3
$\begingroup$

$\sf LS(\aleph_0)$: Every model $M$ of a first order theory $\sf T$ with countable signature has an elementary submodel $N$ which is at most countable.

Now this theorem is equivalent over axioms of $\sf ZF$ to the axiom of dependet choice $``\sf DC"$.

Now does this mean that in $\sf ZF + \neg DC$, we can have a consistent theorey in a countable signature that doesn't have a countable model?

$\endgroup$
10
$\begingroup$

No. If a theory is well-orderable, then it has a well-orderable model satisfying all the usual properties in $\sf ZFC$.

To see why, note that you can code all the thing into a set of ordinals $A$, then in $L[A]$ your theory exists and it is a model of $\sf ZFC$, so the theory has a countable model. But this is upwards absolute to $V$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's a massively overkill argument - just observe that the usual model construction goes through without choice if the theory is well-orderable. (+1 of course, though.) $\endgroup$ Jul 23 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, but that's a neater argument. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jul 23 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ can we have first order theories in countable signature that are not well orderable? $\endgroup$
    – Zuhair
    Jul 23 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Zuhair: No. If a theory is countable, the signature is countable. If a signature is countable, there are countably many sentences from whence a theory is born. If a signature is well-orderable, then there are well-orderably many sentences. If you just add symbols, but never ever use them, what's the point of having them? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jul 23 at 20:06

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.