You are on page 1of 33

3

7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


Some Compact Logics - Results in ZFC
Alan H. Mekler

, Simon Fraser University


Saharon Shelah

, The Hebrew University


Rutgers University
Dedicated to the memory of Alan by his friend, Saharon
October 6, 2003

Research supported by NSERC

Publication #375. Research supported by the BSF


1
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


1 Preliminaries
While rst order logic has many nice properties it lacks expressive power. On
the other hand second order logic is so strong that it fails to have nice model
theoretic properties such as compactness. It is desirable to nd natural logics
which are stronger than the rst order logic but which still satisfy the com-
pactness theorem. Particularly attractive are those logics which allow quan-
tication over natural algebraic objects. One of the most natural choices is
to quantify over automorphisms of a structure (or isomomorphisms between
substructures). Generally compactness fails badly [16], but if we restrict our-
self to certain concrete classes then we may be able to retain compactness. In
this paper we will show that if we enrich rst order logic by allowing quanti-
cation over isomorphisms between denable ordered elds the resulting logic,
L(Q
Of
), is fully compact. In this logic, we can give standard compactness
proofs of various results. For example, to prove that there exists arbitrarily
large rigid real closed elds, x a cardinal and form the L(Q
Of
) theory in
the language of ordered elds together with constants which says that the
constants are pairwise distinct and the eld is a real closed eld which is
rigid. (To say the eld is rigid we use the expressive power of L(Q
Of
) to say
that any automorphism is the identity.) This theory is consistent as the reals
can be expanded to form a model of any nite subset of the theory. But a
model of the theory must have cardinality at least . (Since we do not have
the downward L owenheim-Skolem theorem, we cannot assert that there is a
model of cardinality .)
In [10] and [8], the compactness of two interesting logics is established
under certain set-theoretic hypotheses. The logics are those obtained from
rst order logic by adding quantiers which range over automorphisms of
denable Boolean algebras or which range over automorphisms of denable
ordered elds. Instead of the weaker version of dealing with automorphisms,
it is also possible to deal with a quantier which says that two Boolean
algebras are isomorphic or that two ordered elds are isomorphic. The key
step in proving these results lies in establishing the following theorems. (By
denable we shall mean denable with parameters).
Theorem 1.1 Suppose is a regular cardinal and both () and ( <

+
: cf = ) hold. Then if T is any consistent theory and [T[ < , there
is a model M of T of cardinality
+
with the following properties:
2
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


(i) If B is a Boolean algebra denable in M, then every automorphism of B
is denable.
(ii) M is -saturated.
(iii) Every non-algebraic type of cardinality < is realized in M by
+
ele-
ments.
Theorem 1.2 Suppose is a regular cardinal and both () and ( <

+
: cf = ) hold. Then if T is any consistent theory and [T[ < , there
is a model M of T of cardinality
+
with the following properties:
(i) If F is an ordered eld denable in M then every automorphism of F is
denable and every isomorphism between denable ordered elds is denable.
(ii) M is -saturated.
(iii) Every non-algebraic type of cardinality < is realized in M by
+
ele-
ments.
(iv) Every denable dense linear order is not the union of nowhere dense
sets.
These theorems are proved in [10] (in [10] section 9, Theorem 1.1 is proved
from GCH) although there is not an explicit statement of them there . In
order to show the desired compactness result (from the assumption that there
are unboundedly many cardinals as in the theorem statements) it is enough
to use (i). However in our work on Boolean algebras we will need the more
exact information above. Let us notice how the compactness of the various
languages follow from these results. Since the idea is the same in all cases
just consider the case of Boolean algebras.
First we will describe the logic L(Q
Ba
). We add second order variables (to
range over automorphisms of Boolean algebras) and a quantier Q
Ba
whose
intended interpretation is that there is an automorphism of the Boolean
algebra. More formally if (f), (x), (x, y), (x, y) are formulas (where f
is a second order variable, x and y are rst order variables and the formulas
may have other variables) then
Q
Ba
f ((x), (x, y)) (f)
is a formula. In a model M the tuple ((x), (x, y)) denes a Boolean algebra
(where parameters from M replace the hidden free variables of (x), (x, y))
3
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


if (x, y) denes a partial order < on B = a M : M [= [a] so that (B; <)
is a Boolean algebra. A model M satises the formula Q
Ba
f ((x), (x, y)) (f)
(where parameters from M have been substituted for the free variables), if
whenever ((x), (x, y)) dene a Boolean algebra (B; <) then there is an
automorphism f of (B; <) such that M [= (f). (It is easy to extend the
treatment to look at Boolean algebras which are denable on equivalence
classes, but we will avoid the extra complication.) We can give a more collo-
quial description of the quantier Q
Ba
by saying the interpretation of Q
Ba
is
that Q
Ba
f(B) . . . holds if there is an automorphism of the Boolean algebra
B so that . . . . We will describe some of the other logics we deal with in
this looser manner. For example, we will want to consider the quantier Q
Of
where Q
Of
f(F
1
, F
2
) . . . holds if there is is an isomorphism f from the ordered
eld F
1
to the ordered eld F
2
such that . . . .
The proof of compactness for L(Q
Ba
) follows easily from theorem 1.1.
By expanding the language
1
we can assume that there is a ternary relation
R(, , ) so that the theory says that any rst order denable function is de-
nable by R and one parameter. By the ordinary compactness theorem if we
are given a consistent theory in this logic then there is a model of the theory
where all the sentences of the theory hold if we replace automorphisms by
denable automorphsisms in the interpretation of Q
Ba
, since quantication
over denable automorphisms can be replaced by rst order quantication.
Then we can apply the theorem to get a new model elementarily equivalent to
the one given by the compactness theorem in which denable automorphisms
and automorphisms are the same.
In the following we will make two assumptions about all our theories.
First that all denable partial functions are in fact dened by a xed formula
(by varying the parameters). Second we will always assume that the language
is countable except for the constant symbols.
In this paper we will attempt to get compactness results without re-
course to , i.e., all our results will be in ZFC. We will get the full result
for the language where we quantify over automorphisms (isomorphisms) of
ordered elds in Theorem 6.4. Unfortunately we are not able to show that
1
More exactly, for every model M dene a model M

with universe M {f : f a
partial function from |M| to |M|} with the relations of M and the unary predicate P,
P
M

= |M|, and the ternary predicate R, R = {(f, a, b) : f


M
M, a M, b = f(a)}. We
shall similarly transform a theory T to T

and consider automorphism only of structures


P.
4
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


the language with quantication over automorphisms of Boolean algebras is
compact, but will have to settle for a close relative of that logic. This is
theorem 5.1. In section 4 we prove we can construct models in which all rele-
vant automorphism are somewhat denable: 4.1, 4.8 for BA, 4.13 for ordered
elds.
The reader may wonder why these results are being proved now, about
10 years after the results that preceeded them. The key technical innovation
that has made these results possible is the discovery of -like principles
which are true in ZFC. These principles, which go under the common name
of the Black Box, allow one to prove, with greater eort, many of the results
which were previously known to follow from (see the discussion in [15]
for more details). There have been previous applications of the Black Box
to abelian groups, modules and Boolean Algebras often building objects
with specied endomorphism rings. This application goes deeper both in the
sense that the proof is more involved and in the sense that the result is more
surprising. The investigation is continued in [12], [13].
In this paper we will also give a new proof of the compactness of another
logic the one which is obtained when a quantier Q
Brch
is added to rst
order logic which says that a level tree (denitions will be given later) has an
innite branch. This logic was previously shown to be compact in fact it
was the rst logic shown in ZFC to be compact which is stronger than rst
order logic on countable structures but our proof will yield a somewhat
stronger result and provide a nice illustration of one of our methods. (The
rst logic stronger than rst order logic which was shown to be compact was
the logic which expresses that a linear order has conality greater than
1
[11].) This logic, L(Q
Brch
), has been used by Fuchs-Shelah [3] to prove the
existence of nonstandard uniserial modules over (some) valuation domains.
The proof uses the compactness of the tree logic to transfer results proved
using to ZFC results. Eklof [2] has given an explicit version of this transfer
method and was able to show that it settles other questions which had been
raised. (Osofsky [6], [7] has found ZFC constructions which avoid using the
model theory.)
Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 contain parallel results for Boolean algebras and
elds. They assert the existence of a theory (of sets) T
1
such that in each
modelM
1
of T
1
, P(M
1
) is a model M of the rst order theory T such that for
every Boolean Algebra (respectively eld) dened in M, every automorphism
of the Boolean algebra (repectively eld) that is denable in M
1
is denable
5
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


