2
$\begingroup$

Does the structure of the category of models of a given first order theory where the arrows are embeddings tell us anything interesting about the theory itself?

Two models $M$ and $M'$ are isomorphic if and only if there exists an embedding $f : M \to M'$ whose inverse $f^{(-1)}$ is an embedding from $M'$ to $M$. Also, embeddings compose. Thus, we have a category.

As a trivial observation, we can rehash the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem in categorical language, if we take some effort to remove the finite models ahead of time.

Picking a satisfiable theory $T$ with no finite models produces a category $C$. If we take $C$ and produce a new category $D$ that identifies all the arrows in every homset in $C$, we get a category that is isomorphic to the category of infinite cardinals, where the homset $\text{Hom}(\kappa, \lambda)$ is a singleton if and only if $\kappa \le \lambda$ and $\text{Hom}(\kappa, \lambda)$ is empty otherwise.

The above statement is a consequence of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem; it might be equivalent, though, if "cardinal gaps" are always detectable by the structure of the category.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

We can say a lot about the first-order theory by just looking at its category of models. Let's use elementary embeddings instead of just embeddings. They are the 'right' arrows to take because they respect first-order logic. You could also work with just embeddings to get some sort of positive logic, which is also interesting. But that is harder and you asked about first-order logic.

So just to remind you: for structures $M$ and $N$ we call a function $f: M \to N$ an elementary embedding if for every first-order formula $\phi(\bar{x})$ and every tuple $\bar{a} \in M$ we have $$ M \models \phi(\bar{a}) \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad N \models \phi(f(\bar{a})). $$ For a first-order theory $T$ let us denote by $\mathbf{Mod}(T)$ the category of models of $T$ with elementary embeddings.

Indeed, we can already detect the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem. For this we have the language of accessible categories. Roughly this works as follows: we can give a purely category-theoretic definition of what a $\lambda$-presentable object is (see here, although there they call it "compact" instead of "presentable"). In $\mathbf{Mod}(T)$, for any $\lambda > |T|$, we have that an object $M$ is $\lambda$-presentable iff $|M| < \lambda$. So this gives us a notion of size. Then we can formulate the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem roughly as "every object is a colimit of small (i.e. $< |T|^+$) objects".

One easy thing that we can see is whether or not $T$ is complete. Namely, $T$ is complete exactly when $\textbf{Mod}(T)$ has the Joint Embedding Property (JEP). JEP means that whenever we have objects $M_1$ and $M_2$ that then there is an object $N$ and arrows $M_1 \to N \leftarrow M_2$. It should be a nice exercise to prove that this is equivalent to being complete.

Another thing that we can easily see from $\mathbf{Mod}(T)$ is whether or not the theory is $\kappa$-categorical for any $\kappa$. This is again done using the notion of presentability. We can detect the 'size' of an object purely category-theoretically and then we can just ask if all the objects of that 'size' are isomorphic.

Just to contrast, let's look at something that $\textbf{Mod}(T)$ cannot detect. It cannot detect whether or not $T$ has quantifier elimination. Indeed, for any theory $T$ we can add a relation symbol $R_\phi(\bar{x})$ for every formula in the language of $T$ and then let $T'$ extend $T$ by saying $\forall \bar{x}(\phi(\bar{x}) \leftrightarrow R_\phi(\bar{x}))$ (we call $T'$ the Morleyisation of $T$). Then $T'$ has quantifier elimination, but $\textbf{Mod}(T)$ and $\textbf{Mod}(T')$ are clearly equivalent categories.

Finally I should say something about classification theory. This is a very deep subject where the aim is to classify theories by how well-behaved they are. The class of stable theories is the most well-known here and the most studied, but there are also more general classes like simple theories. We can detect whether or not a theory is stable or simple (or neither) from its category of models! I think that we can do much more, but this is all very recent research...

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for the thorough answer. What does $|T|^+$ mean? $\endgroup$ Jan 5 at 0:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GregoryNisbet $|T|$ is the cardinality of the set of formulas in the language of $T$, up to equivalence modulo $T$. So usually you would have $|T| = |L| + \aleph_0$, where $L$ is the language of $T$ ('usually' because you could do something like adding a lot of distinct constant symbols and declaring the all to be equal in $T$). Of course, $|T|^+$ is just the next cardinal after $|T|$. $\endgroup$ Jan 5 at 11:05
3
$\begingroup$

There is a very interesting result by Campion, Cousins, and Ye in the context of elementary embeddings. In particular, the Lascar group of a first order theory $T$ is isomorphic to the fundamental group of the classifying space of $Mod(T)$ (where, $Mod(T)$ is the category of models of $T$ with elementary embeddings).

Here is a link to the paper.

$\endgroup$

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.