# Show that Total Orders does not have the finite model property

I am not sure whether my answer to this problem is correct. I would be grateful if anyone could correct my mistakes or help me to find the correct solutions.

The problem:

Show that Total Orders does not have the finite model property by finding a sentence A which is refuted only in models with an infinite domain.

Just for reference purpose only:
A theory T has the finite model property if and only if whenever $T\nvdash A$ there is a model $\mathcal{M}$ with a finite domain, such that $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies the theory $T$ but $A$ does not hold in $\mathcal{M}$.

The theory of Total Orders (in the language with quantifiers, propositional connectives, identity and one new binary relation symbol '<') defined as the set of consequences of the following three formulas:
1. $(\forall x)\neg(x<x)$
2. $(\forall x)((x<y\wedge y<z)\supset x<z)$
3. $(\forall x)(x<y\vee x=y\vee y<x)$

My answer is quite simple, but it is too simple that I doubt whether it is correct. I am trying to say that the statement "there is a least element" is refuted only in models with an infinite domain, for example the integers. My sentence A is $\neg((\exists y)(\forall x)(y<x))$.

I am not sure whether I am correct. Please correct me if I am wrong and please say so if there is any better answer.

Your sentence is almost correct, but it fails to be correct for one (dare I say dumb?) reason: it is actually provable from your theory $T$ of total orders, which is actually the theory of strict (irreflexive) total orders. Note that your sentence is logically equivalent to $$( \forall y ) ( \exists x ) ( y \not< x ).$$

Now if $( X , < )$ is a strict total order, then taking any $y \in X$ we have, by irreflexivity, that $y \not< y$; i.e., there is an $x \in X$ (namely $y$) such that $y \not< x$. As the sentence holds in all models, by the Completeness Theorem it is provable from $T$. But we are specifically looking for a sentence which is not provable from $T$.

If you slightly alter your sentence to exclude the triviality mentioned above, it should work.

• Oops. Nice catch Arthur. – Lord_Farin Jun 5 '13 at 7:08

That's entirely correct. That's almost correct, see Arthur Fischer's answer.

You can craft more sentences from the knowledge that a finite total ordering is a well-ordering (see e.g. ProofWiki), although the one you gave (along with its "dual" $\neg((\exists y)(\forall x)(x = y \lor x < y))$) is likely among the simplest possible.

There are also sentences that do not need a negation, for example:

$$(\forall x)((\forall y)(y \le x) \lor (\exists y)(x < y \land (\forall z)(x < z \supset y \le z)))$$

which intuitively says "every element has a least successor". E.g. $\Bbb Q$ violates this statement.

For an example of a slightly different flavour you can consider the negation of the "denseness" statement: $$\neg((\forall x)(\forall y)(x < y \supset ((\exists z)(x < z \land z < y))))$$ The negation of this sentence can be expressed in natural language as: "between any two elements there is a third element". Examples of infinite orderings satisfying this are $\Bbb Q$ and $\Bbb R$.

• That $\supset$ is awfully old-fashioned; it would be more readable with $\to$ (or $\implies$, though I really prefer $\to$). – Brian M. Scott Jun 5 '13 at 6:49
• @Brian I know, but I was following OPs notation. I always use $\to$ when I can influence the choice of a symbol. – Lord_Farin Jun 5 '13 at 6:49
• Ah. I think that this is a case in which I’d do a little silent arm-twisting. :-) – Brian M. Scott Jun 5 '13 at 6:51

On taking a closer look, I see that your sentence $\neg((\exists y)(\forall x)(y<x))$ doesn’t quite work. The problem is that it’s a consequence of your first axiom: no matter what $y$, is it’s not the case that $\forall x(y<x)$, since it’s not the case that $y<y$. Another way to see this is by using some basic logical equivalences to move the negation inward: it’s equivalent to

$$\forall y\exists x\big(\neg(y<x)\big)\;,$$

which is true because $\forall y\big(\neg(y<y)\big)$. You can repair it by making it

$$\neg\exists y\forall x(y<x\lor y=x)\;,$$

which does say that there is no least element. Or you can express the same idea positively as

$$\forall x\exists y(y<x)\;,$$

‘for each element there is a smaller element’.

Looks like a good candidate to me. As you say, this clearly holds in every finite model of our theory, but infinite counterexamples exist, like $\mathbb{Z}$.