| New Reply |
Elementary equivalence using countable models |
Share Thread |
| Aug19-12, 07:31 AM | #1 |
|
|
Elementary equivalence using countable models
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Prove that [tex](\mathbb{R}, <)[/tex] and [tex](\mathbb{R} \backslash \{0\}, <)[/tex] are elementary equivalent using the fact that there exist countable models [tex](A, <_0)[/tex] and [tex](B, <_1)[/tex] which are elementary equivalent with [tex](\mathbb{R}, <)[/tex] and [tex](\mathbb{R} \backslash \{0\}, <)[/tex] respectively. 2. Relevant equations n/a 3. The attempt at a solution Once you prove that the two countable models are elementary equivalent, the desired result follows immediately. So suppose the countable models are not elementary equivalent. Then there exists a sentence s such that s is satisfied by A and ~s is satisfied by B. I don't know how to proceed from here. I'll probaly have to use the uncountable models in some way as well but I don't see how. Any help will be much appreciated. 1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data 2. Relevant equations 3. The attempt at a solution |
| New Reply |
Similar discussions for: Elementary equivalence using countable models
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Satisfiability vs Elementary equivalence | Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics | 2 | ||
| Must all models of ZFC (in a standard formulation) be at least countable? | Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics | 1 | ||
| Equivalence of models with respect to Turing-recognizability and -decidability | Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics | 2 | ||
| A review of Gerard 't Hooft new paper, please, A class of elementary particle models | Beyond the Standard Model | 0 | ||
| Countable union of countable sets vs countable product of countable sets | Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics | 5 | ||