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.
0. MODELS, TRUTH AND SATISFACTION 8
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
].
0. MODELS, TRUTH AND SATISFACTION 9
(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 .
(v
0
, . . . , v
q
) of L such that
(1)
)
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
0. MODELS, TRUTH AND SATISFACTION 10
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
)
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
we say that
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
L. We
say that A
is an expansion of A to L
to L. We also
use the notation 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.
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
[=
We write A 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
A.
2. COMPACTNESS AND ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS 16
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
.
2. COMPACTNESS AND ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS 17
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.
Proof of Claim. Fix k N and a
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 .
2. COMPACTNESS AND ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS 18
Proof of Claim. Fix k N and a
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
.
Proof of Claim. Fix k N and a
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
.
Proof of Claim. Fix k N and a
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.
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 .
2. COMPACTNESS AND ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS 20
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.
= L c
a
: a A.
Note that sentences of L
to make L
. Dene to
be the following set of sentences of L
:
d = d
: d and d
: is a sentence of L
for L
such that D
[= .
Note that D
, D
[= i
.
Obtain a model C
for L
from D
is a.
Hence the universe of C
contains A and C
[=
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.
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.
2. COMPACTNESS AND ELEMENTARY SUBMODELS 22
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
generated
by a
: I but no 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
) = 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
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.
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.
F
p
, +++, , 000, 111) satises H.
) for L
X
by choosing 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
.
of A such that 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.
3. DIAGRAMS AND EMBEDDINGS 26
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
3. DIAGRAMS AND EMBEDDINGS 27
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.
(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
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.
3. DIAGRAMS AND EMBEDDINGS 28
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.
3. DIAGRAMS AND EMBEDDINGS 29
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
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
) be the formula of L
+
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
3. DIAGRAMS AND EMBEDDINGS 30
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
) be the formula of L
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
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
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
.
3. DIAGRAMS AND EMBEDDINGS 31
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
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
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 satis-
able. Therefore it just suces to prove that T [=
.
In order to prove that T [=
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
).
4. MODEL COMPLETENESS 34
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 [=
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
such that A
A, X A
and [A
[ = . Now by
Case (1) 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.
.
Then there is a model B
and B
A
B
A
.
Proof. Let A, B, 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
A
B
A
and
B
= C[L
A
. Hence B
A
[= ThB
A
and so B
A
B
A
.
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
.
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
(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.
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
)
5. THE SEVENTEENTH PROBLEM 42
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)
5. THE SEVENTEENTH PROBLEM 43
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
.
5. THE SEVENTEENTH PROBLEM 44
of B is
an ordered eld and p(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) <
B
0.
We now use Lemma 13 to embed 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
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
= L c
0
, . . . , c
p
of L
such that
T [=
.
Let S = quantier free sentences of L
: T [=
.
It suces to nd some in S such that T [=
.
If no such nite subset
1
, . . . ,
n
of S exists, then each
T
1
, . . . ,
n
.
Let C [= T S with the intent of proving that C [=
L
A
.
Let P =
A
: is a sentence of L
.
We wish to show that T
[= T
P. The interpretations of c
0
, . . . , c
p
generate a submodel
of B
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 [=
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
)
6. SUBMODEL COMPLETENESS 47
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
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
; 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
6. SUBMODEL COMPLETENESS 48
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
.
6. SUBMODEL COMPLETENESS 49
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
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
such that A B.
(2) If 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
and C [= T
and C [= T
and C [= 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.
We now show that 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
is isomorphically embedded into D
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
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:
7. MODEL COMPLETIONS 52
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
is submodel complete.
Proof. We show that condition (2) of Theorem 17 is satised. Let B and C
be models of 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
[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
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
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
= ACF, or T = ORF
and T
T , there is an expansion A
of
A such that A
[= T
(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
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
7. MODEL COMPLETIONS 54
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
).
. . . 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
such that E C
and (C
)
E
realizes each type of
E
E
.
As before, let D = 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
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
and C [= T
of
F by b. Since G
= D, G is also [B[
+
saturated so that we can apply condition (3)
to F, F
: F
G such that f
F
is the identity on F. But now g f
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
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.
7. MODEL COMPLETIONS 58
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
(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
(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
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[
|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
axioms,theory of, 13
diagram lemmas, 24
DLO, 13
submodel complete, 51
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
axioms,theory of, 13
formula, 4
free variable, 5
isomorphic models, 15
isomorphically embedded model, 24
language, 5
Leibniz Principle, 26
Lindstroms Test, 35
linear orders
axioms,theory of, 13
LOR, 13
almost universal, 52
Los-Vaught Test, 21
Lowenheim-Skolem Theorems
Downward, 20
Upward, 20
model, 5
satises, 6
model complete theory, 32
model completion, 50
submodel complete, 52
Number Theory, 15
number theory
non-standard models, 15
ordered eld, 42
ordered elds
axioms,theory of, 13
ORF, 13
61
INDEX 62
almost universal, 52
prenex normal form, 9
rational numbers, 11
RCF, 13
submodel complete, 51
real closed ordered eld, 42
real closed ordered elds
axioms, theory, 13
axioms,theory of, 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, 45
submodel complete theory, 45
T. Skolem, 15
Tarskis Elementary Chain Theorem, 16
Tarski-Vaught Condition, 19
term, 4
theory, 12
almost universal, 52
model completion, 50
theory of A, 12
type, 53
variable, 4