1
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Why does a routine application of compactness not yield the model you want? $\endgroup$ Apr 18, 2012 at 11:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Juris Steprans: I'm sorry, I can't see what you're implying. Could you be more precise, please? $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Apr 18, 2012 at 11:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Apr 18, 2012 at 15:50

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ 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". $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Apr 18, 2012 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ No, that doesn´t work. You first need to add a constant to the language. $\endgroup$ Apr 18, 2012 at 12:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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! $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Apr 18, 2012 at 12:19
5
$\begingroup$

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).

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ 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". $\endgroup$ Apr 21, 2016 at 20:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GeraldEdgar While I agree with the general sentiment, the compactness theorem for countable theories does not need the axiom of choice. $\endgroup$ Apr 21, 2016 at 20:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – ACL
    Apr 22, 2016 at 6:11
  • $\begingroup$ 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 $K$. $\endgroup$ Apr 22, 2016 at 7:00
  • $\begingroup$ And I disagree with ACL: $F(t)$ cannot be real closed. For instance, $t$ will never be a square in $F(t)$. $\endgroup$ Apr 22, 2016 at 7:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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