Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2013
  • Online publication date: December 2013



Chang and Keisler [8] famously defined model theory as the sum of logic and universal algebra. In the same spirit, one might describe computable model theory to be the investigation of the constraints on information content imposed by algebraic structure. The analogue of the interplay between syntactical objects and the algebraic structure they deine is the connection between deinability and complexity. One asks: How complicated are the constructions of model theory and algebra? What kind of information can be coded in structures like groups, ields, graphs, and orders? What mathematical distinctions are unearthed when “boldface” notions such as isomorphism are replaced by their “lightface” analogues such as, say, computable isomorphism?

A special case of the following definition was first rigorously made by Fröhlich and Shepherdson [11], following work of Hermann [17] and van der Waerden [40], which itself built on the constructive tradition of 19th century algebra. It was further developed by Rabin [32, 33] and Mal'cev [27].

Definition. Let ℒ be a computable signature (language), and let ℳ be an ℒ-structure whose universe is the set of natural numbers. The degree of ℳ is the Turing degree of the atomic (equivalently, quantifier-free) diagram of ℳ.

A structure is computable if its degree is 0, the Turing degree of computable sets. Equivalently, a structure ℳ is computable if, uniformly in the symbols of ℒ, the interpretations in ℳ of the constant symbols, function symbols, and relation symbols of ℒ are computable.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
[1] U., Andrews, A new spectrum of recursive models using an amalgamation construction. J. Symbolic Logic 76 (2011), 883–896.
[2] C.J., Ash, Isomorphic recursive structures. In Handbook of Recursive Mathematics, vol. 1 (Yu.L., Ershov, S.S., Goncharov, A., Nerode, and J.B., Remmel, eds., V. W., Marek, assoc. ed.), Elsevier, 1998, 167–181.
[3] C.J., Ash and J.F., Knight, Computable Structures and the Hyperarithmetical Hierarchy, Amsterdam, 2000.
[4] C., Ash, J., Knight, M., Manasse, and T., Slaman, Generic copies of countable structures, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 42 (1989), 195–205.
[5] J.T., Baldwin and A.H., Lachlan, On strongly minimal sets, J. Symbolic Logic 36 (1971), 79–96.
[6] L., Blum, M., Shub, and S., Smale, On a theory of computation and complexity over the real numbers: NP-completeness, recursive functions and universal machines, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 21 (1989), 1–16.
[7] V., Brattka, P., Hertling, and K., Weihrauch, A tutorial on computable analysis. In New Computational Paradigms: Changing Conceptions of What is Computable, (S.B., Cooper, B., Lowe, and A., Sorbi, eds.), Springer, 2008, 425–491.
[8] C.C., Chang and H.J., Keisler, Model Theory, third edition; Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 73, North-Holland, 1990.
[9] J., Chisholm, Effective model theory vs. recursive model theory, J. Symbolic Logic 55 (1990), 1168–1191.
[10] Yu.L., Ershov, Σ-definability in admissible sets, Sov. Math. Dokl. 32 (1985), 767–770.
[11] A., Fröhlich and J.C., Shepherdson, Effective procedures in field theory, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London. Ser. A. 248 (1956), 407–132.
[12] S.S., Goncharov and V.D., Dzgoev, Autostability of models, Algebra Logic 19 (1980), 45–58 (Russian), 28–37 (English translation).
[13] S.S., Goncharov and A.T., Nurtazin, Constructive models of complete decidable theories, Algebra Logic 12 (1973), 125–142, 243 (Russian), 67–77 (English translation).
[14] J.D., Hamkins, R., Miller, D., Seabold, and S., Warner, Infinite time computable model theory. In New Computational Paradigms: Changing Conceptions of What is Computable (S.B., Cooper, B., Lowe, and A., Sorbi, eds.), Springer, 2008, 521–557.
[15] V.S., Harizanov, Pure computable model theory. In Handbook of Recursive Mathematics, vol. 1 (Yu.L., Ershov, S.S., Goncharov, A., Nerode, and J.B., Remmel, eds., V.W., Marek, assoc. ed.), Elsevier, 1998, 3–114.
[16] L., Harrington, Recursively presentable prime models, J. Symbolic Logic 39 (1974), 305–309.
[17] G., Hermann, Die Frage der endlich vielen Schritte in der Theorie der Polynomideale, Math. Ann. 95 (1926), 736–788.
[18] D.R., Hirschfeldt, R.A., Shore, and T.A., Slaman, The atomic model theorem and type omitting, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009), 5805–5837.
[19] G., Hjorth and A., Nies, Borel structures and Borel theories. J. Symbolic Logic 76 (2011), 461–476.
[20] C.G., Jockusch Jr. and R.I., Soare, Degrees of orderings not isomorphic to recursive linear orderings, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 52 (1991), 39–64.
[21] B., Khoussainov and M., Minnes, Three lectures on automatic structures. In Logic Colloquium '07 (F., Delon, U., Kohlenbach, P., Maddy, and F., Stephan, eds.), Lecture Notes in Logic 35, Cambridge University Press, and Association for Symbolic Logic, 2010, 132–176.
[22] J.F., Knight, Degrees coded in jumps of orderings, J. Symbolic Logic 51 (1986), 1034–1042.
[23] J.F., Knight and M., Stob, Computable Boolean algebras, J. Symbolic Logic 65 (2000), 1605–1623.
[24] K., Ko, Computational Complexity of Real Functions, BirkhauserBoston, 1991.
[25] K.Zh., Kudaibergenov, A theory with two strongly constructible models, Algebra Logic 18 (1979), 176–185, 253 (Russian), 111–117 (English translation).
[26] K., Lange and R.I., Soare, Computability of homogeneous models, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 48 (2007), 143–170.
[27] A.I., Mal'cev, Constructive algebras I, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 16 (1961), 3–60.
[28] T., Millar, Omitting types, type spectrums, and decidability, J. Symbolic Logic 48 (1983), 171–181.
[29] T.S., Millar, A complete, decidable theory with two decidable models, J. Symbolic Logic 44 (1979), 307–312.
[30] R., Miller, The -spectrum of a linear order, J. Symbolic Logic 66 (2001), 470–486.
[31] M., Pour-El and I., Richards, Computability in Analysis and Physics, Springer-Verlag, 1989.
[32] M.O., Rabin, Computable algebraic systems. In Summer Institute for Symbolic Logic, Cornell University, Institute for Defence Analyses, 1957, 134–138.
[33] M.O., Rabin, Computable algebra, general theory, and theory of computable fields, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 95 (1960), 341–360.
[34] J.B., Remmel, Recursively categorical linear orderings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 83 (1981), 387–391.
[35] L.J., Richter, Degrees of Structures, PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1979.
[36] L.J., Richter, Degrees of structures, J. Symbolic Logic 46 (1981), 723–731.
[37] R.A., Shore, Controlling the dependence degree of a recursively enumerable vector space, J. Symbolic Logic 43 (1978), 13–22.
[38] S.G., Simpson, Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic, second edition, Perspectives in Logic, Cambridge University Press, and Association for Symbolic Logic, 2009.
[39] T.A., Slaman, Relative to any nonrecursive set, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 126 (1998), 2117–2122.
[40] B.L., van der Waerden, Eine Bemerkung über die Unzerlegbarkeit von Polynomen, Math. Ann. 102 (1930), 738–739.
[41] S., Wehner, Enumeration, countable structures and Turing degrees, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 126 (1998), 2131–2139.
[42] K., Weihrauch, Computable Analysis: An Introduction, Springer, Berlin, 2000.