Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

share|improve this question
1  
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

2 Answers 2

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|improve this answer
1  
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|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

 
discard

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