List of first-order theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematical logic, a first-order theory is given by a set of axioms in some language. This entry lists some of the more common examples used in model theory and some of their properties.

1 Preliminaries
2 Pure identity theories
3 Equivalence relations
4 Orders
5 Graphs
6 Boolean algebras
7 Groups
8 Rings and fields
9 Arithmetic
10 Set theories
11 See also
12 References

[edit] Preliminaries

The background logic for all theories is first-order logic with identity.

A first-order language consists of logical symbols (e.g. variables, equality, a quantifier, connectives) and three sets:

Constant symbols (examples: 0, 1),
Functions symbols (examples: +, ×), each with some non-negative integer called its rank or arity (with functions of valence zero denoting constants),
Relation symbols (or predicates) (examples: ≤, ∈) each with some positive integer called its rank or arity.

The terms and formulas are built up from this language in the usual way. A sentence is a formula with no free variables. A theory is a set of sentences, and is called closed if it contains all consequences of its elements.

There are two common ways to specify theories:

List or describe a set of sentences, called the axioms of the theory. This set may be finite or infinite.
Give a model or set of models of the language, and define a theory to be the set of sentences holding in all these models. For example, the "theory of finite fields" consists of all sentences in the language of fields that are true in all finite fields.

A theory may be:

Consistent: Not all statements are provable;
Complete: for any statement, either it or its negation is provable;
Decidable: There is an algorithm to decide which statements are provable;
Finitely axiomatizable: the axioms are finite in number;
Recursively axiomatizable;
Model complete;
α-categorical: All models of cardinality α are isomorphic;
Stable (or ω-stable).

[edit] Pure identity theories

The language of pure identity theory is empty, with no functions, constants, or relations.

Pure identity theory has no (non-logical) axioms. It is decidable.

One of the few interesting properties that can be stated in the language of pure identity theory is that of being infinite. This is given by an infinite set of axioms stating there are at least 2 elements, there are at least 3 elements, and so on:

∃x₁ ∃x₂ ¬x₁ = x₂, ∃x₁ ∃x₂ ∃x₃ ¬x₁ = x₂ ∧ ¬x₁ = x₃ ∧ ¬x₂ = x₃,...

The opposite property of being finite cannot be stated in first-order logic for any theory that has arbitrarily large finite models: in fact any such theory has infinite models by the compactness theorem. In general if a property can be stated by a finite number of sentences of first-order logic then the opposite property can also be stated in first-order logic, but if a property needs an infinite number of sentences then its opposite property cannot be stated in first-order logic.

Any statement of pure identity theory is equivalent to either σ(N) or to ¬σ(N) for some finite subset N of the non-negative integers, where σ(N) is the statement that the number of elements is in N. It is even possible to describe all possible theories in this language as follows. Any theory is either the theory of all sets of cardinality in N for some finite subset N of the non-negative integers, or the theory of all sets whose cardinality is not in N, for some finite or infinite subset N of the non-negative integers. (There are no theories whose models are exactly sets of cardinality N if N is an infinite subset of the integers.) The complete theories are the theories of sets of cardinality n for some finite n, and the theory of infinite sets.

One special case of this is the inconsistent theory defined by the axiom ∃x ¬x = x. It is a perfectly good theory with many good properties: it is complete, decidable, finitely axiomatizable, and so on. The only problem is that has no models at all. By Godel's completeness theorem, it is the only theory (for any given language) with no models.

[edit] Equivalence relations

The language of equivalence relations has one binary infix relation symbol ~, no constants, and no functions. Equivalence relations satisfy the axioms:

Reflexivity ∀x [x~x];
Symmetry ∀x,y [x~y → y~x];
Transitivity: ∀x,y,z [(x~y ∧ y~z) → x~z].

Some first order properties of equivalence relations are:

~ has an infinite number of equivalence classes;
~ has exactly n equivalence classes (for any fixed positive integer n);
All equivalence classes are infinite;
All equivalence classes have size exactly n (for any fixed positive integer n).

