Can we have models that do not satisfy unproved existential sentences in the theories they model?












0












$begingroup$


For any first order theory $T$, let's say that $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$ if and only if, for every formula $varphi(x)$ in the language of $T$ in which only the symbol "$x$" appears free, we have: $$M models exists x (varphi(x)) text{ if and only if }Tvdash exists x (varphi(x)). $$ In English, there exists $x$ fulfilling $varphi(x)$ in the domain of the model $M$ of $T$ if and only if $T$ proves the existence of $x$ for which $varphi(x)$ holds.




Question: Do ideal existential models exist? And if so, then can they exist for [A]ny first order theory? If only [S]ome, then which theories can have such models?







first-order-logic model-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Complete theories? For any incomplete theory let $phi$ be an undecidable sentence and $psi$ be $philand x=x.$
    $endgroup$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Jan 1 at 23:15










  • $begingroup$
    Why the close vote? The question is fairly trivial, but it's certainly not "off-topic".
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:16










  • $begingroup$
    @spaceisdarkgreen I see we had the exact same idea! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:17






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Zuhair: Just out of curiosity, why did you put brackets around A and S in [A]ny and [S]ome?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:22










  • $begingroup$
    @AlexKruckman, nothing special, just to emphasize on them. Thanks for the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Zuhair
    Jan 2 at 17:14
















0












$begingroup$


For any first order theory $T$, let's say that $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$ if and only if, for every formula $varphi(x)$ in the language of $T$ in which only the symbol "$x$" appears free, we have: $$M models exists x (varphi(x)) text{ if and only if }Tvdash exists x (varphi(x)). $$ In English, there exists $x$ fulfilling $varphi(x)$ in the domain of the model $M$ of $T$ if and only if $T$ proves the existence of $x$ for which $varphi(x)$ holds.




Question: Do ideal existential models exist? And if so, then can they exist for [A]ny first order theory? If only [S]ome, then which theories can have such models?







first-order-logic model-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Complete theories? For any incomplete theory let $phi$ be an undecidable sentence and $psi$ be $philand x=x.$
    $endgroup$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Jan 1 at 23:15










  • $begingroup$
    Why the close vote? The question is fairly trivial, but it's certainly not "off-topic".
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:16










  • $begingroup$
    @spaceisdarkgreen I see we had the exact same idea! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:17






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Zuhair: Just out of curiosity, why did you put brackets around A and S in [A]ny and [S]ome?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:22










  • $begingroup$
    @AlexKruckman, nothing special, just to emphasize on them. Thanks for the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Zuhair
    Jan 2 at 17:14














0












0








0





$begingroup$


For any first order theory $T$, let's say that $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$ if and only if, for every formula $varphi(x)$ in the language of $T$ in which only the symbol "$x$" appears free, we have: $$M models exists x (varphi(x)) text{ if and only if }Tvdash exists x (varphi(x)). $$ In English, there exists $x$ fulfilling $varphi(x)$ in the domain of the model $M$ of $T$ if and only if $T$ proves the existence of $x$ for which $varphi(x)$ holds.




Question: Do ideal existential models exist? And if so, then can they exist for [A]ny first order theory? If only [S]ome, then which theories can have such models?







first-order-logic model-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




For any first order theory $T$, let's say that $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$ if and only if, for every formula $varphi(x)$ in the language of $T$ in which only the symbol "$x$" appears free, we have: $$M models exists x (varphi(x)) text{ if and only if }Tvdash exists x (varphi(x)). $$ In English, there exists $x$ fulfilling $varphi(x)$ in the domain of the model $M$ of $T$ if and only if $T$ proves the existence of $x$ for which $varphi(x)$ holds.




Question: Do ideal existential models exist? And if so, then can they exist for [A]ny first order theory? If only [S]ome, then which theories can have such models?







first-order-logic model-theory




first-order-logic model-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 1 at 23:19









Alex Kruckman

26.9k22556




26.9k22556










asked Jan 1 at 23:02









ZuhairZuhair

256112




256112












  • $begingroup$
    Complete theories? For any incomplete theory let $phi$ be an undecidable sentence and $psi$ be $philand x=x.$
    $endgroup$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Jan 1 at 23:15










  • $begingroup$
    Why the close vote? The question is fairly trivial, but it's certainly not "off-topic".
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:16










  • $begingroup$
    @spaceisdarkgreen I see we had the exact same idea! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:17






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Zuhair: Just out of curiosity, why did you put brackets around A and S in [A]ny and [S]ome?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:22










  • $begingroup$
    @AlexKruckman, nothing special, just to emphasize on them. Thanks for the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Zuhair
    Jan 2 at 17:14


















  • $begingroup$
    Complete theories? For any incomplete theory let $phi$ be an undecidable sentence and $psi$ be $philand x=x.$
    $endgroup$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Jan 1 at 23:15










  • $begingroup$
    Why the close vote? The question is fairly trivial, but it's certainly not "off-topic".
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:16










  • $begingroup$
    @spaceisdarkgreen I see we had the exact same idea! :)
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:17