in M. Moreover, each such M
1
has an elementary extension one of whose
elements is a pseudonite set a with the universe of M
1
contained in a and
with t(a/M
1
) is denable over the empty set. This result depends on the
earlier proof of our main result assuming and absoluteness. Theorem 4.1
uses the Black Box to construct a model C of T
1
so that for any automorphism
f of a Boolean algebra B = P(C) there is a pseudonite set c such that for
any atom b B, f(b) is denable from b and c. Theorem 4.13 is an analogous
but stronger result for elds showing that for any b, f(b) is denable from b
and c. In Lemma 4.7, this pointwise denability is extended by constructing
a pseudo-nite partition of atoms of the Boolean algebra (respectively the
elements of the eld) such that f is denable on each member of the partition.
In Theorem 5.1 for Boolean algebras and 6.4 for elds this local denability
is extended to global denability.
1.1 Outline of Proof
We want to build a model A of a consistent L(Q
Of
) theory T which has only
denable isomorphisms between denable ordered elds. By the ordinary
compactness theorem, there is a non-standard model C of an expansion of a
weak set theory (say ZFC

) which satises that there is a model A


1
of T.
So A
1
would be a model of T if the interpretation of the quantier Q
Of
were
taken to range over isomorphisms which are internal to C. We can arrange
that A
1
will be the domain of a unary predicate P. Then our goal is to
build our non-standard model C of weak set theory in such a way that every
external isomorphism between denable ordered subelds of P(C) is internal,
i.e., denable in C.
The construction of C is a typical construction with a prediction princi-
ple, in this case the Black Box, where we kill isomorphisms which are not
pointwise denable over a set which is internally nite (or synonymously,
pseudonite). A predicted isomorphism is killed by adding an element which
has no suitable candidate for its image. One common problem that is faced
in such constructions is the question how do we ensure no possible image of
such an element exists?. To do this we need to omit some types. Much is
known about omitting a type of size in models of power and even
+
. But
if say 2

>
++
, we cannot omit a dense set of types of power . So without
instances of GCH we are reduced to omitting small types, which is much
harder. To omit the small types we will use techniques which originated in
6
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


Classication Theory. In the construction we will have for some cardinal
the type of any element does not split over a set of cardinality less than (see
precise denitions below). This is analogous to saying the model is -stable
(of course we are working in a very non-stable context). The element we will
add will have the property that its image (if one existed) would split over
every set of cardinality < .
The nal problem is to go from pointwise denablity to denability. The
rst ingredient is a general fact about
0
-saturated models of set theory. We
will show for any isomorphism f that there is a large (internal) set A and
a pseudonite sequence of one-one functions (f
i
: i < k

) which cover fA in
the sense that for every a A there is i so that f
i
(a) = f(a). Using this
sequence of functions it is then possible to dene f on a large subset of A.
Finally, using the algebraic structure, the denition extends to the entire
ordered eld.
In this paper we will need to use the following principle. In order to have
the cleanest possible statement of our results (and to conform to the notation
in [15]), we will state our results using slightly non-standard notation. To
obtain the structure H

(), we rst begin with a set of ordered urelements


of order type and then form the least set containing each urelement and
closed under formation of sets of size less than . In a context where we refer
to H

() by we will mean the urelements and not the ordinals. In practice


we believe that in a given context there will be no confusion.
Theorem 1.3 Suppose =
+
, =

= 2

, is a regular cardinal, is a
strong limit cardinal, < < , > cf =
0
and S < : cf =
is stationary. Let be some cardinal greater than . Then we can nd
W = (

M

) : < () (actually a sequence)


2
, a function : () S
and (C

: S) such that:
(a1)

M

= (M

i
: i ) is an increasing continuous elementary chain, each
M

i
is a model belonging to H

() (and so necessarily has cardinality less


than ), M

i
is an ordinal,


is increasing with limit () S, for
i < ,

i M

i+1
, M

i
H

(i)) and (M

j
: j i) M

i+1
.
(a2) For any set X there is so that M

(H(), , <, X), where


< is a well ordering of H() and M
A
N means (M, a)
aA
, (N, a)
aA
are
elementarily equivalent.
2
in our case () = is ne
7
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


(b0) If ,= then

,=

.
(b1) If

i : i < M

and ,= then () < ().


(b2) If

(j + 1) M

then M

j
M

.
(c2)

C = (C

: S) is such that each C

is a club subset of of the order


type .
(c3) Let C

=
,i
: i < be an increasing enumeration. For each < ()
there is ((

,i
,
+
,i
): i < ) such that:

,i
M

i+1
, M

i+1

+
,i
,
(),i
<

,i
<
+
,i
<
(),i+1
and if () = () and ,= then for every large
enough i < , [

,i
,
+
,i
) [

,i
,
+
,i
) = . Furthermore for all i, the sequence
(

,j
: j < i) is in M

i+1
.
This principle, which is one of the Black Box principles is a form of
which is a theorem of ZFC. This particular principle is proved in [15]III
6.13(2). The numbering here is chosen to correspond with the numbering
there. Roughly speaking clauses (a1) and (a2) say that there is a family of
elementary substructures which predict every subset of as it sits in H().
(We will freely talk about a countable elementary substructure predicting
isomorphisms and the like.) The existence of such a family would be trivial
if we allowed all elementary substructures of cardinality less than . The
rest of the clauses say that the structures are suciently disjoint that we can
use the information that they provide without (too much) conict.
The reader who wants to follow the main line of the arguments without
getting involved (initially) in the complexities of the Black Box can substitute
() for the Black Box. Our proof of the compactness of L(Q
Of
) does not
depend on Theorem 1.2, so even this simplication gives a new proof of the
consistency of the compactness of L(Q
Of
). Our work on Boolean algebras
does require Theorem 1.1.
The results in this paper were obtained while the rst author was visiting
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He wishes to thank the Institute of
Mathematics for its hospitality.
2 Non-splitting extensions
In this section will be a xed regular cardinal. Our treatment is self con-
tained but the reader can look at [14].
8
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


Definition. If M is a model and X, Y, Z M, then X/Y does not split
over Z if and only if for every nite d Y the type of X over d (denoted
either tp(X/d) or X/d) depends only on the type of d over Z.
We will use two constructions to guarantee that types will not split over
small sets. The rst is obvious by denition. (The type of A/B is denable
over C if for any tuple a A and formula ( x, y) there is a formula ( y)
with parameters from C so that for any

b, ( a,

b) if and only if (

b).)
Proposition 2.1 If X/Y is denable over Z then X/Y does not split over
Z.
Definition. Suppose M is a model and X, Y M. Let D be an ultralter
on X

. Then the Av(X, D, Y ) (read the (D-)average type that X

realizes
over Y ) is the type p over Y dened by: for y Y, ( z, y) p if and only
if x X

: ( x, y) holds D. We will omit Y if it is clear from context.


Similarly we will omit and the bar for singletons, i.e., the case = 1.
The following two propositions are clear from the denitions.
Proposition 2.2 If a realizes Av(X, D, Y ) then a/Y does not split over X.
Also if there is Z such that for

b X the type of

b/Y does not split over Z,
then Av(X, D, Y ) does not split over Z.
Proposition 2.3(i) Suppose A/B does not split over D, B C and C/B
A does not split over D A then A C/B does not split over D.
(ii) Suppose that (A
i
: i < ) is an increasing chain and for all i, A
i
/B does
not split over C then

i<
A
i
/B does not split over C.
(iii) X/Y does not split over Z if and only if X/dcl(Y Z) does not split over
Z. Here dcl(Y Z) denotes the denable closure of Y Z.
(iv) If X/Y does not split over Z and Z W, then X/Y does not split over
W
Definition. Suppose M
1
M
2
are models. Dene M
1

M
2
, if for every
X M
2
of cardinality less than there is Y M
1
of cardinality less than
so that X/M
1
does not split over Y . (If is regular, then we only need to
consider the case where X is nite.)
9
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


Proposition 2.4 Assume that is a regular cardinal (needed for (2) only)
and that all models are models of some xed theory with Skolem functions
(although this is needed for (3) only).
1.

