MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\langle \mathbb{R}, 0, 1, +, \cdot, <\rangle$ be the standard model for $R$, and let $S$ be a countable model of $R$ (satisfying all true first-order statements in $R$). Is it true that the set $1,1+1,1+1+1,\ldots$ is bounded in $S$? My intuition says "no", but I am yet to find a counter example. I read something about rational functions, but I cannot verify it is, indeed, a non-standard model of R.

share|cite|improve this question
4  
Why does a routine application of compactness not yield the model you want? – Juris Steprans Apr 18 '12 at 11:42
    
@Juris Steprans: I'm sorry, I can't see what you're implying. Could you be more precise, please? – Dave Apr 18 '12 at 11:51
2  
Dave, due to the high intersection of users between the MO and MSE communities it is considered impolite to post a question on both sites simultaneously. Please remember that for future reference. (Cross posted on math.SE math.stackexchange.com/q/133418/622) – Asaf Karagila Apr 18 '12 at 15:50
up vote 6 down vote accepted

If $S$ is the set of real algebraic numbers then $1, 1+1, 1+1+1, \dots$ is unbounded in $S$. On the other hand, by compactness of first order logic (as Juris points out), there are models $S$ for which $1, 1+1, 1+1+1, \dots$ is bounded.

share|cite|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer. I'm afraid I don't understand how compactness comes in here. I'm guessing I should add the statements $\exists{x} x>1$, $\exists{x} x>1+1$ and so on to my set, and show that there are models that satisfy that set. But I think it only gives me that there are greater elements than any element of the type $1+1+\ldots+1$; I need one element that "covers them all". – Dave Apr 18 '12 at 12:13
    
No, that doesn´t work. You first need to add a constant to the language. – Ramiro de la Vega Apr 18 '12 at 12:15
1  
Yes, indeed. I think that a good solution for that would include adding another constant c to the language, then the theorems c>1, c>1+1 and so on, find a model and "forget" c (this is a model of the reduced language). Thanks! – Dave Apr 18 '12 at 12:19

Take for $S$ the field $F(t)$ with $F$ being the algebraic closure of $\mathbb Q$ inside $\mathbb R$. Equip it with the unique ordering for which $t-x>0$ for every integer $x$, and take a maximal ordered algebraic extension of $F(t)$. The field $S$ that you get is real-closed, i.e., it has the same first-order theory as $\mathbb R$. It is countable, and has non-archimedean elements ($t$, for instance).

share|cite|improve this answer
    
I think it is more satisfying to write down a concrete model like this. Rather than depend on "compactness" which gives you a model out in "Axiom of Choice Land". – Gerald Edgar Apr 21 at 20:44
2  
@GeraldEdgar While I agree with the general sentiment, the compactness theorem for countable theories does not need the axiom of choice. – Emil Jeřábek Apr 21 at 20:49
1  
Is it so different from the other answer? If you add a constant $t$ to the language with the axioms that it be greater than any integer $x$, then $t$ is transcendental and any model contains $F(t)$ — the simplifying point being that $F(t)$ is already real closed. – ACL Apr 22 at 6:11
    
My construction is perhaps more explicit, and I can make it completely explicit (neither choice nor compactness involved): embed $F(t)$ into $F((s))$ with $s=1/t$ , and set $ K=\bigcup_n F((s^{1/n}))$. Equip $K$ with the ordering extending that of $F$ for which $s$ is positive and smaller than every positive rational number; this ordering extends that of $F(t)$, and makes $K$ a real closed field. Now you may take for $S$ the algebraic closure of $F(t)$ inside $K$. – Antoine Ducros Apr 22 at 7:00
    
And I disagree with ACL: $F(t)$ cannot be real closed. For instance, $t$ will never be a square in $F(t)$. – Antoine Ducros Apr 22 at 7:07

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.