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Zuhair: Just out of curiosity, why did you put brackets around A and S in [A]ny and [S]ome?
    $endgroup$
    – Alex Kruckman
    Jan 1 at 23:22










  • $begingroup$
    @AlexKruckman, nothing special, just to emphasize on them. Thanks for the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Zuhair
    Jan 2 at 17:14
















$begingroup$
Complete theories? For any incomplete theory let $phi$ be an undecidable sentence and $psi$ be $philand x=x.$
$endgroup$
– spaceisdarkgreen
Jan 1 at 23:15




$begingroup$
Complete theories? For any incomplete theory let $phi$ be an undecidable sentence and $psi$ be $philand x=x.$
$endgroup$
– spaceisdarkgreen
Jan 1 at 23:15












$begingroup$
Why the close vote? The question is fairly trivial, but it's certainly not "off-topic".
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 1 at 23:16




$begingroup$
Why the close vote? The question is fairly trivial, but it's certainly not "off-topic".
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 1 at 23:16












$begingroup$
@spaceisdarkgreen I see we had the exact same idea! :)
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 1 at 23:17




$begingroup$
@spaceisdarkgreen I see we had the exact same idea! :)
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 1 at 23:17




3




3




$begingroup$
Zuhair: Just out of curiosity, why did you put brackets around A and S in [A]ny and [S]ome?
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 1 at 23:22




$begingroup$
Zuhair: Just out of curiosity, why did you put brackets around A and S in [A]ny and [S]ome?
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Jan 1 at 23:22












$begingroup$
@AlexKruckman, nothing special, just to emphasize on them. Thanks for the answer.
$endgroup$
– Zuhair
Jan 2 at 17:14




$begingroup$
@AlexKruckman, nothing special, just to emphasize on them. Thanks for the answer.
$endgroup$
– Zuhair
Jan 2 at 17:14










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

A theory $T$ has an ideal existential model if and only if $T$ is complete (and if $T$ is complete, then every model is ideal existential!).



Indeed, if $T$ is complete, then for any sentence $psi$ and any $Mmodels T$, we have $Mmodels psi$ if and only if $Tvdash psi$.



Conversely, suppose $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$. Note that for any sentence $psi$, we can let $x$ be a variable which doesn't occur in $psi$, and let $widehat{psi}(x)$ be the formula $(psiland (x = x))$. Then $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ is logically equivalent to $psi$.



Now if $Mmodels psi$, then $Mmodels exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash psi$. Since either $Mmodels psi$ or $Mmodels lnot psi$, we have $Tvdash psi$ or $Tvdash lnot psi$. Hence $T$ is complete.



(In this answer, I have ignored empty models - if your version of first-order logic allows empty models, then some details above have to be adjusted slightly, since $psi$ and $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ are only logically equivalent in non-empty models. See Eric Wofsey's comment below. )






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course if you do allow empty models, empty models are always ideal existential models. So $T$ has an ideal existential model iff either it is complete or has an empty model.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jan 1 at 23:19











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058964%2fcan-we-have-models-that-do-not-satisfy-unproved-existential-sentences-in-the-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6












$begingroup$

A theory $T$ has an ideal existential model if and only if $T$ is complete (and if $T$ is complete, then every model is ideal existential!).



Indeed, if $T$ is complete, then for any sentence $psi$ and any $Mmodels T$, we have $Mmodels psi$ if and only if $Tvdash psi$.



Conversely, suppose $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$. Note that for any sentence $psi$, we can let $x$ be a variable which doesn't occur in $psi$, and let $widehat{psi}(x)$ be the formula $(psiland (x = x))$. Then $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ is logically equivalent to $psi$.



Now if $Mmodels psi$, then $Mmodels exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash psi$. Since either $Mmodels psi$ or $Mmodels lnot psi$, we have $Tvdash psi$ or $Tvdash lnot psi$. Hence $T$ is complete.



(In this answer, I have ignored empty models - if your version of first-order logic allows empty models, then some details above have to be adjusted slightly, since $psi$ and $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ are only logically equivalent in non-empty models. See Eric Wofsey's comment below. )






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course if you do allow empty models, empty models are always ideal existential models. So $T$ has an ideal existential model iff either it is complete or has an empty model.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jan 1 at 23:19
















6












$begingroup$

A theory $T$ has an ideal existential model if and only if $T$ is complete (and if $T$ is complete, then every model is ideal existential!).



Indeed, if $T$ is complete, then for any sentence $psi$ and any $Mmodels T$, we have $Mmodels psi$ if and only if $Tvdash psi$.



Conversely, suppose $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$. Note that for any sentence $psi$, we can let $x$ be a variable which doesn't occur in $psi$, and let $widehat{psi}(x)$ be the formula $(psiland (x = x))$. Then $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ is logically equivalent to $psi$.



Now if $Mmodels psi$, then $Mmodels exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash psi$. Since either $Mmodels psi$ or $Mmodels lnot psi$, we have $Tvdash psi$ or $Tvdash lnot psi$. Hence $T$ is complete.



