Results 1 to 11 of 11

Math Help - Fol 14

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    59

    Fol 14

    Enderton 2.2.25

    Consider a fixed structure A. Expand the language by adding a new constant symbol c_a for each a \in |A|. Let A^+ be the structure for this expanded language that agrees with A on the original parameters and that assigns to c_a the point a. A relation R on |A| is said to be definable from points in A iff R is definable in A^+. (This differs from ordinary definability only in that we now have parameters in the language for members of |A|.) Let K=(\mathbb{Re}; <, +, \cdot).

    (a) Show that if X is a subset of \mathbb{Re} consisting of the union of finitely many intervals, then X is definable points in K.

    (b) Assume that A \equiv K. Show that any subset of |A| that is non-empty, bounded (in the ordering <^A), and definable from points in A has a least upper bound in |A|.

    (*) A \equiv K iff for any sentence \sigma, \models_A \sigma \Leftrightarrow \models_K\sigma.

    ============================
    To get started,

    Why c_a and A^+ are introduced in this problem?
    How an open set and a closed set are defined by formulas in A^+?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by logics; November 17th 2011 at 05:09 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,559
    Thanks
    785

    Re: Fol 14

    Quote Originally Posted by logics View Post
    Why c_a and A^+ are introduced in this problem?
    Usually they don't ask such questions in mathematics. Every mathematical contribution starts with "Consider such and such objects." If the first question is, "Why are we supposed to consider them?", we would not get far.

    Quote Originally Posted by logics View Post
    How an open set and a closed set are defined by formulas in A^+?
    Why do you need this? The problem does not mention open and closed sets (in the sense of topology). Do you mean open and closed intervals?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    59

    Re: Fol 14

    The set of open intervals is a basis for the standard topology on \mathbb{Re}, so I assumed the standard topology on \mathbb{Re}. What I meant was that an open set in (the standard topology) \mathbb{Re} is the union of open intervals in \mathbb{Re}.

    However, you are correct in the sense that an open set is not defined in this problem.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,559
    Thanks
    785

    Re: Fol 14

    I think (a) is simple. For (b), I am not sure what A\equiv B means and why B is not mentioned in the rest of the question. Also, the text before the questions defines a specific structure K and it is not clear how A and B are related to K.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    59

    Re: Fol 14

    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    Usually they don't ask such questions in mathematics. Every mathematical contribution starts with "Consider such and such objects." If the first question is, "Why are we supposed to consider them?", we would not get far.

    Why do you need this? The problem does not mention open and closed sets (in the sense of topology). Do you mean open and closed intervals?
    We are only considering "finitely many intervals" instead of "arbitrary many intervals". It seems like I have to define an open and closed interval in A^+ first.
    The question is how do we define an open and closed interval in A^+?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    59

    Re: Fol 14

    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    I think (a) is simple. For (b), I am not sure what A\equiv B means and why B is not mentioned in the rest of the question. Also, the text before the questions defines a specific structure K and it is not clear how A and B are related to K.
    Sorry, I will edit the typo in the problem, and give the definition.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,559
    Thanks
    785

    Re: Fol 14

    Quote Originally Posted by logics View Post
    The question is how do we define an open and closed interval in A^+?
    The same as anywhere. An for two real numbers a, b, the interval (a, b] is definable from points in K using the formula a<x\land (x<b\lor x=b). We can basically use all real numbers (or names for them) in formulas, so every interval is definable from points in K. A finite union of intervals can be expressed as a disjunction. To represent an infinite union may be a problem.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    59

    Re: Fol 14

    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    The same as anywhere. An for two real numbers a, b, the interval (a, b] is definable from points in K using the formula a<x\land (x<b\lor x=b). We can basically use all real numbers (or names for them) in formulas, so every interval is definable from points in K. A finite union of intervals can be expressed as a disjunction. To represent an infinite union may be a problem.
    Why do we consider this definition,

    "A relation R on |A| is said to be definable from points in A iff R is definable in A^+".

    Why don't we just define in A rather than A^+.

    It seems like I am missing some fundamental concepts.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,559
    Thanks
    785

    Re: Fol 14

    Using elements of the structure domain in formulas can allow building more expressive formulas. A structure has a limited vocabulary and sometimes it does not have the means to refer to a particular domain element. This Wikipedia page refers to relations definable from points in A as relations definable in A with parameters. For example, in (\mathbb{N},<) without parameters every singleton can be defined by a formula, while in (\mathbb{Z},<) the only definable sets without parameters are \emptyset and \mathbb{Z}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    59

    Re: Fol 14

    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    The same as anywhere. An for two real numbers a, b, the interval (a, b] is definable from points in K using the formula a<x\land (x<b\lor x=b). We can basically use all real numbers (or names for them) in formulas, so every interval is definable from points in K. A finite union of intervals can be expressed as a disjunction. To represent an infinite union may be a problem.
    Thank you for your help. Now I am getting to understand why parameters are needed in this problem. My another question is

    Since constant symbols are not defined in K, doesn't (a, b] have to be defined in K^+ using

    c_a<x\land (x<c_b\lor x=c_b)?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,559
    Thanks
    785

    Re: Fol 14

    Quote Originally Posted by logics View Post
    Since constant symbols are not defined in K, doesn't (a, b] have to be defined in K^+ using

    c_a<x\land (x<c_b\lor x=c_b)?
    Yes, (a, b] is definable in K^+, which, by definition, is the same thing as definable from points in K. You are right that instead of actual real numbers a, b one has to use their constant symbols c_a, c_b in formulas. After a while, though, it is convenient to leave out the bijection a\mapsto c_a and to pretend to write numbers themselves.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum