My level: I've studied mathematics and now work through Hebert Enderton's book "An introduction to mathematical logic", second edition, in my free time. Relevant pages: 135-142, specifically 140

Suppose you have a first-order language that doesn't include the equality symbol and you add countably many constant symbols to this original language. Suppose $\Gamma$ is a set of formulas of the original and hence the new language. Let $\Delta $ be a set of formulas of the new language that is maximally consistent. By "maximally" I mean that for each formula $\phi $ of the new language either $\phi $ or $\neg\phi $ is in $\Delta $ (but not both). Let $\mathfrak{A}$ be the structure for the new language, such that the universe is the set of terms of the new language and $P^{\mathfrak {A}}(t_1, \ldots , t_n)$ iff $Pt_{1}\ldots t_n \in \Delta$ for a predicate symbol $P$ and $f^{\mathfrak{A}}(t_{1}, \ldots, t_n)=ft_{1}\ldots t_n$ for function symbols $f$ and $c^{\mathfrak {A}}=c$. By the way $\Delta =\{\phi\colon \models_{\mathfrak {A}}\phi [s]\}$, where $s$ is the identity function on the set of variables.

I want to show that when $\mathfrak{A}$ satisfies $\Gamma$ with the identity function then $\mathfrak{B}$ satisfies $\Gamma$ with the identity function. Here $\mathfrak{B}$ is the structure for the original language that results from $\mathfrak{A}$ by restricting it to the original language.

Initially I thought this would be easily done by induction but for deferral days now I didn't manage to do it. The problem is that in the induction step I couldn't show that $\models_{\mathfrak {A}}\gamma[s]$ iff $\models_{\mathfrak{B}}\gamma[s]$ (s the identity function on the set of variables) the case of the quantifier symbol. In this case I can only show that from the first assumption follows the latter, which might seem sufficient fit my purpose. But when $\neg $ is involved it might not be so.

Can somebody please help me?


The proof by induction that the structure $\mathfrak {A}$ satisfying $\Delta$ with function $s$ is "already there" : step 4, page 137-on.

Being $\Gamma \subseteq \Delta$, this structure satisfy also $\Gamma$ with $s$.

Your error, I presume, is in thinking in term of "sustructure" $\mathfrak {B}$ such that $|\mathfrak {B}| \subseteq |\mathfrak {A}|$.

This is not the correct interpretation of [page 140] :

we need only restrict $\mathfrak {A}$ to the original language to obtain a structure that satisfies every member of $\Gamma$ with the identity function [$s$].

The structure for $\Gamma$ has the same domain $|\mathfrak {A}|$; what we have to "restrict" is the interpretation, because the original language (that of $\Gamma$) has no "added" Henkin-constant $c_i$; thus, we need no "reference" $c_i^{\mathfrak A}$ for them.

But this amounts to "removing" the un-needed "interpreting-relation" for the constants of the language, and not the "objects" themselves (which are the stuff of the structure).

The domain $|\mathfrak {A}|$ is "made of" the terms and we still need them also for $\Gamma$.

  • $\begingroup$ Now I've got it - your answer was most helpful! You were right, I assumed that $\mathfrak{B}$ should be the set of the original terms (no Henkin-constants a you call them there) and therefore my assuming $\mathfrak{B} \subset \mathfrak{A}$ resulted in me having trouble with $\forall$ in the induction step.. $\endgroup$ – Pi o r Aug 15 '14 at 18:39

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.