Can First Order Logic Express Cardinal Numbers

Can First Order Logic Express Cardinal Numbers
$\begingroup$

More specifically, is it possible for two models $M$ and $N$ whose domains' sizes are $\aleph_2$ and $\aleph_3$ respectively to be elementarily equivalent (in first order language)?

What about infinitary logic?

$\endgroup$
1

1 Answer

$\begingroup$

For first-order logic, the answer is that cardinality is largely undetectable: the Lowenheim-Skolem theorems say that for any theory $T$ in a language $L$ which has an infinite model and any infinite cardinal $\kappa\ge\vert L\vert$, there is a model of $T$ of cardinality $\kappa$.

That said, there are some interesting nuances:

  • The cardinality of the language is quite important. It is not necessarily true that if $\aleph_0\le\vert\mathcal{A}\vert<\kappa$ then there is a $\mathcal{B}$ of cardinality $\kappa$ with $\mathcal{A}\equiv\mathcal{B}$.

    • Specifically, think about an infinite binary tree, in a language rich enough to talk about levels of the tree, equipped with a predicate naming each path. You can show that the theory of this structure has no uncountable models of size $<2^{\aleph_0}$, so if the continuum hypothesis fails we get a "gap" in possible cardinalities. I believe there is also a ZFC-provable example, which I'll add once I remember it.
  • When we look at two cardinals at once, things get very complicated indeed. Suppose we have a structure $\mathcal{A}$ with a unary predicate symbol $U$ such that $\vert\mathcal{A}\vert=\aleph_2$ and $\vert U^\mathcal{A}\vert=\aleph_1$. Must $\mathcal{A}$ have an elementary substructure $\mathcal{B}$ with $\vert\mathcal{B}\vert=\aleph_1$ and $\vert U^\mathcal{B}\vert=\aleph_0$? This also pushes us beyond the usual axioms of set theory.


For infinitary logic, things are a bit more finicky.

On the one hand, we do have a weak analogue of Lowenheim-Skolem: if $L$ is a countable language and $\varphi$ is a single $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$-sentence in that language, then every model of $\varphi$ has a countable substructure also satisfying $\varphi$.

(Incidentally, a slightly weaker version of this - where we just demand some countable model of $\varphi$, not necessarily a substructure of the starting model - has a very silly proof via forcing: given $\mathcal{A}\models\varphi$ uncountable, note that a $Col(\omega,\vert\mathcal{A}\vert)$-generic extension of the universe satisfies "$\varphi$ has a countable model," which is $\Sigma^1_2$ and hence holds already by Shoenfield absoluteness.)

But beyond that things are quite complicated. Here are a couple examples:

  • The full $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$ theory of $\mathcal{R}=(\mathbb{R};0,1,+,\cdot)$ is fully categorical: its only model is $\mathcal{R}$ (up to isomorphism).

    • HINT: for each bounded set $A$ of rationals there is an $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$-sentence $\gamma_A$ saying that $A$ has a least upper bound.
  • The Hanf number of $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$ - the smallest cardinal $\kappa$ such that if an $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$-sentence has cardinality $\kappa$ then it has models of arbitrarily large cardinality - is huge: it's $\beth_{\omega_1}$.

$\endgroup$
5

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Robert Thorne
Author

Robert Thorne

Robert Thorne covers electric vehicle innovations, autonomous driving systems, global mobility trends, and automotive engineering developments.