The theory of an equivalence relation with exactly 2 infinite equivalence classes is an easy example of a theory which is ω-categorical but not categorical for any larger cardinal.

The equivalence relation ~ should not be confused with the identity symbol '=': if x=y then x~y, but the converse is not necessarily true. Theories of equivalence relations are not all that difficult or interesting, but often give easy examples or counterexamples for various statements.

The following constructions are sometimes used to produce examples of theories with certain spectra; in fact by applying them to a small number of explicit theories T one gets examples of complete countable theories with all possible uncountable spectra. If T is a theory in some language, we define a new theory 2^T by adding a new binary relation to the language, and adding axioms stating that it is an equivalence relation, such that there are an infinite number of equivalence classes all of which are models of T. It is possible to iterate this construction transfinitely: given an ordinal α, define a new theory by adding an equivalence relation E_β for each β<α, together with axioms stating that whenever β<γ then each E_γ equivalence class is the union of infinitely many E_β equivalence classes, and each E₀ equivalence class is a model of T. Informally, one can visualize models of this theory as infinitely branching trees of height α with models of T attached to all leaves.

[edit] Orders

The language of orders has no constants or functions, and one binary relation symbols ≤. (It is of course possible to use ≥, < or > instead as the basic relation, with the obvious minor changes to the axioms.) We define x≥y, x<y, x>y as abbreviations for y≤x, x≤y ∧¬y≤x, y<x,

Some first-order properties of orders:

Transitive: ∀x ∀y ∀z x ≤ y∧y ≤ z → x ≤ z
Reflexive: ∀x x ≤ x
Antisymmetric: ∀x ∀y x ≤ y ∧ y ≤ x → x = y
Partial: Transitive∧Reflexive∧Antisymmetric;
Simple (or total or linear): Partial ∧ ∀x ∀y x≤y ∨ y≤x
Dense ∀x ∀z x<z → ∃y x<y ∧ y<z ("Between any 2 distinct elements there is another element")
There is a smallest element: ∃x ∀y x≤y
There is a largest element: ∃x ∀y y≤x
Every element has an immediate successor: ∀x ∃y ∀z x<z ↔ y≤z

The theory of dense simple orders with no smallest or largest element is complete, ω categorical, but not categorical for any uncountable cardinal. There are 3 other very similar theories: the theory of dense simple orders with a:

Smallest but no largest element;
Largest but no smallest element;
Largest and smallest element.

Being well ordered ("any non-empty subset has a minimal element") is not a first-order property; the usual definition involves quantifying over all subsets.

[edit] Graphs

The language of graphs has no constants or functions, and one binary relation symbols R, where R(x,y) is read as "there is an edge from x to y".

The axioms for the theory of graphs are

Symmetic: ∀x ∀y R(x,y)→ R(y,x)
Anti-reflexive: ∀x ¬R(x,x) ("no loops")

The theory of random graphs has the following extra axioms for each positive integer n:

For any two disjoint finite sets of size n, there is a point joined to all points of the first set and to no points of the second set. (For each fixed n, it is easy to write this statement in the language of graphs.)

The theory of random graphs is ω categorical, complete, and decidable. A statement in the language of graphs is true in this theory if and only if it is true with probability 1 for a random graph on a countable number of points.

[edit] Boolean algebras

There are several different languages and conventions used for Boolean algebras:

The language has 2 constants, 0 and 1, and two binary functions ∧ and ∨ ("and" and "or"), and one unary function ¬ ("not"). This is a little confusing as the functions use the same symbols as the propositional functions of first-order logic.
In set theory, a common convention is that the language has 2 constants, 0 and 1, and two binary functions · and +, and one unary function −. The three functions have the same interpretation as the functions in the first convention. Unfortunately, this convention clashes badly with the next convention:
In algebra, the usual convention is that the language has 2 constants, 0 and 1, and two binary functions · and +. The function · has the same meaning as ∧, but a+b means a∨b∧¬(a∧b). The reason for this is that the axioms for a Boolean algebra are then just the axioms for a ring with 1 plus ∀x x² = x. Unfortunately this clashes with the standard convention in set theory given above.

