0
$\begingroup$

I know, thanks to some clarifications received from a user of this site, the definition of a model. When evaluating the cardinality of a model by taking the interpretations of all the constants, functions and $k$-ary relations ($k\ge 0$) into account, what do we consider the interpretation of a $k$-ary relation and, in particular, the interpretation of a 0-ary relation, i.e. a proposition without any argument?

For example for the theory $\{R_1,R_2,\ldots,R_n,...\}$ read as $\{$it rained today, it rained yesterday, it rained the day before yesterday, it rained the day before the day before yesterday,...$\}$, is the cardinality of the considered model $|M|=|\{$it rained today, it rained yesterday, it rained the day before yesterday, it rained the day before the day before yesterday,...$\}|=\aleph_0$ or $|M|=|\{0,1\}|=2$ according to the truth values assigned $R_1,R_2,\ldots$? I thank you anybody for any clarification!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

In keeping with Mr. Karagila's answer to your previous question, the cardinality of your example model is 2, not $\aleph_0$.

In general, the interpretation of a $k$-ary relation can be seen as a subset of the cartesian power $M^k$. In particular, suppose that $R$ is a $k$-ary relation in the language $\mathcal L$ and that $M$ is the domain of some given $\mathcal L$-model. Then we can write $R^M\subseteq M^k$ for the interpretation of $R$ in that model, so that $R$ holds of a $k$-tuple $(m_1,\ldots,m_k)$ if and only if $(m_1,\ldots,m_k)\in R^M$. Using this notion to explain interpretation of relation symbols, a $0$-ary relation symbol should hold true only of the empty tuple.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Perfectly understood. Thank you very much! $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Jan 31 '15 at 22:03
  • $\begingroup$ I'm always weirded out when people write "Mr. Karagila" (it's even worse when you get emails with Dr. or Prof. Karagila, though). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 31 '15 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: I received an e-mail from a student who called me a dr. two months after my getting my master's degree. Better yet, a friend of mine had a misprint on some (semi-official) documents for his (master's) defense, due to which they said that he is already a professor. $\endgroup$ – tomasz Feb 1 '15 at 3:15
  • $\begingroup$ I have searched and compared several resources on the definition of universe, whose cardinality (cfr. math.stackexchange.com/questions/1127863/…) is used to define the cardinality of a model. Therefore, if our model "reads" $\{R_1,R_2,...\}$ as $\{$it rained today, it rained yesterday,...$\}$ with no elements of a universe involved in $k$-ary relations with $k\ge1$, I'm inclined to think that the cardinality of such a model would rather be 0... $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Feb 1 '15 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ ...if I've correctly understood what a universe is. I had completely misunderstood what $M$ is in Asaf's answer believing that it coincides with the universe. I hope to be corrected if I'm wrong... I thank everybody! $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker Feb 1 '15 at 14:06

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.