5
$\begingroup$

Could anyone of you explain me why $(\mathbb{R},<)$ is $\omega$-saturated?

EDIT: do you know also why the theory of Boole algebras without atoms is $\omega$-categoric?

Added: The added question about Boolean algebras is at Boolean algebras without atoms

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_model $\endgroup$ – user9413 May 16 '11 at 18:50
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think you should ask your second question as a separate question. $\endgroup$ – JDH May 16 '11 at 19:31
12
$\begingroup$

Your structure is an endless dense linear ordering, and this is a theory that admits elimination of quantifiers. Thus, every assertion in this language is equivalent to a quantifier-free assertion. If one has finitely many parameters, then the only possible consistent types are the assertions about how those parameters are ordered, and how the new variable $x$ fits into the resulting intervals. That is, the variable $x$ is either equal to one of them, or between two successive ones, or above all or below all of them. All such types are already realized in $\mathbb{R}$, since it has such points already for each of these possible patterns, and so the structure is $\omega$-saturated.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

A different approach: the theory of dense linear orderings is $\omega$-categorical.

It is a general (and easily seen) fact that if a theory is categorical in a given cardinality, the only model of this cardinality is saturated.

From that it is easy to see that if a theory is $\kappa$-categorical, then every model of the theory of cardinality at least $\kappa$ is $\kappa$-saturated (just extend the set of parameters to an elementary submodel of cardinality $\kappa$).

$\endgroup$

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.