For the axioms, see the article on Boolean algebras.

Tarski proved that the theory of Boolean algebras is decidable.

We write x ≤ y as an abbreviation for x ∧ y = x, and atom(x) as an abbreviation for ¬x = 0 ∧ ∀y y≤x → y = 0 ∨ y = x, read as "x is an atom", in other words a non-zero element with nothing between it and 0. Here are some first-order properties of Boolean algebras:

Atomic: ∀x x=0 ∨ ∃y y≤x ∧ atom(y)
Atomless: ∀x ¬atom(x)

The theory of atomless Boolean algebras is ω-categorical and complete.

[edit] Groups

The language of group theory has one constant 1 (the identity), one function of valence 1 (the inverse) whose value on t is denoted by t⁻¹, and one function of valence 2, which is usually omitted from terms. For any integer n. tⁿ is an abbreviation for the obvious term for the nth power of t.

Groups are defined by the axioms

Identity: ∀x 1x = x ∧ x1 = x
Inverse: ∀x x⁻¹x = 1 ∧ xx⁻¹ = 1
Associative: ∀x∀y∀z (xy)z = x(yz)

Some properties of groups that can be defined in the first-order language of groups are:

Abelian ∀x ∀y xy = yx.
Torsion free ∀x² = 1→x = 1, ∀x³ = 1 → x = 1, ∀x⁴ = 1 → x = 1, ...
Divisible ∀x ∃y y² = x, ∀x ∃y y³ = x, ∀x ∃y y⁴ = x, ...
Infinite (as in identity theory)
Exponent n (for any fixed positive integer n) ∀x xⁿ = 1
Nilpotent of class n (for any fixed positive integer n)
Solvable of class n (for any fixed positive integer n)

The theory of Abelian groups is decidable. The theory of Infinite divisible torsion-free abelian groups is complete, as is the theory of Infinite abelian groups of exponent p (for p prime).

The theory of finite groups is the set of first-order statements in the language of groups that are true in all finite groups (there are plenty of infinite models of this theory). It is not completely trivial to find any such statement that is not true for all groups: one example is "given two elements of order 2, either they are conjugate or there is a non-trivial element commuting with both of them".

The properties of being finite, or free, or simple, or torsion are not first-order. More precisely, the first-order theory of all groups with one of these properties has models that do not have this property.

[edit] Rings and fields

The language of (unital) rings has 2 constants 0 and 1, two binary functions + and ×, and one unary function −.

Rings Axioms: Addition makes the ring into an abelian group, multiplication is associative and has an identity 1, and multiplication is left and right distributive.

Commutative rings The axioms for rings plus ∀x ∀y xy=yx.

Fields The axioms for commutative rings plus ∀x ∃y xy=1 and ¬ 1=0. There is a slight problem with this because the submodels of fields are not fields but integral domains. One way round this (in the rare cases when it matters) is to add an extra unary function symbol representing the inverse.

For any positive integer n the property that all equations of degree n have a root can be expressed by a single first-order sentence:

∀ a₁ ∀ a₂... ∀ a_n ∃x (...((x+a₁)x +a₂)x+...)x+a_n = 0

Algebraically closed fields. The axioms for fields, plus for every positive n the axiom that all polynomials of degree n have a root. The theory is decidable and model complete but not complete.

Algebraically closed fields of characteristic p The classical examples of complete theories. Categorical in all uncountable cardinals.

Finite fields. The theory of finite fields is the set of all first-order statements that are true in all finite fields. Significant examples of such statements can, for example, be given by applying the Chevalley-Warning theorem, over the prime fields. The name is a little misleading as the theory has plenty of infinite models. Ax proved that the theory is decidable.

Real fields

Real closed fields Axioms:

∀x ∃y x=yy ∨ x+yy=0.
For every odd positive n, the axiom stating that every polynomial of degree n has a root.
For every positive n, the axiom ∀ a₁ ∀ a₂... ∀ a_n a₁a₁+a₂a₂+ ...+a_na_n=0 → a₁=0∨a₂=0∨ ... ∨a_n=0 (0 is not a non-trivial sum of squares).

