Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:31:42.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On order-types of models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Wilfrid Hodges*
Affiliation:
Bedford College, London, England

Extract

Let T be a theory in a first-order language L. Let L have a predicate ν0ν1 such that in every model of T, the interpretation of ≺ is a linear ordering with infinite field. The order-type of this ordering will be called the order-type of the model .

Several recent theorems have the following form: if T has a model of order-type ξ then T has a model of order-type ζ (see [1]). We shall add one to the list. The new feature of our result is that the order-type ζ may be in a sense “opposite” to ξ. Silver's Theorem 2.24 of [3] is a corollary of Theorem 1 below.

Theorem 1. Let κ be a strong limit number (i.e. μ < κ implies 2μ < κ). Suppose λ < κ, and suppose that for every cardinal μ < κ, T has a model with where the order-type of contains no descending well-ordered sequences of length λ. Then for every cardinal μ ≥ the cardinality ∣L∣ of the language L, T has models and such that

(a) the field of is the union of ≤ ∣L∣ well-ordered (inversely well-ordered) parts;

(b) .

The proof is by Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski models; we presuppose [2].

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1972

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]Keisler, H. J., Models with orderings, Logic, methodology and philosophy of science. III, ed. van Rootselaar, , North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968.Google Scholar
[2]Morley, M., Partitions and models, Proceedings of the summer school in logic, Leeds, 1967, ed. Löb, M. H., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968.Google Scholar
[3]Silver, J. H., Some applications of model theory in set theory, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1966.Google Scholar