Dense linear orderings categorical

  • Thread starter Thread starter ky2345
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The theory of dense linear orderings without endpoints is not categorical in the cardinality of the reals (denoted c). This is established by demonstrating that while the models A=(R,<) and B=(I,<) are elementarily equivalent, they are not isomorphic due to the least upper bound property present in A but absent in B. The distinction between isomorphic and elementarily equivalent models is crucial in this context, as it highlights the limitations of categoricity in dense linear orderings.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of dense linear orderings
  • Familiarity with model theory concepts such as isomorphism and elementary equivalence
  • Knowledge of first-order logic
  • Concept of the least upper bound property
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of dense linear orderings without endpoints
  • Study the concept of categoricity in model theory
  • Explore the implications of the least upper bound property in different models
  • Learn about the differences between isomorphic and elementarily equivalent structures
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and students studying model theory, particularly those focusing on dense linear orderings and their properties.

ky2345
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that the theory of dense linear orderings with no endpoints is not categorical in the cardinality of the reals.


Homework Equations


A theory is categorical in the cardinality of the reals (denoted c) if every c-model is ismorphic.

Isomorphic means that there is an isomorphism between the two models that is onto, one to one, and preserves order.

If two models A and B are elementarily equivalent, this means that A logically implies a formula a iff B logically implies a.

Isomorphic => elementarily equivalent

The Attempt at a Solution



Basically, I need to find two dense linear orderings without endpoints with cardinality=c that are not isomorphic. It would be great if I could get two dense linear orderings without endpoints with cardinality=c that are not elementarily equivalent, because then I would just have to list the two models and the sentence that is true in one but not true int eh other. I'm thinking of using A=(R,<) and B=(I,<), where I is the set of irrationals, as my two models. But, I'm having trouble proving why they are not ismorphic/elementarily equivalent. Obviously, A has the least upper bound property while B does not, but I'm having trouble saying that in first order logic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ky2345 said:

Homework Statement


Prove that the theory of dense linear orderings with no endpoints is not categorical in the cardinality of the reals.


Homework Equations


A theory is categorical in the cardinality of the reals (denoted c) if every c-model is ismorphic.

Isomorphic means that there is an isomorphism between the two models that is onto, one to one, and preserves order.

If two models A and B are elementarily equivalent, this means that A logically implies a formula a iff B logically implies a.

Isomorphic => elementarily equivalent

The Attempt at a Solution



Basically, I need to find two dense linear orderings without endpoints with cardinality=c that are not isomorphic. It would be great if I could get two dense linear orderings without endpoints with cardinality=c that are not elementarily equivalent, because then I would just have to list the two models and the sentence that is true in one but not true int eh other. I'm thinking of using A=(R,<) and B=(I,<), where I is the set of irrationals, as my two models. But, I'm having trouble proving why they are not ismorphic/elementarily equivalent. Obviously, A has the least upper bound property while B does not, but I'm having trouble saying that in first order logic.
The theory of dense linear orders is [itex]\omega[/itex]-categorical, hence complete. Thus any two dense linear orders are elementarily equivalent, so you won't be able to show the irrationals and reals aren't elementarily equivalent. They are, however, not isomorphic, and you can prove this using the idea you had about the least upper bound property. So think about this a little more.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K