Ultraproducts and the empty set - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-23T23:18:50Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/55989 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/55989/ultraproducts-and-the-empty-set Ultraproducts and the empty set Laurent Moret-Bailly 2011-02-19T16:53:20Z 2011-02-19T17:17:35Z <p>If $I$ is a set, $U$ a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $I$ and $E=(E_i)_{i\in I}$ a family of sets indexed by $I$, then the ultraproduct $E^*$ of $E$ is generally defined as the quotient of $\prod_{i\in I}E_i$ by the equivalence relation "equality on a subset of $I$ which belongs to $U$".</p> <p>However, this definition is "wrong": this $E^*$ is nonempty if and only if <em>all</em> the $E_i$'s are nonempty, while the expected condition is "if and only if <code>$\{i\in I\vert E_i\neq\emptyset\}\in U$</code>". In fact, Łoś' theorem is false with this definition since "nonempty" can be defined by the formula <code>$(\exists x)(x=x)$</code>.</p> <p>So I guess the right definition is <code>$E^*=\varinjlim_{J\in U}\prod_{i\in J}E_i$</code> where $U$ is ordered by reverse inclusion and the transition maps are the projections. If each $E_i$ is nonempty this is equivalent to the standard form, which explains why the latter is used since in most applications (at least in algebra) the $E_i$'s carry some algebraic structure which excludes emptiness. </p> <p>Of course there is a sheaf-theoretic version of this: let $I^\vee$ be the Stone-Čech compactification of the discrete space $I$, $j:I\to I^\vee$ the canonical inclusion. Then $(E_i)$ defines a sheaf of sets $\mathcal{E}$ on $I$. Put <code>$\mathcal{E}^\vee:=j_*\mathcal{E}$</code>. Then $E^*$ is the stalk of $\mathcal{E}^\vee$ at hte point corresponding to $U$. (In the case of ultraproducts of rings, this is explicitly stated in Schoutens' LNM 1999 book: see 2.6.2 there).</p> <p>My question: are there accessible references where this issue is correctly addressed?</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/55989/ultraproducts-and-the-empty-set/55993#55993 Answer by Andreas Blass for Ultraproducts and the empty set Andreas Blass 2011-02-19T17:17:35Z 2011-02-19T17:17:35Z <p>If you allow, as one way of correctly addressing the issue, simply assuming that the factors of the ultraproduct are nonempty, then the issue is correctly addressed in, for example, Chang and Keisler's "Model Theory", Bell and Slomson's "Models and Ultraproducts", and Comfort and Negrepontis's "Theory of Ultrafilters". The same can undoubtedly be said for almost all other treatments of model theory; the three I listed were just the first three I happened to pull off my bookshelf.</p> <p>If, on the other hand, you require that empty factors be permitted, then you may need to go to the category-theoretic literature, where empty structures are not so cavalierly excluded from consideration. </p>