1
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have theories $T$ and $H$ that are bi-interpretable, now suppose that the relevant interpretations achieving that bi-interpretability are: $\tau: T \to H$, and $\pi: H \to T$. Now suppose that the domain of $\tau$ is a proper subdomain of theory $H$, and suppose the domain of $\pi$ is the whole domain of theory $T$. Suppose that $T$ and $H$ are not synonymous.

Is it always the case that there cannot be bi-interpretability achieving interpretations that has the reverse sub-domain, whole domain relationship, i.e. there cannot be bi-interpretability achieving interpretations $\tau_1: T \to H$, and $\pi_1: H \to T$ such that the domain of $\tau_1$ is the whole domain of theory $H$, and the domain of $\pi_1$ is a proper sub-domain of theory $T$?

Is synonymy relevant to this matter? Like saying if $T$ and $H$ were synonymous, then we can have the reverse state mentioned above?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ In the general case, according to the usage I usually follow, bi-interpretations allow one to represent the interpretated individuals using $k$-tuples in the interpreting realm (like interpreting $\mathbb{C}$ in $\mathbb{R}$), and also allowing the quotient by a definable equivalence relation, a congruence with respect to the interpreted structure, (like interpreting $\mathbb{Q}$ in $\mathbb{Z}$). But the way you refer to the interpreted domain being a subclass suggest that you are thinking that the interpretation does not use $k$-tuples and also no quotient by a congruence. Is that correct? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 16 at 0:06
  • $\begingroup$ @JoelDavidHamkins, using tuples and congruences reminds me of the way you proved bi-interpretability between set theoretic mereology with bottom and that without it. Anyhow, the interpretations I'm speaking about doesn't necessarily do it that way. So, yes, the interpretations may not use $k$-tuples nor quotients by congruence. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 16 at 6:15

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .