This was originally part of this older question of mine, but in retrospect that question should have been broken into two parts - this is the still-unanswered part.

Let $\Sigma$ be the language of ordered fields and let $\mathcal{R}$ be the field of real numbers. Say that a theory $T$ in a language $\Sigma'$ gotten by adding constant symbols to $\Sigma$ is $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiable iff $T$ has a model whose $\Sigma$-reduct is $\mathcal{R}$ itself. For cardinals $\kappa<\lambda$, say that $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability is $(\kappa,\lambda)$-compact iff every theory of cardinality $<\lambda$ all of whose size-$<\kappa$-subsets are $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiable is itself $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiable.

There are a couple easy observations about the possible extent of compactness for $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability (see the discussion at the above-linked question):

  • $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability is provably not $(\omega_1,\omega_2)$-compact or $(2^\omega, (2^\omega)^{+})$-compact.

  • If $\kappa$ is measurable then $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability is $(\kappa,\kappa^+)$-compact.

However, there is still one natural "low-level" question that remains open:

Is $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability consistently $(\omega_2,\omega_3)$-compact?

Here are a couple comments:

First, by the above observations $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability can only be $(\omega_2,\omega_3)$-compact if $2^\omega\ge\omega_3$ (this was pointed out by Joel), so neither $\mathsf{CH}$ nor forcing axioms can help us.

A bit more complicatedly, there are subtleties which pose potential obstacles to any "coarse" argument. Specifically, suppose we shift from $\mathcal{R}$ to its expansion $\mathcal{R}_\mathbb{Z}$ by a predicate naming the integers. In $\mathcal{R}_\mathbb{Z}$ we can talk about reals coding countable well-orderings and comparisons between the ordertypes of coded well-orderings. This gives us right off the bat a $\mathsf{ZFC}$-provable counterexample to $(\omega_2,\omega_3)$-compactness of $\mathcal{R}_\mathbb{Z}$-satisfiability: let $T$ be the theory using constant symbols $(c_\eta)_{\eta<\omega_2}$ saying that the $c_\eta$s code well-orderings of distinct ordertypes. This $T$ also demonstrates that we cannot obviously focus on complete theories WLOG: while every subtheory of $T$ of size $\omega_1$ is $\mathcal{R}_\mathbb{Z}$-satisfiable, every completion $S$ of $T$ has some subtheory of size $\omega_1$ which is not $\mathcal{R}_\mathbb{Z}$-satisfiable since every linear order of size $\omega_2$ has a suborder of size $\omega_1$ not embedding into $\omega_1$. Of course, the above reasoning breaks down for $\mathcal{R}$, but this does still suggest that there may be subtleties (and ultimately makes me very skeptical of a positive answer).


1 Answer 1


It looks to me like under ZFC, $\mathbb{R}$-satisfiability is not (consistently) $(\omega_2,\omega_3)$-compact. To see this, we'll emulate your argument above for $\mathbb{R}_{\mathbb{Z}}$. So basically, we want a theory with constants $c_\eta$ for $\eta<\omega_2$, which says:

  • "$c_\eta$ codes a wellorder of $\omega$ (in ordertype $\geq\omega$)",

  • "if $\eta_0\neq\eta_1$ then $c_{\eta_0},c_{\eta_1}$ have distinct ordertypes".

It suffices to express these things in an appropriate fashion. We will in fact use a bunch more constants to help with this. We start with constants $\left<n_i\right>_{i<\omega}$, along with the statements:

  • "$n_0=0$"

  • "$n_1=1$"

  • "$n_{k+1}=n_k+1$", for each $k<\omega$

So whenever all these formulas are included, $n_k$ must be interpreted by $k$. Thus, we can talk about the integers by referencing these constants. But we cannot quantify directly over the integers. But we can do this enough for our purposes, indirectly. For each tuple $\vec{a}=(a_0,\ldots,a_{k-1})$ of constants that we add, we add further new constants $t_{\vec{a}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{wit}}_{\vec{a}}$; $t_{\vec{a}}$ will code the $\Sigma_1^{\mathbb{N},\vec{a}}$ theory (by which I really mean that $\Sigma_1^{\mathbb{N},A_{\vec{a}}}$ theory, where $A_{\vec{a}}=(A_{a_0},\ldots,A_{a_{k-1}})$ denotes the tuple of sets of integers coded by $\vec{a}$, and the theory is the collection of all $\Sigma_1$ truths in integer parameters over the structure $(\mathbb{N},A_{a_0},\ldots,A_{a_{k-1}})$), and the (interpretation of the) constant $t^{\mathrm{wit}}_{\vec{a}}$ will code witnesses to the $\Sigma_1$ assertions in this theory. Because our constants are closed under this, we end up with constants which will code the $\Sigma_k^{\mathbb{N},\vec{a}}$ theory, for each $k<\omega$, via which we can make arithmetical statements, which will be very helpful.

So, for specificity, let's say that the real $x$ codes the set of rationals ${<x}$, and this then gives us a natural way of coding a set $A_x$ of integers with $x$. Fix also such a natural way of coding total functions $f_x:\omega\to\omega$ with $x$. (For example, take $f_x(0)=$ the floor of $x$, and if $f_x(0)=i$, then break the interval $[i,i+1)$ into the sub-intervals $I_0=[i+\frac{1}{2})$, $I_1=[i+\frac{1}{2},i+\frac{3}{4})$, etc, and $f_x(1)=$ the $k$ such that $x\in I_k$, and then break $I_k$ up in this manner to define $f_x(2)$, etc.)

Note that for each specific tuple $\vec{n}$ of integers, we can express $\Sigma_0^{\mathbb{N},\vec{a}}(\{\vec{n}\})$ statements with formulas in our theory, by converting them into quantifier-free statements (i.e. convert "$\exists m<n_0$" as a disjunction of $n_0$-many formulas, etc). Fix an enumeration $\left<\psi_i\right>_{i<\omega}$ of all $\Sigma_0$ formulas in the language of $\mathbb{N}$ plus a predicate (implicit below, interperted as $A_\vec{a}$). We include the following statements in our theory:

  • "If the formula `$\exists k\psi_i(k,\vec{n})$' is in $A_{t_{\vec{a}}}$, and $f_{t_{\vec{a}}^{\mathrm{wit}}}(i)=k'$, as witnessed by calculation $c$, then $\psi_i(k',\vec{n})$" (here $i,\vec{n},k',c$ are arbitrary (tuples of) integers, and we have some fixed coding of "calculations" by integers; note that "$\psi_i(k',\vec{n})$", for these particular integers $k',\vec{n}$, is expressible as noted above).

  • "If the formula `$\exists k\psi_i(k,\vec{n})$' is not in $A_{t_{\vec{a}}}$, then $\neg\psi_i(k',\vec{n})$" (here $i,k',\vec{n}$ are arbitrary integers).

If we have all these formulas present in the theory, then $t_{\vec{a}}$ must be interpreted by (some real coding) the true $\Sigma_1^{\mathbb{N},\vec{a}}$-theory. Thus (and as mentioned above) we can make arithmetical statements about the (sets coded by the) constants.

We now want to express "$c_\eta$ codes a wellorder of $\omega$ (of ordertype $\geq\omega$)". We can do this by saying it codes a linear order which is comparable with all countable ordinals. Toward this, fix surjections $f:\omega\to\alpha$, for each $\alpha\in[\omega,\omega_1)$. We introduce new constants $d_\alpha$ for $\alpha\in[\omega,\omega_1)$, and, along with $c_\eta$, new constants $\pi_{\eta\alpha}$ for $\alpha\in[\omega,\omega_1)$. We want $d_\alpha$ to code a wellorder of ordertype $\alpha$, via $f_\alpha$, and $\pi_{\eta\alpha}$ to be an isomorphism comparing $c_\eta$ with $d_\alpha$. So add the following statements which achieve this:

  • "$(m,n)\in A_{d_\alpha}$" (for integers $m,n$ and $\omega\leq\alpha<\omega_1$ such that $f_\alpha(m)<f_\alpha(n)$),

  • "$(m,n)\notin A_{d_\alpha}$" (for $m,n,\alpha$ as above but with $f_\alpha(m)\geq f_\alpha(n)$",

  • "$c_{\eta}$ codes a linear order $<_\eta$ of $\omega$" (for all $\eta$),

  • "$\pi_{\eta\alpha}$ codes an isomorphism, either from $c_\eta$ onto an initial segment of $d_\alpha$, or from an initial segment of $c_\eta$ onto $d_\alpha$" (all $\eta,\alpha$).

Note these are each arithmetic statements about the relevant parameters. Finally, we want to say that the ordertypes of the $c_\eta$ are pairwise distinct. This is similar. We use further constants $\sigma_{\eta\beta}$ for $\eta<\beta<\omega_2$, and say:

  • "$\sigma_{\eta\beta}$ codes an isomorphism, either from $<_\eta$ onto a proper segment of $<_\beta$, or from a proper segment of $<_\eta$ onto $<_\beta$" (for each $\eta<\beta<\omega_2$).

Now as in your $\mathbb{R}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ example, every sub-theory of size ${<\omega_2}$ is $\mathbb{R}$-satisfiable, but the whole thing is not, because any realization is really "correct", i.e. the constants get the desired kinds of meanings.

Update: Re the further question in the comments on $(\omega_3,\omega_4)$: Assume ($\dagger$) ZFC + for every real $x$, $x^\#$ exists, and $u_2=\omega_2$ (where $u_\alpha$ is the $\alpha$th uniform indiscernible). Then $\mathbb{R}$-satisfiability is not $(\omega_3,\omega_4)$-compact.

Remark: Woodin has shown that ($\dagger$) is consistent relative to ZFC + a Woodin cardinal + a measurable above it. Moreover, starting with a model $V\models(\dagger)$, we can force over $V$ by adding a sequence $G$ of Cohen reals, hence arranging $2^\omega$ as large as we want, and preserve ($\dagger$). (For $u_2$ can only increase by forcing in general, and $u_2\leq\omega_2$ in general. But $\omega_n^{V[G]}=\omega_n$, and it follows that $V[G]\models u_2=\omega_2$. So it suffices to see that all reals still have sharps. But every real in $V[G]$ is added by a single Cohen forcing, and Cohen forcing preserves the existence of sharps for all reals.) So it's not that $(\omega_3,\omega_4)$-compactness is necessarily failing due to small continuum.

So assume ($\dagger$). The failure of $(\omega_3,\omega_4)$-compactness is arranged along the lines of the preceding argument. Define the equivalence relation $=^*$ on the reals by $x=^*y$ iff $\kappa_x=\kappa_y$, where $\kappa_x$ is the least $x$-indiscernible $\kappa$ such that $\kappa>\omega_1$. By ($\dagger$), $\{\kappa_x\bigm|x\in\mathbb{R}\}$ is cofinal in $\omega_2$, so there are exactly $\omega_2$-many equivalence classes. So let $\left<c_\eta\right>_{\eta<\omega_3}$ be some constants. It suffices to see we can express the statements

  • "$c_\eta\neq^* c_\beta$",

for each $\eta<\beta<\omega_3$ (with the help of further constants). Given any constant $x$ we introduce, we will also introduce $s(x)$, which will be interpreted as $x^\#$. For all constants $s,t$, we will also introduce a constant $p(s,t)$ for $s\oplus t$. As before, we also introduce the $n_k$'s and close under the $\Sigma_1$-theories, so that we can make arithmetic statements. Now the main issue is to ensure that the interpretation of $s(x)$ is really $x^\#$: given this, the assertion "$c_\eta\neq^* c_\beta$" is equivalent to "$L[s(p(c_\eta,c_\beta))]\models c_\eta\neq^* c_\beta$" (where we define $=^*$ in this "model" $M$ as in $V$, except that we use $\omega_1^M$ instead of $\omega_1^V$), which will say that $L[(c_\eta\oplus c_\beta)^\#]\models$"$c_\eta\neq^* c_\beta$"; note that we can check this by just checking that $s(s(p(c_\eta\oplus c_\beta)))$ contains the right statement.

So we want to ensure that $s_x$ really gets interpreted as $x^\#$. We add further constants: Add $d_\alpha$ for $\omega\leq\alpha<\omega_1$ as before (coding a wellorder $<_\alpha$ of $\omega$ of ordertype $\alpha$), and $s_{x,\alpha}$ (to code the model of the form "$L_\gamma[x]$" (as of yet possibly illfounded) one gets generated from an $\alpha$-sequence of "$x$-indiscernibles" as determined by $s_x$), for $\alpha<\omega_1$, and $\pi_{x,\alpha,\beta}$, to code an isomorphism which compares the ordinals of $s_{x,\alpha}$ with $\beta$, for each $\alpha,\beta<\omega_1$. We add formulas asserting:

  • "$s_{x}$ is a pre-$x$-sharp" (meaning that $s_x$ has the right syntactic properties for a sharp, but ignoring iterability / wellfoundedness of the models generated as above),

  • "$(m,n)\in A_{d_\alpha}$" or "$(m,n)\notin A_{d_\alpha}$" (as before),

  • "$s_{x,\alpha}$ codes the term model generated by an $\alpha$-sequence of indiscernibles modelling the theory given by $s_x$ (and using $<_\alpha$ to determine the indiscernible sequence)",

  • "$\pi_{x,\alpha,\beta}$ codes either (i) an isomorphism from the ordinals of $s_{x,\alpha}$ onto an initial segment of $<_\beta$, or (ii) an isomorphism from an initial segment of the ordinals of $s_{x,\alpha}$ onto $<_\beta$".

These are all arithmetic statements about these constants, so we can make them. And they together ensure the correctness of $s_x$, because it ensures that the model $L_\gamma[x]$ mentioned above (which is countable) is wellfounded.

As mentioned above, since there are $\omega_2$ distinct classes with respect to $=^*$, but not $\omega_3$, this gives a failure of $(\omega_2,\omega_3)$-compactness for $\mathbb{R}$-satisfiability.

Thus, what if we work in $V=L[G]$ where $G$ adds $\geq\omega_4^L$ Cohen reals to $L$? Does $L[G]\models$"$\mathbb{R}$-satisfiability is $(\omega_3,\omega_4)$-compact"?

And however, I think $(\omega_4,\omega_5)$ will be more subtle.

Re $(\kappa,\kappa^{++})$-compactness for $\mathbb{R}$-satisfiability, don't we get that from $\kappa^+$-supercompactness of $\kappa$, like with the measurability giving $(\kappa,\kappa^+)$? (And likewise for $(\kappa,\lambda)$-compactness, if $\kappa$ is $<\lambda$-supercompact.) I.e. if $T$ is a theory of size $\gamma\in[\omega,\lambda)$, and all subtheories of size $<\kappa$ are $\mathbb{R}$-satisfiable, and $j:V\to M$ is elementary with $\gamma<j(\kappa)$ and ${^\gamma}M\subseteq M$, then $M$ thinks "all subsets of $j(T)$ of size ${<j(\kappa)}$ are $\mathbb{R}$-satisfiable". But $j``T\in M$ and $j``T$ has size $\gamma<j(\kappa)$ in $M$, so $j``T$ has an $\mathbb{R}$-model $\mathbb{R}^+\in M$, but note $\mathbb{R}^+\models T$. (Of course this actually has nothing to do with $\mathbb{R}$; it could have been any structure of size ${<\kappa}$.)

Update 2: Although it cannot be $(\omega_2,\omega_3)$-compact, it turns out that, relative to ZFC + a weakly compact, $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability can be $(\kappa,\kappa^+)$-compact with uncountable $\kappa$, even with large continuum, i.e. $2^{\aleph_0}>\kappa$. (On the other hand, in connection with the foregoing argument, and this question https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4166734/does-mathsfzfc-prove-that-the-field-of-real-numbers-has-one-of-these-compac/4172264#4172264 and its answers, a reasonable question was whether every uncountable cardinal $\kappa$ such that $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability is $(\kappa,\kappa^+)$-compact, has to be weakly compact.) It turns out that the most obvious candidate for a (counter)example works: Suppose $\kappa$ is weakly compact in $L$. Let $G$ be $L$-generic for adding a $\kappa^+$-sequence of Cohen reals with finite support. Then in $L[G]$, $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability is $(\kappa,\kappa^+)$-compact, but $2^{\aleph_0}=\kappa^+$, so $\kappa$ is not weakly compact.

