8
$\begingroup$

From $\textit{The Higher Infinite}$ by Kanamori, in his proof (page 39 - 41) that $\kappa$ is weakly compact if and only if $\kappa$ satisfies the Extension Property, the proof does something that I am not entirely sure is necessary:

The relevant portion of this proof is as follows:

Let $\Sigma$ be a $\kappa$ satisfiable set of $L_{\kappa,\kappa}$ sentences. $R_1$ is the definable satisfaction relation for set models of $V_\kappa$. $R_2$ is another relation (but that is not relevant at this point in the proof). He then manages to prove that there is a transitive set $X$ properly containing $V_\kappa$ such that

$\langle V_\kappa, \in, R_1, R_2 \rangle \prec \langle X, \in, S_1, S_2 \rangle$

$\langle X, \in, S_1, S_2) \models \Sigma \text{ has a model }$

I think that the proof should be finished at this point: Let $\mathcal{M}$ in $X$ be such a model. By the absoluteness of the satisfaction relation $S_1$, $\mathcal{M}$ is a model of $\Sigma$ in $V$. This should conclude the proof.

However, Kanamori continues. Since $\kappa$ is inaccessible, $V_\kappa \models ZFC$. By elementarily, $X \models ZFC$. Being inaccessible is absolute for transitive model of $ZFC$, so $X \models \kappa$ is inaccessible. Then he applies the Lowenheim Skolem Theorem in $X$ for $L_{\lambda, \lambda}$ for inaccessible cardinal $\lambda$ to prove that (when $\lambda = \kappa$)

$\langle X, \in, S_1, S_2 \rangle \models \Sigma$ has a model $\mathcal{M}$ with domain $\subseteq \kappa$

Then he applies the absoluteness of the satisfaction relation $S_1$, to claim that $\mathcal{M}$ is really a model of $\Sigma$.

My question is why does he have to produce a model in $X$ of $\Sigma$ with domain a subset of $\kappa$ to apply the absoluteness argument of the satisfaction relation. Would it not be enough just to produce any model in $X$. Thanks for any clarification

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There are about a zillion ways to define weakly compact cardinals, which one are you using? And also is the extension property the existence of elementary end-extensions? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 30 '13 at 7:12
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. The extension property for $\kappa$ is the existence of a transitive $X$ a proper subset of $V_\kappa$ and $S \subset X$ such that $(V, \in, R) \prec (X, \in, S)$. The definition of weakly compact is the $\kappa$ "compactness theorem" for collections of sentences using no more than $\kappa$ no logical sentences. $\endgroup$ – William Mar 30 '13 at 7:30
  • $\begingroup$ It's a shame on the bounty. Perhaps it'd be time to cross this to MathOverflow when the bounty expires? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Apr 12 '13 at 0:31
4
$\begingroup$

The problem is that you cannot conclude "$\mathcal{M}$ is a model of $\Sigma$" from "$X \vDash \mathcal{M}$ is a model of $\Sigma$". The reason is that there is no reason why satisfaction of an $L_{\kappa, \kappa}$ sentence in $\mathcal{M}$ as seen by $X$ will be truly reflected in $V$ unless $X$ can see all of $\mathcal{M}^{< \kappa}$. Choosing the universe of $\mathcal{M}$ to be a subset of $V_{\kappa}$, achieves this.

This issue does not arise in the usual $L_{\omega, \omega}$-satisfaction since every decent transitive class is closed under finite sequences.

$\endgroup$

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.