is transitive and for all M, M

M.
2. If (M
i
: i < ) is a

-increasing chain, then for all i M


i

j<
M
j
.
3. Suppose M
2
is generated by M
1
N
2
and N
1
= M
1
N
2
. (Recall that we
have Skolem functions.) If [N
1
[ < and N
2
/M
1
does not split over N
1
, then
M
1

M
2
.
An immediate consequence of these propositions is the following propo-
sition.
Proposition 2.5 Suppose M

N, then there is a -saturated model M


1
such that N M
1
and M

M
1
.
Proof By the lemmas it is enough to show that given a set X of cardi-
nality < and a type p over X we can nd a realization a of that type so
that a/N does not split over X. Since we have Skolem functions every nite
subset of p is realized by an element whose type over N does not split over
X, namely an element of the Skolem hull of X. So we can take a to realize
an average type of these elements.
3 Building New Theories
The models we will eventually build will be particular non-standard models
of an enriched version of ZFC

. (Recall ZFC

is ZFC without the power set


axiom and is true in the sets of hereditary cardinality < for any regular
uncountable cardinal .) The following two theorems state that appropriate
theories exist.
Theorem 3.1 Suppose T is a theory in a language which is countable except
for constant symbols, P
0
a unary predicate so that in every model M of T
every denable automorphism of a denable atomic Boolean algebra P
M
0
is
denable by a xed formula (together with some parameters). Then there is
T
1
an expansion of ZFC

in a language which is countable except for constant


10
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


symbols with a unary predicate P
0
so that if M
1
is a model of T
1
then P
0
(M
1
)
is a model M of T (when restricted to the right vocabulary) and the following
are satised to be true in M
1
.
(i) Any automorphism of a denable (in M) atomic Boolean algebra contained
in P
0
(M) which is denable in M
1
is denable in M.
(ii) M
1
(which is a model of ZFC

) satises for some regular cardinal (of


M
1
), [M[ =
+
, M is -saturated and every non-algebraic type (in the lan-
guage of M) of cardinality < is realized in M by
+
elements of M.
(iii) M M
1
.
(iv) M
1
satises the separation scheme for all formulas (not just those of the
language of set theory).
(v) M
1
has Skolem functions.
(vi) For any M
1
there is an elementary extension N
1
so that the universe of
M
1
is contained in N
1
in a pseudonite set (i.e., one which is nite in N
1
)
whose type over the universe of M
1
is denable over the empty set.
Proof We rst consider a special case. Suppose that there is a cardinal
greater than the cardinality of T satisfying the hypothess of Theorem 1.1
(i.e., both () and ( <
+
: cf = ) hold). Then we could choose
a regular cardinal greater than
+
. Our model M
1
will be taken to be a
suitable expansion of H() where the interpretation of the unary predicate
P
0
is the model M guaranteed by Theorem 1.1 and = ,
+
=
+
. Since
any formula in the enriched language is equivalent in M
1
to a formula of set
theory together with parameters from M
1
, M
1
will also satisfy (iv).
What remains is to ensure (v) and that appropriate elementary extensions
always exist i.e. clause (vi). To achieve this we will expand the language by
induction on n. Let L
0
be the language consisting of the language of T, P,
and Skolem functions and M
0
1
be any expansion by Skolem functions of the
structure on H() described above. Fix an index set I and an ultralter D
on I so that there is a H()
I
/D such that H()
I
/D [= a is nite and
for all b H(), H()
I
/D [= b a. Let N
0
1
= M
0
1
I
/D.
Then for every formula (y, x
1
, . . . , x
n
) of L
0
which does not involve con-
stants, add a new n-ary relation R

. Let L
0.5
by the language containing all
the R

. Let M
0.5
1
be the L
0.5
structure with universe H() obtained by letting
11
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


for all b
1
, . . . , b
n
, M
0.5
1
[= R

[b
1
, . . . , b
n
] if and only if N
0
1
[= [a, b
1
, . . . , b
n
].
Let L
1
be an extension of L
0.5
by Skolem functions and let M
1
1
be an ex-
pansion of M
0.5
1
by Skolem functions. Condition (iv) still holds as it holds
for any expansion of (H(), ). We now let N
1
1
= M
1
1
I
/D and continue as
before.
Let L =

n<
L
n
and M
1
=

n<
M
n
1
(i.e. the least common expansion;
the universe stays the same). Let T
1
be the theory of M
1
. As we have already
argued T
1
has properties (i)(iv). It remains to see that any model of T
1
has
the desired extension property. First we consider M
1
and let N
1
= M
1
I
/D.
Then the type of a over M
1
is denable over the empty set using the relations
R

which we have added. Since T


1
has Skolem functions, for any model A
1
of T
1
there will be an extension B
1
of A
1
generated by A
1
and an element
realizing the denable type over A
1
.
In the general case, where we may not have the necessary hypotheses of
Theorem 1.1, we can force with a notion of forcing which adds no new subsets
of [T[ to get some satisfying hypothess of Theorem 1.1 (alternately, we can
use L[A] where A is a large enough set of ordinals). Since the desired theory
will exist in an extension it already must (as it can be coded by a subset of
[T[) exist in the ground model.
Later on we will be juggling many dierent models of set theory. The
ones which are given by the Black Box, and the non-standard ones which are
models of T
1
. When we want to refer to notions in models of T
1
, we will use
words like pseudonite to refer to sets which are satised to be nite in
the model of T
1
.
In the same way as we proved the last theorem we can show the following
theorem.
Theorem 3.2 Suppose T is a theory in a language with a unary predicate
P
0
and which is countable except for constant symbols so that in every model
M of T every denable isomomrphism between denable ordered elds P
M
0
is denable by a xed formula (together with some parameters). Then there is
T
1
an expansion of ZFC

in a language which is countable except for constant


symbols with a unary predicate P
0
so that if M
1
is a model of T
1
then P
0
(M
1
)
is a model M of T and the following are satised to be true in M
1
.
(i) Any isomorphism of denable (in M) ordered elds contained in P
0
which
is denable in M
1
is denable in M.
12
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


(ii) M M
1
.
(iii) M
1
satises the separation scheme for all formulas (not just those of the
language of set theory).
(iv) M
1
has Skolem functions.
(v) For any M
1
there is an elementary extension N
1
so that the universe of
M
1
is contained in N
1
in a pseudonite set (i.e., one which is nite in N
1
)
whose type over the universe of M
1
is denable over the empty set.
Since we have no internal saturation conditions this theorem can be
proved without recourse to Theorem 1.2 (see the next section for an example
of a similar construction).
3.1 A Digression
The method of expanding the language to get extensions which realize a
denable type is quite powerful in itself. We can use the method to give a
new proof of the compactness of a logic which extends rst order logic and is
stronger even for countable structures. This subsection is not needed in the
rest of the paper.
Lemma 3.3 Suppose that N is a model. Then there is a consistent expansion
of N to a model of a theory T
1
with Skolem functions so that for every
model M of T
1
there is a so that a/M is denable over the empty set and in
M(a) (the model generated by M and a) for every denable directed partial
ordering < of M without the last element there is an element greater than
any element of M in the domain of <. Furthermore the cardinality of the
language of T
1
is no greater than that of N plus
0
.
Proof Fix a model N. Choose and an ultralter D so that for every
directed partial ordering < of N without the last element there is an element
of N

/D which is greater than every element of N (e.g., let = [N[ and D


be any regular ultralter on ). Fix an element a N

/D N. Abusing
notation we will let a : N be a function representing the element a. The
new language is dened by induction on . Let N = N
0
. There are three
tasks so we divide the construction of N
n+1
into three cases. If n 0 mod 3,
expand N
n
to N
n+1
by adding Skolem functions. If n 1 mod 3, add a k-ary
13
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


relation R

for every formula of arity k + 1 and let R

(b
0
, . . . , b
k1
) hold if
and only if (b
0
, . . . , b
k1
, a) holds in N
n

/D.
If n 2 mod 3, we ensure that there is an upper bound to every denable
directed partial orders without last element in N
n
. For each k+2-ary formula
(x
0
, . . . , x
k1
, y, z) we will add a k + 1-ary function f

so that for all



b if
(

b, y, z) denes a directed partial order without last element then f

b, a)
is greater in that partial order than any element of N. Notice that there is
something to do here since we must dene f

on N and then extend to N

/D
using the ultraproduct. For each such

b choose a function c : N so that
c/D is an upper bound (in the partial order) to all the elements of N. Now
choose f

so that f

b, a(i)) = c(i). Let T


1
be the theory of the expanded
model.
Suppose now that M is a model of T
1
. The type we want is the type p
dened by (c
1
, . . . , c
k1
, x) p if and only if M [= R

(c
1
, . . . , c
n
).
In the process of building the new theory there are some choices made of
the language. But these choices can be made uniformly for all models. We
will in the sequel assume that such a uniform choice has been made.
From this lemma we can prove a stronger version of a theorem from [9],
which says that the language which allows quantication over branches of
level-trees is compact. A tree is a partial order in which the predecessors
of any element are totally ordered. A level-tree is a tree together with a
ranking function to a directed set. More exactly a level-tree is a model
(A : U, V, <
1
, <
2
, R) where:
1. A is the union of U and V ;
2. <
1
is a partial order of U such that for every u U y U : y <
1
u
is totally ordered by <
1
;
3. <
2
is a directed partial order on V with no last element;
4. R is a function from U to V which is strictly order preserving.
The deniton here is slightly more general than in [9]. In [9] the levels were
required to be linearly ordered. Also what we have called a level-tree is
called a tree in [9]. A branch b of a level-tree is a maximal linearly-ordered
subset of U such that R(t) : t b is unbounded in V . We will refer to U
as the tree and V as the levels. For t U the level of t is R(t).
14
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


A tuple of formulas (which may use parameters from M),
(
1
(x),
2
(x),
1
(x, y),
2
(x, y), (x, y, z)),
denes a level-tree in a model M if
(
1
(M)
2
(M);
1
(M),
2
(M),
1
(x, y)
M
,
2
(x, y)
M
, (x, y, z)
M
)
is a level tree. (There is no diculty in extending the treatment to all level-
trees which are denable using equivalence relations.)
Given the denition of a level-tree, we now dene an extension of rst
order logic by adding second order variables (to range over branches of level-
trees) and a quantier Q
Brch
, such that
Q
Brch
b(
1
(x),
2
(x),
1
(x, y),
2
(x, y), (x, y, z))(b)
says that if (
1
(x),
2
(x),
1
(x, y),
2
(x, y), (x, y, z)) denes a level-tree then
there is a branch b of the level-tree such that (b) holds.
In [9], it is shown that (a rst-order version of) this logic was compact.
This is the rst language to be shown (in ZFC) to be fully compact and
stronger than rst order logic for countable structures. In [9], the models are
obtained at successors of regular cardinals.
Theorem 3.4 The logic L(Q
Brch
) is compact. Furthermore every consistent
theory T has a model in all uncountable cardinals > [T[.
Proof By expanding the language we can assume that any model of T
admits elimination of quantiers. (I.e., add new relations for each formula
and the appropriate dening axioms.)
For each nite S T, choose a model M
S
of S. For each S choose a
cardinal so that M
S
H() and let N
S
be the model (H(
+
), M
S
, ),
where M
S
is the interpretation of a new unary predicate P and the language
of N
S
includes the language of T (with the correct restriction to M
S
). By
expanding the structure N
S
we can assume that the theory T
S
of N
S
satises
the conclusion of Lemma 3.3. Furthermore we note that T
S
satises two
additional properties. If a formula denes a branch in a denable level-tree
contained in the domain of P then this branch is an element of the model
N
S
. As well N
S
satises that P(N
S
) is a model of S.
15
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


Now let D be an ultralter on the nite subsets of T such that for all
nite S, S
1
: S S
1
D. Finally let T
1
be the (rst-order) theory of

N
S
/D. If N is any model of T
1
then for any sentence T, N satises
P(N) satises . If we can arrange that the only branches of an L(Q
Brch
)-
denable (in the language of T) level-tree of P(N) are rst order denable
in N then P(N) satisfaction of an L(Q
Brch
)-formula will be the same in N
and the real world. Before constructing this model let us note that our task
is a bit easier than it might seem.
Claim 3.5 Suppose that N is a model of T
1
and every branch of an rst-
order denable (in the language of T) level-tree of P(N) is rst order den-
able in N, then every branch of an L(Q
Brch
)-denable (in the language of T)
level-tree of P(N) is rst order denable in N.
Proof (of the claim) Since we have quantier elimination we can prove
by induction on construction of formulas that satisfaction is the same in N
and the real world and so the quantier-elimination holds for P(N). In other
words any L(Q
Brch
)-denable level-tree is rst order denable.
It remains to do the construction and prove that it works. To begin let
N
0
be any model of T
1
of cardinality . Let be any regular cardinal.
We will construct an increasing elementary chain of models N

for <
by induction. At limit ordinals we will take unions. If N

has been dened,


let N
+1
= N

(a

), where a

is as guaranteed by Lemma 3.3. Now let


N =

<
N

.
Subclaim 3.6 Suppose X is any subset of N which is denable by parame-
ters. Then for all , X N

is denable in N

.
Proof (of the subclaim) Suppose not and let be the least ordinal
greater than so that X N

is denable in N

. Such an ordinal must


exist since for suciently large the parameters necessary to dene X are
in N

. Similarly there is such that = +1. Since N

is the Skolem hull of


N

, there is

b N

and a formula (x, y, z) so that XN

is dened by
(x,

b, a

). But by the denability of the type of a

over N

there is a formula
(x, y) so that for all a, c N

, N

[= (a, c) if and only if (a, c, a

). Hence
(x,

b) denes X N

in N

.
16
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


It remains to see that every branch of a denable level tree is denable.
Suppose (A; U, V, <
1
, <
2
, R) is a denable level-tree. Without loss of gener-
ality we can assume it is denable over the empty set. Let B be a branch.
For any < there is c V so that for all d V N

, d <
2
c. Since the
levels of B are unbounded in V , B N

is not conal in B. Hence there


is b B so that B N

a U : a <
1
b. By the subclaim B N

is
denable in N

.
Since has the uncountable conality, by Fodors lemma, there is <
so that for unboundedly many (and hence all) < , BN

is denable by a
formula with parameters from N

. Fix a formula (x) with parameters from


N

which denes B N

. Then (x) denes B. To see this consider any


< and a formula (x) with parameters from N

which denes B N

.
Since N

satises for all x, (x) if and only if (x) and N

, (x)
also denes B N

.
Remark. The compactness result above is optimal as far as the cardinality
of the model is concerned. Any countable level-tree has a branch and so
there is no countable model which is L(Q
Brch
)-equivalent to an Aronszajn
tree. By the famous theorem of Lindstrom [4], this result is the best that
can be obtained for any logic, since any compact logic which is at least as
powerful as the rst order logic and has countable models for all sentences is
in fact the rst order logic. The existence of a compact logic such that every
consistent countable theory has a model in all uncountable cardinals was
rst proved by Shelah [11], who showed that the rst order logic is compact
if we add a quantier Q
cf
which says of a linear order that its conality is
. (Lindstroms theorem and the logic L(Q
cf
) are also discussed in [1]). The
logic L(Q
Brch
) has the advantage that it is stronger than the rst order logic
even for countable models [9].
Notice in the proof above in any denable level-tree the directed set of the
levels has conality . Since we can obtain any uncountable conality this is
also the best possible result. Also in the theorem above we can demand just
[T[ +
1
17
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


4 The Models
For the purposes of this section let T and T
1
be theories as dened above
in 3.1 or 3.2 (for Boolean algebras or ordered elds). In this section we will
build models of our theory T
1
. The case of Boolean algebras and the case of
ordered elds are similar but there are enough dierences that they have to
be treated separately. We shall deal with Boolean algebras rst.
We want to approximate the goal of having every automorphism of every
denable atomic Boolean algebra in the domain of P be denable. In this
section, we will get that they are denable in a weak sense. In order to
spare ourselves some notational complications we will make a simplifying
assumption and prove a weaker result. It should be apparent at the end how
to prove the same result for every denable atomic Boolean algebra in the
domain of P.
Assumption. Assume T is the theory of an atomic Boolean algebra on P
with some additional structure.
Theorem 4.1 There is a model C of T
1
so that if B = P(C) and f is any
automorphism of B as a Boolean algebra then there is a pseudonite set c so
that for any atom b B, f(b) is denable from b and elements of c.
Proof We will use the notation from the Black Box. In particular we
will use an ordered set of urelements of order type . We can assume that
is larger than the cardinality of the language (including the constants). We
shall build a chain of structures (C

