1
$\begingroup$

My question follows from the 1958 result of MacDowell–Specker (located originally in Modelle der Arithmetik, J. Symbolic Logic Volume 38, Issue 4 (1973), 651-652) of the proof of the following theorem:

Theorem 1. Every model $M$ of $PA$ has a proper elementary end extension $E_M\subset M$, where we take $\subset$ to mean $E_M\subseteq M$ and $\neg (E_M=M$).

The question I ask is broken into two parts which I believe are answerable in one post. Intuitively it feels that they are related as questions by the Macdowell-Specker as stated below:

Theorem 2. Every nonstandard model $N$ of $PA$ has a proper elementary end extension with $E_N\subseteq N$.

Question 1) Following from the existence of the proper end extension $E_M$ by the Macdowell-Specker theorem, can one assume that $E_N\models\mathrm{PA}$ if each $E_i\subset N$ is nonstandard? Perhaps more briefly, I ask if $E_N\models\mathrm{PA}$ still holds when $E_N$ is not a proper elementary extension of $N$.

Question 2) By the assumption of the "nonstandardess" of $E$, is it a sufficient condition for [Theorem 2] that if $E_N\models\mathrm{PA}$ then $N$ has its proper elementary end extensions $|E_N|\leq \omega$?

Thank you for your help, and I apologize if only one question should be asked in this context. The only similar question on the website I can find possibly related to the above is https://mathoverflow.net/questions/141845/elementary-end-extensions-of-models-of-peano-arithmetic-in-uncountable-languages, but this question concerns uncountability, which I do not feel is straightforwardly related to my question.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I'm having trouble following your notation. Why doesn't Theorem 2 follow immediately from Theorem 1: if N is a nonstandard model of PA it is, a fortiori, a model of PA, and so has a proper elementary end extension? $\endgroup$ – Henry Dec 22 '14 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Henry Yes it does follow from theorem 1, and is in fact the same theorem but just with the existence of the nonstandard model stated explicitly for convience. I see now your point of how it is redudant in view of theorem 1. My two questions are about the nonstandard model of PA below so I felt I was being more direct with my two questions; I am new to this website so I apologize for that, and I do not mind editing it out. $\endgroup$ – cmn1 Dec 22 '14 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ That clarifies the role of Thm 2, but I still don't understand your questions. In both questions, what is $E_N$? If it's the model promised by MS, it obviously satisfies PA; if it's some other model, what model is it? In question 2, does $|E_N|\leq\omega$ mean countable cardinality? Are you assuming that $N$ has countable cardinality? What does it mean to have a sufficient condition for a Theorem in the first place? $\endgroup$ – Henry Dec 22 '14 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Henry I denote by $$E_N$ the nonstandard proper elementary end extension such that $E_N \subseteq N$ and $\subseteq$ is defined as in theorem 1. By question 1, I ask if $E_N$ must be a proper elementary end extension to prove that every nonstandard model of PA has an end extension (not necessarily proper). In question two, I mean by "sufficient condition" if it is necessary to assume that $|E_N|\leq \omega$ in order to prove that $E_N$ is a proper nonstandard elementary end extension of $PA$. Thanks again, and I hope that clears it up. $\endgroup$ – cmn1 Dec 22 '14 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ I still don't understand. If $E_N$ is the the specific end extension given by Theorem 1, then of course it must be proper. However proving that every model of PA has a (not necessarily proper) end extension which is a model of PA is trivial, because every model of PA is an elementary end extension of itself. (That's why the theorem specifies that $E_N$ is proper.) I still don't know what $|E_N|\leq\omega$ means. $\endgroup$ – Henry Dec 22 '14 at 18:02
2
$\begingroup$

I think I understand the question well enough to answer now.

  1. Every model is a (proper, by definition) elementary end-extension of itself, so it's only interesting to prove that there are also elementary end-extensions which aren't proper.
  2. It follows easily from the ordinary proof of Macdowell-Specker that when $M$ is a countable model of PA, $M$ has a countable proper elementary end-extensions.
  3. It follows that if $M$ is countable, there must also be uncountable elementary end-extensions: let $M=M_0$, given $M_\alpha$, let $M_{\alpha+1}$ be a proper elementary end-extension of $M_\alpha$, and when $\lambda$ is a limit ordinal, le $M_\lambda=\bigcup_{\alpha<\lambda}M_\alpha$. Then $M_{\omega_1}$ is an uncountable elementary end-extension of $M$.
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.