Timeline for Does model-complete in a language with a constant symbol imply EQ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 30, 2011 at 18:42 | vote | accept | atonaltensor | ||
| Dec 29, 2011 at 12:19 | history | edited | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix TeX
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 10:48 | history | edited | Goldstern |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 29, 2011 at 3:00 | answer | added | Ed Dean | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 29, 2011 at 2:16 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Ed, why not provide your answer as an answer? The site works best that way. | |
| Dec 28, 2011 at 23:18 | comment | added | atonaltensor | Ah! I missed that part. This has been bothering me all day, so thank you for the correction. I guess this provides yet another perspective on how/why a model complete theory may fail to eliminate quantifiers: for model complete theories, the above statement only holds whenever A also models T. For theories with qe, the above statement holds for all such substructures A. | |
| Dec 28, 2011 at 23:02 | comment | added | Ed Dean | Note that in the condition Marker gives as being equivalent to having elimination of quantifiers, $A$ can be any L-structure; in particular, while $M$ and $N$ are required to be models of $T$, $A$ is not. Thus model-completeness of $T$ would not yield this (stronger) condition. | |
| Dec 28, 2011 at 22:01 | history | asked | atonaltensor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |