2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to understand the relationship between ultraproducts and the compactification of Lindenbaum algebras and I wanted to check if I'm getting thing right (so far).

We start with a theory $T$ and form the Lindenbaum algebra of sentences equivalent modulo $T$. This algebra will contain elements of the form $[\phi]_T$ for some sentence $\phi$. These elements will be like finite theories; so when we take filters of these elements, these filters may converge to an ideal element not in the algebra, namely a complete theory. So we add ultrafilters to obtain the necessary ideal points, compactifying (is that a verb?) the space, which is now $S(T)$, the space of complete theories in the language of $T$ and corresponds to the Stone space of the original algebra (this also explains why complete types can be considered as $\{0, 1\}$-valued measures: they are ultrafilters, which are such measures).

On the other hand, if we consider the models associated to the theories, we see that if $\mathcal{A}_i$ is the model of a theory $i$ in a filter $F$ from the original Lindenbaum algebra, then we see that to the ultrafilter $U$ extending $F$ there will correspond an ultraproduct $\mathcal{A}$. This ultraproduct will be in a certain sense (which?) the limit of the structures $\mathcal{A}_i$, and its theory will correspond to the ultrafilter of the Lindenbaum algebra, i.e. a point in the Stone space $S(T)$.


Is the above account correct? Am I missing something? Are there other things that I should pay attention to in filling out the details of the above?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I think there's some confusion here between ultrafilters on sets and Boolean algebras. An ultrafilter on a Boolean algebra $B$ is a subset $U\subseteq B$. An ultrafilter on a set $X$ is a set of subsets $U\subseteq\mathcal{P}(X)$; in particular, it is an ultrafilter on the powerset Boolean algebra $\mathcal{P}(X)$.

In what sense is $S(T)$ a compactification of the Lindenbaum algebra? Usually, to compactify means to embed a topological space into a compact space. But the Lindenbaum algebra is a Boolean algebra, not a space, and it doesn't naturally embed in $S(T)$. Instead of the compactification of the Lindenbaum algebra $L(T)$, $S(T)$ is the space corresponding to $L(T)$ under Stone duality.

On the other hand, you can view certain Stone spaces as compactifications of sets. Given a set $X$, the Stone-Čech compactification $\beta X$ is the space of ultrafilters on the set $X$, i.e. ultrafilters on the powerset Boolean algebra of X. That is, $\beta X = S(\mathcal{P}(X))$. And $\beta X$ is a compactification of $X$ when we view $X$ as a discrete space, by the embedding sending $x\in X$ to the principal ultrafilter generated by $x$.

A possible confusion between ultrafilters on sets and Boolean algebras is also reflected in your last paragraph, where you appear to be trying to take an ultraproduct of structures $(\mathcal{A}_i)_{i\in I}$ by an ultrafilter on a Boolean algebra. Usually, the ultraproduct is defined using an ultrafilter on the index set $I$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "I thought that the Stone space was the precisely the Stone-Čech compactification of a Lindenbaum algebra with the discrete topology. Is this mistaken?" Yes, that's the source of your confusion. An ultrafilter on a Boolean algebra $B$ is a subset of $B$. If you instead let $\overline{B}$ be the underlying set of the boolean algebra, then an ultrafilter on $\overline{B}$ (i.e. a point of the Stone-Čech compactification of $\overline{B}$) is a set of subsets of $B$, i.e. a subset of $\mathcal{P}(\overline{B})$. These are totally different things. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 19 '18 at 18:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Similarly, if $F\subseteq B$ is a filter, then an ultrafilter on $F$ (viewed as a set) is a totally different kind of thing than than ultrafilter on $B$ (viewed as a Boolean algebra) extending $F$. The first is $U\subseteq \mathcal{P}(F)$, while the second is $F\subseteq U\subseteq B$. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 19 '18 at 18:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Being pedantic: If $B$ is the Lindenbaum algebra (whose elements are sentences up to equivalence mod $T$), we usually call ultrafilters over $B$ complete theories (completions of $T$), not complete types. A complete type (in variable context $x$) is an ultrafilter on the Boolean algebra of formulas with free variables from $x$ up to equivalence mod $T$. So completions of $T$ are complete types in the empty variable context. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 19 '18 at 19:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Is there any relation then between $S(T)$ and $\beta\overline{B}$?" Here's one relationship. Stone duality say that the powerset algebra of $\overline{B}$ is isomorphic to the algebra of clopen sets of $\beta\overline{B}$. That is, a subset $Y\subseteq B$ corresponds to a clopen set in $\beta\overline{B}$, namely $\{U\in \beta\overline{B}\mid Y\in U\}$. In particular, since ultrafilters on $B$ are subsets of $B$, they correspond to certain clopen sets in $\beta\overline{B}$. But I don't see any natural way to make them correspond to points of $\beta\overline{B}$. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 19 '18 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The point is that when you pass to $\overline{B}$, you forget about the Boolean algebra structure on $B$. Now it's just a set. So from the point of view of $\beta\overline{B}$, there's no difference between an ultrafilter on $B$ and any other subset of $B$. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 19 '18 at 20:07

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.