: < ) such that the universe of C

will
be an ordinal < and the universe of C =

<
C

will be (we can specify


in a denable way what the universe of C

is e.g. (1+) is o.k.). We choose


C

by induction on . Let B

= P(C

). We will view the (



M

) W in the
Black Box as predicting a sequence of models of T
1
and an automorphism of
the Boolean algebra. (See the following paragraphs for more details on what
we mean by predicting.)
The construction will be done so that if , S and < then C

. (We will make further demands later.) The model C will be



<
C

.
When we are done, if f is an automorphism of the Boolean algebra then we
can choose (

M

) W to code, in a denable way, f and the sequence


(C

: < ).
18
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


The limit stages of the construction are determined. The successor stage
when / S is simple. We construct C
+1
so that C

C
+1
, C
+1
is -
saturated and there is a pseudonite set in C
+1
which contains C

. By the
construction of the theory T
1
there is c, a pseudonite set which contains
C

such that the type of c over C

is denable over the empty set. Hence


C

(c). By Proposition 2.5 there is C


+1
which is -saturated so that
C

(c)

C
+1
. Finally by transitivity (Proposition 2.3), C

C
+1
.
The dicult case occurs when S rename by . Consider so that
() = . We are interested mainly in s which satisfy:
() The model M

thinks it is of the form (H(), , <, X) and by our


coding yields (or predicts) a sequence of structures (T

: < ) and a function


f

from T =

<
T

to itself. (Of course all the urelements in M

will
all have order type less than .)
At the moment we will only need to use the function predicted by M

.
We will say an obstruction occurs at if (() holds and) we can make the
following choices. If possible choose N

so that N

0
of cardinality
less than and a sequence of atoms (a

i
: i C

) so that (naturally a

i

M

i+1
) a

i
/C

,i
does not split over N

and a

i
[

,i
,
+
,i
) and f

(a

i
) is not
denable over a and parameters from C

,i
. At ordinals where an obstruction
occurs we will take action to stop f

from extending to an automorphism of


B = B
C
.
Notice that N

is contained in M

0
M

.
Suppose an obstruction occurs at . Let X

be the set of nite joins


of the a

i
: i C

. In the obvious way, X

can be identied with the


set of nite subsets of Y

= a

i
: i C

. Fix U

an ultralter on X

so
that for all x X

, y X

: x y U

. Now dene by induction on


Ob() = : () = and an obstruction occurs at an element x

so
that x

realizes the U

average type of X

over C

: Ob(), < .
Then C
+1
is the Skolem hull of C

: Ob().
We now want to verify the inductive hypothesis and give a stronger prop-
erty which we will use later in the proof. The key is the following claim.
Claim 4.2 Suppose
0
, . . . ,
n1
Ob(), then for all but a bounded set of
< , (

k<n
Y

k
)/C

does not split over



k<n
N

k<n
(C

k
).
Proof (of the claim) Suppose is large enough so that for all m ,= k < n,
[

m,i
,
+
m,i
) [

k
,i
,
+

k
,i
) = , whenever

m,i
(recall clause (c3) of
19
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


the Black Box). It is enough to show by induction on < that
(

k<n
Y

k
) C

has the desired property. For = there is nothing to


prove. In the inductive proof we only need to look at a place where the set
increases. By the hypothesis on we can suppose the result is true up to
=

k
,i
and try to prove the result for =
+

k
,i
(since new elements are
added only in these intervals). The new element added is a

k
i
. Denote this
element by a. By hypothesis, a/C

k
,i
does not split over N

k
and so also not
over

k<n
N

k<n
(C

k
). Now we can apply the induction hypothesis
and Proposition 2.3.
Notice that X

is contained in the denable closure of Y

and vice versa so


we also have (

k<n
X

k
)/C

does not split over



k<n
N

k<n
(C

k
).
We can immediately verify the induction hypothesis that if < , / S
then C

C
+1
. It is enough to verify for
0
, . . . ,
n1
and suciently large
that (x

0
, . . . , x

n1
)/C

does not split over



k<n
N

k


k<n
(C

k
)
(a set of size < ). But this sequence realizes the ultralter average of
X

0
X

n1
. So we are done by Proposition 2.2.
This completes the construction. Before continuing with the proof notice
that we get the following from the claim.
Claim 4.3 1) For all Ob(), D C
+1
, if [D[ < then for all but a
bounded set of i < , D/C

+
,i
does not split over C

,i
a

i
. Moreover for all
but a bounded set of i < , D/C

+
,i
does not split over a subset of C

,i
a

of size < .
2) for every subset D of C
+1
of cardinality < there is a subset w of Ob()
of cardinality < and subset Z of C

of cardinality < such that: the type


of D over C

does not split over Z

jw
Y
j
.
3) In (2) for every large enough i, for every w the type of D over C

+
,i
does not split over Z Y
j
C

,i
: j w a
,i
.
4) In (2), (3) we can allow D C
We now have to verify that C has the desired properties. Assume that f
is an automorphism of B = B
C
. We must show that
Claim 4.4 There is so that for all atoms a, f(a) is denable with param-
eters from C

and a.
20
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


Proof (of the claim) Assume that f is a counterexample. For every
/ S, choose an atom a

which witnesses the claim is false with respect to


C

. Since < : / S, cf is stationary, there is a set N of cardinality


less than so that for a stationary set of , a

/C

does not split over N. In


fact (since ( < )

< as =
+
,
<
= ) for all but a bounded set
of we can use the same N. Let X code the sequence (C

: < ) and the


function f. Then, by the previous discussion, (H(), , <, X) satises there
exists N C so that [N[ < and for all but a bounded set of ordinals ,
there is an atom z so that z/C

does not split over N. Choose so that


M


(H(), , <, X).
It is now easy to verify that an obstruction occurs at . Let = (). In
this case, f

is the restriction of f. We use the notation of the construction.


By the construction there is D C
+1
, [D[ < such that the type of f(a

)
over C
+1
does not split over D. Apply Claim 4.3 above, parts (2), (3) and
get Z, w and i

< (the i

is just explicating the for every large enough i


to for every i [i

, )) . Let D

= Z Y
j
C

,i
: j w so for every
i [i

, ) we have
1) f(a

)/C
+1
does not fork over D( C
+1
).
2) D/C

+
,i
does not split over D

a
,i
3) D

a
,i
C

+
,i
C
+1
so by the basic properties of non splitting f(x

)/C

+
,i
does not split over
D

i
, and note that we have : D

,i
and [D

[ < where
N

comes from the construction .


An important point is that by elementariness for all ordinals M

i

and atoms a M

i
there is an ordinal so that < M

i
, a B

, C

is -saturated (just take cf ) and f is an automorphism of B

. Choose
such a M

i+1
with respect to a

i
and

,i
Since f(a

i
) is not denable from a

i
and parameters fromC

,i
and C

is -
saturated there is b ,= f(a

i
) realizing the same type over D

i
f(a

j
) :
j < i with b B

. Now for any atom c B

we have (by the denition of


x

) that c x

if and only if c = a

j
for some j i. Since this property is
preserved by f, we have that f(a

i
) f(x

) and b , f(x

). But <
+
,i
and f(x

)/C

+
,i
does not split over a

i
D

. So we have arrived at a
contradiction.
21
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


In the proof above if we take to be uncountable then we can strengthen
the theorem (although we will not have any current use for the stronger
form).
Theorem 4.5 In the Theorem above if is uncountable then there is a nite
set of formulas L

and a pseudonite set c so that for every atom b B f(b)


is L

-denable over b c.
Proof The argument so far has constructed a model in which every
automorphism of B is pointwise denable on the atoms over some C

(i.e.,
for every atom b B f(b) is denable from b and parameters from C

. In
the construction of the model we have that every C

is contained in some
pseudonite set so we are a long way towards our goal. To prove the theorem
it remains to show that we can restrict ourselves to a nite sublanguage.
(Since all the interpretations of the constants will be contained in C
1
we can
ignore them.) Choose C

so that f and f
1
are pointwise denable over C

.
Let c be a pseudonite set containing C

. We can assume that f permutes


the atoms of B

.
Let the language L be the union of an increasing chain of nite sublan-
guages (L
n
: n < ). Assume by way of contradiction that for all n, f is not
pointwise denable on the atoms over any pseudonite set (and hence not
over any C

) using formulas from L


n
. Choose a sequence d
n
of atoms so that
for all n, e
n
= f(d
n
) is not L
n
-denable over d
n
c and both d
n+1
and
e
n+1
are not denable over d
k
: k n e
k
: k n c. Furthermore
d
n+1
should not be L
n
-denable over d
k
: k n c. The choice of d
n
is
possible by hypothesis, since only a pseudonite set of possibilities has been
eliminated from the choice.
Let

d, e realize the average type (modulo some ultralter) over C

c
of (d
k
: k n), (e
k
: k n) : n < . These are pseudonite sequences which
have (d
n
: n < ) and (e
n
: n < ) as initial segments. Say

d = (d
i
: i < n

)
for some non-standard natural number n

. Now let x B be the join of


d
i
: i < n

. (This join exists since



d is a pseudonite sequence.) For every
i < n

there is a (standard) n
i
so that f(d
i
) is L
n
i
-denable over d
i
C

and
d
i
is L
n
i
-denable over f(d
i
) C

. Since C is -saturated, the coinitiality


of n

is greater than . So there is some n so that i : n


i
= n is coinitial.
(Notice that for non-standard i, there is no connection between e
i
and f(d
i
).)
Choose k so that the formulas in L
n
have at most k free variables. Let Z
be the set of subsets Y of c of size k so that for all i < n

, neither d
i
nor e
i
22
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


is L
n
-denable from Y d
j
, e
j
: j < i. By the choice of

d, e every subset
of C

of size k is an element of Z.
Consider > m > n + 1. We claim there is no atom y < f(x) such that
d
m
and y are L
n
interdenable over elements of Z. Suppose there is one and
y = f(d
i
). Then i is non-standard, since, by the choice of Z, y ,= e
j
for all
j. Since d
i
is denable from f(d
i
) c, d
i
is denable from d
m
c. This
contradicts the choice of the sequence. We can nally get our contradiction.
For i < n

, we have i < if and only if for all j > n + 1, if there is an


atom y < f(x) so that d
j
and y are L
n
-interdenable over elements of Z
then i < j.
We will want to work a bit harder and get that the automorphisms in the
model above is actually denable on a large set. To this end we prove an
easy graph theoretic lemma.
Lemma 4.6 Suppose G is a graph and there is 0 < k < so that the valence
of each vertex is at most k. Then there is a partition of (the set of nodes of )
G into k
2
pieces A
0
, . . . , A
k
2
1
so that for any i and any node v, v is adjacent
to at most one element of A
i
. Furthermore if is an uncountable cardinal,
each A
i
can be chosen to meet any sets of cardinality .
Proof Apply Zorns lemma to get a sequence A
0
, . . . , A
k
2
1
) of pairwise
disjoint set of nodes such that for i < k
2
and node v, v is adjacent to at most
one member of A
i
and

i<k
2 A
i
maximal [under those constrains]. Suppose
there is v which is not in any of the A
i
. Since v is not in any of the A
i
for
each i there is u
i
adjacent to v and w
i
,= u
i
adjacent to v so that w
i
A
i
. If
no such u
i
, w
i
existed we could extend the partition by adding v to A
i
. But
as the valency of every vertex of G is k there are at most k(k 1) < k
2
such pairs.
As for the second statement. Since the valence is nite every connected
component is countable. Hence we can partition the connected components
and then put them together to get a partition meeting every one of the
sets.
Actually for innite graphs we can get a sharper bound. Given G we form
an associated graph by joining vertices if they have a common neighbour.
This gives a graph whose valence is at most k
2
k. We want to vertex colour
this new graph. Obviously (see the proof above) it can be vertex coloured
23
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


in k
2
+ 1 k colours. In fact, by a theorem of Brooks ([5], Theorem 6.5.1),
the result can be sharpened further. In our work we will only need that the
colouring is nite, so these sharpenings need not concern us.
We will want to form in C a graph whose vertices are the atoms of B with
a pseudonite bound so that any atom b is adjacent to f(b). This is easy to
do in the case where all the denitions of f(b) from b c use only a nite
sublanguage. In the general case (i.e., when cf may be ) we have to cover
the possible denitions by a pseudonite set.
Lemma 4.7 Continue with the notation of the proof. Then there is a pseudo-
nite set D and a pseudonite natural number k

and a set of tuples Z of


length at most k

so that for every formula ( x, y) there is d D so that for


all a c and

b B, the tuple (d, a,

b) Z if and only if ( a,

b).
Proof Since C is
0
-saturated the lemma just says that a certain type is
consistent. Now B C and C satises the separation scheme for all formulas
(not just those of set theory). Hence for any formula , ( a,

b) : a c,

b
B and ( a,

b) exists in C.
Fix such sets D and Z for c. Say that an atom a is D, Z-denable from b
over c if there are d D and a tuple (perhaps of non-standard length) x c
so that a is the unique atom of B so that (d, x, b, a) Z. We say that a
and b are D, Z-interdenable over c if a is D, Z-denable from b over c and
b is D, Z-denable from a over c. Notice (and this is the content of the last
lemma) that if a is denable from b over c then it is D, Z-denable from b
over c.
We continue now with the notation of the theorem and the model we
have built. Suppose f is an automorphism which is pointwise denable over
a pseudonite set c. Dene the c-graph to be the graph whose vertices are the
atoms of B where a, b are adjacent if a and b are D, Z-interdenable over c.
Since D, k

and c are pseudonite this is a graph whose valency is bounded


by some pseudonite number. So in C we will be able to apply Lemma 4.6.
We will say that (A
i
: i < n

) is a good partition of the c-graph if it is an


element of C which partitions the atoms of B into a pseudonite number of
pieces and for any i and any a, a is adjacent to at most one element of A
i
. If
(A
i
: i < n

) is a good partition then for all i, j let f


i,j
be the partial function
from A
i
to A
j
dened by letting f
i,j
(a) be the unique element of A
j
if any so
that a is adjacent to f
i,j
(a). Otherwise let f
i,j
(a) be undened.
24
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


We have proved the following lemma.
Lemma 4.8 Use the notation above. For all a A
i
there is a unique j so
that f(a) = f
i,j
(a)
The proof of the last lemma applies in a more general setting. Since we
will want to use it later, we will formulate a more general result.
Lemma 4.9 Suppose C is an
0
-saturated model of an expansion of ZFC

which satises the separation scheme for all formulas. If A, B are sets in C
and f is a bijection from A to B such that f and f
1
are pointwise denable
over some pseudonite set, then there is (in C) a partition of A into pseud-
onitely many sets (A
i
: i < k

) and a pseudonite collection (f


i,j
: i, j < k

) of
partial one-to-one functions so that for all i, the domain of f
i,j
is contained
in A
i
and for all a A
i
there exists j so that f
i,j
(a) = f(a). Moreover if we
are given (in C) a family P of [A[ (in Cs sense) subsets of A of cardinality
[A[, we can demand that for every i < k

and A

P we have [A
i
A

[ = [A[
(in Cs sense).
Lemma 4.10 Use the notation and assumptions above. For any i < k

we
have: fA
i
is denable.
Proof For each < such that / S and cf choose y

so that
y

is the join of a pseudonite set of atoms contained in A


i
and containing
A
i
B

.
Claim 4.11 For all a A
i
so that a y

, f(a) is denable from f(y

) and
the set f
i,j
: j < n

. In particular this claim applies to all a A


i
B

.
Proof (of the claim) First note that f(a) < f(y

) and so there is j such


that f
i,j
(a) < f(y

). Suppose that there is k ,= j so that f


i,k
(a) < f(y

).
Choose b A
i
(not neccessarily in B

) so that f(b) = f
i,k
(a) (such a b must
exist since every atom below y

is in A
i
). But since f
i,k
is a partial one-to-
one function, a = b. But f(a) = f
i,j
(a) ,= f
i,k
(a). This is a contradiction, so
f(A
i
B

) is dened by b = f(a) if there exists g f


i,j
: j < n

so that
b = g(a) and g(a) < f(y

).
Choose now N

of cardinality < so that the type of f(y

), (f
i,j
: j <
n

)/C

does not split over N

. Notice that f(A


i
B

) is denable as a
25
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


disjunction of types over N

, namely the types satised by the pairs (a, f(a)).


