Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Does descendant or ascendant Löwenheim-Skolem fail for $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1\omega}$ -logic?

share|cite|improve this question
The question could be answered by looking at any standard reference, and as it is currently worded it shows little sign of effort being placed into writing it. I downvoted it for this reason. – Carl Mummert Sep 28 '12 at 20:30
up vote 3 down vote accepted

The downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem continues to hold. The upward one does not; for example the infinitary formula $\bigvee_{n \in \omega} (x = n)$ has no uncountable models. This implies that the compactness theorem also fails, because it implies the upward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem.

This is all described in the usual references. You might start with the article on Infinitary logic at the Stanford Encyclopedia.

share|cite|improve this answer
Compactness fails, but completeness still holds. Right? – Asaf Karagila Sep 28 '12 at 20:43
@Asaf: the completeness theorem holds in a certain sense. Compared to first order logic, the deductive system is expanded and allows deductions of countable length rather than finite length. Second, the set of non-logical premises being assumed has to be countable. With these modifications, $L(\omega_1, \omega)$ has a completeness theorem. The SEP article talks about this. – Carl Mummert Sep 29 '12 at 0:59
Doesn't downward L-S fail also since the ordered field of reals can be characterized up to isomorphism by an uncountable set of $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_{1}, \omega}$-sentences? – Quinn Culver Sep 30 '12 at 4:07
@Quinn Culver: see the article I linked. Even for first-order logic the D-L theorem only says that for a theory $T$ you can get a model of size $|T| + \aleph_0$. – Carl Mummert Sep 30 '12 at 11:51

I think, if ultrafilters everywhere in the proof are replaced by $\omega_1$-ultrafilters (those which are closed under intersection of $\omega$ many sets), then it is still valid in that form.

share|cite|improve this answer
You do know that the existence of a $\sigma$-complete ultrafilter requires a measurable cardinal, right? – Asaf Karagila Sep 28 '12 at 17:12

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.