(In this answer, I have ignored empty models - if your version of first-order logic allows empty models, then some details above have to be adjusted slightly, since $psi$ and $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ are only logically equivalent in non-empty models. See Eric Wofsey's comment below. )






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course if you do allow empty models, empty models are always ideal existential models. So $T$ has an ideal existential model iff either it is complete or has an empty model.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jan 1 at 23:19














6












6








6





$begingroup$

A theory $T$ has an ideal existential model if and only if $T$ is complete (and if $T$ is complete, then every model is ideal existential!).



Indeed, if $T$ is complete, then for any sentence $psi$ and any $Mmodels T$, we have $Mmodels psi$ if and only if $Tvdash psi$.



Conversely, suppose $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$. Note that for any sentence $psi$, we can let $x$ be a variable which doesn't occur in $psi$, and let $widehat{psi}(x)$ be the formula $(psiland (x = x))$. Then $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ is logically equivalent to $psi$.



Now if $Mmodels psi$, then $Mmodels exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash psi$. Since either $Mmodels psi$ or $Mmodels lnot psi$, we have $Tvdash psi$ or $Tvdash lnot psi$. Hence $T$ is complete.



(In this answer, I have ignored empty models - if your version of first-order logic allows empty models, then some details above have to be adjusted slightly, since $psi$ and $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ are only logically equivalent in non-empty models. See Eric Wofsey's comment below. )






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



A theory $T$ has an ideal existential model if and only if $T$ is complete (and if $T$ is complete, then every model is ideal existential!).



Indeed, if $T$ is complete, then for any sentence $psi$ and any $Mmodels T$, we have $Mmodels psi$ if and only if $Tvdash psi$.



Conversely, suppose $M$ is an ideal existential model of $T$. Note that for any sentence $psi$, we can let $x$ be a variable which doesn't occur in $psi$, and let $widehat{psi}(x)$ be the formula $(psiland (x = x))$. Then $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ is logically equivalent to $psi$.



Now if $Mmodels psi$, then $Mmodels exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$, so $Tvdash psi$. Since either $Mmodels psi$ or $Mmodels lnot psi$, we have $Tvdash psi$ or $Tvdash lnot psi$. Hence $T$ is complete.



(In this answer, I have ignored empty models - if your version of first-order logic allows empty models, then some details above have to be adjusted slightly, since $psi$ and $exists x, widehat{psi}(x)$ are only logically equivalent in non-empty models. See Eric Wofsey's comment below. )







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 2 at 0:16

























answered Jan 1 at 23:14









Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman

26.9k22556




26.9k22556








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course if you do allow empty models, empty models are always ideal existential models. So $T$ has an ideal existential model iff either it is complete or has an empty model.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jan 1 at 23:19














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And of course if you do allow empty models, empty models are always ideal existential models. So $T$ has an ideal existential model iff either it is complete or has an empty model.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Jan 1 at 23:19








1




1




$begingroup$
And of course if you do allow empty models, empty models are always ideal existential models. So $T$ has an ideal existential model iff either it is complete or has an empty model.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Jan 1 at 23:19




$begingroup$
And of course if you do allow empty models, empty models are always ideal existential models. So $T$ has an ideal existential model iff either it is complete or has an empty model.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Jan 1 at 23:19


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058964%2fcan-we-have-models-that-do-not-satisfy-unproved-existential-sentences-in-the-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Human spaceflight

Image
Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e...
Read more

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

Image
0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB] ...
Read more

張江高科駅

Image
張江高科駅 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区 所属事業者 上海地鉄運営有限公司（上海軌道交通・駅詳細） 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司（駅詳細） テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 各種表記 繁体字： 張江高科站 簡体字： 张江高科站 拼音 ： Zhàngjiāng Gāokē Zhàn 発音： ヂャンジャン ガオクー ヂャン 英文： Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park Station テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 （ちょうこうこうか-えき）は中華人民共和国上海市浦東新区に位置する、上海軌道交通2号線の駅である。 なお、張江高科駅前にある張江軌道電車の 張江地鉄駅駅 についてもここで述べる。 目次 1 利用可能な鉄道路線 2 沿革 3 駅構造 3.1 上海軌道交通 3.2 張江軌道電車 4 駅周辺 5 隣の駅 6 注釈 7 関連項目 利用可能な鉄道路線 上海軌道交通 ■ 2号線 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司 ■ 張江軌道電車 沿革 高架駅時代の姿 2000年12月27日 - 2号線の駅が高架駅として開業。 2010年 1月1日 - 張江軌道電車の開業に伴い、張江地鉄駅駅（停留所）を設置。 2月13日 - 駅地下化に伴い高架駅の運用停止。 2月24日 - 10日間の閉鎖を経て地下新駅の開業。 2017年2月9日 - リニューアル工事を経て再開業。乗降客の増加に対応し、ホームへのエレベーター、エスカレーターを増設、券売機エリアを拡張した [1] 。 駅構造 上海軌道交通 上海軌道交通 張江高科駅 5号口 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park ◄ 竜陽路 (2.60km) (1.61km) 金科路 ► 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区松涛路 祖冲之路 （中国語版） 北緯31度12分11秒 東経121度34分50秒  /  北緯31.2...
Read more