An example of an exists-sentence such that the sentence is true on an infinite model M, yet on every submodel, the sentence is false

235 Views Asked by At

This problem and its solution were given at class. I don't understand why the solution is the solution. Could someone please explain in detail?

I am sorry for not using MathJax: it isn't working for me, this didn't help.

Problem: find an example of an exists-sentence (a formula where every variable is under the existence quantifier) such that the sentence is true on an infinite model $M$ (i.e. a model with an infinite carrier), yet on every submodel of $M$, the sentence is false.

The signature to use was told to be an equivalence relation ~, and two different unary operators $f$ and $g$. The answer to the problem is $\exists x\exists y \neg(x\sim y)$.

Now, suppose $N<M$, $a$ and $b$ are in $N$, and $a\sim b$. The smallest submodel = $\{a, b, f(a), f(f(a)),\dots, f(b), f(f(b)), \dots, g(a), g(g(a)), \dots, g(b), g(g(b)), \dots\}$. I don't see how two non-equivalent elements could not exist in $N$.

Is my reasoning wrong? Could I have missed something obvious in class?

Thank you.

2

There are 2 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

As Noah and Eric pointed out, the statement of the proplem is missing the word "proper" (the sentence should be false only on the proper substructures of $M$, since $M$ is alwaays a substructure of itself). And the problem can be solved vacuously by considering a structure $M$ with no proper substructures.

The solution as you described it makes no sense. Here's an example which does have proper substructures and which I believe is similar in spirit to the intention of the proposed solution (but simpler).

Consider the language $\{P,f\}$, where $P$ is a unary relation symbol and $f$ is a unary function symbol. Let $M = \mathbb{N}$, where $P^M$ holds only of $0$ and $f^M$ is the successor function $f^M(n) = n+1$.

The substructures of $M$ are of the form $\{k,k+1,k+2,\dots\}$ for any $k$.

Consider the sentence $\exists x\, P(x)$. This sentence is true in $M$ (witnessed by $0$), but false in every proper substructure of $M$ (since no proper substructure of $M$ contains $0$).

0
On

If I understand correctly, you're looking for an infinite structure $M$ and some $\exists$-sentence true in $M$ but false in all of $M$'s proper substructures. The given solution appears a bit garbled and incomplete, and is also excessively complicated.

The simplest way to whip this up is to build an $M$ with no proper substructures whatsoever. In this case it's vacuously true that all sentences are false in all proper substructures of $M$. As Eric Wofsey commented this can trivially be done in an infinite language. For a finite language example, consider $\mathbb{N}$ with $0$ and successor.