Proof: Work in $V=L[G]$. Let $T$ be a relevant theory of size $\kappa$, all of whose size ${<\kappa}$ sub-theories are $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiable. We want to see $T$ is also. Note that there is $\alpha<\kappa^+$ such that $T\in L_{\alpha}[G\upharpoonright\alpha]$, and so by rearranging $G$ a little, we may assume that $T\in L_\alpha[G\upharpoonright\kappa]$ for some $\alpha<\kappa^+$. Let $X\preccurlyeq L_{\kappa^{++}}$ with $\beta=X\cap\kappa^+$ transitive and $\alpha<\beta<\kappa^+$ and $|X|=\kappa$. Let $L_\gamma$ be the transitive collapse of $X$. Using the weak compactness of $\kappa$ in $L$, let $\xi<\kappa^+$ and $j:L_{\gamma}\to L_\xi$ be elementary with $\mathrm{crit}(j)=\kappa$. So $\beta<j(\kappa)<j(\beta)=j(\kappa)^{+L_\xi}<\xi$. Note that $G\upharpoonright j(\kappa)$ is $L_\xi$-generic and extends $G\upharpoonright\kappa$, and we can extend $j$ elementarily to $j^+:L_\gamma[G\upharpoonright\kappa]\to L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\kappa)]$. Now by the homogeneity of the forcing, $L_{\kappa^{++}}[G\upharpoonright\kappa]\models$"$\mathbb{P}$ forces that $T$ is ${<\kappa}$-$\mathcal{R}$-satisfiable", where $\mathbb{P}$ adds $\kappa^+$-many Cohen reals with finite support (and the "$\mathcal{R}$" refers to the $\mathcal{R}$ of the $\mathbb{P}$-extension). So $L_\gamma[G\upharpoonright\kappa]$ models the same, but with $\mathbb{P}$ replaced by $\mathbb{P}\upharpoonright\beta$. So $L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\kappa)]$ models the same regarding $j(T)$ and $j(\kappa)$ and $\mathbb{P}\upharpoonright j(\beta)$. We have $j(T)\upharpoonright\kappa=T$, so $L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\kappa)]\models$"$\mathbb{P}\upharpoonright j(\kappa)$ forces that $T$ is $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiable". So $L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\beta)]\models$"$T$ is $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiable". Let $\pi:T\to\mathbb{R}^{L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\beta)]}$ be an $\mathcal{R}$-realization of $T$ in $L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\beta)]$. So $\pi\in L[G]$, and so it suffices to see that $\pi$ is also an $\mathcal{R}$-realization of $T$ in $L[G]$. For this, it suffices to see that $\mathcal{R}^{L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\beta)]}\preccurlyeq\mathcal{R}^{L[G]}$. But the theory of real closed fields has an algorithm for quantifier elimination, which both $L[G]$ and $L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\beta)]$ agree about, and since $\mathcal{R}^{L_\xi[G\upharpoonright j(\beta)]}$ is a sub-field (real closed) of $\mathcal{R}^{L[G]}$, this fact yields the desired elementarity.

A straightforward variant of this also works in $L[G]$ for any sequence $G$ of Cohen reals of length $\geq\kappa^+$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh I like this a lot! Two quick questions. First, this does not obviously help with questions like "Is it consistent that $2^{\omega}\ge\omega_4$ and $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability is $(\omega_3,\omega_4)$-compact?," right? I think this is fairly special to the $(\omega_2,\omega_3)$-case, but I just want to check that I'm not missing something. Second, do you think it's plausible that there is some $\kappa$ such that $\mathcal{R}$-satisfiability is $(\kappa,\kappa^{++})$-compact? $\endgroup$ Jun 8, 2021 at 2:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NoahSchweber I added some more on these questions. $\endgroup$
    – Farmer S
    Jun 8, 2021 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ Re: your final addition, for the "gap-two" stuff I'm most interested in what can be done in $\mathsf{ZFC}$ alone (or very mild strengthenings thereof), so while supercompactness works it's not what I'm looking for there. $\endgroup$ Jun 9, 2021 at 3:12
  • $\begingroup$ Separately, could you say a bit about why you think the $(\omega_4,\omega_5)$-case may be particularly subtle? $\endgroup$ Jun 9, 2021 at 3:12
  • $\begingroup$ @NoachSchweber I added Update 2, relating to your questions on $(\kappa,\kappa^+)$-compactness with large continuum. The position of my statement "I think $(\omega_4,\omega_5)$ will be more subtle" in the text might have been misleading: I meant I thought it would be more subtle to do an argument analogous to those for $(\omega_2,\omega_3)$ and $(\omega_3,\omega_4)$, not the $L[G]$ question. This is because (i) $u_{n+3}$ is singular, so $u_{n+3}\neq\omega_{n+3}$, and (ii) if there was something like it, it should lead into larger cardinals. But this is moot now given the recent answers on MSE. $\endgroup$
    – Farmer S
    Jun 17, 2021 at 1:29

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.