The theory of real closed fields is decidable (Tarski) and therefore complete. Euclidean geometry is also decidable, since Cartesian coordinates transform it into a model of a real closed field. For a first order axiomatization of Euclidean geometry, see Tarski's axioms.

p-adic fields

[edit] Arithmetic

The language of arithmetic has:

The constant 0;
The unary function, the successor function, here denoted by prefix S, or by prefix σ or postfix ′ elsewhere;
Two binary functions, denoted by infix + and ×, called "addition" and "multiplication."

Some authors take the constant 1 as primitive, then define S in the obvious way as S0 = 1 and St = 1 + t.

Robinson arithmetic (also called Q). Axioms (1) and (2) govern the distinguished element 0. (3) assures that S is an injection. Axioms (4) and (5) are the standard recursive definition of addition; (6) and (7) do the same for multiplication. Hence Q is Peano arithmetic without induction. Q is primarily interesting as an instance of a rather weak theory for which Gödel's incompleteness theorem holds. Axioms:

∀x Sx ≠ 0
∀x x ≠ 0 → ∃y Sy = x
∀x∀y Sx = Sy → x = y
∀x x + 0 = x
∀x∀y x + Sy = S(x + y)
∀x x × 0 = 0
∀x∀y x × Sy = (x × y) + y.

All models of Q feature an infinite domain.

Presburger arithmetic. Q without multiplication and without axioms 6 and 7; the theory of the natural numbers under addition. It is complete and decidable.

First order Peano arithmetic with induction restricted to Σ_n formulas (for n = 0, 1, 2, ...). This is a series of more and more powerful fragments of Peano arithmetic. n=1 has about the same strength as Skolem arithmetic (also called primitive recursive arithmetic).

First order Peano arithmetic, PA. The "standard" theory of arithmetic. The axioms are the axioms of Robinson arithmetic above, together with the axiom scheme of induction:

$\phi(0) \wedge (\forall x \phi(x) \rightarrow \phi(Sx) \rightarrow (\forall x \phi(x))$ for any formula φ in the language of PA. φ may contain free variables other than x.

Kurt Godel's epochal 1931 paper proved PA incomplete and incompletable.

Second-order arithmetic. This can refer to a first order theory (in spite of the name) with two types of variables, thought of as varying over integers and subsets of the integers. (There is also a theory of arithmetic in second order logic that is called second order arithmetic. It has only one model, unlike the corresponding theory in first order logic, which is incomplete.) The axioms are those of Robinson arithmetic, together with axioms schemes of induction and comprehension. There are many different subtheories of second order arithmetic that differ in which formulas are allowed in the induction and comprehension schemes.

Complete arithmetic (also known as true arithmetic) is the theory of the standard model of arithmetic, the natural numbers N. It is complete but does not have a recursively enumerable set of axioms.

[edit] Set theories

The usual language of set theory has one binary relation ∈, no constants, and no functions. Some of the theories below are "class theories" which have two sorts of object, sets and classes. There are three common ways of handling this in first-order logic:

Use first-order logic with two types.
Use ordinary first-order logic, but add a new unary predicate "Set", where "Set(t)" means informally "t is a set".
Use ordinary first-order logic, and instead of adding a new predicate to the language, treat "Set(t)" as an abbreviation for "∃y t∈y"

Some first order set theories include:

Kripke-Platek set theory (a weak set theory without powersets);
Zermelo set theory;
Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory;
Von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory;
Morse–Kelley set theory;

[edit] See also

List of mathematical theories

[edit] References

Wilfrid Hodges, A shorter model theory (1997) Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-58713-1
C. C. Chang, H. J. Keisler Model theory ISBN 0-7204-0692-7
David Marker Model Theory: An Introduction ISBN 0-387-98760-6

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/List_of_first-order_theories.html"

Categories: Model theory | Mathematical logic | Mathematics-related lists