A
[= T

A
. Therefore
B
A
C
A
. This means that ThB
A
= ThC
A
and the result follows.
(2) (3) and (3) (4) easily follow from the denitions.
(4) (1) We rst show that T
is model complete using Theorem 14; we show

that T
is existentially complete. Let A [= T
; we show that A is existentially

closed. Let B [= T
such that A B and let be an existential sentence of L

A
with B
A
[= ; our aim is to prove that A
A
[= .
We invoke (4) with C = A to get a model D such that A D and B
A
is
isomorphically embedded into D
A
. Referring to Exercise 12 we get a model E for
L
A
with B
A
E and D
A

= E. Since is existential, By Exercise 17 we have that
E [= ; and by Exercise 7, D
A
[= . Now A D implies that A
A
D
A
so A
A
[=
and T
is model complete.
We now show that T
is the model completion of T . Let A [= T ; by the

hypothesis on T and T
we have that T
A
is satisable. We show that T
A
is complete in L
A
by showing that for each B [= T
and C [= T
with A B and
A C we have B
A
C
A
.
Letting B and C be as above, we invoke (4) to obtain a model D such that
B
A
A
and C D. C D gives that D [= T
.
The isomorphic embedding gives us a model E such that B E and D
A

= E
A
. So
E [= T
. Using model completeness of T
and Theorem 14 we can conclude that

B E. We have:
B
A
E
A
D
A
C
A
and we are done.
Lets compare the denitions of model completion and submodel complete. Let
T
be the model completion of T . Then T
will be submodel complete provided

that every submodel of a model of T
is a model of T . Since T T
, it would be
enough to show that every submodel of a model of T is again a model of T . And
this is indeed the case whenever T is a universal theory, that is, whenever T has
a set of axioms consisting of universal sentences. Unfortunately, this is not always
the case.
Our ultimate aim is to show that DLO, ACF and RCF are submodel complete.
We will in fact show that these theories are the model completions of LOR, FEI
and ORF respectively. See Example 5 to recall the axioms for these theories. Now
LOR is a universal theory but FEI and ORF are not. The culprits are the existence
axioms for inverses:
xy(x +y = 0) and xy((x ,= 0) (y x = 1))
.
In fact, a submodel A of a eld B is only a commutative semi-ring, not neces-
sarily a subeld. Nevertheless, A generates a subeld of B in a unique way. This
motivates the following denition.
Definition 33. A theory T is said to be almost universal whenever A B,
B [= T and A C, C [= T imply there are models D and E such that D [= T ,
A D B and E [= T , A E C and D
A

= E
A
.
Example 12. LOR is almost universal since any universal theory T is almost
universal just let D = E = A and note A [= T .
Example 13. FEI is almost universal just let D and E be the subelds of
B and C, respectively, generated by A. The isomorphism D
A

= E
A
is the natural
one obtained from the identity map on A.
Example 14. ORF is almost universal again just let D and E be the ordered
subelds of B and C, respectively, generated by A. The extension of the identity
map on A to the isomorphism D
A

= E
A
is aided by the fact that the order
placement of the inverse of an element a is completely determined by the order
placement of a.
Theorem 19. Let T and T
be theories of the language L such that T is almost

universal and T
is the model completion of T . Then T
is submodel complete.
Proof. We show that condition (2) of Theorem 17 is satised. Let B and C
be models of T
with A a submodel of both B and C. We will show that, in fact,

B
A
C
A
.
Now T T
so B [= T and C [= T . Since T is almost universal there are

models D and E of T such that A D B, A E C and D
A

= E
A
. So
B
D
[= T

D
and C
E
[= T

E
.
Now B
D
is a model for the language L
D
whereas C
E
is a model for L
E
. We
wish to obtain a model C
for L
D
which looks exactly like C
E
. We just let C
be C and in fact let C
[L
A
= C
E
[L
A
. The interpretation of a constant symbol
c
d
L
D
L
A
is the interpretation of c
e
L
E
L
A
in C
E
where the isomorphism
D
A

= E
A
takes d to e.
Now D [= T and since T
is the model completion of T , T
D
is complete.
The isomorphism D
A

= E
A
ensures that C
[= T

D
. So B
D
C
. Hence
B
D
[L
A
C
[L
A
; that is, B
A
C
A
.
The way to show that DLO, ACF and RCF admit elimination of quantiers
is now clear: use Theorem 19. This reduces to showing that DLO, ACF and RCF
are the model completions of LOR, FEI and ORF respectively. To do this we will
use Theorem 18, so we rst need to show that each pair of these theories satisfy
the general hypothesis of Theorem 18: if A [= T then there is a B [= T
such that
A B.
For the case T = LOR and T
= DLO is easy; every linear order can be

enlarged to a dense linear order without endpoints by judiciously placing copies of
the rationals into the linear order.
The case T = FEI and T
= ACF is just the well known fact that every eld

has an algebraic closure.
The case T = ORF and T
= RCF is just Lemma 13.

So all that remains of the quest to prove elimination of quantiers for DLO,
ACF and RCF is to verify condition (4) of Theorem 18 in each of these cases. We
rephrase this condition slightly as:
For each A [= T , B [= T
and C [= T
with A B and A C
there is a D such that C D and an isomorphic embedding
f : B D such that f A is the identity on A.
At this point the reader may already be able to verify this condition for one or
more of the pairs T = LOR and T
= DLO, T = FEI and T
= ACF, or T = ORF
and T
= RCF. However the remainder of this chapter is devoted to a uniform

method.
Definition 34. Let L be a language and (v
0
) a set of formulas of L in the
free variable v
0
. A model A for L is said to realize (v
0
) whenever there is some
a A such that A [= [a] for each (v
0
) in (v
0
).
Definition 35. The set of formulas (v
0
) in the free variable v
0
, is said to be
a type of the model A whenever
(1) every nite subset of (v
0
) is realized by A
(2) (v
0
) is maximal with respect to (1).
Remark. Every set of formulas (v
0
) having property (1) of the denition of
type can be enlarged to also have property (2).
Lemma 15. Suppose A is a model for a language L. Let X A and let (v
0
)
be a type of A
X
in the language L
X
. Then there is a B such that A B and B
X
realizes (v
0
).
Proof. Let T = ThA
A
(c) where c is a new constant symbol and (c) =
(c) : (v
0
) and of course (c) is (v
0
) with c replacing v
0
.
By the denition of type, for each nite T
T , there is an expansion A
of
A such that A
[= T
. The Compactness Theorem and the Elementary Diagram

Lemma will complete the proof.
Lemma 16. Suppose A is a model for a language L. There is a model B for L

such that A B and B
A
realizes each type of A
A
in the language L
A
.
Proof. Let
(v
0
) : I enumerate all types of A
A
in the language L
A
.
For each I introduce a new constant symbol c
and let
(c
) = (c
) :
(v
0
).
Let =
(c
) : I. Let
be any nite subset.

Claim.
ThA
A
is satisable for the language L
A
c
: I.
Proof of Claim. Let
1
(v
0
), . . . ,
n
(v
0
) be nitely many types such that
1
(c
0
)
2
(c
1
)
n
(c
n
).
By Lemma 15 there is a model A
1
such that A A
1
and (A
1
)
A
realizes
1
(v
0
).
Using Lemma 15 repeatedly, we can obtain
A A
1
A
2
A
n
such that each (A
j
)
A
realizes
j
(v
0
).
Now A A
n
so (A
n
)
A
[= ThA
A
. It is easy to check that since each A
j
A
n
,
A
n
realizes each
j
(v
0
) and furthermore so does (A
n
)
A
. So we can expand (A
n
)
A
to the language L
A
c
1
, . . . , c
n
to satisfy
ThA
A
.
By the claim and the Compactness Theorem, there is a model C [= ThA
A
.
By the Elementary Diagram Lemma, A is elementarily embedded into C[L, the
restriction of C to the language L. Therefore there is a model B for L such that
A B and B
A

= C[L
A
. It is now straightforward to check that B
A
realizes each
type
(v
0
).
For any set X we denote by [X[ the cardinality of X.

Definition 36. A model A for L is said to be -saturated whenever we have
that for each X A with [X[ < , A
X
X
.
Recall that
+
is dened to be the cardinal number just larger than . So a
model A will be
+
-saturated whenever we have that for each X A with [X[ ,
A
X
X
. In particular, if B is any set, A will be [B[
+
-saturated
whenever we have that for each X A with [X[ [B[, A
X
realizes each type of
A
X
.
Remark. A model A is said to be saturated whenever it is [A[-saturated,
where [A[ is the size of the universe of A. For example, Q, <<<) is saturated; to
prove this let X be a nite subset of Q and let (v
0
) be a type of Q, <<<)
X
. By
Lemma 15 and the Downward Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem get a countable B such
that Q, <<<)
X
B
X
and Brealizes (v
0
). Use the hint for Exercise 10 to show that
Q, <<<)
X

= B
X
and then note that this means that (v
0
) is realized in Q, <<<)
X
.
Lemma 17. (R. Vaught)
Suppose C is an innite model for L and B is an innite set. There is a [B[
+
-
saturated model D such that C D.
Proof. We build an elementary chain
C = C
0
C
1
C
2
C
n
n N
such that for each n N (C
n+1
)
C
n
realizes each type of (C
n
)
C
n
. This comes
immediately by repeatedly applying Lemma 16. Let D be the union of the chain;
the Elementary Chain Theorem assures us that C D and indeed each C
n
D.
Let X D with [X[ [B[ and let (v
0
) be a type of D
X
. If X C
n
for some
n, then (v
0
) is a type of (C
n
)
X
since (C
n
)
X
D
X
. Now (v
0
) can be enlarged to
a type of (C
n
)
C
n
which is realized in (C
n+1
)
C
n
and so (v
0
) is realized in (C
n+1
)
C
n
.
Since (C
n+1
)
C
n
D
C
n
, we can easily check that (v
0
) is realized in D
C
n
. Since
(v
0
) involves only constant symbols associated with X, we have that D
X
realizes
(v
0
).
We have almost proved that D is [B[
+
-saturated, but not quite, because there
is no guarantee that if
X D = C
n
: n N
and [X[ [B[, then X C
n
for some n. However, there would be no problem if
X was nite. The problem with innite X is that the elementary chain is not long
enough to catch X.
The solution is to upgrade the notion of an elementary chain to include chains
which are indexed by any well ordered set, not just the natural numbers. We sketch
the appropriate generalization of the above argument from the case of N, <<<) to the
case of an arbitrary well ordered set I, <) with least element 0.
We construct an elementary chain of models
C = C
0
C
. . . I
recursively as follows. At stage , suppose we have already constructed C
for each
I with < . The union of the chain up to
E = C
: I and <
falls under the scope of an upgraded Elementary Chain Theorem (which is proved
exactly as Theorem 4) and so C
E for each I with < . We now use

Lemma 16 as before to get C
such that E C
and (C
)
E
realizes each type of
E
E
.
As before, let D = C
: I be the union of the entire chain and by the

upgraded Elementary Chain Theorem C D. Also as before, D
X
realizes each
type of D
X
for each X D such that X C
for some I.
But now we can complete the proof of the lemma by choosing a well ordered
set I, <) large enough so that if
X D = C
: I
and [X[ [B[ then there is some I such that X C
. Such a well ordered set

is well known to exist for example, any ordinal with conality > [B[.
Definition 37. We say that B is a simple extension of A whenever

(1) A B and
(2) there is some b B such that no properly smaller submodel of B contains
A b.
Theorem 20. (Blums Test)
Suppose T T
are theories of a language L. Suppose further that:

(1) T is an almost universal theory
(2) every model of T can be extended to a model of T
and
(3) for each A [= T and each simple extension B of A which is a submodel
of a model of T , and for each C [= T
with A C such that C is

[B[
+
saturated, there is an isomorphic embedding f : B C such that
f A is the identity on A.
Then:
(4) for each A [= T , B [= T
and C [= T

A
A
and
C D,
(5) T
is the model completion of T and

(6) T
admits elimination of quantiers.

Proof. Because of Theorem 17, Theorem 18 and Theorem 19, (5) and (6)
follow from (1), (2) and (4). We will therefore only need to prove (4).
Let A, B and C be as in (4). Using Lemma 17 we obtain a [B[
+
-saturated
model D such that C D.
We wish to prove that B
A
A
.
Since A D, the following collection c of functions is nonempty.
e : for some E B e: E
A
D
A
is an isomorphic embedding
and so has a maximal member f in the sense that no other e c extends f. From
f : F
A
D
A
and Exercise 12 we get G with F G and an isomorphism g : G D
extending f.
Claim. F [= T
Proof of Claim. We have both F B and F G. By condition (1), there
are models H and J of T with F H B and F J G such that H
F

= J
F
. This
gives an isomorphic embedding h: H G such that h F is the identity on F.
The composition g h: H D is an isomorphic embedding with the property
that for all x F:
(g h)(x) = g(x) = f(x).
By the maximality of f, f = g h. Hence F = H and F [= T , nishing the proof of
the claim.
Claim. F = B
Proof of Claim. If not, pick b B F and form the simple extension F
of
F by b. Since G
= D, G is also [B[
+
saturated so that we can apply condition (3)
to F, F
and G. We obtain an isomorphic embedding f
: F
G such that f
F
is the identity on F. But now g f
contradicts the maximality of f and completes

the proof of the claim.
Therefore f isomorphically embeds B
A
into D
A
.
The following lemma completes the proofs that each of the theories DLO, ACF
and RCF admit elimination of quantiers.
Lemma 18. Each of the following three pairs of theories T and T
satisfy
condition (3) of Blums Test.
(1) T = LOR, theory of linear orderings. T
= DLO, theory of dense linear

orderings without endpoints.
(2) T = FEI, theory of elds. T
= ACF, theory of algebraically closed elds.

(3) T = ORF, theory of ordered elds. T
= RCF, theory of real closed elds.

Proof of (1). Let A and B be linear orders, with B = A b and A B.
Let C be a [B[
+
-saturated dense linear order without endpoints with A C.
We wish to nd an isomorphic embedding f : B C which is the identity on A.
Consider a type of C
A
containing the following formulas:
c
a
< v
0
for each a A such that a < b
v
0
< c
a
for each a A such that b < a
Since C is a dense linear order without endpoints each nite subset of the type can
be realized in C
A
.
Saturation now gives some t C realizing this type. We set f(b) = t and we
are nished.
Proof of (2). Let A be a eld and B a simple extension of A witnessed by b
such that B is a submodel of a eld (a commutative ring).
Let C be a [B[
+
-saturated algebraically closed eld such that A C. We wish
to nd an isomorphic embedding f : B C which is the identity on A.
There are two cases:
(I) b is algebraic over A,
(II) b is transcedental over A.
Case(I). Let p be a polynomial with coecients from A such that p(b) = 0
but b is not the root of any such polynomial of lower degree. Since C is algebraically
closed there is a t C such that p(t) = 0. We extend the identity map f on A
to make f(b) = t. We extend f to the rest of B by letting f(r(b)) = r(t) for any
polynomial r with coecients from A. It is straightforward to show that f is still
a well-dened isomorphic embedding.
Case (II). Let us consider a type of C
A
containing the following set of formu-
las:
(p(v
0
) = 0)
where p is a polynomial with coecients in c
a
: a A.
Since C is algebraically closed, it is innite and hence each nite subset is
realized in C
A
. Saturation will now give some t C such that t realizes the type.
We set f(b) = t. Since t is transcedental over A, the extension of f to all of B
comes easily from the fact that every element of B A is the value at b of some
polynomial function with coecients from A.
Proof of (3). Let A be an ordered eld and Bbe a simple extension of A wit-
nessed by b such that B is a submodel of an ordered eld (an ordered commutative
ring).
Let C be a [B[
+
-saturated real closed eld such that A C. We wish to nd
an isomorphic embedding f : B C which is the identity on A.
There are two cases:
(I) b is algebraic over A.
(II) b is transcedental over A.
Case (I). Since b is algebraic over A we have a polynomial p with coecients
in A such that p(b) = 0. All other elements of the universe of the simple extension
B are of the form q(b) where q is a polynomial with coecients in A. Before
beginning the main part of the proof we need some algebraic facts.
Claim. Let D be a real closed ordered eld and q(x) be a polynomial over D
of degree n. Then for any e D we have:
q(x) =
n
m=0
q
(m)
(e)
m!
(x e)
m
where q
(m)
stands for the polynomial which is the m-th derivative of q.
Proof of Claim. This is Taylors Theorem from Calculus; unfortunately we
cannot use Calculus to prove it because we are in D, not necessarily the reals R.
However the reader can check that the Binomial Theorem gives the identity for the
special cases of q(x) = x
n
and that these special cases readily give the full result.
Claim. Let D be a real closed ordered eld and q(x) a polynomial over D with
e D and q(e) = 0. If there is an a < e such that q(x) > 0 for all a < x < e then
q
(e) 0. If there is an a > e such that q(x) > 0 for all e < x < a then q
(e) 0.
Here q
is the rst derivative of q.