By Fodors lemma and the cardinal arithmetic, there is N and a stationary
set where all the N

= N and all the denitions as a disjunction of types


coincide. So we have that fA
i
is dened as a disjunction of types over
a, N, set of cardinality < . We now want to improve the denability to
denability by a formula. We show that for all , f(A
i
B

) is dened by
a formula with parameters from N. This will suce since some choice of
parameters and formula will work for unboundedly many (and hence all) .
Suppose that f(A
i
B

) is not denable by a formula with parameters


from N. Consider the following type in variables x
1
, x
2
, z
1
, z
2
.
(x
1
, x
2
) if and only if (z
1
, z
2
) : a formula with parameters from N
x
1
, z
1
y

(x
1
, x
2
), (z
1
, z
2
),
where (u, v) is a formula saying there exists g f
i,j
: j < n

so that u = g(v) and g(u) < f(y

)
This type is consistent since by hypothesis it is nitely satisable in A
i
B

.
Since C is -saturated there are a
1
, a
2
, b
1
, b
2
realizing this type. Since a
1
, b
1

y

(a
1
, a
2
) implies that f(a
1
) = a
2
and similarly (b
1
, b
2
) implies that
f(b
1
) ,= b
2
. On the other hand a
1
, a
2
and b
1
, b
2
realize the same type over N.
This contradicts the choice of N.
The information we obtain above is a little less than we want since we
want a denablility requirement on every automorphism of every denable
Boolean algebra. It is easy to modify the proof so that we can get the stronger
result. Namely in the application of the Black Box we attempt to predict
the denition of a denable Boolean algebra in the scope of P as well as the
construction of the model C and an automorphism. With this change the
proof goes as before. So the following stronger theorem is true.
Theorem 4.12 There is a model C of T
1
so that if B P(C) is a denable
atomic Boolean algebra and f is any automorphism of B (as a Boolean al-
gebra) then there is a pseudonite set c such that for any atom b B, f(b)
is denable from b c.
As before if is taken to be uncountable then we can nd a nite sub-
language to use for all the denitions.
The proof of the analogue of the Theorem 4.1 for ordered elds is quite
similar. Let T
1
denote the theory constructed in Theorem 3.2.
26
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


Theorem 4.13 There is a model C of T
1
so that if F
1
, F
2
P(C) are de-
nable ordered elds and f is any isomorphism from F
1
to F
2
then there is
a pseudonite set c so that for all b F
1
f(b) is denable from b c.
Proof To simplify the proof we will assume that F = P(C) is an ordered
eld and f is an automorphism of F. The construction is similar to the one
for Boolean algebras, although we will distinguish between the case =
and the case that is uncountable. We will need to take a little more
care in the case of uncountable conalities. The dierence from the case of
Boolean algebras occurs at stages S. Again we predict the sequence of
structures (C
i
: i < ) and an automorphism f

of the ordered eld F. We


say that an obstruction occurs at if we can make the choices below. (The
intuition behind the denition of an obstruction is that there are innitesmals
of arbitrarily high order for which the automorphism is not denable.) There
are two cases, the one where = and the one where is uncountable.
Since it is somewhat simpler we will rst consider the case = . Suppose
an obstruction occurs at . By this we mean that we can choose N

0
such that for each i < we can choose a

i
[

,i
,
+
,i
) so that a

i
/C

,i
does
not split over N

, a

i
> 0, a

i
makes the same cut in F

,i
as 0 does and f(a

i
)
is not denable over a

i
and parameters from C

,i
.
Then we let x

i
=

ji
a

i
. We choose x

so that it realizes the average


type over some non-principal ultralter of x

i
: i < . As before we can
show that both the inductive hypothesis and Claim 4.3 are satised. Notice
in the construction that f

(x

i
) is not denable over a

i
C

,i
, since
x

i
= x

i1
+ a

i
and f(x

i
) = f(x

i1
) + f(a

i
) (here we conventionally let
x

i
= 0 when it is undened) and each M

i
is closed under f

. Notice as well
that for all i, x

i
< x

and x

i
and x

make the same cut in C

+
,i
.
Suppose now that f is an automorphism which is not pointwise denable
over any C

. Since F is an ordered eld this is equivalent to saying that f is


not denable on any interval. Also since C

is contained in a pseudonite set


(in C) there is a positive interval which makes the same cut in the pseudonite
set (and hence in F

) 0 does. So we can choose a

in this interval so that


f(a

) is not denable over C

. Arguing as before we can nd a set


N C

of cardinality less than such that for all but boundedly many
a

can be chosen so that a

/C

does not split over N. Arguing as before we


get an ordinal so that an obstruction occurs at . Consider now f(x

), i
27
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


and a nite set N

,i
so that f(x

)/C

+
,i
does not split over N

i
.
Since f(x

i
) is not denable over a

i
C

,i
, there is b > f(x

i
), b F

+
,i
which realizes the same type over N

i
. (Otherwise f(x

i
) would be the
rightmost element satisfying some formula with parameters in this set.) But
f(x

i
) < f(x

) < b. This contradicts the choice of N

.
We now consider the case where is uncountable. Here we have to do
something dierent at limit ordinals i. If i is a limit ordinal, we choose
x

i
[

,i
,
+
,i
) M

i+1
to realize the average type of the x

j
: j < i. For
the successor case we let we let x

i+1
= x

i
+ a

i+1
(where the a

j
are chosen
as before). In this construction for all and all i x

i
/C

does not split over


N

j
:

,j
< . This is enough to verify the inductive hypothesis and
Claim 4.3 if we restrict the statement to a successor ordinal i. The rest of
the proof can be nished as above.
To apply the theorem we explicate the explanation in the introduction.
Observation 4.14 For proving the compactness of L(Q
Of
) (or L(Q
BA
) etc)
it suces to prove
() Let T be a rst order theory T and let P, R be unary predicates such that
for every model M of T and an automorphism f of a denable ordinal eld
(or Boolean algebra etc) P
M
denable (with parameter), for some c M,
R(x, y, c) denes f.
Then T has a model M

such that: every automorphism f of denable


ordered eld (or Boolean algebra etc.) P
M
, f is dened in M

by R(x, y, c)
for some c M.
Proof Assume () and let T
0
be a given theory in the stronger logic;
without loss of generality all formulas are equivalent to relations. For sim-
plicity ignore function symbols.
For every model M let M

be the model with the universe [M[ f : f


a partial function from [M[ to [M[, and relations those of M, P
M

= [M[,
R
M

= (f, a, b) : a, b M, f a partial function from [M[ to [M[ and


f(a) = b. There is a parallel denition of T

from T, and if we intersect


with the rst order logic, we get a theory to which it suces to apply ().
28
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


5 Augmented Boolean Algebras
For Boolean algebras we dont have the full result we would like to have but
we can dene the notion of augmented Boolean algebras and then prove the
compactness theorem for quantication over automorphisms of these struc-
tures.
Definition. An augmented Boolean algebra is a structure (B, , I, P) so
that (B, ) is an atomic Boolean algebra, I is an ideal of B which contains
all the atoms, P B, [P[ > 1, for x ,= y P the symmetric dierence of
x and y is not in I, and for all atoms x ,= y there is z P such that either
x z and y , z or vice versa.
Notice that if we know the restriction of an automorphism f of an aug-
mented Boolean algebra to P then we can recover f. Since for any atom x,
f(x) is the unique z so that for all y P z f(y) if and only if x y
and the action of f on the atoms determine its action on the whole Boolean
algebra.
Let Q
Aug
be the quantier whose interpretation is Q
Aug
f (B
1
, B
2
) . . .
holds if there is an isomorphism f of the augmented Boolean algebras B
1
, B
2
so that . . ..
Theorem 5.1 The logic L(Q
Aug
) is compact.
Proof By 3.1 (and 4.9.1) it is enough to show that if T is a theory which
says that every automorphism of a denable Boolean algebra P is denable
by a xed formula and T
1
and C are as above then every automorphism f of
a denable augmented Boolean algebra (B, , I, P) of P(C) is denable. We
work for the moment in C. First note that I contains the pseudonite sets
so C thinks that the cardinality of B is some

and for every x, y P the


symmetric dierence of x and y contains

atoms (since C thinks that B is

saturated).
So, by Lemma 4.9 and Lemma 4.10, we can nd a set of atoms A so
that fA is denable and for every x and y, A contains some element in the
symmetric dierence. Now we can dene f(y) as the unique z B so that
for all a A, a y if and only if f(a) z. Clearly f(y) has this property.
Suppose for the moment that there is some z ,= f(y) which also has this
property. Since f is an automorphism there is x P so that f(x) = z. Now
29
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


choose a A in the symmetric dierence of x and y. Then f(a) is in exactly
one of f(y) and f(x).
6 Ordered Fields
Here we will prove the compactness of the quantier Q
Of
. Let Q
Of
be the
quantier whose interpretation is Q
Of
f (F
1
, F
2
) . . . holds if there is an iso-
morphism f of the ordered elds F
1
, F
2
so that . . .. We will use various facts
about dense linear orders. A subset of a dense linear order is somewhere
dense if it is dense in some non-empty open interval. A subset which is not
somewhere dense is nowhere dense. The rst few properties are standard
and follow easily from the fact that a nite union of nowhere dense sets is
nowhere dense.
Proposition 6.1 If a somewhere dense set is divided into nitely many
pieces one of the pieces is somewhere dense.
Proposition 6.2 If f
k
: k K is a nite set of partial functions dened
on a somewhere dense set A then there is a somewhere dense subset A

