2
$\begingroup$

I am studying the omitting types theorem, which I know in the following form (where we implicitly work inside a monster model of a complete theory without finite models)

Theorem (Omitting types) Assume $L(A)$ is countable. Then for every consistent type $p(x) ⊆ L(A)$ the following are equivalent:

  1. All models containing $A$ realize $p(x)$ $\quad\quad\quad$
  2. $A$ isolates $p(x)$

Now, I am asked to proove the following:

Let $p(x) ⊆ L(B)$ and $p_n (x) ⊆ L(A)$, for $n < ω$, be consistent types such that: $$p(x) →\lor_{n<\omega}\ p_n(x)$$ Prove that there is an $n<ω$ and a formula $φ(x) ∈ L (A)$ consistent with $p(x)$ such that $$p(x) ∧ φ(x) → p_n (x) $$

Now, I know that it must hold that $p(x)\rightarrow p_m(x)$ for some $m$. And intuitively I would like to find some $\phi(x)\in L(A)$ which isolates something like $p(x)\rightarrow p_m(x)$, but I don't know how to go further, since I cannot translate this "implication" between types into a type itself, which moreover should be something over $A\cup B$

I am also asked to prove the following:

Let $A\subset B$ and $p(x)\subset L(A)$ suppose that for any solution $a$ of $p(x)$ the complete type over $B$, $tp(a/B)$ is isolated. Show that $p(x)$ is isolated.

Now, applying the theorem (with $B$) instead of $A$, I am able to conclude that any model containing $B$, contains also, for each solution $a$ of $p(x)$ an element which is in the same orbit (under automorphisms fixing $B$) of $a$. Then this will also be a solution of $p(x)$, since it is the image of $a$ through an automorphism which fixes $B$ and hence also $A$. But how to extend to models which contain $A$ but maybe not $B$ in order to apply the theorem again proving the claim?

Thanks in advance for any help

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Does "consistent type" mean complete type (i.e. $\varphi(x)\in p(x)$, or $\lnot \varphi(x)\in p(x)$, for all formulas $\varphi(x)$), or is a consistent type just a consistent set of formulas with free variables from $x$? $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Nov 15 '20 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ The second: it simply means a consistent set of formulas. Let me know if any other nomenclature sounds strange to you (my professor's is usually nonstandard). Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Francesco Bilotta Nov 15 '20 at 18:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is not true that we must have $p\rightarrow p_m$ for some $m$ in general. For example, letting $A = \emptyset$ and $B = \{b_n\mid n\in \omega\}$ a countable set, the empty type over $A$ implies $\{x\neq b_n\mid n\in \omega\}\lor \bigvee_{n\in \omega} \{x = b_n\}$, but the empty type certainly does not imply any of these types. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Nov 15 '20 at 20:09
3
$\begingroup$

First question:

Let's prove the contrapositive. Assume that for all $n$ and all $L(A)$-formulas $\varphi(x)$, $p(x)\cup \{\varphi(x)\}\not\models p_n(x)$. We want to prove that $p(x)\not\models \bigvee_{n\in\omega} p_n(x)$, i.e. we want to realize $p(x)$ by an element which does not satisfy any of the $p_n(x)$.

One way to go is to introduce a new constant symbol $c$, consider the theory $T\cup p(c)$, and use the omitting types theorem to omit all the $p_n(x)$. But this is a little messy, what with the changing of languages, and it's also overkill: you don't really have to omit all the types $p_n(x)$, just make sure that $c$ doesn't realize them.

So I would prefer to prove this result by redoing a small part of the proof of the omitting types theorem. Note that we don't have to assume the language is countable in this proof, which is a big advantage over using omitting types!

We build a sequence of $L(A)$-formulas $(\varphi_n(x))_{n\in \omega}$ by induction, ensuring as we go that for all $n$, $p(x)\cup \{\varphi_k(x)\mid k\leq n\}$ is consistent. To pick $\varphi_n(x)$, we let $\psi_n(x) = \bigwedge_{k<n}\varphi_k(x)$. By induction, $\psi_n(x)$ is consistent with $p(x)$. So by our assumption, $p(x)\cup \{\psi_n(x)\}\not\models p_n(x)$. Thus we can find some element $b$ satisfying $p(x)\cup \{\psi_n(x)\}$ but not satisfying $p_n(x)$. Let $\varphi_n(x)$ be some formula which is true of $b$, but whose negation is in $p_n(x)$. Then $p(x)\cup \{\varphi_k(x)\mid k\leq n\}$ is consistent, since it is realized by $b$.

Now let $q(x) = p(x)\cup \{\varphi_n(x)\mid n\in \omega\}$. By compactness, $q(x)$ is consistent. Let $c$ be some realization. Then $c$ realizes $p$, but $c$ does not realize any $p_n(x)$, since for any $n$, $c$ satisfies $\varphi_n(x)$, and $\lnot\varphi_n(x)\in p_n(x)$.

Second question:

To me, this question seems totally unrelated to the first question and the omitting types theorem... I would prove it like this:

Let $Q$ be the set of complete types $q(x)$ over $B$ with $p(x)\subseteq q(x)$. For each $q(x)\in Q$, $q(x)$ is isolated by an $L(B)$-formula $\varphi_q(x)$. So $p(x)\cup \{\lnot \varphi_q(x)\mid q\in Q\}$ is inconsistent. By compactness, there are finitely many types $q_1,\dots,q_n$ such that $p(x)\models \bigvee_{i=1}^n \varphi_{q_i}(x)$. Let's call this disjunction $\psi(x)$. Note that also $\psi(x)\models p(x)$, since if $\psi(a)$, then $a$ realizes $q_i(x)$ for some $i$, and $p(x)\subseteq q_i(x)$. Thus we have shown that $p(x)$ is isolated by a formula over $B$.

The question as stated is a bit ambiguous, but I suppose the goal is to show that $p(x)$ is isolated by a formula over $A$. But this follows from the above, since if a set definable over $B$ is invariant over $A\subseteq B$ (i.e. fixed by all automorphisms of the monster model which fix $A$ pointwise), then the set is actually definable over $A$. I'll leave that as an exercise for you.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, exceptionally clear as usual. Just one thing: in the answer to the first question, aren't you assuming that $p_n(x)$ is complete, to find the appropriate $\varphi_n(x)$? $\endgroup$ – Francesco Bilotta Nov 17 '20 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ @FrancescoBilotta No - if $b$ fails to satisfy $p_n$, there is some formula in $p_n$ that is not true of $b$. The negation of such a formula is $\varphi_n$. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Nov 17 '20 at 13:14
  • $\begingroup$ of course, thanks again $\endgroup$ – Francesco Bilotta Nov 17 '20 at 13:50

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.