Proof of Claim. From the previous claim we get
q(x) q(e)
x e
= q
(e) + (x e)
_
n
m=2
q
(m)
(e)
m!
(x e)
m2
_
for any x ,= e in D. By choosing x close enough to e we can ensure that the entire
right hand side has the same sign as q
(e). A proof by contradiction now follows

readily.
Claim. Let D be a real closed ordered eld and q(x) be a polynomial over D with
e D and q(e) = 0. If w and z are in D such that w < e < z and q(w) q(z) > 0
then there is a d in D such that w < d < z and q
(d) = 0.
Proof of Claim. Without loss of generosity q(w) > 0 and q(z) > 0. Since q
has only nitely many roots, we can pick d
1
to be the least x such that w < x e
and q(x) = 0. Since q(x) ,= 0 for all w < x < d
1
, the Intermediate Value Property
of Real Closed Ordered Fields shows that q cannot change sign here and so q(x) > 0
for all w < x < d
1
. By the previous claim, q
(d
1
) 0. A similar argument with
z shows that there is a d
2
such that e d
2
< z and q
(d
2
) 0. If d
1
= e = d
2
take d = e. If d
1
< d
2
the Intermediate Value Property gives a d with the required
properties.
Claim. Let D be a real closed ordered eld with an ordered eld E D. Let
f : E C be an isomorphic embedding into a real closed ordered eld. Let q be a
polynomial with coecients in E such that x D : q
(x) = 0 E. Let d D E
be such that q(d) = 0 but d is not a root of a polynomial with coecients from E
which has lower degree. Then f can be extended over the subeld of D generated
by E d.
Proof of Claim. Since the nitely many roots of q
from D actually lie in

E, we can get e
1
and e
2
in E such that e
1
< d < e
2
and q
(x) ,= 0 for all x in D

such that e
1
< x < e
2
. Furthermore for all x in E we have q(x) ,= 0. We can now
apply the previous claim to get that q(w) q(z) < 0 for all w and z in E such that
e
1
< w < d < z < e
2
.
We now move to the real closed ordered eld C and the isomorphic embedding
f. For each w and z in E such that e
1
< w < d < z < e
2
we have f(w) < f(z)
and q(f(w)) q(f(z)) < 0. By the Intermediate Value property of C we get, for
each such w and z, a y C such that f(w) < y < f(z) and q(y) = 0. Since q has
only nitely many roots there is some t C such that q(t) = 0, f(w) < t for all
e
1
< w < d and t < f(z) for all d < z < e
2
.
We now extend f by letting f(d) = t and f(r(d)) = r(t) for any polynomial
r with coecients from E. It is straightforward to check that the extension is a
well-dened isomorphic embedding of the simple extension of E by d into C. We
use the fact that ORF is almost universal to extend the isomorphic embedding to
all of the subeld of D generated by E d, since we can rephrase the denition
of almost universal as follows:
Whenever C [= T , D [= T , E
D and f : E
C is an isomorphic
embedding there is a model E
[= T such that E
D and
f extends over E
.
It is now time for the main part of the proof of this case. Using Lemma 13,
let D be a real closed ordered eld with B D. We have a polynomial p with
coecients fromAsuch that p(b) = 0. By induction on the degree of p, we can show
that there is a sequence of elements d
0
, . . . , d
m
= b of elements of D, a sequence of
subelds of D:
A = E
0
E
1
. . . E
m+1
with each d
j
E
j+1
E
j
and corresponding isomorphic embeddings
f
j
: E
j
C
coming from the previous claim and having the property that f
0
is the identity and
f
j+1
extends f
j
. In this way we extend the identity map f
0
: A
0
C until we
reach f
m+1
: E
m+1
C. We then note that since b E
m+1
we have B E
m+1
and we are nished.
Case (II). Let us consider a type of C
A
containing the following formulas:
c
a
< v
0
for all a A with a < b
v
0
< c
a
for all a A with b < a
(p(v
0
) = 0) for all polynomials p with coecients in c
a
: a A
Since each interval of C is innite, each nite subset of this type is realized by
C
A
. Saturation now gives t C which realizes this type. We put f(b) = t.
We can now extend f on the rest of B A, since each such element is the value
at b of a polynomial function with coecients from A.
Question. Suppose K is the reduct of a real closed ordered eld to the language
of eld theory. Can you show that K[
1] is algebraically closed using Model

Theory and the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra?
Bibliography
1. J. Barwise (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Logic, North Holland, 1997.
2. J. L. Bell and A. B. Slomson, Models and Ultraproducts, North Holland, 1969.
3. Felix E. Browder (ed.), Mathematical developments arising from Hilberts problems, Proceed-
ings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. XXVIII - Parts 1 and II, AMS, 1976.
4. S. Buechler, Essential Stability Theory, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer, 1996.
5. C. C. Chang and H. J. Keisler, Model Theory, second ed., North Holland, 1977.
6. G. Cherlin, Model Theoretic Algebra, Selected Topics, LNM521, Springer-Verlag, 1976.
7. N. Jacobson, Basic Algebra I, W. H. Freeman, 1985.
8. H. J. Keisler, Foundations of Innitesimal Calculus, Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1976.
9. M. D. Morley (ed.), Studies in Model Theory, MAA Studies in Mathematics, MAA, 1973.
10. A. Robinson, Introduction to Model Theory and the Metamathematics of Algebra, second ed.,
North-Holland, 1965.
11. , Non Standard Analysis, North Holland, 1966.
12. G. E. Sacks, Saturated Model Theory, W. A. Benjamin Inc., 1972.
13. D. H. Saracino and V. B. Weispfenning (eds.), Model theory and algebra: A Memorial Tribute
to Abraham Robinson, LNM498, Springer Verlag, 1975.
14. S. Shelah, Classication Theory and the Numbers of Nonisomorphic models, second ed., North
Holland, 1990.
15. J. R. Shoeneld, Mathematical Logic, Addison-Wesley, 1967.
16. A. Tarski, A Descision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry, second ed., The Rand
Corporation, 1957.
60
Index
A B, 15
A= {A
n
: n N}, 16
ThA, 12
ThA
A
, 24
|=, 12
, 16
A
|L
, 14
, 14
t[x
0
, . . . , x
q
], 6
C, +++, , 0, 1, 11
Q, <<<, +++, , 0, 1, 11
R, <<<, +++, , 0, 1, 11
N, +++, , <<<, 000, 111, 15
A. Robinson, 32
ACF, 13
submodel complete, 51
algebraically closed elds
axioms,theory of, 13
almost universal, 52, 59
axioms, 12
Blums Test, 55
bound variable, 5
categorical
-categorical theory, 21
chain of models, 16
elementary, 16
Compactness Theorem, 14
complete theory, 21
Completeness Theorem, 14
complex, 11
Craig Interpolation Theorem, 31
dense linear orders without endpoints
diagram lemmas, 24
DLO, 13
elementarily embedded model, 24
elementarily equivalent models, 15
Elementary Chain Theorem, 16
elementary diagram, 24
elementary extension, 16
elementary submodel, 16
elimination of quantiers, 45
existentially closed, 32
expansion
language, 14
model, 14
FEI, 13
almost universal, 52
elds
formula, 4
free variable, 5
isomorphic models, 15
isomorphically embedded model, 24
language, 5
Leibniz Principle, 26
Lindstroms Test, 35
linear orders
LOR, 13
Los-Vaught Test, 21
Lowenheim-Skolem Theorems
Downward, 20
Upward, 20
model, 5
satises, 6
model complete theory, 32
model completion, 50
Number Theory, 15
number theory
non-standard models, 15
ordered eld, 42
ordered elds
ORF, 13
61
INDEX 62
prenex normal form, 9
rational numbers, 11
RCF, 13
real closed ordered eld, 42
real closed ordered elds
axioms, theory, 13
Intermediate Value Property, 13
real numbers, 11
realize, 53
reduction
language, 14
model, A
|L
, 14
Robinson Consistency Theorem, 27
satisfaction
A|= , 12
saturated
-saturated model, 54
sentence, 9
simple extension, 55
subformula, 5
submodel, 15
submodel complete theory, 45
T. Skolem, 15
Tarskis Elementary Chain Theorem, 16
Tarski-Vaught Condition, 19
term, 4
theory, 12
model completion, 50
theory of A, 12
type, 53
variable, 4

Model Theory

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Model Theory

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fundamentals of Model Theory

William Weiss and Cherie DMello

Definition 9. A sentence is a formula with no free variables.

has exactly the same free and bound occurences of variables as .

can possibly contain , and but no other connective or quantier.

of L which has the following properties:

is in prenex normal form

have the same free occurences of variables, and

are two languages such that L L

is an expansion of L and L is a reduction of L

. Of course when we say that

by giving appropriate interpretations to the symbols in L

and that A is a reduct of A

[L for the reduct of A

Definition 17. Two models A and A

for L are said to be isomorphic whenever

. This is an equivalence relation.

for L are said to be elementarily equiv-

. This is another equivalence relation.

is an isomorphism and is a formula such

is the corresponding constant of A.

2. COMPACTNESS AND ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS 19

Theorem 6. (The Upward Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem)

are just formulas of L with all free variables replaced

are distinct new constant symbols of L

obtained from the formula (v

has size at least and that for any sentence of L

by simply switching elements of the universe

with A to ensure that for each a A the interpretation of c

[= . Let C be the reduct of C

to L. The following argument will show that A C.

formed by replacing free occurences of v

Definition 23. A theory T for a language L is said to be complete whenever

: I A such that A is the algebraic closure of the subeld A

is in the algebraic closure of the subeld generated by

. Since [I[ = [J[, there is a bijection g : I J which we can

as follows: Each element of A

2. COMPACTNESS AND ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS 23

Corollary 1. Let C denote, as usual, the complex numbers. Every one-to-one

It is a signicant problem to replace one-to-one with locally one-to-one.

extending 1 such that 1

Exercise 14. Give a careful proof of part 2 of the theorem.

[= where is the sentence in the expanded

Remark. This idea is extremely useful in understanding calculus. An element

(x) x + x for some innitesimal .

formed by interpreting each c

and therefore there are b

. Again by the elementary diagram lemma

where is quantier free.

where is quantier free.

and to form a sentence

obtained by replacing each free occurrence of v

is an existential sentence. It suces to prove that

would be satisable. By the compactness theorem, T

, let A be any model of T for the

. Consider the reduct A[L and form L

and nishes the proof of the claim.

be an existentially closed model of T of size . Then there

. Hence A is existentially closed.

is existentially closed and we have A

Lemma 8. Let A, B and A

be models for L such that A B and A A

for L such that A

and L be as above. Note that since A B we have