Every model is an extension base with respect to finite satisfiability

79 Views Asked by At

Artem Chenikov and Itay Kaplan's paper 'Forking and Dividing in NTP2 Theories' remark 2.16 claims that every model is an extension base with respect to finite satisfiability: enter image description here

For reference they define an extension base as follows: For reference

Can anyone explain how the result "follows from the fact that filters can be extended to ultrafilters"?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

2
On

For any model $M$ and any $a$ we have that $\operatorname{tp}(a/M)$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$. Namely, let $\varphi(x) \in \operatorname{tp}(a/M)$ (it is enough to check for single formulas, as types are closed under conjunction), then $\models \exists x \varphi(x)$ and so because $\exists x \varphi(x)$ only contains parameters in $M$ and $M$ is an elementary substructure of the monster model, we indeed get $M \models \exists x \varphi(x)$. So the problem reduces to showing that any type $p(x) = \operatorname{tp}(a/Cb)$ that is finitely satisfiable in some $C$ can be extended to a finitely satisfiable (in $C$) type over any parameter set $D \supseteq Cb$. One way to do this is by using that filters can be extended to ultrafilters as follows.

Consider the Boolean algebra $\mathcal{B}$ of formulas over $D$ in free variables $x$. Let $$ F_0 = \{ \varphi(x) \in \mathcal{B} : \varphi(C) = C \}. $$ and let $F$ be the filter generated by $p(x) \cup F_0$. We claim that $F$ is non-trivial (i.e. $F \subsetneq \mathcal{B}$). Clearly $F_0$ and $p(x)$ are closed under conjunctions, so it is enough to verify for $\psi(x) \in p(x)$ and $\varphi(x) \in F_0$ that $\psi(x) \wedge \phi(x)$ is consistent. Indeed, since $p(x)$ is finitely satisfiable in $C$ there is $c \in C$ such that $\models \psi(c)$ and hence $\models \psi(c) \wedge \phi(c)$. Now let $U$ be any ultrafilter on $\mathcal{B}$ extending $F$. Then $U$ is a complete type over $D$. We verify that $U$ is finitely satisfiable in $C$. Let $\varphi(x) \in U$. If $\varphi(C) = \emptyset$ then $\neg \phi(C) = C$, so $\neg \varphi(x) \in F_0 \subseteq F \subseteq U$. This contradicts $\varphi(x) \in U$, so we conclude that there must be $c \in C$ with $\models \varphi(c)$, as required.