Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T06:27:51.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approximation theorems and model theoretic forcing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Victor Harnik
Victor Harnik*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
*
University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We suggest the name “approximation theorems” for a new kind of theorems which are strong versions of preservation theorems. A typical preservation theorem has the form:

A sentence φ is preserved by the relation R (i.e. and imply ) iff there exists φ* ϵ Φ such that ⊧φ↔ φ*

where R is a relation between structures and Φ is a class of sentences (depending, of course, on R). Usually, Φ is described in syntactical terms and it is easy to see that every element of it is, indeed, preserved by R. A typical approximation theorem has the form:

For every sentence Φ there is a sentence Φ* ϵ Φ (the “approximation” of Φ) such that, for all sentences δ which are preserved under R,

(a) if ⊧δ → φ then ⊧δ → φ* and

(b) if ⊧φ → δ then ⊧φ* → δ.

An approximation theorem obviously implies the corresponding preservation theorem.

The first approximation theorem was proved by Vaught in [14] (see Corollary 2.3 below). That paper inspired the present one. Vaught's result is stated in topological terms. It says that for each Borel set B there is an invariant Borel set B* explicitly defined by an L ω1ω sentence, such that B − ⊆ B* ⊆ B + where B − (B +) is the largest (smallest) invariant set included in (containing) B.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 59 - 72
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] Africk, H., A proof theoretic proof of Scott's general interpolation theorem, this Journal, vol. 37 (1972), pp. 683–695.Google Scholar
[1a] Africk, H., Scott's interpolation theorem fails for L φ1φ , this Journal, vol. 39 (1974), pp. 124–126.Google Scholar
[2] Harnik, V. and Makkai, M., Applications of Vaught sentences and the covering theorem, this Journal, vol. 40 (1975).Google Scholar
[3] Karp, C., Finite-quantifier equivalence, The theory of models, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 407–412.Google Scholar
[4] Keisler, H. J., Finite approximations of infinitely long formulas, The theory of models, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 158–169.Google Scholar
[5] Keisler, H. J., Model theory for infinitary logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[6] Keisler, H. J., Forcing and the omitting types theorem, preprint.Google Scholar
[7] Lindström, P., On relations between structures, Theoria (Lund), (1966), pp. 172–185.Google Scholar
[8] Lopez-Escobar, E. G. K., An interpolation theorem for denumerably long sentences, Fundamenta Mathematica, vol. 57 (1965), pp. 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Makkai, M., Svenonius sentences and Lindström's theory on preservation theorems, Fundamenta Mathematica, vol. 73 (1972), pp. 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Makkai, M., Vaught sentences and Lindström's regular relations, Cambridge Summer School in Mathematical Logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 337, Springer, Berlin, 1973, pp. 622–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Mostowski, A., Constructible sets with applications, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
[12] Scott, D., Logic with denumerably long formulas and finite strings of quantifiers, The theory of models, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 329–341.Google Scholar
[13] Vaught, R., Descriptive set theory in Lω1ω , Cambridge Summer School in Mathematical Logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 337, Springer, Berlin, 1973, pp. 574–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Vaught, R., A Borel invariantization, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 79 (1973), pp. 1292–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Vaught, R., Invariant sets in topology and logic, Fundamenta Mathematica (to appear).Google Scholar