Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:08:50.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hanf numbers for omitting types over particular theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Julia F. Knight
Julia F. Knight*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The main result of this paper is the fact that for T a complete extension of either P or ZF + V = L, with no new symbols, there is a type which is omitted in a model of T of power ℵ1 but which is realized in all models of higher power. Therefore, the “Hanf number” for omitting types over T is greater than ℵ2.

The present section contains some basic definitions and a discussion of related results. §1 discusses generic relations on models of P and ZFC, and describes a special forcing technique due to Addison. In §2, this technique is used to obtain the main result.

The use of forcing is not essential. Those who do not wish to read a forcing argument may skip §1. At the point in §2 where forcing is used, a proof without forcing is sketched. This proof was obtained only after a careful study of the forcing argument. The forcing argument is given because it is simple, and because the technique of forcing makes intuitively clear why this and other similar results should be true.

All theories in the paper are assumed to be countable and to have infinite models. Let T be a complete theory in a language L. The Hanf number for omitting types over T, denoted by H(T), is the first infinite cardinal κ such that for all L-types, Σ, if T has models omitting Σ in all infinite powers less than κ, then T has models omitting Σ in all infinite powers.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , September 1976 , pp. 583 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Boolos, G. and Jeffrey, R. C., Computabilily and logic, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
[2] Cohen, P. J., Set theory and the continuum hypothesis, Benjamin, New York and Amsterdam, 1966.Google Scholar
[3] Ehrenfeucht, A. and Mostowski, A., Models of axiomatic theories admitting automorphisms, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 43 (1956), pp. 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Jensen, R. B., Modelle der Mengenlehre, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 37, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Keisler, H. J., Model theory for infinitary logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[6] Knight, J. F., Generic expansions of structures, this Journal, vol. 38 (1973), pp. 561–570.Google Scholar
[7] Knight, J. F., Types omitted in uncountable models of arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 40 (1975), pp. 317–320.Google Scholar
[8] Knight, J. F., Omitting types in set theory and arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 41 (1976), pp. 327–331.Google Scholar
[9] Knight, J. F., A complete Lω1ω -sentence characterizing ℵ1 , this Journal, vol. 41 (1976).Google Scholar
[10] Morley, M., Omitting classes of elements, The theory of models, (Proceedings of the 1963 Symposium at Berkeley, edited by Addison, , Henkin, , and Tarski, ), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 265–273.Google Scholar
[11] Shelah, S., The Hanf number of omitting complete types, preprint.Google Scholar