A
so that each f
k
is either total on A

or no element of the domain of f


k
is in
A

.
We can dene an equivalence relation on functions to a linearly ordered
set by f g if for every non-empty open interval I the symmetric dierence
of f
1
(I) and g
1
(I) is nowhere dense.
Proposition 6.3 Suppose T is a nite collection of functions from a some-
where dense set A to a linearly ordered set. Then there is 1 a collection of
disjoint intervals (not necessarily open) and a somewhere dense set A

A
so that for all f, g T either fA

gA

or there are disjoint intervals


I, J 1 so that f(A

) I and g(A

) J.
Proof The proof is by induction on the cardinality of T. Suppose that
T = ( g and is a set of intervals and A

A is a somewhere dense set


satisfying the conclusion of the theorem with respect to (. If there are some
f ( and A

a somewhere dense subset of A

such that fA

gA

then
30
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


we can choose a somewhere dense A

such that for all I we have


(fA

)
1
(I) = (gA

)
1
(I). Then A

and are as required in the theorem.


So we can assume that no such f and A

exist.
Let f
0
, . . . , f
n
enumerate a set of class representatives of ( and let
= J
0
, . . . , J
n
where f
k
(A

) J
k
for all k (so for < m n J
e
llJ
m
= ).
By induction on k we will dene a descending sequence A
k
of somewhere
dense subset of A

and intervals I
k
J
k
with the property that f
k
(A
k
) I
k
and g(A
k
) is disjoint from I
k
. Let A
1
= A

. Consider any k and suppose


A
k1
has been dened. If possible, choose an interval J

k
J
k
so that the
symmetric dierence of (gA
k1
)
1
(J

k
) and (f
k
A
k1
)
1
(J

k
) is somewhere
dense. There are two possibilities. If (f
k
A
k1
)
1
(J

k
) (gA
k1
)
1
(J

k
) is
somewhere dense, then let A
k
= (f
k
A
k1
)
1
(J

k
) (gA
k1
)
1
(J

k
) and let
I
k
= J

k
. Otherwise we can choose I
k
a subinterval of J
k
J

k
and A
k
a
somewhere dense subset of (gA
k1
)
1
(J

k
) so that f
k
(A
k
) I
k
. If there was
no respective J

k
then we would have f
k
A
k1
gA
k1
- contrary to our
assumption. Given A
n
and I
0
, . . . , I
n
, we can choose A
n+1
A
n
somewhere
dense and an interval I
n+1
disjoint from I
k
, for all k so that g(A
n+1
) I
n+1
.
Finally we let A

= A
n+1

fG
f
1
(

kn
I
k
) and 1 = I
0
, . . . , I
n
.
Theorem 6.4 The logic L(Q
Of
) is compact.
Proof We work in the model C constructed before (suce by 3.2 (and
4.9.1)). Suppose we have two denable ordered elds F
1
, F
2
contained in
P(C) and an isomorphism f between them. Since f and f
1
are locally de-
nable over a pseudonite set there are (A
i
: i < k

) and (f
i,j
: i, j < k

) as
in Lemma 4.9. Since C satises that k

is nite, there is some i so that A


i
is somewhere dense. Fix such an i and for notational simplicity drop the
subscript i. So f
j
denotes f
i,j
. By restricting to a somewhere dense subset
(and perhaps eliminating some of the f
j
) we can assume that each f
j
is a
total function (we work in C to make this choice) (use 6.2). Again choosing
a somewhere dense subset we can nd a somewhere dense set A and a col-
lection 1 of disjoint intervals of F
2
so that the conclusion of Proposition 6.3
is satised. Since each f
j
is one-to-one we can assume that all the intervals
in 1 are open. Choose now an interval J contained in F
1
so that A is dense
in J.
Next choose a
1
< a
2
J and an interval I 1 so that f(a
1
), f(a
2
) I.
To see that such objects exist, rst choose any a
1
AJ. There is a unique
31
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


interval I 1 so that f(a
1
) I. Choose b I so that f(a
1
) < b and let
a
2
be any element of J A such that a
1
< a
2
< f
1
(b). Of course this
denition of a
1
, a
2
cannot be made in C, but the triple (a
1
, a
2
, I) exists in C.
Without loss of generality we can assume that A (a
1
, a
2
) = J. Consider
now T = f
j
: f
j
(A) I. This is an equivalence class of functions and for
every a A, there is some g T so that g(a) = f(a).
The crucial fact is that for all b J and g T, B = a A : b <
a and g(a) < f(b) is nowhere dense. Assume not. Since T is an equivalence
class, for all h T a B : h(a) f(b) is a nowhere dense set. But since T
is a pseudonite set, a B : for some h T, h(a) f(b) is nowhere dense.
So there is some a A so that b < a and for all g T g(a) < f(b). This
gives a contradiction since there is some g so that f(a) = g(a). Similarly,
a A : a < b and g(a) > f(b) is nowhere dense.
With this fact in hand we can dene f on J, by f(b) is the greatest x so
that for all g T, both a A : b < a and g(a) < x and a A : a <
b and g(a) > x are nowhere dense. Since an isomorphism between ordered
elds is denable if and only if it is denable on an interval we are done.
References
[1] Barwise, J. and Feferman, S. (eds) Model-Theoretic Logics Springer-
Verlag 1985.
[2] Eklof, P.C., A transfer theorem for non standard uniserials, Proceed-
ings of the American Mathematical Society 114 (1992) 593600.
[3] Fuchs, L. and Shelah, S.,Kaplansky problem on valuation rings, Pro-
ceedings of the American Mathematical Society 105 (1989) 25-30.
[4] Lindstrom, P. On extensions of elementary logic. Theoria 32(1969) 1
11.
[5] Ore, O. The Four-Color Problem, Academic Press 1967.
[6] Osofsky, B.L., Construction of non standard uniserial modules over
valuation domains, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 25
(1991) 8997.
32
3
7
5


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
1
9
9
6
-
0
3
-
1
7


[7] Osofsky, B.L., Construction of non standard Uniserial Modules over
Valuation Domains, Azumaya Algebras, Actions and Modules, Con-
temporary Mathematics 124 (1992) 151164.
[8] Rubin, M. and Shelah,S., On the elementary equivalence of automor-
phism groups of Boolean algebras, Downward Skolem-Lowenheim theo-
rems and compactness of related quantiers, Journal of Symbolic Logic,
45 (1980) 265-283.
[9] Shelah, S. Models with second order properties II. On trees with no
undenable branches, Annals of Math. Logic 14(1978) 7387.
[10] Shelah, S. Models with second order properties IV. A general method
and eliminating Diamonds, Annals Pure and Applied Logic 25(1983)
183212.
[11] Shelah, S. Generalized quantiers and compact logic, Transactions of
the American Mathematical Society 204 379419.
[12] Shelah, S., Compact Logics in ZFC : complete embeddings of atomless
Boolean algebras , to be Ch IV, Non Structure Thoery, Oxford Univer-
sity Press, publication Sh 384, preprint
[13] Shelah, S., Compactness in ZFC of the quantiers complete embed-
ding of Boolean rings publication Sh 482., in typing
[14] Shelah, S., Classication theory and the number of non-isomorphic
models, North Holland Publ. Co., Studies in Logic and the Founda-
tion of Math., vol. 92, 1978 542 + xvi, I2, VII4.
[15] Shelah, S., Non Structure Theory , to appear in Oxford Universty Press
publication [Sh-e] , preprint
[16] Shelah, S. Refuting Ehrenfeucht Conjecture on rigid models, Proc. of
the Symp. in memory of A. Robinson, Yale, 1975, A special volume in
the Israel Journal of Mathematics, 25 (1976) 273-286.
33

You might also like