Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:26:48.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stretchings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

O. Finkel  and
J. P. Ressayre
J. P. Ressayre
Affiliation:
Equipe de Logique Mathématique (URA 753, CNRS), Université Paris7, 2, Place Jussieu - Case 7012, 75251 Paris Cedex 05, France, E-mail: Ressayre@logique.Jussieu.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A structure is locally finite if every finitely generated substructure is finite; local sentences are universal sentences all models of which are locally finite. The stretching theorem for local sentences expresses a remarkable reflection phenomenon between the finite and the infinite models of local sentences. This result in part requires strong axioms to be proved; it was studied by the second named author, in a paper of this Journal, volume 53. Here we correct and extend this paper; in particular we show that the stretching theorem implies the existence of inaccessible cardinals, and has precisely the consistency strength of Mahlo cardinals of finite order. And we present a sequel due to the first named author:

(i) decidability of the spectrum Sp(φ) of a local sentence φ, below ωω; where Sp(φ) is the set of ordinals α such that φ has a model of order type α

(ii) proof that bethω = sup{Sp(φ): φ local sentence with a bounded spectrum}

(iii) existence of a local sentence φ such that Sp(φ) contains all infinite ordinals except the inaccessible cardinals.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 563 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Drake, F. R., Set theory: an introduction to large cardinals, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.Google Scholar
[2]Ehrenfeucht, A. and Mostowski, A., Models of axiomatic theories admitting automorphisms, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 43 (1956), pp. 50–68.Google Scholar
[3]Finkel, O., Local languages, closure and decidability results, submitted to TCS, 1995.Google Scholar
[4]Finkel, O., Propriétés de cloture des ω-langages localement finis, preprint.Google Scholar
[5]Finkel, O., Langages de Büchi et ω-langages locaux, Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris t. 309, vol. 1 (1989), pp. 991–994.Google Scholar
[6]Finkel, O., Théorie des modèles des formules locales et étude des langages formels qu'elles définissent, Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris 7, Mai 1993.Google Scholar
[7]McAloon, K. and Ressayre, J. P., Les méthodes de Kirby-Paris et la théorie des ensembles, Model theory and arithmetic (Berline, C., McAloon, K. and Ressayre, J. P., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics no. 890, Sprineg-Verelag, 1981.Google Scholar
[8]Ressayre, J. P., Non-standard universes with strong embeddings, Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 65 (1987), pp. 333–357.Google Scholar
[9]Ressayre, J. P., Formal languages defined by the underlying structure of their words, this Journal, vol. 53 (1988), no. 4, pp. 1009–1026.Google Scholar